Scandal-hit network desperately scrambles to offset legal action over
lies and bias in February 2007 documentary
Paul Joseph Watson
Monday, November 12, 2007
The BBC could be forced to apologize and admit mass public deception
for airing a documentary on the 9/11 truth movement that was clearly
riddled with errors, lies and bias, as the scandal-hit corporation
desperately squirms to avoid a potential court case brought by a
British scientist.
John A. Blacker, a qualified physicist & mechanical engineer and a
member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice, is currently engaged in a
pre-action protocol with the BBC in an attempt to settle out of court
and get an apology from the broadcaster as well as a guarantee that
the program will never be shown on television again.
In a letter to the BBC, Blacker cites a catalogue of errors,
distortions and outright lies that were contained in the program,
arguing that the documentary is an insult to those that lost their
lives on 9/11.
(Article continues below)
"The Conspiracy files team spoke to and recorded the testimony of many
eyewitnesses, fire fighters, police officers, and public high
witnesses, plus also officialdom high witnesses and had access to
written testimony from many high witnesses via official sites on the
WWW," writes Blacker. "YET NOT ONE SINGLE HIGH WITNESS WAS PRESENTED
IN THE DOCUMENTARY TO PUT THE TRUTH PERSPECTIVE," he adds.
"The Conspiracy Files Documentary was a work of Total Public deception
from start to end, perfectly crafted to stealthily deceive and forward
nothing which was conclusive either one way or the other, in other
words, perfect propaganda YELLOW journalism by stealth, omission &
deception," Blacker concludes, after citing dozens of examples of
bias, fraud and agenda-driven presentation.
In a clear sign that BBC are struggling to form a case for the legal
defense of the program, they have put back a meeting with Blacker for
the third time in succession, now agreeing to a late November date.
In our review of the documentary, we slammed the program as a tissue
of lies, bias and emotional manipulation from beginning to end,
listing 17 clear examples of gross inaccuracy, distortions,
obfuscations and character smears.
After the show aired in the UK, Producer Guy Smith subsequently
appeared on The Alex Jones Show but failed miserably to address these
concerns, only being able to repeat empty sound bites about how the
show was intended to be an impartial investigation.
The BBC were embroiled in a similar spat later that same month when
footage emerged of one of their correspondents reporting the collapse
of WTC Building 7 on 9/11 over 20 minutes before it actually fell,
leading to claims that the broadcaster was, either wittingly or
unwittingly, being fed a script as events unfolded on the day. At the
very least, the saga painfully illustrated why the establishment media
cannot be trusted when major news events occur because they simply act
as a feedback loop for whatever the authorities tell them, no matter
how dubious the facts of the matter are.
If the BBC are forced to admit mass public deception it will mire the
corporation in a new scandal hot on the heels of numerous allegations
of rampant corruption regarding phone-in contests. The public
broadcaster, which is financed by the British public by way of
mandatory TV licensing, has also been slammed for staging scenes in
documentaries and asking members of the public to lie for contrived
interviews, causing trust in "Auntie Beeb" to plummet to all time lows.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2007/121107_bbc_apologize.htm
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Sunday, October 07, 2007
what's going on for Iran
The is the link to Seymour HErsch's now famous IRan article in the NEw Yorker thttp://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/10/08/071008fa_fact_hersh
By the way, an article in the New Republic says that Bush's aggressive stance is getting support NOT from Republicans, but from the main Dem candidates (Clinton, OBama and Edwards) who are repeadetly saying that a nuclear Iran would be a menace. The article also mentions the fact that Bush has NOT convinced US public opinion this time around
By the way, an article in the New Republic says that Bush's aggressive stance is getting support NOT from Republicans, but from the main Dem candidates (Clinton, OBama and Edwards) who are repeadetly saying that a nuclear Iran would be a menace. The article also mentions the fact that Bush has NOT convinced US public opinion this time around
Friday, October 05, 2007
Tuesday, October 02, 2007
Bilderberg - an introduction
Explanation of what the Bilderber is and what they have done historically
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
From the Guardian
Go9/11 - the big cover-up?
Peter Tatchell
September 12, 2007 10:30 AM
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/peter_tatchell/2007/09/911_the_big_coverup.html
Six years after 9/11, the American public have still not been provided with a full and truthful account of the single greatest terror attack in US history.
What they got was a turkey. The 9/11 Commission was hamstrung by official obstruction. It never managed to ascertain the whole truth of what happened on September 11 2001.
The chair and vice chair of the 9/11 Commission, respectively Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, assert in their book, Without Precedent, that they were "set up to fail" and were starved of funds to do a proper investigation. They also confirm that they were denied access to the truth and misled by senior officials in the Pentagon and the federal aviation authority;and that this obstruction and deception led them to contemplate slapping officials with criminal charges.
Despite the many public statements by 9/11 commissioners and staff members acknowledging they were repeatedly lied to, not a single person has ever been charged, tried, or even reprimanded, for lying to the 9/11 Commission.
From the outset, the commission seemed to be hobbled. It did not start work until over a year after the attacks. Even then, its terms of reference were suspiciously narrow, its powers of investigation curiously limited and its time-frame for producing a report unhelpfully short - barely a year to sift through millions of pages of evidence and to interview hundreds of key witnesses.
The final report did not examine key evidence, and neglected serious anomalies in the various accounts of what happened. The commissioners admit their report was incomplete and flawed, and that many questions about the terror attacks remain unanswered. Nevertheless, the 9/11 Commission was swiftly closed down on August 21 2004.
I do not believe in conspiracy theories. I prefer rigorous, evidence-based analysis that sifts through the known facts and utilises expert opinion to draw conclusions that stand up to critical scrutiny. In other words, I believe in everything the 9/11 Commission was not.
The failings of the official investigation have fuelled too many half-baked conspiracy theories. Some of the 9/11 "truth" groups promote speculative hypotheses, ignore innocent explanations, cite non-expert sources and jump to conclusions that are not proven by the known facts. They convert mere coincidence and circumstantial evidence into cast-iron proof. This is no way to debunk the obfuscations and evasions of the 9/11 report.
But even amid the hype, some of these 9/11 groups raise valid and important questions that were never even considered, let alone answered, by the official investigation. The American public has not been told the complete truth about the events of that fateful autumn morning six years ago.
What happened on 9/11 is fundamentally important in its own right. But equally important is the way the 9/11 cover-up signifies an absence of democratic, transparent and accountable government. Establishing the truth is, in part, about restoring honesty, trust and confidence in American politics.
There are dozens of 9/11 "truth" websites and campaign groups. I cannot vouch for the veracity or credibility of any of them. But what I can say is that as well as making plenty of seemingly outrageous claims; a few of them raise legitimate questions that demand answers.
Four of these well known "tell the truth" 9/11 websites are:
1) Scholars for 9/11 Truth, which includes academics and intellectuals from many disciplines.
2) 250+ 9/11 'Smoking Guns' a website that cites over 250 pieces of evidence that allegedly contradict, or were omitted from, the 9/11 Commission report.
3) The 911 Truth Campaign that, as well as offering its own evidence and theories, includes links to more than 20 similar websites.
4) Patriots Question 9/11, perhaps the most plausible array of distinguished US citizens who question the official account of 9/11, including General Wesley Clark, former Nato commander in Europe, and seven members and staffers of the official 9/11 Commission, including the chair and vice chair. In all, this website documents the doubts of 110+ senior military, intelligence service, law enforcement and government officials; 200+ engineers and architects; 50+ pilots and aviation professionals; 150+ professors; 90+ entertainment and media people; and 190+ 9/11 survivors and family members. Although this is an impressive roll call, it doesn't necessarily mean that these expert professionals are right. Nevertheless, their scepticism of the official version of events is reason to pause and reflect.
More and more US citizens are critical of the official account. The respected Zogby polling organisation last week found that 51% of Americans want Congress to probe President Bush and Vice-President Cheney regarding the truth about the 9/11 attacks; 67% are also critical of the 9/11 Commission for not investigating the bizarre, unexplained collapse of the 47-storey World Trade Centre building 7 (WTC7). This building was not hit by any planes. Unlike WTC3, which was badly damaged by falling debris from the Twin Towers but which remained standing, WTC7 suffered minor damage but suddenly collapsed in a neat pile, as happens in a controlled demolition.
In a 2006 interview with anchorman Evan Soloman of CBC's Sunday programme, the vice chair of the 9/11 Commission, Lee Hamilton, was reminded that the commission report failed to even mention the collapse of WTC7 or the suspicious hurried removal of the building debris from the site - before there could be a proper forensic investigation of what was a crime scene. Hamilton could only offer the lame excuse that the commissioners did not have "unlimited time" and could not be expected to answer "every question" the public asks.
There are many, many more strange unexplained facts concerning the events of 9/11. You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to be puzzled and want an explanation, or to be sceptical concerning the official version of events.
Six years on from those terrible events, the survivors, and the friends and families of those who died, deserve to know the truth. Is honesty and transparency concerning 9/11 too much to ask of the president and Congress?
What is needed is a new and truly independent commission of inquiry to sort coincidence and conjecture from fact, and to provide answers to the unsolved anomalies in the evidence available concerning the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon. Unlike the often-stymied first investigation, this new commission should be granted wide-ranging subpoena powers and unfettered access to government files and officials. George Bush should be called to testify, without his minders at hand to brief and prompt him. America - and the world - has a right to know the truth.od article on 9/11.
Peter Tatchell
September 12, 2007 10:30 AM
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/peter_tatchell/2007/09/911_the_big_coverup.html
Six years after 9/11, the American public have still not been provided with a full and truthful account of the single greatest terror attack in US history.
What they got was a turkey. The 9/11 Commission was hamstrung by official obstruction. It never managed to ascertain the whole truth of what happened on September 11 2001.
The chair and vice chair of the 9/11 Commission, respectively Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, assert in their book, Without Precedent, that they were "set up to fail" and were starved of funds to do a proper investigation. They also confirm that they were denied access to the truth and misled by senior officials in the Pentagon and the federal aviation authority;and that this obstruction and deception led them to contemplate slapping officials with criminal charges.
Despite the many public statements by 9/11 commissioners and staff members acknowledging they were repeatedly lied to, not a single person has ever been charged, tried, or even reprimanded, for lying to the 9/11 Commission.
From the outset, the commission seemed to be hobbled. It did not start work until over a year after the attacks. Even then, its terms of reference were suspiciously narrow, its powers of investigation curiously limited and its time-frame for producing a report unhelpfully short - barely a year to sift through millions of pages of evidence and to interview hundreds of key witnesses.
The final report did not examine key evidence, and neglected serious anomalies in the various accounts of what happened. The commissioners admit their report was incomplete and flawed, and that many questions about the terror attacks remain unanswered. Nevertheless, the 9/11 Commission was swiftly closed down on August 21 2004.
I do not believe in conspiracy theories. I prefer rigorous, evidence-based analysis that sifts through the known facts and utilises expert opinion to draw conclusions that stand up to critical scrutiny. In other words, I believe in everything the 9/11 Commission was not.
The failings of the official investigation have fuelled too many half-baked conspiracy theories. Some of the 9/11 "truth" groups promote speculative hypotheses, ignore innocent explanations, cite non-expert sources and jump to conclusions that are not proven by the known facts. They convert mere coincidence and circumstantial evidence into cast-iron proof. This is no way to debunk the obfuscations and evasions of the 9/11 report.
But even amid the hype, some of these 9/11 groups raise valid and important questions that were never even considered, let alone answered, by the official investigation. The American public has not been told the complete truth about the events of that fateful autumn morning six years ago.
What happened on 9/11 is fundamentally important in its own right. But equally important is the way the 9/11 cover-up signifies an absence of democratic, transparent and accountable government. Establishing the truth is, in part, about restoring honesty, trust and confidence in American politics.
There are dozens of 9/11 "truth" websites and campaign groups. I cannot vouch for the veracity or credibility of any of them. But what I can say is that as well as making plenty of seemingly outrageous claims; a few of them raise legitimate questions that demand answers.
Four of these well known "tell the truth" 9/11 websites are:
1) Scholars for 9/11 Truth, which includes academics and intellectuals from many disciplines.
2) 250+ 9/11 'Smoking Guns' a website that cites over 250 pieces of evidence that allegedly contradict, or were omitted from, the 9/11 Commission report.
3) The 911 Truth Campaign that, as well as offering its own evidence and theories, includes links to more than 20 similar websites.
4) Patriots Question 9/11, perhaps the most plausible array of distinguished US citizens who question the official account of 9/11, including General Wesley Clark, former Nato commander in Europe, and seven members and staffers of the official 9/11 Commission, including the chair and vice chair. In all, this website documents the doubts of 110+ senior military, intelligence service, law enforcement and government officials; 200+ engineers and architects; 50+ pilots and aviation professionals; 150+ professors; 90+ entertainment and media people; and 190+ 9/11 survivors and family members. Although this is an impressive roll call, it doesn't necessarily mean that these expert professionals are right. Nevertheless, their scepticism of the official version of events is reason to pause and reflect.
More and more US citizens are critical of the official account. The respected Zogby polling organisation last week found that 51% of Americans want Congress to probe President Bush and Vice-President Cheney regarding the truth about the 9/11 attacks; 67% are also critical of the 9/11 Commission for not investigating the bizarre, unexplained collapse of the 47-storey World Trade Centre building 7 (WTC7). This building was not hit by any planes. Unlike WTC3, which was badly damaged by falling debris from the Twin Towers but which remained standing, WTC7 suffered minor damage but suddenly collapsed in a neat pile, as happens in a controlled demolition.
In a 2006 interview with anchorman Evan Soloman of CBC's Sunday programme, the vice chair of the 9/11 Commission, Lee Hamilton, was reminded that the commission report failed to even mention the collapse of WTC7 or the suspicious hurried removal of the building debris from the site - before there could be a proper forensic investigation of what was a crime scene. Hamilton could only offer the lame excuse that the commissioners did not have "unlimited time" and could not be expected to answer "every question" the public asks.
There are many, many more strange unexplained facts concerning the events of 9/11. You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to be puzzled and want an explanation, or to be sceptical concerning the official version of events.
Six years on from those terrible events, the survivors, and the friends and families of those who died, deserve to know the truth. Is honesty and transparency concerning 9/11 too much to ask of the president and Congress?
What is needed is a new and truly independent commission of inquiry to sort coincidence and conjecture from fact, and to provide answers to the unsolved anomalies in the evidence available concerning the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon. Unlike the often-stymied first investigation, this new commission should be granted wide-ranging subpoena powers and unfettered access to government files and officials. George Bush should be called to testify, without his minders at hand to brief and prompt him. America - and the world - has a right to know the truth.od article on 9/11.
Saturday, September 01, 2007
The Wicked Eunuch: Chomsky on 9/11
by Tom Breidenbach
“It is part of the general pattern of misguided policy that our country is now geared to an arms economy which was bred in an artificially induced psychosis of war hysteria and nurtured upon an incessant propaganda of fear.”
—General Douglas MacArthur, 15 May 1951
“There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare.”
—Sun Tzu
“…which is just gonna leave a lot of things unexplained, I mean that’s the way the world is.”
—Noam Chomsky
Noam Chomsky has bridled at the idea that 9/11 could have been to any significant degree the result of a state-level conspiracy, expressing his irritation at a recent presentation where he held forth for several minutes on the topic. Chomsky is a figure worthy in certain respects of the esteem accorded him, but his views on 9/11 reflect a common and dangerous mis-appraisal of the techniques of contemporary statecraft and, more shockingly (coming from him), of the long-worsening psychosis afflicting and increasingly characterizing the US military/industrial complex. The point made by Chomsky during his talk that 9/11 was a boon for authoritarian governments the world over is well-taken (if hardly original), yet beyond this his opinions regarding the attacks range from foolish to insidious.
http://www.911blogger.com/node/10995
“It is part of the general pattern of misguided policy that our country is now geared to an arms economy which was bred in an artificially induced psychosis of war hysteria and nurtured upon an incessant propaganda of fear.”
—General Douglas MacArthur, 15 May 1951
“There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare.”
—Sun Tzu
“…which is just gonna leave a lot of things unexplained, I mean that’s the way the world is.”
—Noam Chomsky
Noam Chomsky has bridled at the idea that 9/11 could have been to any significant degree the result of a state-level conspiracy, expressing his irritation at a recent presentation where he held forth for several minutes on the topic. Chomsky is a figure worthy in certain respects of the esteem accorded him, but his views on 9/11 reflect a common and dangerous mis-appraisal of the techniques of contemporary statecraft and, more shockingly (coming from him), of the long-worsening psychosis afflicting and increasingly characterizing the US military/industrial complex. The point made by Chomsky during his talk that 9/11 was a boon for authoritarian governments the world over is well-taken (if hardly original), yet beyond this his opinions regarding the attacks range from foolish to insidious.
http://www.911blogger.com/node/10995
Saturday, August 04, 2007
Analyst: Al-Qaeda Videotapes Digitally Doctored
Analyst: Al-Qaeda Videotapes Digitally Doctored
IntelCenter and As-Sahab logos added at same time, indicating Pentagon linked "middleman" is directly releasing Al-Qaeda videos
An expert computer analyst has presented evidence that so-called "Al-Qaeda" tapes are routinely digitally doctored and has also unwittingly exposed an astounding detail that clearly indicates a Pentagon affiliated organization in the U.S. is directly responsible for releasing the videos.
"Neal Krawetz, a researcher and computer security consultant, gave an interesting presentation today at the BlackHat security conference in Las Vegas about analyzing digital photographs and video images for alterations and enhancements," reports Wired News.
"Using a program he wrote (and provided on the conference CD-ROM) Krawetz could print out the quantization tables in a JPEG file (that indicate how the image was compressed) and determine the last tool that created the image -- that is, the make and model of the camera if the image is original or the version of Photoshop that was used to alter and re-save the image. "
Krawetz's most telling discovery comes in the form of a detail contained in a 2006 Ayman al-Zawahiri tape. From his analysis he concludes that the As-Sahab logo (the alleged media arm of Al-Qaeda) and the IntelCenter logo (a U.S. based private intelligence organization that "monitors terrorist activity") were both added to the video at the same time.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2007/020807tapesdoctored.htm
IntelCenter and As-Sahab logos added at same time, indicating Pentagon linked "middleman" is directly releasing Al-Qaeda videos
An expert computer analyst has presented evidence that so-called "Al-Qaeda" tapes are routinely digitally doctored and has also unwittingly exposed an astounding detail that clearly indicates a Pentagon affiliated organization in the U.S. is directly responsible for releasing the videos.
"Neal Krawetz, a researcher and computer security consultant, gave an interesting presentation today at the BlackHat security conference in Las Vegas about analyzing digital photographs and video images for alterations and enhancements," reports Wired News.
"Using a program he wrote (and provided on the conference CD-ROM) Krawetz could print out the quantization tables in a JPEG file (that indicate how the image was compressed) and determine the last tool that created the image -- that is, the make and model of the camera if the image is original or the version of Photoshop that was used to alter and re-save the image. "
Krawetz's most telling discovery comes in the form of a detail contained in a 2006 Ayman al-Zawahiri tape. From his analysis he concludes that the As-Sahab logo (the alleged media arm of Al-Qaeda) and the IntelCenter logo (a U.S. based private intelligence organization that "monitors terrorist activity") were both added to the video at the same time.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2007/020807tapesdoctored.htm
Sunday, July 29, 2007
pat tilman murdered
Was Tillman Murdered? AP Gets New Documents
Published: July 26, 2007 11:30 PM ET
SAN FRANCISCO Army medical examiners were suspicious about the close proximity of the three bullet holes in Pat Tillman's forehead and tried without success to get authorities to investigate whether the former NFL player's death amounted to a crime, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press.
"The medical evidence did not match up with the, with the scenario as described," a doctor who examined Tillman's body after he was killed on the battlefield in Afghanistan in 2004 told investigators.
The doctors - whose names were blacked out - said that the bullet holes were so close together that it appeared the Army Ranger was cut down by an M-16 fired from a mere 10 yards or so away.
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003617692
Published: July 26, 2007 11:30 PM ET
SAN FRANCISCO Army medical examiners were suspicious about the close proximity of the three bullet holes in Pat Tillman's forehead and tried without success to get authorities to investigate whether the former NFL player's death amounted to a crime, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press.
"The medical evidence did not match up with the, with the scenario as described," a doctor who examined Tillman's body after he was killed on the battlefield in Afghanistan in 2004 told investigators.
The doctors - whose names were blacked out - said that the bullet holes were so close together that it appeared the Army Ranger was cut down by an M-16 fired from a mere 10 yards or so away.
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003617692
Friday, July 20, 2007
Generation Chickenhawk: With The College Republicans
Found this today, thought it was worth taking a look at the next generation of those who support war without being willing to sacrifice anything for it. Makes you want to laugh and cringe at the same time to hear the lame excuses these students give and the word for word regurgitation of GOP talking points. Seems like a lot of waste of college educations on people who obviously aren't learning to think critically.
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Another Failure in the Senate
Link to : http://www.nytimes.com/ref/washington/ROLLCALL.html?currentChamber=Senate¤tSession=1¤tCongress=110¤tRoll=252nk to see how our Senator voted on a deadline for starting withdrawal of troops from Iraq. Didn't reach the needed 60 votes.
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Habeas Corpus, Bill Kristol is INSANE, and It's all About the Money.
So Isabelle was incensed that so few Congressmen had signed on to impeach Cheney, well I'm amazed at how many Democratic Senators aren't standing up to defend Habeas Corpus. This is Habeas Corpus people! This should not be a controversial position that should lose you support with the American people at large! Really, how far has our country's sense of direction slipped into the unreal, when this many Democratic Senators can ignore the destruction of one of our most cherished principles.
Next up: Bill Kristol, in this piece in the Washington Post proves he's delusional, claiming that no, really, the Bush presidency will, in the end be considered a success. I even love the title: Why Bush Will Be A Winner...hmmm...because he and his cronies will rig any contest that says he's not a winner?
29% approval ratings folks. Enough said.
And finally, Democrats are looking good in the fund-raising game, out-raising the Republicans, that's hopeful right? Yes, unless of course, you still had the faintest little hope deep down in your idealistic self that maybe, one day, it wouldn't be just about the money.
Next up: Bill Kristol, in this piece in the Washington Post proves he's delusional, claiming that no, really, the Bush presidency will, in the end be considered a success. I even love the title: Why Bush Will Be A Winner...hmmm...because he and his cronies will rig any contest that says he's not a winner?
29% approval ratings folks. Enough said.
And finally, Democrats are looking good in the fund-raising game, out-raising the Republicans, that's hopeful right? Yes, unless of course, you still had the faintest little hope deep down in your idealistic self that maybe, one day, it wouldn't be just about the money.
Monday, July 16, 2007
Only 14 dem congressmen sign on to impeach CHENEY!!
So, Kuccinich presented a proposal to impeach Cheney - you know, the guy that had an approval rating under 18% TWO YEARS AGO ( way below : 1. the number of Americans that believe that Elvis lives 2) those who believe that the US government is run by extraterrestials = wackos.) Apparentely more than 50% ( somehting like 56%) of polled people in the US believe the guy should be impeached, and close to 75% of Democrats - so WHAT ARE THEY WAITING FOR? Only 14 congressment have signed on (including MINE - guys- MINE has signed on) - not even Conyers has signed yet. !!!
Yellow, yellow, Dem congressmen, ASK your representatives to SIGN ON like MINE!
The link to THE NATION article is:
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?bid=1&pid=213909
Yellow, yellow, Dem congressmen, ASK your representatives to SIGN ON like MINE!
The link to THE NATION article is:
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?bid=1&pid=213909
Obama at his best at NAACP conference
The article this links to in The New Republic states that Obama soared once more at the NAACP conference, way over contenders Clinton and Edwards.
And that in the recent past this has not always been the case ( is he suffering from nicotine withdrawal?)
Having heard the man speak in person, I can testify that he is a tremendous speaker ( at tleast when he is "on") and thinks outside of the box on many issues - and states those positions clearly. You eally get the impression he is not just campagining.-
But it seems that he has been irregular lately. Since he is raising money more quickly than Hillary, and Hillary is a known hawk - I kinda hope that he can beat her at the primaries - if enough people hear him talk on good days, for me there is no doubt he will.
Kuccinich, by the way, is not raising much money at all, not even in Ohio.......
The link
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w071607&s=cohn071607
And that in the recent past this has not always been the case ( is he suffering from nicotine withdrawal?)
Having heard the man speak in person, I can testify that he is a tremendous speaker ( at tleast when he is "on") and thinks outside of the box on many issues - and states those positions clearly. You eally get the impression he is not just campagining.-
But it seems that he has been irregular lately. Since he is raising money more quickly than Hillary, and Hillary is a known hawk - I kinda hope that he can beat her at the primaries - if enough people hear him talk on good days, for me there is no doubt he will.
Kuccinich, by the way, is not raising much money at all, not even in Ohio.......
The link
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w071607&s=cohn071607
John Edwards' Fortress
July 15, 2007
The bulk of John Edwards' wealth is invested in, his recent income derives from, and his biggest contributors are employed by Fortress Investment Group. Fortress, which paid Edwards almost half a million dollars to advise them, deals in hedge funds and private equity. Its private equity holdings have not been reported on. (Where is journalism when there's no sex involved?) Its hedge funds invest in, among other things, publicly traded companies. Those are reported to the SEC, most recently on May 15th in this filing: http://tinyurl.com/ytzlba
The list of companies invested in is large, but presumably well known to Edwards as a result of his well-paid advising and his massive investment in Fortress. It includes companies from a variety of industries, creating all sorts of conflicts of interest for a would-be public official. Just in the 'A's in the list we find: Advanced Medical Optics Inc., and Applera Corp. (medical); Aetna Inc., Amerigroup Corp., and Assurant Inc. (health insurance); Abbott Labs, Alpharma Inc., and Alexion Pharmaceuticals Inc. (pharmaceuticals); Altria Group (parent of Phillip Morris, cigarettes); American International Group (insurance); Amgen Inc. (biotech); Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, Apache Corp., Arena Resources Inc., Atlas America Inc., Atmos Energy Corp., and Avista Corp. (oil and gas); Autonation Inc. (cars); Anheuser Busch Cos. Inc. (beer), and many others.
Glancing through the full alphabet of companies, it is immediately apparent that Fortress represents the polar opposite of an ethical investment opportunity. Some names jump out at you as surprising companies for a Democratic presidential candidate to sink his fortune into, such as Wal Mart Stores Inc. There are a lot of telecom companies, like Verizon, in the list, lots of oil companies like Exxon Mobil, weapons companies like Lockheed Martin, big agricultural companies like Monsanto, a great many lending companies including several well known for predatory lending practices such as Wells Fargo, and numerous media corporations including Clear Channel. m
The bulk of John Edwards' wealth is invested in, his recent income derives from, and his biggest contributors are employed by Fortress Investment Group. Fortress, which paid Edwards almost half a million dollars to advise them, deals in hedge funds and private equity. Its private equity holdings have not been reported on. (Where is journalism when there's no sex involved?) Its hedge funds invest in, among other things, publicly traded companies. Those are reported to the SEC, most recently on May 15th in this filing: http://tinyurl.com/ytzlba
The list of companies invested in is large, but presumably well known to Edwards as a result of his well-paid advising and his massive investment in Fortress. It includes companies from a variety of industries, creating all sorts of conflicts of interest for a would-be public official. Just in the 'A's in the list we find: Advanced Medical Optics Inc., and Applera Corp. (medical); Aetna Inc., Amerigroup Corp., and Assurant Inc. (health insurance); Abbott Labs, Alpharma Inc., and Alexion Pharmaceuticals Inc. (pharmaceuticals); Altria Group (parent of Phillip Morris, cigarettes); American International Group (insurance); Amgen Inc. (biotech); Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, Apache Corp., Arena Resources Inc., Atlas America Inc., Atmos Energy Corp., and Avista Corp. (oil and gas); Autonation Inc. (cars); Anheuser Busch Cos. Inc. (beer), and many others.
Glancing through the full alphabet of companies, it is immediately apparent that Fortress represents the polar opposite of an ethical investment opportunity. Some names jump out at you as surprising companies for a Democratic presidential candidate to sink his fortune into, such as Wal Mart Stores Inc. There are a lot of telecom companies, like Verizon, in the list, lots of oil companies like Exxon Mobil, weapons companies like Lockheed Martin, big agricultural companies like Monsanto, a great many lending companies including several well known for predatory lending practices such as Wells Fargo, and numerous media corporations including Clear Channel. m
Saturday, July 14, 2007
What if our mercenaries turn on us?
Chris Hedges is a graduate of Harvard Divinity School and won a Pulitzer Prize as a foreign correspondent for the New York Times
Armed units from the private security firm Blackwater USA opened fire in Baghdad streets twice in two days last week. It triggered a standoff between the security contractors and Iraqi forces, a reminder that the war in Iraq may be remembered mostly in our history books for empowering and building America's first modern mercenary army.
There are an estimated 20,000 to 30,000 armed security contractors working in Iraq, although there are no official figures and some estimates run much higher. Security contractors are not counted as part of the coalition forces. When the number of private mercenary fighters is added to other civilian military "contractors" who carry out logistical support activities such as food preparation, the number rises to about 126,000.
"We got 126,000 contractors over there, some of them making more than the secretary of defense," said House defense appropriations subcommittee Chairman John Murtha (D., Pa.). "How in the hell do you justify that?"
The privatization of war hands an incentive to American corporations, many with tremendous political clout, to keep us mired down in Iraq.
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20070603_What_if_our_mercenaries_turn_on_us_.html
Armed units from the private security firm Blackwater USA opened fire in Baghdad streets twice in two days last week. It triggered a standoff between the security contractors and Iraqi forces, a reminder that the war in Iraq may be remembered mostly in our history books for empowering and building America's first modern mercenary army.
There are an estimated 20,000 to 30,000 armed security contractors working in Iraq, although there are no official figures and some estimates run much higher. Security contractors are not counted as part of the coalition forces. When the number of private mercenary fighters is added to other civilian military "contractors" who carry out logistical support activities such as food preparation, the number rises to about 126,000.
"We got 126,000 contractors over there, some of them making more than the secretary of defense," said House defense appropriations subcommittee Chairman John Murtha (D., Pa.). "How in the hell do you justify that?"
The privatization of war hands an incentive to American corporations, many with tremendous political clout, to keep us mired down in Iraq.
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20070603_What_if_our_mercenaries_turn_on_us_.html
Friday, July 13, 2007
US Social forum in Atlanta supports new investigation of 911
Monday, July 2 2007
U.S. SOCIAL FORUM SUPPORTS CINDY SHEEHAN'S CALL FOR A NEW INDEPENDENT AND INTERNATIONAL INVESTIGATION OF THE CAUSES AND CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THE EVENTS OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2001
During June 27th to July 1st, approximately 9,400 people from across the America, and beyond, gathered in Atlanta for the historic, first-ever United States Social Forum. Thanks to donations from some of our generous supporters, 911Truth.org was there, together with about 15 other 911Truth activists from Georgia, California, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Washington DC, and Maryland. We went with the idea we'd work to "convince" people to look at the need for a real investigation into the crimes of 9/11. After all, the various issues and causes represented by this diversity of People were predicated, to such a strong degree, upon the events of 9/11, and it made sense that if presented with the information, we'd win some allies.
We were wrong. What we found, instead, was that nearly everyone we spoke with was already aware of at least some questions about 9/11 and agreed with us! The People, in spite of resistance we've heard from many of their organizational "leaders," are already with us. see full text of resolution : http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20070702180355632
U.S. SOCIAL FORUM SUPPORTS CINDY SHEEHAN'S CALL FOR A NEW INDEPENDENT AND INTERNATIONAL INVESTIGATION OF THE CAUSES AND CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THE EVENTS OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2001
During June 27th to July 1st, approximately 9,400 people from across the America, and beyond, gathered in Atlanta for the historic, first-ever United States Social Forum. Thanks to donations from some of our generous supporters, 911Truth.org was there, together with about 15 other 911Truth activists from Georgia, California, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Washington DC, and Maryland. We went with the idea we'd work to "convince" people to look at the need for a real investigation into the crimes of 9/11. After all, the various issues and causes represented by this diversity of People were predicated, to such a strong degree, upon the events of 9/11, and it made sense that if presented with the information, we'd win some allies.
We were wrong. What we found, instead, was that nearly everyone we spoke with was already aware of at least some questions about 9/11 and agreed with us! The People, in spite of resistance we've heard from many of their organizational "leaders," are already with us. see full text of resolution : http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20070702180355632
Thursday, July 12, 2007
More Moore on Health Care Debate
Michael Moore debated with CNN's "medical Advisor" on Larry King Live - and won hands down. Transcript at http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0707/10/lkl.01.html
This is exciting - and Moore is definitely helping to stir up the health care debate in the US of A. GOOD FOR HIM!!
This is exciting - and Moore is definitely helping to stir up the health care debate in the US of A. GOOD FOR HIM!!
Here comes a test for the House
Harriet Miers didn't show, when called to testify before the Judicial Committee of the house on the Justice Dept attorney firings. She should be held in contempt. Will she? This is Conyers who chairs the committee, none the less. If in spite of this, if she is not held in contempt and packed off to jail there is no hope whatsoever for the Dems. Link at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20070712/fired-prosecutors/
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
GE Shareholder Takes a Different Approach to Media Dissatisfaction
I'm not sure I'm confident that the approach of Brent Budowsky - building a coalition of shareholders to express their discontent with the parent company and propose an alternative business plan - will work. But it's nice to see someone trying to find a new way to challenge the media bias in the U.S. I'm doubtful because, in the end, I figure the people holding enough shares to be influential are too rich, and too entrenched in the interests of the people the media bias serves to want to change it, but hey, maybe not. Here's a bit from Brent's challenge:
My proposal, and if necessary challenge, would be based on traditional principles of fiduciary responsibility of public companies, to maximize value, and traditional principles of capitalist business, currently violated not only at MSNBC but throughout the current alignment of cable news services.
For example, if Keith Olbermann’s show is dramatically more successful than others at MSNBC, shouldn’t more programming be based on a Keith Olbermann model?
If Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, and Bill Maher attract exponentially more viewers than current programs on MSNBC, shouldn’t more programming be based on their model?
Awww, it just sounds too idealistic...and that coming from me!
Cindy Takes on Pelosi on Impeachment
Found this on Michael Moore's web site:
July 8th, 2007 9:12 pm. Sheehan considers challenge to Pelosi
By Angela K. Brown / Associated Press
CRAWFORD, Texas - Cindy Sheehan, the soldier's mother who galvanized the anti-war movement, said Sunday that she plans to seek House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's congressional seat unless she introduces articles of impeachment against President Bush in the next two weeks.
Sheehan said she will run against the San Francisco Democrat in 2008 as an independent if Pelosi does not seek by July 23 to impeach Bush. That's when Sheehan and her supporters are to arrive in Washington, D.C., after a 13-day caravan and walking tour starting next week from the group's war protest site near Bush's Crawford ranch.
"Democrats and Americans feel betrayed by the Democratic leadership," Sheehan told The Associated Press. "We hired them to bring an end to the war. I'm not too far from San Francisco, so it wouldn't be too big of a move for me. I would give her a run for her money."
Messages left with Pelosi's staff were not immediately returned. The White House declined to comment on Sheehan's plans.
She plans her official candidacy announcement Tuesday. "
Pelosi's from SF: Cindy could pull it off if she set her mind to it.
July 8th, 2007 9:12 pm. Sheehan considers challenge to Pelosi
By Angela K. Brown / Associated Press
CRAWFORD, Texas - Cindy Sheehan, the soldier's mother who galvanized the anti-war movement, said Sunday that she plans to seek House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's congressional seat unless she introduces articles of impeachment against President Bush in the next two weeks.
Sheehan said she will run against the San Francisco Democrat in 2008 as an independent if Pelosi does not seek by July 23 to impeach Bush. That's when Sheehan and her supporters are to arrive in Washington, D.C., after a 13-day caravan and walking tour starting next week from the group's war protest site near Bush's Crawford ranch.
"Democrats and Americans feel betrayed by the Democratic leadership," Sheehan told The Associated Press. "We hired them to bring an end to the war. I'm not too far from San Francisco, so it wouldn't be too big of a move for me. I would give her a run for her money."
Messages left with Pelosi's staff were not immediately returned. The White House declined to comment on Sheehan's plans.
She plans her official candidacy announcement Tuesday. "
Pelosi's from SF: Cindy could pull it off if she set her mind to it.
Michael Moore's CNN interview on health care and the War
PLEASE, please go to Michael Moore's web page at http://www.michaelmoore.com/ to see the Moore Blitzer interview - DO NOT MISS THIS. And don't miss the Jon Stewart interview either
Una ministra de Sarkozy dice que es "posible" que Bush esté detrás del 11-S
Published last friday in Diario ADN, free newspaper given out in madrid:
Mathieu de Taillac / Esteban Gómez (vÃdeo), Madrid
No es nada raro encontrar en la web teorÃas que pongan en duda la versión oficial sobre los atentados del 11 de septiembre. Pero que sea una ministra de un gran paÃs europeo quien sostenga parecida opinión ya es más extraño. Si además dice que es “posible” que el propio presidente de Estados Unidos esté detrás de los atentados contra las torres gemelas, entonces es único.
Pero la actual ministra francesa de Vivienda y Urbanismo, la conservadora Christine Boutin, no se corta. Le preguntan en una entrevista si cree que Bush “puede estar en el origen del 11-S” y ella contesta que “sÃ, es posible
http://www.diarioadn.com/internacional/detail.php?id=33395
Mathieu de Taillac / Esteban Gómez (vÃdeo), Madrid
No es nada raro encontrar en la web teorÃas que pongan en duda la versión oficial sobre los atentados del 11 de septiembre. Pero que sea una ministra de un gran paÃs europeo quien sostenga parecida opinión ya es más extraño. Si además dice que es “posible” que el propio presidente de Estados Unidos esté detrás de los atentados contra las torres gemelas, entonces es único.
Pero la actual ministra francesa de Vivienda y Urbanismo, la conservadora Christine Boutin, no se corta. Le preguntan en una entrevista si cree que Bush “puede estar en el origen del 11-S” y ella contesta que “sÃ, es posible
http://www.diarioadn.com/internacional/detail.php?id=33395
Sunday, July 08, 2007
NY times officially calls for withdrawal from Iraq
And I quote: "It is time for the United States to leave Iraq, without any more delay than the Pentagon needs to organize an orderly exit." A bit late, after helping the country get INTO the war in the first place. But noteworthy. OFFICIAL EDITORIAL at
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/08/opinion/08sun1.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/08/opinion/08sun1.html
Bush finally losing his base
This article in the Washington Post points out something that I read about yesterday. Harry Reid thinks that in the fall a fair number of Republican senators may be willing to change course on the War. In this article they say the same thing- The fall will be an important moment to put pressure on the Dems to Do something, to take leadership.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/06/AR2007070602003.html?nav=hcmodule
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/06/AR2007070602003.html?nav=hcmodule
Sunday, July 01, 2007
Executive abuse of power
Found this great Editorial via Truthout about congress vs. unitary executive.
Abuse of Executive Privilege
The New York Times Editorial
After six years of
kowtowing to the White House, Congress is finally challenging President Bush's
campaign to trample all legal and constitutional restraints on his power.
Congressional committees have issued subpoenas for
documents and witnesses in two major cases and have asked for the first - and
likely not the last - criminal investigation of an executive branch official who
might have lied to Congress.
Predictably, the White
House is claiming executive privilege and refusing to cooperate with the
legitimate Congressional investigations, one springing from Mr. Bush's decision
to spy on Americans without a warrant and the other from the purge of United
States attorneys.
The courts have recognized a
president's limited right to keep the White House's internal deliberations
private. But it is far from an absolute right, and Mr. Bush's claim of executive
privilege in the attorneys scandal is especially ludicrous. The White House has
said repeatedly that Mr. Bush was not involved in the firings of nine United
States attorneys. If that's true, he can hardly argue that he has the right to
conceal conversations and e-mail exchanges that his aides had with one another
and the Justice Department...
Frank Rich's op ed from today's NY Times on Cheney
July 1, 2007
Op-Ed Columnist
When the Vice President Does It, That Means It’s Not Illegal
By FRANK RICH
WHO knew that mocking the Constitution could be nearly as funny as shooting a hunting buddy in the face? Among other comic dividends, Dick Cheney's legal theory that the vice president is not part of the executive branch yielded a priceless weeklong series on "The Daily Show" and an online "Doonesbury Poll," conducted at Slate, to name Mr. Cheney's indeterminate branch of government.
The ridicule was so widespread that finally even this White House had to blink. By midweek, it had abandoned that particularly ludicrous argument, if not its spurious larger claim that Mr. Cheney gets a free pass to ignore rules regulating federal officials' handling of government secrets.
That retreat might allow us to mark the end of this installment of the Bush-Cheney Follies but for one nagging problem: Not for the first time in the history of this administration — or the hundredth — has the real story been lost amid the Washington kerfuffle. Once the laughter subsides and you look deeper into the narrative leading up to the punch line, you can unearth a buried White House plot that is more damning than the official scandal. This plot once again snakes back to the sinister origins of the Iraq war, to the Valerie Wilson leak case and to the press failures that enabled the administration to abuse truth and the law for too long.
One journalist who hasn't failed is Mark Silva of The Chicago Tribune. He first reported more than a year ago, in May 2006, the essentials of the "news" at the heart of the recent Cheney ruckus. Mr. Silva found that the vice president was not filing required reports on his office's use of classified documents because he asserted that his role in the legislative branch, as president of the Senate, gave him an exemption.
This scoop went unnoticed by nearly everybody. It would still be forgotten today had not Henry Waxman, the dogged House inquisitor, called out Mr. Cheney 10 days ago, detailing still more egregious examples of the vice president's flouting of the law, including his effort to shut down an oversight agency in charge of policing him. The congressman's brief set off the firestorm that launched a thousand late-night gags.
That's all to the public good, but hiding in plain sight was the little-noted content of the Bush executive order that Mr. Cheney is accused of violating. On close examination, this obscure 2003 document, thrust into the light only because the vice president so blatantly defied it, turns out to be yet another piece of self-incriminating evidence illuminating the White House's guilt in ginning up its false case for war.
The tale of the document begins in August 2001, when the Bush administration initiated a review of the previous executive order on classified materials signed by Bill Clinton in 1995. The Clinton order had been acclaimed in its day as a victory for transparency because it mandated the automatic declassification of most government files after 25 years.
It was predictable that the obsessively secretive Bush team would undermine the Clinton order. What was once a measure to make government more open would be redrawn to do the opposite. And sure enough, when the White House finally released its revised version, the scant news coverage focused on how the new rules postponed the Clinton deadline for automatic declassification and tightened secrecy so much that previously declassified documents could be reclassified.
But few noticed another change inserted five times in the revised text: every provision that gave powers to the president over classified documents was amended to give the identical powers to the vice president. This unprecedented increase in vice-presidential clout, though spelled out in black and white, went virtually unremarked in contemporary news accounts.
Given all the other unprecedented prerogatives that President Bush has handed his vice president, this one might seem to be just more of the same. But both the timing of the executive order and the subsequent use Mr. Cheney would make of it reveal its special importance in the games that the White House played with prewar intelligence.
The obvious juncture for Mr. Bush to bestow these new powers on his vice president, you might expect, would have been soon after 9/11, especially since the review process on the Clinton order started a month earlier and could be expedited, as so much other governmental machinery was, to meet the urgent national-security crisis. Yet the new executive order languished for another 18 months, only to be published and signed with no fanfare on March 25, 2003, a week after the invasion of Iraq began.
Why then? It was throughout March, both on the eve of the war and right after "Shock and Awe," that the White House's most urgent case for Iraq's imminent threat began to unravel. That case had been built around the scariest of Saddam's supposed W.M.D., the nuclear weapons that could engulf America in mushroom clouds, and the White House had pushed it relentlessly, despite a lack of evidence. On "Meet the Press" on March 16, Mr. Cheney pressed that doomsday button one more time: "We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." But even as the vice president spoke, such claims were at last being strenuously challenged in public.
Nine days earlier Mohamed ElBaradei of the International Atomic Energy Agency had announced that documents supposedly attesting to Saddam's attempt to secure uranium in Niger were "not authentic." A then-obscure retired diplomat, Joseph Wilson, piped in on CNN, calling the case "outrageous."
Soon both Senator Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia and Congressman Waxman wrote letters (to the F.B.I. and the president, respectively) questioning whether we were going to war because of what Mr. Waxman labeled "a hoax." And this wasn't the only administration use of intelligence that was under increasing scrutiny. The newly formed 9/11 commission set its first open hearings for March 31 and requested some half-million documents, including those pertaining to what the White House knew about Al Qaeda's threat during the summer of 2001.
The new executive order that Mr. Bush signed on March 25 was ingenious. By giving Mr. Cheney the same classification powers he had, Mr. Bush gave his vice president a free hand to wield a clandestine weapon: he could use leaks to punish administration critics.
That weapon would be employed less than four months later. Under Mr. Bush's direction, Mr. Cheney deputized Scooter Libby to leak highly selective and misleading portions of a 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq to pet reporters as he tried to discredit Mr. Wilson. By then, Mr. Wilson had emerged as the most vocal former government official accusing the White House of not telling the truth before the war.
Because of the Patrick Fitzgerald investigation, we would learn three years later about the offensive conducted by Mr. Libby on behalf of Mr. Cheney and Mr. Bush. That revelation prompted the vice president to acknowledge his enhanced powers in an unguarded moment in a February 2006 interview with Brit Hume of Fox News. Asked by Mr. Hume with some incredulity if "a vice president has the authority to declassify information," Mr. Cheney replied, "There is an executive order to that effect." He was referring to the order of March 2003.
Even now, few have made the connection between this month's Cheney flap and the larger scandal. That larger scandal is to be found in what the vice president did legally under the executive order early on rather than in his more recent rejection of its oversight rules.
Timing really is everything. By March 2003, this White House knew its hype of Saddam's nonexistent nuclear arsenal was in grave danger of being exposed. The order allowed Mr. Bush to keep his own fingerprints off the nitty-gritty of any jihad against whistle-blowers by giving Mr. Cheney the authority to pick his own shots and handle the specifics. The president could have plausible deniability and was free to deliver non-denial denials like "If there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is." Mr. Cheney in turn could delegate the actual dirty work to Mr. Libby, who obstructed justice to help throw a smoke screen over the vice president's own role in the effort to destroy Mr. Wilson.
Last week The Washington Post ran a first-rate investigative series on the entire Cheney vice presidency. Readers posting comments were largely enthusiastic, but a few griped. "Six and a half years too late," said one. "Four years late and billions of dollars short," said another. Such complaints reflect the bitter legacy of much of the Washington press's failure to penetrate the hyping of prewar intelligence and, later, the import of the Fitzgerald investigation.
We're still playing catch-up. In a week in which the C.I.A. belatedly released severely censored secrets about agency scandals dating back a half-century, you have to wonder what else was done behind the shield of an executive order signed just after the Ides of March four years ago. Another half-century could pass before Americans learn the full story of the secrets buried by Mr. Cheney and his boss to cover up their deceitful path to war.
Op-Ed Columnist
When the Vice President Does It, That Means It’s Not Illegal
By FRANK RICH
WHO knew that mocking the Constitution could be nearly as funny as shooting a hunting buddy in the face? Among other comic dividends, Dick Cheney's legal theory that the vice president is not part of the executive branch yielded a priceless weeklong series on "The Daily Show" and an online "Doonesbury Poll," conducted at Slate, to name Mr. Cheney's indeterminate branch of government.
The ridicule was so widespread that finally even this White House had to blink. By midweek, it had abandoned that particularly ludicrous argument, if not its spurious larger claim that Mr. Cheney gets a free pass to ignore rules regulating federal officials' handling of government secrets.
That retreat might allow us to mark the end of this installment of the Bush-Cheney Follies but for one nagging problem: Not for the first time in the history of this administration — or the hundredth — has the real story been lost amid the Washington kerfuffle. Once the laughter subsides and you look deeper into the narrative leading up to the punch line, you can unearth a buried White House plot that is more damning than the official scandal. This plot once again snakes back to the sinister origins of the Iraq war, to the Valerie Wilson leak case and to the press failures that enabled the administration to abuse truth and the law for too long.
One journalist who hasn't failed is Mark Silva of The Chicago Tribune. He first reported more than a year ago, in May 2006, the essentials of the "news" at the heart of the recent Cheney ruckus. Mr. Silva found that the vice president was not filing required reports on his office's use of classified documents because he asserted that his role in the legislative branch, as president of the Senate, gave him an exemption.
This scoop went unnoticed by nearly everybody. It would still be forgotten today had not Henry Waxman, the dogged House inquisitor, called out Mr. Cheney 10 days ago, detailing still more egregious examples of the vice president's flouting of the law, including his effort to shut down an oversight agency in charge of policing him. The congressman's brief set off the firestorm that launched a thousand late-night gags.
That's all to the public good, but hiding in plain sight was the little-noted content of the Bush executive order that Mr. Cheney is accused of violating. On close examination, this obscure 2003 document, thrust into the light only because the vice president so blatantly defied it, turns out to be yet another piece of self-incriminating evidence illuminating the White House's guilt in ginning up its false case for war.
The tale of the document begins in August 2001, when the Bush administration initiated a review of the previous executive order on classified materials signed by Bill Clinton in 1995. The Clinton order had been acclaimed in its day as a victory for transparency because it mandated the automatic declassification of most government files after 25 years.
It was predictable that the obsessively secretive Bush team would undermine the Clinton order. What was once a measure to make government more open would be redrawn to do the opposite. And sure enough, when the White House finally released its revised version, the scant news coverage focused on how the new rules postponed the Clinton deadline for automatic declassification and tightened secrecy so much that previously declassified documents could be reclassified.
But few noticed another change inserted five times in the revised text: every provision that gave powers to the president over classified documents was amended to give the identical powers to the vice president. This unprecedented increase in vice-presidential clout, though spelled out in black and white, went virtually unremarked in contemporary news accounts.
Given all the other unprecedented prerogatives that President Bush has handed his vice president, this one might seem to be just more of the same. But both the timing of the executive order and the subsequent use Mr. Cheney would make of it reveal its special importance in the games that the White House played with prewar intelligence.
The obvious juncture for Mr. Bush to bestow these new powers on his vice president, you might expect, would have been soon after 9/11, especially since the review process on the Clinton order started a month earlier and could be expedited, as so much other governmental machinery was, to meet the urgent national-security crisis. Yet the new executive order languished for another 18 months, only to be published and signed with no fanfare on March 25, 2003, a week after the invasion of Iraq began.
Why then? It was throughout March, both on the eve of the war and right after "Shock and Awe," that the White House's most urgent case for Iraq's imminent threat began to unravel. That case had been built around the scariest of Saddam's supposed W.M.D., the nuclear weapons that could engulf America in mushroom clouds, and the White House had pushed it relentlessly, despite a lack of evidence. On "Meet the Press" on March 16, Mr. Cheney pressed that doomsday button one more time: "We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." But even as the vice president spoke, such claims were at last being strenuously challenged in public.
Nine days earlier Mohamed ElBaradei of the International Atomic Energy Agency had announced that documents supposedly attesting to Saddam's attempt to secure uranium in Niger were "not authentic." A then-obscure retired diplomat, Joseph Wilson, piped in on CNN, calling the case "outrageous."
Soon both Senator Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia and Congressman Waxman wrote letters (to the F.B.I. and the president, respectively) questioning whether we were going to war because of what Mr. Waxman labeled "a hoax." And this wasn't the only administration use of intelligence that was under increasing scrutiny. The newly formed 9/11 commission set its first open hearings for March 31 and requested some half-million documents, including those pertaining to what the White House knew about Al Qaeda's threat during the summer of 2001.
The new executive order that Mr. Bush signed on March 25 was ingenious. By giving Mr. Cheney the same classification powers he had, Mr. Bush gave his vice president a free hand to wield a clandestine weapon: he could use leaks to punish administration critics.
That weapon would be employed less than four months later. Under Mr. Bush's direction, Mr. Cheney deputized Scooter Libby to leak highly selective and misleading portions of a 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq to pet reporters as he tried to discredit Mr. Wilson. By then, Mr. Wilson had emerged as the most vocal former government official accusing the White House of not telling the truth before the war.
Because of the Patrick Fitzgerald investigation, we would learn three years later about the offensive conducted by Mr. Libby on behalf of Mr. Cheney and Mr. Bush. That revelation prompted the vice president to acknowledge his enhanced powers in an unguarded moment in a February 2006 interview with Brit Hume of Fox News. Asked by Mr. Hume with some incredulity if "a vice president has the authority to declassify information," Mr. Cheney replied, "There is an executive order to that effect." He was referring to the order of March 2003.
Even now, few have made the connection between this month's Cheney flap and the larger scandal. That larger scandal is to be found in what the vice president did legally under the executive order early on rather than in his more recent rejection of its oversight rules.
Timing really is everything. By March 2003, this White House knew its hype of Saddam's nonexistent nuclear arsenal was in grave danger of being exposed. The order allowed Mr. Bush to keep his own fingerprints off the nitty-gritty of any jihad against whistle-blowers by giving Mr. Cheney the authority to pick his own shots and handle the specifics. The president could have plausible deniability and was free to deliver non-denial denials like "If there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is." Mr. Cheney in turn could delegate the actual dirty work to Mr. Libby, who obstructed justice to help throw a smoke screen over the vice president's own role in the effort to destroy Mr. Wilson.
Last week The Washington Post ran a first-rate investigative series on the entire Cheney vice presidency. Readers posting comments were largely enthusiastic, but a few griped. "Six and a half years too late," said one. "Four years late and billions of dollars short," said another. Such complaints reflect the bitter legacy of much of the Washington press's failure to penetrate the hyping of prewar intelligence and, later, the import of the Fitzgerald investigation.
We're still playing catch-up. In a week in which the C.I.A. belatedly released severely censored secrets about agency scandals dating back a half-century, you have to wonder what else was done behind the shield of an executive order signed just after the Ides of March four years ago. Another half-century could pass before Americans learn the full story of the secrets buried by Mr. Cheney and his boss to cover up their deceitful path to war.
Saturday, May 05, 2007
Segolene Royal dealt right-wing candidate Nicolas Sarkozy a series of tough political attacks
May 3, 2007 -- French Socialist Party presidential candidate Segolene Royal dealt right-wing candidate Nicolas Sarkozy a series of tough political attacks in last night's televised debate. Royal accused Sarkozy of being immoral in his policies toward the weakest members of French society, particularly handicapped school children. Royal said Sarkozy wants to dismantle France's public education system. As a further indication that Sarkozy's neo-con media friends, especially those at Le Figaro, are skewing the opinion polls, Sarkozy is still running ahead of Royal although a clear majority of centrist candidate Francois Bayrou's supporters are favoring Royal in the May 6 run-off and far right-wing candidate Jean-Marie Le Pen has urged his supporters to abstain in the run-off. Bayrou said that he will not vote for Sarkozy. The real political math of French Left +
majority of Bayrou supporters and majority abstentions by Le Pean supporters equals no significant net gain for Sarkozy in the second round and should reflect a sizeable jump in the numbers for Royal. As with the U.S. and Mexican presidential elections, the polls are being artificially fixed to reflect the upcoming skewed exit polls, a major component of the neo-cons' main contrivance to maintain political control --
"election engineering."
IPSOS, the Paris-based marketing firm that sits at the core of most reported French presidential election polls, including those of the Associated Press, owns some 40 market research and opinion companies around the world, including the United Kingdom's MORI. It has a vested interest in the election of the extreme pro-business Sarkozy.
http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/
majority of Bayrou supporters and majority abstentions by Le Pean supporters equals no significant net gain for Sarkozy in the second round and should reflect a sizeable jump in the numbers for Royal. As with the U.S. and Mexican presidential elections, the polls are being artificially fixed to reflect the upcoming skewed exit polls, a major component of the neo-cons' main contrivance to maintain political control --
"election engineering."
IPSOS, the Paris-based marketing firm that sits at the core of most reported French presidential election polls, including those of the Associated Press, owns some 40 market research and opinion companies around the world, including the United Kingdom's MORI. It has a vested interest in the election of the extreme pro-business Sarkozy.
http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/
Friday, May 04, 2007
obama's moment of truth
This commentary from Wednesday is interesting - suggesting that if Obama wants to continue to be the antiwar candidate, he will have to be against finding a "common ground" with Bush on the vetoed bill. http://thehill.com/dick-morris/obamas-moment-of-truth-2007-05-02.html
And If he sides with Harry Reid, PElosi and Clinton, he is leaving things way open for Edwards.
And If he sides with Harry Reid, PElosi and Clinton, he is leaving things way open for Edwards.
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
Rockefeller talks about the fake war on terror
watch aaron russo talk about his conversation with rockeller about the fake war on terror
Friday, April 27, 2007
Even Tenet is jumping off the sinking boat
From Today's NY TIMES :
WASHINGTON, April 26 — George J. Tenet, the former director of central intelligence, has lashed out against Vice President Dick Cheney and other Bush administration officials in a new book, saying they pushed the country to war in Iraq without ever conducting a “serious debate” about whether Saddam Hussein posed an imminent threat to the United States.
The 549-page book, “At the Center of the Storm,” is to be published by HarperCollins on Monday. By turns accusatory, defensive, and modestly self-critical, it is the first detailed account by a member of the president’s inner circle of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the decision to invade Iraq and the failure to find the unconventional weapons that were a major justification for the war.
“There was never a serious debate that I know of within the administration about the imminence of the Iraqi threat,” Mr. Tenet writes in a devastating judgment that is likely to be debated for many years. Nor, he adds, “was there ever a significant discussion” about the possibility of containing Iraq without an invasion.
Mr. Tenet admits that he made his famous “slam dunk” remark about the evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. But he argues that the quote was taken out of context and that it had little impact on President Bush’s decision to go to war. He also makes clear his bitter view that the administration made him a scapegoat for the Iraq war.
WASHINGTON, April 26 — George J. Tenet, the former director of central intelligence, has lashed out against Vice President Dick Cheney and other Bush administration officials in a new book, saying they pushed the country to war in Iraq without ever conducting a “serious debate” about whether Saddam Hussein posed an imminent threat to the United States.
The 549-page book, “At the Center of the Storm,” is to be published by HarperCollins on Monday. By turns accusatory, defensive, and modestly self-critical, it is the first detailed account by a member of the president’s inner circle of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the decision to invade Iraq and the failure to find the unconventional weapons that were a major justification for the war.
“There was never a serious debate that I know of within the administration about the imminence of the Iraqi threat,” Mr. Tenet writes in a devastating judgment that is likely to be debated for many years. Nor, he adds, “was there ever a significant discussion” about the possibility of containing Iraq without an invasion.
Mr. Tenet admits that he made his famous “slam dunk” remark about the evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. But he argues that the quote was taken out of context and that it had little impact on President Bush’s decision to go to war. He also makes clear his bitter view that the administration made him a scapegoat for the Iraq war.
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
And Speaking of Scary Government Lists...
So there's lists for people who go to peace marches, and it also appears there are also lists for people who have names that might be similar to those of people who maybe, they think, could be a terrorist, or someone who knows a terrorist. This is just silly.
But it reminds me of the lists that were put together to purge the Florida voter rolls, they left it open to tons of false positives. Your name didn't even have to match it just had to be similar to a name on the list to make you a target.
Here is the publicly downloadable list of bad names. It's currently 250 pages long!
And here's another article on this list from the Consumerist as well.
But it reminds me of the lists that were put together to purge the Florida voter rolls, they left it open to tons of false positives. Your name didn't even have to match it just had to be similar to a name on the list to make you a target.
Tom Kubbany is neither a terrorist nor a drug trafficker, has average credit and has owned homes in the past, so the Northern California mental-health worker was baffled when his mortgage broker said lenders were not interested in him. Reviewing his loan file, he discovered something shocking. At the top of his credit report was an OFAC alert provided by credit bureau TransUnion that showed that his middle name, Hassan, is an alias for Ali Saddam Hussein, purportedly a "son of Saddam Hussein."The record is not clear on whether Ali Saddam Hussein was a Hussein offspring, but the OFAC list stated he was born in 1980 or 1983. Kubbany was born in Detroit in 1949.
Here is the publicly downloadable list of bad names. It's currently 250 pages long!
And here's another article on this list from the Consumerist as well.
War Hero Branded a Threat Because of Criticism of Bush
Walter K. Murphy, Korean war veteran and McCormick professor (emeritus) at Princeton was put on a "terrorist watch list", most likely because of a critical speech he gave about the president. The scariest thing about this is the casual attitude the clerk seems to have toward the whole thing, like he's got no idea of the implications of this kind of targeting in what is supposed to be a free and democratic society. Such complacency.
"I presented my credentials from the Marine Corps to a very polite clerk for American Airlines. One of the two people to whom I talked asked a question and offered a frightening comment: "Have you been in any peace marches? We ban a lot of people from flying because of that." I explained that I had not so marched but had, in September, 2006, given a lecture at Princeton, televised and put on the Web, highly critical of George Bush for his many violations of the Constitution. "That'll do it," the man said. "
De-Bunking Myths about Universal Healthcare
Found this great article in The New Republic (access is limited, but it only takes 2 secs to register) discussing the common claim that national healthcare is always lower in quality.
The author then deconstructs all the false or shaky claims put forward as "proof" that national healthcare is always lower in quality than private systems. A long article but an important read.
It's a potent argument politically. Americans certainly don't like the idea of losing their health insurance and facing medical bills on their own--a problem universal plans like Edwards's would overcome. But they're also spooked by the prospect that they might not be able to get the best, most advanced life-saving care if faced with a deadly disease. That's particularly true for more affluent Americans, for whom the threat of losing insurance coverage seems remote--and whose ample financial resources (not to mention personal connections) give them access to this country's top doctors and hospitals....
Sunday, April 08, 2007
Frank Rich's op-ed in today's NY Times
I'm posting the whole thing, since access is limited.
April 8, 2007
Op-Ed Columnist
Sunday in the Market With McCain
By FRANK RICH
JOHN McCAIN’S April Fools’ Day stroll through Baghdad’s Shorja market last weekend was instantly acclaimed as a classic political pratfall. Protected by more than a hundred American soldiers, three Black Hawk helicopters, two Apache gunships and a bulletproof vest, the senator extolled the “progress” and “good news” in Iraq. Befitting this loopy brand of comedy — reminiscent of “Wedding Crashers,” in which Mr. McCain gamely made a cameo appearance — the star had a crackerjack cast of supporting buffoons: Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who told reporters “I bought five rugs for five bucks!,” and Representative Mike Pence of Indiana, who likened the scene to “a normal outdoor market in Indiana in the summertime.”
Five rugs for five bucks: boy, we’ve really got that Iraq economy up and running now! No wonder the McCain show was quickly dubbed “McCain’s Mission Accomplished” and “McCain’s Dukakis-in-the-Tank Photo Op.” But at a certain point the laughter curdled. Reporters rudely pointed out there were 60-plus casualties in this market from one February attack alone and that six Americans were killed in the Baghdad environs on the day of his visit. “Your heart goes out to just the typical Iraqi because they can’t have that kind of entourage,” said Kyra Phillips of CNN. The day after Mr. McCain’s stroll, The Times of London reported that 21 of the Shorja market’s merchants and workers were ambushed and murdered.
The political press has stepped up its sotto voce deathwatch on the McCain presidential campaign ever since, a drumbeat enhanced by last week’s announcement of Mr. McCain’s third-place finish in the Republican field’s fund-raising sweepstakes. (He is scheduled to restate his commitment to the race on “60 Minutes” tonight.) But his campaign was sagging well before he went to Baghdad. In retrospect, his disastrous trip may be less significant as yet another downturn in a faltering presidential candidacy than as a turning point in hastening the inevitable American exit from Iraq.
Mr. McCain is no Michael Dukakis. Unlike the 1988 Democratic standard-bearer, who was trying to counter accusations that he was weak on national defense, the Arizona senator has more military cred than any current presidential aspirant, let alone the current president. Every American knows that Mr. McCain is a genuine hero who survived torture during more than five years of captivity at the Hanoi Hilton. That’s why when he squandered that credibility on an embarrassing propaganda stunt, he didn’t hurt only himself but also inflicted collateral damage on lesser Washington mortals who still claim that the “surge” can bring “victory” in Iraq.
It can’t be lost on those dwindling die-hards, particularly those on the 2008 ballot, that if defending the indefensible can reduce even a politician of Mr. McCain’s heroic stature to that of Dukakis-in-the-tank, they have nowhere to go but down. They’ll cut and run soon enough. For starters, just watch as Mr. McCain’s G.O.P. presidential rivals add more caveats to their support for the administration’s Iraq policy. Already, in a Tuesday interview on “Good Morning America,” Mitt Romney inched toward concrete “timetables and milestones” for Iraq, with the nonsensical proviso they shouldn’t be published “for the enemy.”
As if to confirm we’re in the last throes, President Bush threw any remaining caution to the winds during his news conference in the Rose Garden that same morning. Almost everything he said was patently misleading or an outright lie, a sure sign of a leader so entombed in his bunker (he couldn’t even emerge for the Washington Nationals’ ceremonial first pitch last week) that he feels he has nothing left to lose.
Incredibly, he chided his adversaries on the Hill for going on vacation just as he was heading off for his own vacation in Crawford. Then he attacked Congress for taking 57 days to “pass emergency funds for our troops” even though the previous, Republican-led Congress took 119 days on the same bill in 2006. He ridiculed the House bill for “pork and other spending that has nothing to do with the war,” though last year’s war-spending bill was also larded with unrelated pork, from Congressional efforts to add agricultural subsidies to the president’s own request for money for bird-flu preparation.
Mr. Bush’s claim that military equipment would be shortchanged if he couldn’t sign a spending bill by mid-April was contradicted by not one but two government agencies. A Government Accountability Office report faulted poor Pentagon planning for endemic existing equipment shortages in the National Guard. The Congressional Research Service found that the Pentagon could pay for the war until well into July. Since by that point we’ll already be on the threshold of our own commanders’ late-summer deadline for judging the surge, what’s the crisis?
The president then ratcheted up his habitual exploitation of the suffering of the troops and their families — a button he had pushed five days earlier when making his six-weeks-tardy visit to pose for photos at scandal-ridden Walter Reed. “Congress’s failure to fund our troops on the front lines will mean that some of our military families could wait longer for their loved ones to return from the front lines,” he said. “And others could see their loved ones headed back to the war sooner than they need to.”
His own failures had already foreordained exactly these grim results. Only the day before this news conference, the Pentagon said that the first unit tossed into the Baghdad surge would stay in Iraq a full year rather than the expected nine months, and that three other units had been ordered back there without the usual yearlong stay at home. By week’s end, we would learn the story of the suspected friendly-fire death of 18-year-old Pvt. Matthew Zeimer, just two hours after assuming his first combat post. He had been among those who had been shipped to war with a vastly stripped-down training regimen, 10 days instead of four weeks, forced by the relentless need for new troops in Iraq.
Meanwhile the Iraqi “democracy” that Mr. Zeimer died for was given yet another free pass. Mr. Bush applauded the Iraqi government for “working on an oil law,” though it languishes in Parliament, and for having named a commander for its Baghdad troops. Much of this was a replay of Mr. Bush’s sunny Rose Garden news conference in June, only then he claimed Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki was taking charge of Baghdad security on his own. Now it’s not even clear whom the newly named Iraqi commander is commanding. The number of military operations with Iraqis in the lead is falling, not rising, according to the Pentagon. Even as the administration claims that Iraqis are leading the Baghdad crackdown, American military losses were double those of the Iraqi Army in March.
Mr. Bush or anyone else who sees progress in the surge is correct only in the most literal and temporary sense. Yes, an influx of American troops is depressing some Baghdad violence. But any falloff in the capital is being offset by increased violence in the rest of the country; the civilian death toll rose 15 percent from February to March. Mosul, which was supposedly secured in 2003 by the current American commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, is now a safe haven for terrorists, according to an Iraqi government spokesman. The once-pacified Tal Afar, which Mr. Bush declared “a free city that gives reason for hope for a free Iraq” in 2006, is a cauldron of bloodshed.
If Baghdad isn’t going to repeat Tal Afar’s history, we will have to send many more American troops than promised and keep them there until Mr. Maliki presides over a stable coalition government providing its own security. Hell is more likely to freeze over first. Yet if American troops don’t start to leave far sooner than that — by the beginning of next year, according to the retired general and sometime White House consultant Barry McCaffrey — the American Army will start to unravel. The National Guard, whose own new involuntary deployments to Iraq were uncovered last week by NBC News, can’t ride to the rescue indefinitely.
The center will not hold, no matter what happens in the Washington standoff over war funding. Surely no one understands better than Mr. McCain that American lives are being wasted in the war’s escalation. That is what he said on David Letterman’s show in an unguarded moment some five weeks ago — though he recanted the word wasted after taking flak the morning after.
Like his Letterman gaffe, Mr. McCain’s ludicrous market stunt was at least in the tradition of his old brand of straight talk, in that it revealed the truth, however unintentionally. But many more have watched the constantly recycled and ridiculed spectacle of his “safe” walk in Baghdad than heard him on a late-night talk show. This incident has the staying power of the Howard Dean scream. Should it speed America’s disengagement from Iraq, what looks today like John McCain’s farcical act of political suicide may some day loom large as a patriot’s final act of sacrifice for his country.
April 8, 2007
Op-Ed Columnist
Sunday in the Market With McCain
By FRANK RICH
JOHN McCAIN’S April Fools’ Day stroll through Baghdad’s Shorja market last weekend was instantly acclaimed as a classic political pratfall. Protected by more than a hundred American soldiers, three Black Hawk helicopters, two Apache gunships and a bulletproof vest, the senator extolled the “progress” and “good news” in Iraq. Befitting this loopy brand of comedy — reminiscent of “Wedding Crashers,” in which Mr. McCain gamely made a cameo appearance — the star had a crackerjack cast of supporting buffoons: Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who told reporters “I bought five rugs for five bucks!,” and Representative Mike Pence of Indiana, who likened the scene to “a normal outdoor market in Indiana in the summertime.”
Five rugs for five bucks: boy, we’ve really got that Iraq economy up and running now! No wonder the McCain show was quickly dubbed “McCain’s Mission Accomplished” and “McCain’s Dukakis-in-the-Tank Photo Op.” But at a certain point the laughter curdled. Reporters rudely pointed out there were 60-plus casualties in this market from one February attack alone and that six Americans were killed in the Baghdad environs on the day of his visit. “Your heart goes out to just the typical Iraqi because they can’t have that kind of entourage,” said Kyra Phillips of CNN. The day after Mr. McCain’s stroll, The Times of London reported that 21 of the Shorja market’s merchants and workers were ambushed and murdered.
The political press has stepped up its sotto voce deathwatch on the McCain presidential campaign ever since, a drumbeat enhanced by last week’s announcement of Mr. McCain’s third-place finish in the Republican field’s fund-raising sweepstakes. (He is scheduled to restate his commitment to the race on “60 Minutes” tonight.) But his campaign was sagging well before he went to Baghdad. In retrospect, his disastrous trip may be less significant as yet another downturn in a faltering presidential candidacy than as a turning point in hastening the inevitable American exit from Iraq.
Mr. McCain is no Michael Dukakis. Unlike the 1988 Democratic standard-bearer, who was trying to counter accusations that he was weak on national defense, the Arizona senator has more military cred than any current presidential aspirant, let alone the current president. Every American knows that Mr. McCain is a genuine hero who survived torture during more than five years of captivity at the Hanoi Hilton. That’s why when he squandered that credibility on an embarrassing propaganda stunt, he didn’t hurt only himself but also inflicted collateral damage on lesser Washington mortals who still claim that the “surge” can bring “victory” in Iraq.
It can’t be lost on those dwindling die-hards, particularly those on the 2008 ballot, that if defending the indefensible can reduce even a politician of Mr. McCain’s heroic stature to that of Dukakis-in-the-tank, they have nowhere to go but down. They’ll cut and run soon enough. For starters, just watch as Mr. McCain’s G.O.P. presidential rivals add more caveats to their support for the administration’s Iraq policy. Already, in a Tuesday interview on “Good Morning America,” Mitt Romney inched toward concrete “timetables and milestones” for Iraq, with the nonsensical proviso they shouldn’t be published “for the enemy.”
As if to confirm we’re in the last throes, President Bush threw any remaining caution to the winds during his news conference in the Rose Garden that same morning. Almost everything he said was patently misleading or an outright lie, a sure sign of a leader so entombed in his bunker (he couldn’t even emerge for the Washington Nationals’ ceremonial first pitch last week) that he feels he has nothing left to lose.
Incredibly, he chided his adversaries on the Hill for going on vacation just as he was heading off for his own vacation in Crawford. Then he attacked Congress for taking 57 days to “pass emergency funds for our troops” even though the previous, Republican-led Congress took 119 days on the same bill in 2006. He ridiculed the House bill for “pork and other spending that has nothing to do with the war,” though last year’s war-spending bill was also larded with unrelated pork, from Congressional efforts to add agricultural subsidies to the president’s own request for money for bird-flu preparation.
Mr. Bush’s claim that military equipment would be shortchanged if he couldn’t sign a spending bill by mid-April was contradicted by not one but two government agencies. A Government Accountability Office report faulted poor Pentagon planning for endemic existing equipment shortages in the National Guard. The Congressional Research Service found that the Pentagon could pay for the war until well into July. Since by that point we’ll already be on the threshold of our own commanders’ late-summer deadline for judging the surge, what’s the crisis?
The president then ratcheted up his habitual exploitation of the suffering of the troops and their families — a button he had pushed five days earlier when making his six-weeks-tardy visit to pose for photos at scandal-ridden Walter Reed. “Congress’s failure to fund our troops on the front lines will mean that some of our military families could wait longer for their loved ones to return from the front lines,” he said. “And others could see their loved ones headed back to the war sooner than they need to.”
His own failures had already foreordained exactly these grim results. Only the day before this news conference, the Pentagon said that the first unit tossed into the Baghdad surge would stay in Iraq a full year rather than the expected nine months, and that three other units had been ordered back there without the usual yearlong stay at home. By week’s end, we would learn the story of the suspected friendly-fire death of 18-year-old Pvt. Matthew Zeimer, just two hours after assuming his first combat post. He had been among those who had been shipped to war with a vastly stripped-down training regimen, 10 days instead of four weeks, forced by the relentless need for new troops in Iraq.
Meanwhile the Iraqi “democracy” that Mr. Zeimer died for was given yet another free pass. Mr. Bush applauded the Iraqi government for “working on an oil law,” though it languishes in Parliament, and for having named a commander for its Baghdad troops. Much of this was a replay of Mr. Bush’s sunny Rose Garden news conference in June, only then he claimed Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki was taking charge of Baghdad security on his own. Now it’s not even clear whom the newly named Iraqi commander is commanding. The number of military operations with Iraqis in the lead is falling, not rising, according to the Pentagon. Even as the administration claims that Iraqis are leading the Baghdad crackdown, American military losses were double those of the Iraqi Army in March.
Mr. Bush or anyone else who sees progress in the surge is correct only in the most literal and temporary sense. Yes, an influx of American troops is depressing some Baghdad violence. But any falloff in the capital is being offset by increased violence in the rest of the country; the civilian death toll rose 15 percent from February to March. Mosul, which was supposedly secured in 2003 by the current American commander in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus, is now a safe haven for terrorists, according to an Iraqi government spokesman. The once-pacified Tal Afar, which Mr. Bush declared “a free city that gives reason for hope for a free Iraq” in 2006, is a cauldron of bloodshed.
If Baghdad isn’t going to repeat Tal Afar’s history, we will have to send many more American troops than promised and keep them there until Mr. Maliki presides over a stable coalition government providing its own security. Hell is more likely to freeze over first. Yet if American troops don’t start to leave far sooner than that — by the beginning of next year, according to the retired general and sometime White House consultant Barry McCaffrey — the American Army will start to unravel. The National Guard, whose own new involuntary deployments to Iraq were uncovered last week by NBC News, can’t ride to the rescue indefinitely.
The center will not hold, no matter what happens in the Washington standoff over war funding. Surely no one understands better than Mr. McCain that American lives are being wasted in the war’s escalation. That is what he said on David Letterman’s show in an unguarded moment some five weeks ago — though he recanted the word wasted after taking flak the morning after.
Like his Letterman gaffe, Mr. McCain’s ludicrous market stunt was at least in the tradition of his old brand of straight talk, in that it revealed the truth, however unintentionally. But many more have watched the constantly recycled and ridiculed spectacle of his “safe” walk in Baghdad than heard him on a late-night talk show. This incident has the staying power of the Howard Dean scream. Should it speed America’s disengagement from Iraq, what looks today like John McCain’s farcical act of political suicide may some day loom large as a patriot’s final act of sacrifice for his country.
Saturday, April 07, 2007
health care in the US of A
An article in today' s NY Times, at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/06/business/06schism.html
points out that the pressure of US businesses that still cover employees' health care is once more being noticed - they can't afford it. And it's a good reason for moving factories abroad.
Hillary blew it completely last time around - she simply LEFT OUT health professionals from all of here debates. Health professionals would be a lot more open this time around, especially since many physicans' organizations have already spoken out in favor of national health insurance ( the Pediatricians have been demanding it for decades).
Bush doesn't care at all about the traditional manufactures /auto sector, which is the area which is hurting the most from covering employees' health care ( he doesn't even represent all of big business). But hopefully, with a bit of pressure, things will change.
points out that the pressure of US businesses that still cover employees' health care is once more being noticed - they can't afford it. And it's a good reason for moving factories abroad.
Hillary blew it completely last time around - she simply LEFT OUT health professionals from all of here debates. Health professionals would be a lot more open this time around, especially since many physicans' organizations have already spoken out in favor of national health insurance ( the Pediatricians have been demanding it for decades).
Bush doesn't care at all about the traditional manufactures /auto sector, which is the area which is hurting the most from covering employees' health care ( he doesn't even represent all of big business). But hopefully, with a bit of pressure, things will change.
Friday, April 06, 2007
this is a trial run - Cheney and BYU
Cheney was invited to speak at the Brigham Young U commencement this year. And protests are underwar. A group of students and teachers claim that the Mormon U in UTah has a very strict honors and ethics code, and that Cheney is not up to standard, because he 1) lied about the reasons to go into Iraq 2) ordered the outing of a CIA agent. They don't want him. It remains to be seen whether he will go or not.
Seems that the grand old coalition of the religous right and big business has its limits too.
On another front, looks like Obama is bringing in as much money as Hillary, but with the added advantage of getting it from more donors. Bodes well for his campaign.
Great, KArina, this seems to be working
Seems that the grand old coalition of the religous right and big business has its limits too.
On another front, looks like Obama is bringing in as much money as Hillary, but with the added advantage of getting it from more donors. Bodes well for his campaign.
Great, KArina, this seems to be working
Wednesday, March 07, 2007
BBC Bombshell
The BBC Bombshell
Archived footage of television broadcasts from 9/11/2001 shows the BBC reporting the collapse of WTC 7 about 23 minutes before it actually occurred. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTeOzFRLfdc
BBC News correspondent Jane Standley reports that the Salomon Brothers' Building (WTC 7) has collapsed, unaware that the intact building is clearly visible behind her.
On February 22, 2007, an extensive archive of television broadcast footage covering the attack was discovered on Archive.org and publicized on a blog. The archive consists of 417 mpegs, each covering about 41 minutes of broadcast. The coverage includes the following six television stations and time spans:
TV station
start time
end time
NBC4 Washington
9/11 08:31
9/13 20:23
ABC7 Washington
9/11 08:31
9/13 22:29
BBC
9/11 09:16
9/13 20:19
FOX5 Washington
9/11 08:31
9/13 20:23
CNN
9/11 08:48
9/13 20:33
CBS9 Washington
9/11 08:31
9/13 20:23
On February 26, 2007, it was publicized that the BBC had reported the collapse of the building at 4:57 PM on 9/11, 23 minutes before the actual collapse time of 5:20 PM, using excerpts which were apparently extracted from one of the archived files.
The report is found in the following 1-gigabyte mpeg, which covers the time span from 4:54 PM through 5:36 PM: http://ia311517.us.archive.org/2/items/bbc200109111654-1736/V08591-16.mpg
Portions of the report are transcribed below. The numbers in bold indicate times, in minutes and seconds, from the beginning of the mpeg recording.
03:15 ~4:47 PM: The anchor states:
We'll leave it there for a moment. We've got some news just coming in actually, that the Solomon Brothers' Building in New York, right in the heart of Manhattan, has also collapsed. This does fit in with a warning from the British Foreign Office a couple of hours ago to British Citizens that there is a real risk -- ah let me get the exact words -- the British Foreign Office -- the foreign part of the British government -- said it was a strong risk of further atrocities in the United States, and it does seem as if there now is another one with the Solomon Brothers' Building collapsing. We've got no word yet on casualities. One assumes that the building would have been virtually deserted. Whether this latest collapse is going to influence the President, who we heard about a few moments ago, who was expected to be heading from Nebraska back to Washington, we don't know.
06:31 ~5:00 PM: The anchor states:
The 47-story Solomon Brothers', situated very close to the World Trade Center, has also just collapsed.
13:20 ~5:07 PM: The anchor states:
Now more on the latest building collapse in New York ... you may have heard a few moments ago we were talking about the Solomon Brothers Building collapsing and indeed it has, and apparently it's only a few hundred yards away from where the World Trade Center Towers were. And it seems that this was not the result of a new attack; it was because the building had been weakened during this morning's attacks. We'll probably find out more about that from our correspondent Jane Standley. Jane, what more can you tell us about the Solomon Brothers' Building and its collapse?
14:00 ~5:08 PM: The screen is filled by correspondent Jane Standley standing in front of a window framing smoke rising from Ground Zero and a clearly erect WTC 7.
15:35 ~5:09 PM: The caption on the bottom of the screen reads:
The 47 storey Salomon Brothers building close to the World Trade Centre has also collapsed.
20:15 ~5:14 PM: The image of Jane Standley begins to break up and the anchor, remarking that they'd "lost the line" with Jane Standley, shifts to another report.
This YouTube video captures a portion of the mpeg starting at 00:13:20.
Veracity of Conclusion
Questions prompted by the report include: How do we know what the correct time of the broadcast footage is? and How do we know that the imagery behind Jane Standley is live?
It is unlikely that the real times estimated above are off by more than a minute. The mpeg files are located in directories on archive.org with names that encode times down to the minute. For example, the directory name bbc200109111654-1736 encodes the time range 4:54 - 5:36 PM. No part of the 41-minute recording that contains the report shows a digital clock, but other recordings do, and suggest that the encoding of times into directory names is as meticulously accurate as the set of recordings is complete. For example, an NBC broadcast recording with the directory name nbc200109110954-1036, encoding the time range 9:54 - 10:35 AM, shows a clock with minutes and seconds. It displays a time of 10:20 starting at 25:34 in the recording, putting the start of the recording at 9:54:26 AM.
That Jane Standley was standing in front of a live view showing WTC 7 as she describes it in the past tense is virtually indisputable. The high-quality mpeg video clearly shows that she is in front of a row of windows in a tall building.
BBC Reacts
Richard Porter wrote a reactive denial on February 27 to suggestions that there is something wrong with the BBC ( whose "vision is to be the most creative, trusted organisation in the world" 1 ) announcing the third of the only three skyscraper "collapses" in world history before it happened.
1. We're not part of a conspiracy. Nobody told us what to say or do on September 11th. We didn't get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down. We didn't receive press releases or scripts in advance of events happening.
2. In the chaos and confusion of the day, I'm quite sure we said things which turned out to be untrue or inaccurate - but at the time were based on the best information we had. We did what we always did - sourced our reports, used qualifying words like "apparently" or "it's reported" or "we're hearing" and constantly tried to check and double check the information we were receiving.
3. Our reporter Jane Standley was in New York on the day of the attacks, and like everyone who was there, has the events seared on her mind. I've spoken to her today and unsurprisingly, she doesn't remember minute-by-minute what she said or did - like everybody else that day she was trying to make sense of what she was seeing; what she was being told; and what was being told to her by colleagues in London who were monitoring feeds and wires services.
4. We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of cock-up, not conspiracy). So if someone has got a recording of our output, I'd love to get hold of it. We do have the tapes for our sister channel News 24, but they don't help clear up the issue one way or another.
5. If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error - no more than that. As one of the comments on You Tube says today "so the guy in the studio didn't quite know what was going on? Woah, that totally proves conspiracy... " 2
References1. About the BBC: Purpose and Values, bbc.co.uk, 2. Part of the conspiracy?, bbc.co.uk, 2/27/07
Archived footage of television broadcasts from 9/11/2001 shows the BBC reporting the collapse of WTC 7 about 23 minutes before it actually occurred. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aTeOzFRLfdc
BBC News correspondent Jane Standley reports that the Salomon Brothers' Building (WTC 7) has collapsed, unaware that the intact building is clearly visible behind her.
On February 22, 2007, an extensive archive of television broadcast footage covering the attack was discovered on Archive.org and publicized on a blog. The archive consists of 417 mpegs, each covering about 41 minutes of broadcast. The coverage includes the following six television stations and time spans:
TV station
start time
end time
NBC4 Washington
9/11 08:31
9/13 20:23
ABC7 Washington
9/11 08:31
9/13 22:29
BBC
9/11 09:16
9/13 20:19
FOX5 Washington
9/11 08:31
9/13 20:23
CNN
9/11 08:48
9/13 20:33
CBS9 Washington
9/11 08:31
9/13 20:23
On February 26, 2007, it was publicized that the BBC had reported the collapse of the building at 4:57 PM on 9/11, 23 minutes before the actual collapse time of 5:20 PM, using excerpts which were apparently extracted from one of the archived files.
The report is found in the following 1-gigabyte mpeg, which covers the time span from 4:54 PM through 5:36 PM: http://ia311517.us.archive.org/2/items/bbc200109111654-1736/V08591-16.mpg
Portions of the report are transcribed below. The numbers in bold indicate times, in minutes and seconds, from the beginning of the mpeg recording.
03:15 ~4:47 PM: The anchor states:
We'll leave it there for a moment. We've got some news just coming in actually, that the Solomon Brothers' Building in New York, right in the heart of Manhattan, has also collapsed. This does fit in with a warning from the British Foreign Office a couple of hours ago to British Citizens that there is a real risk -- ah let me get the exact words -- the British Foreign Office -- the foreign part of the British government -- said it was a strong risk of further atrocities in the United States, and it does seem as if there now is another one with the Solomon Brothers' Building collapsing. We've got no word yet on casualities. One assumes that the building would have been virtually deserted. Whether this latest collapse is going to influence the President, who we heard about a few moments ago, who was expected to be heading from Nebraska back to Washington, we don't know.
06:31 ~5:00 PM: The anchor states:
The 47-story Solomon Brothers', situated very close to the World Trade Center, has also just collapsed.
13:20 ~5:07 PM: The anchor states:
Now more on the latest building collapse in New York ... you may have heard a few moments ago we were talking about the Solomon Brothers Building collapsing and indeed it has, and apparently it's only a few hundred yards away from where the World Trade Center Towers were. And it seems that this was not the result of a new attack; it was because the building had been weakened during this morning's attacks. We'll probably find out more about that from our correspondent Jane Standley. Jane, what more can you tell us about the Solomon Brothers' Building and its collapse?
14:00 ~5:08 PM: The screen is filled by correspondent Jane Standley standing in front of a window framing smoke rising from Ground Zero and a clearly erect WTC 7.
15:35 ~5:09 PM: The caption on the bottom of the screen reads:
The 47 storey Salomon Brothers building close to the World Trade Centre has also collapsed.
20:15 ~5:14 PM: The image of Jane Standley begins to break up and the anchor, remarking that they'd "lost the line" with Jane Standley, shifts to another report.
This YouTube video captures a portion of the mpeg starting at 00:13:20.
Veracity of Conclusion
Questions prompted by the report include: How do we know what the correct time of the broadcast footage is? and How do we know that the imagery behind Jane Standley is live?
It is unlikely that the real times estimated above are off by more than a minute. The mpeg files are located in directories on archive.org with names that encode times down to the minute. For example, the directory name bbc200109111654-1736 encodes the time range 4:54 - 5:36 PM. No part of the 41-minute recording that contains the report shows a digital clock, but other recordings do, and suggest that the encoding of times into directory names is as meticulously accurate as the set of recordings is complete. For example, an NBC broadcast recording with the directory name nbc200109110954-1036, encoding the time range 9:54 - 10:35 AM, shows a clock with minutes and seconds. It displays a time of 10:20 starting at 25:34 in the recording, putting the start of the recording at 9:54:26 AM.
That Jane Standley was standing in front of a live view showing WTC 7 as she describes it in the past tense is virtually indisputable. The high-quality mpeg video clearly shows that she is in front of a row of windows in a tall building.
BBC Reacts
Richard Porter wrote a reactive denial on February 27 to suggestions that there is something wrong with the BBC ( whose "vision is to be the most creative, trusted organisation in the world" 1 ) announcing the third of the only three skyscraper "collapses" in world history before it happened.
1. We're not part of a conspiracy. Nobody told us what to say or do on September 11th. We didn't get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down. We didn't receive press releases or scripts in advance of events happening.
2. In the chaos and confusion of the day, I'm quite sure we said things which turned out to be untrue or inaccurate - but at the time were based on the best information we had. We did what we always did - sourced our reports, used qualifying words like "apparently" or "it's reported" or "we're hearing" and constantly tried to check and double check the information we were receiving.
3. Our reporter Jane Standley was in New York on the day of the attacks, and like everyone who was there, has the events seared on her mind. I've spoken to her today and unsurprisingly, she doesn't remember minute-by-minute what she said or did - like everybody else that day she was trying to make sense of what she was seeing; what she was being told; and what was being told to her by colleagues in London who were monitoring feeds and wires services.
4. We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of cock-up, not conspiracy). So if someone has got a recording of our output, I'd love to get hold of it. We do have the tapes for our sister channel News 24, but they don't help clear up the issue one way or another.
5. If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error - no more than that. As one of the comments on You Tube says today "so the guy in the studio didn't quite know what was going on? Woah, that totally proves conspiracy... " 2
References1. About the BBC: Purpose and Values, bbc.co.uk, 2. Part of the conspiracy?, bbc.co.uk, 2/27/07
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Gore Vidal Says It Well
This paragraph comes at the end of Vidal's Imperial America: Reflections on the United States of Amnesia in an essay on the Patriot Act called "We Are the Patriots". It's just one of those things you want to remind yourself and others of when war-mongers throw out the accusation of "cowardice" at those who criticize them and their methods.
Exactly.
Those Americans who refuse to plunge blindly into the maelstrom of European and Asiatic Politics are not defeatist or neurotic. They are giving evidence of sanity, not cowardice, of adult thinking as distringuished from infantilism. They intend to preserve and defend the Republic. America is not to be Rome or Britain. It is to be America.
Exactly.
Chris Hedges on American Fascists
Check out this amazing interview with Chris Hedges about his new book American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America. I haven't read this yet, but it's on my amazon wish list right next to his book War is a Force that Gives Us Meaning.
It's particularly good how he explains the danger of a prolonged crisis (like a war on terrorism) in catapulting this group from the margins to the centers of power. He's just a fantastically articulate man
The similarities between certain factions in American politics today with fascism seems to be coming up a lot. Also on my amazon wish list, is John Dean's Conservatives Without Conscience, which as I understand it also traces out the shift in right wing politics since the days of Barry Goldwater towards what he might characterize as a proto-fascism.
So many books to read so little time.
It's particularly good how he explains the danger of a prolonged crisis (like a war on terrorism) in catapulting this group from the margins to the centers of power. He's just a fantastically articulate man
The similarities between certain factions in American politics today with fascism seems to be coming up a lot. Also on my amazon wish list, is John Dean's Conservatives Without Conscience, which as I understand it also traces out the shift in right wing politics since the days of Barry Goldwater towards what he might characterize as a proto-fascism.
So many books to read so little time.
Dems Propose "Restoring the Constitution Act of 2007"
Democratic Senator Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut hits the nail on the head in explaining the need for this legislation, which would define the ambiguous term "combatant" and generally restore detainees rights.
Too bad it's only now we're seeing people loudly challenge the right-wing assertion that defending detainees' rights means being "soft" on terrorists or on security in general.
I take a backseat to no one when it comes to protecting the country from terrorists," Dodd said in an e-mail statement yesterday. "But there is a right way to do this and a wrong way to do this. . . . In taking away their legal rights, the rights first codified in our country's Constitution, we're taking away our own moral compass, as well.
Bush's Balanced Budget Would Gut Veterans' Benefits
Great collection of links at CrooksAndLiars.com on what the Bush administration would cut in order to balance the budget
After an increase sought for next year, the Bush budget would turn current trends on their head. Even though the cost of providing medical care to veterans has been growing rapidly — by more than 10 percent in many years — White House budget documents assume consecutive cutbacks in 2009 and 2010 and a freeze thereafter.
A Few Links About John Edwards' Health Plan
Short video of John Edwards on Meet the Press explaining a bit about his health care plan which seems to be shaping up to be one of the more prominent planks in his platform.
In The New Republic, there's an article asking "How Populist is John Edward's New Health Care Plan?" It requires a free registration to read it, but I don't want to post it all here it's quite lengthy, but here's an excerpt and if you have a couple seconds to register, check it out.
In The New Republic, there's an article asking "How Populist is John Edward's New Health Care Plan?" It requires a free registration to read it, but I don't want to post it all here it's quite lengthy, but here's an excerpt and if you have a couple seconds to register, check it out.
And finally, economist Paul Krugman weighs in saying that John Edwards' health plan "Gets it Right" After a discussion of how Edwards' Plan is similar to others out there, he points out what he sees aas its defining strengths.... The scheme he formally unveiled yesterday is far more sweeping than the one he trotted out four years ago, starting with the fact that it would actually bring insurance to every American. And it seems even more grandiose if you focus on the details, which open the door to a far more comprehensive makeover of American health care than the mainstream analysis in the press suggests. All of this is good--very good, in fact.
Still, there's a caveat. The new Edwards plan is not as far-reaching as some plans now circulating in Congress including plans that call for remaking the health care system top-to-bottom by creating a single-payer system modeled on Medicare. Precisely because the Edwards plan comes from the candidate positioning himself as the voice of working-class populism, that makes the final product just a tad disappointing...
Mr. Edwards goes two steps further.People who don't get insurance from their employers wouldn't have to deal individually with insurance companies: they'd purchase insurance through "Health Markets": government-run bodies negotiating with insurance companies on the public's behalf. People would, in effect, be buying insurance from the government, with only the business of paying medical bills - not the function of granting insurance in the first place - outsourced to private insurers.
Why is this such a good idea? As the Edwards press release points out, marketing and underwriting - the process of screening out high-risk clients - are responsible for two-thirds of insurance companies' overhead. With insurers selling to government-run Health Markets, not directly to individuals, most of these expenses should go away, making insurance considerably cheaper.
Better still, "Health Markets," the press release says, "will offer a choice between private insurers and a public insurance plan modeled after Medicare." This would offer a crucial degree of competition. The public insurance plan would almost certainly be cheaper than anything the private sector offers right now - after all, Medicare has very low overhead. Private insurers would either have to match the public plan's low premiums, or lose the competition.
Sunday, February 04, 2007
Treating Friends Like Foes
Take a moment to watch this short CNN video, Treating Friends like Foes, on the problems US tourism is suffering because of new security regulations, visa requirements, and just general unfriendliness towards the outside world and those living there who might want to visit.
Some interesting statistics in the news recently:
Some interesting statistics in the news recently:
- the US's share of the tourism idustry has dropped 17% since 9/11
- the loss to the economy tops $1 billion
- this has cost over 200,000 jobs
VoteVets Ad Against Troop Increase
Check out this fantastic ad made by the group VoteVets. Its nice to see a simple direct refutation of the administration line that those who oppose the war "don't support our troops" and its great to see it coming from the vets themselves.
Judge Shelves Guantanamo Cases
Yet another example of the damage the Military Commissions Act is doing.
From Yahoo! News
WASHINGTON - Sixteen lawsuits by Guantanamo Bay detainees were put on hold Wednesday by a federal judge who said he may no longer have jurisdiction to hear their cases.
From Yahoo! News
WASHINGTON - Sixteen lawsuits by Guantanamo Bay detainees were put on hold Wednesday by a federal judge who said he may no longer have jurisdiction to hear their cases.
U.S. District Court Judge Reggie B. Walton in Washington said the Military Commissions Act, signed into law in October, has left him unable to consider whether the detainees can challenge being held at the Navy facility in Cuba.
An appeals court in Washington is considering whether civilian jurists can rule on those cases. Until that issue is resolved, Walton said, "it is this court's view that it lacks the authority to take any action in these cases."
The Fallout Over Cully Stimson
Charles "Cully" Stimson is a deputy defense secretary who earlier this month called on corporations to boycott law firms who were trying to help Guantanamo detainees.
From Yahoo! News:
Earlier this month, the California bar association was asked to investigate him for violating legal ethics. And now he's resigned!
From Yahoo! News:
"The major law firms in the country ... are out there representing detainees," Cully Stimson, deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee affairs, said in a Federal News Radio interview Thursday, available online.
"And you know what, it's shocking," he said.
"I think quite honestly, when corporate CEOs see that those firms are representing the very terrorists who hit their bottom line back in 2001, those CEOs are going to make those law firms choose between representing terrorists or representing reputable firms."
Earlier this month, the California bar association was asked to investigate him for violating legal ethics. And now he's resigned!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)