Tuesday, November 29, 2005

"It is not reasonable that those who gamble with men's lives should not stake their own"

Be sure to check out Mike's Mikey Likes It! for his take on the Democracy Now! items.

Time Magazine Reporter Testifies in CIA Leak Case (Democracy Now!):
This update on the CIA leak case - the Washington Post is reporting Karl Rove's defense team is hoping the testimony of a reporter from Time Magazine might help Rove escape indictment. On Sunday Time revealed that its reporter Viveca Novak had agreed to testify about a conversation she had last year with Rove's attorney Robert Luskin. A person familiar with the investigation told the Washington Post that Luskin cited his conversations with Novak in persuading Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald not to indict Rove in late October. So far Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff Lewis Scooter Libby is the only administration to be indicted over the outing of Valerie Plame's identity as an undercover CIA operative.

What's the deal with Time? It's a weekly, not a daily. But already they've got two "reporters" who've had to testify in this leak case. First there was Matt Cooper, the little boy with beliefs as long as he didn't have to go to prison. Now there's Viveca Novak. Novak's a popular name on the list. But there's plenty of others including Bob Woodward and Judith Miller.

Is anyone else bothered that so many reporters received the leak and didn't cover the fact that the White House was leaking? It's a nice setup that exists today if you're the administration. But when the press whines that they aren't trusted, they better start figuring out what excuse they'll offer to the shouts of "Plamegate!"

Big names (Woodward & Miller) and no names (Cooper & V. Novak), they all make the very exclusive list of "reporters" willing to cover up for the adminstration instead of covering the administration.

The press has bristled at being called lap dogs but the jingle-jangle of the tags on their dog collars make it hard to hear their latest excuses.

Greenpeace Disrupts Blair Speech About Nuclear Energy (Democracy Now!):
In Britain, members of Greenpeace disrupted a speech of Prime Minister Tony Blair's in which he launched an energy review which could lead to new nuclear power stations. The Greenpeace activists climbed into the roof above the podium and unfurled a banner saying: "Nuclear: Wrong Answer." They also dropped stickers onto the delegates below them.

You know what this made me think of? When the New York Times' Felicity Barringer pimped for the nuclear industry with her article that gave lots of space to pro-nuclear positions and tried to pass three twerps off as a groundswell.

If you missed it Felicity Barringer felt she was unfairly critiqued by C.I. C.I. printed her response (with her permission). That's nicer than I would be. C.I.'s attitude was, "I've had my say, she can have her say." Her say was woefully short on the facts and spun even more than her article did.

If your new to this site, C.I. and I have been friends for years. I know C.I. doesn't argue "opinion." Letting FB have her say was perfectly in keeping with C.I. What did C.I. think about her reality-free spin? Even a best friend can't find that out. Privately, C.I. just repeated what got posted at the site, that at least FB was willing to take her comments public unlike other reporters who gripe in e-mails.

My opinion of FB? It must be nice to marry into job security.

In the real world, the less secure world, Monica Benderman's still tackling the hard issues. When I was substituting for Rebecca, I posted about Monica and her husband Kevin. My opinion? He was found guilty because the administration will take no criticism. (Wonder if they have a spot for FB?) Monica's not going to fade away and, when Kevin finally has a his freedom, I bet he won't be silent either.

"How Do You Save a Country?" (Monica Benderman, The Ruminations on America Project)
How do you trust a country that cannot keep its word?

How do you trust a country that allows decisions to be made by leaders not elected for their integrity, but because their beliefs were accepted by "the party" that chose them to be their candidate, and "the party" had enough money to finance the campaign?
How do you trust a country that says it supports you for standing for what it believes in, and then turns its back on you unless you sing your own praises, and publicize your accomplishments, and tell your supporters how wonderful they are for the warm feelings they give you?
How do you trust a country that allows a soldier who refuses to participate in war crimes to be sent to prison for 15 months, and allows a slap on the hand for soldiers who burn bodies, desecrate religious material and openly abuse a culture they do not understand?
How do you trust a people when there are those who believe that the greatest way to protest the indiscretions of our administration is to commit flagrant, planned indiscretions of their own?

That's a powerful essay Monica Benderman has written. I hope you check it out. Monica Benderman is one of those voices you won't hear in the New York Times (check out C.I.'s "Other Items" from this morning). Monica Benderman's essay reminded me of a quote by H.G. Wells.

"Peace Quotes" (Peace Center):
A time will come when a politician who has willfully made war and promoted international dissension will be as sure of the dock and much surer of the noose than a private homicide. It is not reasonable that those who gamble with men's lives should not stake their own.
H.G. Wells