Sunday, March 9, 2008
The Monster: A Loyal Clinton Soldier Turns in His Badge
She has no idea how many times I defended her. How many right-leaning friends and relatives I battled with. How many times I played down her shady business deals and penchant for scandals -- whether it was Whitewater, Travelgate, Vince Foster, Cattle Futures, Web Hubbell, or Norman Hsu. She has no idea how frequently I dismissed her husband's serial adultery as an unfortunate trait of an otherwise brilliant man. For sixteen years, I was a proud soldier in the legion of "Clinton apologists" -- who believed that peace and prosperity were more important than regrettable personality traits.
And then she ran for president.
After seven years of George W. Bush, America is hungry for change. Big change. And let's face it -- Hillary Clinton, the party standard-bearer and former White House denizen -- isn't it. But even after voters coalesced around Barack Obama, handing him eleven straight primaries (twelve, if you count Vermont), she refused to accept the possibility -though math, money and momentum were clearly against her -- that the Bush/Clinton Family Band might not be #1 on America's Billboard chart anymore.
So, rather than step aside and become the hero of her party, she made a strategy decision to go negative in advance of Ohio and Texas. Not just negative -- personal. She cynically chided Mr. Obama's message of hope. She played the victim card. The gender card. The Muslim card. She cried "shame on you, Barack Obama" for his campaign tactics, while (if we're to believe Matt Drudge) simultaneously floating a picture of him in Somali garb to stir up questions of his patriotism.
She accused Mr. Obama of his own shady business deals (the irony of which nearly ripped a hole in the fabric of space/time). She accused him of being two-faced on NAFTA, when it was her campaign that had winked at the Canadians. She demanded that he "reject" the endorsement of Louis Farrakhan, but remained silent when Rush Limbaugh stirred up votes for her in Texas. And she crafted the now-infamous "3am" attack ad -- which used scare tactics to highlight Senator Obama's perceived lack of experience in foreign affairs. Straight out of the ol' Atwater/Rove playbook. Of course, all of this paled in comparison to her husband's patronizing, racially insensitive comments earlier in the primary season.
Was this the same Hillary Clinton whose husband ran on the idea that hope was more powerful than fear? The wife of a president who had less foreign policy experience than Barack Obama when he was elected? And exactly which crisis is she referring to when she claims to have more experience? And while we're at it, where the hell are those tax returns?
It's clear that Hillary's back in this thing, at least for the time being. But at what cost? Short of some cataclysmic event, there's no way either she or Mr. Obama can reach 2,025 delegates in the remaining contests. That means she's accepted the inevitability of a brokered convention. A convention she'll almost certainly enter with fewer delegates than her opponent. That raises some important questions:
Will she subvert the will of the voters? Will she turn Denver into a series of shady back-room deals and arm twisting? Will she dispatch her husband to pressure superdelegates into switching allegiances at the last minute? Are we in for, as one pundit put it, a good ol' fashioned "knife fight?"
And if she does manage to secure the nomination, what about the scores of disenfranchised Obama supporters (many of them young people with little loyalty to the Democratic Party)? How will she bring them back into the tent? Hillary seems confident that this can be remedied by offering Mr. Obama a spot on her ticket. Really? And what would his motivation be for accepting? Playing third-fiddle to Bill?
However, if Mr. Obama goes on to secure the nomination, she'll have handed his rival a treasure trove of sound bites. All John McCain has to do between August and November is play clips of Hillary questioning Obama's experience and belittling his platitudes. In a way, she'll have become Mr. McCain's second running mate.
She's proven that she cares more about "Hillary" than "unity." More about defeating Obama than defeating the Republicans. She's become a political suicide-bomber, happy to blow herself to bits -- as long as she takes everyone else with her.
On Friday, one of Barack Obama's foreign policy advisors, Samantha Power, resigned after calling Senator Clinton "a monster" during an off-the-record exchange. It was an unfortunate slip, but one that echoed the sentiments of many Clinton apologists like me -- who've watched Hillary's descent into pettiness and fear-mongering with the heartbreak of a child who grows up to realize that his beloved mother has been a terrible person all along.
Are the conservatives right about the Clintons? Will they do and say anything to get elected?
I don't know.
All I know is...I'm through apologizing.
Clinton's experience
Obama communications director Robert Gibbs emails reporters with a picture of Clinton and Sheryl Crow from a 1996 trip to Kosovo Bosnia, linking a series of recent articles including this Chicago Tribune piece making the point that Clinton wasn't a central player on foreign policy in her husband's administration.
Clinton's claim to the mantle of experience has always been complicated, though it's one voters, according to polls, accept. Obama has made sporadic attempts, starting in the fall in Iowa, to challenge it. This shot — complete with silly photo — seems to open a new front, as well as to signal the general atmosphere of ill will between the campaigns.
Clinton Got Money From Rezko Codefendants
The vetting of the Clinton's is just beginning. This was a risky strategy by the Clinton's in the first place, because the boomerang effect will expose much more of their shenanigans to the American people....
...Since the name of Chicago defendant Antoin 'Tony' Rezko has come up in national debate, it seems fair to look at donations from other defendants in Chicago's "Operation Board Games."
Of the other five defendants, three have donated to the Clintons or to Clinton supporters, three have donated mostly to Republicans, and at least two have donated to Obama's political opponents. None have donated to Obama.
Democrat grabs Hastert’s House seat
Former U.S. House Speaker Dennis Hastert speaks to lawmakers on the Illinois House of Representatives on Wednesday. He was being honored by Illinois lawmakers for his many years of legislative service.Foster has won 52 percent of the vote compared to 48 percent for Republican Jim Oberweis with 556 of 568 precincts reporting.
Foster's special election win means he will fill the remainder of Hastert's term until it ends next January.
The 66-year-old Hastert, who lost his powerful post as speaker when Democrats took control of Congress, resigned late last year. Foster will fill the remainder of Hastert's term, which ends in January.
Another election for the seat will be held in November for a new, full term. Oberweis is the GOP candidate. Foster won a close Democratic primary, although one challenger has initiated a recount.
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama made a TV ad praising Foster; Oberweis had fundraising help from the apparent Republican nominee, John McCain, and Hastert's backing.
The district will have a rookie congressmen after years of enjoying Hastert's clout. During his 21 years in Washington, Hastert funneled millions of dollars to the district that stretches from Chicago's far western suburbs to almost the Mississippi River.
Hastert's is one of three open seats in Illinois this year because of GOP retirements.
Reps. Jerry Weller, who represents a district from the suburban sprawl south of Chicago to the farmland of central Illinois, and Ray LaHood of Peoria are also stepping down. Democrats' chances to pick up one of those seats improved when the Republican nominee to replace Weller dropped out of the race.
Besides poking at each other with negative TV ads, Foster and Oberweis clashed on issues from immigration and health care to the Iraq war.
During a recent TV appearance, Foster said he would be a "good vote in Congress to change President Bush's policy" on Iraq. Oberweis contended the troop surge there was working, saying: "Things are getting better in Iraq."
Oberweis also blasted Foster for being a proponent of big government because Foster says he wants to move toward universal health care. Foster claimed Oberweis' approach — he favors tax incentives to help people buy their own insurance — only works for people who are "healthy and wealthy."
Original here
Consensus is building FAST ---> Train Hillary has jumped the tracks.
Hillary got such a bump from Ohio that even I took a second look at her: I said, "Man, that woman is a fighter."
Then she encouraged Americans to elect Republican McCain over our Democratic front runner. Her remark was carefully calculated, and she repeated it four times in four venues.
"I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the White House. I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience that he will bring to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002."Here's video of all four repetitions so you can get the feel of this for yourself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMVOT-IH8sg
Many of her most ardent supporters are shocked, and momentarily paralyzed as the enormity of what their candidate has done sinks in. Her tone of disparagement, "...Obama has a speech...", by itself was enough to make the entire Democratic Party blanch. Did her "experience" teach her to behave this way? Certainly she has experience enough to have known that she was crossing the line.
Over the past two days many leading progressive commentators have moved off of the neutrality they've tried to maintain to date: Kieth Olberman, Arianna Huffington, Richard Wolf and Dana Millbank, Randi Rhodes, Ed Schultz, Rachael Maddow, Thom Hartmann, Stephanie Miller have all spoken out on this. Gary Hart wrote a article for the Huffington Post entitled "Breaking the Final Rule": http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-hart/breaking-the-final-rule_b_90420.html Hart's piece was reposted on the very high-traffic DemocraticUnderground forum, a bastion of Clinton supporters, where it recieved more views, comments, and recommendations than any post I've ever seen there. It appears that Hillary has far fewer defenders than she did even just a few hours ago.
Hillary's catastrophic misstep here exemplifies Obama's argument that good judgment matters more than experience.
I know who I want to answer that 3am phone call.
Original here
Hillary Clinton, Fratricidal Maniac
"CBS News RAW": After wins in Ohio and Texas, Hillary Clinton discussed the upcoming election saying Barack Obama can only bring an outdated speech in an election against John McCain. | Share/EmbedThe morning after Tuesday's primaries, Hillary Clinton's campaign released a memo titled "The Path to the Presidency." I eagerly dug into the paper, figuring it would explain how Clinton would obtain the Democratic nomination despite an enormous deficit in delegates. Instead, the memo offered a series of arguments as to why Clinton should run against John McCain - i.e., "Hillary is seen as the one who can get the job done" - but nothing about how she actually could. Is she planning a third-party run? Does she think Obama is going to die? The memo does not say.
The reason it doesn't say is that Clinton's path to the nomination is pretty repulsive. She isn't going to win at the polls. Barack Obama has a lead of 144 pledged delegates. That may not sound like a lot in a 4,000-delegate race, but it is. Clinton's Ohio win reduced that total by only nine. She would need 15 more Ohios to pull even with Obama. She isn't going to do much to dent, let alone eliminate, his lead.
That means, as we all have grown tired of hearing, that she would need to win with superdelegates. But, with most superdelegates already committed, Clinton would need to capture the remaining ones by a margin of better than two to one. And superdelegates are going to be extremely reluctant to overturn an elected delegate lead the size of Obama's. The only way to lessen that reluctance would be to destroy Obama's general election viability, so that superdelegates had no choice but to hand the nomination to her. Hence her flurry of attacks, her oddly qualified response as to whether Obama is a Muslim ("not as far as I know"), her repeated suggestions that John McCain is more qualified.
Clinton's justification for this strategy is that she needs to toughen up Obama for the general election-if he can't handle her attacks, he'll never stand up to the vast right-wing conspiracy. Without her hazing, warns the Clinton memo, "Democrats may have a nominee who will be a lightening rod of controversy." So Clinton's offensive against the likely nominee is really an act of selflessness. And here I was thinking she was maniacally pursuing her slim thread of a chance, not caring - or possibly even hoping, with an eye toward 2012 - that she would destroy Obama's chances of defeating McCain in the process. I feel ashamed for having suspected her motives.
Still, there are a few flaws in Clinton's trial-by-smear method. The first is that her attacks on Obama are not a fair proxy for what he'd endure in the general election, because attacks are harder to refute when they come from within one's own party. Indeed, Clinton is saying almost exactly the same things about Obama that McCain is: He's inexperienced, lacking in substance, unequipped to handle foreign policy. As The Washington Monthly's Christina Larson has pointed out, in recent weeks the nightly newscasts have consisted of Clinton attacking Obama, McCain attacking Obama, and then Obama trying to defend himself and still get out his own message. If Obama's the nominee, he won't have a high-profile Democrat validating McCain's message every day.
Second, Obama can't "test" Clinton the way she can test him. While she likes to claim that she beat the Republican attack machine, it's more accurate to say that she survived with heavy damage. Clinton is a wildly polarizing figure, with disapproval ratings at or near 50 percent. But, because she earned the intense loyalty of core Democratic partisans, Obama has to tread gingerly around her vulnerabilities. There is a big bundle of ethical issues from the 1990s that Obama has not raised because he can't associate himself with what partisan Democrats (but not Republicans or swing voters) regard as a pure GOP witch hunt.
What's more, Clinton has benefited from a favorable gender dynamic that won't exist in the fall. (In the Democratic primary, female voters have outnumbered males by nearly three to two.) Clinton's claim to being a tough, tested potential commander-in-chief has gone almost unchallenged. Obama could reply that being First Lady doesn't qualify you to serve as commander-in-chief, but he won't quite say that, because feminists are an important chunk of the Democratic electorate. John McCain wouldn't be so reluctant.
Third, negative campaigning is a negative-sum activity. Both the attacker and the attackee tend to see their popularity drop. Usually, the victim's popularity drops farther than the perpetrator's, which is why negative campaigning works. But it doesn't work so well in primaries, where the winner has to go on to another election.
Clinton's path to the nomination, then, involves the following steps: kneecap an eloquent, inspiring, reform-minded young leader who happens to be the first serious African American presidential candidate (meanwhile cementing her own reputation for Nixonian ruthlessness) and then win a contested convention by persuading party elites to override the results at the polls. The plan may also involve trying to seat the Michigan and Florida delegations, after having explicitly agreed that the results would not count toward delegate totals. Oh, and her campaign has periodically hinted that some of Obama's elected delegates might break off and support her. I don't think she'd be in a position to defeat Hitler's dog in November, let alone a popular war hero.
Some Clinton supporters, like my friend (and historian) David Greenberg, have been assuring us that lengthy primary fights go on all the time and that the winner doesn't necessarily suffer a mortal wound in the process. But Clinton's kamikaze mission is likely to be unusually damaging. Not only is the opportunity cost - to wrap up the nomination, and spend John McCain into the ground for four months - uniquely high, but the venue could not be less convenient. Pennsylvania is a swing state that Democrats will almost certainly need to win in November, and Clinton will spend seven weeks and millions of dollars there making the case that Obama is unfit to set foot in the White House. You couldn't create a more damaging scenario if you tried.
Imagine in 2000, or 2004, that George W. Bush faced a primary fight that came down to Florida (his November must-win state). Imagine his opponent decided to spend seven weeks pounding home the theme that Bush had a dangerous plan to privatize Social Security. Would this have improved Bush's chances of defeating the Democrats? Would his party have stood for it?
Original here
Real Time: New Rule - Stop Saying Americans Are “Smarter Than That”
Bill Maher breaks out his new rules on Friday’s Real Time and his final rule deals with politicians who say that Americans are smart enough to see through spin and lies. Maher speaks the truth - it’s amazing that during the information age, it’s still so difficult to get factual information to the public. The facts are that Barack Obama isn’t a Muslim, Saddam Hussein wasn’t involved in the 9/11 attacks and global warming is real — yet somehow, to some, they still remain theories.
Maher:”New rule, politicians must stop saying “the American people are smarter than that.” No they aren’t! If the Bush era has taught us anything, it’s that voters want a president carved in their own image. Someone who doesn’t like to read or believe anything he’s told and is easily distracted by bright, shiny objects.”
‘We’ll Have to Talk’
In spite of escalating violence, a growing chorus of Israelis have begun calling for negotiations with Hamas.
Violence and Loss: Bullet holes scar a glass door at the Mercaz Harav yeshiva and the Gaza village of Al-Karara
When paramedic Yerach Tucker arrived at the Mercaz Harav yeshiva in Jerusalem last Thursday night, gunshots were still cracking through the halls. As he inched closer to the front door, a stream of young men frantically poured out of the Jewish seminary, their shirts stained with blood. Tucker ducked behind a bus, waited for the shooting to stop, and then crept with his team through the front gates. Inside the school's library, he found students lying slumped at their desks, heads collapsed over their books. "You couldn't see the floor," Tucker recalled. "It was covered in red." Outside, news filtered through the growing crowd that militants in Gaza had celebrated the shooting with their own bursts of gunfire. "We bless the operation," Hamas said in a statement. "It will not be the last." Tucker looked on as an angry mob of ultra-Orthodox men broke into a roar and began to shout, "Death to the Arabs!"
With eight students dead and nine more wounded, the attack was Jerusalem's worst in four years. Tucker, like most Israelis, says he hopes his military will hit back hard--even if it's not clear whether the gunman, an Arab from East Jerusalem, was working on his own. Yet when it comes to longer-term policy toward the Islamists, the paramedic just sighs. "Hamas controls everything in Gaza--we can never finish them off," he says. "They run the place. I don't want to talk to terrorists, but what can you do? Eventually we'll have to talk to them." In the United States, the notion of face-to-face talks with Hamas, which the State Department classifies as a terrorist organization, has long been a political third rail. Yet in the Jewish state a growing chorus of security officials, academics and regular Israelis like Tucker have begun calling for negotiations with the Islamists. In a Haaretz-Dialog poll last month, 64 percent of Israelis said they supported direct talks; among those who belong to the country's dovish Labor Party, 72 percent favor negotiations. Yet even among those surveyed from the hawkish Likud Party, almost half--48 percent--said they favor a face-to-face dialogue. Already in recent weeks, even as the two sides have traded some of the most ferocious bombardments in months, a number of nongovernmental channels have opened between Israelis and the Islamists.
The numbers are a reflection of the Israeli public's growing frustration at what they see as a failing Gaza policy. Since the Islamists won power in parliamentary elections two years ago, Israel and the United States have enforced a punishing embargo on the coastal strip, hoping support for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and his moderate West Bank allies could help turn public opinion against Hamas. Yet the Islamists have survived and learned to effectively play the spoiler, sabotaging Abbas's peace talks with a few well-placed attacks. Israeli military raids into Gaza have similarly backfired. After Israeli troops killed more than 50 Palestinian civilians in Gaza operations last week, international public opinion turned sharply critical. "Hamas is not going to disappear," says Shlomo Brom, a former Israeli military chief of strategic planning. "They're not Al Qaeda; they're a national political movement." Brom, who favors indirect negotiations with Hamas, says he believes a dialogue could help moderate the Islamists. Damascus-based Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal told NEWSWEEK last year that his organization would also be open to direct talks, as long as there are no preconditions.
Yet the fragility of Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's governing coalition makes any high-profile contacts unlikely. Yaron Ezrahi, a political scientist at Jerusalem's Hebrew University who supports direct negotiations, says that there's "a huge gap" between current Israeli policymakers and public opinion on the issue. Part of the problem is that Olmert, whose approval ratings are hovering in the single digits, depends on the support of right-wing parties like the Sephardic Orthodox Shas bloc to stay in power.
Rather than direct talks, the government has quietly blessed Egyptian efforts to arrange a ceasefire between the two sides. Abbas, too, is conflicted. He has refused to discuss a unity deal with Hamas, arguing that the Islamists took over Gaza illegally last June and must submit to his authority first. Any deal that excludes his Palestinian Authority may weaken Abbas's standing among Palestinians, and his ability to continue longterm peace talks with the Israelis.
Even if Israel did choose to hold direct talks, there are a number of practical obstacles. The Hamas takeover of Gaza last June has sharply divided the Islamists, fracturing the organization into a number of independent power bases. "When you talk to Hamas you don't have one address," says a former Israeli intelligence operative who has held direct talks with the Islamists in the past, and requested anonymity before describing the sensitive talks. "You have to deal with several figures in order to achieve approval for anything."
Israel has long held quiet, behind-the-scenes talks with key Hamas figures. The Jewish state still provides the vast majority of the West Bank's electricity; after Hamas began winning local elections three years ago, Israeli officials sometimes had no choice but to talk with Islamic municipal officials over practical issues like utilities. Mohammad Ghayyada, the Hamas-affiliated mayor of the West Bank town of Nahalin, says that just last month he traveled to Israel to meet with electric-company officials after a blackout darkened his town. Israeli intelligence agencies have also long held talks with Hamas leaders in Israeli jails; since the Islamists seized power in Gaza last year, Israel has arrested more than 2,000 Hamas activists in the West Bank, according to the organization's spokesman, Yazid Khader. Last summer, Ofer Dekel, a former officer in the Shin Bet intelligence agency responsible for the hunt for captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, traveled to Israel's Haderim prison to meet with a group of jailed senior Hamas officials.
Still, Shalit's case highlights the difficulties of any such talks. After indirect negotiations through Egyptian intelligence chief Omar Suleiman went nowhere, Shalit's father, Noam, spoke several times by phone about the case with Gaza-based Hamas leader Ghazi Hamad. Those conversations have since stopped, but several months ago the senior Shalit retained a team of French lawyers to reach out to Hamas. One of them, Emmanuel Altit, told NEWSWEEK that he has made contact by phone with a number of Hamas factions in Gaza, including the hard-liners, and is trying to travel to Gaza to hold face-to-face talks. (The Israeli government, so far, has refused to issue Altit a permit.) "I really don't care much about the politics," says Noam Shalit. "My only interest is to resolve the issue of my son and bring him home. From my point of view, direct negotiations are the most effective. The two parties need to sit together. Hamas controls Gaza whether we like it or not."With Joanna Chen in Jerusalem
Original here
Winter Soldier: Iraq & Afghanistan
In 1776, Thomas Paine wrote: “These are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman.”
In 1971, a courageous group of veterans exposed the criminal nature of the Vietnam War in an event called Winter Soldier. Once again, we will demand that the voices of veterans are heard.
Once again, we are fighting for the soul of our country. We will demonstrate our patriotism by speaking out with honor and integrity instead of blindly following failed policy. Winter Soldier is a difficult but essential service to our country.
Winter Soldier: Iraq and Afghanistan will feature testimony from U.S. veterans who served in those occupations, giving an accurate account of what is really happening day in and day out, on the ground.
The four-day event will bring together veterans from across the country to testify about their experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan - and present video and photographic evidence. In addition, there will be panels of scholars, veterans, journalists, and other specialists to give context to the testimony. These panels will cover everything from the history of the GI resistance movement to the fight for veterans' health benefits and support.
When: Thursday March 13 to Sunday March 16
Attendance at Winter Soldier: Iraq & Afghanistan is not open to the general public because of limited space at the event site. Members of Iraq Veterans Against the War, Vietnam Veterans Against the War, Military Families Speak Out, and Gold Star Families Speak Out will attend the panels at Winter Soldier.
To bring the testimonies to the general public and GIs all over the world we have made it possible to watch the live broadcasts online and on television, and to listen online and the radio. You can find out more about how to watch or listen here. To find a local Winter Soldier screening event or to submit a screening event go to our events map.
The event will be covered by various media outlets. To find out more about how registering as a journalist go to our media page or email media@ivaw.org.
Want to help make Winter Soldier a success? Find how how you can help.
FOXNews’ List Of Thwarted U.S. Terror Plots: Long On Hype, Short On Details
The following is a list of known terror plots thwarted by the U.S. government since Sept. 11, 2001.
• December 2001, Richard Reid: British citizen attempted to ignite shoe bomb on flight from Paris to Miami.
• May 2002, Jose Padilla: American citizen accused of seeking “dirty bomb,” convicted of conspiracy.
• September 2002, Lackawanna Six: American citizens of Yemeni origin convicted of supporting Al Qaeda. Five of six were from Lackawanna, N.Y.
• May 2003, Iyman Faris: American citizen charged with trying to topple the Brooklyn Bridge.
• June 2003, Virginia Jihad Network: Eleven men from Alexandria, Va., trained for jihad against American soldiers, convicted of violating the Neutrality Act, conspiracy.
• August 2004, Dhiren Barot: Indian-born leader of terror cell plotted bombings on financial centers (see additional images). Read on…
The blog where I found this list brings up some good points. How many of these were actual, valid terror threats and what price did the American people pay to feel protected? We know our government will try to scare the pants off of us at every opportunity, they don’t even need credible evidence to do it. I don’t like to link to FOXNews’ website, but I did just in case someone thought I was making this up or it was a joke. For those of you who don’t want to give them the hits, I’ve posted the entire list below the fold. As always, I’m sure the C&L faithful with will have this fact-checked in no time. Sincerely, Logan Hussein Murphy
The following is a list of known terror plots thwarted by the U.S. government since Sept. 11, 2001.
• December 2001, Richard Reid: British citizen attempted to ignite shoe bomb on flight from Paris to Miami.
• May 2002, Jose Padilla: American citizen accused of seeking “dirty bomb,” convicted of conspiracy.
• September 2002, Lackawanna Six: American citizens of Yemeni origin convicted of supporting Al Qaeda. Five of six were from Lackawanna, N.Y.
• May 2003, Iyman Faris: American citizen charged with trying to topple the Brooklyn Bridge.
• June 2003, Virginia Jihad Network: Eleven men from Alexandria, Va., trained for jihad against American soldiers, convicted of violating the Neutrality Act, conspiracy.
• August 2004, Dhiren Barot: Indian-born leader of terror cell plotted bombings on financial centers (see additional images).
• August 2004, James Elshafay and Shahawar Matin Siraj: Sought to plant bomb at New York’s Penn Station during the Republican National Convention.
• August 2004, Yassin Aref and Mohammed Hossain: Plotted to assassinate a Pakistani diplomat on American soil.
• June 2005, Father and son Umer Hayat and Hamid Hayat: Son convicted of attending terrorist training camp in Pakistan; father convicted of customs violation.
• August 2005, Kevin James, Levar Haley Washington, Gregory Vernon Patterson and Hammad Riaz Samana: Los Angeles homegrown terrorists who plotted to attack National Guard, LAX, two synagogues and Israeli consulate.
• December 2005, Michael Reynolds: Plotted to blow up refinery in Wyoming, convicted of providing material support to terrorists.
• February 2006, Mohammad Zaki Amawi, Marwan Othman El-Hindi and Zand Wassim Mazloum: Accused of providing material support to terrorists, making bombs for use in Iraq.
• April 2006, Syed Haris Ahmed and Ehsanul Islam Sadequee: Cased and videotaped the Capitol and World Bank for a terrorist organization.
• June 2006, Narseal Batiste, Patrick Abraham, Stanley Grant Phanor, Naudimar Herrera, Burson Augustin, Lyglenson Lemorin, and Rotschild Augstine: Accused of plotting to blow up the Sears Tower.
• July 2006, Assem Hammoud: Accused of plotting to hit New York City train tunnels.
• August 2006, Liquid Explosives Plot: Thwarted plot to explode ten airliners over the United States.
• May 2007, Fort Dix Plot: Six men accused of plotting to attack Fort Dix Army base in New Jersey.
• June 2007, JFK Plot: Four men accused of plotting to blow up fuel arteries underneath JFK Airport in New York.
• March 2007, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed: Mastermind of Sept. 11 and author of numerous plots confessed in court in March 2007 to planning to destroy skyscrapers in New York, Los Angeles and Chicago.
Posts
