Kid gloves for an old goat

I just finished reading Lawrence Wright's The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11. I initially ignored the Lawrence Journal-World's article about former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright's appearance at the Lied Center last month. However, Wright's book reminded me of just how willing the reporter was to accept Albright's claims.

One of Albright's claims was “I personally feel we did everything we could” to battle and prepare for the threat of terrorism. Well, anyone who has read the 9/11 Commission's report knows that that is a false statement. The reporter apparently made no effort to talk to anyone who would take issue with Albright's claim. I highly suspect that if a Bush administration official had made a similar statement, the reporter would have found someone on the other side to quote.

If the reporter really wanted to scrutinize Albright's claim, he would have noted that, according to CNN correspondent Peter L. Bergen in Holy War, Inc: Inside the Secret World of Osama bin Laden (2001), "The aptly named Prudence Bushnell, a veteran diplomat, had long been concerned about the security of the [U.S.] embassy [in Kenya], which because of its busy downtown location was threatened not only by terrorism but also by crime. Bushnell had cabled Washington on December 24, 1997, pointing out the threat of terrorism and the embassy's extreme vulnerability because of its location and the lack of setback from the street. She wrote another letter to the U.S. secretary of state, Madeleine Albright, in April 1998, reprising her concerns."

Albright ignored Bushnell's warnings.

On August 7, 1998 Al Qaeda simultaneously bombed the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing a total of 257 people and wounding 4,500.

In Against All Enemies, Richard Clarke recounts a one-on-one discussion with Albright. "What do you think will happen if you lose another embassy?" Clarke asked. "The Republicans in the Congress will go after you."

"I had her attention," Clarke wrote. "She shot back, 'First of all, I didn't lose these two embassies. I inherited them in the shape they were.'"

Keep in mind that Albright was sworn in as secretary of state 18 months prior to the embassies being bombed.

Now back to The Looming Tower. According to Wright, a staff writer for The New Yorker, after the embassy in Kenya was bombed, "investigators were stunned to learn that nearly a year earlier an Egyptian member of al-Qaeda had walked into the U.S. Embassy in Nairobi and told the CIA about the bombing plot. The agency had dismissed this intelligence as unreliable. This was not an isolated incident. All through the spring there had been a drumroll of threats and fatwas from bin Laden, but few had taken them seriously. Now the consequence of that neglect was starkly evident."

Albright's cavalier attitude towards security vis-a-vis the embassy in Nairobi was actually detailed seven years ago in a New York Times special report. According to the report, "The State Department has acknowledged that Ms. Bushnell raised questions about security before the bombing. But a close examination of events in the year before the assaults, based on interviews with officials throughout the U.S. government, shows her concerns were more intense, more well-founded, more specific, and more forcefully expressed than has previously been known."

Albright had 18 months to fix the security problems at the embassy. She did nothing. She received well-founded and specific wanrings about an imminent attack on that embassies. She ignored them. Then she appeared at the Lied Center and claimed the Clinton administration did everything it could to prepare for and battle terrorism.

Albright had the gall to assert, “The record shows [the Bush administration] actually didn’t do a lot” about terrorism during its first eight months in office. If the Bush administration had had well-founded and specific information about an imminent attack on 9/11, does anyone really believe they would have ignored the threat in the same way that Albright and the Clinton administration ignored the threat in Kenya?

Remarkably, Madeleine Albright may be as responsible as any American for the attacks on our embassies, the bombing of the USS Cole, and 9/11. Mohamed al-'Owhali, convicted in the 1998 bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Nairobi, Kenya, relied on Albright's words during a 1996 60 Minutes interview in mounting his defense against the death penalty. According to 60 Minutes, an estimated 500,000 Iraqi children had died from the economic sanctions imposed on Iraq in August 1990. Albright, who was then U.S. ambassador to the UN, answered, "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price -- we think the price is worth it."

Osama bin Laden himself mentioned these deaths in Iraq in a March 1997 interview with CNN. According to bin Laden, "The hearts of Muslims are filled with hatred towards the United States of America and the American president [Bill Clinton]. The president has a heart that knows no words. A heart that kills hundreds of children definitely knows no words. Our people on the Arabian Peninsula will send him messages with no words because he does not know any words. If there is a message that I may send through you, then it is a message I address to the mothers of American troops who came here with their military uniforms walking proudly up and down our land.... I say that this represents a blatant provocation to over one billion Muslims. To these mothers I say if they are concerned for their sons, then let them object to the American government's policy."

Those "messages with no words," which were largely inspired by Albright's words, were delivered in August 1998, October 2000, and September 2001.

The Journal-World could have detailed Albright's and the Clinton administration's shortcomings and failings in the fight against terrorism. Instead it choose to give Albright a forum for a revisionist concerning that fight. That was a disservice to its readers.

Journal-World finds counterinsurgency instructor

As noted in an October 1 post, Journal-World reporter Joel Mathis wrote in article that suggested that the military had not considered how to battle insurgencies prior to this summer. See

I quoted a retired Green Beret who I had interviewed a few years ago. The Green Beret was called back to Ft. Leavenworth just after 9/11 to teach counterinsurgency and counterterrorism.

In today's Journal-World, reporter Mike Belt shares the Green Beret's views on violence on Iraq. The Journal-World deserves credit for finally publishing an article that does not fit the Bush-haters' template concerning Iraq.

Of course, Lt. Col. Johnson has already been attacked by one liberal on the J-W forum:

"Wow...a retired Lieutenant Colonel! Impressive! What's next? A retired Assistant Manager of Burger King commenting on the state of the fast-food industry?"

Comparing a lieutenant colonel in the Green Berets to an assistant manager of Burger King is simply ignorant. Naturally, Dan Cox will allow the post to stand.

Endorsements: Speaking with one voice?

The Wichita Eagle and Salina Journal both endorsed Paul Morrison for attorney general today. In reading the endorsements, I couldn't help but note the similarities between the two.

WE: "Phill Kline can rightfully claim some notable achievements -- fighting for tougher penalties for child predators, launching a dragnet for parole absconders, and successfully defending Kansas' death penalty statute before the U.S. Supreme Court."
SJ: "Kline deserves credit for some successes as Kansas attorney general. He beefed up the Kansas Bureau of Investigation crime lab to handle increased workloads. He rightly pursued abortion records to find child rapists, despite charges it is a fishing expedition."

WE: "But just as notable -- and regrettable for Kansas -- are Kline's lapses of judgment and questionable priorities."
SJ: "But there are troubling aspects to Kline’s term that bring judgment into question."

WE: "Kline hiring his nephew as chauffeur, and choosing as his consumer fraud chief an anti-abortion activist with 12 arrests and an outstanding $61,000 court judgment."
SJ: "Consider Kline’s 2003 appointment of Bryan Brown as chief of the AG consumer protection division. Brown was arrested 12 times during anti-abortion protests starting some 20 years ago. Civil disobedience is not too troubling. But Brown dodged a federal judge’s ruling demanding he and two others pay $61,000 in attorney’s fees resulting from the protests."

WE: "And Kline encouraging Kansas State Board of Education members to add anti-evolution stickers to textbooks."
SJ: "Kline also erred when he met with conservative members of the Kansas State Board of Education to discuss the evolution debate. Kline visited with the six members in two groups of three, which circumvented the Kansas Open Meetings Act."

WE: "It's telling that former Attorney General Bob Stephan -- like Kline, a Republican and born-again Christian -- recently resigned as an adviser to Kline after raising concerns about Kline using churches as political fundraising machines."
SJ: "Former Attorney General Bob Stephan told the Lawrence Journal-World last week that he resigned as special assistant to Kline because he was troubled with Kline using people’s faith to raise money. In particular, he said, was an incident where a church gathered donations and gave the money to a company owned by Kline’s wife."

OLDIE: DAVID MILLER AND THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA

From May 1996:

When it comes to David Miller, the Kansas media often find it difficult to get the story right.

For example, after Bob Dole and Phil Gramm tied for first place in the 1995 Iowa straw poll, The Hutchinson News editorialized that Dole’s “failure
in Iowa sits squarely on the shoulders of David Miller,” who was then chairman of the Kansas GOP.

This editorial concluded that the Kansas GOP “should give David Miller the boot.” Apparently, The Hutchinson News missed Bob Dole’s appearance on CBS’s Face the Nation. “We’re going to save our resources for the main event next February,” Dole told the moderator. By “main event,” Dole was referring to the 1996 Iowa caucuses. If Dole considered the Iowa straw poll insignificant, why was Miller expected to, in the words of The Hutchinson News, “communicate how important this vote was for Dole”?

Since Miller announced on May 5 that he would run for governor, it looks as if the Kansas media have been in a race to see who can print the most inane
comments regarding Miller and conservative Republicans. Below are merely a few examples:

• “David Miller is going to devote the next three months of his life to the proposition that democracy doesn’t work.” - George Pyle, Salina Journal.

According to Pyle, the “anti-abortion, anti-tax, pro-gun minority of Kansas Republicans [Miller] speaks for can be expected to go to the polls Aug. 4, while the more moderate majority that makes up the base of Gov. Bill Graves may forget to pencil the election into their busy schedules.”

A 1996 Kansas City Star survey found that exactly 50 percent of Kansans believe abortion should be illegal except in cases of rape, incest and saving
the life of the mother. According to this year’s Kansas Survey, “A proposed ban on partial-birth abortion was supported by seven out of ten” Kansans. The Kansas Survey also found that “Kansans want tax cuts.” And guns? In 1996
Lawrence Research found that 61 percent of Kansans favor a law allowing law-abiding citizens to carry a firearm for personal protection outside of their homes.

Now, if a majority of all Kansans favor restrictions on abortion, want tax cuts, and believe law-abiding Kansans should be allowed to carry firearms, is it possible that “anti-abortion, anti-tax, pro-gun” Republicans make up a minority of the GOP? As Dan Rather would put it, that’s about as likely as a one-ended stick.

• “Conservative Republicans believe that the term ‘conservative Republican’ is redundant. They say that Republican means conservative, that a Republican who says he is not conservative is not a Republican.” - Jim Hitch, Hays Daily News.

I asked Hitch if he could name a conservative Republican who actually made such a statement. Speaker of the House Tim Shallenburger, R-Baxter
Springs, was his response. During a recent interview with Shallenburger, Hitch claims that the Speaker “characterized moderate Republicans as fence straddlers and said that in reality, some of them may even be Democrats.”

Some of them may even be Democrats? That’s quite a bit different from
saying that a Republican who says he is not conservative is not a Republican.

While Hitch’s example fell short of demonstrating his original assertion, we do have plenty of examples of moderates questioning the legitimacy
of conservative Republicans. Sen. Dick Bond, R-Overland Park, himself said Miller could be elected governor if the “regular Republicans” don’t vote.

“Right now there are the David Miller Republicans, and the rest of the Republicans,” writes the Topeka Capital-Journal’s Dick Snider.

“That, after all, it why Miller is the chairman of Graves’ party,” notes George Pyle. (My emphasis)

• “A more moderate GOP also would motivate disaffected GOP bigwigs to reopen their checkbooks for the party. Under social conservatives,
official politicking has been a small-budget operation—though successful just the same because of the political zeal of social conservatives.” - Denney Clements, Wichita Eagle.

Excuse me if I’m mistaken, but haven’t liberals such as Clements been pushing campaign-finance reform in order to limit the involvement of big wigs?

• “Since Statehood, Kansans have elected governors, both Republican and Democratic, who try to run state programs efficiently while holding
the line on taxes—and who leave moral improvement to the clergy,” - Denney Clements, Wichita Eagle.

This isn’t quite true. “If we fail in building character, democracy will fail,” said Kansas Gov. Alf Landon. “And if democracy fails, free religion and a free church, as we know them, are gone too.”

By “character,” the moderate Republican surely meant “the combined moral or ethical structure of a person or group.” Landon, who was not a member
of the clergy, was essentially echoing Abraham Lincoln’s contention that “Democracy must be based not on ‘mere’ opinion but on ‘moral purpose.”

• “Graves has proved that he can compromise.” - Jim Hitch, Hays Daily News.

Hitch assumes that compromise is a virtue. That’s not always the case. For example, the Missouri Compromise of 1820 stated that the number of free
states and slave states must remain equal. Is a “moderate” amount of slavery virtuous?

“Important principles may and must be inflexible,” Lincoln told an audience just days before his assassination. It was Lincoln’s inflexibility on the moral issue of slavery that led to the demise of that evil institution (and, regretfully, his own death).

The above are merely a few examples of how the mainstream media are distorting the truth about David Miller and other conservative Republicans.
Sadly, as the Aug. 4 primary election grows nearer, their statements are likely to become even further removed from the truth.

Salina Journal's hypocritical stand on columnists

Last June, Salina Journal editor Tom Bell informed readers that his newspaper would no longer carry Ann Coulter's syndicated column. Oddly, Bell cited Coulter's appearance on The Today Show with Matt Lauer as the main reason. The appearance included Coulter's comments about the socalled Jersey Girls, the 9/11 widows who capitalized on their status to campaign for John Kerry and other Democrats. Here is part of what Bell had to say about Coulter:

"Coulter said the women are an example of how liberals put forth spokespeople who cannot be criticized because they are protected by sympathy or other sensitivities.

"She makes a valid point. The Rev. Jesse Jackson’s critics are accused of racism. Cindy Shahan (sic), who leads an anti-war and anti-Bush movement, is considered off limits for criticism because she lost a son in the Iraq war."

While Coulter is a controversial columnist, Bell concedes that she made a valid point. Nevertheless, Bell dropped Coulter's column.

Molly Ivins is also a controversial columnist, a fact that Ivins acknowledged when she entitled one of her books, Molly Ivins Can't Say That, Can She?

Ivins' rhetoric is no less extreme that Coulter's, yet the Salina Journal continues to carry Ivins' column. But there is a difference between Coulter and Ivins. As Bell acknowledged, Coulter made a valid point regarding the Jersey Girls. Coulter's points are usually valid. Ivins' points seldom are.

For example, in the most recent Ivins column (October 20) published by the Salina Journal, Ivins writes,

"I suppose one could argue, and I am sure someone will, that these are mostly retired generals. Some, like Lt. Gen. William Odom, are calling Iraq 'the worst strategic mistake in the history of the United States.' And they are retired precisely because of their opposition to Iraq."

The uninformed reader would conclude from this paragraph that Odom retired from the military because of his opposition to the war in Iraq. However, Odom clearly retired from the military long before Bush even became president. His offocial biography does not note the exact year, but does say from 1985 to 1988, he served as the director of the National Security Agency under Ronald Reagan.
Odom has been on the board of directors of two corporations since 1996, so it is clear that he retired from the military at some point between 1988 and 1996. In fact, it appears that Odom's military career ended after he left the NSA, which was nearly 15 years prior to the invasion of Iraq.

If Bell drops a controversial columnist after making a valid point, why continue publishing Ivins, whom seldom makes a valid point?

Rallying versus preaching

I couldn't help but to notice how Topeka Capital-Journal reporter Tim Carpenter described Phill Kline and Paul Morrison's appearances before supporters in his profiles of the two candidates in today's edition.

From the first paragraph of the Morrison profile:

"Paul Morrison jumped on an office chair to rally volunteers preparing to distribute 2,000 of his campaign yard signs."

From the first paragraph of the Kline profile:

"Phill Kline paced back and forth while speaking in a rhythm that mirrors his style of pulpit preaching."

Using Paul Morrison's talking points

Topeka Capital-Journal reporter Tim Carpenter on October 22 did attorney general candidate Paul Morrison a favor by repeating a Morrison campaign talking point:

"Morrison said he took note when Kline hired a man who had been arrested more than 10 times to run the consumer protection division in the attorney general's office."

Carpenter did not say why Bryan Brown was arrested. All of his arrests took place during anti-abortion protests.

Making an issue of Brown is tantamount to saying Rep. Joe Lewis should not be allowed to represent the people in his district in Georgia because he was arresated numerous times during the civil-rights movement.

Without noting why Brown was arrested, Carpenter's article leaves the uninformed reader to speculate why Brown was arrested.

Ignoring the who behind CREW

In his October 19 article about Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics' (CREW) call for an IRS investigation of Attorney General Phill Kline’s campaign, Topeka Capital-Journal reporter Tim Carpenter failed to tell readers who is behind CREW.

Melanie Sloan, CREW’s executive director, used to work for Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), who hopes to impeach President Bush. She has also worked for liberal Democrat Sens. Schumer and Joe Biden.

CREW’s deputy director and communications director, Naomi Seligman Steiner, formerly served as communications director for Media Matters for America, a left-wing media “watchdog.” Media Matters was formed with help from the Center for American Progress (CAP), whose president is John Podesta, Bill Clinton's former chief of staff. CAP was started with seed money from George Soros, the billionaire financier. Reportedly, Soros contributed $23,450,000 to America Coming Together, MoveOn.org, and several other anti-Bush 527 committees during the 2004 election cycle.

According to the Cleveland Plain Dealer, CREW itself receives funding from The Open Society Institute (OSI), the grantmaking foundation run by Soros.

Paul Morrison, Kline’s Democratic opponent, is an associate member of the Vera Institute for Justice, which has received hundreds of thousands of dollars from OSI during the past few years through its Gideon Project. According to OSI, one of the goals of the Gideon Project is the abolition of the death penalty.

In September 2006, CREW released a report titled "Beyond Delay: The 20 most corrupt members of Congress (and five to watch)." Of the 25 members of Congress listed, just four are Democrats.

CREW is obviously closely aligned with the Democrat Party, yet Carpenter's article makes is seem as if the group is a non-partisan watchdog organization that is sincerely concerned about ethics. If this group were really concerned about ethics, would it have taken money from George Soros? After all, a French court in 2002 convicted Soros of insider trading and fined him $2.2 million. An appeals court upheld the conviction in 2005.

Fostering a healthy community online

As noted previously, Dan Cox, Director of New Media at the World Company, e-mailed a banned conservative poster to explain that he and other conservatives were apparently banned "in regards to matters of civil community dialogue and our ability to foster a healthy community online."

This blogger contends that the conservatives were actually banned because they expressed conservative opinions. Threads concerning Attorney General Phill Kline provide more evidence that this blooger is correct. Here are just a few comments from the past two days:

"Geez, if morally bankrupt Bob Stephan is bolting the campaign, thinks must be smelling rotten. I love it when the morally 'superior' Grand Old Party finds themselves in the thick of an odious stench."

"If Kline wants to follow the whims of a small number of uber-religous zealots, then he should start working for Mr. Phelps or even a less hateful church."

"You know Crime and Kline rhyme. They go hand in hand."

"Sorry, Loudmouth, weasels in the wild are intelligent, unlike Phil Kline who is like a blood sucker with no brains, who takes away OUR FREEDOMS with no reasonable cause established! END OF LINE, KLINE!"

"Kline is an idiot and there is no connection although we do have proof of the right diggin it. Fortunatel enough right conservatives now see Kline as what he is a jerk with no values whatsoever but a personal agenda with the backing of fundamentalist clowns in little churches who want to be bigger and to say they got an AG in their pocket would help."

"Wow! Ol Phil must really be desparate if he saying things like that. What a scumbag plain and simple!"

The above is just a small sampling. Obviously, Dan Cox considers this "civil community dialogue" since all the comments were allowed to stand. Cox did find one post from a liberal to be uncivil. The poster strongly implied that Kline was sexually molesting his own daughter. The post was removed. However, the poster was not banned and continues to post.

J-W forum bans another conservative

We received word today that the Journal-World banned yet another conservative from its forum merely for submitting posts from a conservative perspective. A review of engagehorn's posts shows that he violated no rules.

During the several days that engagehorn posted, he was called numerous names by others posters (a violation of the rules). One poster (observer) even offered a veiled threat when he said he would pay engagehorn a visit at his office.

The Journal-World has clearly launched a jihad against conservative posters. Conservatives are banned for engaging in dispassionate, reasoned debate, yet liberals can post almost anything they want and remain on the forum. Here's just one example of a post from a liberal with the user name of xenophonschild:

"Am I the only one on the board to notice a similarity between this 'Pilgrim' and the not-too-lamented Arminianus? Pilgrim was always a dim-bulb fascist, but his most recent incarnation shows unmistakeable traces of the 'hero of Silawa.' Can it be that the liar-maggot Arminianus somehow managed to transmogrify into the malicious twit Pilgrim?"

That is clearly an example of name-calling, yet xenophonschild continues to post.

We received an e-mail from one banned conservative with the unfortunate user name conservativeman. Dan Cox, Director of New Media, e-mailed this poster after the poster requested an explanation concerning his banishment. Here is what Cox wrote:

"You were banned after I was presented with a couple of cases for banning, both of which were not posters who were explicitly in violation of our use policy in matters of insults or name calling. These cases were in regards to matters of civil community dialogue and our ability to foster a healthy community online. Some posters are so egregiously aggressive in posting ideological sentiments of hate filled opposition that community dialogue suffers."

Cox did not tell conservativeman exactly why he was banned. However, reread Cox's staetement and then reread xenophonschild's post. Clearly, Cox employs a blatant double standard when banning posters.

Cox has failed to respond to several inquiries to explain this double standard.

Dennis Moore's "conservative credentials"

The Lawrence Journal-World today published yet another article that inaccurately portrayed Rep. Dennis Moore as a conservative.

According to AP reporter Sam Hananel, Republican challenger Chuck "Ahner has challenged Moore’s conservative credentials, calling him 'soft' on national security. Moore recently voted in favor of President Bush’s legislation outlining the treatment of terror-war detainees, but against a bill to grant legal status to President Bush’s warrantless wiretapping program."

As I noted on September 5, ADA ratings show that Moore is just as liberal as the average Democrat in the House of Representatives.

Kansas City Star defames Phill Kline

In an October 1 editorial, the Kansas City Star accused Attorney General Phill Kline of twisting the truth and misleading the voters. Turns out that the Star got its facts wrong and misled readers. A correction was offer in its October 3 edition, which, of course, was read by fewer readers.

Perhaps the Star, the Journal-World, and other members of the Blue Dress Press should end their jihad against Kline and stick to objective reporting.

Garrison Keillor lies again

Yesterday I reported on Garrison Keillor's phanotm videotape of Rudy Giuliani fleeing the WTC site on 9/11.

Well, Keillor is at it again in a column in today's Lawrence Journal-World:

"But the camera can be fearfully truthful. Look at the picture of the Current Occupant, reading a speech to the troops at Camp Pendleton, wearing a zip-up jacket with little epaulets on the shoulders, a presidential seal sewn on the right breast, and on the left breast the words, 'George W. Bush, Commander in Chief.' Is this for his benefit or that of the troops? No president ever needed to wear a nametag before. He is the first. Insecurity is written all over him. Look at Dick Cheney. No need for a nametag there."

George W. Bush is not the first president to wear a military-type jacket with a nametag. In fact, Dean's World provides photographic evidence showing all four of Bush's immediate predecessors wearing such jackets.

Tolerating another dishonest columnist

The Lawrence Journal-World in early September published a column by Garrison Keillor that included this claim:

"Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who does not appear in a leadership capacity in the reliable accounts of that morning, who was captured on videotape fleeing uptown...."

According to the official account, Giuliani was in a meeting in Upper Manhattan when the first plane hit the WTC. He then left the meeting and went to the WTC site in Lower Manhattan. He was there when the second plane hit the WTC.

I have done a Google search and can find nothing about such a videotape. I e-mailed Keillor twice to ask for a source. No response. Keillor's column is syndicated through Tribune Media Services, so I contacted TMS. Here is the message I received from the managing editor on September 5:

"Thank you for your message. We do extensive fact-checking on all the columns we send out, including Mr. Keillor's. I have forwarded your message to the editor in charge of the column. If there are errors, we truly regret that, but the editor is meticulous and sometimes there are different interpretations of statements in a column. Certainly we will check out your questions."

I followed up at the end of September and received this message from TMS:

"In the initial editing of the column, Mr. Keillor's direct editor approved the use of the language that you are questioning. While it may be open to interpretation, we stand behind the sense that Mr. Keillor intended."

I believe I interpreted Keillor claim in the same sense as he intended. What other intepretation could one have? It is quite a charge to say that Giuliani was not a leader on 9/11 and that he fled the scene. If Keillor and TMS have evidence to support this charge, why do they refuse to share it? If there is no evidence, why do they refuse to apologize to readers. In either case, the Journal-World should refrain from publishing Keillor's column until he provides evidence or apologizes. They continued to run Robert Scheer's column long after he was proven to be dishonest. Why repeat the same mistake?

Keillor's column does not appear to be in the J-W online archives. Here's another site with the column:http://www.democraticunderground.com...ss=364x1971571

BTW, Keillor has displayed dishonesty in the past regarding 9/11. Last March he wrote the following: “I ran into a gray eminence from the Bush I era theother day in an airport, and he said that what mostoffended him about Bush II is the naked incompetence. ‘You may disagree with Republicans, but you always had to recognize that they knew what they were doing,’ he said. ‘I keep going back to that intelligence memo of August 2001, that said that terrorists had plans to hijack planes and crash them into buildings. The president read it, and he didn't even call a staff meeting to discuss it. That is lack of attention of a high order.’” See http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2006/03/15/keillor/index_np.html

Of course, the August 6 PDB said absolutely nothing about planes being hijacked and crashed into buildings, yet Keillor presented it to readers as fact. The information in the PDB concerned an uncorroborated 1998 report about the possibility of planes being hijacked to win the release of ther Blind Sheikh and other Islamofascists in captivity in the U.S.

More Journal-World hypocrisy

With the Lawrence Journal-World banning conservatives from its online forum and, apparently, its letters to the editor section, I found it interesting that the same newspaper would publish this letter to the editor.

If you removed the name-calling, personal attacks, and falsehoods, there wouldn't be a single sentence left.

Pay no attention to that man behind the white hood

In his September 17, 2006 column, Kansas City Star columnist Rhonda Chriss Lokeman praises Sen. Robert Byrd, Democrat of West Virginia, for fathering Constitution Day.

"No one in Congress is more passionate about the Constitution than the West Virginian Byrd," Lokeman writes. "He carries a small bound copy in his pocket 'close to my heart.'"

Further:

"Critics view Byrd, who opposed the war in Iraq, as an obstructionist to this presidency and a partisan Democrat when, in fact, he is one of the few principled leaders in Congress willing to lecture his colleagues on constitutional matters. His is not a partisan pitch but the voice of a true patriot."

What Lokeman, an African-American, failed to note was that this "true patriot" was a Kleagle (i.e., recuiter) with the Ku Klux Klan, participated in the filibuster of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, opposed the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and voted against confirming both African-American nominees to the Supreme Court (Thurgood Marshall and Clarence Thomas). Byrd also opposed George W. Bush's African-American nominees, such as Federal Judge Janice Rogers Brown and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. In addition, Byrd used the N-word on national television as late as 2001. As an example of blatant liberal media bias, Byrd's recent use of the word was largely ignored, while GOP Sen. George Allen's alleged used of the word when he was in college has been a major issue in newspapers and on the network news.

Unfortunately, for the Bush-hating Lokeman, Byrd's opposition to President Bush trumps all else, including Byrd's racism and opposition to laws that probably made it possible for Lokeman to have the column she writes today.

Hey, maybe we should teach about counterinsurgency

In an October 1, 2006, article Lawrence Journal-World reporter Joel Mathis starts with this paragraph:

"After a half-decade fighting guerrillas in Afghanistan — and another three years doing the same in Iraq — the U.S. military has decided to start some hard thinking about how to battle insurgencies."

I doubt Mathis has ever worn a military uniform, so his insult against the military was probably unintentional. However, an editor should have caught the error.

The fact is, the military started thinking about how to battle insurgencies long before this summer. The School of the Americas has been teaching counterinsurgency warfare for more than 50 years. The military published a new counterinsurgency guide in 2004. Also, a counterinsurgency academy for soldiers and Marines in Iraq was set up before the Counterinsurgency Center at Ft. Leavenworth came into existence.

This writer interviewed a former Green Beret shortly after 9/11. He was called back to Ft. Leavenworth just a year after 9/11 to prepare officers for the fight against al Qaeda, which, of course, included counterinsurgency instruction.

“They wanted me to consult and teach special operations," said the former Green Beret. "I went back to the Middle East a couple of times and the Far East a couple of times to be an advisor/consultant/instructor and assist our Special Operators with the global war on terror. I now have six retired lieutenant colonels working for me at Fort Leavenworth. When I was a student in Staff College, we had basically one hour of special operations instruction. We now have 400 hours of special operations instruction, which we have designed, written, and now instruct.”

On a personal note, I looked through my "Individual Training Record" while I was an enlisted Marine between 1982 and 1986. I had at least eight training sessions on counterinsurgency/counterterrorism and one Marine Corps Institute course on counterinsurgency during that period.

So, obviously, the military started giving some serious thought on how to battle insurgencies long before this summer.