I'm wondering when are we going to acknowledge the obvious? We now live under a democratically elected dictator. The President can do anything he wants, our laws no longer apply to him. Granted we've been lucky so far in both Bush and Obama have been benign dictators. They haven't engage in massive round up of citizens. But if another terrorist attack happens, who knows what will happen? Congress is to blame for allowing this to happen. Bush violated so many laws, yet Congress refused to impeach. Thank you Pelosi for taking impeachment off the table. Now Obama feels free to continue in Bush's footsteps. Obama knows the dem-controlled Congress won't ever impeach him. I suggest we change the name of the office. It should no longer be president, it should be supreme leader. It's be more accurate.

I just have to wonder what in the world they are teaching at Journalism schools. Is it just ask a gov't official and report whatever they say? Has fact-checking and seeking different opinions become irrelevant? My local rag, Greeley Tribune, has a question line for readers. Someone asked if our District Attorney was violating campaign finance laws by doing spots on a local radio station. The reporter called the DA and asked him if he was violating the law. DA said no. Case closed. So it's not just the national elite media that has adopted this form of journalism, it's everywhere. No wonder our country is in such sad shape.

I get really tired of hearing the argument that some detainees down at Gitmo are too dangerous to release. Well if we can't convict them of a crime, then they need to be released. That's what America has always stood, Justice. If you can't convict someone of a crime, you don't get to imprison them anyway. However that doesn't mean we can't keep tabs on them after we release them. If they try to commit a crime, we can arrest them again. But this time instead of torturing them, we might be able to get them to confess without coercion. That way their confessions can be used in a court of law.

Bernbart made the statement that McClatchy news service isn't known for good journalism. He is so right. McClathchy was the only news service not to swallow the Bush admin claims on WMD. They actually do what reporters are supposed to do, verify claims made by gov't officials instead of being stenographers. They clearly suck by the standards of what passes for journalism now a days. Bernbart just because you get proven wrong time and time again, doesn't mean you can disparage the quality reporting of McClatchy. Sorry if they don't print what you want to read, that's your problem. Go read the propaganda at the NYT of Washpo, it's more to your suiting.

I guess you missed all the news outlets around the world which released Osama's videos. Which came via middle east media by the way.

-- bernbart

You mean the video with Osama using his right hand to eat food, even though he's left handed? Did you hear Osama say it himself, or is that what the reporter said he was saying? So if Osama was involved in 9/11, why does his FBI most wanted poster not list that as one of his crimes? Why would FBI agents state we have no evidence linking Osama Bin Laden to 9/11? From project censored http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/16-no-hard-evidence-connecting-bin-laden-to-9-11/ (link at sig)

The fact is you don't know jack. I doubt you speak farsi or whatever langauge Osama speaks. So you rely on what you are told. Ever notice how when a new Osama tape is released, it's never played for us in America. We are just told what gov't agents claim Osama is saying. Yet it's played in other parts of the world. Why is that?

Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI responded, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Osama bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11.” Tomb continued, “Bin Laden has not been formally charged in connection to 9/11.” Asked to explain the process, Tomb responded, “The FBI gathers evidence. Once evidence is gathered, it is turned over to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice then decides whether it has enough evidence to present to a federal grand jury. In the case of the 1998 United States Embassies being bombed, bin Laden has been formally indicted and charged by a grand jury. He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11.”

from http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/16-no-hard-evidence-connecting-bin-laden-to-9-11/

I wasn't engaging in the 9/11 truth debate. I was responding to Bernbart claiming Londonlad was wrong about the FBI saying they have no evidence linking Osama to 9/11. That is the truth. The FBI has publicly stated, as both my link and Londonlads link proved, they have no hard evidence linking Osama to the 9/11 attacks. Bernbart was wrong and I was correcting him. As you would do if someone made a factual error. I never said anything about 9/11 being an inside job or any other conspiracy theory claim. I was merely correcting someone who was wrong.

For the record, I am not a 9/11 truther. I don't want anyone to get the wrong opinion of me. Thank you.

I read this story today in my local paper, Denver Post, and it was buried in the back of the paper. Face it folks, this isn't going to get much coverage. How convenient that IG report was released on Friday. Basically maximizing it's chances of being completely overlooked. Of course Congress isn't going to do anything about it. They aren't going to investigate. If they did, the Obama admin would fight them tooth and nail on it. That's transparency for ya. It's all so depressing.