Mike and I picked our topics tonight so be sure to check out his thoughts on the two items from Democracy Now! by visiting his site Mikey Likes It!
CIA Told Bush of No Iraq-Al Qaeda Links Ten Days After 9/11 (Democracy Now!)
A new article by investigative journalist Murray Waas in the National Journal says President Bush was notified ten days after the 9/11 attacks U.S. intelligence had no evidence linking Iraq to al Qaeda or the attacks. According to several current and former government officials, little evidence has emerged to contradict the assessment. One former high-level official said : "What the President was told on September 21 [2001], was consistent with everything he has been told since -- the evidence was just not there." The Bush administration has so far refused to release the briefing, not even as a redacted document. Administration officials subsequently ignored the intelligence assessments in favor of those that alleged Saddam Hussein had chemical weapons and ties to Al Qaeda. One of the key proponents of this theory was then-undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith. In the margin of one of Feith's reports, Vice President Dick Cheney wrote: "This is very good indeed ... Encouraging ... Not like the crap we are all so used to getting out of CIA."
Rebecca covered this in "bully boy lied, people died." Mike and I both felt she covered it and wondered what we could add?
What strikes me is that most people who are Common Ills members will think "no sh*t" and most on the left in general will as well. But there is a significant number of people who, despite being exposed to one lie after another,
Remember that moment in A Few Good Men when Jack Nicholson explodes and start screaming, "You can't handle the truth!" I'm wondering how many of those who refuse to face the truth about the Bully Boy can't handle it?
If that's the case, I think some are predisposed to block the truth and they will never be reached. They deal by suppressing. But what of the others?
I think a lot of people bought the propaganda that the mainstream media fed us: Bully Boy's a great leader, Bully Boy's brave, Bully Boy's selected by God.
Now the mainstream media defenders would say, "That was never presented as fact!"
But it was repeated repeatedly. Tim Russert asking Laura Bush if she felt God had picked Bully Boy. A right-winger on the show weighing in that yes, God had.
This nonsense was told and retold.
Defenders can argue "As opinion, not as fact!" But the opinions the mainstream media presented on Bully Boy were fawning with the occassional "Well . . ." The serious critics of this administration have had a difficult time getting airtime.
The propaganda mode was quite effective but truth does come out. Now that it's come out on the Bully Boy, I think there are people who are suppressing but that there are also people trying to reconcile the propaganda they were sold with the reality that they are now being exposed to.
I think more discussion and more truth can reach that subgroup but Mike thinks I'm being "too generous to a bunch of sheep." He may be right.
British Newspapers Threatened in Al Jazeerah Memo Case (Democracy Now!)
The British government has threatened to sue newspapers that publish contents of a leaked memo in which President Bush allegedly discusses bombing the Arabic satellite network Al Jazeerah. The government says it would take action under the Official Secrets Act, which makes it illegal come into the possession of government information without lawful authority. The British newspaper Daily Mirror disclosed the memo Tuesday. The paper based its a report on a confidential Downing Street memo that claimed Bush told British Prime Minister Tony Blair in April 2004 that he wanted to attack Al Jazeera's headquarters in Qatar. Blair allegedly talked Bush out of the strike, fearing revenge attacks. The Daily Mirror says it will comply with the government's threat against publication. But Daily Mirror editor Richard Wallace said : "We made [the government] fully aware of the intention to publish and were given 'no comment' officially or unofficially. Suddenly 24 hours later we are threatened under section 5 [of the secrets act]." Two British civil servants have been charged in connection with the leak.
Again, Common Ills community members are thinking "no sh*t" because this isn't shocking. The Bully Boy wasn't the kind, caring, inspirational leader the propaganda mode promoted. He is a petty, vindictive, small minded man. His answer to everything appears to be to threaten. He does that with opponents, with the media, with other countries. Aljazeera has been a target of their rage for some time.
So it's hardly surprising that a Bully Boy would offer a plan to bomb the network. That's how he deals with things. And death has little value to him. His sister died when he was a child and instead of dealing with, he was spared the details. You can see a similar attitude today with his refusal to attend funerals for the fallen, the ones who died from his lies.
He ignores reality and all of his life that has been the biggest problem for him: reality slapping him in the face. When it does, he rages and blames instead of taking a self-inventory.
I hope everyone has a great Thanksgiving. Let me do shout outs to Wally who blogged this morning about "the rules." Let me note Cedric who did a great mix tape last night.
Let me note Betty who called a few minutes ago ready to pull out her hair but determined to finish her latest chapter and get it up at her site. And let me note Kat who's blogged today and yesterday as well. And lastly but not leastly, let me note Seth who blogged today. Happy Thanksgiving to all of them and to you as well.
"Motto" (Mikey Likes It!):
The Common Ills community is important and the Common Ills community is important to me. So I'll do my part for the Common Ills community.
"Peace Quotes" (Peace Center):
You can't separate peace from freedom because no one can be at peace unless he has his freedom.
Malcolm X
mikey likes it
the common ills
democracy now
like maria said paz
aljazeera
bush knew
seth in the city
cedrics big mix
the daily jot
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
like maria said paz
peace
Iraq
malcolm x
Wednesday, November 23, 2005
"You grab peace and don't let go"
Wally e-mailed me to wonder if I thought "Wednesday" would count if he posted early this morning? I do. But I had forgotten about the time change.
I did take a nap after I got off the flight. But I forgot in terms of posting that although it wouldn't be midnight where I was, for people who might check this site, it might be "Wednesday" when I posted.
This is my Tuesday post. It's still Tuesday where I am.
"Hillary, You're Not Listening" (Jeff Cohen, The Huffington Post):
"Part of my job is being a good listener," Hillary Clinton wrote, in the first line of her letter received today. As a New Yorker, I'm represented by Hillary in the U.S. Senate. Along with her two-page fundraising letter, I received a four-page "2005 Critical National Issues Survey."
But something was missing -- something Hillary obviously doesn't want to hear about: IRAQ.
Nowhere in the letter or the questionnaire was that four-letter word.
Hillary's first question asked me to rank nine issues in their "order of importance." Iraq wasn't on the list. Nor was there a place I could add an issue she'd somehow forgotten about.
The problem is she hadn't forgotten the war. She simply doesn't want to hear about one of the biggest issues dividing our country, draining the federal budget, destabilizing the Middle East, undermining international law and institutions, and spreading fear and hatred of our country.
When national polls show that 54% or more of Americans want our troops withdrawn promptly from Iraq, and 60% believe it was a mistake to have sent troops in the first place, imagine how huge the majorities are for those propositions in Hillary's home state of New York.
I agree with Cohen completely. It reminded me of Ava & C.I.'s TV review.
"TV Review: Commander-in-Chief aka The Nah-Nah Sisterhood" (Ava & C.I., The Third Estate Sunday Review):
What really frightens us, besides the fact that a backlash only takes root when people who should know better applaud this junk, is an elitist attitude that seems to greet this show."We got our woman president!"
Consider us too grass-rooty but we don't see that as an end all be all. We weren't among the ones saying "At least we still got Martin Sheen on TV" so maybe we're missing it. But honestly, we'll take an Alice over a Commander-in-Chief. Give us working class women who pull together over a queen bee living a rarified life.We've never doubted that a woman could be president (and at some point will be). But we've never assumed that gender would be an answer. A woman who supports equality? Absolutely, that's a great thing. A woman who makes her way as an exception, backs up an agenda she doesn't believe in and does nothing to help other women? We don't see the point in applauding that.
It's a pertinent issue as two women are repeatedly named as potential candidates in the real world: Condi Rice and Hillary Clinton. If either woman (or both) runs, will we get the same giddy "It's a woman!" nonsense? Under no circumstance would either of us vote for Rice. We'd be reluctant to vote for Clinton considering her waffles on the issue of choice and her stance on the war. But will those issues be silenced in the giddy cry of, "It's a woman! It's a first!"
That's troubling.
I had a pretty easy flight. After the flight, I took a shower and a nap. So it really doesn't seem as late to me as it should. To me, it's still Tuesday.
I'm not sure if I noted this from Mike last night or not: "The community is important and the community is important to me. So I'll do my part for the community."
As everyone who comes to this site knows, Mike and I go over the same headline stories from Democracy Now! each day. So check Mikey Likes It! for Mike's take.
Iraqi Leaders Call for Troop Withdrawal Timetable (Democracy Now!)
In Iraq, Shiite, Kurdish and Sunni leaders have issued a joint communiqué calling for a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S troops. The New York Times reports this marks the first time Iraq's political factions collectively called for a withdrawal timetable. The communiqué was released during a reconciliation conference held under the auspices of the Arab League. Attendees included Iraqi president Jalal Talabani. The leaders also condemned attacks on Iraqi civilians, government institutions and oil installations, and called for the release of all detainees held without trial. They said Iraq's opposition had a "legitimate right" of resistance but condemned terrorism and acts of violence, murder and kidnapping.
They want us out. That's not a surprise to anyone who's paid attention. This has been addressed many times before. It just doesn't seem to get addressed seriously by the press. I know many people who are unaware of it and won't believe it when I tell them. Less so in the last few months. But there's this idea that we're "helping." We're not helping with the public services being restored (after over two years). We're not helping with the "peace." The only thing we're doing is inflaming tensions. The troops need to come home now.
Pentagon Docs: White Phosphorous Is A Chemical Weapon (Democracy Now!):
New evidence has emerged that the U.S. military used chemical weapons during the assault on Fallujah a year ago. Last week the Pentagon confirmed for the first time that it used white phosphorous as a weapon to attack Iraqi fighters. But the Pentagon rejected claims that white phosphorous is a chemical weapon. White Phosphorous is often compared to napalm because it combusts spontaneously when exposed to oxygen and can burn right through skin to the bone. While the Pentagon is denying white phosphorous is a chemical weapon, a newly uncovered Defense Department document, reveals that is just how the military described it when Saddam Hussein allegedly used it a decade ago. A declassified 1995 Pentagon intelligence document reads QUOTE "Iraqi forces loyal to president Saddam may have possibly used white phosphorous chemical weapons against Kurdish rebels." Meanwhile a British commander has admitted that he trained his troops in using white phosphorus as a weapon. Until now the British government has maintained it used white phosphorous but only for tactical purposes.
The New York Timid, and Scott Shane, had an article in Monday's paper that should embarrass the paper and Shane. In it, they alleged that it wasn't a weapon based upon . . . the military stating it wasn't. To them. Documents prove otherwise, as do treaties. The paper of record should be embarrassed.
I'm staying at C.I.'s for Thanksgiving and, no, we didn't watch Nightline. If you did and for some reason are feeling down, check out C.I.'s "The end of a (bad) era."
"Peace Quote" (via passenger seated next to me on the plane):
You grab peace and don't let go. People try to stomp it out. You have to clutch it to your heart and soul, give life to it with your every breath.
the common ills
the daily jot
mikey likes it
like maria said paz
democracy now
iraq
falluja
white phosphorus
ted koppel
I did take a nap after I got off the flight. But I forgot in terms of posting that although it wouldn't be midnight where I was, for people who might check this site, it might be "Wednesday" when I posted.
This is my Tuesday post. It's still Tuesday where I am.
"Hillary, You're Not Listening" (Jeff Cohen, The Huffington Post):
"Part of my job is being a good listener," Hillary Clinton wrote, in the first line of her letter received today. As a New Yorker, I'm represented by Hillary in the U.S. Senate. Along with her two-page fundraising letter, I received a four-page "2005 Critical National Issues Survey."
But something was missing -- something Hillary obviously doesn't want to hear about: IRAQ.
Nowhere in the letter or the questionnaire was that four-letter word.
Hillary's first question asked me to rank nine issues in their "order of importance." Iraq wasn't on the list. Nor was there a place I could add an issue she'd somehow forgotten about.
The problem is she hadn't forgotten the war. She simply doesn't want to hear about one of the biggest issues dividing our country, draining the federal budget, destabilizing the Middle East, undermining international law and institutions, and spreading fear and hatred of our country.
When national polls show that 54% or more of Americans want our troops withdrawn promptly from Iraq, and 60% believe it was a mistake to have sent troops in the first place, imagine how huge the majorities are for those propositions in Hillary's home state of New York.
I agree with Cohen completely. It reminded me of Ava & C.I.'s TV review.
"TV Review: Commander-in-Chief aka The Nah-Nah Sisterhood" (Ava & C.I., The Third Estate Sunday Review):
What really frightens us, besides the fact that a backlash only takes root when people who should know better applaud this junk, is an elitist attitude that seems to greet this show."We got our woman president!"
Consider us too grass-rooty but we don't see that as an end all be all. We weren't among the ones saying "At least we still got Martin Sheen on TV" so maybe we're missing it. But honestly, we'll take an Alice over a Commander-in-Chief. Give us working class women who pull together over a queen bee living a rarified life.We've never doubted that a woman could be president (and at some point will be). But we've never assumed that gender would be an answer. A woman who supports equality? Absolutely, that's a great thing. A woman who makes her way as an exception, backs up an agenda she doesn't believe in and does nothing to help other women? We don't see the point in applauding that.
It's a pertinent issue as two women are repeatedly named as potential candidates in the real world: Condi Rice and Hillary Clinton. If either woman (or both) runs, will we get the same giddy "It's a woman!" nonsense? Under no circumstance would either of us vote for Rice. We'd be reluctant to vote for Clinton considering her waffles on the issue of choice and her stance on the war. But will those issues be silenced in the giddy cry of, "It's a woman! It's a first!"
That's troubling.
I had a pretty easy flight. After the flight, I took a shower and a nap. So it really doesn't seem as late to me as it should. To me, it's still Tuesday.
I'm not sure if I noted this from Mike last night or not: "The community is important and the community is important to me. So I'll do my part for the community."
As everyone who comes to this site knows, Mike and I go over the same headline stories from Democracy Now! each day. So check Mikey Likes It! for Mike's take.
Iraqi Leaders Call for Troop Withdrawal Timetable (Democracy Now!)
In Iraq, Shiite, Kurdish and Sunni leaders have issued a joint communiqué calling for a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S troops. The New York Times reports this marks the first time Iraq's political factions collectively called for a withdrawal timetable. The communiqué was released during a reconciliation conference held under the auspices of the Arab League. Attendees included Iraqi president Jalal Talabani. The leaders also condemned attacks on Iraqi civilians, government institutions and oil installations, and called for the release of all detainees held without trial. They said Iraq's opposition had a "legitimate right" of resistance but condemned terrorism and acts of violence, murder and kidnapping.
They want us out. That's not a surprise to anyone who's paid attention. This has been addressed many times before. It just doesn't seem to get addressed seriously by the press. I know many people who are unaware of it and won't believe it when I tell them. Less so in the last few months. But there's this idea that we're "helping." We're not helping with the public services being restored (after over two years). We're not helping with the "peace." The only thing we're doing is inflaming tensions. The troops need to come home now.
Pentagon Docs: White Phosphorous Is A Chemical Weapon (Democracy Now!):
New evidence has emerged that the U.S. military used chemical weapons during the assault on Fallujah a year ago. Last week the Pentagon confirmed for the first time that it used white phosphorous as a weapon to attack Iraqi fighters. But the Pentagon rejected claims that white phosphorous is a chemical weapon. White Phosphorous is often compared to napalm because it combusts spontaneously when exposed to oxygen and can burn right through skin to the bone. While the Pentagon is denying white phosphorous is a chemical weapon, a newly uncovered Defense Department document, reveals that is just how the military described it when Saddam Hussein allegedly used it a decade ago. A declassified 1995 Pentagon intelligence document reads QUOTE "Iraqi forces loyal to president Saddam may have possibly used white phosphorous chemical weapons against Kurdish rebels." Meanwhile a British commander has admitted that he trained his troops in using white phosphorus as a weapon. Until now the British government has maintained it used white phosphorous but only for tactical purposes.
The New York Timid, and Scott Shane, had an article in Monday's paper that should embarrass the paper and Shane. In it, they alleged that it wasn't a weapon based upon . . . the military stating it wasn't. To them. Documents prove otherwise, as do treaties. The paper of record should be embarrassed.
I'm staying at C.I.'s for Thanksgiving and, no, we didn't watch Nightline. If you did and for some reason are feeling down, check out C.I.'s "The end of a (bad) era."
"Peace Quote" (via passenger seated next to me on the plane):
You grab peace and don't let go. People try to stomp it out. You have to clutch it to your heart and soul, give life to it with your every breath.
the common ills
the daily jot
mikey likes it
like maria said paz
democracy now
iraq
falluja
white phosphorus
ted koppel
Monday, November 21, 2005
Kayla's baby, Tom Hayden, Democracy Now!
The photo to the left is of the newest member to The Common Ills community member, Brian.
Common Ills community member Kayla had a baby last week, Brian.
I interviewed Kayla for the gina & krista round-robin that went out last Friday because she was thinking about peace and the future. We'd exchanged e-mails since March and Gina and Krista wanted to do something to note the birth of Brian.
Then on Saturday morning, I participated with C.I., Jim, Rebecca, Ava and Ty on a thing that we were all going to do for The Common Ills. At the end of that, C.I. asked if it was okay if it ran at The Third Estate Sunday Review if they needed something else? Kayla was fine with that.
A piece on Falluja was lost and The Third Estate Sunday Review did end up being short an article, so we took our notes for the planned Common Ills piece and turned it into a think piece/editorial at The Third Estate Sunday Review. If you're someone not subscribed to the gina & krista round-robin, you can check out the piece at The Third Estate Sunday Review.
Brian's a very cute baby and I love babies so I wanted to share the photo here. Look at that sweet little face.
Mike and I are starting late. We're trying to figure out what to do re: posting this week.
C.I.'s asking so it can be posted and known.
I'll be on a plane tomorrow but, barring jet lag, will be able to post later than usual.
Other than that, my intent is to have something up every day through Friday.
There won't be a set time each day so I can't offer that. But I will post something everything day.
I probably won't be "newsy." I'll probably post Thursday about Thanksgiving, for instance.
Typing "Thanksgiving" reminded me I hadn't eaten so this post goes up even later due to my stopping to eat dinner. Does anyone like Monday mornings? I hate them. The alarm goes off and nothing ever goes right. It's a runner in the hose or I'm pulling the plastic bag off some dry cleaning and see a stain they didn't get out (sometimes a stain that wasn't there when I brought in but they're really good about it when I take things back and they've never lost an article of clothing which is rare in my experience with dry cleaners). This morning there was that and the hot water took forever to come on in the shower. So by the time I was finally dressed and presentable, there was no time to stop for breakfast. Because of the holiday, I'm trying to knock out as much as possible so there was no time for lunch. I had a Granny Smith apple and that's it until I stopped to eat dinner just now.
CIA Leak Prosecutor to Go to New Grand Jury (Democracy Now!):
And this update on the CIA leak case... Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald said Friday that he plans to present new evidence to another federal grand jury. The announcement came three weeks after an earlier grand jury indicted Vice President Cheney's chief of staff Lewis "Scooter" Libby. Last week investigators questioned Washington Post Assistant Managing Editor Bob Woodward for two hours after learning that a senior administration official revealed Valerie Plame's identity to him in mid-June 2003. There has been great speculation over who within the Bush administration might have been Woodward's source. The Times of London claims it is Stephen Hadley who is now Bush's National Security Advisor. At the time Hadley was deputy National Security Advisor under Condoleeza Rice. Newsweek magazine has suggested it might be former deputy secretary of State Richard Armitage.
I find it poetic that one of the loudest dismissers of Plamegate, a journalistic "pro" and "institution," has no added to the fire and brought it back into the news -- but not by choice, by covering up. It's an interesting book end to his career. Thirty years ago he was one half of a team leading the way for what journalism could do and these days he's part of a team that seems more concerned with covering than informing the public.
His reputation was made as a voice for the public and he's killed it. A ritualistic slaying that he committed upon himself as a result of his desire to be "in the loop" but not to inform the public, just to be another sycophant.
19,000 Protest At School of the Americas (Democracy Now!)
In Georgia, an estimated 19,000 people demonstrated outside Fort Benning calling for the closing of the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, formerly known as the School of the Americas. It was the largest protest to date for the annual event. 40 arrests were made. Protest organizers said the U.S. military has used the school to train Latin American military officials to torture. The protests are timed to coincide with the anniversary of the November 1989 murders of six Jesuit priests, their housekeeper and her daughter in El Salvador. The weekend demonstration came just weeks after it was revealed that Vice President Dick Cheney was seeking Congressional approval for CIA interrogators to engage in torture.
The School of the Americas is an institution that has trained some of the worst human rights abusers in the world. Methods that we find shocking at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere were taught there. The abuses in Honduras, in Guatemala, you name it. They can traced back to what this "school" teaches. The school should be shut down.
This morning, C.I. noted a story by Ginger Thompson in the New York Times.
"Guatemala's Secret Police Files May Hold Clues to Atrocities" (Ginger Thompson, the New York Times):
The reams and reams of mildewed police documents, tied in messy bundles and stacked from floor to ceiling, look on first sight like a giant trash heap. But human rights investigators are calling it a treasure hidden in plain sight.
In Guatemala, a nation still groping for the whole truth about decades of state-sponsored kidnapping and killing, the documents promise a trove of new evidence for the victims, and perhaps the last best hope for some degree of justice.
Last summer, authorities from the Guatemalan human rights ombudsman's office, searching a munitions depot here, discovered what appear to be all the files of the National Police, an agency so inextricably linked to human rights abuses during this country's 36-year civil conflict that it was disbanded as part of the peace accords signed in 1996.
At that time, President Alvaro Arzu's government, struggling to usher this country through an uncertain transition from war to peace, denied to a truth commission that police files existed. It now seems clear, human rights investigators say, that Mr. Arzu's government, as well as those that followed, knew about the files all along.
You better believe that some elements in our government are nervous, worried about what's in those records.
I'm noting this instead of a peace quote for my closing tonight. FYI, the Eternity spot using the song "What The World Needs Now" just came on. Charlotte e-mailed to say she loved the song too and always find herself smiling when the spot airs on TV.
"Surprise Offensive for Peace" (Tom Hayden, The Huffington Post):
It is much too early to predict a flood, but the ice age has ended in Washington. It is a time reminiscent of Watergate, when the US intervention in Vietnam collapsed as the White House was weakened by scandals arising from its covert operations against the anti-war movement.
The strategy of "Iraqization" seems finished except as a figleaf. The new Iraqi constitution, which damages the interests of Sunnis and women, barely passed amidst widespread accusations of voter fraud. Then came the discovery of the Saddam-style torture chamber operated by Shiite militias under cover of the Iraqi army. The discredited Achmad Chalabi brazenly flirted with high US officials about returning to power. If US and British troops redeploy, it is hard to imagine the Iraqi army standing up against the Iraqi resistance.
Reeling from internal turmoil, scandals and declining poll numbers, the White House has lost its sound bite. When Bush and Cheney accused Democrats of changing their minds, as if they should continue to embrace fabricated evidence, Murtha blasted Cheney as a five-deferment Dick.
The media's humiliating wartime collaboration with the Bush Administration, shown last week by the New York Times' dismissal of Judith Miller, was underscored anew by revelations that Bob Woodward, considered a media "god" according to the Washington Post, had kept from his own editors his secret interviews with White House officials about Joseph Wilson and Valerie Plame. As Nixon once dismissed the Watergate scandal as a "third-rate burglary", Woodward dismissed the current scandal as merely "chatter", lacking an underlying crime, "not one to go to court with" -- the very day before Lewis Libby was indicted. [nyt, nov. 17,05]
the common ills
the third estate sunday review
democracy now
mikey likes it
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
like maria said paz
cedrics big mix
the new york times
ginger thompson
tom hayden
Friday, November 18, 2005
What the world needs now
I'm late, I know. I was taking off my jacket as the computer was booting up. Mike called me while I was in a cab asking if I'd mentioned that I'd be blogging late. I hadn't. Or seen the need to. But he hadn't either and he's always stressing the importance of blogging regularly so that people know they can count on you and when they visit your site, you'll have something, anything, up.
That's why Rebecca wanted me to fill in for her when she was on vacation. She's built up quite a following and has done that by blogging regularly (and sharing her unique voice and perspective). A "dead site" -- something with nothing new for days and days -- causes people to stop visiting.
I don't qualify as a dead site but I do qualify as a burned roof of my mouth. I went out tonight and the soup was served way too hot. Which you have no way of knowing, of course, until you have the first spoonful. It's a minor thing but it's something that really grates on me. My tongues there now and will be going back to it repeatedly over the next few days before it heals.
Steam was rising when the bowl was placed before me so I waited five minutes and it didn't do any good at all.
Let's move on to Democracy Now! and be sure to check Mike's site for his comments.
"Report: Military Experiencing Shortfall on Recruiting Goals" (Democracy Now!):
The New York Times is reporting a new government study has found the military is falling far behind in recruiting goals for key combat positions in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Government Accountability Office says the military has failed to staff 41 percent of combat and non-combat specialist positions. The report says the shortfall was disguised by the overstaffing of other positions in order to meet overall recruiting goals. Derek Stewart, the G.A.O.’s director of military personnel, commented : "The aggregate recruiting numbers are rather meaningless. For Congress and this nation to truly understand what's happening with the all-volunteer force and its ability to recruit and retain highly qualified people, you have to drill down into occupational specialties. And when you do, it's very revealing."
Is there any surprise here? Who expects large numbers of people to sign up for a war that has no meaning, no purpose, no goal and no end in sight? What's the pitch? "Sign up and spend the rest of your life in Iraq"?
Now the mainstream media spent a lot of time propping up both the war and the administration, but the reality seeped through. They can continue to spin but the reality is out there.
A commercial for Target just came on -- she said changing the subject. It was for Eternity which is my favorite of Calvin Klein's men's colognes. They use the song "What the World Needs Now" (is love, sweet love). I've always loved that song.
We reviewed Ken Emerson's Always Magic In The Air: The Bomp and Brilliance of the Brill Building Era for The Third Estate Sunday Review and I really did not enjoy the book for a number of reasons. But one of the reasons was Emerson's dimissal of "What the World Needs Now" as "sloganeering." It would be bad enough if he had dismissed the lyrics with that critique, but to trash the whole song was dismissing a wonderful melody that moves from sing along solely to sing along and counter melody.
What the world needs today is love sweet love. We're a nation ruled by a Bully Boy, a world held hostage by a bully. So call me a sloganeer or a lover of sloganeers set to music.
I love that song whenever I hear it. Nell Carter and others performed it on Gimmie a Break and that's probably the episode I remember best after all these years.
"Hawkish Democrat Calls For Immediate Troop Withdrawal" (Democracy Now!):
In an important development in the growing Congressional debate over the US occupation of Iraq, a hawkish Democrat who voted to authorize the war has introduced a bill calling for the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops. Democratic Congressman John Murtha of Pennsylvania said: "It is time for a change in direction. Our military is suffering. The future of our country is at risk. We cannot continue on the present course. It is evident that continued military action in Iraq is not in the best interest of the United States of America, the Iraq people or the Persian Gulf region." Murtha is an army veteran with close ties to military commanders. He’s also the top Democrat on the House Appropriations defense subcommittee, and has visited Iraq several times since the war began. His proposed bill reads in part: "The deployment of US forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated and the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date." The bill marks the first time a resolution has been submitted to Congress calling for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. In response, White House spokesperson Scott McClellan said: "Congressman Murtha is a respected veteran and politician who has a record of supporting a strong America. So it is baffling that he is endorsing the policy positions of Michael Moore and the extreme liberal wing of the Democratic Party."
Thanks to Rebecca for noting that I'd be blogging late. I'm tired. I'll note two pieces by Rebecca that are more than worth reading "talking about the common ills" and "little miss run amuck bob woodward" and on Bob Woodward, also check out C.I.'s "NYT: Woody sees his shadow and goes back underground."
like maria said paz
mikey likes it
the common ills
democracy now
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
the third estate sunday review
That's why Rebecca wanted me to fill in for her when she was on vacation. She's built up quite a following and has done that by blogging regularly (and sharing her unique voice and perspective). A "dead site" -- something with nothing new for days and days -- causes people to stop visiting.
I don't qualify as a dead site but I do qualify as a burned roof of my mouth. I went out tonight and the soup was served way too hot. Which you have no way of knowing, of course, until you have the first spoonful. It's a minor thing but it's something that really grates on me. My tongues there now and will be going back to it repeatedly over the next few days before it heals.
Steam was rising when the bowl was placed before me so I waited five minutes and it didn't do any good at all.
Let's move on to Democracy Now! and be sure to check Mike's site for his comments.
"Report: Military Experiencing Shortfall on Recruiting Goals" (Democracy Now!):
The New York Times is reporting a new government study has found the military is falling far behind in recruiting goals for key combat positions in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Government Accountability Office says the military has failed to staff 41 percent of combat and non-combat specialist positions. The report says the shortfall was disguised by the overstaffing of other positions in order to meet overall recruiting goals. Derek Stewart, the G.A.O.’s director of military personnel, commented : "The aggregate recruiting numbers are rather meaningless. For Congress and this nation to truly understand what's happening with the all-volunteer force and its ability to recruit and retain highly qualified people, you have to drill down into occupational specialties. And when you do, it's very revealing."
Is there any surprise here? Who expects large numbers of people to sign up for a war that has no meaning, no purpose, no goal and no end in sight? What's the pitch? "Sign up and spend the rest of your life in Iraq"?
Now the mainstream media spent a lot of time propping up both the war and the administration, but the reality seeped through. They can continue to spin but the reality is out there.
A commercial for Target just came on -- she said changing the subject. It was for Eternity which is my favorite of Calvin Klein's men's colognes. They use the song "What the World Needs Now" (is love, sweet love). I've always loved that song.
We reviewed Ken Emerson's Always Magic In The Air: The Bomp and Brilliance of the Brill Building Era for The Third Estate Sunday Review and I really did not enjoy the book for a number of reasons. But one of the reasons was Emerson's dimissal of "What the World Needs Now" as "sloganeering." It would be bad enough if he had dismissed the lyrics with that critique, but to trash the whole song was dismissing a wonderful melody that moves from sing along solely to sing along and counter melody.
What the world needs today is love sweet love. We're a nation ruled by a Bully Boy, a world held hostage by a bully. So call me a sloganeer or a lover of sloganeers set to music.
I love that song whenever I hear it. Nell Carter and others performed it on Gimmie a Break and that's probably the episode I remember best after all these years.
"Hawkish Democrat Calls For Immediate Troop Withdrawal" (Democracy Now!):
In an important development in the growing Congressional debate over the US occupation of Iraq, a hawkish Democrat who voted to authorize the war has introduced a bill calling for the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops. Democratic Congressman John Murtha of Pennsylvania said: "It is time for a change in direction. Our military is suffering. The future of our country is at risk. We cannot continue on the present course. It is evident that continued military action in Iraq is not in the best interest of the United States of America, the Iraq people or the Persian Gulf region." Murtha is an army veteran with close ties to military commanders. He’s also the top Democrat on the House Appropriations defense subcommittee, and has visited Iraq several times since the war began. His proposed bill reads in part: "The deployment of US forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated and the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date." The bill marks the first time a resolution has been submitted to Congress calling for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. In response, White House spokesperson Scott McClellan said: "Congressman Murtha is a respected veteran and politician who has a record of supporting a strong America. So it is baffling that he is endorsing the policy positions of Michael Moore and the extreme liberal wing of the Democratic Party."
Thanks to Rebecca for noting that I'd be blogging late. I'm tired. I'll note two pieces by Rebecca that are more than worth reading "talking about the common ills" and "little miss run amuck bob woodward" and on Bob Woodward, also check out C.I.'s "NYT: Woody sees his shadow and goes back underground."
like maria said paz
mikey likes it
the common ills
democracy now
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
the third estate sunday review
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
Withdrawal timetable defeated by Republicans
Mike and I got carried away laughing at the PBS NewsHour and are both starting late but be sure to check out his take on the two items from Democracy Now! by visiting his site is Mikey Likes It!.
Republicans Defeat Measure For Withdrawal Timetable (Democracy Now!):
On Capitol Hill, the Republican-controlled Senate passed a resolution mandating the White House to provide quarterly Iraq progress reports and urging it to accelerate the process for a withdrawal of U.S. troops. The measure passed after a Democratic measure calling for a specific timetable for troop withdrawal was defeated. Commenting on the rejected Democratic resolution, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham said: "I think it speaks to a bit of nervousness about public perception of how the war is going in terms of [2006] elections. And to be honest with you, the war is going to be going on long after '06. I'm more worried about getting it right in Iraq than the '06 elections."
No surprise to anyone, it was all a dog and pony show. There was no substance in what the Senate passed, there was no intent to have any substance. It was just a page from Nixon's playbook of pretend you're as tired of the war as everyone else so you can get some votes.
The second item was one that The Common Ills community member P.J. (who works at the Washington Post) asked us to note.
Woodward Was Told of Plame’s Identity (Democracy Now!):
Longtime Washington Post journalist and current assistant editor Bob Woodward testified Monday a senior administration official told him about CIA operative Valerie Plame nearly a month before her identity was thought to be first disclosed. The official appears to be someone other than Lewis Libby or Karl Rove. Woodward was questioned by Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald after the unnamed official alerted Fitzgerald of his conversation with Woodward. Citing a confidentiality agreement, Woodward and Post editors did not reveal the source’s identity. Post editors say Woodward only told them of the conversation last month.
Bob Woodward is a joke. He's made himself a joke and he's made journalism a joke. You want to talk Judy Miller? Talk Bobby Woodward first. Judith Miller stenographer to the powerful? Well what has every book by Bob Woodward been except the minutes of the court? He's sucked up to the powerful for years, minimized guilt, covered up actual events. Without Bob Woodward, there might not have been a Judith Miller.
I like Robert Parry's work and think he's a great reporter. Rebecca gave me Secret History (hope that's the correct title) and urged me to read it and another book whose title I'm forgetting. (Rebecca, they are both on my book cases. I'm just rushing to get this up and meet a guy for a dinner.) Parry writes about the press' retreat from investigative journalism almot immediately after Watergate. That retreat resulted in where we are today. I agree with Parry absolutely. But I also think that certain parties were especially responsible for the retreat and among those are Bob Woodward, Ben Bradlee and Katharine Graham. (I don't think that Parry would necessarily disagree with me on that point. His writing may imply that point. I've just never read it stated specifically. Which doesn't mean he hasn't stated it, just that in my limited reading of Parry, I haven't seen it.)
"Editorial: Someone explain to Bob Woodward that a reporter reports" (The Common Ills):
Just the facts Woody has puzzled a few over the years. There was Wired, for instance and people feeling their words were misrepresented. There was Janet Cook, as well. But if anything's come close to smudging the rep of Bob Woodward it may be his pooh-pahing of the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame and Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation into that outing.
Or maybe he just sounds like someone trying to cover his own ass?
Guessing the latter? Note Jim VandeHei and Carol D. Leonnig's "Woodward Was Told of Plame More Than Two Years Ago:"
In a more than two-hour deposition, Woodward told Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald that the official casually told him in mid-June 2003 that Plame worked as a CIA analyst on weapons of mass destruction, and that he did not believe the information to be classified or sensitive, according to a statement Woodward released yesterday.
Many have noted that while he was writing his last book on the Bully Boy, full of quotes that access and pre-arranged agreements produced, he somehow missed the big story -- the outing of Valerie Plame.
He didn't miss it. He apparently just either felt it wasn't news or he was covering up (either for the administration or for himself).
From CNN's Larry King Live, October 27, 2005:
KING: We're in Washington where things are hopping and we're going to follow up again tomorrow night. We're going to lead this round with Bob Woodward as we turn to tomorrow. But, Michael Isikoff whispered to me during the break that he has a key question he'd like to ask Mr. Woodward, so I don't know what this is about.
ISIKOFF: No, look, this is the biggest mystery in Washington, has been really for two years and now as we come down to the deadline of tomorrow the city is awash with rumors. There's a new one every 15 minutes and nobody really knows what's going to happen tomorrow. Nobody knows what Fitzgerald's got. I talked to a source at the White House late this afternoon who told me that Bob is going to have a bombshell in tomorrow's paper identifying the Mr. X source who is behind the whole thing. So, I don't know, maybe this is Bob's opportunity.
KING: Come clean.
WOODWARD: I wish I did have a bombshell. I don't even have a firecracker. I'm sorry. In fact, I mean this tells you something about the atmosphere here. I got a call from somebody in the CIA saying he got a call from the best "New York Times" reporter on this saying exactly that I supposedly had a bombshell.
KING: (INAUDIBLE).
WOODWARD: Finally, this went around that I was going to do it tonight or in the paper. Finally, Len Downie, who is the editor of the "Washington Post" called me and said, "I hear you have a bombshell. Would you let me in on it."
KING: So now the rumors are about you.
WOODWARD: And I said I'm sorry to disappoint you but I don't.
Did the Post, as the Times did, ask their reporters if any had information on the outing of Valerie Plame? According to the article in the Post, he "never mentioned this contact . . . to his supervisors until last month."
Vanity Fair beat the Post to the scoop on Mark Felt. That was embarrassing for the paper. This is embarrassing as well.
It's made more embarrassing by the fact that Woody felt the need to critique the case (on Larry King Live as well as on NPR).
From the article:
Fitzgerald interviewed Woodward about the previously undisclosed conversation after the official alerted the prosecutor to it on Nov. 3 -- one week after Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, was indicted in the investigation.
Woodward, weighing in for public consumption, never revealed his own conflict of interest while chatting & chewing. That's a reporter?
How ethical was it for him to weigh in on a case which he could be forced to testify on (and was forced to)? How ethical when he's not being upfront that he has his own conflict of interest?When he's saying on national TV that he doesn't have a "bombshell," that he doesn't even have a "firce cracker"?
He had something but he sat on it. And he failed to disclose while repeating cloaking himself in the guise of "objectivity" and wrapping himself in the name of the paper.
Bob Woodward was always the lightweight of Woodward & Bernstein (think of him as the McCartney of the two), willing to play the access game and that's partly why he's had his long career at the Washington Post and why Carl Bernstein moved on to other things.
Now Woody, of the dipthong and "calcium in the backbone," is exposed as a party to something that resulted in a criminal investigation. He weighed in on that investigation. He never told the public that he was involved.How ethical was that?
It gets better. From the Post article:
Citing a confidentiality agreement in which the source freed Woodward to testify but would not allow him to discuss their conversations publicly, Woodward and Post editors refused to disclose the official's name or provide crucial details about the testimony. Woodward did not share the information with Washington Post Executive Editor Leonard Downie Jr. until last month, and the only Post reporter whom Woodward said he remembers telling in the summer of 2003 does not recall the conversation taking place.
That's Walter Pincus. Once again, Woody has one version and Pincus another. (Think of Howie Kurtz's critique of the Post's coverage of the lead up to the war for another example of where Pincus and Woody's memories differ.)
Is that how it works? You can disclose to a grand jury but not to the public? Not if you're a reporter. If you're naming the source, you're naming it. If you're a reporter. Can you imagine what would have been said of Judith Miller if she'd tried that tactic?
Woody sat on a story. While sitting on it, he went around, identified with the paper, and weighed in on an investigation. Now Woody's has testified and named his source but wants to say that it's not the public's business.
It very much is the public's business. In June of 2003, he was a party to a conversation that was news but he elected to stay mum on the topic -- except when taking to the airwaves to attack Fitzgerald and to dismiss the issues involved.
When you name your source to the grand jury, you name it to the public. You can't name for a criminal investigation and then, if you're a reporter, say, "Oh well I won't name to the public."
Why? Because naming to the public is your damn job.
A reporter reports.Confidentiality, like pregnancy, does not come in "bits." It's an either/or. Either you're pregnant or you're not -- either you do protect the confidentiality or you don't.
Woody needs to name his source.
The fact that he's taken to the airwaves to refute the importance of an investigation that he's now been drawn into only makes that more necessary.
He has outed his source to a grand jury. There is no more "confidentiality."The press does not function behind closed doors. It is supposed to serve the public.
The Post should force him to make a public apology for offering opinions on a case that he was involved in without revealing his own involvement. He deceived the public.
He weighed in using his name and reputation (such as they are) in what can be seen as an attempt to sway public opinion.The opinions he offered now seem far less than objective.
If Woody can't come forward with his information, the Post needs to place him on unpaid leave.
If Woodward owned stock in Enron and while the investigation into its practices was ongoing he took to the airwaves to say there was no Enron story, he would have deceived the public. His statements regarding Fitzgerald's investigation and the outing of Valerie Plame are deceitful because he did not disclose to the public his own involvement.
Is Woodward familiar with the ethics guidlines for his own paper? Is he familiar with this statement: "Our obligation is to serve readers, not sources."?
How about this statement: "Our reporting should be honorable; we should be prepared to explain publicly anything we do to get a story. "?
Bob Woodward did not go on Larry King's show as private citizen Bob Woodward. He went on as Washington Post journalist and book author Bob Woodward. The statements he made were pertinent not because he was a private citizen but because he was a well known reporter.
Pronouncing judgement on an investigation carried with it the implication that the opinions were coming from a well versed, knowledgable reporter.
Well versed and knowledgable does not include "party to the investigation." Bob Woodward deceived the public by failing to disclose his own involvement when he weighed in on Larry King's show. He could have stated he had no comment on the investigation.
Instead he elected to weigh in on the topic while refusing to disclose his own ties to the investigation.
One can argue, "Well Woodward didn't want to be called before the grand jury!" That's obvious.
But it comes back to the fact that non one forced him to offer opinions on a federal investigation.
He elected to weigh in.
There's not a great deal of difference beween his lack of disclosure and Armstrong Williams'.
Both benefitted from keeping something hidden. Both owed it to the public to disclose their own involvement.
The source has now been named to a grand jury in a criminal investigation. There is no more confidentiality for that source. Furthermore, the source contacted Fitzgerald's office and the Post knows this. An administration official contacting the a prosecutor regarding a criminal investigation is news.
The source is news. The Washington Post can no longer hide behind the confidentiality agreement. They need to name the source and Bob Woodward needs to be disciplined because there is no longer an impression of impartiality in his statements re: Fitzgerald and the case itself.
Had the source refused to give permission to be named in a grand jury investigation, we'd be dealing with different issues. But that's not what happened. The source waived confidentiality with regards to a criminal investigation. The paper is now in a situation where it's sitting on information that it has no right to sit on.
If Woodward had refused to testify based on his beliefs in confidentiaity, we'd argue for his right to protect his source. But a source is protected to prevent retaliation. The administration knows who the source is, the grand jury knows who the source is. The public is the only one left in the dark. That's not how the press works.
No peace quote, I'm running so late.
judith miller
valerie plame
plamegate
scooter libby
bob woodward
the washington post
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
like maria said paz
mikey likes it
the common ills
Republicans Defeat Measure For Withdrawal Timetable (Democracy Now!):
On Capitol Hill, the Republican-controlled Senate passed a resolution mandating the White House to provide quarterly Iraq progress reports and urging it to accelerate the process for a withdrawal of U.S. troops. The measure passed after a Democratic measure calling for a specific timetable for troop withdrawal was defeated. Commenting on the rejected Democratic resolution, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham said: "I think it speaks to a bit of nervousness about public perception of how the war is going in terms of [2006] elections. And to be honest with you, the war is going to be going on long after '06. I'm more worried about getting it right in Iraq than the '06 elections."
No surprise to anyone, it was all a dog and pony show. There was no substance in what the Senate passed, there was no intent to have any substance. It was just a page from Nixon's playbook of pretend you're as tired of the war as everyone else so you can get some votes.
The second item was one that The Common Ills community member P.J. (who works at the Washington Post) asked us to note.
Woodward Was Told of Plame’s Identity (Democracy Now!):
Longtime Washington Post journalist and current assistant editor Bob Woodward testified Monday a senior administration official told him about CIA operative Valerie Plame nearly a month before her identity was thought to be first disclosed. The official appears to be someone other than Lewis Libby or Karl Rove. Woodward was questioned by Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald after the unnamed official alerted Fitzgerald of his conversation with Woodward. Citing a confidentiality agreement, Woodward and Post editors did not reveal the source’s identity. Post editors say Woodward only told them of the conversation last month.
Bob Woodward is a joke. He's made himself a joke and he's made journalism a joke. You want to talk Judy Miller? Talk Bobby Woodward first. Judith Miller stenographer to the powerful? Well what has every book by Bob Woodward been except the minutes of the court? He's sucked up to the powerful for years, minimized guilt, covered up actual events. Without Bob Woodward, there might not have been a Judith Miller.
I like Robert Parry's work and think he's a great reporter. Rebecca gave me Secret History (hope that's the correct title) and urged me to read it and another book whose title I'm forgetting. (Rebecca, they are both on my book cases. I'm just rushing to get this up and meet a guy for a dinner.) Parry writes about the press' retreat from investigative journalism almot immediately after Watergate. That retreat resulted in where we are today. I agree with Parry absolutely. But I also think that certain parties were especially responsible for the retreat and among those are Bob Woodward, Ben Bradlee and Katharine Graham. (I don't think that Parry would necessarily disagree with me on that point. His writing may imply that point. I've just never read it stated specifically. Which doesn't mean he hasn't stated it, just that in my limited reading of Parry, I haven't seen it.)
"Editorial: Someone explain to Bob Woodward that a reporter reports" (The Common Ills):
Just the facts Woody has puzzled a few over the years. There was Wired, for instance and people feeling their words were misrepresented. There was Janet Cook, as well. But if anything's come close to smudging the rep of Bob Woodward it may be his pooh-pahing of the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame and Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation into that outing.
Or maybe he just sounds like someone trying to cover his own ass?
Guessing the latter? Note Jim VandeHei and Carol D. Leonnig's "Woodward Was Told of Plame More Than Two Years Ago:"
In a more than two-hour deposition, Woodward told Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald that the official casually told him in mid-June 2003 that Plame worked as a CIA analyst on weapons of mass destruction, and that he did not believe the information to be classified or sensitive, according to a statement Woodward released yesterday.
Many have noted that while he was writing his last book on the Bully Boy, full of quotes that access and pre-arranged agreements produced, he somehow missed the big story -- the outing of Valerie Plame.
He didn't miss it. He apparently just either felt it wasn't news or he was covering up (either for the administration or for himself).
From CNN's Larry King Live, October 27, 2005:
KING: We're in Washington where things are hopping and we're going to follow up again tomorrow night. We're going to lead this round with Bob Woodward as we turn to tomorrow. But, Michael Isikoff whispered to me during the break that he has a key question he'd like to ask Mr. Woodward, so I don't know what this is about.
ISIKOFF: No, look, this is the biggest mystery in Washington, has been really for two years and now as we come down to the deadline of tomorrow the city is awash with rumors. There's a new one every 15 minutes and nobody really knows what's going to happen tomorrow. Nobody knows what Fitzgerald's got. I talked to a source at the White House late this afternoon who told me that Bob is going to have a bombshell in tomorrow's paper identifying the Mr. X source who is behind the whole thing. So, I don't know, maybe this is Bob's opportunity.
KING: Come clean.
WOODWARD: I wish I did have a bombshell. I don't even have a firecracker. I'm sorry. In fact, I mean this tells you something about the atmosphere here. I got a call from somebody in the CIA saying he got a call from the best "New York Times" reporter on this saying exactly that I supposedly had a bombshell.
KING: (INAUDIBLE).
WOODWARD: Finally, this went around that I was going to do it tonight or in the paper. Finally, Len Downie, who is the editor of the "Washington Post" called me and said, "I hear you have a bombshell. Would you let me in on it."
KING: So now the rumors are about you.
WOODWARD: And I said I'm sorry to disappoint you but I don't.
Did the Post, as the Times did, ask their reporters if any had information on the outing of Valerie Plame? According to the article in the Post, he "never mentioned this contact . . . to his supervisors until last month."
Vanity Fair beat the Post to the scoop on Mark Felt. That was embarrassing for the paper. This is embarrassing as well.
It's made more embarrassing by the fact that Woody felt the need to critique the case (on Larry King Live as well as on NPR).
From the article:
Fitzgerald interviewed Woodward about the previously undisclosed conversation after the official alerted the prosecutor to it on Nov. 3 -- one week after Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, was indicted in the investigation.
Woodward, weighing in for public consumption, never revealed his own conflict of interest while chatting & chewing. That's a reporter?
How ethical was it for him to weigh in on a case which he could be forced to testify on (and was forced to)? How ethical when he's not being upfront that he has his own conflict of interest?When he's saying on national TV that he doesn't have a "bombshell," that he doesn't even have a "firce cracker"?
He had something but he sat on it. And he failed to disclose while repeating cloaking himself in the guise of "objectivity" and wrapping himself in the name of the paper.
Bob Woodward was always the lightweight of Woodward & Bernstein (think of him as the McCartney of the two), willing to play the access game and that's partly why he's had his long career at the Washington Post and why Carl Bernstein moved on to other things.
Now Woody, of the dipthong and "calcium in the backbone," is exposed as a party to something that resulted in a criminal investigation. He weighed in on that investigation. He never told the public that he was involved.How ethical was that?
It gets better. From the Post article:
Citing a confidentiality agreement in which the source freed Woodward to testify but would not allow him to discuss their conversations publicly, Woodward and Post editors refused to disclose the official's name or provide crucial details about the testimony. Woodward did not share the information with Washington Post Executive Editor Leonard Downie Jr. until last month, and the only Post reporter whom Woodward said he remembers telling in the summer of 2003 does not recall the conversation taking place.
That's Walter Pincus. Once again, Woody has one version and Pincus another. (Think of Howie Kurtz's critique of the Post's coverage of the lead up to the war for another example of where Pincus and Woody's memories differ.)
Is that how it works? You can disclose to a grand jury but not to the public? Not if you're a reporter. If you're naming the source, you're naming it. If you're a reporter. Can you imagine what would have been said of Judith Miller if she'd tried that tactic?
Woody sat on a story. While sitting on it, he went around, identified with the paper, and weighed in on an investigation. Now Woody's has testified and named his source but wants to say that it's not the public's business.
It very much is the public's business. In June of 2003, he was a party to a conversation that was news but he elected to stay mum on the topic -- except when taking to the airwaves to attack Fitzgerald and to dismiss the issues involved.
When you name your source to the grand jury, you name it to the public. You can't name for a criminal investigation and then, if you're a reporter, say, "Oh well I won't name to the public."
Why? Because naming to the public is your damn job.
A reporter reports.Confidentiality, like pregnancy, does not come in "bits." It's an either/or. Either you're pregnant or you're not -- either you do protect the confidentiality or you don't.
Woody needs to name his source.
The fact that he's taken to the airwaves to refute the importance of an investigation that he's now been drawn into only makes that more necessary.
He has outed his source to a grand jury. There is no more "confidentiality."The press does not function behind closed doors. It is supposed to serve the public.
The Post should force him to make a public apology for offering opinions on a case that he was involved in without revealing his own involvement. He deceived the public.
He weighed in using his name and reputation (such as they are) in what can be seen as an attempt to sway public opinion.The opinions he offered now seem far less than objective.
If Woody can't come forward with his information, the Post needs to place him on unpaid leave.
If Woodward owned stock in Enron and while the investigation into its practices was ongoing he took to the airwaves to say there was no Enron story, he would have deceived the public. His statements regarding Fitzgerald's investigation and the outing of Valerie Plame are deceitful because he did not disclose to the public his own involvement.
Is Woodward familiar with the ethics guidlines for his own paper? Is he familiar with this statement: "Our obligation is to serve readers, not sources."?
How about this statement: "Our reporting should be honorable; we should be prepared to explain publicly anything we do to get a story. "?
Bob Woodward did not go on Larry King's show as private citizen Bob Woodward. He went on as Washington Post journalist and book author Bob Woodward. The statements he made were pertinent not because he was a private citizen but because he was a well known reporter.
Pronouncing judgement on an investigation carried with it the implication that the opinions were coming from a well versed, knowledgable reporter.
Well versed and knowledgable does not include "party to the investigation." Bob Woodward deceived the public by failing to disclose his own involvement when he weighed in on Larry King's show. He could have stated he had no comment on the investigation.
Instead he elected to weigh in on the topic while refusing to disclose his own ties to the investigation.
One can argue, "Well Woodward didn't want to be called before the grand jury!" That's obvious.
But it comes back to the fact that non one forced him to offer opinions on a federal investigation.
He elected to weigh in.
There's not a great deal of difference beween his lack of disclosure and Armstrong Williams'.
Both benefitted from keeping something hidden. Both owed it to the public to disclose their own involvement.
The source has now been named to a grand jury in a criminal investigation. There is no more confidentiality for that source. Furthermore, the source contacted Fitzgerald's office and the Post knows this. An administration official contacting the a prosecutor regarding a criminal investigation is news.
The source is news. The Washington Post can no longer hide behind the confidentiality agreement. They need to name the source and Bob Woodward needs to be disciplined because there is no longer an impression of impartiality in his statements re: Fitzgerald and the case itself.
Had the source refused to give permission to be named in a grand jury investigation, we'd be dealing with different issues. But that's not what happened. The source waived confidentiality with regards to a criminal investigation. The paper is now in a situation where it's sitting on information that it has no right to sit on.
If Woodward had refused to testify based on his beliefs in confidentiaity, we'd argue for his right to protect his source. But a source is protected to prevent retaliation. The administration knows who the source is, the grand jury knows who the source is. The public is the only one left in the dark. That's not how the press works.
No peace quote, I'm running so late.
judith miller
valerie plame
plamegate
scooter libby
bob woodward
the washington post
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
like maria said paz
mikey likes it
the common ills
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
"Peace doesn't arrive on empty promises"
Be sure to check out Mike's thoughts on the two items we picked out from Democracy Now! (his site is Mikey Likes It!).
Report: CIA Used Spanish Airports for Secret Flights (Democracy Now!)
The Spanish newspaper El Pais is reporting that CIA planes made at least 10 secret stopovers inside the country while transporting detainees. The secret stops occurred at airports in Spain's Baleaic islands. Spain's opposition party - the United Left Party - has called on the country's interior Minister to explain the use of Spanish airports for what it describes as the CIA's "plane-prisons." Another Spanish newspaper -- Diario de Mallorca - reports that a CIA plane that took off from the Spanish island of Mallorca was involved in the alleged CIA kidnapping of a Lebanese-born German who says he was snatched up in Macedonia and then transported to Afghanistan. The man - who has since been released - claims that in Afghanistan he was shackled, beaten, injected with drugs and questioned persistently about his alleged links with al-Qaida. A number of probes are underway in Europe over covert CIA operations there. The Italian and German governments are both investigating allegations that the CIA has kidnapped individuals within their borders. Italy is seeking the extradition of 22 CIA agents for the involvement in one such kidnapping. The Washington Post also recently reported that the CIA has two secret prisons in Eastern Europe countries.
We kid ourselves that we're in a "clean" war. Less so now. But I can remember when the invasion began, deaths were treated as nothing big. We had a "purpose" so what were a few lives?
Of course those "few" lives were all Americans and we never stopped to study the other deaths, the ones that TV wasn't interested in and, pretty soon, the print media took a pass on as well.
"Clean" war, "safe" war. When you outsource it, it's all the harder for the people to know what you're doing.
What Bully Boy's doing is kidnapping people, who have not been found guilty in a court of law of anything, and then allowing them to be tortured. As C.I.'s pointed out, apparently our rules, laws and mores aren't things we carry inside of us, but only things we hold dear while our feet are planted on domestic soil.
It's as though Bully Boy's strutting around the Oval Office saying, "It's Abu Ghraib, baby! What happens in Abu Ghraib, stays in Abu Ghraib!"
It doesn't work that way. Forget blowback, which is very important, for a moment and just ask yourself, especially all you flag wavers, if the country you support, the ideas you were raised with, mean so little that you dispose of your American citizenship and duties just by leaving the country.
Alito: "The Constitution Does Not Protect A Right To An Abortion" (Democracy Now!):
Newly released documents show that Supreme Court Justice nominee Samuel Alito said 20 years ago "the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion." Alito made the statements in a job application to become deputy assistant to Ronald Reagan's Attorney General Edwin Meese. In the job application he wrote "I am particularly proud of my contributions in recent cases in which the government argued that racial and ethnic quotas should not be allowed and that the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion." Alito said it had been a "source of great personal satisfaction" to help advance such legal causes because he believed in them "very strongly." He also wrote at the time "I believe very strongly in limited government, federalism, free enterprise, the supremacy of the elected branches of government, the need for a strong defense and effective law enforcement, and the legitimacy of a government role in protecting traditional values." In the same document he revealed that he was a "lifelong registered" Republican, a Federalist Society member and that he had donated money to the National Republican Congressional Committee and the National Conservative Political Action Committee. Sen. Patrick Leahy, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, said the documents reveal that Alito is an "aggressive participant in an ideological movement intended to withdraw discrimination protections from workers." Alito's confirmation hearing is scheduled to begin on January 9th.
Alito meets with Diane Feinstein today. What does DiFi gush to the press? Alito told her he was seeking a political appointment so his remarks shouldn't be taken too seriously. And DiFi gushes that he seemed sincere.
Let's break it down for DiFi.
1) Leave the "peering into the soul" for the Bully Boy.
2) He's seeking an appointment now. The supreme appointment, one to the Supreme Court. There's no higher appointment.
Wait, that's wrong. Usually that's true. But in 2000, we found that a higher office than Supreme Court Justice could be appointed. That's the year where we found out that the office of president wasn't an elected one necessarily, it could also be an appointed one.
3) What he told you, DiFi, should disturb the hell out of you. He told you that he'd say anything for an appointment.
4) Gee, DiFi, do you think he might trot out that trick again?
She embarrassed herself in the John Roberts confirmation hearings. She needs to get her act together. That doesn't mean saying a lot of pleasing things about how as the only woman on the Judiciary Committee, you feel a special obligation.
Don't give anymore empty words. Show some action.
"Other Items" (The Common Ills):
Carl Hulse writes about a plan to get the troops out of Iraq in "Senate Republicans Pushing for a Plan on Ending the War in Iraq:"
In a sign of increasing unease among Congressional Republicans over the war in Iraq, the Senate is to consider on Tuesday a Republican proposal that calls for Iraqi forces to take the lead next year in securing the nation and for the Bush administration to lay out its strategy for ending the war. The Senate is also scheduled to vote Tuesday on a compromise, announced Monday night, that would allow terror detainees some access to federal courts. The Senate had voted last week to prohibit those being held from challenging their detentions in federal court, despite a Supreme Court ruling to the contrary.
Senator Lindsey Graham, the South Carolina Republican who is the author of the initial plan, said Monday that he had negotiated a compromise that would allow detainees at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, to challenge their designation as enemy combatants in federal courts and also allow automatic appeals of any convictions handed down by the military where detainees receive prison terms of 10 years or more or a death sentence.
Let's file this under believe it when it happens. Not the "plan." Not it being "passed." Elaine and I have said for some time that with the 2006 elections approaching, the occupation so unpopular with the people, a "secret plan" would be announced by Bully Boy. His arrogance has apparently forced Repubes in the Senate to step up first.
I don't want a bumper sticker analysis of the "plan." Before the press trumpets it in headlines, they better examine every detail. (Provided it passes.)
Are the Republicans sincere? Who knows? But the Democrats aren't even pretending at this point. (There are individuals who break the silence on this issue, and certainly in the House we see bravery and leadership, but I'm speaking of those in supposed leadership roles as well as the bulk of the Dems in Congres.)
Maybe the Repubes are sincere? But this trick's been played before, "We'll be out next year!", and Congress passing a slogan isn't going to solve anything (but the election "crisis" faced in November of 2006). Sound cynical? Nixon's "peace plan" seems to be echoing here.
Here's how it went today. A Democratic proposal gets shot down in the Senate today. A similar proposal made by Republicans gets passed. Why?
Because the "plan" is no plan. It's just an attempt to look good in the upcoming elections.
There's no teeth in what was passed. It's non-binding.
Nixon pulled out a "peace plan" when facing elections. In fact, he apparently had Kissinger screw over a plan in 1968, a real plan, because it was more important that he get elected than that the war be ended and the troops brought home. Sound familiar?
So don't get excited by sleight of hand or tricks pulled out as Bully Boy tanks in the polls and as Republicans fret over the elections this month. We've lived through this nonsense before. It's sop tossed out to make you think that something's going to change and they want you to think that until after you vote in 2006.
"Peace Quote" (from me):
Peace doesn't arrive on empty promises.
the new york times
democracy now
carl hulse
like maria said paz
mikey likes it
the common ills
Report: CIA Used Spanish Airports for Secret Flights (Democracy Now!)
The Spanish newspaper El Pais is reporting that CIA planes made at least 10 secret stopovers inside the country while transporting detainees. The secret stops occurred at airports in Spain's Baleaic islands. Spain's opposition party - the United Left Party - has called on the country's interior Minister to explain the use of Spanish airports for what it describes as the CIA's "plane-prisons." Another Spanish newspaper -- Diario de Mallorca - reports that a CIA plane that took off from the Spanish island of Mallorca was involved in the alleged CIA kidnapping of a Lebanese-born German who says he was snatched up in Macedonia and then transported to Afghanistan. The man - who has since been released - claims that in Afghanistan he was shackled, beaten, injected with drugs and questioned persistently about his alleged links with al-Qaida. A number of probes are underway in Europe over covert CIA operations there. The Italian and German governments are both investigating allegations that the CIA has kidnapped individuals within their borders. Italy is seeking the extradition of 22 CIA agents for the involvement in one such kidnapping. The Washington Post also recently reported that the CIA has two secret prisons in Eastern Europe countries.
We kid ourselves that we're in a "clean" war. Less so now. But I can remember when the invasion began, deaths were treated as nothing big. We had a "purpose" so what were a few lives?
Of course those "few" lives were all Americans and we never stopped to study the other deaths, the ones that TV wasn't interested in and, pretty soon, the print media took a pass on as well.
"Clean" war, "safe" war. When you outsource it, it's all the harder for the people to know what you're doing.
What Bully Boy's doing is kidnapping people, who have not been found guilty in a court of law of anything, and then allowing them to be tortured. As C.I.'s pointed out, apparently our rules, laws and mores aren't things we carry inside of us, but only things we hold dear while our feet are planted on domestic soil.
It's as though Bully Boy's strutting around the Oval Office saying, "It's Abu Ghraib, baby! What happens in Abu Ghraib, stays in Abu Ghraib!"
It doesn't work that way. Forget blowback, which is very important, for a moment and just ask yourself, especially all you flag wavers, if the country you support, the ideas you were raised with, mean so little that you dispose of your American citizenship and duties just by leaving the country.
Alito: "The Constitution Does Not Protect A Right To An Abortion" (Democracy Now!):
Newly released documents show that Supreme Court Justice nominee Samuel Alito said 20 years ago "the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion." Alito made the statements in a job application to become deputy assistant to Ronald Reagan's Attorney General Edwin Meese. In the job application he wrote "I am particularly proud of my contributions in recent cases in which the government argued that racial and ethnic quotas should not be allowed and that the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion." Alito said it had been a "source of great personal satisfaction" to help advance such legal causes because he believed in them "very strongly." He also wrote at the time "I believe very strongly in limited government, federalism, free enterprise, the supremacy of the elected branches of government, the need for a strong defense and effective law enforcement, and the legitimacy of a government role in protecting traditional values." In the same document he revealed that he was a "lifelong registered" Republican, a Federalist Society member and that he had donated money to the National Republican Congressional Committee and the National Conservative Political Action Committee. Sen. Patrick Leahy, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, said the documents reveal that Alito is an "aggressive participant in an ideological movement intended to withdraw discrimination protections from workers." Alito's confirmation hearing is scheduled to begin on January 9th.
Alito meets with Diane Feinstein today. What does DiFi gush to the press? Alito told her he was seeking a political appointment so his remarks shouldn't be taken too seriously. And DiFi gushes that he seemed sincere.
Let's break it down for DiFi.
1) Leave the "peering into the soul" for the Bully Boy.
2) He's seeking an appointment now. The supreme appointment, one to the Supreme Court. There's no higher appointment.
Wait, that's wrong. Usually that's true. But in 2000, we found that a higher office than Supreme Court Justice could be appointed. That's the year where we found out that the office of president wasn't an elected one necessarily, it could also be an appointed one.
3) What he told you, DiFi, should disturb the hell out of you. He told you that he'd say anything for an appointment.
4) Gee, DiFi, do you think he might trot out that trick again?
She embarrassed herself in the John Roberts confirmation hearings. She needs to get her act together. That doesn't mean saying a lot of pleasing things about how as the only woman on the Judiciary Committee, you feel a special obligation.
Don't give anymore empty words. Show some action.
"Other Items" (The Common Ills):
Carl Hulse writes about a plan to get the troops out of Iraq in "Senate Republicans Pushing for a Plan on Ending the War in Iraq:"
In a sign of increasing unease among Congressional Republicans over the war in Iraq, the Senate is to consider on Tuesday a Republican proposal that calls for Iraqi forces to take the lead next year in securing the nation and for the Bush administration to lay out its strategy for ending the war. The Senate is also scheduled to vote Tuesday on a compromise, announced Monday night, that would allow terror detainees some access to federal courts. The Senate had voted last week to prohibit those being held from challenging their detentions in federal court, despite a Supreme Court ruling to the contrary.
Senator Lindsey Graham, the South Carolina Republican who is the author of the initial plan, said Monday that he had negotiated a compromise that would allow detainees at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, to challenge their designation as enemy combatants in federal courts and also allow automatic appeals of any convictions handed down by the military where detainees receive prison terms of 10 years or more or a death sentence.
Let's file this under believe it when it happens. Not the "plan." Not it being "passed." Elaine and I have said for some time that with the 2006 elections approaching, the occupation so unpopular with the people, a "secret plan" would be announced by Bully Boy. His arrogance has apparently forced Repubes in the Senate to step up first.
I don't want a bumper sticker analysis of the "plan." Before the press trumpets it in headlines, they better examine every detail. (Provided it passes.)
Are the Republicans sincere? Who knows? But the Democrats aren't even pretending at this point. (There are individuals who break the silence on this issue, and certainly in the House we see bravery and leadership, but I'm speaking of those in supposed leadership roles as well as the bulk of the Dems in Congres.)
Maybe the Repubes are sincere? But this trick's been played before, "We'll be out next year!", and Congress passing a slogan isn't going to solve anything (but the election "crisis" faced in November of 2006). Sound cynical? Nixon's "peace plan" seems to be echoing here.
Here's how it went today. A Democratic proposal gets shot down in the Senate today. A similar proposal made by Republicans gets passed. Why?
Because the "plan" is no plan. It's just an attempt to look good in the upcoming elections.
There's no teeth in what was passed. It's non-binding.
Nixon pulled out a "peace plan" when facing elections. In fact, he apparently had Kissinger screw over a plan in 1968, a real plan, because it was more important that he get elected than that the war be ended and the troops brought home. Sound familiar?
So don't get excited by sleight of hand or tricks pulled out as Bully Boy tanks in the polls and as Republicans fret over the elections this month. We've lived through this nonsense before. It's sop tossed out to make you think that something's going to change and they want you to think that until after you vote in 2006.
"Peace Quote" (from me):
Peace doesn't arrive on empty promises.
the new york times
democracy now
carl hulse
like maria said paz
mikey likes it
the common ills
Monday, November 14, 2005
The real miracle, still, is to walk on earth
Mike and I are covering the same two items from Democracy Now! so make a point to visit Mikey Likes It! to see his take on them.
Thousands of Students Say No To Recruiters in Boston (Democracy Now!):
The Boston Globe is reporting that more than 5,000 high school students in five of Massachusetts' largest school districts have removed their names from military recruitment lists. In Boston, about 3,700 students, or 19 percent of those enrolled in the city's high schools, have removed their names from recruiting lists. At Cambridge Rindge and Latin School more than half the student body, ordered the school system not to give their names to the military this year.
As Mike said on the phone, "This is reality." It is too. It's what's going around in the country, catching fire, word of mouth, turning against this war and the notion that we are the subjects of the royal Bully Boy. It's all over now, Bully Boy.
Which brings up something C.I. passed my way. I got an e-mail about how it was too busy to note something at The Common Ills and that I might be interested in it.
Absolutely.
I hadn't heard of this, maybe you have?
"Going Inside the Debate" (Danny Schechter, News Dissector):
You have all read this story by now I would guess:
"GOP memo touts new terror attack as way to reverse party's decline."
It broke in Capitol Hill Blue and probably shocked very few us us which is in itself a comment on the low regard many hold this administration. Wrote Publisher Doug Thomspson:
"A confidential memo circulating among senior Republican leaders suggests that a new attack by terrorists on U.S. soil could reverse the sagging fortunes of President George W. Bush as well as the GOP and "restore his image as a leader of the American people."
"The closely-guarded memo lays out a list of scenarios to bring the Republican party back from the political brink, including a devastating attack by terrorists that could "validate" the President's war on terror and allow Bush to "unite the country" in a "time of national shock and sorrow."
Funny thing about this story is that this scenario is layed out in Larry Beinhardt's must read novel The Librarian, a political thriller about a plot to steal an election. Beinhart wrote an earlier novel that inspired the movie "Wag the Dog." I quote from the book in my report from Amsterdam. Scroll down.
Can you imagine what would happen if a Democratic memo was discovered with that kind of message? The headlines of every paper would scream, it would lead on the evening news, Ted Koppel would devote a full Nightline to it. There would be a lot of clucking about how shameless this is and a lot of talk about whether the Democrats were doing more talking, more than hoping.
The Republicans compose this memo and I knew nothing of it until C.I. passed it along in the e-mail. I watch the news, I read a daily paper, I listen to the news on the radio.
So where's the outrage over this?
The Republican Party can just do whatever it wants to, apparently. The White House seems to think that they can as well.
White House Tries To Alter Transcript of Press Briefings (Democracy Now!):
The White House has been accused of trying to rewrite history after requesting Congressional Quarterly and the Federal News Service to alter the transcript to a October 31 press briefing. Both news agencies reported White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan responded to a question about the CIA leak case by saying "that's accurate." But the White House insists he said, "I don't think that's accurate." So far both Congressional Quarterly and the Federal News Services have refused to change their transcripts but the White House website now claims McClellan said "I don't think that's accurate."
If you listen to Democracy Now! today, you'll hear the actual exchange. What did Scott McClellan say? "That's accurate." But the White House thinks it's okay to rewrite reality. Which is Why Bully Boy's launching his latest attacks. It's wrong, according to the Bully Boy, for those who criticize him, in Congress, to do so if they voted for the war.
I'm the last to defend the war hawks who rushed to rally behind Bully Boy. But they didn't vote on war and he's lying (again) when he implies that they did. They were also led to believe that we'd try for, if not get, a UN resolution. That idea got trashed as well. Bully Boy wanted this war and lied us into it. If some in Congress have woken up, good for them.
But in Bully Boy's you're with me or you're against me world, we're all his enemies. Has anyone ever felt more persecuted and yet done more to turn the entire world against him?
If you missed it, here's an excerpt from a news article on the topic.
"Bush Takes Fresh Shot at Iraq War Critics" (Terence Hunt, Associated Press):
Iraq and other problems -- from the bungled response to Hurricane Katrina to the indictment of a senior White House official in the CIA leak investigation -- have taken a heavy toll on the president's standing. Nearing the end of his fifth year in office, Bush has the lowest approval rating of his presidency and a majority of Americans say Bush is not honest and they disapprove of his handling of foreign policy and the war on terrorism.
In his prepared Alaska remarks, Bush noted that some elected Democrats in Congress "have opposed this war all along.
"I disagree with them, but I respect their willingness to take a consistent stand," he said. "Yet some Democrats who voted to authorize the use of force are now rewriting the past. They are playing politics with this issue and sending mixed signals to our troops and the enemy."
As someone who disagreed with the war before it was launched, I'll state that I disagree with Bully Boy (and most bullies and liars) and that I do not respect the Bully Boy. Of course, he's not concerned with my opinion. Or your's. We're all part of the "none that matter" as Cokie Roberts so infamously called us.
Bully Boy wants to be worshipped like a king. He wants to live in a fantasy world where he walks on water and we all stare in awe. There's been no cause for awe from the "leadership" he's offered America. He doesn't grasp that because he doesn't address reality.
"Peace Quotes" (Peace Center):
The real miracle is not to walk either on water or in thin air, but to walk on earth.
Thich Nhat Hanh
democracy now
the common ills
mikey likes it
danny schechter
Thousands of Students Say No To Recruiters in Boston (Democracy Now!):
The Boston Globe is reporting that more than 5,000 high school students in five of Massachusetts' largest school districts have removed their names from military recruitment lists. In Boston, about 3,700 students, or 19 percent of those enrolled in the city's high schools, have removed their names from recruiting lists. At Cambridge Rindge and Latin School more than half the student body, ordered the school system not to give their names to the military this year.
As Mike said on the phone, "This is reality." It is too. It's what's going around in the country, catching fire, word of mouth, turning against this war and the notion that we are the subjects of the royal Bully Boy. It's all over now, Bully Boy.
Which brings up something C.I. passed my way. I got an e-mail about how it was too busy to note something at The Common Ills and that I might be interested in it.
Absolutely.
I hadn't heard of this, maybe you have?
"Going Inside the Debate" (Danny Schechter, News Dissector):
You have all read this story by now I would guess:
"GOP memo touts new terror attack as way to reverse party's decline."
It broke in Capitol Hill Blue and probably shocked very few us us which is in itself a comment on the low regard many hold this administration. Wrote Publisher Doug Thomspson:
"A confidential memo circulating among senior Republican leaders suggests that a new attack by terrorists on U.S. soil could reverse the sagging fortunes of President George W. Bush as well as the GOP and "restore his image as a leader of the American people."
"The closely-guarded memo lays out a list of scenarios to bring the Republican party back from the political brink, including a devastating attack by terrorists that could "validate" the President's war on terror and allow Bush to "unite the country" in a "time of national shock and sorrow."
Funny thing about this story is that this scenario is layed out in Larry Beinhardt's must read novel The Librarian, a political thriller about a plot to steal an election. Beinhart wrote an earlier novel that inspired the movie "Wag the Dog." I quote from the book in my report from Amsterdam. Scroll down.
Can you imagine what would happen if a Democratic memo was discovered with that kind of message? The headlines of every paper would scream, it would lead on the evening news, Ted Koppel would devote a full Nightline to it. There would be a lot of clucking about how shameless this is and a lot of talk about whether the Democrats were doing more talking, more than hoping.
The Republicans compose this memo and I knew nothing of it until C.I. passed it along in the e-mail. I watch the news, I read a daily paper, I listen to the news on the radio.
So where's the outrage over this?
The Republican Party can just do whatever it wants to, apparently. The White House seems to think that they can as well.
White House Tries To Alter Transcript of Press Briefings (Democracy Now!):
The White House has been accused of trying to rewrite history after requesting Congressional Quarterly and the Federal News Service to alter the transcript to a October 31 press briefing. Both news agencies reported White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan responded to a question about the CIA leak case by saying "that's accurate." But the White House insists he said, "I don't think that's accurate." So far both Congressional Quarterly and the Federal News Services have refused to change their transcripts but the White House website now claims McClellan said "I don't think that's accurate."
If you listen to Democracy Now! today, you'll hear the actual exchange. What did Scott McClellan say? "That's accurate." But the White House thinks it's okay to rewrite reality. Which is Why Bully Boy's launching his latest attacks. It's wrong, according to the Bully Boy, for those who criticize him, in Congress, to do so if they voted for the war.
I'm the last to defend the war hawks who rushed to rally behind Bully Boy. But they didn't vote on war and he's lying (again) when he implies that they did. They were also led to believe that we'd try for, if not get, a UN resolution. That idea got trashed as well. Bully Boy wanted this war and lied us into it. If some in Congress have woken up, good for them.
But in Bully Boy's you're with me or you're against me world, we're all his enemies. Has anyone ever felt more persecuted and yet done more to turn the entire world against him?
If you missed it, here's an excerpt from a news article on the topic.
"Bush Takes Fresh Shot at Iraq War Critics" (Terence Hunt, Associated Press):
Iraq and other problems -- from the bungled response to Hurricane Katrina to the indictment of a senior White House official in the CIA leak investigation -- have taken a heavy toll on the president's standing. Nearing the end of his fifth year in office, Bush has the lowest approval rating of his presidency and a majority of Americans say Bush is not honest and they disapprove of his handling of foreign policy and the war on terrorism.
In his prepared Alaska remarks, Bush noted that some elected Democrats in Congress "have opposed this war all along.
"I disagree with them, but I respect their willingness to take a consistent stand," he said. "Yet some Democrats who voted to authorize the use of force are now rewriting the past. They are playing politics with this issue and sending mixed signals to our troops and the enemy."
As someone who disagreed with the war before it was launched, I'll state that I disagree with Bully Boy (and most bullies and liars) and that I do not respect the Bully Boy. Of course, he's not concerned with my opinion. Or your's. We're all part of the "none that matter" as Cokie Roberts so infamously called us.
Bully Boy wants to be worshipped like a king. He wants to live in a fantasy world where he walks on water and we all stare in awe. There's been no cause for awe from the "leadership" he's offered America. He doesn't grasp that because he doesn't address reality.
"Peace Quotes" (Peace Center):
The real miracle is not to walk either on water or in thin air, but to walk on earth.
Thich Nhat Hanh
democracy now
the common ills
mikey likes it
danny schechter
Friday, November 11, 2005
Unintelligent in the Senate and on the 700 Club
Mike and are doing two items from Democracy Now! today because I'm pretty wiped out tonight. Be sure to check out Mikey Likes It! to read Mike's take on the two items.
Senate Votes To Remove Prisoners’ Right to Challenge Detentions (Democracy Now!):
On Capital Hill Thursday, the Senate voted to take away Guantanamo Bay prisoners’ right to challenge their detentions in United States courts. The measure, put forward by Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, would override a Supreme Court decision last year. The New York Times reports the amendment would nullify legal challenges currently filed by nearly 200 of the 500 detainees currently held at Guantanamo. Five Democrats joined 44 Republicans to pass the measure by a vote of 49 to 42. However the New York Times reports the victory may be short-lived as nine senators were absent, and are pushing for a second vote as early as Monday.
C.I. names the five and I agree that they should be ashamed. I don't expect much from Republicans, to be honest. The reasonable ones have enough problems having allowed their party to be hijacked by the American Taliban. (Which didn't happen under Bully Boy. I've heard women complaining for years now, women who continue to identify as Republican.)
But I do expect the party of the people, the Democratic Party, to stand up for what is just fair.
Joe Lieberman should have declared himself a Republican years ago.
You hear a lot of "If Gore would have carried Tenn., then Florida wouldn't have been an issue." If Al Gore had chosen someone else for his running mate, then a lot of things would have been different. As I remember it, anytime I found myself thinking, "Okay, now Gore's coming alive!" I'd just have to wait a day or two for Joementum to show up on TV or in print saying, "Well that's not really what he meant." The two had nothing common politically. And, like C.I., I believe that the recount battle suffered a huge blow (possibly the deciding one) when Joementum went on Meet the Press and instead of being a fighter says, "Oh sure, we'll count any military ballot." Which is how ballots that arrived with postmarks after the election got counted and how ballots that were faxed in got counted and how ballots with no postmark or ballots or that weren't filled out properal were counted.
Joe Lieberman stabbed Al Gore in the back repeatedly. He undercut him constantly.
I voted for Al Gore. I did that in spite of detesting the psuedo Democrat Lieberman.
Robertson Warns Town Over Rejecting "Intelligent Design" Proponents (Democracy Now!):
Christian televangelist Pat Robertson is again drawing controversy for a statement made on his program "The 700 Club." On Thursday, Robertson was asked to comment on a vote in the Pennsylvania town of Dover that removed school board members who advocated "intelligent design". Robertson said: "I'd like to say to the good citizens of Dover: if there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God, you just rejected Him from your city. And don't wonder why He hasn't helped you when problems begin, if they begin. I'm not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just voted God out of your city. And if that's the case, don't ask for His help because he might not be there." In August, Robertson was forced to apologize after he called for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.
There's no "intelligent design" to Pat Robertson's mind. As he gives what reads like a threat, as usual, he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.
The school board members were removed in Tuesday's election. By a bi-partisan group of voters. Why? Dover was tired of looking like the nation's idiot. But even so, the votes were very close. At one point on Tuesday night, one of the candidates being removed was losing by only eight votes. I'm not sure whether that held or not but the races were close.
So there were, sadly, a significant amount of people in Dover who "believed" like Pat Robertson and apparently they're doomed to hell or an attack by an act of geography (ordained by Robertson).
The votes were close and his people turned out to show their support. They were a significant part of the voting pool but not enough to keep the members from being driven out of office.
Robertson can't see that or grasp it. So he condems not only his "enemies" but his fellow "believers."
Now my own personal opinion is that the board should have been voted out. I'm happy that they were. But I'm not foolish enough to ignore how close the vote was. But the "spiritual leader" is willing to condemn an entire area including the people who voted the way he wanted.
No peace quote tonight. Instead, I want to note a passage. Eli asked C.I. to note "Democrats and the War" which is an important editorial from The Nation:
Americans are well on their way to a full appreciation of the dimensions of this debacle. In an October CBS news poll, 59 percent of citizens surveyed and 73 percent of Democrats now want an end to US military involvement in Iraq. But this growing majority has made its judgment with virtually no help from our nation's leaders. Most shameful has been the Democratic Party's failure to oppose the war. Indeed, support for it has been bipartisan: A Republican President and Congress made the policy, and almost all of the leading Democrats--most of the honorable exceptions are members of the House of Representatives--supported it from the outset and continue to do so. To their credit, would-be presidential candidate Senator Russell Feingold and former Senator Gary Hart have recently made strong antiwar statements. More recently two other presidential contenders, Senator John Kerry and former Senator John Edwards, have begun to call for a shift in policy, though still in vague and reticent terms. More typical, however, are the other presidential hopefuls, Senators Hillary Clinton, Joseph Biden and Evan Bayh, who continue to huddle for cover in "the center." They offer little alternative to Bush's refrain "We must stay the course!" Nor do the party's Congressional leaders and its head, Howard Dean, once a leader of antiwar sentiment. Can such politicians, who cannot even follow a majority--in the Democratic Party, a large majority--really be considered leaders?
The Nation therefore takes the following stand: We will not support any candidate for national office who does not make a speedy end to the war in Iraq a major issue of his or her campaign. We urge all voters to join us in adopting this position. Many worry that the aftermath of withdrawal will be ugly, but we can now see that the consequences of staying will be uglier still. Fear of facing the consequences of Bush's disaster should not be permitted to excuse the creation of a worse disaster by continuing the occupation.
I will absolutely join them. I hope you will as well. I think it's a stand we need to take. My excerpt is different from C.I.'s so if you're someone who doesn't go to links, hopefully you saw enough here and at The Common Ills to understand how important this editorial is. I'd also suggest that you make a point to read Cedric's "It's not just the young people" which addresses how the elderly in the nursing home he visits have turned against the war and the Bully Boy as well.
the common ills
mikey likes it
cedrics big mix
democracy now
iraq
Senate Votes To Remove Prisoners’ Right to Challenge Detentions (Democracy Now!):
On Capital Hill Thursday, the Senate voted to take away Guantanamo Bay prisoners’ right to challenge their detentions in United States courts. The measure, put forward by Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, would override a Supreme Court decision last year. The New York Times reports the amendment would nullify legal challenges currently filed by nearly 200 of the 500 detainees currently held at Guantanamo. Five Democrats joined 44 Republicans to pass the measure by a vote of 49 to 42. However the New York Times reports the victory may be short-lived as nine senators were absent, and are pushing for a second vote as early as Monday.
C.I. names the five and I agree that they should be ashamed. I don't expect much from Republicans, to be honest. The reasonable ones have enough problems having allowed their party to be hijacked by the American Taliban. (Which didn't happen under Bully Boy. I've heard women complaining for years now, women who continue to identify as Republican.)
But I do expect the party of the people, the Democratic Party, to stand up for what is just fair.
Joe Lieberman should have declared himself a Republican years ago.
You hear a lot of "If Gore would have carried Tenn., then Florida wouldn't have been an issue." If Al Gore had chosen someone else for his running mate, then a lot of things would have been different. As I remember it, anytime I found myself thinking, "Okay, now Gore's coming alive!" I'd just have to wait a day or two for Joementum to show up on TV or in print saying, "Well that's not really what he meant." The two had nothing common politically. And, like C.I., I believe that the recount battle suffered a huge blow (possibly the deciding one) when Joementum went on Meet the Press and instead of being a fighter says, "Oh sure, we'll count any military ballot." Which is how ballots that arrived with postmarks after the election got counted and how ballots that were faxed in got counted and how ballots with no postmark or ballots or that weren't filled out properal were counted.
Joe Lieberman stabbed Al Gore in the back repeatedly. He undercut him constantly.
I voted for Al Gore. I did that in spite of detesting the psuedo Democrat Lieberman.
Robertson Warns Town Over Rejecting "Intelligent Design" Proponents (Democracy Now!):
Christian televangelist Pat Robertson is again drawing controversy for a statement made on his program "The 700 Club." On Thursday, Robertson was asked to comment on a vote in the Pennsylvania town of Dover that removed school board members who advocated "intelligent design". Robertson said: "I'd like to say to the good citizens of Dover: if there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God, you just rejected Him from your city. And don't wonder why He hasn't helped you when problems begin, if they begin. I'm not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just voted God out of your city. And if that's the case, don't ask for His help because he might not be there." In August, Robertson was forced to apologize after he called for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.
There's no "intelligent design" to Pat Robertson's mind. As he gives what reads like a threat, as usual, he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.
The school board members were removed in Tuesday's election. By a bi-partisan group of voters. Why? Dover was tired of looking like the nation's idiot. But even so, the votes were very close. At one point on Tuesday night, one of the candidates being removed was losing by only eight votes. I'm not sure whether that held or not but the races were close.
So there were, sadly, a significant amount of people in Dover who "believed" like Pat Robertson and apparently they're doomed to hell or an attack by an act of geography (ordained by Robertson).
The votes were close and his people turned out to show their support. They were a significant part of the voting pool but not enough to keep the members from being driven out of office.
Robertson can't see that or grasp it. So he condems not only his "enemies" but his fellow "believers."
Now my own personal opinion is that the board should have been voted out. I'm happy that they were. But I'm not foolish enough to ignore how close the vote was. But the "spiritual leader" is willing to condemn an entire area including the people who voted the way he wanted.
No peace quote tonight. Instead, I want to note a passage. Eli asked C.I. to note "Democrats and the War" which is an important editorial from The Nation:
Americans are well on their way to a full appreciation of the dimensions of this debacle. In an October CBS news poll, 59 percent of citizens surveyed and 73 percent of Democrats now want an end to US military involvement in Iraq. But this growing majority has made its judgment with virtually no help from our nation's leaders. Most shameful has been the Democratic Party's failure to oppose the war. Indeed, support for it has been bipartisan: A Republican President and Congress made the policy, and almost all of the leading Democrats--most of the honorable exceptions are members of the House of Representatives--supported it from the outset and continue to do so. To their credit, would-be presidential candidate Senator Russell Feingold and former Senator Gary Hart have recently made strong antiwar statements. More recently two other presidential contenders, Senator John Kerry and former Senator John Edwards, have begun to call for a shift in policy, though still in vague and reticent terms. More typical, however, are the other presidential hopefuls, Senators Hillary Clinton, Joseph Biden and Evan Bayh, who continue to huddle for cover in "the center." They offer little alternative to Bush's refrain "We must stay the course!" Nor do the party's Congressional leaders and its head, Howard Dean, once a leader of antiwar sentiment. Can such politicians, who cannot even follow a majority--in the Democratic Party, a large majority--really be considered leaders?
The Nation therefore takes the following stand: We will not support any candidate for national office who does not make a speedy end to the war in Iraq a major issue of his or her campaign. We urge all voters to join us in adopting this position. Many worry that the aftermath of withdrawal will be ugly, but we can now see that the consequences of staying will be uglier still. Fear of facing the consequences of Bush's disaster should not be permitted to excuse the creation of a worse disaster by continuing the occupation.
I will absolutely join them. I hope you will as well. I think it's a stand we need to take. My excerpt is different from C.I.'s so if you're someone who doesn't go to links, hopefully you saw enough here and at The Common Ills to understand how important this editorial is. I'd also suggest that you make a point to read Cedric's "It's not just the young people" which addresses how the elderly in the nursing home he visits have turned against the war and the Bully Boy as well.
the common ills
mikey likes it
cedrics big mix
democracy now
iraq
Wednesday, November 09, 2005
". . . we have to keep marching together, because there are many more bridges to cross"
First, thank you to everyone for the kind e-mails about yesterday's post. Thank you also to C.I. who basically cross posted my post at The Common Ills this morning. (What was left out? The paragraph with references to C.I. C.I. feels that's "self-referential" -- quoting someone speaking of you.)
Secondly, remember to check out Mike's Mikey Likes It! where he's going to be tackling the second item below and also addressing the online Dylan.
UN Extends U.S.-led Foreign Troop Presence (DemocracyNow!)
In other Iraq news, the UN Security Council voted unanimously Tuesday to extend the mandate of U.S.-led military forces by one year. There are nearly 180,000 foreign troops currently in Iraq.
On this, I want to note that there's a review in June. That was part of the process to get everyone to vote in favor of the resolution -- an agreement that in June the status would be reviewed. I also want to note that the resolution recognizes the right of the Iraqis to ask the US to led provided that it's done by the Iraqi government. (A puppet government most likely won't ask the US to leave.)
Lott Suspects Fellow Republicans in Prison Disclosure (Democracy Now!)
Meanwhile, the Los Angeles Times reports Republican Senator Trent Lott said senators from his own party might be responsible for the leak. Lott said the secret prison facilities were discussed at a Republican luncheon on Capitol Hill -- one day before the [Washington] Post published its report November 2nd. Vice President Cheney was among those in attendance. Lott said : "Information that was said in there, given out in there, did get into the newspaper. I don't know where else it came from…. It looked to me that at least one of those reports came right out of that room."
Mike's got a take on this so check out his site. My take on it carries it down a different road. Trent Lott's saying that the leak must have come out of the Republican luncheon. So what Trent Lott is saying is that the Republicans knew of these secret prisons. To me that says complicity and guilt as they turn against the democratic principles this country is supposed to stand for which does include, yes, innocent until proven guilty.
I was asked in several e-mails if I was still feeling depressed? I'm depressed about what the military did in Falluja and about the mainstream press' cover up of the slaughter. But I'm not in the dark mood I was in last night, no.
Susan asked me which of Stevie Nicks' CDs I put on, Bella Donna or Wild Heart? (And Susan was kind enough to correct me because I called "Bella Donna" "Belladonna" last night. Thank you, Susan.) I listened to both. I'd planned to fall asleep listening but I ended up grabbing the phone and calling C.I. (who was kind enough to listen to me in my depressed state) and both albums played through during our conversation. (Stopping to sing along with Stevie on some songs, such as "Wild Heart.")
Tonight's peace quote comes via Brenda whom I'll also say thank you to for her nice e-mail and for suggesting tonight's peace quote. It's a wonderful choice. It's also the perfect antidote for when you're feeling low like I was last night.
Peace Quote (Kim Gandy, NOW):
. . . we have to keep marching together, because there are many more bridges to cross.
democracy now
the common ills
like maria said paz
mikey likes it
iraq
trent lott
Secondly, remember to check out Mike's Mikey Likes It! where he's going to be tackling the second item below and also addressing the online Dylan.
UN Extends U.S.-led Foreign Troop Presence (DemocracyNow!)
In other Iraq news, the UN Security Council voted unanimously Tuesday to extend the mandate of U.S.-led military forces by one year. There are nearly 180,000 foreign troops currently in Iraq.
On this, I want to note that there's a review in June. That was part of the process to get everyone to vote in favor of the resolution -- an agreement that in June the status would be reviewed. I also want to note that the resolution recognizes the right of the Iraqis to ask the US to led provided that it's done by the Iraqi government. (A puppet government most likely won't ask the US to leave.)
Lott Suspects Fellow Republicans in Prison Disclosure (Democracy Now!)
Meanwhile, the Los Angeles Times reports Republican Senator Trent Lott said senators from his own party might be responsible for the leak. Lott said the secret prison facilities were discussed at a Republican luncheon on Capitol Hill -- one day before the [Washington] Post published its report November 2nd. Vice President Cheney was among those in attendance. Lott said : "Information that was said in there, given out in there, did get into the newspaper. I don't know where else it came from…. It looked to me that at least one of those reports came right out of that room."
Mike's got a take on this so check out his site. My take on it carries it down a different road. Trent Lott's saying that the leak must have come out of the Republican luncheon. So what Trent Lott is saying is that the Republicans knew of these secret prisons. To me that says complicity and guilt as they turn against the democratic principles this country is supposed to stand for which does include, yes, innocent until proven guilty.
I was asked in several e-mails if I was still feeling depressed? I'm depressed about what the military did in Falluja and about the mainstream press' cover up of the slaughter. But I'm not in the dark mood I was in last night, no.
Susan asked me which of Stevie Nicks' CDs I put on, Bella Donna or Wild Heart? (And Susan was kind enough to correct me because I called "Bella Donna" "Belladonna" last night. Thank you, Susan.) I listened to both. I'd planned to fall asleep listening but I ended up grabbing the phone and calling C.I. (who was kind enough to listen to me in my depressed state) and both albums played through during our conversation. (Stopping to sing along with Stevie on some songs, such as "Wild Heart.")
Tonight's peace quote comes via Brenda whom I'll also say thank you to for her nice e-mail and for suggesting tonight's peace quote. It's a wonderful choice. It's also the perfect antidote for when you're feeling low like I was last night.
Peace Quote (Kim Gandy, NOW):
. . . we have to keep marching together, because there are many more bridges to cross.
democracy now
the common ills
like maria said paz
mikey likes it
iraq
trent lott
Tuesday, November 08, 2005
Peace Never Comes To Those Who Refuse To Open Their Eyes
Two items from Democracy Now! that Mike and I are both noting.
Canadian Teen At Guantanamo to Face Military Tribunal (Democracy Now!)
The Pentagon filed war crimes charges against five more detainees at Guantanamo. Those charged include Omar Khadr, a Canadian citizen who has been held by the US since he was 15 years old. Khadr's attorney Muneer Ahmad protested Monday's decision saying "Through torture, abuse, and three years of illegal detention, this government has robbed Omar of his youth... The fact that this Administration has seen fit to designate a child for trial by military commission is abhorrent." The Bush administration has refused to provide assurances that they will not seek the death penalty against him. Khadr was detained in Afghanistan allegedly after throwing a grenade that killed a U.S. soldier.
Chalabi Heads Back to D.C.; No Investigation Yet on Iran Spy Charges (Democracy Now!)
The Wall Street Journal reports 17 months have passed the Bush administration announced a full criminal inquiry into allegations that Iraqi exile Ahmad Chalabi leaked U.S. intelligence secrets to Iran. Since then FBI hasn't even interviewed Chalabi or any U.S. official connected to the matter. Chalabi is arriving in Washington today for his first official visit in two years. He is planning on speaking at the American Enterprise Institute on Wednesday and will be meeting with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Treasury Secretary John Snow.
I'm not much into blogging tonight (which is why this is so late), sorry.
U.S. Broadcast Exclusive - "Fallujah: The Hidden Massacre" on the U.S. Use of Napalm-Like White Phosphorus Bombs (Democracy Now!)
Democracy Now! airs an exclusive excerpt of "Fallujah: The Hidden Massacre," featuring interviews with U.S. soldiers, Iraqi doctors and international journalists on the U.S. attack on Fallujah. Produced by Italian state broadcaster RAI TV, the documentary charges U.S. warplanes illegally dropped white phosphorous incendiary bombs on civilian populations, burning the skin off Iraqi victims. One U.S. soldier charges this amounts to the U.S. using chemical weapons against the Iraqi people.
Today was the one year anniversary of the massacre on Falluja and it's honestly depressing to me.
It disgusts me that a year later, we're still having trouble telling the truth about Falluja.
It disgusts me that a year later, so many Americans seem not very concerned with what went down in Falluja.
It disgusts me that a year later, propagandist Dexter Filkins still has an award and so few people will note that his reporting on Falluja was as bad as Judith Miller's lead up to the war reporting.
I'm sure I'll feel better after I wake up tomorrow but tonight it just disgusts me.
I'm not as cynical as Rebecca can be. (She's written about this. I'm not talking out of school.)
But I'm also not as optimistic as C.I. can be. I've been the middle attitude in our friendship over the year. Rebecca was the one who felt something was hopeless (which didn't mean she gave up fighting) and C.I. would always stress that "anything is possible" and I'd be in the middle between the two.
Tonight, I'm just depressed.
I'm thinking of a magazine, a left one, that issued a retraction for an article on Iraq when someone whined. I didn't think that was brave and the article wasn't wrong.
I feel like I was bringing Mike down earlier when we spoke. This may bring people down, this post, but I don't want anyone worrying (or accusing me of slacking off).
We had an amazing summer of activism and it continues. I saw that last week in New York at The World Can't Wait rally.
I also agree that there are wonderful websites, both within the community and outside of it, getting out the news.
I think Democracy Now! is doing important work and making a difference.
I will agree with Mike completely that the youth of the country have turned against the war.
But I think about the people I encounter. I'm not referring to patients. I avoid writing about patients here even in oblique terms. But I'm thinking of people I know, that I encounter due to my career and these "professionals" . . .
I'm not seeing a lot of growing concern.
I agree 100% that the youth is active and they are doing wonderful things. But I really am a little depressed that a year after the massacre, I encounter ho-hums on Falluja from "professionals." Medical professionals, no less.
Which makes me think of how disgusted I am that people who are supposed to be healers and are supposed to do no harm are perfectly willing to pass on information that should be private to military intell to help with investigations. I'm disgusted that members of my profession are okay with helping military intell devise techniques, they word play it as something other than torture, and the various medical societies are not screaming to protest this.
Doctors are not supposed to be assisting a government to "extract" information. Certainly not assisting those using techniques like "water boarding."
I think people have woken up. I think a lot of people who felt that they were the only ones disagreeing with the adminstration have learned that they are not alone. That's very powerful and I'm not trying to mitigate the importance of that.
But the truth that the youth of America, as a group, can see so easily seems to escape some of my peers. People trained to heal and to help should never need anyone pointing out that they have crossed a line; it should be quite obvious to them.
I knew I would be depressed when this anniversary rolled around; however, I didn't realize I would be as depressed as I am.
Talking about this with peers today, on the phone, didn't help because I encountered far too many justifications and far too much timidity that offered "wait a few months" and other nonsense.
Reporters aren't the only embeds helping this war continue and that depresses me because it seems so plain to me that an oath we took to help crumbles in the face of 9/11 as people who are supposed to be professional abandon their professional stance and their designated role as healers to assist in some misguided (and illegal) war on terror.
That's the mood I'm in tonight. I'll probably put on a Stevie Nicks CD and try to go to sleep (Wild Heart or Belladonna).
Peace Quote from me:
Peace never comes to those who refuse to open their eyes.
the common ills
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
like maria said paz
mikey likes it
dexter filkins
Canadian Teen At Guantanamo to Face Military Tribunal (Democracy Now!)
The Pentagon filed war crimes charges against five more detainees at Guantanamo. Those charged include Omar Khadr, a Canadian citizen who has been held by the US since he was 15 years old. Khadr's attorney Muneer Ahmad protested Monday's decision saying "Through torture, abuse, and three years of illegal detention, this government has robbed Omar of his youth... The fact that this Administration has seen fit to designate a child for trial by military commission is abhorrent." The Bush administration has refused to provide assurances that they will not seek the death penalty against him. Khadr was detained in Afghanistan allegedly after throwing a grenade that killed a U.S. soldier.
Chalabi Heads Back to D.C.; No Investigation Yet on Iran Spy Charges (Democracy Now!)
The Wall Street Journal reports 17 months have passed the Bush administration announced a full criminal inquiry into allegations that Iraqi exile Ahmad Chalabi leaked U.S. intelligence secrets to Iran. Since then FBI hasn't even interviewed Chalabi or any U.S. official connected to the matter. Chalabi is arriving in Washington today for his first official visit in two years. He is planning on speaking at the American Enterprise Institute on Wednesday and will be meeting with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Treasury Secretary John Snow.
I'm not much into blogging tonight (which is why this is so late), sorry.
U.S. Broadcast Exclusive - "Fallujah: The Hidden Massacre" on the U.S. Use of Napalm-Like White Phosphorus Bombs (Democracy Now!)
Democracy Now! airs an exclusive excerpt of "Fallujah: The Hidden Massacre," featuring interviews with U.S. soldiers, Iraqi doctors and international journalists on the U.S. attack on Fallujah. Produced by Italian state broadcaster RAI TV, the documentary charges U.S. warplanes illegally dropped white phosphorous incendiary bombs on civilian populations, burning the skin off Iraqi victims. One U.S. soldier charges this amounts to the U.S. using chemical weapons against the Iraqi people.
Today was the one year anniversary of the massacre on Falluja and it's honestly depressing to me.
It disgusts me that a year later, we're still having trouble telling the truth about Falluja.
It disgusts me that a year later, so many Americans seem not very concerned with what went down in Falluja.
It disgusts me that a year later, propagandist Dexter Filkins still has an award and so few people will note that his reporting on Falluja was as bad as Judith Miller's lead up to the war reporting.
I'm sure I'll feel better after I wake up tomorrow but tonight it just disgusts me.
I'm not as cynical as Rebecca can be. (She's written about this. I'm not talking out of school.)
But I'm also not as optimistic as C.I. can be. I've been the middle attitude in our friendship over the year. Rebecca was the one who felt something was hopeless (which didn't mean she gave up fighting) and C.I. would always stress that "anything is possible" and I'd be in the middle between the two.
Tonight, I'm just depressed.
I'm thinking of a magazine, a left one, that issued a retraction for an article on Iraq when someone whined. I didn't think that was brave and the article wasn't wrong.
I feel like I was bringing Mike down earlier when we spoke. This may bring people down, this post, but I don't want anyone worrying (or accusing me of slacking off).
We had an amazing summer of activism and it continues. I saw that last week in New York at The World Can't Wait rally.
I also agree that there are wonderful websites, both within the community and outside of it, getting out the news.
I think Democracy Now! is doing important work and making a difference.
I will agree with Mike completely that the youth of the country have turned against the war.
But I think about the people I encounter. I'm not referring to patients. I avoid writing about patients here even in oblique terms. But I'm thinking of people I know, that I encounter due to my career and these "professionals" . . .
I'm not seeing a lot of growing concern.
I agree 100% that the youth is active and they are doing wonderful things. But I really am a little depressed that a year after the massacre, I encounter ho-hums on Falluja from "professionals." Medical professionals, no less.
Which makes me think of how disgusted I am that people who are supposed to be healers and are supposed to do no harm are perfectly willing to pass on information that should be private to military intell to help with investigations. I'm disgusted that members of my profession are okay with helping military intell devise techniques, they word play it as something other than torture, and the various medical societies are not screaming to protest this.
Doctors are not supposed to be assisting a government to "extract" information. Certainly not assisting those using techniques like "water boarding."
I think people have woken up. I think a lot of people who felt that they were the only ones disagreeing with the adminstration have learned that they are not alone. That's very powerful and I'm not trying to mitigate the importance of that.
But the truth that the youth of America, as a group, can see so easily seems to escape some of my peers. People trained to heal and to help should never need anyone pointing out that they have crossed a line; it should be quite obvious to them.
I knew I would be depressed when this anniversary rolled around; however, I didn't realize I would be as depressed as I am.
Talking about this with peers today, on the phone, didn't help because I encountered far too many justifications and far too much timidity that offered "wait a few months" and other nonsense.
Reporters aren't the only embeds helping this war continue and that depresses me because it seems so plain to me that an oath we took to help crumbles in the face of 9/11 as people who are supposed to be professional abandon their professional stance and their designated role as healers to assist in some misguided (and illegal) war on terror.
That's the mood I'm in tonight. I'll probably put on a Stevie Nicks CD and try to go to sleep (Wild Heart or Belladonna).
Peace Quote from me:
Peace never comes to those who refuse to open their eyes.
the common ills
sex and politics and screeds and attitude
like maria said paz
mikey likes it
dexter filkins
Monday, November 07, 2005
Si Kahn & Elizabeth Minnich
What Mike and I are doing right now is noting two things from Democracy Now! as our "news" and then writing about something on our minds. I hope that switch doesn't bother anyone. We're just trying it out. So be sure to check Mike's site Mikey Likes It!
Iraqi: "Americans Bombed Everything, Our Houses Are Destroyed" (Democracy Now!):
Most communication to the Sunni towns of Husaybah and Qaim has been cut off. An Iraqi journalist in Husaybah told Al-Jazeera "The city is suffering a complete lack of all of life's basic necessities. There is no fuel and winter is upon us. There is no food and there are no services whatsoever, not even health services." The journalist said that ambulances have been unable to respond to emergencies because no movement is allowed in the city. "They destroyed Qaim, Americans bombed everything, our houses are destroyed, our children are victims and we want a solution," one resident told Reuters. "What do we have to do? We need a solution." Residents have been forced to flee the town on foot. The Associated Press reported that the U.S.-led forces warned over loudspeakers that anyone leaving the town in vehicles would be shot. The U.S. said Operation Steel Curtain was needed to stop foreign fighters from crossing the Syrian border. Meanwhile Sunni politicians criticized the U.S.-led attack. The head of the moderate Iraqi Islamic Party Mohsen Abdul-Hamid said "We reject all military operations directed against civilian targets because such acts lead to the killing of innocent people and the destruction of towns and cities."
Once Disgraced Iraqi Exile, Ahmed Chalabi, Returns to DC (Democracy Now!)
The former head of the Iraqi National Congress Ahmed Chalabi is heading to Washington this week for his first official trip in over two years. He is planning on speaking at the American Enterprise Institute on Wednesday and will be meeting with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Treasury Secretary John Snow. Before the invasion of Iraq, Chalabi had close ties to the Pentagon as well as some reporters including Judith Miller of the New York Times. He has been accused of feeding fabricated information about Iraq's weapons capabilities to US intelligence agencies and to journalists ahead of the Iraq invasion. Questions have also arisen over his close ties to Iran. Over the weekend Chalabi was in Tehran for closed-door meetings with high-ranking Iranian officials including President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Last year the Defense Intelligence Agency concluded Iranian intelligence had used aides of Chalabi to pass disinformation to the United States.
Here's something else I felt was worth noting.
"The Fox In The Henhouse: How Privatization Threatens Democracy" (Democracy Now!):
AMY GOODMAN: Elizabeth Minnich, talk about why you think this undermines democracy and how the media deals with this, if people in this country are understanding the shift of the public commons to the private sphere.
ELIZABETH MINNICH: The most important thing to emphasize over and over again is precisely that shift from the public, that which belongs to us, services, goods, values that we have held dear, that we have government established to protect and to provide for us, being opened up to for-profit exploitation, in which case two things key happen. One is, goods that are supposed to be for the people, that we set aside, that we established as rights for the people, which is democratic to the core, being taken over by for-profit corporations for private pockets, dispersed away from the people most directly affected. This is anti-democratic in the extreme.
The whole notion of shrinking government that they talk about? That’s not -- it's about shrinking government that’s responsive to the people. It's not about shrinking the powers of government. With the media, we see -- you know this, of course, infinitely better than I do -- but the whole notion of public airwaves, analogous strictly to public lands and to rights, to the exercise of freedom of the multiple kinds of freedom. Hand that over to for-profit, and it is by definition not run democratically.
AMY GOODMAN: Si Kahn, Hurricane Katrina, and how this fits into your picture?
SI KAHN: Amy, part what I love is the common argument that, oh, the administration wasn't prepared. They were absolutely prepared for Katrina, but they were prepared for an agenda that they were prepared to move. Here's what I think is remarkable about the Bush administration and their cronies. They take every disaster, they take every national trauma as an opportunity to move forward on a privatization agenda, a centralization agenda, an authoritarian agenda.
So, in Katrina, the response that we're seeing is not a humanitarian response, it's not a humane response. It is: Let's see how much contracts, sole source contracts, can be given to Halliburton, to Lockheed Martin, to Wal-Mart, to Home Depot. And we just see the proposal to take $2.6 billion to create vouchers that would allow the children of the Gulf Coast to go to private schools all over the country. The Bush administration has been struggling to privatize education. Let's say that for what it is: to destroy public education and to put education in the hands of for-profit corporations. And they're taking advantage of this extraordinary disaster, this human tragedy, to move $2.6 billion into private corporations for education.
I think the interview that's from is an important one. There are other parts to it that might make a better excerpt, so if you haven't watched, listened or read, you can use the link.
You can't trust regulation and privatize health and safety. It doesn't work that way. As pointed out in the interview, a business' concern is turning a profit. That's what they're focused on. That might work, or might not, with a department store but it does not work with public services. C.I.'s talked about this over at The Common Ills, especially in terms of the nineties "bible" Reinventing Government. The "left" that supported that nonsense allowed us to get where we are today, a place where Bully Boy can give the "corporations are more efficient" nonsense speech and everyone nods their heads.
Corporations are not better at serving a people. They aren't even good about serving their employees. They're good about paying the people at the top, giving out golden parachutes, declaring bankruptcies and insider trading. They're good at cutting corners to "keep down costs" (and raise pay for the people at the top).
But they cannot do the work of government. Look at Iraq and realize that we've destroyed their safety net as much as we can (we haven't destroyed their food program but we're still trying on that). We had a tag sale on all their public goods and let American corporations bid on the rights.
The result? Electricity still isn't up to the levels it was at under Saddam.
An idiot in the Times Saturday wrote breathlessly over how Iraq is now filled with "consumers."
I wonder whose ass she was kissing? (You can click here to read C.I.'s comments on the idiot from the paper thrilled about shootings at traffic stops.)
It's time for us to stop looking at privatization as some sort of wonder cure and instead take a hard look at the results which have not benefitted us. People have a right to expect certain things from their government. Certainly people in New Orleans had a right to expect that government would have taken the needed steps to present the non-natural disaster that killed many and left many more homeless.
I'm backed up on reading, but I am going to make a point to pick up Kahn and Minnich's book entitled The Fox In The Henhouse.
"Peace Quotes" (Peace Center):
There is no time left for anything but to make peace work a dimension of our every waking activity.
democracy now
iraq
the new york times
the common ills
mikey likes it
Iraqi: "Americans Bombed Everything, Our Houses Are Destroyed" (Democracy Now!):
Most communication to the Sunni towns of Husaybah and Qaim has been cut off. An Iraqi journalist in Husaybah told Al-Jazeera "The city is suffering a complete lack of all of life's basic necessities. There is no fuel and winter is upon us. There is no food and there are no services whatsoever, not even health services." The journalist said that ambulances have been unable to respond to emergencies because no movement is allowed in the city. "They destroyed Qaim, Americans bombed everything, our houses are destroyed, our children are victims and we want a solution," one resident told Reuters. "What do we have to do? We need a solution." Residents have been forced to flee the town on foot. The Associated Press reported that the U.S.-led forces warned over loudspeakers that anyone leaving the town in vehicles would be shot. The U.S. said Operation Steel Curtain was needed to stop foreign fighters from crossing the Syrian border. Meanwhile Sunni politicians criticized the U.S.-led attack. The head of the moderate Iraqi Islamic Party Mohsen Abdul-Hamid said "We reject all military operations directed against civilian targets because such acts lead to the killing of innocent people and the destruction of towns and cities."
Once Disgraced Iraqi Exile, Ahmed Chalabi, Returns to DC (Democracy Now!)
The former head of the Iraqi National Congress Ahmed Chalabi is heading to Washington this week for his first official trip in over two years. He is planning on speaking at the American Enterprise Institute on Wednesday and will be meeting with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Treasury Secretary John Snow. Before the invasion of Iraq, Chalabi had close ties to the Pentagon as well as some reporters including Judith Miller of the New York Times. He has been accused of feeding fabricated information about Iraq's weapons capabilities to US intelligence agencies and to journalists ahead of the Iraq invasion. Questions have also arisen over his close ties to Iran. Over the weekend Chalabi was in Tehran for closed-door meetings with high-ranking Iranian officials including President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Last year the Defense Intelligence Agency concluded Iranian intelligence had used aides of Chalabi to pass disinformation to the United States.
Here's something else I felt was worth noting.
"The Fox In The Henhouse: How Privatization Threatens Democracy" (Democracy Now!):
AMY GOODMAN: Elizabeth Minnich, talk about why you think this undermines democracy and how the media deals with this, if people in this country are understanding the shift of the public commons to the private sphere.
ELIZABETH MINNICH: The most important thing to emphasize over and over again is precisely that shift from the public, that which belongs to us, services, goods, values that we have held dear, that we have government established to protect and to provide for us, being opened up to for-profit exploitation, in which case two things key happen. One is, goods that are supposed to be for the people, that we set aside, that we established as rights for the people, which is democratic to the core, being taken over by for-profit corporations for private pockets, dispersed away from the people most directly affected. This is anti-democratic in the extreme.
The whole notion of shrinking government that they talk about? That’s not -- it's about shrinking government that’s responsive to the people. It's not about shrinking the powers of government. With the media, we see -- you know this, of course, infinitely better than I do -- but the whole notion of public airwaves, analogous strictly to public lands and to rights, to the exercise of freedom of the multiple kinds of freedom. Hand that over to for-profit, and it is by definition not run democratically.
AMY GOODMAN: Si Kahn, Hurricane Katrina, and how this fits into your picture?
SI KAHN: Amy, part what I love is the common argument that, oh, the administration wasn't prepared. They were absolutely prepared for Katrina, but they were prepared for an agenda that they were prepared to move. Here's what I think is remarkable about the Bush administration and their cronies. They take every disaster, they take every national trauma as an opportunity to move forward on a privatization agenda, a centralization agenda, an authoritarian agenda.
So, in Katrina, the response that we're seeing is not a humanitarian response, it's not a humane response. It is: Let's see how much contracts, sole source contracts, can be given to Halliburton, to Lockheed Martin, to Wal-Mart, to Home Depot. And we just see the proposal to take $2.6 billion to create vouchers that would allow the children of the Gulf Coast to go to private schools all over the country. The Bush administration has been struggling to privatize education. Let's say that for what it is: to destroy public education and to put education in the hands of for-profit corporations. And they're taking advantage of this extraordinary disaster, this human tragedy, to move $2.6 billion into private corporations for education.
I think the interview that's from is an important one. There are other parts to it that might make a better excerpt, so if you haven't watched, listened or read, you can use the link.
You can't trust regulation and privatize health and safety. It doesn't work that way. As pointed out in the interview, a business' concern is turning a profit. That's what they're focused on. That might work, or might not, with a department store but it does not work with public services. C.I.'s talked about this over at The Common Ills, especially in terms of the nineties "bible" Reinventing Government. The "left" that supported that nonsense allowed us to get where we are today, a place where Bully Boy can give the "corporations are more efficient" nonsense speech and everyone nods their heads.
Corporations are not better at serving a people. They aren't even good about serving their employees. They're good about paying the people at the top, giving out golden parachutes, declaring bankruptcies and insider trading. They're good at cutting corners to "keep down costs" (and raise pay for the people at the top).
But they cannot do the work of government. Look at Iraq and realize that we've destroyed their safety net as much as we can (we haven't destroyed their food program but we're still trying on that). We had a tag sale on all their public goods and let American corporations bid on the rights.
The result? Electricity still isn't up to the levels it was at under Saddam.
An idiot in the Times Saturday wrote breathlessly over how Iraq is now filled with "consumers."
I wonder whose ass she was kissing? (You can click here to read C.I.'s comments on the idiot from the paper thrilled about shootings at traffic stops.)
It's time for us to stop looking at privatization as some sort of wonder cure and instead take a hard look at the results which have not benefitted us. People have a right to expect certain things from their government. Certainly people in New Orleans had a right to expect that government would have taken the needed steps to present the non-natural disaster that killed many and left many more homeless.
I'm backed up on reading, but I am going to make a point to pick up Kahn and Minnich's book entitled The Fox In The Henhouse.
"Peace Quotes" (Peace Center):
There is no time left for anything but to make peace work a dimension of our every waking activity.
democracy now
iraq
the new york times
the common ills
mikey likes it
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)