wtc: rebirth 2006

here is the latest design for the new towers at ground zero that were unveiled a week ago. personally, i'm not incredibly fond of the new design; i would have much preferred just two towers, something to echo the past but look towards the future. but then, it's not my skyline, so what do i know? anyway, here are the pics, and for an article regarding the creation of the new design, you can go to the guardian unlimited.

for detailed timelines and images on the project, go to project rebirth. there is also a webcam feed set up, where cameras were placed around ground zero. a picture is taken every minute, and then the images are relayed back to the website. check it out.

olbermann vs the bush administration

ground zero, early in the morning.

here is keith's rant against the bush administration. where most commentators and anchors chose a very sombre route on the anniversary, keith decides to rage against the machine. an interesting choice. considering the lack of progress and the constant lying and screw ups of the past five years, it does seem like he has a point. he goes off on everything from the giant hole in ground zero still, to the abuse of power, to the iraq war... he just goes off in typical olbermann style.

9/11: then and now.

the fifth anniversary of 9/11 is upon us. the cbc has a photo log of pictures taken on 9/11, and after. the associated press had photographers take a bunch of pictures from various locations on 9/11. this summer, they sent them back to those same locations. some of these pictures are disturbing and may bring back awful memories, but it is a very interesting to see the difference in the new york skyline, how the air was filled with smoke and ruin and now, there is just calm blue sky. take a look here.

that morning.

it is the five year anniversary of 9/11. five years ago, i was technically homeless, sleeping on my friend's couch for the previous two weeks, and working at a movie theater being paid minimum wage, for 26 hours a week. at the time, i was working on what would ultimately be a complete failure of a novel, zero sum.

i got up and turned on the television set, channel surfing until i landed on cnn. all i really remember is that there was chaos on the screen. this was after both planes had already hit the towers. bleary-eyed, it took me a while to adjust but then i saw something that jolted me awake: it was video footage of the first tower being hit. before i could register a coherent thought, they showed clips of the second plane striking the other tower and my immediate reaction was to say out loud to noone but myself, "they're being attacked." The first plane could have been a horrible accident, or the work of a deranged pilot, but this second plane meant an attack. and immediately my political science brain kicked in and i started going through possible suspects like flipping through a rolodex. a virtual who's who of enemies to the united states.

finally i tore myself away from the television set long enough to wake my friend dave, whos owned the house i was freeloading at. i banged on his door and started yelling at him to wake up. i heard dave grumble something muffled through the door from beneath his bed sheets. i pressed my forehead against the door and said that a couple of planes had hit the world trade center towers; that the americans were being attacked. dave was out of his bed and in the living room with me in seconds, and he kept saying, "oh my god. jesus. oh my god."

and the footage played over and over again from the screen; these weren't quick cuts like in some sort of mtv style action movie, where you can't really tell what is going on. these were long, extended shots, where it just seemed so... unreal. and admittedly, it looked a bit fake. like my mind wouldn't believe that it was real, that it was some sort of television show that i was watching. i kept expecting the end credits to roll down the screen. but of course it was real. every bit of it.

and then i watched the towers collapse.

i went to work that morning. i don't know why but i did. i went to work like any other morning. and i remember not wanting to be there. to desperately get to a television set. during the day, my boss would give us updates on our radios. the day was scattered with various reports about car bombs and u.s. war planes dropping bombs in iraq. but all of that was negative. the amount of misinformation was troubling, because each report was worse than the last. the only thing that was true was the fact that the world trade center was no longer there. it was bizarre standing there, ripping the tickets of the few people that came to see the matinee; people who were completely unaware of the carnage that was going on in the united states.

and then going home: sitting on the bus, there were passenges reading through a special issue of the province that was printed up, filled with pages and pages of the images. and when i got home, i sat in front of the television set all day, watching footage after footage of ashen survivors, covered in the remains of the debris, and alternate angles and new video clips of the planes hitting the towers. and like everyone else, i had a sense of helplessness. i wanted to do something, but i was in vancouver. so all i could do was watch. and wait. and even though the attack didn't happen on canadian soil, it was still in our backyard, like it was happening to a beloved family member.

later that day, my mother called me. she told me she had spoken to her sister, that my aunt and uncle who live on long island were fine, and that my two cousins who both live and work in new york, were also fine. my mother relayed to me how alice, one of my cousins who was a doctor, had told my aunt about some of the wounded she saw to in the hospital. needless to say, i knew they would be alright, but it was nice to get comfirmation anyway.

and then i thought about my trip to new york the year before. i had this tourist picture of me, my brother and my parents standing in front of a backdrop of the world trade center. it was one of those photos that you get when you go up to the top of the world trade center. halfway up, they took your picture, and by the time you got to the top, they would try to sell it to you. at the time, i balked at my mother paying for those pictures. but that day, i took a good long, hard look, and it brought back memories of the people of new york. at the time, my brother and i had been a little nervous, walking through the streets of new york by ourselves, taking the subway. what i remember though, is that i wasn't nervous because i was in new york; i was nervous because it was just a new city to me. i remember looking up at the sky, seeing only skyscrapers. coming from vancouver, i was not used to not being able to see the sky. the buildings in downtown new york were just so tall and menacing, taking up so much of the canopy. i also remembered how the people of new york were, and how they were really no different than any other city i'd been to. yes, some people were rude, but some were incredibly nice and thoughtful. every city has their blend of people, and new york was no different. just people living their lives.

you will hear a lot of writers and news anchors and commentators today say that 9/11 was the day the world changed. i don't agree with that, and i never have. the reality is, the world changed a long time ago. terrorism has run rampant for years in the middle east, in kashmir, in chechnya, in russia, in africa, in south america... no longer were attacks happening to people we didn't know, in places foreign to us. sheltered by strong economies, technology, and large oceans on either side of us, 9/11 was the day the west finally caught up to the changes the world had gone through over the last fifty years. it was the day, in a way, where the west finally became a part of the rest of the world's pain. a real and startling pain, that would drive us to know real fear for the first time in most of our lives.

25th hour: a eulogy

monty: i need you to make me ugly.

if there was one movie to see today, it is 25th hour. 25th hour is a fantastic movie written by david benioff who adapted it from his own book of the same name. it stars edward norton, phillip seymour hoffman, and barry pepper and is directed by spike lee. the reason why i bring this up, is because of the connection it has to 9/11.

the movie is about monty (norton) who has one last day of freedom before he goes to prison for dealing drugs. his prison sentance is 7 years. the movie though is more of a eulogy, not only for norton's character, but for new york city. the movie opens up with images from the towers of lights, the temporary memorial created for ground zero. while norton's character is lamenting his fate, you not only feel for him, but you really feel for new york. throughout the movie, there are numerous nods to 9/11, including a scene in pepper's apartment that looks over ground zero. he and hoffman are discussing how monty has no future.

the movie is more than norton's character: it is an ode to new york. spike lee obvious loves the city a great deal, and he shows it through this movie. everything has changed for monty. everything has changed for new york.

25th hour was such an underappreciated movie. it is one of the best movies i've ever seen, and deserves to be revisted. on the anniversary of 9/11, this is definitely the movie to see. here is the trailer:



this second clip is of the famous "fuck you" speach that monty gives. in this scene, monty is angry and vents his frustrations in a vicious, racist fuck you rant to everyone in new york. but in the end, he ultimately realizes his anger should be directed at himself. it's absolutely amazing. take a look (warning: foul language and spoiler alert. scene has some spoilers, but it shouldn't ruin the movie experience for you. just don't watch if you want to stay completely spoiler-free):

necessity: stability over democracy in afghanistan

maclean's magazine is reporting that jack layton, leader of the ndp, is casting the war on terror as bush's pet project, and that there are more pressing threats, like aids and poverty and climate change that kill more people than terrorism. and it looks like his calls for a pullout of canadian troops is starting to take hold with his party, as 1,500 delegates meet at an ndp convention today to vote on foreign-policy positions, giving layton overwhelming support for his plan. layton is getting an early jump on the anti-war vote, becoming the first major party leader to try to capitalize on it.

i do agree that there may have been too much emphasis on the war on terror, that it is not the be-all, end-all of western civilization that the bush administration likes to portray it as, but what is really interesting is a special invitation to the convention that was extended to an afghan parliamentarian, malalai joya, who says that canadian troops are fighting to sustain a government full of murderers, rapists and warlords. she claims they are "like brothers of the taliban and this is the main reason why security situation in afghanistan is getting worse and worse." ultimately though, joya doesn't want a complete pull out; instead, she wants the canadian troops to stay in southern afghanistan, but she wants them to take on members of the current government in addition to the taliban.

this part is very intruiging, because there are parallels to what happened in iraq. in iraq, there was such an attempt at making sure that no remnants of the old baathist regime remained in the iraq army or other positions of power, that this resulted in a complete devastation of the former power structures. the de-baathifying was a mistake, admitted even by prime minister tony blair. it left a huge hole, one that soldiers just cannot plug. history has shown that soldiers are good at only one thing: war. if you have a target you want elimited, you send the soldiers in. they are not good at policing and they are not good at riot control. in iraq, there was such an overemphasis on democracy, that real stability was lost early on. it's like putting the cart before the horse.

we have to avoid the same type of mistake in afghanistan. to put democracy over stability, is a dangerous thing to do, because democracies, especially ones that are "non-organic" and seen as being "imposed" through puppets like the current karzai government are volatile at best. even in the most ideal of situations, democracies are fragile and need some sort of stability more than anything. after all, you can't build a home without at least some sort of foundation.

now, i'm not saying that we should prop up a despotic regime or anything, because i want democracy to flourish in afghanistan as much as the next person, but the suggestion that canadian troops have to be policing members of the karzai government as well as the taliban, is too much. before anything can really happen, before any stable rebuilding, the taliban have to be put down first, or to the point where they become manageable, and the situation is far from that right now. already, there are calls by nato for more troops, revealing the taliban to be more than a handful for the allies.

we have to be careful not to overreach. i know there is a temptation to want to do everything you possibly can as quickly as you can, and it's a good desire, but to realistically do such a thing may in the long run be more harmful and may prolong the engagement unnecessarily. without sacrificing too much forward thinking, we need to take a look at what is absolutely necessary right now, this very minute. so let's worry about the guys shooting at our troops first, because regardless of what the bush administration may have thought back in 2002, the battle - the war - for afghanistan is far from over.

(source 1) (source 2) (source 3) (source 4)

george bush: i wonder what he's thinking?

here's an article from the new york times regarding the senate committee's reports that were released today about the bush administration and iraqi intelligence, and how there was no link between saddam and al qaeda:

Senate Panel Releases Report on Iraq Intelligence

By Mark Mazzetti

Published: September 8, 2006

WASHINGTON, Sept. 8 — The Central Intelligence Agency last fall repudiated the idea that there were pre-war ties between Saddam Hussein’s government and the Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab Al Zarqawi, according to a report issued on Friday by the Senate intelligence committee.

The disclosure undercuts continuing claims by the Bush administration that such ties existed, and that they provided evidence of links between Iraq and Al Qaeda. The Republican-controlled committee also sharply criticized the administration for its reliance on the Iraqi National Congress during the run-up to the war in Iraq.

The findings, in two new reports, are part of an ongoing inquiry by the Senate committee into pre-war intelligence about Iraq. The conclusions went beyond the committee’s earlier findings, issued in the summer of 2004, by including criticism not just of American intelligence agencies but also the administration.

The reports did not address the politically divisive question of whether Bush administration had exaggerated or misused intelligence in its effort to win support for the invasion of Iraq. But they did serve to undercut the administration’s assertions, made before the war and since, that ties between Mr. Zarqawi and Mr. Hussein’s government provided evidence of a close relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

As recently as two weeks ago, President Bush said at a news conference that Mr. Hussein “had relations with Zarqawi.’’ But a C.I.A. report completed in October 2005 t concluded instead that Sadddam Hussein’s regime “did not have a relationship, harbor, or even turn a blind eye toward Mr. Zarqawi and his associates,” according to the new Senate findings.

The C.I.A. report also directly contradicted claims made in February 2003 by Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, who mentioned Mr. Zarqawi by name no fewer than 20 times during a speech to the United Nations Security Council that made the administration’s case to go to war. In that speech, Mr. Powell said that Iraq “today harbors a deadly terrorist network’’ headed by Mr. Zarqawi, and dismissed as “not credible’’ assertions by the Iraqi government that it had no knowledge of Mr. Zarqawi’s whereabouts.

In fact, the Senate investigation concluded that Mr. Hussein regarded Al Qaeda as a threat rather as a potential ally, and that the Iraqi intelligence service “actively attempted to locate and capture al-Zarqawi without success.’’

The report by the committee specifically criticized a decision by the National Security Council in 2002 to maintain a close relationship with the Iraqi National Congress, headed by the exile leader Ahmed Chalabi, even after the C.I.A. and the Defence Intelligence Agency had warned that “the I.N.C was penetrated by hostile intelligence services,” notably Iran.

The report concluded that the I.N.C. had provided a large volume of flawed intelligence to the United States about Iraq, and concluded that the group “attempted to influence United States policy on Iraq by providing false information through defectors directed at convincing the United States that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction and links to terrorists.”

The findings and their release came at an inopportune time for the Bush Administration, which has spent the week trying to turn voters’ attention away from the missteps on Iraq and toward the more comfortable political territory of the continued terrorist threat to the United States.

On Friday, White House spokesman Tony Snow downplayed the significance of the reports, saying that they contained “nothing new” and was “re-litigating things that happened three years ago.”

“The important thing to do is to figure out what you’re doing tomorrow, and the day after, and the month after, and the year after to make sure that this war on terror is won,” Mr. Snow said.

The reports released are expected to be the least controversial aspects of what remains of the Senate committee’s investigation, whose incomplete tasks include addressing the question of whether the Bush administration’s assertions about Iraq accurately reflected the available intelligence.

But their completion had been delayed by months, and their release in the midst of a White House campaign that emphasized terrorism appeared to have occurred by coincidence.

The reports were actually approved by the committee in August, but went through a month-long declassification process. It was Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas, the committee’s Republican chairman, who set early September as the release date for the reports.

The committee’s initial report in 2004, which lambasted intelligence agencies for vastly overestimating the state of Iraq’s nuclear, biological and chemical weapons program, was issued with unanimous support. The reports released on Friday provided evidence of how much the relationship between Republicans and Democrats on the committee has degenerated over the past two years. A set of conclusions that included criticism of the administration’s ties with the Iraqi National Congress was opposed by several Republicans on the panel, including Mr. Roberts, but was approved with the support of two Republicans, Senators Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Olympia Snowe of Maine, along with all seven Democrats.

Senator Roberts even took the unusual step of disavowing the conclusions about the role played by the I.N.C., saying that they were “misleading and are not supported by the facts.”

The report about the I.N.C. ‘s role concluded that faulty intelligence from the group made its way into several pre-war intelligence reports, including the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate that directly preceded the Senate vote on the Iraq war. It says that sources introduced to American intelligence by the group directly influenced two key judgments of that document: that Mr. Hussein possessed mobile biological weapons laboratories and was trying to re-constitute his nuclear program.

The report said there was insufficient evidence to determine whether one of the most notorious of the intelligence sources used by the United States in the run-up to the Iraq war was tied to the Iraqi National Congress. The source, an Iraqi national code-named Curveball, was a key source for the American view that Mr. Hussien had a mobile biological weapons program, but the information that he provided was later entirely discredited.

But the report said other mistaken information about Iraq’s biological program had been provided by a source linked to the Iraqi National Congress, and it said the intelligence agencies’ use of the information had “constituted a serious error.’’

The dissenting opinion, signed by Mr. Roberts and four other Republican members of the committee, minimizes the role played by the Mr. Chalabi’s group. “Information from the I.N.C. and I.N.C.-affiliated defectors was not widely used in Intelligence Community products and played little role in the Intelligence Community’s judgments about Iraq’s W.M.D. programs,” the Republicans said.

Francis Brooke, an I.N.C. spokesman, called the report “tendentious, partisan, and misleading,” and agreed with the Republican dissent that the I.N.C. did not play a central role as the Bush Administration built the case for war.

At the same time, Mr. Brooke said his organization was surprised at how little the American government actually knew about Saddam Hussein’s regime before the Iraq war, which may have forced the American officials to rely more heavily on the I.N.C.

“We did not realize the paucity of human intelligence that the administration had on Iraq,” Mr. Brooke said.

the pope vs canada

pope benedict has criticized canada for allowing same-sex marriage and abortion, saying that such laws are a result of "the exclusion of god from the public sphere."

i guess i'm a terrible person to comment on this because i'm an athiest (if i have to label myself). but personally, i like tolerance. i like freedom of choice. i like that women are able to have control over their bodies, especially in the cases of rape and incest. and i guess i've always seen marriage as a man-made institution, and not a religious one. and because i see it as such, i see marriage as something that can be changed, adapted, redefined, like any man-made institution. and i think ultimately it is up to the men and women involved in marriage to make it work, not god. god probably has better things to do.

the way i see it is, i'm not going to get cancer if two men decide to marry each other, so what do i care? i am convinced that homosexuality has been around since humans were in caves. somewhere, somehow, some caveman was fantasizing about his caveman hunting buddy. homosexuality is not something that can be fixed, it's just one aspect of human nature.

and this is what prime minister stephen harper thinks: has said he would revisit the issue and that members of parliament would be asked this fall whether they wish to reopen the debate.

that's fine, of course, debate is great. however, i have a feeling that with regards to the definition of marriage that is enshrined in the constitution, it will be very hard for opponents of gay marriage to get any definition of marriage that excludes same-sex couples. and i know that people say that the courts should not be making the laws, which they aren't; they are just doing what they're supposed to do, which is interpreting law, and they decided that the previous definition of marriage between a man and a woman was unconstitutional. any law that isn't constitutional or fair, or denies a person what is considered one of their rights, will probably be struck down. it should be struck down.

yes, the people are to decide what is law, but there is a thing called mob mentality. and frankly, most people are idiots. if the majority were to dictate what is right and what isn't, then there'd still be slaves, there wouldn't be equality of the sexes (actually, there probably still isn't true equality), etc. gay marriage is ultimately a civil rights issue.

pope benedict laments the exclusion of god from the public sphere. honestly, take a look at what is going on in the middle east and the rest of the world. i know that a lot of the religious extremists tend to pervert religion to their own needs, but i think more religion is the last thing this world needs. how about some logic, some reality, some sane discussion and less religious zeal?

bottom line with same sex marriage, is that the government is there to protect everyone, not just the heterosexual wasps. as jean chretien said in 2003 regarding any sort of referendum on same sex marriage:

"to have a referendum to decide on the fate of the minority, it's a problem. It's why we have constitutions - to protect the rights of the minority. It's why we have the charter of rights. so if it is always the majority vote by referendum, who will defend the minorities?"

i think that sums it up. it's definitely a better quote than his famous response regarding the pepper spraying of apec protesters in vancouver: "for me, pepper, i put it on my plate."

as for abortion, i find it interesting that a lot of the people who proclaim that abortion is murder and that all life is precious, particularly in the united states, have no problems with the iraq war, a war jumpstarted on lies and pretense. i guess all life is precious, so long as that life is christian.

(source 1) (source 2) (source 3)

lost and found: bin laden's vacation tapes

al-jazeera has just aired a video tape of osama bin laden preparing with two of the 9/11 hijackers, which includes scenes of men handling weapons and box cutters, and training to overpower others physically. the two hijackers had also videotaped their wills, with one of the men saying, "don't be afraid, he says, if you're going to glory."

the following is a quick report that msnbc did on the videotape:



(source)

good timing: keith olberman

the following two videos are regarding the bush administration's amazing timing when it comes to damage control. the first video is a quick discussion about bush's admission that the secret prison camps for terrorists did exist, and the convenient release of the new, or old - however you see it - tape of osama bin laden having a sort of training session with some of the 9/11 hijackers.



this second video is from a year ago, with keith olbermann and the folks at countdown debunking bush's fear tactics in "the nexus of politics and terror.' this is a bit long, but detailed video clip, which makes you go "hmmm..." basic premise: if something happens that presents the government in a negative light, the administration uses fear to regain control of the media message. it was interesting a year ago, it's more interesting now.

say it ain't so.

these last few years have not been very good for prime minister tony blair. between iraq, the 'downing street memo' and upset within his own party, blair has taken his fair share of hits. and now it looks like he is being forced into premature retirement by rebel mps and the chancellor. blair, who was george w. bush's bff (that's best friends forever for those of you who don't read the gossip blogs) during the early iraq war years, has acknowledged that the political squabling and confusion over the last few days "has not been our finest hour, to be frank".

blair was like bert to bush's ernie. he was like damon to bush's affleck. he made bush look good just by standing next to him. bush would say something in his traditional caveman speak, and blair would repeat it in a more... understandable way. to me, blair also seemed like a superhero in training. i recall back during the whole kosovo campaign, if blair had his way, he'd have parachuted into kosovo and had fisticuffs with slobodan milosevic. or, at least, he seemed to have the exhuberance of wanting to do good.

well, it's over for him. almost. in twelve months it will be. i think the only other political leader that had such a long farewell, was canadian prime minister jean chreitien who announced that he wouldn't seek a fourth mandate in august 2003, nearly a year and a half before he actually stepped down as prime minister of canada.

so long blair; your wonderous exhuberance will be missed. yeah, you made a lot of mistakes, and yeah, you did some shifty stuff, but unlike george w. bush, i think... i felt, that at most times, your heart was in the right place.

read on for the guardian unlimited article.

In public, apologies and harmony. In private, a deal.

Possible February announcement, quit in May and new PM in place by June

Patrick Wintour
Friday September 8, 2006
The Guardian

A sullen and potentially unstable truce was struck yesterday between Tony Blair and Gordon Brown after the prime minister reluctantly bowed to the demands of the chancellor and rebel MPs by promising to step down within 12 months.

Though neither man elaborated on the timetable for his departure and insisted no secret deal had been reached, it is understood that both sides will now accept Mr Blair announcing that he will step down in February. This would see Mr Blair leaving Downing Street in early May having achieved 10 years in office, but still giving enough time for his successor to make an impact before parliament goes into its long summer recess.

Until then, Mr Blair will still have to face opponents within the parliamentary party who claim it is untenable for him to try to lead Labour in May's Scottish and Welsh elections. But the prime minister would prefer to stay on until then, and will use a speech tomorrow to reveal what he wants to achieve in his final months.

The week's tumult at Westminster, which left Mr Blair accusing his chancellor of blackmail, appeared to subside yesterday when the two men broke their silence and gave conciliatory statements.

Mr Blair apologised for the last few days, admitting the bitter infighting "has not been our finest hour, to be frank".

In his brief statement, made during a visit to a London school, Mr Blair said: "I think what is important now is that we understand that it's the interests of the country that come first and we move on. I would have preferred to do this in my own way but it has been pretty obvious from what many of my cabinet colleagues have said earlier in the week.

"The next party conference in a couple of weeks will be my last party conference as party leader, the next TUC conference next week will be my last TUC - probably to the relief of both of us. But I am not going to set a precise date now. I don't think that's right. I will do that at a future date and I'll do it in the interests of the country and depending on the circumstances of the time."

He also had a message for his rebel MPs, saying: "It's the public that comes first and it's the country that matters, and we can't treat the public as irrelevant bystanders in a subject as important as who is their prime minister."

Hours before Mr Blair's effective surrender, Mr Brown started to bury the hatchet, saying: "When I met the prime minister yesterday, I said to him - as I've said on many occasions and I repeat today - it is for him to make the decision. This cannot and should not be about private arrangements but what is in the best interests of our party and, most of all, the best interests of our country."

Mr Brown's allies, who battled with Mr Blair for a specific departure date, described the prime minister's climbdown as a "welcome first step".

Welsh and Scottish MPs are now likely privately to agitate for him to be pushed out early next year.

A first public test of the Labour mood will come when Mr Blair speaks to the TUC on Tuesday after a three-day trip to the Middle East.

The Treasury insisted the issue of the precise departure date should be left to one side for some months, and dealt with internally in the party.

Mr Brown also distanced himself from some of his allies such as the former defence minister Doug Henderson who initially responded to Mr Blair's promise to leave within 12 months by saying it changed nothing, and insisting Mr Blair will have to be gone by the beginning of next year.

In the twilight of Mr Blair's premiership, the Treasury is now going to seek close cooperation with No 10 over policy, machinery of government and the party's organisation.

(source)

desperate presidents

george w. bush, leader of the free world, defender of democracy and human rights, acknowledges that secret cia prisons for terror suspects exist. these prisons started a month after 9/11 and exist in at least eight countries.

wow. first he admits iraq had nothing to do with the world trade center attack, and now he admits to the secret prisons. it's like bush was caught on video cheating on his wife or something, and now he's fessing up to everything. what's next, a blubbering apology? but baby! i love you baby, i promise i'll never do it again. i love you baby, know that! i love you! awww, who are we kidding? this administration will never apologize for anything.

on a side note, i've realized that it's not as much fun making jokes about the tired, mopey president. whatever happened to the texas ranger? where's the bravado? where are the wise cracks in the face of doom and gloom? where's that whole "either you're with us, or you are with the terrorists" come back? just hang in there, kitten; you only have two more years left.

here's the cbc article:

Bush acknowledges secret CIA prisons for terror suspects

cbc news

U.S. President George W. Bush has acknowledged for the first time that suspects in Washington's War on Terror were detained abroad in controversial secret CIA prisons.

The official admission on Wednesday confirmed rumours and media reports that have stirred controversy for months, both in the United States and in countries accused of hosting the facilities.

Bush defended the secret prisons, saying the detainees had provided vital information that prevented further attacks in the years after al-Qaeda militants killed about 3,000 people in the United States on Sept. 11, 2001.

"The most important source of information on where the terrorists are hiding and what they are planning is the terrorists themselves," Bush said in a White House speech.

"It has been necessary to move these individuals to an environment where they can be held in secret, questioned by experts and, when appropriate, prosecuted for terrorist acts."

Suspects allegedly included al-Qaeda's No. 3

The president said the suspects, who have all been transferred to the U.S. naval prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, include:

• Khalid Sheik Mohammed, believed to be the No. 3 al-Qaeda leader before he was captured in Pakistan in 2003.
• Ramzi Binalshibh, accused of training to be one of the Sept. 11 militants who hijacked four planes.
• Abu Zubaydah, who was believed to be a link between al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and many of the group's cells before he was captured in Pakistan in March 2002.

Detainees had 'unparalleled knowledge'

Media reports began surfacing in November 2005 that said the U.S. spy agency had been running had been running a covert prison system that has been run for nearly four years in at least eight countries, including several democracies in Eastern Europe as well as Thailand and Afghanistan. The secret detention system was said to have been conceived in the first months after the Sept. 11 attacks.

The reports ignited great controversy in many countries, with the European Union warning its members that such prisons would be viewed as violations of the European Convention on Human Rights and various EU treaties.

On Wednesday, Bush defended the covert system, saying the security of the United States depended on its ability to learn what suspected terrorists know.

He described the detainees as dangerous men with "unparalleled knowledge" of militant networks and plans for new attacks.

Bush said the Central Intelligence Agency employed "alternative" procedures to extract information from the suspects. The president insisted those techniques complied with U.S. laws, the constitution and international treaty obligations.

He refused to describe the methods of interrogation used by CIA agents, saying it would give terrorists a tool to learn how to resist such questioning.

Bush said the procedures were "tough and safe and lawful and necessary."

Prisons blocked 2nd Al-Qaeda attack: Bush

The president also alleged that without the secret prisons, al-Qaeda would have succeeded in launching another attack against the Americans.

Although he said he couldn't provide details, Bush said some of the alleged plots included attacks in the United States "probably using airplanes."

He said another plot involved attacks on buildings in his country.

The suspects also provided information on al-Qaeda's efforts to obtain biological weapons, he said.

Bush said he was acknowledging the program now because the CIA and military have finished questioning the suspects and are ready to prosecute them in military tribunals.