R.I.P. Stephanie

I had the pleasure of watching her give a speech during Kerry's campaign 4 years ago. The lady could light up a room like no one. As on Ohioian, I KNOW I can say, she will be dearly missed. May you rest in peace Stephanie.

Ohio Rep. Tubbs Jones dies after aneurysm

CNN) -- Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones, the first black woman to represent Ohio in the U.S. House of Representatives, died Wednesday after suffering an aneurysm, medical officials said.
Tubbs Jones, who was in her fifth term representing parts of Cleveland and its suburbs, was 58.
She suffered the aneurysm Tuesday evening while driving in her home district in Cleveland Heights, Ohio, a statement from her office said.

She was rushed to East Cleveland's Huron Hospital, where a team of doctors determined Wednesday morning that she had "very limited brain function," said Dr. Gus Kious, the hospital's chief of staff.

Wednesday afternoon, before Tubbs Jones died, Kious said that the aneurysm "an inaccessible part of her brain" and that she was in critical condition.

The congresswoman had a full day of activity Tuesday, according to the statement from her office, "including planning for an upcoming forum on electoral reform, scheduled for September 4, 2008, at Cleveland State University."

Tubbs Jones was a Democratic superdelegate and one of Hillary Clinton's most ardent supporters. She was scheduled to attend the Democratic National Convention next week in Denver, Colorado.

She was an early supporter of Clinton's White House bid but endorsed Barack Obama in June after the New York senator bowed out of the race.

Tubbs Jones, elected to Congress in 1998, would have turned 59 on September 10.
CNN's Alexander Mooney contributed to this report.
All AboutStephanie Tubbs Jones

Seriously Pelosi....IMPEACHMENT HEARINGS!

I've had it with Nancy Pelosi. What a POS she turned out to be. I tried to remain opened minded during her 60 minutes interview as I about fell off the couch when I heard the line
"Impeachment is off the table".

Here we are again only to find yet another lie, another revelation about our current regime in the US. At what point will our Congress get off it's ass and DO SOMETHING about the crimes of George W Bush and Dick Cheney? Read on Garth!

Tape: Top CIA Official Confesses To 9/11-Iraq War Forgery Came From White House
By: Nicole Belle on Saturday, August 9th, 2008 at 9:00 AM - PDT

A forged letter linking Saddam Hussein to the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks was ordered on White House stationery and probably came from the office of Vice President Dick Cheney, according to a new transcript of a conversation with the Central Intelligence Agency’s former Deputy Chief of Clandestine Operations Robert Richer.

The transcript was posted Friday by author Ron Suskind of an interview conducted in June. It comes on the heels of denials by both the White House and Richer of a claim Suskind made in his new book, The Way of The World. The book was leaked to Politico’s Mike Allen on Monday, and released Tuesday.

On Tuesday, the White House released a statement on Richer’s behalf. In it, Richer declared, “I never received direction from George Tenet or anyone else in my chain of command to fabricate a document … as outlined in Mr. Suskind’s book.”

The denial, however, directly contradicts Richer’s own remarks in the transcript.
“Now this is from the Vice President’s Office is how you remembered it–not from the president?” Suskind asked.

“No, no, no,” Richer replied, according to the transcript. “What I remember is George [Tenet] saying, ‘we got this from’–basically, from what George said was ‘downtown.’”

“Which is the White House?” Suskind asked.

“Yes,” Richer said. “But he did not–in my memory–never said president, vice president, or NSC.

Okay? But now–he may have hinted–just by the way he said it, it would have–cause almost all that stuff came from one place only: Scooter Libby and the shop around the vice president.”
“But he didn’t say that specifically,” Richer added. “I would naturally–I would probably stand on my, basically, my reputation and say it came from the vice president.”

“But there wasn’t anything in the writing that you remember saying the vice president,” Suskind continued.

“Nope,” Richer said.

“It just had the White House stationery.”

“Exactly right.”

Later, Richer added, “You know, if you’ve ever seen the vice president’s stationery, it’s on the White House letterhead. It may have said OVP (Office of the Vice President). I don’t remember that, so I don’t want to mislead you.”

Suskind posted the transcript at his blog, saying, “This posting is contrary to my practice across 25 years as a journalist. But the issues, in this matter, are simply too important to stand as discredited in any way.” It was first picked up by ThinkProgress and Congressional Quarterly’s Jeff Stein.

But wait, there’s more…

The bogus memo claimed that 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta had received training in Baghdad but also discussed the arrival of a “shipment” from Niger, which the Administration claimed had supplied Iraq with yellowcake uranium — based on yet another forged document whose source remains uncertain.

The memo subsequently was treated as fact by the British Sunday Telegraph, and cited by William Safire in his New York Times column, providing fodder for Bush’s efforts to take the US to war. [..]

Today, The American Conservative also published a report saying that the forgery was actually produced by then-Defense Undersecretary Douglas Feith’s Office of Special Plans, citing an unnamed intelligence source. The source reportedly added that Suskind’s overall claim “is correct.”

“My source also notes that Dick Cheney, who was behind the forgery, hated and mistrusted the Agency and would not have used it for such a sensitive assignment,” the magazine wrote. “Instead, he went to Doug Feith’s Office of Special Plans and asked them to do the job.

When Will We IMPEACH THIS BASTARD?

Bush knew Saddam had no weapons of mass destructionSalon exclusive: Two former CIA officers say the president squelched top-secret intelligence, and a briefing by George Tenet, months before invading Iraq.
By Sidney Blumenthal

Sep. 06, 2007 On Sept. 18, 2002, CIA director George Tenet briefed President Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, according to two former senior CIA officers. Bush dismissed as worthless this information from the Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddam's inner circle, although it turned out to be accurate in every detail. Tenet never brought it up again.

Nor was the intelligence included in the National Intelligence Estimate of October 2002, which stated categorically that Iraq possessed WMD. No one in Congress was aware of the secret intelligence that Saddam had no WMD as the House of Representatives and the Senate voted, a week after the submission of the NIE, on the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq. The information, moreover, was not circulated within the CIA among those agents involved in operations to prove whether Saddam had WMD.

On April 23, 2006, CBS's "60 Minutes" interviewed Tyler Drumheller, the former CIA chief of clandestine operations for Europe, who disclosed that the agency had received documentary intelligence from Naji Sabri, Saddam's foreign minister, that Saddam did not have WMD. "We continued to validate him the whole way through," said Drumheller. "The policy was set. The war in Iraq was coming, and they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy, to justify the policy."

Now two former senior CIA officers have confirmed Drumheller's account to me and provided the background to the story of how the information that might have stopped the invasion of Iraq was twisted in order to justify it. They described what Tenet said to Bush about the lack of WMD, and how Bush responded, and noted that Tenet never shared Sabri's intelligence with then Secretary of State Colin Powell. According to the former officers, the intelligence was also never shared with the senior military planning the invasion, which required U.S. soldiers to receive medical shots against the ill effects of WMD and to wear protective uniforms in the desert.

Instead, said the former officials, the information was distorted in a report written to fit the preconception that Saddam did have WMD programs. That false and restructured report was passed to Richard Dearlove, chief of the British Secret Intelligence Service (MI6), who briefed Prime Minister Tony Blair on it as validation of the cause for war.

Secretary of State Powell, in preparation for his presentation of evidence of Saddam's WMD to the United Nations Security Council on Feb. 5, 2003, spent days at CIA headquarters in Langley, Va., and had Tenet sit directly behind him as a sign of credibility. But Tenet, according to the sources, never told Powell about existing intelligence that there were no WMD, and Powell's speech was later revealed to be a series of falsehoods.

Both the French intelligence service and the CIA paid Sabri hundreds of thousands of dollars (at least $200,000 in the case of the CIA) to give them documents on Saddam's WMD programs. "The information detailed that Saddam may have wished to have a program, that his engineers had told him they could build a nuclear weapon within two years if they had fissile material, which they didn't, and that they had no chemical or biological weapons," one of the former CIA officers told me.

On the eve of Sabri's appearance at the United Nations in September 2002 to present Saddam's case, the officer in charge of this operation met in New York with a "cutout" who had debriefed Sabri for the CIA. Then the officer flew to Washington, where he met with CIA deputy director John McLaughlin, who was "excited" about the report. Nonetheless, McLaughlin expressed his reservations. He said that Sabri's information was at odds with "our best source." That source was code-named "Curveball," later exposed as a fabricator, con man and former Iraqi taxi driver posing as a chemical engineer.

The next day, Sept. 18, Tenet briefed Bush on Sabri. "Tenet told me he briefed the president personally," said one of the former CIA officers. According to Tenet, Bush's response was to call the information "the same old thing." Bush insisted it was simply what Saddam wanted him to think. "The president had no interest in the intelligence," said the CIA officer. The other officer said, "Bush didn't give a fuck about the intelligence. He had his mind made up."

But the CIA officers working on the Sabri case kept collecting information. "We checked on everything he told us." French intelligence eavesdropped on his telephone conversations and shared them with the CIA. These taps "validated" Sabri's claims, according to one of the CIA officers. The officers brought this material to the attention of the newly formed Iraqi Operations Group within the CIA. But those in charge of the IOG were on a mission to prove that Saddam did have WMD and would not give credit to anything that came from the French. "They kept saying the French were trying to undermine the war," said one of the CIA officers.

The officers continued to insist on the significance of Sabri's information, but one of Tenet's deputies told them, "You haven't figured this out yet. This isn't about intelligence. It's about regime change."

The CIA officers on the case awaited the report they had submitted on Sabri to be circulated back to them, but they never received it. They learned later that a new report had been written. "It was written by someone in the agency, but unclear who or where, it was so tightly controlled. They knew what would please the White House. They knew what the king wanted," one of the officers told me.

That report contained a false preamble stating that Saddam was "aggressively and covertly developing" nuclear weapons and that he already possessed chemical and biological weapons. "Totally out of whack," said one of the CIA officers. "The first [para]graph of an intelligence report is the most important and most read and colors the rest of the report." He pointed out that the case officer who wrote the initial report had not written the preamble and the new memo. "That's not what the original memo said."

The report with the misleading introduction was given to Dearlove of MI6, who briefed the prime minister. "They were given a scaled-down version of the report," said one of the CIA officers. "It was a summary given for liaison, with the sourcing taken out. They showed the British the statement Saddam was pursuing an aggressive program, and rewrote the report to attempt to support that statement. It was insidious. Blair bought it." "Blair was duped," said the other CIA officer. "He was shown the altered report."

The information provided by Sabri was considered so sensitive that it was never shown to those who assembled the NIE on Iraqi WMD. Later revealed to be utterly wrong, the NIE read: "We judge that Iraq has continued its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs in defiance of UN resolutions and restrictions. Baghdad has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of UN restrictions; if left unchecked, it probably will have a nuclear weapon during this decade."

In the congressional debate over the Authorization for the Use of Military Force, even those voting against it gave credence to the notion that Saddam possessed WMD. Even a leading opponent such as Sen. Bob Graham, then the Democratic chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, who had instigated the production of the NIE, declared in his floor speech on Oct. 12, 2002, "Saddam Hussein's regime has chemical and biological weapons and is trying to get nuclear capacity." Not a single senator contested otherwise. None of them had an inkling of the Sabri intelligence.

The CIA officers assigned to Sabri still argued within the agency that his information must be taken seriously, but instead the administration preferred to rely on Curveball. Drumheller learned from the German intelligence service that held Curveball that it considered him and his claims about WMD to be highly unreliable. But the CIA's Weapons Intelligence, Nonproliferation, and Arms Control Center (WINPAC) insisted that Curveball was credible because what he said was supposedly congruent with available public information.
For two months, Drumheller fought against the use of Curveball, raising the red flag that he was likely a fraud, as he turned out to be. "Oh, my! I hope that's not true," said Deputy Director McLaughlin, according to Drumheller's book "On the Brink," published in 2006. When Curveball's information was put into Bush's Jan. 28, 2003, State of the Union address, McLaughlin and Tenet allowed it to pass into the speech. "From three Iraqi defectors," Bush declared, "we know that Iraq, in the late 1990s, had several mobile biological weapons labs ... Saddam Hussein has not disclosed these facilities. He's given no evidence that he has destroyed them." In fact, there was only one Iraqi source -- Curveball -- and there were no labs.
When the mobile weapons labs were inserted into the draft of Powell's United Nations speech, Drumheller strongly objected again and believed that the error had been removed. He was shocked watching Powell's speech. "We have firsthand descriptions of biological weapons factories on wheels and on rails," Powell announced. Without the reference to the mobile weapons labs, there was no image of a threat.

Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, Powell's chief of staff, and Powell himself later lamented that they had not been warned about Curveball. And McLaughlin told the Washington Post in 2006, "If someone had made these doubts clear to me, I would not have permitted the reporting to be used in Secretary Powell's speech." But, in fact, Drumheller's caution was ignored.

As war appeared imminent, the CIA officers on the Sabri case tried to arrange his defection in order to demonstrate that he stood by his information. But he would not leave without bringing out his entire family. "He dithered," said one former CIA officer. And the war came before his escape could be handled.

Tellingly, Sabri's picture was never put on the deck of playing cards of former Saddam officials to be hunted down, a tacit acknowledgment of his covert relationship with the CIA. Today, Sabri lives in Qatar.

In 2005, the Silberman-Robb commission investigating intelligence in the Iraq war failed to interview the case officer directly involved with Sabri; instead its report blamed the entire WMD fiasco on "groupthink" at the CIA. "They didn't want to trace this back to the White House," said the officer.

On Feb. 5, 2004, Tenet delivered a speech at Georgetown University that alluded to Sabri and defended his position on the existence of WMD, which, even then, he contended would still be found. "Several sensitive reports crossed my desk from two sources characterized by our foreign partners as established and reliable," he said. "The first from a source who had direct access to Saddam and his inner circle" -- Naji Sabri -- "said Iraq was not in the possession of a nuclear weapon. However, Iraq was aggressively and covertly developing such a weapon."
Then Tenet claimed with assurance, "The same source said that Iraq was stockpiling chemical weapons." He explained that this intelligence had been central to his belief in the reason for war. "As this information and other sensitive information came across my desk, it solidified and reinforced the judgments that we had reached in my own view of the danger posed by Saddam Hussein and I conveyed this view to our nation's leaders." (Tenet doesn't mention Sabri in his recently published memoir, "At the Center of the Storm.")

But where were the WMD? "Now, I'm sure you're all asking, 'Why haven't we found the weapons?' I've told you the search must continue and it will be difficult."

On Sept. 8, 2006, three Republican senators on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence -- Orrin Hatch, Saxby Chambliss and Pat Roberts -- signed a letter attempting to counter Drumheller's revelation about Sabri on "60 Minutes": "All of the information about this case so far indicates that the information from this source was that Iraq did have WMD programs." The Republicans also quoted Tenet, who had testified before the committee in July 2006 that Drumheller had "mischaracterized" the intelligence. Still, Drumheller stuck to his guns, telling Reuters, "We have differing interpretations, and I think mine's right."

One of the former senior CIA officers told me that despite the certitude of the three Republican senators, the Senate committee never had the original memo on Sabri. "The committee never got that report," he said. "The material was hidden or lost, and because it was a restricted case, a lot of it was done in hard copy. The whole thing was fogged up, like Curveball."

While one Iraqi source told the CIA that there were no WMD, information that was true but distorted to prove the opposite, another Iraqi source was a fabricator whose lies were eagerly embraced. "The real tragedy is that they had a good source that they misused," said one of the former CIA officers. "The fact is there was nothing there, no threat. But Bush wanted to hear what he wanted to hear."
-- By Sidney Blumenthal

Senate finds no al-Qaida-Saddam link

By JIM ABRAMS, Associated Press Writer

Saddam Hussein rejected overtures from al-Qaida and believed Islamic extremists were a threat to his regime, a reverse portrait of an Iraq allied with Osama bin Laden painted by the Bush White House, a Senate panel has found.

The administration's version was based in part on intelligence that White House officials knew was flawed, according to Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee, citing newly declassified documents released by the panel.

The report, released Friday, discloses for the first time an October 2005 CIA assessment that prior to the war Saddam's government "did not have a relationship, harbor or turn a blind eye toward" al-Qaida operative Abu Musab al-Zarqawi or his associates.

As recently as an Aug. 21 news conference, President Bush said people should "imagine a world in which you had Saddam Hussein" with the capacity to make weapons of mass destruction and "who had relations with Zarqawi."

Democrats singled out CIA Director George Tenet, saying that during a private meeting in July Tenet told the panel that the White House pressured him and that he agreed to back up the administration's case for war despite his own agents' doubts about the intelligence it was based on.

"Tenet admitted to the Intelligence Committee that the policymakers wanted him to 'say something about not being inconsistent with what the president had said,'" Intelligence Committee member Carl Levin, D-Mich., told reporters Friday.
Tenet also told the committee that complying had been "the wrong thing to do," according to Levin.

"Well, it was much more than that," Levin said. "It was a shocking abdication of a CIA director's duty not to act as a shill for any administration or its policy."

Leaders of both parties accused each other of seeking political gain on the eve of the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks.

Republicans said the document contained little new information about prewar intelligence or postwar findings on Iraq's weapons and connection to terrorist groups.
Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts, R-Kan., accused Democrats of trying to "use the committee ... insisting that they were deliberately duped into supporting the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime."

"That is simply not true," Roberts added, "and I believe the American people are smart enough to recognize election-year politicking when they see it."
The report speaks for itself, Democrats said.

The administration "exploited the deep sense of insecurity among Americans in the immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, leading a large majority of Americans to believe — contrary to the intelligence assessments at the time — that Iraq had a role in the 9/11 attacks," said Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., the top Democrat on the Intelligence Committee.

Still, Democrats were reluctant to say how the administration officials involved should be called to account.

Asked whether the wrongdoing amounted to criminal conduct, Levin and Rockefeller declined to answer. Rockefeller said later he did not believe Bush should be impeached over the matter.
According to the report, postwar findings indicate that Saddam "was distrustful of al-Qaida and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime." It quotes an FBI report from June 2004 in which former Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz said in an interview that "Saddam only expressed negative sentiments about bin Laden."

Saddam himself is quoted in an FBI summary as acknowledging that the Iraqi government had met with bin Laden but denying that he had colluded with the al-Qaida leader. Claiming that Iraq opposed only U.S. policies, Saddam said that "if he wanted to cooperate with the enemies of the U.S., he would have allied with North Korea or China," the report quotes the FBI document.
The Democrats said that on Oct. 7, 2002, the day Bush gave a speech speaking of that link, the CIA had sent a declassified letter to the committee saying it would be an "extreme step" for Saddam to assist Islamist terrorists in attacking the United States.

Levin and Rockefeller said Tenet in July acknowledged to the committee that subsequently issuing a statement that there was no inconsistency between the president's speech and the CIA viewpoint had been a mistake.

They also charged Bush with continuing to cite faulty intelligence in his argument for war as recently as last month.

The report said that al-Zarqawi, the al-Qaida leader killed by a U.S. airstrike last June, was in Baghdad from May 2002 until late November 2002. But "postwar information indicates that Saddam Hussein attempted, unsuccessfully, to locate and capture al-Zarqawi and that the regime did not have a relationship with, harbor or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi."
In June 2004, Bush also defended Vice President Dick Cheney's assertion that Saddam had "long-established ties" with al-Qaida. "Zarqawi is the best evidence of connection to al-Qaida affiliates and al-Qaida," the president said.

The report concludes that postwar findings do not support a 2002 intelligence community report that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program, possessed biological weapons or ever developed mobile facilities for producing biological warfare agents.

A second part of the report finds that false information from the Iraqi National Congress, an anti-Saddam group led by then-exile Ahmed Chalabi, was used to support key intelligence community assessments on Iraq.

Kristen Breitsweiser's Response to Ann Coulter

What a class act. I'll say it again, THANK YOU Kristen, for bringing truth to light.

Kristen Breitweiser
Bio

09.06.2006
Dear Ann,
But for the murder of our husbands on 9/11, we would not have gone to Washington to fight for an independent 9/11 investigation. Our involvement in national security would have begun and ended at the voting booth, like most citizens. But for the initial failure of our leaders and elected officials to create an independent 9/11 Commission to investigate the terrorist attacks, we would not have not been forced to publicly fight for it.

An important part of that fight required us to demand the attention of our elected officials by speaking out in the media. Sadly, in many cases, such public pressure (and its possible effect on Election Day) is needed to inspire elected officials to do the right thing. That is not my opinion. That's reality. Had President Bush and Congress impaneled an independent commission on their own, we would not have needed to lobby Washington. Likewise, had Congress thoroughly investigated the attacks and not limited its investigation into intelligence-only areas, we would not have needed to fight for the 9/11 Commission.

We wanted the 9/11 attacks investigated thoroughly and competently so that fewer terrorist attacks would succeed in the future and more lives would be saved on the day of the next attack. When you study the events of 9/11, you learn that many more lives should have been saved, and many damages and injuries could have been mitigated. We wanted to hold the government accountable so that, going forward, our nation would be better prepared for future attacks and disasters.

Fighting for national security--securing the homeland or wanting to make the nation safe--ought to be an unassailable objective, similar to the Amber Alert, Megan's Law, and providing body armor for the troops. Regardless of who the messenger raising these issues might be, the goals are inarguable because they are pure, true, and right. Will these issues receive more focused attention if the message is delivered by people who speak passionately because they have been personally affected? Yes, absolutely. But it's the issue that is unassailable--not the people espousing that issue. If your conservative Republican friends are on the wrong side of the issues, that's their problem.

Ann, the Jersey Girls are moms. We have children. Perhaps one day if you have a child, you may understand the sense of duty and obligation that parents feel toward their children to provide them with a safe and secure environment, both in the present and the future. There were many, many times when we wanted to give up. We were tired and frustrated. But we didn't. The reason? Our children. We were left as their sole protectors; we wanted them to know that even though their fathers were brutally killed, they could be and would be safer living in America.

You complained to many interviewers that they hadn't taken the time to read your book. But did you take the time to look at the Family Steering Committee Web site (www.911independentcommission.org)? You might discover that we shared some of the same disappointments, concerns, and grievances that you have expressed with regard to the 9/11 Commission. The difference is that we made those concerns known while the Commission was doing its work--that is, when it could have made a difference. Why didn't you?

We could have used some more support back then, when we were fighting against individual commissioners' apparent and very possible conflicts of interest and the need for more hard-hitting hearings. We needed more help in fighting for an extended deadline, so as to remove the Commission's final report from the politics of the 2004 election, and a budgetary increase so the Commission could complete its unfinished work on questions about Able Danger. (You see, I did read your book.)

But frankly, I wonder how much you really know about the 9/11 Commission. You don't seem to understand that President Bush picked Tom Kean to be the chairman--not the "co-chairman." You don't seem to be aware that Philip Zelikow was the Commission's staff director or of why that position was so important. You also seem ignorant of the fact that Zelikow had served previously on the Bush National Security Council transition team and on the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. (Do you even know who the current members of PFIAB are or what PFIAB does? Probably not.) I wonder whether you even know that Zelikow is currently serving as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's Special Counsel.

Finally, and most important, are you aware that the White House exercised the "final edits" on the Commission's report? Tell me, Ann, how does that add up to a Democratic whitewash?Because I was one of twelve family members who lobbied fiercely for an independent commission, I was invited to meetings in the White House and on Capitol Hill. I testified before Congress, as well. I wish you knew about the battle that occurred behind the scenes because then you might not make silly statements such as "nobody could ever debate the Jersey Girls." Ironically, it is because we kept most of those meetings confidential that you probably don't know how nastily certain elected officials behaved behind closed doors. Trust me, we were countered, rebutted, and challenged in almost every meeting we attended. Did we go on the record about those incidents? No. We could have, and I can assure you that some of your conservative Republican friends would not have come off well.

When I kept my mouth shut about the way a certain Republican official spoke to me merely because it would have made people in your party look bad, was I being "political"? I'm sure there are some Democrats who would say yes. Did that mean I was being manipulated by your right-wing friends? No. It meant that I had a job to do and I found no reason to distract attention from our cause by dragging people through the mud. There was plenty that I could have spouted off about then, and there still is to this very day. But I don't--mostly because my mother and father taught me to rise above bullies rather than stoop to their level.

You branded the Jersey Girls media whores, a bunch of celebrity-seeking widows who enjoyed their husbands' deaths. Had your friends--including many elected officials in the Republican Party and conservatives in Washington--not put up a fight, and a very nasty fight, we wouldn't have needed to raise public awareness through the media. So if you want to blame anyone for our appearances on television, you should blame your own coterie, not us. We simply wanted to inform the nation about what needed to be done. And we still intend to do that.

Earlier this year, some of us were invited to appear on television to discuss the verdict in the Zacarias Moussaoui case. We agreed to do that because the U.S. has in custody three individuals with a more direct connection to the 9/11 attacks than Moussaoui. To us, it is important to show the world that we are a nation of laws and that the U.S. can successfully bring terrorists to justice. Does that matter to you, Ann? If so, then you ought to support us in our goal of bringing Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Ramzi Bin al-Shibh, and Khallad bin Attash to trial. Our judicial process should hold these madmen accountable for the deaths of nearly 3,000 innocent people on 9/11.

I am truly puzzled by your accusation that we were operatives of or used by the Democrats. We were never paid for television appearances, we did not drive around in limos, we did not have publicists or PR people, and we wrote all of our own press releases, talking points, letters to the editor, statements, and testimony. (I don't know if the 9/11 family members who chose to support the Republican Party can say the same.) At any rate, your statements are false and defamatory, although that is nothing new for you.

As a public figure I'm in a poor position to hold you legally accountable for your lies. But I will take the time to set the record straight here. The Democrats were nearly the only people in Washington willing to help us. That is not my opinion; it is a fact, notwithstanding a few honorable exceptions, such as Chris Smith and John McCain. We worked with anyone of either party who supported an independent investigation.

For some unknown reason--and as a seasoned right-wing operative maybe you can enlighten us--most Republicans we encountered were completely opposed to learning any lessons from 9/11. It's a shame, too. After all, the Republican Party has been in total control of Washington for the past three years. Had they made true national security a higher priority, perhaps our cities would be better protected against terrorist attacks and disasters. Again, the sorry conditions in our cities and across our nation are a matter of fact, not opinion. Please don't blame me for that failure. Assign the responsibility where it belongs.

Similarly, one of the reasons we are still fighting for national security reforms (and encountered so much resistance in fighting for an independent commission) is that very few people actually read commission reports. They often sit on bookshelves gathering dust. Have you read the 9/11 Commission Report, along with its accompanying footnotes? Have you read the Robb-Silverman report on the Iraq intelligence failures? What about the Joint Inquiry of Congress report on 9/11? How about the Hart-Rudman report? Or even the Bremer report? Probably not. If you haven't, you should, because I think you would find those volumes illuminating.

You have expressed outrage that few of your critics actually read your books. You complain that they merely cherry-pick your most inflammatory comments while missing your overall message. Frustrating, isn't it?You also wrongly accused us of being in the pocket of former president Clinton. The obvious reason for why we always directed our questions and requests to President Bush was simply because Clinton was no longer in office. The former president had no power to commence an investigation into the 9/11 attacks, nor did he have any power to effect change to make the nation safer after 9/11. That power lay in the hands of President Bush--you know, the guy who in your opinion has supreme authority.

Ann, I don't want to get into a debate with you. It's not because I am afraid of you or your nasty bullying tactics. I'm not going to debate you because we have many, many more important issues to deal with in our country right now.But I will leave you with this: We live in America, the world's oldest democracy. Democracy can prevail (is that what you and your friends really fear?), but that requires hard work, as President Bush might say. Every citizen in this country is entitled to his or her beliefs, and every citizen is entitled to participate. We still have the right to speak our minds to effect change (within the parameters of the law, of course). So don't try to silence the voices of victims or anyone else, merely because you disagree with them or feel threatened by their political choices. In my opinion, your method of using intimidation and insults to "win" a debate is truly unpatriotic.

Actually, I expect that you will continue to scream and shout and smear as nastily as you want, so long as you think that that kind of behavior sells books. But we have tackled bigger bullies than you and lived through far worse circumstances than your book tour. We're not intimidated by you. We're not running away.

And under no circumstances will we be silenced by your "godless" rantings and ravings.
Kristen Breitweiser
New York City
June 2006