Radar Contact

<><><><><><><><>

Don't let your child become cannon fodder for the lying neocon's illegal, immoral war... --DN

Back to School: Protect Kids from the Military Recruitment

The start of school means more than just new notebooks and the lovely fall foliage. For high school students across America it can mean a push in their high schools from military recruiters who have access to students' private information without their parents' permission.

In the much maligned No Child Left Behind Act, there is a little known provision requiring schools to share information about its students with military recruiters. Schools that don't comply can lose federal funding. If a parent doesn't want his or her child's personal information shared with the military, they need to opt their child out of the database. Of course, many parents don't know that military recruiters have access to private information about their child let alone how to protect him or her.

To help educate families, communities and school boards about the importance of protecting kids' privacy, Working Assets together with the Mainstreet Moms and ACORN organized the Leave My Child Alone! campaign. Get your community involved in this family privacy project. From September 7-30, folks around the country will host house parties and community events to discuss how they can act locally to keep their kids off military recruiters' roles.

Don't have the time to organize your own event? No problem! You can attend an event in your community. Check out the Leave My Child Alone events page for complete details.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Opt Out!
CLICK HERE TO CONTINUE

By completing the steps on these pages, you can create letters that will opt your child out of BOTH local and Pentagon databases.
For background information about the Pentagon database, click here. For background information on No Child Left Behind's military recruiting provision click here.

To opt your own child out, you must submit Opt Out letters by "snail mail" to your School District Superintendent and to the Pentagon. It's easy! You'll need a printer, two envelopes and two stamps. Just follow these 4 steps:

Step 1. Find your School District Superintendent
Step 2. Automatically generate two Opt Out Letters
Step 3. Sign, stamp and mail your Opt Out Letters - one goes to your local Superintendent, one goes to the Pentagon.
Step 4. Follow-up with your district to make sure they have opted your child out!

Each high school receiving federal funding is REQUIRED to turn over student information (name, address, phone number) to local military recruiters unless parents opt out in writing. Follow the steps on this page to find your local school superintendent, and you will generate a letter to send in to opt out your child. If you'd like more information on No Child Left Behind and School Opt-Outs, click here.

At the same time, you'll also print a letter to the Pentagon to opt out of their database. The Pentagon has developed a database of 30 million 16-25-year-olds, including name, address, email addresses, cell phone numbers, ethnicity, social security numbers and areas of study. This database is updated daily and distributed monthly to the Armed Services for recruitment purposes. You may "opt out" of this list by sending in the form generated through Leave My Child Alone, and your child's information will be moved to a "suppression file." The Pentagon retains the information, but does not release it.
If you'd like more information on this database, click here.
CLICK HERE TO CONTINUE
Link

<><><><><><><><>

Bush: Vacation Ruined By 'Stupid Dead Soldier'
August 31, 2005


CRAWFORD, TX—President Bush concluded his summer vacation by holding an informal press conference Monday to address grieving mother Cindy Sheehan, saying "her damn dead son ruined my whole summer vacation."


Bush addressed Mrs. Sheehan, who was not present, by saying "a mother should not have to bury her son this way, by which I mean allowing her son's death to destroy his commander-in-chief's one chance to relax and unwind."

Sheehan, whose son Casey died in Iraq in April 2004, has led a vigil outside of Bush's Crawford ranch since early August, urging the immediate withdrawal of troops from Iraq and demanding a meeting with Bush.

"This is a terrible tragedy," Bush said. "If this dead soldier of a son had the ounce of sense he needed to keep his worthless ass alive, my last few weeks might have been peaceful. I mourn the loss of the beautiful August mornings, and the sweet afternoons that could have been spent on the porch swing listening to the songbirds. All Americans mourn this loss."

When asked why he has refused to meet with Mrs. Sheehan, Bush said, "Listen, I came here to relax. I want to fish, go biking with Lance Armstrong, play with my dogs, chainsaw some brush, and get back to nature. 'Course, it's hard to do that when you have to constantly listen to the mother of some dummy who didn't have sense enough to stay out of a damned war zone."

Bush added: "I'm more exhausted today than I was when I started this vacation."

Security concerns stemming from the presence of the anti-war protesters gathered around Sheenan's "Camp Casey" prevented Bush from making public appearances in Crawford, including ordering his annual cheeseburger at Goode Company Barbeque.

"I was really looking forward to that burger," Bush said. "And I could have had it too, if it wasn't for that soldier getting his stupid ass blown off."

"We're supposed to be over there showing the Iraqis how to get it done, not acting just as dumb as they are with all their stupid dying," Bush added. "I tell you, it feels like every other month since I started this job, somebody gets himself killed just to mess up my holiday."

When asked to address recent public suggestions, including Sheehan's, of immediate withdrawal from Iraq in light of mounting casualties, Bush said, "I don't want to think about that now. We can discuss that back in Washington. For now, let's relax and have a good time."

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Bush's remarks reflect the administration's stance on casualties.

"I think what President Bush is saying is that, while we certainly owe a debt of gratitude to our fine men and women serving abroad, we don't want the real dumb ones who die to interrupt our precious downtime," McClellan said. "It is the president's opinion, and that of the entire administration, that the best way to honor the brave sacrifices of our fallen soldiers is by enjoying a relaxing vacation and not thinking about their deaths."
Link

<><><><><><><><>

'Times-Picayune' Had Repeatedly Raised Federal Spending Issues
By Will Bunch
Published: August 30, 2005 9:00 PM ET

PHILADELPHIA
Even though Hurricane Katrina has moved well north of the city, the waters may still keep rising in New Orleans late on Tuesday. That's because Lake Pontchartrain continues to pour through a two-block-long break in the main levee, near the city's 17th Street Canal. With much of the Crescent City some 10 feet below sea level, the rising tide may not stop until it's level with the massive lake.New Orleans had long known it was highly vulnerable to flooding and a direct hit from a hurricane. In fact, the federal government has been working with state and local officials in the region since the late 1960s on major hurricane and flood relief efforts.

When flooding from a massive rainstorm in May 1995 killed six people, Congress authorized the Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Control Project, or SELA.Over the next 10 years, the Army Corps of Engineers, tasked with carrying out SELA, spent $430 million on shoring up levees and building pumping stations, with $50 million in local aid. But at least $250 million in crucial projects remained, even as hurricane activity in the Atlantic Basin increased dramatically and the levees surrounding New Orleans continued to subside.

HURRICANE COVERAGE
Editor of Biloxi Paper Surfaces With a Column
'Times-Picayune' Finds New Home, Reports Looting
For 'St. Pete Times,' Katrina Coverage is a Test of Preparedness
Baton Rouge Paper Rides Out the Storm
Biloxi Paper Perseveres
Hurricane Blog, Day 3
Hurricane Blog, Day 2
Hurricane Blog, Day 1

Yet after 2003, the flow of federal dollars toward SELA dropped to a trickle. The Corps never tried to hide the fact that the spending pressures of the war in Iraq, as well as homeland security -- coming at the same time as federal tax cuts -- was the reason for the strain. At least nine articles in the Times-Picayune from 2004 and 2005 specifically cite the cost of Iraq as a reason for the lack of hurricane- and flood-control dollars.Newhouse News Service, in an article posted late Tuesday night at The Times-Picayune Web site, reported: "No one can say they didn't see it coming. ...

Now in the wake of one of the worst storms ever, serious questions are being asked about the lack of preparation."In early 2004, as the cost of the conflict in Iraq soared, President Bush proposed spending less than 20 percent of what the Corps said was needed for Lake Pontchartrain, according to a Feb. 16, 2004, article, in New Orleans CityBusiness.

On June 8, 2004, Walter Maestri, emergency management chief for Jefferson Parish, Louisiana; told the Times-Picayune: "It appears that the money has been moved in the president's budget to handle homeland security and the war in Iraq, and I suppose that's the price we pay. Nobody locally is happy that the levees can't be finished, and we are doing everything we can to make the case that this is a security issue for us."

Also that June, with the 2004 hurricane season starting, the Corps' project manager Al Naomi went before a local agency, the East Jefferson Levee Authority, and essentially begged for $2 million for urgent work that Washington was now unable to pay for. From the June 18, 2004 Times-Picayune:"The system is in great shape, but the levees are sinking. Everything is sinking, and if we don't get the money fast enough to raise them, then we can't stay ahead of the settlement," he said. "The problem that we have isn't that the levee is low, but that the federal funds have dried up so that we can't raise them."

The panel authorized that money, and on July 1, 2004, it had to pony up another $250,000 when it learned that stretches of the levee in Metairie had sunk by four feet. The agency had to pay for the work with higher property taxes. The levee board noted in October 2004 that the feds were also now not paying for a hoped-for $15 million project to better shore up the banks of Lake Pontchartrain.

The 2004 hurricane season was the worst in decades. In spite of that, the federal government came back this spring with the steepest reduction in hurricane and flood-control funding for New Orleans in history. Because of the proposed cuts, the Corps office there imposed a hiring freeze. Officials said that money targeted for the SELA project -- $10.4 million, down from $36.5 million -- was not enough to start any new jobs.

There was, at the same time, a growing recognition that more research was needed to see what New Orleans must do to protect itself from a Category 4 or 5 hurricane. But once again, the money was not there. As the Times-Picayune reported last Sept. 22:"That second study would take about four years to complete and would cost about $4 million, said Army Corps of Engineers project manager Al Naomi. About $300,000 in federal money was proposed for the 2005 fiscal-year budget, and the state had agreed to match that amount. But the cost of the Iraq war forced the Bush administration to order the New Orleans district office not to begin any new studies, and the 2005 budget no longer includes the needed money, he said."

The Senate was seeking to restore some of the SELA funding cuts for 2006. But now it's too late.

One project that a contractor had been racing to finish this summer: a bridge and levee job right at the 17th Street Canal, site of the main breach on Monday.

The Newhouse News Service article published Tuesday night observed, "The Louisiana congressional delegation urged Congress earlier this year to dedicate a stream of federal money to Louisiana's coast, only to be opposed by the White House. ... In its budget, the Bush administration proposed a significant reduction in funding for southeast Louisiana's chief hurricane protection project. Bush proposed $10.4 million, a sixth of what local officials say they need.

"Local officials are now saying, the article reported, that had Washington heeded their warnings about the dire need for hurricane protection, including building up levees and repairing barrier islands, "the damage might not have been nearly as bad as it turned out to be."

Will Bunch (letters@editorandpublisher.com) is senior writer at the Philadelphia Daily News. Much of this article also appears on his blog at that newspaper, Attytood.


Links referenced within this article Editor of Biloxi Paper Surfaces With a Columnhttp://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001051377'Times-Picayune' Finds New Home, Reports Lootinghttp://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001051261For 'St. Pete Times,' Katrina Coverage is a Test of Preparednesshttp://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001051260Baton Rouge Paper Rides Out the Stormhttp://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001050992Biloxi Paper Persevereshttp://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001050989Hurricane Blog, Day 3http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001051366Hurricane Blog, Day 2http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001050692Hurricane Blog, Day 1http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001050184letters@editorandpublisher.commailto:letters@editorandpublisher.com

Find this article at: http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001051313


© 2005 VNU eMedia Inc. All rights reserved.
Link

<><><><><><><><>

http://www.buzzflash.com/editorial/05/08/edi05061.html

Either the Bush Kids Put Their Lives on the Line for George's "Noble War" or the Troops Come Home.

A BUZZFLASH EDITORIAL

Click Here.





Uncle Sam Wants You!
Sign this petition, demanding that the eligible children of the extended Bush family, including the twins, serve in George's "noble war for a noble cause" or Bush must bring the sons and daughters of America home now.
"I demand that George W. Bush's daughters, and his eligible nieces and nephews, serve in Iraq to prove their support of Bush's 'noble war for a noble cause.' If the Bush family does not believe in 'sacrificing' for the war and is not willing to put their lives on the line, then Bush must bring the troops of middle class and poor Americans home now."

Your signature will be sent to the White House, media outlets, and Congressional leaders.
Like George did, the new generation of Bushes let other Americans do the dying for them.
Bush has derided the mothers and fathers of our nation's war dead for not wanting any more young American men and women to die in Iraq. "We owe them [the already killed and wounded soldiers] something," he told veterans in Salt Lake City (even though his administration tried to shortchange the veterans agency by $1.5 billion, according to Maureen Dowd). "We will finish the task that they gave their lives for."

BUSH EXTENDED FAMILY PHOTO taken January 20, 2005

Yet, not one -- not one -- of any of Bush's children or his nieces and nephews have volunteered for service in any branch of the military or volunteered to serve in any capacity in Iraq. Not one of them has felt the cause was noble enough to put his or her life on the line.

Here is the full list of the children of Bush and his siblings who have chosen to let other young men and women -- mostly poor, rural and minorities -- die for them, because they have no desire to die for George W. Bush's alleged "noble cause" (assuming an eligible age of 17 with parental consent to join the military):

Military Service Eligible Children of George W. Bush
Jenna Bush
Barbara Bush

Military Service Eligible Children of Jeb Bush
George P. Bush
Noelle Bush
John Ellis Bush Jr.

Military Service Eligible Children of Neil Bush
Lauren Bush
Pierce Bush

Military Service Eligible Children of Marvin Bush
Marshall Bush

Military Service Eligible Children of Dorothy Bush Koch
Samuel LeBlond
Ellie LeBlond

Here is the complete chart:



Furthermore, not one of George's siblings served in the military when they were eligible, and Bush got a cozy stateside position in the Texas Air National Guard to avoid risking his life in another "noble war," Vietnam.

Why do George W. Bush, his siblings, and their children think that the war is "noble" enough for kids like Casey Sheehan to die in, but not them?
Sign this petition, demanding that the Bush sibling children serve in George's "noble war" or he must bring the troops home now. Because if it's not "noble" enough for the Bush family to risk their lives fighting for, it's just a disastrous graveyard for poor and middle class Americans, dug deep to advance Bush's partisan agenda.

Bush can be brave with other people's children, because he has nothing personally to risk. Sign the petition now on behalf of the lives of the real Americans who are not born into the lap of privilege and risk-free lifestyles reserved for the elite.

SIGN HERE.
"I demand that George W. Bush's daughters, and his eligible nieces and nephews, serve in Iraq to prove their support of Bush's 'noble war for a noble cause.' If the Bush family does not believe in 'sacrificing' for the war and is not willing to put their lives on the line, then Bush must bring the troops of middle class and poor Americans home now."

http://www.buzzflash.com/editorial/05/08/edi05061.html
You will receive an email with the subject "Thank you. Please confirm." Please confirm your signature by replying to the email. Thank you.

NOTE: This is NOT signing you up for the BuzzFlash Alerts. To sign up for BuzzFlash Alerts, click here.

Your email address will not be sold or given away -- it is a way of confirming that you wanted to sign the petition.
Thanks,
- BuzzFlash.com
A BUZZFLASH EDITORIAL
Link

<><><><><><><><>

Of course not, just a whole lot of unfortunate coincidences, none of which were our fault. Hey, the Pentagon's never lied to us before, have they?

Wanna take a guess as to how many Fox News and/or Clear Channel folks have been killed, wounded or kidnapped? Aww... that was too easy ... --DN
http://www.americanfreepress.net/06_17_03/Report_Says_U_S_/report_says_u_s_.html
http://www.mediachannel.org/views/dissector/affalert331.shtml
http://www.fair.org/press-releases/iraq-journalists.html



The car of Reuters soundman Waleed Khaled is seen after he was shot dead in Baghdad's Al Ghazalea district August 28, 2005. Khaleed, a Reuters Television soundman, was shot dead in Baghdad on Sunday and a cameraman with him was wounded and then detained by U.S. soldiers. Iraqi police said they had been shot by U.S. forces. A U.S. military spokesman said the incident was being investigated. (Mohammad Ameen/Reuters)


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Reuters soundman killed in Baghdad, police blame US
By Alastair Macdonald
Sun Aug 28, 8:04 PM ET

A Reuters Television soundman was shot dead in Baghdad on Sunday and a cameraman who was wounded was still being questioned by U.S. troops 12 hours later.

Iraqi police said the two, both Iraqis, were shot by U.S. forces. A U.S. military spokesman said the incident was being investigated. The cameraman was being held and questioned because of "inconsistencies in his initial testimony," he added.

Waleed Khaled, 35, was hit by a shot to the face and at least four to the chest as he drove to check a report, called in to the Reuters bureau by a police source, of an incident involving police and gunmen in the western Hay al-Adil district.

"A team from Reuters news agency was on assignment to cover the killing of two policemen in Hay al-Adil; U.S. forces opened fire on the team from Reuters and killed Waleed Khaled, who was shot in the head, and wounded Haider Kadhem," an Interior Ministry official quoted the police incident report as saying.

Cameraman Kadhem, 24, who was wounded in the back, told colleagues at the scene: "I heard shooting, looked up and saw an American sniper on the roof of the shopping center."

The only known witness, he was later detained by the U.S. troops. For 10 hours, U.S. officers said they could not trace Kadhem. Finally a spokesman, Lieutenant Colonel Robert Whetstone, said he was being held at an unspecified location. His "superficial" wound had been treated "on location," he said.

He declined to specify any suspicions or accusations against the cameraman, who was based in the southern city of Samawa and had been in Baghdad only two days on a brief assignment. He was despatched to the scene of the incident by senior Reuters staff.

The driver was a Baghdad local and knew the area well.

Two Iraqi colleagues who arrived on the scene minutes after the shooting were briefly detained and released: "They treated us like dogs. They made us ... including Haider who was wounded and asking for water, sit in the sun on the road," one said.

A U.S. statement on the incident said: "Task Force Baghdad units responded to a terrorist attack on an Iraqi Police convoy around 11:20 a.m. (0720 GMT) ... which killed and wounded several Iraqi Police. One civilian was killed and another was wounded by small-arms fire during the attack."

Asked about the incident at a news conference marking the adoption of a draft constitution for Iraq, U.S. ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad said: "Sometimes mistakes are made."

REUTERS DEEPLY SADDENED
Reuters Global Managing Editor David Schlesinger said: "This tragic incident must immediately be investigated thoroughly and impartially.
"A brave journalist has lost his life and another has been wounded and detained when their only actions were as professionals reporting the facts and images of the war. We are deeply saddened at this loss."
Reporters Without Borders, a Paris-based media rights group, called it "extremely disturbing" and said the Reuters soundman was the 66th journalist or assistant killed in Iraq since the invasion of 2003, three more than died in 20 years in Vietnam.

"Our outrage is compounded by the fact that they arrested Kadhem, the only eyewitness, who was himself injured," it said.

Iraqis complain of frequent killings of civilians by U.S. forces, most of which go unreported and uninvestigated. American commanders say their troops are trained to be vigilant against suicide bombers and to avoid firing on civilians.

Reuters correspondent Michael Georgy, who arrived at the scene about an hour after the shooting, said the soundman's body was still in the driver's seat, the face covered by a cloth.

Entry and exit wounds could be seen on the face indicating shots from the victim's right. There were several bullet holes in the windshield and at least four wounds in the chest.

His U.S. military and Reuters press cards, clipped to his shirt, were caked in blood. In one, there were two bullet holes.

To the right of the scene, a U.S. soldier, apparently a sniper, was posted on the roof of a shopping center.

A British security adviser working for Reuters said it seemed likely that high-velocity rounds had been fired at the car from roughly the direction of that building.

The car, an ordinary, white four-door passenger vehicle, was heading down an offramp, about 200 metres from a main road.

U.S. armoured vehicles blocked off the scene. After a brief inspection of the car, they allowed Reuters staff and the dead man's family to have it towed away. One soldier said there were no suspicious items in the car. Colleagues and relatives were handed a military body bag to remove the corpse.

A U.S. officer said: "They drove into fighting."

As Waleed's tearful relatives inspected the body at the scene, a U.S. soldier said: "Don't bother. It's not worth it."

Waleed was a jovial character loved by colleagues with whom he had worked for two years. He leaves a seven-year-old daughter and his wife, who is four-months pregnant.

Two Reuters cameramen have been killed by U.S. troops in Iraq since the U.S. invasion in 2003. A third was shot dead by a sniper in Ramadi last November in circumstances for which Reuters is still seeking an explanation from U.S. forces.

Reuters' cameraman in the city of Ramadi, Ali al-Mashhadani was arrested by U.S. forces three weeks ago and is being held without charge in Abu Ghraib prison. U.S. military officials say he will face a judicial hearing as soon as Monday but have still given no access to the journalist or said what he is accused of.

Copyright © 2005 Reuters Limited. Copyright © 2005 Yahoo!
Link

<><><><><><><><>




Was Pat Robertson's Call For Assassination Of A Foreign Leader A Crime?

Had He Been a Democrat, He'd Probably Be Hiring A Criminal Attorney By JOHN W. DEAN ----
Friday, Aug. 26, 2005

On Monday, August 22, the Chairman of the Christian Broadcast Network, Marion "Pat" Robertson, proclaimed, on his 700 Club television show, that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez should be murdered.

More specifically, Robertson said, "You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination," referring to the American policy since the Presidency of Gerald Ford against assassination of foreign leaders, "but if he [Chavez] thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war, and I don't think any oil shipments will stop."

"We have the ability to take him out," Robertson continued, "and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability. We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator. It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with."

Robertson found himself in the middle of a media firestorm. He initially denied he'd called for Chavez to be killed, and claimed he'd been misinterpreted, but in an age of digital recording, Robertson could not flip-flop his way out of his own statement. He said what he said.

By Wednesday, Robertson was backing down:
"I didn't say 'assassination.' I said our special forces should 'take him out,'" Robertson claimed on his Wednesday show. "'Take him out' could be a number of things including kidnapping."

No one bought that explanation, either. So Robertson quietly posted a half apology on his website. It is only a half apology because it is clear he really does not mean to apologize, but rather, still seeks to rationalize and justify his dastardly comment.

From the moment I heard Robertson's remark, on the radio, I thought of the federal criminal statutes prohibiting such threats. Do they apply?

For me, the answer is yes. Indeed, had these comments been made by a Dan Rather, a Bill Moyers, or Jesse Jackson, it is not difficult to imagine some conservative prosecutor taking a passing look at these laws - as, say, Pat Robertson might read them -- and saying, "Let's prosecute.
"
The Broad Federal "Threat Attempt" Prohibition Vis-à-vis Foreign Leaders

Examine first, if you will, the broad prohibition against threatening or intimidating foreign officials, which is a misdemeanor offense. This is found in Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 112(b), which states: "Whoever willfully -- (1) … threatens … a foreign official …, [or] (2) attempts to… threaten … a foreign official … shall be fined under this titled or imprisoned not more than six months, or both."

The text of this misdemeanor statute plainly applies: No one can doubt that Robertson "attempted" to threaten President Chavez.

Yet the statute was written to protect foreign officials visiting the United States - not those in their homelands. Does that make a difference?

It would likely be the precedent of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit that would answer that question; the Fourth Circuit includes Virginia where Robertson made the statement. And typically, the Fourth Circuit, in interpreting statutes does not look to the intent of Congress; it focuses on statutory language instead.

And in a case involving Robertson, to focus on language would only be poetic justice:

Robertson, is the strictest of strict constructionists, a man who believes judges (and prosecutors) should enforce the law exactly as written. He said as much in his 2004 book, Courting Disaster: How the Supreme Court Is Usurping The Power of Congress and the People.

Still, since the applicability of this misdemeanor statute is debatable, I will focus on the felony statute instead.

The Federal Threat Statute: Fines and Prison For Threats to Kidnap or Injure

It is a federal felony to use instruments of interstate or foreign commerce to threaten other people. The statute is clear, and simple. Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 875(c), states: "Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both." (Emphases added.)


The interstate or foreign commerce element is plainly satisfied by Robertson's statements. Robertson's 700 Club is listed as broadcasting in thirty-nine states and the District of Columbia, not to mention ABC Family Channel satellites which cover not only the United States but several foreign countries as well. In addition, the program was sent around the world via the Internet.

But did Robertson's communication "contain" a "threat" to "kidnap" or "injure" Chavez?

First, Robertson said he wanted to assassinate President Chavez. His threat to "take him out," especially when combined with the explanation that this would be cheaper than war, was clearly a threat to kill.

Then, Robertson said he was only talking about kidnapping Chavez.

Under the federal statute, a threat to "kidnap" is expressly covered.

As simple and clear as this statute may be, the federal circuit courts have been divided when reading it. But the conservative Fourth Circuit, where Robertson made his statement, is rather clear on its reading of the law.

Does Robertson's Threat Count As A "True Threat"? The Applicable Fourth Circuit Precedents Suggest It Does

If Robertson himself were a judge (or prosecutor) reading this statue -- based on my reading of his book about how judges and justice should interpret the law -- he would be in a heap of trouble. But how would the statute likely be read in the Fourth Circuit, where a prosecution of Robertson would occur?

Under that Circuit's precedent, the question would be whether Robertson's threat was a "true threat." Of course, on third reflection, Robertson said it was not. But others have been prosecuted notwithstanding retractions, and later reflections on intemperate threats.

Here is how the Fourth Circuit -- as it explained in the Draby case -- views threats under this statute: "Whether a communication in fact contains a true threat is determined by the interpretation of a reasonable recipient [meaning, the person to whom the threat was directed] familiar with the context of the communication."

This is an objective standard, under which the court looks at the totality of the circumstances surrounding the communications, rather than simply looking to the subjective intent of the speaker, or the subjective feelings of the recipient. So even if Robertson did not "mean" to make a threat, and even if Chavez did not "feel threatened," that is not the end of the story.

In one Fourth Circuit case, the defendant "asked if [the person threatened] knew who Jeffrey Dahlmer [sic] was." Then the defendant added that, "he didn't eat his victims, like Jeffrey Dahlmer; [sic] that he just killed them by blowing them up." This defendant's conviction for this threat was upheld.

In another Fourth Circuit ruling, the defendant, an unhappy taxpayer, was convicted for saying, to an IRS Agent, that "in all honesty, I can smile at you and blow your brains out"; that "once I come through there, anybody that tries to stop me, I'm going to treat them just like they were a cockroach"; and, that "unless I can throw somebody through a damn window, I'm just not going to feel good."

Viewed in the context, and taking into account the totality of the circumstances, it was anything but clear that any of these threats were anything more than angry tough talk. The same could be said of Robertson's threats. Yet in both these cases, the Fourth Circuit upheld the defendant's conviction, deeming the "true threat" evidence sufficient to do so.

For me, this make Robertson's threats a very close question. President Chavez publicly brushed Robertson's threats off, for obvious diplomatic reasons, yet I suspect a little inquiry would uncover that the Venezuelan President privately he has taken extra precautions, and his security people have beefed up his protection. Robertson has Christian soldiers everywhere. Who knows what some misguided missionary might do?
If you have not seen the Robertson threat, view it yourself and decide.

Robertson's manner, his choice to return to the subject repeatedly in his discourse, and the seriousness with which he stated the threat, all strike me as leading strongly to the conclusion that this was a true threat. Only media pressure partially backed him off. And his "apology" is anything but a retraction.

Will Robertson be investigated or prosecuted by federal authorities? Will he be called before Congress? Will the President, or the Secretary of State, publicly chastise Robertson? Are those three silly questions about a man who controls millions of Republican votes from Christian conservatives?

John W. Dean, a FindLaw columnist, is a former counsel to the president.
Company Privacy Policy Disclaimer
Copyright © 1994-2003 FindLaw
Link

<><><><><><><><>

Karpinski Fires Back
Abu Ghraib scapegoat says Bush set policy

.. Link

Excerpt:

”It was a memorandum signed by Rumsfeld, authorizing a short list, maybe 6 or 8 techniques: use of dogs; stress positions; loud music; deprivation of food; keeping the lights on, etc.,” Karpinski said. “And then a handwritten message over to the side that appeared to be Rumsfeld’s signature. And it said, ‘Make sure this happens’ with two exclamation points."

...lest we forget:
http://www.cfr.org/publication.html?id=7669
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050718/holtzman
http://www.antiwar.com/news/?articleid=2444*


A US Soldier in a flak jacket appears to be using both hands to restrain a dog facing an Iraqi detainee in the Abu Ghraib prison.

An Iraqi detainee appears to be restrained after having suffered injuries to both legs at Abu Ghraib. It is unclear if his injuries were from dog bites.


Karpinski tried to get information, but “nobody knew anything, nobody – at least, that’s what they were claiming. The Company Commander, Captain Reese, was tearful in my office and repeatedly told me he knew nothing about it, knew nothing about it,” Karpinski said. But in a later plea bargain he entered into after the Taguba Report came out, “Captain Reese said that not only did he know about it, but he was told not to report it to his chain of command, and he was told that by Colonel Pappas. And he claimed that he saw General Sanchez out there on several occasions witnessing the torture of some of the security detainees.”

But they demoted Karpinkski because she's female.

That'll teach those bitches to get in a man's army.
Comments?

############################################
Rumsfeld:
The "Care" and "Humanity" Involved with U.S. Atrocities :

"The targeting capabilities and the care that goes into targeting to see that the precise targets are struck and that other targets are not struck, is as impressive as anything anyone could see. The care that goes into it, the humanity that goes into it, to see that military targets are destroyed, to be sure, but that it's done in a way, and in a manner, and in a direction and with a weapon that is appropriate to that very particularized target." --Donald Rumsfeld, 3/21/03
############################################



>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
See Complete Interview •
Abu Ghraib General Lambastes Bush Administration By Marjorie Cohn t r u t h o u t Perspective
Wednesday 24 August 2005

I had been hesitant to speak out before because this Administration is so vindictive. But now I will ... Anybody who confronts this Administration or Rumsfeld or the Pentagon with a true assessment, they find themselves either out of a job, out of their positions, fired, relieved or chastised. Their career comes to an end. -- Janis Karpinski, interview with Marjorie Cohn, August 3, 2005

Army Reserve Brigadier General Janis Karpinski was in charge of the infamous Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq when the now famous torture photographs were taken in fall of 2003. She was reprimanded and demoted to Colonel for her failure to properly supervise the prison guards. Karpinski is the highest ranking officer to be sanctioned for the mistreatment of prisoners. On August 3, 2005, I interviewed Janis Karpinski. In the most comprehensive public statement she has made to date, Karpinski deconstructs the entire United States military operation in Iraq with some astonishing revelations.

When Karpinski got to Abu Ghraib, "there was a completely different story than what we were being told in the United States. It was out of control. There weren't enough soldiers. Nobody had the right equipment. They were driving around in unarmored vehicles, some of them without doors ... So, knowing that they were ill-equipped and ill-prepared, they pushed them out anyway, because those two three-stars wanted their fifteen minutes of fame, I suppose."

Karpinski said that General Shinseki briefed Rumsfeld that "he can't win this war, if they insist on invading Iraq, he can't win this war with less than 300,000 soldiers." Rumsfeld reportedly ordered Shinseki to go back and find a way to do this with 125,000 to 130,000, but Shinseki came back and said they couldn't do the job with that number. "What did Rumsfeld do?" Karpinski asked rhetorically. "If you can't agree with me, I'm going to find somebody who can. He made Shinseki a lame duck, for all practical purposes, and brought in Schoomaker. And Schoomaker got it. He said, 'Oh yes sir, we can do this with 125,000.'"

Karpinski says she did not know about the torture occurring in Cellblocks 1-A and 1-B at Abu Ghraib because it took place at night. She didn't live at Abu Ghraib, and nobody was permitted to travel at night due to the dangerous road conditions. The first she heard about the torture was on January 12, 2004. She was never allowed to speak to the people who had worked on the night shift. She "was told by Colonel Warren, the JAG officer for General Sanchez, that they weren't assigned to me, that they were not under my control, and I really had no right to see them."
When Karpinski inquired, "What's this about photographs?" the sergeant replied, "Ma'am, we've heard something about photographs, but I have no idea. Nobody has any details, and Ma'am, if anybody knows, nobody is talking." When Karpinski asked to see the log books, the sergeant told her that the Criminal Investigation Division had taken everything except for something on a pole outside the little office they were using.
"It was a memorandum signed by Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, authorizing a short list, maybe 6 or 8 techniques: use of dogs; stress positions; loud music; deprivation of food; keeping the lights on, those kinds of things," Karpinski said. "And then a handwritten message over to the side that appeared to be the same handwriting as the signature, and that signature was Secretary Rumsfeld's. And it said, 'Make sure this happens' with two exclamation points. And that was the only thing they had. Everything else had been confiscated."

Karpinski tried to get information, but "nobody knew anything, nobody - at least, that's what they were claiming. The Company Commander, Captain Reese, was tearful in my office and repeatedly told me he knew nothing about it, knew nothing about it," Karpinski said. But in a later plea bargain he entered into after the Taguba Report came out, "Captain Reese said that not only did he know about it, but he was told not to report it to his chain of command, and he was told that by Colonel Pappas. And he claimed that he saw General Sanchez out there on several occasions witnessing the torture of some of the security detainees."

The first time Karpinski got any clarification about the photographs was January 23, 2004. The criminal investigator, Colonel Marcelo, came into Karpinski's office and showed her the pictures. "When I saw the pictures I was floored," Karpinski said. "Really, the world was spinning out of control when I saw those pictures, because it was so far beyond and outside of what I imagined. I thought that maybe some soldiers had taken some pictures of prisoners behind barbed wire or in their cell or something like that. I couldn't imagine anything like what I saw in those photographs."

Marcelo told her, "Ma'am, I'm supposed to tell you after you see the photographs that General Sanchez wants to see you in his office." So Karpinski went over to see Sanchez. She said that "before I even saw the photographs, I was preparing words to say in a press conference - to be up front, to be honest about this, that an investigation is ongoing and there are some allegations of detainee abuse."

But Sanchez told Karpinski, "'No, absolutely not. You are not to discuss this with anyone.' And I should have known then," she said, "and I know that Sanchez was hopeful for a four-star promotion even then, in January of 2004. And I thought it had probably most to do with the election coming up in November 2004, and that this could really move the Administration out of the White House if it was exploited. So naively, I just thought, you know, they're going to let this investigation go and they're going to handle it the way it should be handled."

Karpinski said, however, "The truth has been uncovered, but it's been suffocated and it has not been released with the results of the investigation." She added, "McClellan and Rumsfeld can get up on their high horse and say that there've been no fewer than 15 investigations that were conducted. But every one of those investigations is under the control of the Secretary of Defense. And every one of those investigations is run and led by a person who can lose their job under Rumsfeld's fist."

"We're never going to know the truth until they do an independent commission or look into this independently," Karpinski maintains. "This is about instructions delivered with full authority and knowledge of the Secretary of Defense and probably Cheney. I don't know if the President was involved or not. I don't care. All I know is, those instructions were communicated from the Secretary of Defense's office, from the Pentagon, through Cambone, through Miller, to Abu Ghraib."
Karpinski describes what happened when General Geoffrey Miller arrived at Abu Ghraib: "The most pronounced difference was when Miller came to visit. He came right after Rumsfeld's visit ... And he said that he was going to use a template from Guantánamo Bay to 'Gitmo-ize' the operations out at Abu Ghraib."

"These torture techniques were being implemented and used down at Guantánamo Bay and, of course, now we have lots of statements that say they were used in Afghanistan as well," Karpinski said. Although Miller has sworn he was just an "advisor," Miller told Karpinski he wanted Abu Ghraib. Karpinski replied, "Abu Ghraib is not mine to give to you. It belongs to Ambassador Bremer. It is going to be turned over to the Iraqis." Miller replied, "No it is not. I want that facility and Rick Sanchez said I can have any facility I want." Karpinski said, "Miller obviously had the full authority of somebody, you know, likely Cambone or Rumsfeld in Washington, DC."

Miller's representative, General Fast, turned the prison over to the Military Intelligence brigade for complete command and control, Karpinski said. "There was no coordination with me or Colonel Pappas. There was no discussion about chain of command."
Abu Ghraib housed primarily Iraqi criminals. Although many of the "security detainees" were kept at Abu Ghraib, most of the interrogations took place at a higher-value detention facility in Baghdad, according to Karpinski.

The Army discriminates against the reservists in general, and female officers in particular, Karpinski said. "It's really a good old boys' network," she said. "Come hell or high water, they're going to maintain the status quo." While she was made the scapegoat for the torture at Abu Ghraib, Karpinski said, no one above her in the chain of command has been reprimanded.

Karpinski reveals that there was "no sustainment plan" because "there were a lot of contractors - US contractors exclusively - who realized they could make a lot of money in Iraq." At the Coalition Provisional Authority, Karpinski "saw corruption like I've never seen before - millions of dollars just being pocketed by contractors. Everything was on a cash basis at that time," she said. "You take a request down - literally, you take a request to the Finance Office. If the Pay Officer recognized your face and you were asking for $450,000 to pay a contractor for work, they would pay you in cash: $450,000. Out of control."

Speaking about the war, Karpinski said, "Iraq was a huge country, and when you have people largely saying now, 'He may have been a dictator, but we were better under Saddam,' this Administration needs to take notice. And at some point you have to say, 'Stop the train, because it's completely derailed. How do we fix it?' But in an effort to do that, you have to admit that you made a few mistakes, and this Administration is not willing to admit any mistakes whatsoever."

Janis Karpinski is no longer in the military. She is writing a book that will be published by Miramax in November. In April, she received a form letter from the Chief of the Army Reserves, "warning me - warning me - about speaking about Abu Ghraib, and that everything was still under investigation." She then got "a letter saying that he understands that I'm writing a book and I should submit the transcript for review."

"And my lawyer responded simply by telling him that I was a private citizen and I don't fall under the same requirements, which he had to acknowledge, because that's true. I'm not ignorant, and I'm not going to reveal any classified information in anything I write," Karpinski said, "but I don't need to, because the truth is the truth, and it doesn't have to be classified. It is definitely staggering, but the truth is the truth."


Janis Karpinski: Exclusive Interview By Marjorie Cohn t r u t h o u t Interview
Wednesday 03 August 2005

Army Reserve Brigadier General Janis Karpinski was in charge of Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq when the infamous torture photographs were taken. She was reprimanded and demoted to Colonel for her failure to properly supervise the prison guards. Karpinski is the highest ranking officer to be sanctioned for the mistreatment of prisoners. This exclusive interview by t r u t h o u t writer Marjorie Cohn is the most comprehensive public statement Karpinski has made to date.

MC: General Karpinski, thank you for agreeing to talk to me today.
JK: I had been hesitant to speak out before because this Administration is so vindictive. But now I will.

Despite years of this pronouncement that it's an "army of one," we reservists were absolutely discriminated against. The people at the senior levels of the reserve components, the Chief of the Army Reserve, for example, a three-star, never made so much as one phone call, never exchanged one word with me in all of this. Twice, my lawyer requested a meeting with him face-to-face in Washington, DC, and he declined. He denied both of those requests.

It's really a good old boys' network. Come hell or high water, they're going to maintain the status quo. They all live by each other in Fort Myers, or near Fort Myers. I'm sure that they have these cigar-smoking sessions where they're all patting each other on the back that they got another female out of the way, before I was able to get higher up in the senior levels. But I always expected that reservists would find support from their own component, and not be tagged as bad apples. For myself, there was not any support whatsoever.

I just find it incredible that the system - the Pentagon and the Judicial System - can continue to keep those soldiers in jail when there are simply volumes of documents and information that is emerging, and continues to emerge, that says exactly what one, in particular, Graner, was saying all along: that he was ordered to do these things by the Military Intelligence people and the interrogators, the contract interrogators. And there's more and more information to support that. The recommendation was that General Miller from Gitmo be reprimanded and his four-star commander from SOUTHCOM said no, I don't agree with that.

MC: And General Geoffrey Miller was the one who was supposed to transplant those interrogation and torture techniques from Guantánamo to Abu Ghraib?

JK: That's correct. There are sworn statements, not only from the interrogators and the FBI personnel down at Guantánamo Bay prior to even a thought of using Abu Ghraib for a prison location. These torture techniques were being implemented and used down at Guantánamo Bay and, of course, now we have lots of statements that say they were used in Afghanistan as well.

In late August and September of 2003, Miller comes to visit, then everything starts to change, to include transferring the responsibility for Abu Ghraib over to the Military Intelligence people altogether. And it's been substantiated through an investigation that these torture practices were developed and implemented down in Guantánamo Bay and then they were imported to Abu Ghraib.

They're holding these soldiers responsible for one time on the night shift coming up with these pranks. Give me a break! It's so unfair to continue to blame those soldiers. You know, I would be the first one to say to anybody that Graner and Fredericks, as noncommissioned officers - they crossed the line. Graner punched a prisoner in the chest so hard, to get him under control, the guy passed out. Fredericks stepped on feet and hands and everything else. And they didn't report what they knew were violations of the Geneva Conventions. They didn't report those things to the chain of command.

Now I've been held accountable for that, but never once, Marjorie, never once have I had an opportunity to speak to any of those soldiers, because before I was even aware that there was an investigation going on or that there were photographs or anything else, those soldiers were removed from their positions at Abu Ghraib and taken away to Sanchez's headquarters. And I was never allowed to speak to them. Never once.

MC: Why do you think you're the highest officer who's been punished?

JK: Well, I don't know how else to say it, but I think I check a lot of blocks. Before the war got underway, before 9/11, Rumsfeld's plan was to downsize the military - fewer, faster, more trained in Special Operations, never have to fight on two fronts again. He wanted to downsize the overall military. He wanted to return control of the military to the civilian sector. And the division commanders, at least in the Army, were opposed to that. And there were very selfish reasons for their opposition. If you were a division commander, you could pay back favors that were done for you, perhaps, to get you promoted or to put you into positions. You repay other graduates of the military academy - those kinds of things - by appointing them to command positions in your own division. So the more toys you have to play with, the bigger your division and the more likely that you're going to be at the front of the pack when your promotion comes up. So that's history.

Rumsfeld wanted to downsize the military, and the component chiefs were opposed to it. He sent them all back to their offices, and said, "Find a way to do this." The only component that came up with a solution was the Marine Corps. Then he sent the Air Force, the Navy and the Army back to the drawing board, and then 9/11 happened. So they got a reprieve. And it was up to them to prove how important it was that they still needed big divisions and lots of equipment and all that other stuff.
Here's Shinseki briefing Rumsfeld that he can't win this war, if they insist on invading Iraq, he can't win this war with less than 300,000 soldiers. I wasn't there to hear it, but allegedly Rumsfeld said to Shinseki: go back and find a way to do this with 125,000 to 150,000. Well, Shinseki came back again and said: Mr. Secretary we can't do it with that number. You need 300,000.

What did Rumsfeld do? If you can't agree with me, I'm going to find somebody who can. He made Shinseki a lame duck, for all practical purposes, and brought in Schoomaker. And Schoomaker got it. He said, "Oh yes sir, we can do this with 125,000."

Well, none of them had to go fight the war. None of them had to deploy and manage this small number. And everybody was under the impression that this war was going to be over very quickly. So there was no sustainment plan. And I'm selected for Brigadier General. I had a choice: I could either wait for my unit to come back to the United States and join the men, or I could deploy. I wanted to be with my unit in the field. I thought it would be a great opportunity to see how they would operate under field conditions in a theater of war.

When I got there, there was a completely different story than what we were being told in the United States. It was out of control. There weren't enough soldiers. Nobody had the right equipment. They were driving around in unarmored vehicles, some of them without doors. Some of the soldiers didn't even have protective vests. And I kept hearing the same excuse for reservists, for National Guard units: the active component was taking the equipment as a priority. We can't get it over here.

And then layer on top of that, there was no personnel replacement system for the Reserves and the National Guard. So if I lost a soldier to an illness, a nervous breakdown, a battle injury, whatever it might be, I operated one short, or ten short, or thirty short, or sixty short. I didn't mobilize these units. I didn't deploy these units. I joined them in theater.

The responsibility for how those units were deployed and how they were ill-prepared rests with the senior level of leadership in the military.

MC: And when you say "senior level," who do you mean?

JK: I mean the Chief of the Army Reserves, the Chief of the National Guard here, who is the only general officer in all of this who has admitted that they had no idea. I think it was General Bloom, he's a three-star. I don't even know if he still is Chief of the National Guard. But he admitted that they had no idea that the units were going to be deployed for anything, the length of time that it started to appear that they were going to be deployed. So they pushed them out of the mobilization stations, because they knew that the units would somehow manage once they got into Iraq. So, knowing that they were ill-equipped and ill-prepared, they pushed them out anyway, because those two three-stars wanted their fifteen minutes of fame, I suppose.

But Bloom, at least, stepped up to the plate and took responsibility. Helmsley, who allowed these units to deploy, who came up with this harebrained scheme about cross-welling soldiers and serving with complete strangers - he has never taken responsibility for anything. And neither has the Pentagon.

More than a year ago, that brave soldier stood up and said to Rumsfeld, "Why don't we have the right equipment? Why are we still going out with unarmored vehicles?" Rumsfeld made that infamous comment that was: you go to war with the units that you have, not necessarily the ones you want. Well, how about a slap in the face? But he's never been held accountable for that.

And the man, the officer who stopped requests for armored vehicles and stopped requests for protective vests to be prioritized is now the Chief of Staff of the Army, General Cody. He's a four-star. He was a three-star. He was in charge of logistics, and he disapproved any additional requests for vehicles or protective equipment for our soldiers. He was promoted. He is a four-star, and he is the Chief of Staff of the Army today.

That's how Rumsfeld and the Pentagon reward people who are in agreement with them. I don't know how else to say it. Shinseki, who was telling Rumsfeld the truth - he was retired.

Anybody who confronts this Administration or Rumsfeld or the Pentagon with a true assessment, they find themselves either out of a job, out of their positions, fired, relieved or chastised. Their career comes to an end.

MC: What is your current status?

JK: I am retired from the military.

MC: You wrote in an e-mail: "The techniques are a clear departure from what soldiers are taught and understand, the techniques that were directed by the highest level of this Administration." By that, you mean all the way up to the Oval Office?

JK: I mean all the way up to Cheney. I don't know the workings of how it gets up there. But I would think that, very similar to any other big corporation or the military, that if you have a deputy - or a Vice President, in this case - and he is making decisions or approvals, then maybe by default you will say, "If I didn't know, I should have known," or "I did know." Because he's your Vice President. Or he is the Vice President. Or he is the Secretary of Defense. I don't know what they are telling the President. And I don't care. He's the President, and he's supposed to know what's going on in this Administration, and honestly, sometimes it doesn't seem like he does.

MC: How are the techniques a clear departure from what soldiers are taught and understand?

JK: Well, I can tell you that Military Police soldiers (I don't care what component they're from: National Guard, Reserve or active duty) - in fact, when it comes to the Geneva Conventions and fair and humane treatment of prisoners, Reserve and National Guard units are better, because it is a mission. A prisoner of war operation and internment resettlement and refugee operations - it was never a mission that the active component wanted to embrace. They wanted the National Guard and the Reserve Units to take those missions. They thought it was an insult to them to have to do those kinds of missions. So in my opinion, the reservists and the National Guard Units were better equipped, better trained, and fully aware of the Geneva Conventions and the requirements of how to treat prisoners of war fairly and humanely.

They changed the mission. They assigned a new detention mission to the 800th MP brigade and relocated most of the units from the prisoner of war camp, which was winding down from May onwards, and moved them, pushed them up into Iraq, to perform this new mission of detention operations. We were told - I was told - that it was going to be assisting Bremer's headquarters, the Coalition Provisional Authority, with restoring prisons and jails and getting the Iraqi prisoners back under lock and key because they were disrupting operations, etc. etc.

So despite the fact that Iraqi criminals - detention operations - are different from prisoner of war operations (they have a different mind set of a criminal, if you will), the MPs were assigned this mission. There was absolutely no discussion whatsoever to see if the units were properly equipped, if they had appropriate training. Twice I approached the two-star, a guy by the name of Cruser [sp?], he's a Major General Reservist. Twice I went to him and I said, "This is not our mission." And he said to me, as almost to dismiss me out of his office, he said, "Yes, I know Janis, but you're the closest we've got from detention MP, so you guys have the mission." Not, you know, we don't have the right equipment; not, we don't have the right training, we don't have the right background. He didn't care.

MC: You said that Iraqi detention is different than POWs, that there's a criminal mind set. Could you explain it a little bit more?

JK: Well, when you have prisoner of war operations or refugee resettlement operations, and there's a war going on, prisoners of war know and understand, and they see it exhibited by the military police soldiers, that they are going to be treated fairly and humanely, and that the enemy - the people detaining them - are not going to be living in high-rise hotels while they're in these prison camps. Everybody they see - the MPs and the soldiers who are guarding them - are living at the same level that they are. So if there's a ration of water of two liters a day, the prisoners get the same ration that the soldiers get. If they're living in outside tents, the soldiers are likewise living in outside tents and cow towns. There's no air conditioning. There is no laundry service. There are no rental cars. And prisoners of war understand that. They know that they are only going to be held as combatants until the war is over, so their mind set is different. They are generally under control.

Nobody likes to be held against their will. But enemy combatants understand that, in the course of war, if they're captured, then they're held in a prisoner of war camp and will be treated humanely until the war is over and then they can go home. That's how prisoner of war operations work, and that's the mind set, I would say, of an average soldier, pretty much, and 75 percent of the free world.

Iraqi criminals, on the other hand, if they're violent criminals - whether it was under Saddam or now under US forces control - they might remain in jail for the rest of their lives. So they have 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to plot and to plan and to design ways to escape, ways to harass their keepers, ways to make life miserable for the MPs or the individuals who are detaining them.

The only reason we had any kind of control - I will tell you this flat out, up front - the only reason we had any kind of control in any of our prison facilities, Abu Ghraib aside, was because the MPs were taking the initiative and finding ways to accommodate the prisoners. It wasn't because of the fine security of the prison facility. It was because the prisoners knew that the MPs were doing everything they could, everything in their power, to make life more acceptable for them while they were spending their days and nights incarcerated.

We had civilian so-called experts - contractors - under the Coalition Provisional Authority, who worked under the Ministry of Justice. Now these prison experts all had experience as wardens or as directors for prisons in the United States.

MC: Were some of them former US Special Forces?

JK: No, they were not. They were all civilians. There was only one of them who was retired from the military, and he was actually retired as a Military Police officer. But it's just incredible that these three contractors that they brought over were hired by the Justice Department in Washington, and it was the same Justice Department - there aren't two separate entities - it was the same Justice Department that, between 30 and 60 days before hiring these people to come to Baghdad, the same Justice Department had fired them from their positions in the Utah Corrections Facility for prisoner abuse.

And I didn't know that when we were there. Nobody bothered to tell us that. But we were told that we were going to go up to Baghdad, we were going to relocate the headquarters up to Baghdad to assist the Prisons Department, under the Ministry of Justice, with this restoration of jails and prisons. Well, we got up there and there were three of them and one director. And they were looking at 121 different jails for us to run and operate. And I told them I don't have that many MPs! I couldn't put 3 MPs in each one of those facilities and run them. We have to find the biggest facilities, and that's what they did. They eventually identified, I think they identified, 15 or 18 and we settled on 15 or 16.

MC: Why did they bring these civilian contractors? Why do you think they brought them over?

JK: Well, at that time, everybody was under the impression that the Coalition Provisional Authority was being run under the auspices of the State Department, and that the Iraqi Detention Operation was a function that would eventually be turned over to the Iraqis.

Well, that may have been true in some back room plan, that people had an idea that was going to be in place. But there was no plan. Because normally, prison operations and jail operations come with the restoration of peace and security. And that comes with a sustainment operation that follows combat operations. So on a backward timeline, when the war was declared over on the aircraft carrier, then sustainment operations - engineers, civilian contractors, military police, military police organizations - all those organizations kind of kick into high gear to get things moving down the same road. Well there was no sustainment plan. And I can tell you, Marjorie, my opinion is that there was no sustainment plan because, by that time, there were a lot of contractors - US contractors exclusively - who realized they could make a lot of money in Iraq.

MC: How did the enlisted soldiers feel about the contractors getting these fat paychecks?

JK: My soldiers were saying, I heard this often: "Ma'am, I want to get out of the Army and come back over here. I could be making five times the money that I'm making as a soldier. And these guys never go out and do anything. We're doing all the work, and they're drawing all the pay!" I heard it a dozen times a week from every level of soldier, every rank, in every one of my units. They could see it. They knew what was going on. Here's these three contractors who are supposed to restore the prison system with the help of the military, and they never - I don't want to say never - they hardly leave the confines of the Coalition Provisional Authority.

MC: Now did they play a role in the interrogations?

JK: No, they did not. The interrogations were separate and apart from Iraqi detention operations. The only role they played was, they were restoring Abu Ghraib. They were using funds from the Coalition Provisional Authority to restore the cells out at Abu Ghraib.

MC: So who was in charge of the interrogations at Abu Ghraib?

JK: The Military Intelligence.

MC: And you were reprimanded and demoted for failing to supervise the staff at Abu Ghraib, and you've said you were a scapegoat?

JK: Right.

MC: What do you mean by that?

JK: Well, I have to refer to a timeline. Miller comes, we have Abu Ghraib, and Abu Ghraib was a pile of rubble the first time I saw it. The only advantage of Abu Ghraib, the only advantage, was this 20-foot high retaining wall around the ground, acres and acres of the grounds of Abu Ghraib. So we had that as a security, first line of defense. But everything inside the prison at that time had been looted. Electrical systems, water systems, infrastructure, doors were gone. Blocks of concrete were removed from the interior section, the interior cells.

But I had a Company Commander who was commanding an MP unit out there, and he told me in July, "Ma'am, if you get us the resources we can at least hold prisoners here until the other facilities are restored." So there was great opposition to that, because of the history of Abu Ghraib. But we proceeded with the encouragement and the support, to a limited extent, from Ambassador Bremer. Because we needed some place to put these Iraqi criminals that the divisions were policing in the course of their operations and attempted to get sustainment operations underway, throughout Iraq. So in August, the divisions were directed to undertake these - let me back up. At Abu Ghraib during July and the beginning of August 2003, we were holding several hundred prisoners.

MC: Were these prisoners of war?

JK: No, these were Iraqi criminals, because the war was over. So when the President declared the war over, there are no more prisoners of war. What we were policing then were Iraqi criminals.

MC: Had they all been arrested for crimes?

JK: Yes, they were. But some of them, most of them, the vast majority of them were minor crimes. They were missing curfew. They were subjected to a random inspection and a weapon was found in their trunks, they were looting, dealing gasoline, whatever. But they were minor crimes, nonviolent crimes, the majority of them.

In October and November, 2002, Saddam and his sons opened all of the jails and all of the prisons and released all of the prisoners to cause chaos as the Coalition advanced to Baghdad. And they did. These criminals, these criminal elements, did wreak havoc. So it was not unusual, when the divisions were out doing their operations or manning a checkpoint, that they would find a minor crime, minor criminals. And then, when they were turned over, sometimes the prisoners would even admit that they had been held under Saddam. In all the thousands of prisoners that were turned over to our control, we only had one who came in with a prison record folded neatly in his wallet. Because they're smart enough to not say, "Oh, I was a prisoner, I was a murderer, and I was being held for life under Saddam, so you got me." You know, they were all, every prisoner was innocent.

MC: So the prisoners who were being tortured or abused at Abu Ghraib - were they all convicted criminals?

JK: No, because up until the mid part of August or the third week of August, 2003, I would say 95 percent of our prisoner population were Iraqi criminals, and the majority of them were nonviolent criminals. Then, directed by the CJTF-7, the divisions undertook these aggressive raids and these operations targeting specific individuals who were either terrorists, suspected terrorists, or known associates of terrorists. And they were called "security detainees." This is a new category of prisoner. So they were bringing them into Abu Ghraib, and again, no coordination with the commander (me) or my battalion commander out at Abu Ghraib. They were just flooding Abu Ghraib every night from the end of August onward with 15 prisoners, 30 prisoners, 8 prisoners, 60 prisoners, whatever it would be. So the population exploded from what it was, about 1200 at the end of August. In September and October we took in at least equal that number. So by the end of September, we had more than 3,000 prisoners. And by the end of October, we had over 6,000 prisoners. And the CJTF-7 headquarters did not care if we had food for the prisoners, if we had accommodations for the prisoners, if we had jumpsuits for the prisoners or anything.

But the most pronounced difference was when Miller came to visit. He came right after Rumsfeld's visit. Miller was there the next day. And he stayed for about ten days to work with the Military Intelligence commander, the Military Intelligence staff officer, General Fast, and the commander of the Military Intelligence committee, Colonel Pappas.

And he said that he was going to use a template from Guantánamo Bay to "Gitmo-ize" the operations out at Abu Ghraib. He didn't spend much time with me, but he wanted to see me before he went down to brief General Sanchez when he was getting ready to leave. And that was when he was using these strong-arm techniques with me. He said, "Look, we can do this my way or we can do this the hard way." I mean, first of all, we're on the same side! And he knew, and I said to him, "Sir, I don't know who told you I was going to be difficult. What I'm doing is telling you Abu Ghraib is not mine to give to you. It belongs to Ambassador Bremer. It is going to be turned over to the Iraqis." He said, "No, it is not. I want that facility and Rick Sanchez said I can have any facility I want."

So, I mean, I was telling him the truth. Miller obviously had the full authority of somebody, you know, likely Cambone or Rumsfeld in Washington, DC. And right after, during Miller's visit, Colonel Pappas, the MI Brigade Commander, asked me if he could have full control of Cellblock 1-A because all of the people being held in there were really these security detainees.

The prisons experts down at Coalition Provisional Authority objected because it had been the CPA money that had restored those jail cells. I explained that these were higher-value guys and that they needed to be segregated. So they said okay. And we turned the Cellblock 1-A over to Colonel Pappas. And then shortly after that, within a week, they asked for Cellblock 1-B. And Miller probably coached ... I don't know. I do know that Miller had this harebrained idea that he was going to bring in these milvans - you know what milvans are?

MC: No.

JK: Milvans are all metal and they're picked up at a port. Usually, they're either put on the back of a big tractor or trailer truck. Sometimes you'll see these heavy trains at the port lifting up these metal boxes. Those are the equivalent of milvans. You can ship them and then they're picked up with a moving device, wherever they're going to.

So Miller had this idea that they could import hundreds, if not thousands, of these milvans, modify them with bars and such, and make them individual prison cells, similar to what they had done down at Guantánamo Bay, apparently.

So I said to General Miller - just on that point alone - I said, "Look sir, we can't even get building materials up here, basically or efficiently. Where do you think they're going to import all these milvans and get them down here to Abu Ghraib?" He said, "It's no problem. We'll use Turkey, we'll use Jordan. We have the answer." Okay. Well, there's not one milvan that's been shipped to Abu Ghraib even to this day.

Nonetheless, he wasn't there, and he didn't have, like so many of these people ... General Cody can sit in Washington, DC now, as the Chief of Staff of the Army and can pontificate about how it should be. But he wasn't there. He was not in the middle of this disaster and this chaos. And the efforts of the Military Police soldiers, they were just so incredible, because every one of our facilities was undermanned, ill-protected, and managed by the seat of their pants.

MC: Taguba suggested that you didn't pay sufficient attention to what was going on under your command. But you said you were waved off by Military Intelligence and the CIA. Who waved you off?

JK: General Miller did first, and then General Fast, as his representative, even though General Miller has claimed repeatedly and under sworn testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee that he was simply an advisor in Iraq; he had no authority to direct anybody to make changes or to do anything differently.

However, when he left, Colonel Pappas, General Sanchez and the Provo Marshall for General Sanchez, I think - a guy by the name of, he was a Colonel, his name was Sanwalt [sp?] - they were copying, cc-ing, General Miller on all the reports of anything to do with interrogation or detention operations. So if he was just an advisor, why were they keeping him so much in the loop? And then when I went to General Fast, after I heard that the prison had been turned over to the Military Intelligence brigade for complete command and control ---

MC: Who turned it over to the Military Intelligence?

JK: General Fast went to the Operations Section of the headquarters, CJTF-7, and told them to cut an order transferring control of the prisons from the Military Police to the Military Intelligence. There was no coordination with me or Colonel Pappas. There was no discussion about chain of command or anything else. General Fast, who was not a commander, ordered them to do it in the Operations Section at Sanchez's headquarters, and they did it. And they cut an order and transferred the prison.

MC: And now, who waved you off? When were you waved off?

JK: When I found out, I wasn't even in Iraq at the time. And when I came back they told me that the prison was transferred under the control of the Military Intelligence. So I went to Sanchez first, and his deputy went in to tell General Sanchez that I was there and I needed to see him, and the subject was the transfer of the prison. General Sanchez would not see me, but he told his deputy or his - I think it was his SGS or his executive officer - he was a full colonel - he told me to go see General Fast, that she had the details. So I went to General Fast, and General Fast pointed to the order. Pointed to the order! Held it up, pointed to the order and said it's a done deal.

MC: So then you were not allowed to go to that cellblock?

JK: No, there was never a restriction on me going to that cellblock or anywhere else at Abu Ghraib, ever. I was not allowed to go to Abu Ghraib or anywhere else during the hours of darkness. Nobody was allowed to; the roads were too dangerous. We were just starting to see the beginnings of these roadside bombs and IEDs and everything. So the headquarters said unless it was life-threatening and they gave permission, there was no travel during the hours or darkness.

MC: And that's when the torture went on?

JK: And that's when the torture was taking place, right.

MC: So if you had wanted to go at night, you couldn't have done it?

JK: Right. That's correct.

MC: When did you find out that this torture was going on?

JK: Well, I really didn't find out - I found out that there was an investigation, and I found out about that, not from General Sanchez, not from General Fast, not from anybody at the headquarters. I found out from the Commander of the Criminal Investigation Division - a guy by the name of Marcelo. He was a full Colonel. And he sent me an e-mail. We had another mission that was close to the Iranian border and I was up there. It was about an hour and forty-five minutes outside Baghdad, two hours outside of Baghdad. So I opened my e-mail when I came back from a meeting with the leadership element of this group up there, and it was close to midnight. I opened the e-mail and I said, "What is this all about?" And the e-mail said, "Ma'am, just want to let you know I'm about to go in and brief the CG on the progress of the investigation out at Abu Ghraib. This is the one involving allegations of abuse and the pictures." That was it.

MC: That was the first you heard?

JK: That was the first I heard, and that was on the twelfth of January of 2004. That was the first I heard. I left the next morning, I didn't know anything about it. I asked my aide, I asked my Operations Officer, and nobody knew anything about it, and everybody was equally shocked, stunned. So we left at daybreak the next morning and drove back into Baghdad and went right out to Abu Ghraib. And we tried to talk to some of the people out there who would have known.

Well, all of the people who worked the night shift were already removed from their positions out there and were taken over to the headquarters, the CJTF-7 headquarters. I was never allowed to speak to them. I never exchanged a word with them, because I was told by Colonel Warren, the JAG officer for General Sanchez, that they weren't assigned to me, that they were not under my control, and I really had no right to see them.

The people who were working in Cellblock 1-A at the time that I went out to Abu Ghraib didn't know anything about it. They were completely in the dark about anything. I said, "What's this about photographs?" And the sergeant said to me, "Ma'am, we've heard something about photographs, but I have no idea. Nobody has any details, and Ma'am, if anybody knows, nobody is talking." I said, "Okay, let me see the logs. Let me see the books." He said, "They took everything. The Criminal Investigation division took everything." I said, "Well, what do you have?" and he pointed to this pole right outside the little office that they were using, and he said, "Well, they left this."

It was a memorandum signed by Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, authorizing a short list, maybe 6 or 8 techniques: use of dogs; stress positions; loud music; deprivation of food; keeping the lights on, those kinds of things. And then a handwritten message over to the side that appeared to be the same handwriting as the signature, and that signature was Secretary Rumsfeld's. And it said, "Make sure this happens," with two exclamation points. And that was the only thing that they had. Everything else had been confiscated.

So I tried to get information. I talked to Colonel Pappas. I talked to the Battalion Commander. I talked to the chain of command, the Military Police chain of command. Nobody knew anything, nobody - at least, that's what they were claiming. The Company Commander, Captain Reese, was tearful in my office and repeatedly told me he knew nothing about it, knew nothing about it.

But in a plea bargain, later on, after Taguba, Captain Reese said that not only did he know about it, but he was told not to report it to his chain of command, and he was told that by Colonel Pappas. And he claimed that he saw General Sanchez out there on several occasions witnessing the torture of some of the security detainees.

So, the first time I even got any kind of clarification on what these photographs were was the 23rd of January. The criminal investigator, Colonel Marcelo, came into my office. It was about eight o'clock at night, nine o'clock at night. And he called me and he was asking if I was there, would I be there, and I said yes. He said, I have some photographs I want to show you.

So when I saw the pictures I was floored. Really, the world was spinning out of control when I saw those pictures, because it was so far beyond and outside of what I imagined. I thought that maybe some soldiers had taken some pictures of prisoners behind barbed wire or in their cell or something like that. I couldn't imagine anything like what I saw in those photographs.

So then Colonel Marcelo said me, "Ma'am, I'm supposed to tell you after you see the photographs that General Sanchez wants to see you in his office." So I went over to see him, and he, I told him, you know, before I even saw the photographs, I was preparing words to say in a press conference - to be up front, to be honest about this, that an investigation is ongoing and there are some allegations of detainee abuse.

Well, he said, "No, absolutely not. You are not to discuss this with anyone." And I should have known then, and I know that Sanchez was hopeful for a four-star promotion even then, in January of 2004. And I thought that it had probably most to do with the election coming up in November of 2004, and that this could really move the Administration out of the White House if it was exploited. So naively, I just thought, you know, they're going to let this investigation go and they're going to handle it the way it should be handled.

MC: Do you think the investigations that have taken place so far have uncovered the truth about this torture and who is responsible?

JK: Absolutely not. The truth has been uncovered, but it's been suffocated and it has not been released with the results of the investigation. You know, they can say that, McClellan and Rumsfeld can get up on their high horse and say that there've been no fewer than 15 investigations that were conducted. But every one of those investigations is under the control of the Secretary of Defense. And every one of those investigations is run and led by a person who can lose their job under Rumsfeld's fist.

We're never going to know the truth until they do an independent commission or look into this independently. I don't know if this has to be a commission. I don't know what the term is. But I do know that we never would have known the truth about 9/11 if they didn't appoint an independent commission. And this thing, this thing is not about what happened in Cellblock 1-A on a night shift. And it is certainly not about seven reservists who went crazy one night. This is about instructions delivered with full authority and knowledge of the Secretary of Defense and probably Cheney. I don't know if the President was involved or not. I don't care. All I know is, those instructions were communicated from the Secretary of Defense's office, from the Pentagon, through Cambone, through Miller, to Abu Ghraib.

And those civilian contractors who were imported were not subjected to the same Uniform Code of Military Justice discipline as the soldiers. They were cleared, removed from the face of the earth, and seven soldiers are being held responsible. It was grossly unfair.

MC: Now why do you think the Administration is resisting an independent investigation if it has nothing to hide?

JK: Well, for the same reason that when they started to make noise a couple of weeks ago - McCain, I think, recommended developing a bill or was recommending a bill that would define the limits of how to interview prisoners, would require an international database so family members would know where their loved ones or relatives were being held. And Cheney said he would recommend to the President that any bill that would limit his ability to extract information from terrorists, he would recommend disapproval. And the President has said that he would disapprove any such bill. And it's consistent with this Administration's reluctance to get to the truth, because it will reveal that they knew that this was designed at their level and started from the memo under Gonzales and Haynes, I think, is it Haynes?

MC: Yes, Haynes.

JK: And Cambone and all of these people have literally taken control of the inner workings of this Administration. It's just insane that - does anybody think that Lynndie England came to Iraq with a dog collar and a dog leash, with the idea of putting one around the prisoner's neck, and having a photograph taken? They were using these photographs to get - to cut to the chase, for lack of a better expression. The plan was to use these photographs to show newly-arriving prisoners: hey, start to talk or tomorrow you're on the bottom of the pile.

This is wrong to say that this was torture and abuse going on in Cellblock 1-A. It was certainly humiliating to be photographed in such a manner; I don't disagree with that at all. I'm not trying to justify it. But there were interrogation facilities outside of Cellblock 1-A and B - separate facilities, where the actual interrogations took place. And this Administration surely does not want the details of what went on in those interrogation facilities to be known by the rest of the world.

MC: Do you think the CIA is involved? Did you have any contact with the CIA at all, in terms of their involvement with the interrogations?

JK: Marjorie, I have to tell you that from July onward, even up until December, I wouldn't say regularly, but it was often, that I encountered somebody from the Task Force, from the CIA, from Special Operations, and by and large, they were professionals. They were absolutely the consummate professionals.

Now I don't know if they ran separate facilities, and I don't know what techniques they use. I do know that when they determined that somebody they were holding in one of their facilities no longer had any value and they wanted to turn them over to us, at Abu Ghraib, most likely, they turned them over with full medical records. They turned them over with a whole file of interviews and interrogations, and they turned them over in relatively good health, particularly given the situation. So I think that - this is only my conclusion - but I think that techniques in the right and responsible hands are used appropriately. I mean, I never saw anybody under the control of the Task Force or under the control of the CIA who came in bruised, bloody, beaten, and, you know, stitched together. Occasionally we did see the aftermath of a gunshot wound, but these were higher-value detainees, if there was cross-fire or if there was a bullet, but they treated those kind of wounds. That would be my impression.

However, these same techniques or suggestions of aggressive techniques that were designed, in my opinion - again, I don't know this first-hand - but all of these reports now would indicate that these techniques were designed and tested and implemented down at Guantánamo Bay and in Afghanistan. And when you take those same techniques and put them in the hands of irresponsible and non-accountable people, like these civilian contractors were, you are combining lethal ingredients. And what happens? You get civilian contractors who have a playground, and they get out of control. And unfortunately, at Abu Ghraib they suck the military into that same playground. There's no doubt in my mind that they ordered these things to be done.

MC: Who is "they?"

JK: They being the civilian contractors - Titan, CACI. The majority of those contractors were either in Guantánamo Bay or Afghanistan prior to being sent to Abu Ghraib. There were a lot of translators who were working for Titan. Some of them were locally hired, some of them were brought in from the United States. And they were given an opportunity to upgrade their positions to be interrogators - without any kind of formal training whatsoever. So now you have a deadly mix. You have people who have been exposed and who have used these techniques first-hand in other locations. They know that there is no supervision or control. They have been directed, using whatever words, to get Saddam, get the information and get these prisoners to start talking, use more aggressive techniques. So you have allowed people who have no responsibility whatsoever to use techniques that were originally, perhaps originally designed and used by very experienced hands. And it got out of control. It clearly got out of control.

And the reason I didn't know about it at all is because Sanchez and Fast and that whole operation under Miller - whether he was there or not, he was directing it from Guantánamo Bay and Cambone was directing it from Washington, DC - they didn't want Janis Karpinski anywhere near those operations. Because they knew from people talking about me, from my record, from my past performances, that I would not have tolerated anything like what was going on in Cellblock 1-A or B. I would not have.
If I had known, if I had heard from a prisoner, if I had heard from an MP, if I had heard from a soldier, if anybody had suggested such a thing, I would have raised the issue. I would have screamed at the top of my lungs until I got somebody to pay attention that this was going on out there. Likely I would have still been held accountable, because they were looking for a scapegoat all along. And I think they found one in me because they could very easily say, "Well, this is a reservist who had Reserve soldiers, and they were just out of control."

You know, let's tell the truth here. I'm at least as capable a leader as anybody else in the Army. And I have worked harder and taken the toughest assignments and proved my capabilities in those assignments throughout my career. But Miller wanted to make it appear that I didn't have the same qualifications because I was a reservist - that these seven soldiers were, you know, out of control on the night shift - because they were reservists.

No, despite the failures of the Administration and the Pentagon to deploy these soldiers with the right equipment and the right training and assign the right mission, these soldiers were doing a great job. In 17 facilities, more than 40,000 prisoners throughout the time, the only photographs and allegations of abuse were in two cellblocks under the control of the Military Intelligence command and designed and incorporated by General Miller during and following his visit to Iraq.

Now how did he cover all that up? Well, guess where he got assigned after he left Guantánamo Bay? He went back to Iraq to be in charge of not only the detention operations but in charge of the interrogation operations as well, at Abu Ghraib and at the high-value detention facility. As far as I know, they were the only two facilities where there higher-value detainees are being held.

MC: Where was that facility, that higher-value detention facility?

JK: It was in Baghdad.

MC: And is he still there?

JK: No, Miller left. He was there from July of 2004 until December, or January of 2005, and then he went to the Pentagon. I think he went in March, actually. Maybe it was March of 2004 through March of 2005. And then when he left Iraq, he was assigned to the Pentagon. And that's where he is today. He's the only one who hasn't been promoted in all of this. But Colonel Warren was fully aware of all this, and in a sworn statement to one of the soldier's defense counsel, he said that General Karpinski was not aware of any of this because there were measures put in place to prevent her from knowing about any of this.

MC: Who said that?

JK: That was Colonel Warren, the JAG Officer CJ Task Force. He has been recommended for promotion to one-star.

MC: And Sanchez is being recommended for promotion too, right?

JK: I'm not aware of that. But that doesn't surprise me. I know Rumsfeld has said all along that he thinks that Sanchez is an exceptional officer and should be recommended.

MC: And even though this high-level military investigation recommended that Miller be reprimanded, the Army General rejected the recommendation, is that right?

JK: The Commander of SOUTHCOM rejected the recommendation. Miller has never been reprimanded, not for anything down in Guantánamo Bay.
There was a Captain who was in Afghanistan. She was a Lieutenant at the time, Carolyn Woods. And she was brought over specifically by Fast. Fast recommended her to Miller. Miller brought her over to Iraq specifically to run the interrogation operation. She was linked to those deaths in Afghanistan, where the interrogators were under her control, and she was promoted to Captain. Where is she? She is at the MI school, under General Fast.

I mean there's a ton of information, and there's extenuating, not circumstances, but these units were deployed - the Reserve and National Guard units were deployed - with the full understanding, they had orders for 179 days. They were briefed at the mobilization station and deployed with the full understanding that they would be home before the 179 days even expired.

So without any notification whatsoever, without any warning from the Chief of the Army Reserves or anybody else in the Reserve component, they were extended 365 days, just like everybody else in the theater.
However, when you extend an active-component soldier past six months - whether that was their expectation or not - when you extend them, their families are not at risk, because their ID cards are still current, their medical and dental benefits stay current, their housing remains with them, their pay continues.

Reserves and National Guard soldiers rely completely on the orders that they are carrying in their pocket. So they had orders for a 179-day deployment. And when they were extended ... it's not like it is now; the Internet was not available. They didn't have opportunities to call home. Nobody had a cell phone, of course, that worked from over there or anything. So their first concern was for their families. You know, our orders are going to expire and okay, they're telling us that we're going to get an extension eventually but our families will not have ID cards, they will not have medical benefits, they will not have dental benefits. They're going to be kicked out of their housing, for those who are living on base. They were concerned about the welfare of their families. And there was no way to get notification to them.

So it's different. There is a different standard. Somebody waved the magic wand and said, "Let's extend everybody for 365 days because this war is going to go on a lot longer than we thought."

And in my little corner of the world and my exposure down at the Coalition Provisional Authority, I saw corruption like I've never seen before - millions of dollars just being pocketed by contractors. Everything was on a cash basis at the time. You take a request down - literally, you take a request to the Finance Office. If the Pay Officer recognized your face and you were asking for $450,000 to pay a contractor for work, they would pay you in cash: $450,000. Out of control.

And then, Marjorie, in March or May of this year, when Admiral Church presented his investigation findings, he concluded that the Taguba Report was sound. And McCain - Senator Levin said, "Did you interview these individuals? Did you interview Colonel Pappas? Did you interview General Karpinski?" And of course he said no. He took the Taguba Report and relied heavily on that. And McCain said that the Taguba Report has been proven to be flawed and to be incomplete. Did you interview Ambassador Bremer? And Admiral Church said well, no, because I was directed to do this investigation by the Secretary of Defense and it was limited to the Department of Defense units. And the Coalition Provisional Authority and Ambassador Bremer all work for the State Department. And Senator McCain said, "Excuse me, Admiral, but you're wrong. The Coalition Provisional Authority and Ambassador Bremer worked for the Secretary of Defense."

MC: He didn't know that?

JK: He didn't know that. And neither did we when we were there. Everybody believed that there was a balance between the military and the State Department, and that Ambassador Bremer was working for Colin Powell. And that is untrue.

So now today, 2005, I understand why Bremer fired the whole Iraqi army - because he was working for the Secretary of Defense. There was no State Department influence. There was no balance. It was exclusively under the control of Rumsfeld. And there were contractors who were coming in there, hired. It's an excellent question, how the soldiers felt about these contractors. The security guys, the bodyguards, and the security firms that were hired to provide security for visiting dignitaries or Congressional delegations - they were all making a minimum of $300 a day. $300 a day. And never left the Green Zone. They escorted the convoys to the front gate, and then the Military Police or the military units would pick up the responsibility from the gate of the Green Zone out. And here you have soldiers who are now responsible for the lives of these delegations, and some of them are making $3,000 a month.
MC: Do you think that the media is really bringing the truth to the people?

JK: You have to search for the truth. And it shouldn't be that way. It should be reported as truth and not exploited to the advantage of whatever the direction that that outlet is going.

I know those reporters John Barry and Isikoff from Newsweek, and I was shocked when they withdrew that report about the Koran at Guantánamo Bay. I was sure it was true, and I thought, "Who got to them?" They never would have been, you know, half-assed reporting, excuse my expression. You know, I thought, "My gosh, there is no truthful outlet any more."

And why are the American people turning a deaf ear to this? We had 17 Marines killed over the course of the last three days, less than 72 hours. And there's still people in Washington that get on, especially Sunday mornings, and they get on these news or these debate programs and they say, "Well it's only 1800 lives so far" - Only! Only! You know, how dare you say that!

I don't know what the solution is. I'm not an elected official, but I was there. And it was better when we were there than it is now, because they have, whether consciously or unconsciously or just out of ineptness, they have approached this insurgency with the wrong idea.

General Casey, you know, getting on the news and saying, "Well, if everything continues on track we'll be able to start a troop draw-down next March." What exactly are these people smoking?

MC: You don't think that's a public relations ploy to get the Republicans in the midterm elections? And how are they going to maintain their 14 permanent bases in Iraq if they pull troops out? They just can't do that.

JK: Right. And how is that being proven? Well, the insurgents are now responding, as they did right after Cheney's comment that the insurgency was in its last throes of effectiveness. Okay? And then they responded by killing a whole bunch of people.

So now they come back and Casey says, "Well, if everything continues on track, we should be able to start the troop draw-down by next Spring, early next Spring and into the Summer." And how is the insurgency responding? It's like setting up an explosive device and blowing 14 Marines off the face of the earth.

It's just unbelievable, and was, unfortunately, predictable, on the very elementary level of planning sustainment operations. And I don't know if it was just absolute ignorance or wishful thinking. And there is a vast difference between them, but either one of them, something was incorporated by the Pentagon, the Secretary of Defense, of what they thought that, as soon as they got to Baghdad and pulled those statues down, that everybody was going to be coming out waving American flags and throwing flowers? What kind of ignorance is this?

Iraq was a huge country, and when you have people largely saying, now, "He may have been a dictator, but we were better under Saddam," this Administration needs to take notice. And at some point you have to say, "Stop the train, because it's completely derailed. How do we fix it?" But in an effort to do that, you have to admit that you made a few mistakes, and this Administration is not willing to admit any mistakes whatsoever.

MC: You're writing a book. Do you have a publisher?

JK: Yeah, Miramax. It's going to be published in November. I didn't get any kind of correspondence except to chastise me. When I was going out to San Francisco to speak to the University of San Francisco, the law school out there, that was in April, I got a form letter from the Chief of the Army Reserves warning me - warning me - about speaking about Abu Ghraib, and that everything was still under investigation. Well, shortly after I got back, I get a letter saying that he understands that I'm writing a book and I should submit the transcript for review.

And my lawyer responded simply by telling him that I was a private citizen and I don't fall under the same requirements, which he had to acknowledge, because that's true. I'm not ignorant, and I'm not going to reveal any classified information in anything I write, but I don't need to, because the truth is the truth, and it doesn't have to be classified. It is definitely staggering, but the truth is the truth.
Link

<><><><><><><><>

by Cindy Sheehan

I finally figured out George Bush's NEW reason for staying in Iraq. This reason has also been co-opted by the Move America Forward (forward to what: Fascism?) and the poor mothers who would be honored if their sons were killed in George Bush's war for greed and power.

Since the Freedom and Democracy thing is not going so well and the Iraqi parliament is having such a hard time writing their constitution, since violence is mounting against Iraqis and Americans and since his poll numbers are going down everyday, he had to come up with something.

I have continually asked George Bush to quit using Casey's name and the name of the other Gold Star Families for Peace loved ones to justify his continued killing. He continues to say this: "We have to honor the sacrifices of the fallen by completing the mission." So the mission is now this: WE MUST CONTINUE KILLING AMERICANS BECAUSE AMERICANS HAVE ALREADY BEEN KILLED!!!

How can anyone, anyone in their right minds support this line of reasoning? I have been silent on the Gold Star Moms who still support this man and his war by saying that they deserve the right to their opinions because they are in as much pain as I am. I would challenge them, though, at this point to start thinking for themselves. Iraq DID NOT have WMD's; Iraq WAS NOT linked to Al Qaeda and 9/11; Iraq WAS NOT a threat or danger to America. How can these moms who still support George Bush and his insane war in Iraq want more innocent blood shed just because their sons or daughters have been killed? I don't understand it. I don't understand how any mother could want another mother to feel the pain we feel. I am starting to lose a little compassion for them. I know they have been as brainwashed as the rest of America, but they know the pain and heartache and they should not wish it on another. However, I still feel their pain so acutely and pray for these "continue the murder and mayhem" moms to see the light.

I didn't do my blog last night because I was so exhausted. I am now lying awake at night thinking and worrying about a couple of things. First of all, how can we keep the momentum of Camp Casey going? Our first step is a bus tour consisting of three buses going through 3 different parts of the country, stopping at various places to do rallies and "visit" Congress people's offices. I had a brainstorm during my press conference yesterday -- our first stop will be at Mr.Tom Delay's office. I just opened my mouth and the words came out and the Bus Tour organizers re-worked the bus schedule so we could make that happen. But before we even issued the invitation to Tom Delay, his office had released a statement saying that he was "too busy to meet with me." In taking Camp Casey to Congress we are creating problems for the very people who voted to give George the authority to invade an innocent country and cause the deaths of so many people. We will eventually target every Congress person, pro-peace or anti-peace alike, Republican or Democrat, and ask them the same questions we are asking the president. Except with Congress, we are going to add one more thing: "Since there is no Noble Cause, you need to develop a speedy exit strategy and bring our troops home as soon as humanly possible."

Check out www.BringThemHomeNowTour.org for more info on our bus tour and how you can be involved.

The second thing that worries the crap out of me is the almost icon status that I have achieved. I never set out to become the "Rosa Parks of the Peace Movement." I ventured out on August 6, 2005 to hold George Bush accountable and to raise awareness about his lies and misuse and abuse of power. I didn't set out to become anyone's hero. I am a regular mom who just wants peace and no one else to be murdered for the deceptions of our government. I love the love and support of America: it is what sustains me through these very difficult times and the reich-wing smear campaign. I am blown away and humbled that people are coming from all over the world to meet me and have their pictures taken of me. I am honored when people ask me for my autograph and I love meeting the little ones. I think we really need to focus our energies on the cause of peace, though --and the message, not the messenger. I am not a perfect person. I am strong and I do have the cajones to tell the world that our "emperor" has no clothes, but it is done out of love of Casey and the others who have died and who are in harm's way and out of the simple fact that at the end of the day I have to look at myself in the mirror. If I didn't do everything in my power to end this monstrosity of an occupation in Iraq, how could I do that? I promised my boy that I would make the world a better place for his unborn nieces and nephews, and I mean to keep that promise.

We are going to have an eventful day at Camp Casey. We are holding a big rally and so are the "pro-continue the killing because Americans have died already" people. I am a little apprehensive about this. We know that the Sheriff's know that the other people are coming to stir up trouble and provoke us into violence. Well, that is not going to happen on the Camp Casey side. We will not resort to the same tactics as their leaders.

Camp Casey is a place of peace and love and we won't let ignorant citizens bring us down. At this point the smears are amusing me, rather than hurting me.

I will keep you all posted about today's events. Please pray for us that everyone keeps a cool head.Peace!!!!

A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION

Check out www.BringThemHomeNowTour.org for more info on the bus tour and how you can be involved.

Learn more about Cindy at http://www.meetwithCindy.com or about Gold Star Families for Peace at http://www.gsfp.org.

Interested in contributing an article to BuzzFlash? Click here for more info.

Articles in the BuzzFlash Contributor section are posted as-is. Given the timeliness of some Contributor articles, BuzzFlash cannot verify or guarantee the accuracy of every word. We strive to correct inaccuracies when they are brought to our attention.
Link

<><><><><><><><>

Well, Bob, it's not as if he doesn't have a destination in mind when he bicycles merrily on his way... --DN




August 18, 2005
Blood Runs Red, Not Blue
By BOB HERBERT

You have to wonder whether reality ever comes knocking on George W. Bush's door. If it did, would the president with the unsettling demeanor of a boy king even bother to answer? Mr. Bush is the commander in chief who launched a savage war in Iraq and now spends his days happily riding his bicycle in Texas.

This is eerie. Scary. Surreal.

The war is going badly and lives have been lost by the thousands, but there is no real sense, either at the highest levels of government or in the nation at large, that anything momentous is at stake. The announcement on Sunday that five more American soldiers had been blown to eternity by roadside bombs was treated by the press as a yawner. It got very little attention.

You can turn on the television any evening and tune in to the bizarre extended coverage of the search for Natalee Holloway, the Alabama teenager who disappeared in Aruba in May. But we hear very little about the men and women who have given up their lives in Iraq, or are living with horrific injuries suffered in that conflict.

If only the war were more entertaining. Less of a downer. Perhaps then we could meet the people who are suffering and dying in it.

For all the talk of supporting the troops, they are a low priority for most Americans. If the nation really cared, the president would not be frolicking at his ranch for the entire month of August. He'd be back in Washington burning the midnight oil, trying to figure out how to get the troops out of the terrible fix he put them in.

Instead, Mr. Bush is bicycling as soldiers and marines are dying. Dozens have been killed since he went off on his vacation.

As for the rest of the nation, it's not doing much for the troops, either. There was a time, long ago, when war required sacrifices that were shared by most of the population. That's over.

I was in Jacksonville, Fla., a few days ago and watched in amusement as a young woman emerged from a restaurant into 95-degree heat and gleefully exclaimed, "All right, let's go shopping!" The war was the furthest thing from her mind.

For the most part, the only people sacrificing for this war are the troops and their families, and very few of them are coming from the privileged economic classes. That's why it's so easy to keep the troops out of sight and out of mind. And it's why, in the third year of a war started by the richest nation on earth, we still get stories like the one in Sunday's Times that began:

"For the second time since the Iraq war began, the Pentagon is struggling to replace body armor that is failing to protect American troops from the most lethal attacks by insurgents."

Scandalous incompetence? Appalling indifference? Try both. Who cares?

This is a war fought mostly by other people's children. The loudest of the hawks are the least likely to send their sons or daughters off to Iraq.
The president has never been clear about why we're in Iraq. There's no plan, no strategy. In one of the many tragic echoes of Vietnam, U.S. troops have been fighting hellacious battles to seize areas controlled by insurgents, only to retreat and allow the insurgents to return.

If Mr. Bush were willing to do something he has refused to do so far - speak plainly and honestly to the American people about this war - he might be able to explain why U.S. troops should continue with an effort that is, in large part at least, benefiting Iraqi factions that are murderous, corrupt and terminally hostile to women. If by some chance he could make that case, the next appropriate step would be to ask all Americans to do their part for the war effort.

College kids in the U.S. are playing video games and looking forward to frat parties while their less fortunate peers are rattling around like moving targets in Baghdad and Mosul, trying to dodge improvised explosive devices and rocket-propelled grenades.

There is something very, very wrong with this picture.

If the war in Iraq is worth fighting - if it's a noble venture, as the hawks insist it is - then it's worth fighting with the children of the privileged classes. They should be added to the combat mix. If it's not worth their blood, then we should bring the other troops home.

If Mr. Bush's war in Iraq is worth dying for, then the children of the privileged should be doing some of the dying.

E-mail: bobherb@nytimes.com
Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company
Home
Link

<><><><><><><><>

ABC Online
Outfoxed :: Film Review :: ABC Tasmania [This is the print version of story http://www.abc.net.au/tasmania/stories/s1235008.htm] ABC Tasmania Reviews Film Outfoxed
Date of release: 2004 Date of Review: Friday, 5 November 2004

This remarkable work of analysis and detection has to be one of the most brilliantly argued, elegantly constructed – and depressing – documentaries of the last few years, if not ever.

The Corporation (2003) may have suggested that our global empires are running amok and behaving in a clinically paranoid manner. But Outfoxed has an even scarier tale to tell – the total hijacking of balance and fairness by the American news network that has fairness and balance as its banner!

What Robert Greenwald’s elegantly structured film reveals is how in the last decade the entire Fox network, released from any controls or checks, has skewed all its news and commentary to support the corporate and the Republican cause and give free rein to ranting right wing nutters like Bill O’Reilly.

Greenwald uses the micromanaging, utterly unbalanced daily memos from Fox Central issuing riding instructions to the news editors along with a parade of ex-Fox reporters and producers all of who seem to have fallen onto their swords rather than turn out the near fictional tosh and malevolent on air ‘news and commentary’ rants we see montaged here.

Where the movie also scores (as Fox, alas, does not) is in the depth and range of its research and the endless packages of off-air quotes that reveal the full extent of the skewing and – let’s face it – downright falsification of the messages viewers are getting. One telling statistic shows that regular Fox viewers, on a range of basic questions (such as Did the United Nations support the latest Iraq invasion?) were at least five times more likely to get it wrong. It’s chilling stuff and unlikely, given the state of politics in America now, to ever change back to the Camelot-like era of a Free Press, and truth and decency in news reporting. Such dear, dead days seem now as real as the latest Princess Diaries movie.

The total global audience for Murdoch media is over 4.7 billion. Sigh.

Jonathan DawsonDirector/Producer/Editor: Robert Greenwald http://www.abc.net.au/tasmania/stories/s1235008.htm Last Updated: 4/11/2004 5:42:12 PM AEDT © 2005 Australian Broadcasting CorporationCopyright information: http://abc.net.au/common/copyrigh.htmPrivacy information: http://abc.net.au/privacy.htm
- - - - - - - - - - - -

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Outfoxed examines how media empires, led by Rupert Murdoch's Fox News, have been running a "race to the bottom" in television news. This film provides an in-depth look at Fox News and the dangers of ever-enlarging corporations taking control of the public's right to know. Read on »

A message from Producer/Director Robert Greenwald, some press on Outfoxed, and a few letters we've received.
Watch the trailer in Quicktime or Windows Media.
Buy the DVD for only $9.95 plus shipping.

Bill O'Reilly lied about Outfoxed on Tim Russert's show. Here's our video response in Quicktime. (14 MB)

Rupert Murdoch is interviewed about Outfoxed in Doonesbury!

Make your own movie! The Outfoxed interviews are available under a Creative Commons license allowing anyone to sample them freely in their own works. Even Fox News. Read on »

Take Action!

Find out how you can block FOX News from your cable at FOXBlocker.com.

Sign the petition to renew the Fairness Doctrine.

Raise awareness among advertisers of the radical right media company Sinclair Broadcasting Group at SinclairAction!

MAKE MOVIES WITH US: We're in the early stages of creating a network of volunteer field producers. People willing to lend their skills to Brave New Films, the new media company born out of this film. Field producers do a variety of things -- host screenings, shoot video, email friends, research, hand out flyers, distribute DVDs, watch Fox News, whatever you can do and whatever it takes. And there are a few perks too. Read on for more details.

"It's unfair, it's slanted and it's a hit job. And I haven't even seen it yet."
-Eric Shawn, FOX News Reporter

"an obsessively researched expose"
-Robert S. Boynton NY Times Magazine"

Fox is not objective. Fox is a Republican propaganda machine."
-Roger Ebert

"Move over Michael Moore. It's Robert Greenwald's time to shine."
-CNN"

rank propaganda ... the distorted work of an ultra-liberal filmmaker"
-Bill O'Reilly, pathological liar

"Exceptionally damning."
-Kenneth Turan, LA Times
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

News Hounds

We watch FOX so you don't have to.

Fox Contributor Fired After Endangering Innocent Family
Sat 10:27 AM
John Loftus, Fox News Contributor, carelessly gave the address of an unexpecting family because he thought a terrorist lived at their address. He was wrong and the family has been tortured and terrorized since his irresponsible statement. Chrish reported this story and at that time the family was waiting for an apology from Fox News. This morning 8/27/05, CNN reported that Fox had fired Loftus and issued a written apology to the family who have gone through hell.
Continue reading »
Reported by deborah CNN Deborah's Thoughts Fox News Tidbits - General
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism (2004)

Directed byRobert Greenwald

Add to MyMovies

IMDbPro Professional Details
Genre: Documentary (more)

Plot Outline: Documentary on reported Conservative bias of the Rupert Murdoch-owned Fox News Channel (FNC), which promotes itself as "Fair and Balanced".
Material includes interviews with former FNC employees and the inter-office memos they provided. (view trailer)
User Comments: Pretty solid case, I hope somebody is paying attention (more) User Rating: 7.9/10 (1,570 votes)

(more)Runtime: 75 min / USA: 78 min

Trivia: Certain Murdoch-owned newspapers in Australia refused to run ads for theatrical screenings of the film claiming that the ads were "offensive". The newspapers were not satisfied with the ads until they were pared down to the bare title of the film (without the tagline "Rupert Murdoch's War On Journalism"), the name of the theatre and the session time(s) with no accompanying artwork. (more) Quotes: Bill O'Reilly: Shut up! (more)

OUTFOXED...


MemorabiliaBooks All Products

User Comments:
7 out of 10 people found the following comment useful:-Pretty solid case, I hope somebody is paying attention, 25 December 2004Author: scubergmu from Fairfax, Virginia

Outfoxed does an excellent job of diagnosing why people talk so much about the Fox News network. For while Fox has some of the highest ratings of any of the news networks, it is also commonly criticized for its not so "fair and balanced" programming. It is chronicled in this film how Fox succeeds in bringing in the viewers the same way that best-selling polemics and political talk radio do, they serve up to their audience heroes and villains. This method is so effective because the major issues facing this country and the world are generally very complicated, and require a reasonable amount of background information in order to make a sober judgments. However, most people have neither the time, nor the inclination for anything like that. Most do not follow politics to learn, to be challenged, or to take action, they simply want to feed their outrage.

If their anger about the world around them can be explained away by blaming the people they already have ideological differences with, well that's just awesome. So, they often take refuge in the consistent, simplified, outrage-inducing commentary of their oh-so familiar talking heads. This, to me is the essence of Fox News. From its on-air discussion groups, to its choice of stories, as well as its evening talk shows, it is all about spoon-feeding people with stories of heroic conservatives, fighting to strengthen America against its enemies, both foreign (terrorists) and domestic (liberals).

The film demonstrates how Fox news achieves this through a steady feed of news reporting that is highly regulated, intentionally biased, and aligned around a predetermined ideological slant. As far as I'm concerned, to explain the behavior of FoxNews by saying that it is simply "standing up for the conservative perspective in a sea of mainstream media liberalism" as many conservatives do, is highly misleading. I believe one can rightfully stand up for any perspective they want, just so long as they aren't forced to resort to dishonest, intentionally biased reporting in order to make or bolster their case. In Outfoxed, director Robert Greenwald makes a very compelling case that Fox News, in the interests of carving out that niche for itself, does that far more than the other news networks.

However, since it is exposing the methods of a successful conservative organization, the conservatives who hear of Outfoxed will most likely write it off as nothing more than liberal propaganda. That to me is the ultimate problem with the polarized American political scene. Just about anyone who would be interested in the subject matter of this film as politically oriented as it is, has probably already made up their mind about Fox News one way or the other.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0418038/

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
July 20, 2004
FILM REVIEW; Tallyho!
Spin, Flag Waving And Shouting To Catch a Fox

By A. O. SCOTT

In the soggy early evening hours on Sunday about 60 people gathered in Zebulon, a modest bar on a not yet completely chic block in the Williamsburg section of Brooklyn, to watch ''Outfoxed,'' Robert Greenwald's new documentary about theFox News Channel. The event was one of many ''house parties'' -- dozens in New York City and around 3,500 nationwide -- organized by MoveOn.Org, which helped produce the film, along with the Center for American Progress. (The film, which does not have a theatrical distributor, is also being sold on line as a DVD.)

Zebulon, a recently opened establishment aiming for a lived-in, neighborhood feel, serves a smattering of reds and whites by the glass, as well as snacks including Camembert on toasted slices of baguette.
So you might say (or perhaps Fox News might say) that the crowd on Sunday -- young, hip, and partisan -- represented a bohemian, early-21st-century incarnation of a political archetype that flourished (at least in conservative imaginations) in the 1970's and 80's: the wine-and-cheese liberal.

An unscientific glance around the room suggested that a plurality of those in attendance preferred beer to wine. The audience's frequent cheers and hisses suggested that they enjoyed the movie: which is to say that they were, as the filmmakers intended, outraged by it.

The partisan nature of ''Outfoxed,'' a series of expository and analytical talking-head segments interspersed with the high-octane flag-draped shouting-head segments that have become Fox's trademark, is obvious. It is also, therefore, a little beside the point. In the American media, like it or not, the job of exposing bias is often taken up by people and organizations with a definite point of view. Fox News itself came into being with the intention of ''balancing'' the supposed leftward tilt of the print and broadcast mainstream, what Fox opinionators call the elite or secular media. The channel's ''fair and balanced'' slogan was, from its inception in 1996, meant as a provocation, a way of smearing the traditional networks with some of the mud Fox was happy to wallow in, and of implying a symmetry between Fox's outspoken (periodically denied) conservatism and the supposedly covert liberalism of CNN or CBS or The New York Times.

One of Fox's great successes, apart from an impressive ability to attract viewers and infuriate liberals, has been the promotion of the idea that what it does cancels out the unacknowledged propaganda coming from the other side. Mr. Greenwald's film challenges this notion and methodically works to disarm the ready-made accusation that it is outfoxing Fox by stooping to its methods.

These methods are analyzed by an array of media critics and activists, and also exposed by former employees of Fox News Channel and its parent, the News Corporation, some of them speaking anonymously, with their voices disguised. The story they tell is of the systematic and deliberate dismantling of journalistic norms, and of an outfit that has become not merely a voice of conservatism but a cheerleader for the Republican Party.

Sean Hannity, co-host of a popular public-affairs yelling match, uses part of each broadcast to count off the days until ''the re-election of George Bush,'' and daily memos from headquarters set an agenda of slanted priorities.

Some clever editing shows how the newscasters use repetition to hammer home their positions: joining the name of Senator John Kerry to variations on the word ''flip-flop'' as if it were his very own Homeric epithet; floating the disconcerting idea that the likely Democratic nominee is, somehow, ''French''; and implying that he is the favored candidate of North Korea's dictator, Kim Jong Il. There is also an amusing, appalling dissection of the way Fox uses the phrase ''some say,'' as in ''some say Senator Kerry has a tendency to flip-flop,'' not to cloak a source but to camouflage a statement of opinion.

Mr. Greenwald addresses all of this and a good deal more -- or rather, his subjects do, since the director himself is unseen and all but unheard -- with methodical sobriety. ''Outfoxed'' will inevitably be discussed in the same breath (or with the same hyperventilating rage) as Michael Moore's ''Fahrenheit 9/11,'' but it lacks both the showmanship and the scope of that incendiary film.

Toward the end ''Outfoxed'' briefly veers away from being an exposé of Fox News toward a more wide-ranging critique of the corporate media and the consolidation of ownership, but this attempt at a more general frame of reference risks weakening the specific force of the movie's argument, which has to do with the behavior of a particular corporation.
Some will say that the argument is unfair and unbalanced. Fox's critics -- the most famous are Walter Cronkite and the inevitable Al Franken -- appear relaxed, reasonable and good-humored, sitting in front of shelves of books and making their points in measured tones of voice. The on-air Fox personalities, on the other hand, appear to be a prize collection of blowhards and hyenas, with little regard for either journalistic niceties or basic good manners.

But whose fault is it, really, if they come off badly? They are, after all, on television. What we see must be what they -- and Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch -- want us to see. It must also be what we -- or at least the millions who watch Fox News Channel, including some who shut out virtually every other source of news -- want to see. Which is, according to ''Outfoxed,'' cause for alarm, and for action.

Watching Bill O'Reilly's belligerent, boorish ''interview'' with Jeremy Glick, whose father died in the attack on the World Trade Center and who came to oppose the administration's military response to 9/11, is enough to make you wish that the ghost of Joseph Welch would enter the studio and inquire, at long last, after Mr. O'Reilly's sense of decency. But those days -- when Welch undid Senator Joseph R. McCarthy on live television, and when that medium was new enough to bring a promise of transparency and truth-telling into the public consciousness -- are long past.

Mr. O'Reilly's fans are about as likely to watch ''Outfoxed'' as the patrons of that bar in Williamsburg are to tune in to ''Fox & Friends.'' For the foreseeable future, there will be more shouting, finger-pointing and tuning out, as each side accuses the other of bias, distortion and dishonesty.

Somehow, though, in these confusing circumstances you can catch a glimpse of the truth, even in a bar in Brooklyn on a muggy Sunday evening in July.

OUTFOXED
Produced and directed by Robert Greenwald; directors of photography, James Curry, Will Miller, Glen Pearcy, Richard Pérez, Luke Riffle, Bob Sullivan and Eugene Thompson; edited by Jane Abramowitz, Douglas Cheek and Chris Gordon; music by Nicholas O'Toole; released by the Members of MoveOn.Org and the Center for American Progress. Running time: 77 minutes. This film is not rated.
Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company
http://movies2.nytimes.com/mem/movies/review.html?title1=Outfoxed%20%28Movie%29&title2=Outfoxed%20%28Movie%29&reviewer=A%2e%20O%2e%20Scott&pdate=20040720&v_id=309213
Link

<><><><><><><><>

"I recently had the opportunity to speak to a reporter from the New York Times..."

From: Tommy W. Ogden
Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2004 2:02 PM
To: Michael Moore
Subject: Thank You

Dear Mike-
I am a Sergeant First Class in the United States Army with 19-and-a-half years in service. I am currently preparing myself, my family, and my unit for a second tour in Iraq. I had grand plans to retire in July of 2005 but with the phenomenally ill-conceived stop-loss policy SecDef Rumsfeld has implemented, I'll have to wait at least a year beyond that before I have any hope of bringing those plans to fruition.

My purpose in writing this letter is to offer my heart-felt thanks for "Fahrenheit 9/11", and for the constant and unwavering support you have shown for me and all my fellow service members and their families. It's extremely gratifying to see how successful your film has been and how many eyes, previously blind, have been opened to the wanton corruption and scandal rife within the Bush administration. I have watched "Fahrenheit 9/11" six times, (I ran out and bought a copy of the DVD on the day of its release), and I have to say that the anger in my heart burns brighter with each viewing. I have the deepest respect for your courage and candor, and your unwillingness to allow this nation's elected and appointed officials to conduct their business in such deceitful and self-satisfying ways.

You have also mentioned the culpability of the media in the charade that is Operation Iraqi Freedom. I recently had the opportunity to speak to a reporter from the New York Times about my opinions regarding redeployment, stop-loss, and other aspects of military life in these turbulent times. I am known around my unit as a vocal critic of Bush, his administration, and his policies, and I held nothing back during the interview I gave with the Times reporter. Sadly, when the story was published, she chose to print only selected quotes, and even those were incorrectly transcribed. This woman missed a golden opportunity to use a major media outlet to show the public how a soldier really feels about his commander-in-chief and his prospects about returning to participate in a war that he and most other soldiers do not support. She failed to mention the fact that cases of AWOL, drug abuse, and other disciplinary problems are skyrocketing, and the prevailing opinion is that these soldiers are attempting to use any means necessary to get out of deploying to Iraq. Not because they are cowards, but because they know they are not supported by their commander-in-chief and because of the likelihood that they may die for a cause that they are so adamantly against, they are willing to risk a dishonorable discharge to avoid further service in Iraq. I'm sick to death of hearing that morale is high among the troops and that the military's support for Bush is as high as ever. A bigger crock of shit I've never heard in my life.

My apologies for rambling. I must thank you again for your support, and for giving military members and their families an outlet for their criticism of the criminals who run this country. If someday our paths should cross, it would be the greatest honor I could think of to be able to meet you and shake your hand. We in the military love you, Mike...KEEP UP THE FANTASTIC WORK!

Very Sincerely Yours, SFC Tom W. Ogden
Link

<><><><><><><><>

Huh. What are the odds? ... --DN

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Back to this story Home http://mediamatters.org/

Radio Factor guest host Gibson wrong on Latino support for California's Prop. 187

As guest host of The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly, Fox News host John Gibson falsely claimed that California's controversial Proposition 187, which sought to deny illegal immigrants access to most government services, "couldn't have passed if Latinos or Hispanics in California hadn't voted for it." His guest, Republican California state senator Bill Morrow agreed with Gibson's erroneous statement. In fact, exit polls found that the vast majority of California Hispanics voted against Proposition 187, and contrary to Gibson's claim, the measure passed without significant Latino support.

Proposition 187 denied undocumented immigrants access to public services, such as education and non-emergency publicly funded health care. It also required government officials to notify law enforcement of illegal immigrants who tried to obtain such services. California voters approved the measure on November 9, 1994, but a federal court quickly enjoined its enforcement. A year later, U.S. District Judge Mariana Pfaelzer struck down the parts of the initiative that required state officials to verify a person's immigration status and to notify law enforcement of violations of the law. California subsequently settled the case and agreed not to appeal Pfaelzer's ruling [Associated Press, 7/29/99].

But only slightly more than a quarter of Latino voters favored Proposition 187, and the Latino support it received was not decisive in its passage. An analysis by the Field Research Corp. of exit polls conducted in November 1994 by the Los Angeles Times and Voter News Service found that Latinos voted heavily against Proposition 187 (73 percent to 27 percent). Data from that analysis, as well as vote totals published in the November 10, 1994, Los Angeles Times, indicate that the roughly 190,000 Latinos who voted for the measure (out of more than 700,000 Latinos who voted) was a far smaller sum than the more than 1.4 million vote (59 percent to 41 percent) margin of victory.

Media Matters recently documented right-wing pundit Ann Coulter's false claim on the August 4 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor that a "majority of Hispanics voted in favor of" Proposition 187.

From the August 19 broadcast of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:

GIBSON: You ought to be worried. I mean, the Democrats get out in front of this and make this their issue.

MORROW: Well, you know, aside from the partisanship, look, it's a huge issue, and we need to do the right thing regardless. And yeah, the Republicans -- at least some Republicans -- have been out in the lead on this. They should be. And apparently we're having an effect where at least we're convincing even Democrats to come on board and recognize this problem publicly. You know, I'm astounded -- well, maybe I'm hopeful in view of what I'm seeing that's happening in New Mexico, in Arizona, and now in with [California Assembly] Speaker [Fabian] Nuñez. Bear in mind, of course, both of those states -- Arizona and New Mexico -- have substantial Hispanic Latino populations.

GIBSON: Right.

MORROW: The governor of one state [Bill Richardson of New Mexico] is himself Latino.

GIBSON: Right.

MORROW: I mean, if there's not enough comfort zone for Republicans to be pronouncing this issue, I don't know what is.

GIBSON: Yeah. What else do you need?

MORROW: And you know -- but here's where I come from: Nothing has changed. I mean, for 13 years, it's been my observation, or the Latino community in California, a majority have always been in favor of Border Patrols and have been on our side on that issue. Prop. 187 -- not to bring up this, but Prop. 187 -- the best that it did, even in the Hispanic Latino community, may have driven a wedge to make it a 50-50 at one point, 50 percent in favor and 50 percent opposed. But I'm telling you, before that, they were largely in favor of --

GIBSON: Yeah. Well, I mean, Prop. 187, just to fill people in, was an effort to curb illegal immigration by taking away some of the incentives that illegal immigrants have to come to California -- free health care, free school, and so forth. But --

MORROW: Similarly to what was passed recently in Arizona.

GIBSON: But it couldn't have passed if Latinos or Hispanics in California hadn't voted for it. Could it?

MORROW: Exactly. And I have to remind people -- it not only passed, it passed overwhelmingly.

GIBSON: OK. Now let's jump ahead.

MORROW: But it was only [inaudible] by the courts.

GIBSON: Let's jump ahead.

— R.S.K.

Posted to the web on Thursday August 25, 2005 at 6:08 PM EST
Copyright © 2004-2005 Media Matters for America.
Link

<><><><><><><><>

...and we've decided Fox News should rot in Hell. "Fair and Balanced," my ...

I learned how to be a good Christian from Pat Robertson. Thank you God, for religious leaders like him. I sure wouldn't know how to behave if not for The Reverend Marion. Amen... --DN


http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-lahabra25aug25,1,5510970,full.story?coll=la-headlines-california

When Blame Knocks on the Wrong Door

Since Fox News wrongly identified a La Habra home as that of a terrorist, its five- member family has faced an angry backlash.
By H.G. RezaTimes Staff WriterAugust 25, 2005

Randy and Ronnell Vorick thought La Habra was about as far away as one could get from terrorism. They were wrong.

For the last 2 1/2 weeks, the lives of the couple and their three children have been plunged into an unsettling routine of drivers shouting profanities, stopping to photograph their house and — most recently — spray-painting a slogan on their property.

Their house, a suburban fixer-upper the Voricks bought three years ago, was wrongly identified in a cable news broadcast as the home of a terrorist.

"I'm scared to go to work and leave my kids home. I call them every 30 minutes to make sure they're OK," Randy Vorick said.

"I keep telling myself this can't be happening to me. This can't be happening to my family. But it is. I want our lives to be normal again," he said.

In what Fox News officials concede was a mistake, John Loftus, a former U.S. prosecutor, gave out the address Aug. 7, saying it was the home of a Middle Eastern man, Iyad K. Hilal, who was the leader of a terrorist group with ties to those responsible for the July 7 bombings in London.

Hilal, whom Loftus identified by name during the broadcast, moved out of the house about three years ago. But the consequences were immediate for the Voricks.

Satellite photos of the house and directions to the residence were posted online. The Voricks told police, who arranged for the content to be taken down. Someone even removed the street sign where the Voricks live to provide some protection.

Still, it has not been easy.A driver yelled a profanity at the family and called them terrorists as they barbecued on their patio Aug. 14. Some drivers have stopped and photographed the house, Randy Vorick said.

Last weekend, someone spray-painted "Terrist" on their home. (Stalinista Bush? That's how he spells it... DN) Police, who have regularly patrolled their house since the day after the broadcast, now station a squad car across the street.

Randy, a restaurant manager, and Ronnell, a manager at a staffing agency, have been married 19 years and met as teenagers when they worked at a local McDonald's.

They grew up in La Habra and bought the house three years ago after Hilal moved out so they could be close to Ronnell Vorick's parents.

La Habra Police Capt. John Rees said the department was "giving special attention to the family to make sure they're safe," but declined to elaborate.

"This thing broke on a Sunday, when we started receiving inquiries from the public about terrorists," he said.

The Voricks said they had made several unsuccessful attempts to contact Fox News and Loftus by telephone and e-mail. They want a public apology and correction.

Both have issued apologies — Fox in a one-line statement to the Los Angeles Times and Loftus in an e-mail to the family — after being contacted by the newspaper. The Voricks say they have yet to see or hear a correction.

"John Loftus has been reprimanded for his careless error, and we sincerely apologize to the family," said Fox spokeswoman Irena Brigante.

Loftus also apologized and told The Times last week that "mistakes happen." (Noooooo, this is not a mistake. No one's home address should be given out like this. Loftus should be fired. Period... DN)

"I'm terribly sorry about that. I had no idea. That was the best information we had at the time," he said.

Loftus said he gave out the address to help local police, and insisted that Hilal, a Garden Grove grocery store owner, was a terrorist.

"I thought it might help police in that area now that we have positively identified a terrorist living in [Orange County]," he said. (Then tell the police, idiot, not the whole freakin' area... DN)

Cathy Viray, an FBI spokeswoman in Los Angeles, said agents were looking into Loftus' terrorist allegations but stopped short of calling it an investigation.

The Voricks' nightmare began Aug. 7 when they were returning from SeaWorld in San Diego with their daughters, 17 and 5, and son, 14.

"I was driving home and my neighbor called saying that some guy on Fox said a terrorist lives at my house and gave out the address," Randy Vorick said.

The next day, the couple left for a four-day cruise to Santa Catalina Island and Ensenada, leaving their children in the care of a house-sitter and Randy Vorick's brother, all unaware of the growing fallout from Fox's report.

When they returned Aug. 12, Randy Vorick said he had received several e-mails and messages on his cellphone from friends who told him that Loftus had been interviewed on KFI-AM (640) radio and repeated his allegation about a terrorist living in La Habra. The radio station did not broadcast his address. (Well, thank you KFI; the fools at Clear Channel must not own you... DN)

In addition, the house-sitter said police had stopped by Aug. 8 to check on their safety and were keeping an eye on the house. Randy Vorick said he had e-mailed Fox and Loftus, asking for a public retraction and apology.

He said the apologies that came were too little, too late.On Monday night, the day after someone spray-painted their house, the Voricks were up all night looking at the street and the cars that drove by.

"I just want a good night's sleep," Randy Vorick said. "I don't know when I'm going to have it."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
If you want other stories on this topic, search the Archives at latimes.com/archives.
Link

<><><><><><><><>

TALKING POINTS: Bush Can’t Defend War on Merits; Tars Critics Instead
IRAQ: White House's PR offensive on Iraq falls flat
VALUES: Pat Robertson's website values differ from the values he espouses on his TV show
MILITARY: Army seeking to provide better protection for troops by replacing Humvees

DAILY GRILL
"I talked to Condi, and there is not -- as I understand it ... the constitution talks about [Islam not as] 'the religion,' but 'a religion.'"
-- President Bush, 8/23/05

VERSUS
"Islam is the official religion of the state."
-- Iraqi draft constitution

DAILY OUTRAGE
Uganda has so mismanaged its AIDS funding that the Global Fund has been forced to suspend its grants to that country.

ARCHIVES
Progress Report

POLITICS WITH AN ATTITUTDE
Everyone from Barack Obama to Stephen Colbert talks to Campus Progress. Right-wingers seem scared of us. Find out why here.

August 24, 2005
IRAQ
Demonizing Dissent
MEDIA
Networks Reject Ad Criticizing Their Coverage
UNDER THE RADAR
Go Beyond The Headlines

For news and updates throughout the day, check out our blog at ThinkProgress.org.

Sign up Contact us Permalinks/Archive Mobile RSS Print

IRAQ
Demonizing Dissent
As dissatisfaction with the administration's Iraq policy mounts, President Bush's approval ratings have plummeted to just 36 percent -- three points lower than President Nixon's approval ratings during the height of the Watergate scandal in the summer of 1973. According to Gallup, "Americans have become negative about the war in Iraq more quickly than they did for the Vietnam War." The most recent quarterly data found "50% say it was a mistake to send troops. ... In the comparable quarter for the Vietnam War, Gallup found 41% saying the conflict was a mistake." On the surface, Bush claims to respect people who disagree with him. On Monday, a White House spokesperson said Bush "believes that Americans, obviously, have a right to express their views. That’s part of being American. That’s one of the things we’re fighting for.” In actuality, the administration has launched an effort to demonize Bush's critics. It's an underreported aspect of a coordinated public relations campaign by President Bush and his allies to rebuild support for the war. Real leadership means accepting real debate.

BUSH SPOKESMAN SAYS CRITICS WANT TERRORISTS TO WIN:
Aboard Air Force One Monday, "Trent Duffy, a White House spokesman ... said that President Bush believes that those who want the U.S. to begin to change course in Iraq do not want America to win the overall 'war on terror.'" Duffy said that Bush "can understand that people don't share his view that we must win the war on terror ... but he just has a different view.

"RUMSFELD COMPARES CRITICS TO COMMUNISTS, STALINISTS:
In a press briefing yesterday Donald Rumsfeld, referring to Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE), noted that "it's been alleged that we're not winning" in Iraq. Rumsfeld made it clear that he has no respect for people who question his policies or progress in Iraq. He noted that "[t]hroughout history there have always been those who predict America's failure just around every corner. At the height of World War II ... [m]any Western intellectuals praised Stalin ... [f]or a time, Communism was very much in vogue." Rumsfeld added, "those being tossed about by the winds of concern should recall that Americans are a tough lot and will see their commitments through." Apparently, our most important commitment is a reflexive acceptance of Rumsfeld's policies.

BUSH SAYS SHEEHAN DOESN'T SPEAK FOR MOST FAMILIES:
The White House touts the "private meetings" President Bush has with the families of fallen soldiers. Yesterday, at a resort in Donnelly, Idaho, Bush dispensed with confidentiality to score political points. Speaking with reporters, Bush claimed Cindy Sheehan -- a war critic who lost her son in Iraq -- "doesn't represent the view of a lot of the families I have met with." Bush was met in Donnelly, a town of 130 people, by more than 200 protesters.

MEDIA
Networks Reject Ad Criticizing Their Coverage
Apparently you can’t even pay TV networks to cover genocide. American Progress and the Genocide Intervention Fund have created a television advertisement for BeAWitness.org, our netroots campaign that calls out the television news media for their deplorable coverage of the genocide in Darfur. In the last few days, three Washington, DC television affiliates, NBC-4, CBS-9, and ABC-7, informed us that they refuse to air the ad. For months, these networks (as well as their cable counterparts) have closed their eyes to the ultimate crime against humanity. Now they won’t allow people to purchase 30 seconds of air time urging better coverage of the genocide. Send a message to NBC, CBS and ABC demanding that the stations air the ad.

STATIONS EFFECTIVELY IGNORE DARFUR:
Since the major networks seem to have their hands full covering stories like Michael Jackson and the Runaway Bride, the ad does what the media won’t -- puts the spotlight on Darfur, and suggests that genocide warrants increased coverage. ABC News broadcast just 18 minutes of Darfur coverage in its nightly newscasts in all of 2004 -- “and that turns out to be a credit to Peter Jennings,” as NY Times columnist Nicholas Kristof points out. NBC News featured five minutes, and CBS only had three, “about a minute of coverage for every 100,000 deaths.” This past June, the three networks combined aired 15 segments on Darfur. During the same period, they aired 863 segments on Tom Cruise.

STILL WAITING FOR AN EXPLANATION:
Not only did the networks refuse to air the ad, but they did so without offering any explanation for their decisions. All three responded in terse, one- or two-line e-mails. NBC wrote, "WRC-TV has chosen not to accept the submitted commercial advertisement, 'Genocide is News,' sponsored by BeAWitness.org." The CBS affiliate said, "Management did not approve the airing of the “Beawitness.org” spot." An official at ABC told us, "I just got word that WJLA-TV will not be able to accept the creative for Be a Witness.org. Please let me know if there may be any alternative creative that we may run.

"EVER HEAR OF GLASS HOUSES?:
If only cable news networks would be as critical of their own coverage as they are of others'. Earlier this month, CNN anchor Andersen Cooper launched an on-air critique of his “cable competitors” for their “downright ridiculous” obsession with the Natalee Holloway kidnapping case in Aruba. MSNBC host Dan Abrams hit back the next night, slamming Cooper for trying "to jump on the journalistic high horse," and noting that Cooper himself had run numerous segments on the "disappearance of the newlywed on a cruise ship ... women who love killers and the Jackson jurors.” Today, CNN President Jonathan Klein also lashed out, this time at cable ratings leader Fox News. "Fourteen Americans dead, and they have Natalee Holloway on," Klein said of the Fox program hosted by Greta van Susteren. "There are an awful lot of things you can cover if you don't have people tied up with this meaningless nonsense." Note to Kline: one of those things is genocide.

Under the Radar
MILITARY -- CONFIDENCE RETREATS:
A McCormick Tribune/Gallup poll scheduled for release today reveals startling information about Americans' confidence in military news. According to the poll, 54 percent of Americans say the military keeps them well informed, down from 77 percent in 1999. Perhaps more surprising, the survey also found that three quarters of Americans believe that the military occasionally provides false or inaccurate information to the media. Sixty percent of the public said they did not receive enough information from the military to make informed decisions about such affairs.

ETHICS -- BUSH ADMINISTRATION DEMOTES CAREER EMPLOYEE FOR TELLING THE TRUTH:
In yet another example of the Bush administration acting with retribution against those who don't toe the party line, the New York Times reports that the administration has demoted the Justice Department's director of Justice Statistics, Lawrence Greenfeld. His crime? Complaining that senior political officials were downplaying data on the aggressive police treatment of black and Hispanic drivers. Four months ago, political supervisors in the Office of Justice Programs ordered Greenfeld to delete references to statistical data showing that once they were stopped by police Hispanics were searched 11.4 percent of the time and blacks were searched 10.2 percent of time, compared to only 3.5 percent for white drivers. Greenfeld refused to delete the references from the news release, so the DoJ attempted to bury the report by not issuing a release of the report's findings. A source familiar with the dispute said, "Larry wanted to ensure that the integrity of the data was not compromised, and that's what's causing a lot of anxiety. We've seen a desire for more control over B.J.S. [Bureau of Justice Statistics] from the powers that be, and that's what seemed to get Larry in trouble.

"WAR ON TERROR -- REST IN OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM:
President Bush often appears to use troops as props for photo opportunities; now he’s figured out a way to use them as propaganda even after death. In a break from precedent, the Pentagon is inscribing headstones at Arlington National Cemetery with more than the traditional name, rank and date of death. Now the Defense Department is including its ad slogan operation names --“Operation Enduring Freedom,” “Operation Iraqi Freedom.” Many families were upset that the grave of their loved one was given the “special inscription” even when the family did not want it. Others were simply taken aback by the Pentagon’s willingness to put PR slogans on graves. "It just seems a little brazen that that's put on stones," said Jeff Martell, who makes headstones for the cemetery. "It seems like it might be connected to politics.”

HEALTH CARE: FAMILY CAREGIVERS IN NEED OF EXPANDED GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE:
According to a new report by the Commonwealth Fund, family members caring for sick or disabled relatives (approximately 16 million working-age adults) need assistance from expanded U.S. government health care. "Allowing Medicare buy-in for caregivers of Medicare beneficiaries, or tax credits for caregivers' medical expenses, could ease their financial burden," said Sara Collins, senior program officer at the Commonwealth Fund and co-author of the study. Caregivers are more likely than non-caregivers to stop work, to miss days of work if they are employed, and to lack health-insurance coverage. Kathleen Stoll, director of health policy at Families USA, said, "Right now we have $10 billion in cuts on the table for the Medicare program in the U.S. Congress ... so we're moving in the wrong direction."
Link

<><><><><><><><>

Pat Oliphant



Dan Bern - After The Parade lyrics

I shot two men in a military car
On a road in a country I can't pronounce
I saw their eyes when I pulled the trigger
Then checked the back seat for the body count
I know I'm lucky, I could have been
The one beneath the clover
But who do you think will push my chair
After the parade is over

A three star general at my back
And another one up at the microphone
They call me a hero
And sing 'say can you see'
To the pole where the flag is flown
Everyone stands when my name is called
I alone must sit in the god damn sun, and
Who do you think will push my chair
After the parade is done

Maybe I'll go to college
GI bill
GI bill
Maybe I'll go into politics
Yes I will
Yes I will

I'm glad for the disability benefits
I'm glad for the medals and the ribbons and the songs
I hope the blisters on my fingers
Turn into calluses before too long
I'm glad my mother could be here today
I'm glad somebody drove her
And maybe she will push my chair
After the parade is over
Maybe she will push my chair
After the parade is over

Note: Thanks to the official Dan Bern site.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

My War by Steve Bradenton

© Steve Bradenton.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The following is a day in the life of President (sic) Bush as he vacations on his ranch (sorry - doesn't fit the definition of "ranch," folks - where's the docile, cowpoke-able cows, unless you mean the press?... DN) in Crawford, Tex.

He is on vacation for five weeks this summer.

Typical day... with comment by yours truly --

- Bike ride (Strap on helmet, fall off bike...)
- Lunch with Condi (Pass the grits, fall in love...)
- See Laura, talk "business" (Heh, heh - fall off...)
- Naptime (Swallow pretzel, choke, fall off couch - again...)
- Read a little Elmore Leonard (Wrote Get Shorty - hey, was he picking on Shrubbie? ...)
- Go fishing with "my man Barney" (Swallow fish, choke, fall off Barney...)
- Dinner (Fall asleep, choke, fall off highchair...)
- Ballgame (Throw out first pitch, fall off mound...)
- Bed at 9:30 (Fall out of bed, wake up in OZ, play role of scarecrow, still searching for a brain...)

From The New York Times.
Link

<><><><><><><><>



Like, it sure wouldn't be the first time the USA, through the CIA, assassinated anybody in Latin America. But to have a man of God - a "CHRISTIAN Man of God" if you will - to openly call for the murder of another of God's creatures smacks of rather unseemly behavior, one might think. Ranks right up there with Reichwing pit bull bitch Ann Coulter's invade, kill and convert comment. ("We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity.")

Guess this calls for yet another asterisk after the "Thou shalt not kill" Commandment... --DN

http://www.counterpunch.org/kozloff04302005.html

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. - Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson suggested on-air that American operatives assassinate Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez to stop his country from becoming "a launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism."

"We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability," Robertson said Monday on the Christian Broadcast Network's "The 700 Club."

"We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator," he continued. "It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with."

Chavez has emerged as one of the most outspoken critics of
President Bush, accusing the United States of conspiring to topple his government and possibly backing plots to assassinate him. U.S. officials have called the accusations ridiculous.

"You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it," Robertson said. "It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war ... and I don't think any oil shipments will stop."

Robertson, 75, founder of the Christian Coalition of America and a former presidential candidate, accused the United States of failing to act when Chavez was briefly overthrown in 2002.

Electronic pages and a message to a Robertson spokeswoman were not immediately returned Monday evening.

Venezuela is the fifth largest oil exporter and a major supplier of oil to the United States. The CIA estimates that U.S. markets absorb almost 59 percent of Venezuela's total exports.

Venezuela's government has demanded in the past that the United States crack down on Cuban and Venezuelan "terrorists" in Florida who they say are conspiring against Chavez.

Robertson has made controversial statements in the past. In October 2003, he suggested that the State Department be blown up with a nuclear device. He has also said that feminism encourages women to "kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians."

http://www.tylwythteg.com/christian/chriscol.html
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/7027/quotes.html
http://www.webpan.com/dsinclair/cc.html
Link

<><><><><><><><>

Trifecta 2 by Steve Bradenton

© Steve Bradenton.

http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm

...The White House press secretary Scott McClellan rammed home the message. "Spending time outside Washington always gives the president a fresh perspective of what's on the mind of the American people," he said. "It's a time, really for him to shed the coat and tie and meet with folks out in the heartland and hear what's on their minds." (Except for Cindy, that is. Or anyone with a peace symbol bumper sticker. You know... THE ENEMY! Worse even than them thar tarists... --DN)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1543132,00.html

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Bush will `go on with life'
Defends refusal to meet protester

Sunday, August 14, 2005
KEN HERMANCox News Service

CRAWFORD, Texas - President Bush, noting that lots of people want to talk to the president and "it's also important for me to go on with my life"
(Now which life would that be, Mr. Resident - the one where you spent 40+ years as a drunken, coke-snorting, skirt chasing, draft-dodging deserter, etc., etc., or the one where your Poppy and his friends continually set you up in businesses, only to have you fail and have to bail you out, like when you used to be arrested on a fairly regular schedule, or the one where Poppy and his friends decided to smack you across the face and set you up as interim heir apparent to the BFEE throne, {Jebbie - "the smart one," according to Poppy - is in the wings} and told all those lies and "fixed" all those items on a list [black box voting machines, not enough machines assigned to Dem precincts, purging of voter lists, harassment of minorities attempting to exercise their right to vote, etc., etc.] to get you "elected?" Or the life you have now as a mindless, always on vacation no matter where you are, puppet for the neo-Nazis... err ... uh ... I mean, neo-CONS... --DN), on Saturday defended his decision not to meet with the grieving mom of a soldier killed in Iraq.

Bush said he is aware of the anti-war sentiments of Cindy Sheehan and others who have joined her protest near the Bush ranch.

"But whether it be here or in Washington or anywhere else, there's somebody who has got something to say to the president, that's part of the job," Bush said on the ranch. "And I think it's important for me to be thoughtful and sensitive to those who have got something to say."

"But," he added, "I think it's also important for me to go on with my life, to keep a balanced life."

The comments came prior to a bike ride on the ranch with journalists and aides. It also came as the crowd of protesters grew in support of Sheehan, the California mother who came here Aug. 6 demanding to talk to Bush about the death of her son Casey. Sheehan arrived earlier in the week with about a half dozen supporters. As of yesterday (Saturday) there were about 300 anti-war protesters and approximately 100 people supporting the Bush Administration. In addition to the two-hour bike ride, Bush's Saturday schedule included an evening Little League Baseball playoff game, a lunch meeting with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, a nap, some fishing and some reading. "I think the people want the president to be in a position to make good, crisp decisions and to stay healthy," he said when asked about bike riding while a grieving mom wanted to speak with him. "And part of my being is to be outside exercising." (You bet! We appreciate a president [sic] who's able to make good, crisp decisions. You take all the time you want, all hat and no cattle guy, and we'll wait for that first good, crisp decision. We've been waitin' for damn near five years now for one, just one. When exactly do you think we may see it? ... --DN)

On Friday, Bush's motorcade drove by the protest site en route to a Republican fund-raising event at a nearby ranch.

As Bush rolled by, Sheehan held a sign that said, "Why do you make time for donors and not for me?"

© 2005 The Birmingham News
© 2005 al.com All Rights Reserved.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Frequently Asked Questions: Cindy Sheehan -- Peace Mom
by Will Durst

Q. So who exactly is this Peace Mom woman anyway?
A. Cindy Sheehan is a 48 year old from Vacaville, California, who, in response to losing her son Casey in Iraq is selfishly attempting to horde the honor of being a gold star mother all to herself.

Q. What?
A. She's against the war.

Q. Oh, okay, so why the hell is she hunkered down in a ditch outside the Texas White House bothering the President during his vacation?
A. Vacation? 35 days is not a vacation. 35 days is a sabbatical. 35 days is a retreat. Its five weeks. 36 hours short of a tenth of a year. Longer than the gestation period of most mammals. Where's my 35 day vacation? Where's your 35 day vacation? Where's the American public's 35 day vacation?

Q. Good point, but that wasn't the question.
A. I'm sorry, got a bit worked up there. What was the question again?

Q. What's she doing there?
A. She's camped outside the President's ranch to meet with him and she vows to stay until he tells her exactly what noble cause her son died for. And she doesn't want to hear "Operation 2 Bucks A Gallon."

Q. Wouldn't you think a President this media savvy would just invite her inside for some cookies and lemonade and get it over with?
A. My theory is he's spent too much time grilling cheese sandwiches on the hood of his pickup and might be suffering from heat stroke. Besides, what kind of a man takes his family to Crawford, Texas for a vacation?

Q. Are you saying West Texas in August is not what you call your garden spot?
A. I'm saying it's real similar to hell and that's assuming hell has winged insects the size of footstools.

Q. How has the conservative media responded?
A. You mean the right wing smear machine?

Q. Whatever.
A. Bill O'Reilly jumped on Ms. Sheehan like a irritable gorilla stomping the air out of an inflatable life raft in order to fit it in the back of an overstuffed Cadillac Escalade.

Q. Any specific accusations?
A. You could say that. You could also say porcupine pelts make substandard day care pillows. Cindy Sheehan has been accused of everything from unpaid parking tickets to the ultimate treasonous act -- association with Michael Moore. Won't be long before rumors of a lesbian relationship with Hillary Clinton emerge.

Q. What about the claims that Ms. Sheehan has become a tool of the left?
A. A tool of the left. That's a laugh. Fox News calling Cindy Sheehan a political tool. A lot like a rattlesnake calling a scorpion noxious. Or a White House official complaining about the smearing of Karl Rove. You can't make stuff up like this.

Q. Any comment on the criticisms that the protest has morphed from a lonely vigil into pretty much just another gathering of the usual suspects?A. Last I looked, Jesse Jackson hadn't yet made an appearance.

Q. Any other notables expected to appear?
A. With gas approaching three bucks a gallon, its only a matter of time before a parading convoy of SUV owners pitching gravel into each other's windshields join the protests outside Bush's ranch.

Political comic Will Durst wonders if Crawford, Texas has any decent barbecue. And if they deliver.
* * *
Will Durst is America's premier political comedian. He writes "comedy for people who read, or know someone who does." For more on Will, visit his web site.
Link

<><><><><><><><>

First I checked the Constitition.

Then I checked "To Serve and to Protect."

Then I checked rational ways of defusing minor incidents.

Then I checked common sense.

Then I checked The Patriot Act.

Never Mind. This is "Free Speech Zones" run amok... --DN

P.S. Yessss - I'm sending my opinion to B&N headquarters. I've bought my last item at their establishment. Hope I'm not the only one...

And what's amazing to me is that B&N even accepted this major league a*hole's manuscript. Usually those scum over there at Regnery are the only ones who will publish rightwingnut crap.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
McCarthyism Watch

Santorum’s People Toss Young Women out of Barnes & Noble, Trooper Threatens Them with Prison

Matthew Rothschild
August 19, 2005

On the evening of August 10, Hannah Shaffer of Glen Mills, Pennsylvania, decided to go to the nearby Barnes & Noble outside of Wilmington. She wanted to see Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, who was promoting his book, “It Takes a Family.”

The event was billed as a “book signing and discussion,” Shaffer says.

But discussion was the last thing that the Senator’s people wanted.

Shaffer, her friends, and two other young women were booted out of the store and threatened with imprisonment even before they had a chance to say a word to Santorum, as Al Mascitti first noted in the Delaware News Journal.

Shaffer, 18, thought Santorum’s public appearance might be a good occasion to ask him a few questions.

“He is my Senator,” she says, and she wanted to challenge him on his notorious claim that legalizing gay marriage was akin to legalizing incest and bestiality.

“So I contacted a few of my left-leaning friends, and they said they’d really like to be there because they felt the same way,” she says.
When she arrived at 6:00 p.m., some of her friends were already there, along with two other young women she didn’t know, Stacey Galperin and Miriam Rocek.

As Shaffer was talking with her friends, Rocek made a joke.

She held up a copy of a book by the gay writer Dan Savage called “The Kid,” which is about how he and his partner adopted a son. And Rocek said, “It would be funny if we got Santorum to sign this book.” (To discredit Santorum, Savage and his readers in 2003 came up with a nasty definition of “Santorum” that now often appears on Internet searches for Santorum’s name.)

Not everyone enjoyed the joke.

“A woman nearby snapped: ‘He’s only here to sign his own book. He won’t sign that,’ ” recalls Galperin.

Shaffer says the woman also added, “You’re shameful and disgusting.”

For a minute, the young women thought that would be the end of it.

But no such luck.

A state trooper in full uniform, including hat and gun, was in the store, and, according to Shaffer and Galperin, he met with the person who didn’t care for the Dan Savage joke, along with a few others, including members of the store and Santorum’s people.

Galperin says she heard the trooper ask, “Do you want me to get rid of them?”

And then the trooper, Delaware State Police Sgt. Mark DiJiacomo, who was on detail as a private security guard, came over to the group of women.

Here is the conversation, as Galperin remembers it: “You guys have to leave.”

“Why?”

“Your business is not wanted here. They don’t want you here anymore. If you don’t leave, you’re going to be arrested. If you can’t post bail, you’ll go to prison. Those of you who are under 18 will go to Ferris [the juvenile detention center]. And those of you over 18 will go either to Gander Hill Prison or the woman’s correctional facility. Any questions?”

Shaffer remembers the conversation basically the same way.

“I said, ‘Sir, we’re not doing anything wrong. We’re sitting in a bookstore. On what grounds would we be arrested?’ ”

“He said, ‘This is private property. Are you going to leave on your own, or are you going to leave in cuffs?”

Shaffer decided to leave with her friends.

Galperin and Rocek decided to stay.

“That’s it,” he told them, according to Galperin. “You’re under arrest.

Give me your ID. You’re going to prison.”

Sgt. DiJiacomo led the two out to his police car.

“You’re going to embarrass your families,” he told them, she recalls. “Your names are going to be all over the paper.”

He told Rocek to put her hands on the squad car, and then told both of them to call their parents and tell them to bring “at least $1,000 in bail money,” Galperin says.

Galperin reached her father, an attorney.

“I told my dad, ‘I’m under arrest for expressing dissenting opinions.’ ”

Her father asked to speak to the sergeant.

“Your dad says get out of here,” the sergeant told her. “He’ll meet you at home.”

And so they both left.

By this time, Hannah Shaffer managed to reach her mother on the phone, who was planning on going to the event anyway.

“She came and said whoever wants to return to the bookstore should come with her and we would talk respectfully to the police officer and to Barnes & Noble about why they had kicked us out and threatened to arrest us,” Shaffer says.

“Six or seven of the braver kids got in the car and we drove back over to the parking lot of Barnes & Noble,” she recalls. “We were standing outside in the parking lot and my mother went into the store. Just as she entered, the officer came out, and he saw us, and he drove over in his car very fast.”

Here’s her account.

“You’re under arrest. Get into the car.’

“But my mom took us over here and wanted to speak to you.”

“Do I look like your mother? You’re not wanted here. You had your chance. You showed up again. Now you’re under arrest.”

Shaffer said he then asked the ages of everyone in the group, and he used this information to further threaten her.

“Not only will you be arrested for trespassing, but I’ve got you on the counts for contributing to the delinquency of one, two, three, four, five minors,” he said, according to Shaffer. “Those are serious charges. Is that really something you want on your record? Is that something that will make your parents proud?”

And he warned them, she says, that they would be arrested if they ever showed up at the bookstore or the mall again.

At that point, he let Shaffer and the other young women leave.

“I was pretty upset,” Shaffer says.

So was her mother.

“These are the cream of the crop--the outgoing student class president, students who had given hundreds of hours of community service, kids who wouldn’t know how to cause trouble in a public place much less in their own basements,” says Heidi Shaffer, who had encouraged her daughter to go to the book signing. “This is unconscionable.”

Heidi Shaffer says she approached Sergeant DiJiacomo.

“I actually tried to talk humanely to the policemen,” she says. “He told me if I took any of the underaged kids in, I would be charged with contributing to the delinquency of a minor.”

Heidi Schaffer says she is most upset about the strong-arm tactics of Sgt. DiJiacomo. “One of the girls came home and was hysterical for about two days,” she says. “Some even were afraid to tell their parents. That this hired gun can say whatever he wants and terrorize these kids is very, very scary.”

Sgt. DiJiacomo did not return my phone calls seeking comment.

“From all indications that we have, he handled his duties and responsibilities appropriately,” says Lieutenant Joseph Aviola, director of public affairs for the Delaware State Police. Aviola says two customers warned Sgt. DiJiacomo that the young women were planning a disturbance and that there had been a previous incident at a book signing with Santorum.

Aviola says it is not uncommon for Delaware state troopers, in their official capacity, to work for private contractors, who later reimburse the state.

Senator Santorum’s office did not provide comment on this story. Robert Traynham, communications director for Santorum, told me to contact the public relations firm that was handling the book tour, Shirley&Banister, in Virginia. Account Supervisor Kevin McVicker at Shirley&Banister failed to return three calls for comment.

When I contacted the Wilmington Barnes & Noble store and asked for a manager, someone named Pam came on the phone, said “No Comment,” wouldn’t give her last name, and hung up.

At Barnes & Noble’s headquarters, Mary Ellen Keating, senior vice president for corporate communications and public affairs, gave this account.

“I spoke to the assistant manager, and what she told me was that the store management was not consulted on how the situation was managed,” she says. “A state policeman, without consulting management, removed these students from the store.”

Drew Fennell, executive director of the Delaware ACLU, sees the incident in a larger context. “This is trickle down from Bush: Politicians are now keeping away, out of sight, anybody who disagrees with them,” she says. “If the Senator’s staff was so put off by the idea he might be asked a difficult question that they brought in the police, that’s a sad commentary on the state of political discourse. ”

Fennel is also particularly concerned about the participation of the Delaware state trooper. “That puts a different and far more disturbing face on this,” she says. “Frankly, it’s a great deal more intimidating to be asked to leave by an armed police officer threatening you with arrest than if the manager does it.”

She says Sgt. DiJiacomo “truly overstepped the bounds” in threatening the young women.

While the ACLU and the women involved have not decided whether to take legal action, they are considering their options.
Link

<><><><><><><><>


LIVE! RUDE! GIRL!
NO BREAST FOR THE WICKED
Neva Chonin
Sunday, August 21, 2005

“Labor to keep alive in your breast that little spark of celestial fire called conscience.”
— George Washington .

Welcome to the United States circa 2005, where all the women are wrong, all the men are still looking and all the children are below average.

No matter. At least they're decent. Damn, they're downright crazy with decency in Kentucky. To prove this, on Aug. 1, Lexington public radio station WUKY-FM decided to cancel an offensive radio show. Howard Stern? Some phone-in sexologist? Nah. Garrison Keillor's "Writer's Almanac."

That's right ... no, really. No. Really.

Station General Manager Tom Godell told the Lexington Herald-Leader that WUKY had been tracking the show's content for a year. And by God, the vigilance paid off when Keillor threw morality to the wind and read three poems containing words that dare not speak their names on the American airwaves. "Curse of the Cat Woman" by Edward Field (broadcast July 23) and "Thinking About the Past" by Donald Justice (Aug. 12) both contained the word "breast." "Reunion" by Amber Coverdale (Aug. 2) included the phrase "get high. "

Terrified of Federal Communications Commission censure in a hypervigilant, ultraconservative climate, WUKY moved swiftly and cut "The Writer's Almanac" from its schedule. Two weeks later, it just as swiftly reversed the cancellation after a wave of protest from the show's fans. That's right -- decency gave way to the will of the people, dirty though it may be. Money trumps morals every time.

The whole fiasco is funny ... only not. It's more a tragicomedy that speaks to the paranoia and cultural backtracking that's occurring across the country. We are, it seems, under the heel of pursed-lipped hypocrites who canonize retro visions of motherhood, yet are scandalized to hear the word "breast" in public. I suspect that, if they had their druthers, there would be no more benefits for breast cancer research, no Robin Redbreasts, no breaststrokes. Because the filth, my God, the filth.

Garrison Keillor: smut peddler. The mind reels at the concept. Of course, shock jocks annoy the right -- unless they're right-wing shock jocks, of course -- but Lake Wobegon's chosen son, the father of "The Prairie Home Companion"? What kind of prurient minds would monitor a program like "The Writer's Almanac," a daily five-minute shot of poetry and literature that ends with Keillor's homily to "Be well, do good work and keep in touch?" Is basic literacy now considered a bastion of the liberal elite?

For the record, the FCC defines indecency as "language or material that depicts or describes ... patently offensive sexual or excretory references." The FCC cannot move against a station for violating decency guidelines unless it receives a complaint -- and it takes only one complaint to start an investigation. But Godell has admitted his station received no complaints about the poetry on "The Writer's Almanac." In fact, the only complaints came after the cancellation -- from the program's outraged fans. So much for pre- emptive strikes. (If you want to hear Keillor recite the forbidden, go to writersalmanac.publicradio.org and rifle through the archives.)

Keillor is approaching the kerfuffle with his usual acerbic good humor. In an e-mail to the Cincinnati Post, he wrote, "Mr. Godell apparently considers the word 'breast' to be raw language. I don't. ... If he feels it's his mission to protect them from the word 'breast' uttered on the radio, then that's his problem, not mine." In another e-mail, to the Lexington Herald- Leader, he noted, "The fact that someone is troubled by hearing the word 'breast' is interesting, but what are we supposed to do with 'A Visit From St. Nicholas' and the 'breast of the new fallen snow'? Should it become a shoulder or an elbow?"

Leonard Press, the retired founding director of Kentucky Educational Television, pitched in with this, also in the Herald-Leader: "If Garrison Keillor is less desirable on the airwaves than 'Desperate Housewives,' we've gone a far piece."

That we have, Leonard. But if the folderol over Keillor and poetry and "breast" (that word again!) illustrated the extremism of conservative censors and the cowardice of those who would appease them, it also showed there's still some truth in that old "power to the people" adage. Rational consumers can be just as effective in fomenting change as extremists, if only they get off their duffs and make themselves heard. Keillor's fans did, and they won.

Blogger Jeff Hess (http://www.havecoffeewillwrite.com/) was one of the many listeners who wrote to protest the show's cancellation. He received a conciliatory reply from WUKY that included a somewhat sinister passage: "The concerns we have are real about the use of language that the FCC has fined stations for recently. As a result, we have put in place an editing process that will allow us to delete such language from the broadcast without disrupting the program."

Words like ... breast?

Prepare to order chest of chicken with your freedom fries. God, what a country.

Beat your breast with Neva at nchonin@sfchronicle.com.
Link

<><><><><><><><>

...with apologies to Mr. Grant. No, not Mary's Mr. Grant, or Rita's even, but apparently Audrey's, if you believe this:
http://www.carygrant.net/articles/judy.htm

The Judy in question, of course, is also not Garland (Now STOP that, Rochester! ...), but intrepid Nancy Drew wannabe student reporter, White House stenographer and cheerleader for warmongers everywhere, Judy Miller, who single-handedly caused the Pulitzer Prize to slip several notches on my list of admired orgs.

Lou Dobbs' admiration for her also caused my admiration for him to ratchet down rapidly, like a broken extension ladder, despite his intelligent and accurate nightly ranting about such things as illegal immigration and corporate thuggery, etc. Still the only thing worth watching on CNN, and that puts them one up on Faux.

Sorry, but I believe the source Judy is protecting may very well be herself, and perhaps by extension, the NY Times itself. We'll see...
- - - - - - -

Speaking of so-called 'librul' mouthpieces, as the NYT is alleged to be - 'alleged' being the operative word here - I had a comment from "Scarlett" http://sentinelsouth.blogspot.com/ which brought up a couple of excellent points.

She points out that "none of this could be happening without the support of Democrats and the corporate media."

I've railed against the multi-national corporate MSM for some time now and couldn't agree with her more.

The ones whose pedal extremities I've been guilty of not holding to the fires of Hell anywhere near enough have been some of the Democrat 'leaders' and hope-to-be leaders. Probably because the Party of Thugs & Thieves never explain and never apologize, unlike many of us wimps on the side of all that's right and good, and I've usually tended to ignore that which does not suit my purpose. Hey, we're usually only one guy out here in the wild, and there's still only a 24-hour day. (Stop whining, DN)

The neo-Nazis also stay on point, a holdover from their roots in the Third Reich, where the Goebbels mantra was tell a lie, a big lie, and tell it over and over again until the proles and the bourgeoisie come to believe it as truth.

So, resolved, I'll try to bring up my displeasure more often when folks like Biden, Reid, Pelosi, Kerry, Kennedy and even Hillary, et. al., make statements or take stands not in keeping with principle, but rather designed to please the ignorant.

But I gotta keep in mind that guys like these are all we have in the political spectrum other than the Fourth Reich over there on the other bank of the River Styx. Outside of politics-as-usual, however, is what we all hope to be the burgeoning, looks-like-'68-again, anti-war movement, which, if you remember (no, not you - I mean the older farts :) brought down not one, but two presidents.

We also have to keep in mind that if the guys on our side (anyone remember Dean?) start telling the unvarnished truth, it means the MSM, and the too-busy-to-pay-attention voters who swallow the crap they watch on Fox and listen to on AM radio, will not only crucify them, but pick the bones clean.

The killing fields of Amerika are strewn with the bodies of liberal politicians over the years who figuratively (and sometimes literally) died espousing truth and principle.

They murdered Abe and Jack and Bobby and Martin and Medgar and Goodman and Chaney and Schwerner and Dahmer (no - not that one... Vernon) and Malcolm and Lennon and Gandhi and Wellstone and Ann Frank and Casey Sheehan, among others...

Let's hope the millions of activists around the world can help bring down the resident liars and killers.

Go, Cindy, go! ... --DN

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
August 18, 2005 -- 12:05 PM EDT // link // print)

Arianna Huffington has a new post up at her site about Judy Miller, this time taking aim at Times uber-boss Arthur Sulzberger. And she gets into
a thicket of issues I've been giving a lot of thought to as the Judy saga has unfolded.

I'm far from knowledgeable about the inner workings of the Times, as many of my colleagues seem to be. But you don't have to be to know that the new editorial regime at the paper stakes much of its legitimacy on the failings of the old one, and that treatment of Iraq is perhaps the key narrative thread connecting the two.

Allegedly, what brought down the Raines regime at the Times was not simply that he and the paper on his watch had been taken in by a serial fabricator, Jayson Blair. It was that he and his team had missed, ignored or made excuses for other warnings signs about Blair. And this was taken, perhaps not unreasonably, as evidence of a deeper pattern of poor editorial judgment, with political and cultural implications we all remember.

Now, let's assume, for the sake of discussion (but as I and many others believe), that Judy Miller is sitting in that prison cell for much more than the actions one might reasonably call those of a journalist. Assume that she has dirty hands in this whole affair and that the Times has quite publicly and effusively fastened its credibility to hers.

If this all proves to be the case, how will this be any different for Keller and Sulzberger than the Blair matter was for Raines?

After all, going back two years now, the Times has quite publicly and painfully failed to take any account of or responsibility for Miller's compromised reporting. And the back-story many of us suspect to her present confinement (though it is important to say that they remain suspicions and are not proved) was richly telegraphed or foreshadowed in that earlier reporting.

So if this all comes to pass, what will the upshot be for Keller? Isn't it the same? Actually, isn't it a lot worse when you consider that the real-world consequences of Blair's lies were limited at best. Journalistically they were capital offenses. But the stories he made up, from my recollection at least, were mainly human interest type stories (with the exception of some reporting about the DC sniper), which might well have been true, but weren't. The consequences of Miller's deeds are legion; and just as ignored.
-- Josh Marshall
Link

<><><><><><><><>


Hypocrites and Liars
By Cindy Sheehan
t r u t h o u t Letter
Saturday 20 August 2005

The media are wrong. The people who have come out to Camp Casey to help coordinate the press and events with me are not putting words in my mouth, they are taking words out of my mouth. I have been known for sometime as a person who speaks the truth and speaks it strongly. I have always called a liar a liar and a hypocrite a hypocrite. Now I am urged to use softer language to appeal to a wider audience. Why do my friends at Camp Casey think they are there? Why did such a big movement occur from such a small action on August 6, 2005?

I haven't had much time to analyze the Camp Casey phenomena. I just read that I gave 250 interviews in less than a week's time. I believe it. I would go to bed with a raw throat every night. I got pretty tired of answering some questions, like: "What do you want to say to the President?" and "Do you really think he will meet with you?" However, since my mom has been sick I have had a chance to step back and ponder the flood gates that I opened in Crawford, Tx.

I just read an article posted today on LewRockwell.com by artist Robert Shetterly who painted my portrait. The article reminded me of something I said at the Veteran's for Peace Convention the night before I set out to Bush's ranch in my probable futile quest for the truth. This is what I said:

I got an email the other day and it said, "Cindy if you didn't use so much profanity ... there's people on the fence that get offended.

And you know what I said? "You know what? You know what, god damn it? How in the world is anybody still sitting on that fence?

If you fall on the side that is pro-George and pro-war, you get your ass over to Iraq, and take the place of somebody who wants to come home. And if you fall on the side that is against this war and against George Bush, stand up and speak out.

This is what the Camp Casey miracle is all about. American citizens who oppose the war but never had a conduit for their disgust and dismay are dropping everything and traveling to Crawford to stand in solidarity with us who have made a commitment to sit outside of George's ranch for the duration of the miserable Texan August. If they can't come to Texas, they are attending vigils, writing letters to their elected officials and to their local newspapers; they are setting up Camp Casey branches in their hometowns; they are sending flowers, cards, letters, gifts, and donations here to us at Camp Casey. We are so grateful for all of the support, but I think pro-peace Americans are grateful for something to do, finally.

One thing I haven't noticed or become aware of though is an increased number of pro-war, pro-Bush people on the other side of the fence enlisting to go and fight George Bush's war for imperialism and insatiable greed. The pro-peace side has gotten off their apathetic butts to be warriors for peace and justice. Where are the pro-war people? Everyday at Camp Casey we have a couple of anti-peace people on the other side of the road holding up signs that remind me that "Freedom isn't Free" but I don't see them putting their money where their mouths are. I don't think they are willing to pay even a small down payment for freedom by sacrificing their own blood or the flesh of their children. I still challenge them to go to Iraq and let another soldier come home. Perhaps a soldier that is on his/her third tour of duty, or one that has been stop-lossed after serving his/her country nobly and selflessly, only to be held hostage in Iraq by power mad hypocrites who have a long history of avoiding putting their own skin in the game.

Contrary to what the main stream media thinks, I did not just fall off a pumpkin truck in Crawford, Tx. on that scorchingly hot day two weeks ago. I have been writing, speaking, testifying in front of Congressional committees, lobbying Congress, and doing interviews for over a year now. I have been pretty well known in the progressive, peace community and I had many, many supporters before I even left California. The people who supported me did so because they know that I uncompromisingly tell the truth about this war. I have stood up and said: "My son died for NOTHING, and George Bush and his evil cabal and their reckless policies killed him. My son was sent to fight in a war that had no basis in reality and was killed for it." I have never said "pretty please" or "thank you." I have never said anything wishy-washy like he uses "Patriotic Rhetoric." I say my son died for LIES. George Bush LIED to us and he knew he was LYING. The Downing Street Memos dated 23 July, 2002 prove that he knew that Saddam didn't have WMD's or any ties to Al Qaeda. I believe that George lied and he knew he was lying. He didn't use patriotic rhetoric. He lied and made us afraid of ghosts that weren't there. Now he is using patriotic rhetoric to keep the US military presence in Iraq: Patriotic rhetoric that is based on greed and nothing else.

Now I am being vilified and dragged through the mud by the righties and so-called "fair and balanced" main stream media who are afraid of the truth and can't face someone who tells it by telling any truth of their own. Now they have to twist, distort, lie, and scrutinize anything I have ever said when they never scrutinize anything that George Bush said or is saying. Instead of asking George or Scotty McClellan if he will meet with me, why aren't they asking the questions they should have been asking all along: "Why are our young people fighting, dying, and killing in Iraq? What is this noble cause you are sending our young people to Iraq for? What do you hope to accomplish there? Why did you tell us there were WMD's and ties to Al Qaeda when you knew there weren't? Why did you lie to us? Why did you lie to the American people? Why did you lie to the world? Why are our nation's children still in harm's way and dying everyday when we all know you lied? Why do you continually say we have to "complete the mission" when you know damn well you have no idea what that mission is and you can change it at will like you change your cowboy shirts?"

Camp Casey has grown and prospered and survived all attacks and challenges because America is sick and tired of liars and hypocrites and we want the answers to the tough questions that I was the first to dare ask. THIS is George Bush's accountability moment and he is failing ... miserably. George Bush and his advisers seriously "misunderestimated" me when they thought they could intimidate me into leaving before I had the answers, or before the end of August. I can take anything they throw at me, or Camp Casey. If it shortens the war by a minute or saves one life, it is worth it. I think they seriously "misunderestimated" all mothers. I wonder if any of them had authentic mother-child relationships and if they are surprised that there are so many mothers in this country who are bear-like when it comes to wanting the truth and who want to make meaning of their child's needless and seemingly meaningless deaths?

The Camp Casey movement will not die until we have a genuine accounting of the truth and until our troops are brought home. Get used to it George, we are not going away.
Link

<><><><><><><><>

You Mowed Down His Cross
By Perry Jefferies, First Sergeant, USA (retired)
t r u t h o u t Letter
Thursday 18 August 2005

Mr. Northern:

I am a Veteran of the Iraq war, having served with the 4th Infantry Division on the initial invasion with Force Package One.

While I was in Iraq, a very good friend of mine, Christopher Cutchall, was killed in an un-armored HMMWV outside of Baghdad. He was a cavalry scout serving with the 3d ID. Once he had declined the award of a medal because Soldiers assigned to him did not receive similar awards that he had recommended. He left two sons and a wonderful wife. On Monday night, August 16, you ran down the memorial cross erected for him by Arlington West.

One of my Soldiers in Iraq was Roger Turner. We gave him a hard time because he always wore all of his protective equipment, including three pairs of glasses or goggles. He did this because he wanted to make sure that he returned home to his family. He rode a bicycle to work every day to make sure that he was able to save enough money on his Army salary to send his son to college. At Camp Anaconda, where the squadron briefly stayed, a rocket landed inside a tent, sending a piece of debris or fragment into him and killed him. On Monday night, August 16, you ran
down the memorial cross erected for him by Arlington West.

One of my Soldiers was Henry Bacon. He was one of the finest men I ever met. He was in perfect shape for a man over forty, working hard at night. He told me that he did that because he didn't have much money to buy nice things for his wife, who he loved so much, so he had to be in good shape for her. He was like a father to many young men in his section of maintenance mechanics. They fixed our vehicles with almost no support and fabricated parts and made repairs that kept our squadron rolling on the longest, fastest armor advance ever made under fire. He was so very proud of his son-in-law that married the beautiful daughter so well raised by Henry. His son-in-law was a helicopter pilot with the 1st Cavalry Division, who died last year. Henry stopped to rescue a vehicle belonging to another unit on what was to be his last day in Iraq. He could have kept rolling - he was headed to Kuwait after a year's tour. But he stopped. He could have sent others to do the work, but he was on the ground, leading by example, when he was killed. On Monday night, August 16, you took it upon yourself to go out in the country, where a peaceful group was exercising their constitutional rights, and harming no one, and you ran down the memorial cross erected for Henry and for his son-in-law by Arlington West.

Mr. Northern - I know little about Cindy Sheehan except that she is a grieving mother, a gentle soul, and wants to bring harm to no one. I know little about you except that you found your way to Crawford on Monday night in August with chains and a pipe attached to your truck for the sole purpose of dishonoring a memorial erected for my friends and lost Soldiers and hundreds of others that served this nation when they were called. I find it disheartening that good men like these have died so that people like you can threaten a mother who lost a child with your actions.

I hope that you are ashamed of yourself.

Perry Jefferies, First Sergeant, USA (retired)
Link

<><><><><><><><>

Flickers at Dusk
Posted by James Wolcott

"Dr. Spock's chief claim to recent attention has been in making a holy fool of himself over the Vietnamese war--something I would have expected a stand-up Christian like [Catholic convert Malcolm] Muggeridge to appreciate. Getting arrested, marching, signing things--these have their silly side after awhile. But, as Angus Wilson has said of a similar situation, what else is one to do?"--Wilfrid Sheed, "Spock Mugged" (1973)

Interesting transition the other night. We were taxi-ing to Ouest, an Upper West Side restaurant that serves the most divine truffle omelette appetizer, and passed a vigil for Cindy Sheehan at Straus Park. "Park" is perhaps a misleadingly grand word for this slender island of flowers, shade trees, and park benches wedged between Broadway and West End Avenue. The centerpiece of this green respite is a fountain and statue commemorating the couple who went down with the Titanic, Isidor and Ida Straus. In every available walkspace of Straus Park stood vigilants holding candles, their numbers in such a concentrated space giving a chapel glow to the early evening.

At Ouest, we were seated at an upstairs table. At the next table was a quartet, one of whom I'm almost certain was Bernard Goldberg, author of The 100 People Giving Me a Royal Pain in the Tukas. I was 93% sure it was him, and was tempted with the idea of going over and introducing myself in a friendly, joshing way: Hey, it's me--#64!--doin' my darndest to bring America down. But the 7% of me that wasn't sure didn't want to risk being escorted from the restaurant for pestering a stranger trying to dine in peace. That can be so embarrassing.

But if whether or not it actually was Burnin' Bernie, righteous sorehead, either way I can't help wondering (someone should ask) if he'll be including Cindy Sheehan in a future edition of his hit parade of the 100 people screwing up America. I'd like to think that even he has more taste and decency than that, but I'm nearly always disappointed when I err on the side of generosity. Especially since Sheehan seems to have an ineffable gift for inciting wrath and irrational overreaction from pundits and rhetorical lynch mobbers without even trying...a fever Goldberg may not be strong enough to resist.

It's no surprise that the ideological militia of vile bodies on the right would swing into slime mode against Cindy Sheehan. They'll smear anyone (Max Cleland, Jamie Gorelick, makes no diff), though as Steve Gilliard and Arianna document, they've really raided the toxic dump sites for their accusations this time.

Gilliard: "The right is so desperate that they are doing extensive oppo, looking over her public financial records, getting copies of her divorce papers, searching Lexis-Nexis for any comment she made. This ain't cheap or quick."

I have been careful to quote perhaps the most sedate sentence in Steve's post.

Arianna:
"It's one thing for the O'Reillys and the Limbaughs to spew anti-Cindy venom. The problem arises when, under the pretense of offering both sides, MSM figures regurgitate the GOP attack machine's most contemptible hits ('she's a puppet,' 'she's anti-Israel,' 'her own family is against her') as if there are always two legitimate sides to every story. I wonder if the civil rights protests were happening today, who at the cable shows would feel compelled to give equal time to the John Birch Society?"

Actually, the rightwing has gotten more sophisticated than that. If this were the Sixties redux, they wouldn't put on a John Bircher opposite a civil rights leader, they'd find some Southern Negro to testify that they don't need some interloper like Martin Luther King marching into their communities and stirring up more trouble than it's worth. Or some Larry Elder or Larry Cain lift-yourself-up-by-your-own-bootstraps pro-business cheerleader to argue that federal intervention isn't needed to uproot segregation, that the free market will remedy black society's ills if only these self-appointed troublemakers would butt out.

That's how the game is played now. Pit members of the same minority against each other for the benefit of privileged white bystanders hoarding their poker chips.

But I think there's something else festering in the mind of Sheehan's slimers: our old friends Rampant Sexism and Snobbish Classism. Men in authority, and those opinonmakers who polish that authority to a fine shine with their diligent tongues, resent being questioned by women. They consider it nagging, and nagging reminds them of their mother or wife, or a wife that reminds them of their mother.

"Bush's self-deprecating humor was evident throughout the lengthy interview. 'Why would you want to marry a weak woman?' he asks rhetorically, at one point. 'I was attracted to Laura because of her strength -- her beauty and her strength. And my mother? I didn't have any choice with her.'"

A very double-edged comment from Bush, lending credence to the suspicion that men who take public pride in declaring they're comfortable around strong women are blowing smoke. They may be conning themselves as much as they're trying to con us, but the truth is that the strong women they respect are those who play by men's rules. Who know just how far to "push it" before they back off.

Many men respect strong women in a professional capacity, and have no problem with being part of a power couple. But "power" is the operative word.

Men in positions of authority are less threatened by a Condi Rice or Hillary Clinton or Lynne Cheney or Ann Coulter or Michelle Malkin than they are by--well, we'll get to that. Point is, women who play by power rules and fit into the power grid are granted starring roles in political theater. The others are extras and should stay on the sidelines where they belong.

It's women who aren't on the power grid and refuse to stay on the sidelines who get mocked and derided as nags, scolds, and "emotional predators" (to use the disgusting Edmund Morris's sneer phrase). Who, having made their point, should stifle themselves, as Archie Bunker so often told Edith.

Consider how many of the corporate whistleblowers were women trying to be heard above the clubbish din of male executives and who had the courage to go up against the . Or Coleen Rowley, the FBI whistleblower who sounded the alarm about Zacarias Moussaui, and for her audacity to write a follow-up memo about anti-terrorist strategy and tactics was called "a fool" by National Review Online's Ramesh Ponnuru.

In fact, pause here and read Ponnuru's entire post from March, 2003. Knowing what we know now about Iraq, WMDs, and the efficacy of the Bush doctrine of preemptive war, who's the fool?

Or consider the 9/11 widows, particularly the "Jersey Girls." At first the support and sympathy for their campaign for a 9/11 commission to investigate the unanswered questions and security failures of that day were near universal. But when they kept pushing and prodding, refusing to go away and take no for an answer, the attack poodles turned on them for being publicity gluttons "awash in their sense of victim entitlement." How dare they use their mourning to make demands? How dare they mobilize their grief and frustration into a truth campaign?

So, too, is Cindy Sheehan accused of exploiting her own victim mentality--found guilty of refusing to take the hint and get lost. Of being a public nuisance. It's bad manners for her to hang around longer than Edmund Morris and Bill O'Reilly deem appropriate. Bad manners for her to be so unslick and unschooled in soundbite banter. Bad manners for a mere lowly citizen to question the decisions of the country's leaders, and to insist on a personal accounting, a meeting that would require the president to respond as a responsible leader and not as a swaggering war president showing off his big belt buckle as he moseys up to the mike. Cindy Sheehan's sin is asking Bush to stop playacting, step out of his stilted role, and speak to her like an honest human being.

Today I learned that one of the young men on the staff of our co-op building died last week in Iraq. He and another soldier were killed when their Humvee struck a roadside bomb and the vehicle came under small arms fire. He was 29, a real nice guy. I can't pretend to have known him well. He was more of a familiar face. But seeing that familiar face on the front of the condolence card (a photograph of him smiling in his uniform at the camera) hit me hard, brought death to the doorstep. Each death diminishes us as a people. I'm going to plan my evenings better so that the next time there's a candlelight vigil to support Cindy Sheehan, I'm part of it instead of passing by. Such vigils may look quaint, literally candles in the wind, but what else is one to do?

Gilliard has more.
08.19.05 5:23PM
Link

<><><><><><><><>




Ex-Marine Says Public Version of Saddam Capture Fiction
United Press International

A former U.S. Marine who participated in capturing ousted Iraqi President Saddam Hussein said the public version of his capture was fabricated.

Ex-Sgt. Nadim Abou Rabeh, of Lebanese descent, was quoted in the Saudi daily al-Medina Wednesday as saying Saddam was actually captured Friday, Dec. 12, 2003, and not the day after, as announced by the U.S. Army.

"I was among the 20-man unit, including eight of Arab descent, who searched for Saddam for three days in the area of Dour near Tikrit, and we found him in a modest home in a small village and not in a hole as announced," Abou Rabeh said.

"We captured him after fierce resistance during which a Marine of Sudanese origin was killed," he said.

He said Saddam himself fired at them with a gun from the window of a room on the second floor. Then they shouted at him in Arabic: "You have to surrender. ... There is no point in resisting."

"Later on, a military production team fabricated the film of Saddam's capture in a hole, which was in fact a deserted well," Abou Rabeh said.

Abou Rabeh was interviewed in Lebanon.

Photo Copyright Getty Images
© YellowBrix, Inc. Copyright 1997-2005
© 2005 Clear Channel Communications
Link

<><><><><><><><>
<><><><><><><><>

http://www.legitgov.org/coup_2004.html

Go to Original
What They Did Last Fall By Paul Krugman The New York Times
Friday 19 August 2005

By running for the US Senate, Katherine Harris, Florida's former secretary of state, has stirred up some ugly memories. And that's a good thing, because those memories remain relevant. There was at least as much electoral malfeasance in 2004 as there was in 2000, even if it didn't change the outcome. And the next election may be worse.

In his recent book "Steal This Vote" - a very judicious work, despite its title - Andrew Gumbel, a US correspondent for the British newspaper The Independent, provides the best overview I've seen of the 2000 Florida vote. And he documents the simple truth: "Al Gore won the 2000 presidential election."

Two different news media consortiums reviewed Florida's ballots; both found that a full manual recount would have given the election to Mr. Gore. This was true despite a host of efforts by state and local officials to suppress likely Gore votes, most notably Ms. Harris's "felon purge," which disenfranchised large numbers of valid voters.

But few Americans have heard these facts. Perhaps journalists have felt that it would be divisive to cast doubt on the Bush administration's legitimacy. If so, their tender concern for the nation's feelings has gone for naught: Cindy Sheehan's supporters are camped in Crawford, and America is more bitterly divided than ever.

Meanwhile, the whitewash of what happened in Florida in 2000 showed that election-tampering carries no penalty, and political operatives have acted accordingly. For example, in 2002 the Republican Party in New Hampshire hired a company to jam Democratic and union phone banks on Election Day.

And what about 2004?

Mr. Gumbel throws cold water on those who take the discrepancy between the exit polls and the final result as evidence of a stolen election. (I told you it's a judicious book.) He also seems, on first reading, to play down what happened in Ohio. But the theme of his book is that America has a long, bipartisan history of dirty elections.

He told me that he wasn't brushing off the serious problems in Ohio, but that "this is what American democracy typically looks like, especially in a presidential election in a battleground state that is controlled substantially by one party."

So what does US democracy look like? There have been two Democratic reports on Ohio in 2004, one commissioned by Representative John Conyers Jr., the other by the Democratic National Committee.

The D.N.C. report is very cautious: "The purpose of this investigation," it declares, "was not to challenge or question the results of the election in any way." It says there is no evidence that votes were transferred away from John Kerry - but it does suggest that many potential Kerry votes were suppressed. Although the Conyers report is less cautious, it stops far short of claiming that the wrong candidate got Ohio's electoral votes.

But both reports show that votes were suppressed by long lines at polling places - lines caused by inadequate numbers of voting machines - and that these lines occurred disproportionately in areas likely to vote Democratic. Both reports also point to problems involving voters who were improperly forced to cast provisional votes, many of which were discarded.

The Conyers report goes further, highlighting the blatant partisanship of election officials. In particular, the behavior of Ohio's secretary of state, Kenneth Blackwell - who supervised the election while serving as co-chairman of the Bush-Cheney campaign in Ohio - makes Ms. Harris's actions in 2000 seem mild by comparison.

And then there are the election night stories. Warren County locked down its administration building and barred public observers from the vote-counting, citing an FBI warning of a terrorist threat. But the FBI later denied issuing any such warning. Miami County reported that voter turnout was an improbable 98.55 percent of registered voters. And so on.
We aren't going to rerun the last three elections. But what about the future?

Our current political leaders would suffer greatly if either house of Congress changed hands in 2006, or if the presidency changed hands in 2008. The lids would come off all the simmering scandals, from the selling of the Iraq war to profiteering by politically connected companies. The Republicans will be strongly tempted to make sure that they win those elections by any means necessary. And everything we've seen suggests that they will give in to that temptation.
http://www.legitgov.org/coup_2004.html
Link

<><><><><><><><>

(You were warned I might talk about anything...)

I came across this item from CLG:

"Pope seeks immunity from Bush in molestation case 17 Aug 2005
Lawyers for Pope Benedict XVI have asked pResident Bush to declare the pontiff immune from liability in a lawsuit that accuses him of conspiring to cover up the molestation of three boys by a seminarian in Texas, court records show. [Gee, where is Reichwing media whore Nancy Grace? Did she forgot to cover this one? You can't pick and choose your child molesters to attack, Nancy.]"
- - - - - - - - - - -

It's apparently alleged that 'God's Rottweiler' (hey, *I* didn't make it up), while the hatchet-man for the previous Pope, attempted to cover up a crime having to do with a seminary in Texas. And the current Pope, following what worked for them before, wants to be reassured that some damn-fool Texas circuit-riding Judge Roy Bean wannabe, and a single-wide jury of his peers doesn't up and give him a helluva time-out. 'Cause if he's found guilty in civil court, authorities might decide to arrest him on criminal charges (kinda' like a reverse O.J., huh?)

OK, since I'm not Catholic, perhaps some kind soul can set me straight here...

I thought the Pope was considered to be God's representative on Earth. As a Christian (me too), I assume the Pope is following the example and teachings of Christ. I also assume he follows those teachings more closely than I have done, what with me being an imperfect sinner and all.

He's devoted his life to his calling. You know, the whole celibacy, no euthanasia, no gays, no lesbos, no rock 'n roll ("the vehicle of anti-religion"), no dissent, no "liberation theology" in Latin America, no fighting poverty through social action - it's "Marxism," and then there's how he feels about women: no birth control, no abortions, period, ("grave sin" - no matter the reason), no ordination of women.

But I figure he knows more about right and wrong than lots of us.

So how come he wants to cop a technicality and wiggle out of telling what he knows about someone who may have conspired to cover-up the commission of a crime? That someone being ... well... uh ... OK ... himself. Gotta' admit it doesn't sound too Jesus-like to me - how 'bout you?

Mebbe this buggerin' seminarian fella told Joe, before he was Pope, the truth in a confessional box, and since that's kinda' like lawyer-client privilege, I suppose, His Holiness gets to take a get-outta-jail-free card. I dunno, jez askin' here...

Then there's this whole "head of state" thing. I guess it's worked for them before, what with the whole centuries of precedent thing goin' for 'em.

But now, jez blue-skyin' here, what's to prevent the "Church" of Scientology http://www.holysmoke.org/more-theta.htm
http://www.xenu.net/
taking a cue and declaring their big white elephant Fort Harrison Hotel headquarters, down the road from us in Clearwater, to be a country, and whoever the hell is the grand muckety-muck (Tom Cruise? - http://www.tomcruiseisnuts.com/home.php) these days gets to be a "head of state," and wants immunity from blame for makin' some crappy flix (Eyes Wide Shut, Vanilla Sky, Losin' It, and ... uh ... oh
yeah, Cocktail), never mind making an ass out of himself on Oprah? ... --DN

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Pope seeks immunity in Texas abuse case
August 17, 2005

VATICAN CITY -- Lawyers for Pope Benedict XVI have asked President Bush to declare the pontiff immune from liability in a lawsuit that accuses him of conspiring to cover up the molestation of three boys by a seminarian in Texas, court records show.

The Vatican's embassy in Washington sent a diplomatic memo to the State Department on May 20 requesting the U.S. government grant the pope immunity because he is a head of state, according to a May 26 motion submitted by the pope's lawyers in U.S. District Court for the Southern Division of Texas in Houston.

Joseph Ratzinger is named as a defendant in the civil lawsuit. Now Benedict XVI, he's accused of conspiring with the Archdiocese of Galveston-Houston to cover up the abuse during the mid-1990s.
In Washington, State Department spokeswoman Gerry Keener, said Tuesday that the pope is considered a head of state and automatically has diplomatic immunity.

Lawyers for abuse victims say the case is significant because previous attempts to implicate the Vatican, the pope or other church officials in U.S. sex abuse proceedings have failed -- primarily because of immunity claims and the difficulty serving Vatican officials with U.S. lawsuits.
AP
Link

<><><><><><><><>

by Robert Scheer, LA Times

The only evidence you need that President Bush is losing the "war on terror" is this: On Sunday, the foreign minister of Saudi Arabia said that relations with the United States "couldn't be better."

Tell that to the parents of those who have died in two wars defending this corrupt spawning ground of violent extremism. Never mind the ugly facts: We are deeply entwined with Saudi Arabia even though it shares none of our values and supports our enemies.

Yet on Friday, Bush's father and Vice President Dick Cheney made another in a long line of obsequious American pilgrimages to Riyadh to assure the Saudis that we continue to be grateful for the punishment they dish out.

"The relationship has tremendously improved with the United States," Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al Faisal told a news conference in Riyadh. "With the government, of course, it is very harmonious, as it ever was. Whether it has returned to the same level as it was before in terms of public opinion [in both countries], that is debatable."

Well, score one for public opinion. It makes sense to distrust the mercenary and distasteful alliance between the United States and Saudi Arabia. We protect the repressive kingdom that spawned Osama bin Laden, and most of the 9/11 hijackers, in exchange for the Saudis keeping our fecklessly oil-addicted country lubricated.

Yes, it has stuck deep in the craw of many of us Americans that after 9/11, Washington squandered global goodwill and a huge percentage of our resources invading a country that had nothing to do with Al Qaeda, while continuing to pander to this dysfunctional dynasty. After all, Saudi Arabia is believed to have paid bin Laden's murderous gang millions in protection money in the years before 9/11, and it lavishly funds extremist religious schools throughout the region that preach and teach anti-Western jihad.

"Al Qaeda found fertile fundraising ground in the kingdom," noted the 9/11 commission report in one of its many careful understatements. The fact is, without Saudi Arabia, there would be no Al Qaeda today.

Our President loves to use the word "evil" in his speeches, yet throughout his life he and his family have had deep personal, political and financial ties with a country that represents everything the American Revolution stood against: tyranny, religious intolerance, corrupt royalty and popular ignorance. This is a country where women aren't allowed to drive and those who show "too much skin" can be beaten in the street by officially sanctioned mobs of fanatics. A medieval land where newspapers routinely publish the most outlandish anti-Semitic rants. A place where executions are held in public, torture is the norm in prison and the most extreme and expansionist version of Islam is the state religion.

It's hard to see how Saddam Hussein's brutal and secular Iraq was worse than the brutal theocracy run by the House of Saud. Yet one nation we raze and the other we fete. Is it any wonder that much of the world sees the United States as the planet's biggest hypocrite?

As insider books by former White House terrorism advisor Richard Clarke, journalist Bob Woodward and others have recounted, punishing Saudi Arabia in any way for its long ideological and financial support of terrorism was not even on the table in the days after 9/11. Instead, within hours of the planes hitting the towers, the powerful neoconservatives in the White House rushed to use the tragedy as an excuse for a long-dreamed invasion of Iraq.

Meanwhile, after two wars to make the Middle East safe for the Saudis, wars that cost hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars and thousands of American lives, the price of oil is soaring--up 42 percent from just a year ago. Good thing we just passed a pork-laden energy bill that will do little to nothing to ease our crushing--and rising--dependence on imported oil.

Federal officials project that by 2025, the United States will have to import 68 percent of its oil to meet demand, up from 58 percent today.
There are those who argue that the best rationale for invading Iraq was to ease our dependence on Saudi Arabia's massive oil fields, which might allow for a more rational or moral relationship. Yet the dark irony is that with Iraq in chaos and its oil flow limited by insurgent attacks and a bungled reconstruction, Saudi Arabia is now more important to the United States than ever.

It's scary, but these gaping contradictions don't seem to trouble our President a whit.

As the drumbeat of devastating terrorist attacks in Baghdad, London and elsewhere continue, Bush prattles on--five times in a speech last Wednesday--about his pyrrhic victories in the "war on terror." This is a sorry rhetorical device that disguises the fact that the forces of Islamic fanaticism in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere in the world are stronger than ever.
Link

<><><><><><><><>


Bruce Plante, Chattanooga Times Free Pr
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Book Review Climate Crash: Abrupt Climate Change and What It Means for Our Future John D. CoxJoseph Henry Press, (2005)

A Lesson in Humility
by
Michael C. Ruppert
© Copyright 2005, From The Wilderness Publications, http://www.fromthewilderness.com/. All Rights Reserved. May be reprinted, distributed or posted on an Internet web site for non-profit purposes only.

“There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy, Horatio.” -- Hamlet, Act I, Scene V

August 17, 2005 0800 PST (FTW) -- There is no hyperbole or alarmism anywhere in this book. This is truly a case where the understatement of fact is a bludgeon; an elegant and frightening bludgeon. Now and forevermore drop any illusion, conscious or otherwise, that global climate change is a long, slow, irrelevant process. And forevermore drop any belief that science, as articulated by the human mind, is the final or complete answer to anything.

I won’t tell you what John D. Cox didn’t say until the very end.

Cox, a seasoned journalist writing with silky aplomb, lays out scientific facts discovered over the last ninety years in a way that sets the reader up for a seemingly endless warehouse of other shoes dropping on our comfortable notions about how this planet behaves (and has behaved for millennia). The earth is a living thing.

The book really operates on two levels. It starts with the courageous (and ultimately fatal) research of German scientist Alfred Wegener in 1912 who speculated that the Greenland Ice Shelf might contain a detailed record of earth’s climate history going back several hundred thousand years. It follows with a detailed history of how science – ever reluctant to challenge sacred bovines – has come to make a series of discoveries demonstrating that Mother Earth can be fickle, unpredictable and very rapid in her “mood swings”. As the scientific discoveries unfold, a whole new reality appears showing that, even without the gross anthropogenic “tinkering” of modern man in the form of greenhouse gasses, deforestation, and pollution, mankind is about as secure on this planet as were the dinosaurs, the Saber-toothed tiger and the Trilobite.

So much for our supremacy.

On another level however, Climate Crash is also an exposé of the arrogance and myopic self-centeredness of the human ego. While giving due honor and praise to scientists who fought against the grain to establish that global climate collapses can occur in as little as one year, it leaves elegantly unsaid the fact that had mankind not been so in love with convenient scientific constructs, it might now stand a better chance of survival as we face a real climate collapse that has already begun in earnest.

I wish that all of our discussions and pontifications about Peak Oil, about politics and economics could be divorced from one underlying assumption: that human intelligence is the sine qua non of the universe.

Even as we analyze and speculate endlessly about current events, we still assume that we humans can figure it out and hence control it. That is where our collective fear (False Evidence Appearing Real) drives us. It is unthinkable to us that anything might be superior in consciousness or power to the human mind.

There is no spiritual (as opposed to religious) humility in our analyses. There is no awareness that humans simply cannot control the universe (and shouldn't). We are as guilty as the elites we criticize for failing to place ourselves humbly within a universe where all things are connected and where many things are more powerful than intellect, will or industry. We are “the powers that be” – our own worst enemies – and we reinforce the same basic error endlessly.

There are many realities other than the human intellect and ironically, science has proved this (e.g. The Tao of Physics). These realities do actually manifest in our limited world view; they influence it, change it and then we dismiss them glibly, ignore them, or denigrate them simply because we won’t admit that we can't understand (control) them.

A good definition of the word humility is "teachable". It implies listening rather than talking. It demands a broader consciousness. It demands a surrender.

We assume rational behavior in all of our conceptually defined human players because we are afraid of understanding or accepting irrational behavior; because irrational behavior threatens our own self image as Gods: definers of reality. I saw a good quote the other day from Chalmers Johnson, “The danger is to believe that Washington knows what it is doing.”

We act and think as though we are isolated from the rest of the universe, our environment, other living things, or the planet on which we live. We treat ourselves as a closed system with no exterior feedback loops and the universe treats us accordingly. How arrogant is that? How dysfunctional? How successful has mankind been? How many human civilizations have collapsed before us: “industrialized man”?

Yet still we behave as if "This time it will be different." That's a classic definition of insanity. Arrogance will be the "cause of death" on Homo Sapiens' cosmic Death Certificate.

Some things cannot and should not be completely understood by the human mind simply because the human mind (on an intellectual basis) is not capable of it. Feelings, emotions, natural and spiritual realms are just as real as the intellect and industrialized man has systematically cut itself off from what I believe is the only truly "rational" approach available: integration on all levels with the world around us.

What the human race needs is reconciliation with the universe and a willingness to trust something other than its own mind. Otherwise, the only thing we really worship is ourselves and it seems as though there is paltry little meat on a bone which we chew endlessly and with increasing fervor, receiving ever shrinking amounts of nourishment as desperation sinks in.

Now here’s what Mr. Cox didn’t say.

FORTUNE magazine wrote in a January 26, 2004 feature article titled The Pentagon's Weather Nightmare:

As the planet's carrying capacity shrinks, an ancient pattern reemerges: the eruption of desperate, all-out wars over food, water, and energy supplies. As Harvard archeologist Steven LeBlanc has noted, wars over resources were the norm until about three centuries ago. When such conflicts broke out, 25% of a population's adult males usually died. As abrupt climate change hits home, warfare may again come to define human life.

The same Pentagon report which sparked the FORTUNE article soon prompted another major story in Britain's The Observer which labeled the Pentagon report on Climate Collapse released in 2004 as “Secret”. After describing apocalyptic climate change triggered by global warming and the collapse of the Gulf Stream an important observation was buried deep in the text.

By 2020 'catastrophic' shortages of water and energy supply will become increasingly harder to overcome, plunging the planet into war.

Let them that have eyes, see. Let them that have ears, hear. Let those that can read, study this book and begin to think about survival. Not for our sake, but for the sake of all of the souls we have brought into this world; the souls we will leave behind us. The quality of mercy be not strained and perhaps mankind might get one more chance at true evolution.

And the next time you hear or see CNN or the New York Times or the Washington Post try to reassure you that climate change is something that takes centuries, pick up the phone and demand that someone be fired for crimes against life. You might also do that the next time you see them report that oil will not peak for another ten to fifteen years.

Planet earth is a living thing. Its lungs are the Amazonian rain forests. Its heart is the core and the magnetic field that surrounds us and protects us. It is capable of eradicating the human race in a heartbeat and all the more likely to do so if we continue to infect it and keep trying to kill it. Our debts are coming due today.
Link

<><><><><><><><>

First, a somewhat apropos personal experience:

During a bout of food poisoning some months ago, obtained at a local eatery which might remain anonymous, but won't: Buddy/Freddie's (don't eat the meatloaf), I was transported to a local hospital.

Upon arrival, spewing from every - well, let's not go there at lunchtime - 'round about midnight (with a nod to the incomparable, R.I.P, Miles Davis on the '56 album of the same name, which features the first of Davis's classic quintets, the extraordinary group with John Coltrane, pianist Red Garland, bassist Paul Chambers, and drummer Philly Joe Jones that still stands as the definitive ensemble in modern mainstream jazz) I was greeted by ER Nurse Cratchit, who, while trying, and ultimately failing - but bluffing through it all as we later found out when my arm swelled up like Shrubbie's ego - to find a vein for the IV, kept up a repetitious patter which I vividly remember through the agony: "You better hope you never get cancer, you'll be throwing up all the time." Rinse and repeat.

Let me mention here that this particular leech factory is one which has at least one large advertisement in local papers every week, proclaiming their compassion and attention to detail in providing the very best of medical care, always with a photo of the week's favorite doc or nurse.

Oh, and let me also mention who owns this particular pain palace, going by the moniker Community Hospital of New Port Richey. That would have been someone else a couple of years ago, but, alas, it is now controlled by our nation's largest for-profit hospital chain, the Wal-Mart of the medical field, HCA (Hospital Corporation of Amerika). BTW, this was not my first bad experience at Community since HCA gobbled it up, as are the comparable experiences of others around here, including medical personnel who previously toiled there and obtained other employment soon after the change. If you're ever in the neighborhood and have need, we recommend Meese North Bay (or their Dunedin complex) or Helen Ellis, all of which I can speak for from personal experience.

You're jez not gonna believe who owns HCA, unless you've been reading me for awhile.

Yep, the Frist Family, who made their fortune by gobbling up mom and pop hospitals and turning them into cash cows, the patients be damned.

You remember Bill Frist, doncha? Heir to the fortune? "Leader" of the Senate? The protégé of Trent Lott (also not a favorite of mine), who went behind his mentor's back and helped dethrone him from the job to which Billy-Boy aspired and ultimately acquired? The infamous cat-killer of med-school days? The one whom his colleagues at Mass General despised for his cold, cavalier attitude, and who said about him when he proclaimed that he often pro-bonoed the poor, that his only contact with them was when he passed them on his way into the OR to operate on Saudi princes? Yeah, the 'doctor' who watched a few minutes of old, edited, self-serving home movies of Terri Schaivo in hospice, taken by her parents, and then proceeded to make a diagnosis contrary to twelve other docs who had actually examined her on many occasions? The diagnosis he later absolutely denied having made, although he had been captured on tape by news photographers doing exactly that? The diagnosis which, after autopsy, proved him, along with every other Repuke who thought they had a horse in that race, dead wrong... oops, two unintentional puns... no prize for finding the two.

Being a Republican who wants to be president next, barring martial law by the Bushies, means never having to tell the truth, as pioneered by the current resident. Darn, was that another doctor pun? I am shameless... --DN

P.S. Let me also say I've met plenty of medical personnel who seemed to care very much about me and the services they performed. (Not so much at Community - at least not in my personal experience.) God bless 'em and I'm very grateful for their work and their empathy. I've also seen some patients who, no matter their care, often complained about, and literally cursed out, their caregivers, for what seemed to me to be no reason other than they were probably just nasty folk in real life. Nobody should have to take that, but the staff did and does routinely. Then again, in the 'nasty folk's' defense, pain does seem to focus the mind on mostly one thing: Stop the pain, dammit...

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
August 16, 2005

By BENEDICT CAREY

Mary Duffy was lying in bed half-asleep on the morning after her breast cancer surgery in February when a group of white-coated strangers filed into her hospital room.

Without a word, one of them - a man - leaned over Ms. Duffy, pulled back her blanket, and stripped her nightgown from her shoulders.

Weak from the surgery, Ms. Duffy, 55, still managed to exclaim, "Well, good morning," a quiver of sarcasm in her voice.

But the doctor ignored her. He talked about carcinomas and circled her bed like a presenter at a lawnmower trade show, while his audience, a half-dozen medical students in their 20's, stared at Ms. Duffy's naked body with detached curiosity, she said.

After what seemed an eternity, the doctor abruptly turned to face her.
"Have you passed gas yet?" he asked.

"Those are his first words to me, in front of everyone," said Ms. Duffy, who runs a food service business near San Jose, Calif.

"I tell him, 'No, I don't do that until the third date,' " she said. "And he looks at me like he's offended, like I'm not holding up my end of the bargain."

Entering the medical system, whether a hospital, a nursing home or a clinic, is often degrading. At the hospital where Ms. Duffy was a patient and at many others the small courtesies that help lubricate and dignify civil society are neglected precisely when they are needed most, when people are feeling acutely cut off from others and betrayed by their own bodies.

Larger trends in medicine have made it increasingly difficult to deliver such social niceties, experts say. Many hospital budgets are tight, and nurses are spread thin: shortages are running at 15 percent to 20 percent in some areas of the country. Average hospital stays have also shortened in recent years, making it harder for patients to build any rapport with staff, or vice versa.

Some hospitals have worked to address patients' most serious grievances. But in interviews and surveys, people who have recently received medical care say that even when they benefit from the expertise of first-rate doctors, they often feel resentful, helpless and dehumanized in the process.

In a nationwide survey of more than 2,000 adults published last fall, 55 percent of those surveyed said they were dissatisfied with the quality of health care, up from 44 percent in 2000; and 40 percent said the quality of care had gotten worse in the last five years. The survey was conducted by Harvard University, the federal Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and the Kaiser Family Foundation, an independent nonprofit health care research group.

"The point is that when they talk about quality of health care, patients mean something entirely different than experts do," said Dr. Drew Altman, president of the Kaiser Foundation. "They're not talking about numbers or outcomes but about their own human experience, which is a combination of cost, paperwork and what I'll call the hassle factor, the impersonal nature of the care."

Loss of Identity

It is practically a patient's birthright to complain about arrogant doctors, foul hospital food and the sadistic night nurse. These are real problems at some places, and since at least the early 1980's, medical schools and hospitals have worked to solve them, giving doctors classes in bedside manner and including patient representatives on staff, among other things.

Yet the deeper psychological transformation from citizen to patient that occurs in almost any medical setting can be more jarring, and anthropologists say it begins immediately at admission.

A clerk, often distracted, often sitting behind glass, hands out confusing forms that demand detailed personal information. The newly designated "patient" then strips to underwear and puts on a flimsy hospital gown, open at the back, a humiliating uniform that often bears the name of the institution.

The psychological dynamics of this identity change have evolved little since the 1950's, when the sociologist Erving Goffman detailed the depredations of life inside a mental institution in his classic book, "Asylums."

After a patient's admission, Dr. Goffman observed, a kind of psychological contamination occurs. In normal life, people can keep intimate things like ailments, thoughts and their bodies to themselves. In an institution like a hospital, "these territories of the self are violated," he wrote. "The boundary that the individual places between his being and the environment is invaded and the embodiments of the self profaned."

Sandra Ramundt, 52, felt this so deeply that she decided to break out of the hospital while recovering from brain surgery last year.

Ms. Ramundt's room was private - she paid extra for that, she said - but despite her expectations, staff members came and went without knocking and rarely closed the door, and the hallway noise was relentless.

Despite repeated requests, no one cleared away the scattering of French fries left by the previous occupant, she said, and sometimes, unwitting attendants would leave her bedside phone just out of reach.

On the night after surgery to remove a tumor, Ms. Ramundt said she lay in mute agony. The emergency call-button was attached to a retractable railing on her bed, which was in the down position, also out of reach. She fell to the floor reaching for the button and lay there for a long time, she said; a friend found her and helped her back into bed.

When, weeks later, Ms. Ramundt had the strength to move, she disconnected her I.V., dressed, stole off the hospital premises and bought herself lunch. She ate it at a neighboring park, before returning to the hospital.

The outside lunches became a routine.

"I did it because I could, and because, to be honest, I was concerned about losing my mind," said Ms. Ramundt, who lives in Los Angeles and is a nurse. "There's this overwhelming sense being a patient of having no boundaries, no privacy, no control over anything, and you feel so awful you can't do anything about it."

At least Ms. Ramundt had some idea how hospitals work, and she could eventually advocate for herself without feeling that she was being unreasonable. Others have found that even minimal objections win them a reputation for being difficult.

Michael Sieverts, a cooking instructor in Santa Monica, Calif., who had brain surgery in 2001, said that one of the most awkward moments during his care was when a nurse tried to insert an intravenous line in preparation for radiation treatment.

At the time, Mr. Sieverts had not yet decided he wanted radiation, he said, and he needed time to research the treatment. Yet in refusing to allow the insertion of the intravenous line, "it was clear that I was putting the nurse into a terrible predicament," he said in an e-mail message.

"She had been sent in to do a job, and she was going to come out of the room having failed," he added. "At that moment, I became a 'bad patient.' "

The Psychology of Illness

Even when doctors, nurses and nurses' aides take care to treat people more graciously, as they often do, the patient may have a vastly different perception of the service.

In the winter of 1998, Jeanne Kennedy, then the chief patient representative at the Stanford Hospital and Clinics, in Palo Alto, Calif., broke her knee cap rushing to a meeting. A member of her staff wheeled her to the employee health department, where a nurse practitioner she had worked with for years began arranging for her care. But the nurse spoke to the woman pushing the wheelchair and ignored Ms. Kennedy.

"It was crazy," she said. "Here I was in my own hospital, hurt but perfectly capable, and she's being very professional but she's talking over my head as if I were a child. And we worked together. She knew me!"

Ms. Kennedy, who retired from Stanford University hospitals in December after more than 25 years and now speaks to health care groups, said injury and illness make people more likely to perceive slights than when they are healthy. "Even if the nurse says, 'Sure, I'll go get that,' and does so promptly, it can sound rude to the patient in this vulnerable condition," she said.

This vulnerability, many patients say, makes noises seem louder, time seem to slow down and anything that is less than indulgent compassion feel like coldness.

People who have had chronic pain know this dynamic intimately. For a nurse responding to a request for pain medication, appearing five minutes later may seem a prompt response. For the patient, the same minutes may seem a purgatory, or even a kind of punishment, into which a desperate mind can project its worst fears.

"When you are in rip-roaring pain," Ms. Duffy said, "you're asking for drugs all the time, and you're thinking: O.K., am I an addict? Am I asking too much? Am I offending the nurses? Are they taking so long on purpose to get back at me?"

So it is that hostility grows between conscientious, reasonable nurses or doctors and conscientious, reasonable patients. And once the feeling is there, some patients begin to fear the very people who are caring for them, they say, and are very reluctant to call a patient representative or file a formal complaint.

The Importance of Names

After spending almost a year in an oncology ward being treated for leukemia, where she said she was spoiled by the nurses, Shawna Needham, 31, of Thomasville, N.C., had what she called a nightmare experience in a rehab unit.

"The nursing staff was inconsiderate and lazy; it would take them 15 to 30 minutes to answer, just to get help going to the bathroom," Ms. Needham said in an interview.

But she was afraid to complain to the hospital. "If I did that, that's the big time," she said, "and if they got into trouble and found out I complained, well, I didn't want anyone coming at night to slit my throat, put it that way."

Besides, she said, "I really had no idea who my nurses were; I knew none of their names."

Names matter enormously, patients say.

In Dr. Goffman's account of life in a mental institution in the 1950's, he describes the admission process as a stripping away of possessions, "perhaps the most significant of which is not physical at all, one's full name."

In modern medicine, patients more commonly become exasperated because they do not know the names of the doctors or other medical staff. At many clinics and hospitals, staff members come and go without introductions, patients say. Name tags are in lettering too small to read easily; the names embroidered in script on doctors' coats can get lost in folds.

In hundreds of focus groups conducted by Planetree, a nonprofit group based in Connecticut that helps hospitals become more responsive to patients needs, one of the most common complaints that patients had was that they could not tell who was on the care team or who was doing what, said Susan Frampton, president of Planetree.

"What we encourage hospital staff to do is introduce themselves, always, and patients should demand it," Dr. Frampton said.

James Edwards of Kinston, N.C., devised an especially effective technique. After being blinded and suffering severe injuries in a chemical plant explosion, Mr. Edwards spent about six months in a burn unit, where he got to know the medical staff by the sound of their voices.

Mr. Edwards was pleased with his care over all, but he became upset when hospital staff members entered his room without speaking to him.
After one doctor slipped into the room unannounced and tried to give him an injection, Mr. Edwards decided that he had had enough, said his father, James (Red) Edwards Sr., in an interview. His son posted a sign on the outside of his door. It read:

"ATTENTION:
1) Please announce yourself when you come into my room (let me know your name and why you are here).
2) Please let me know what you're going to do and how it will feel before you touch me for any reason.
Thanks - Jim and Red"

The hospital where he was treated, at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, has included Mr. Edwards's sign in a training video for its staff.

Grim, drab, soulless, disorienting - these are the kinds of words patients often use to describe medical buildings, and the words evoke both the buildings' designs and their effect on guests, experts say.

Even the humble doctor's office, if laden with medical tomes and framed medical degrees, can make a patient feel like an intruder in an exclusive space; unwelcome or even unworthy, say environmental psychologists.

Larger facilities can pose more practical, mundane complications: many people have trouble navigating the parking garage, much less finding the front door or the admissions office. And once patients check in, they may get nothing more than a wave of a hand pointing them to an assigned room.

"And then off you go, into this dreary, unattractive maze" that is often entirely cut off from the natural comforts of the outside world, said Dr. Roger Ulrich, director of the Center for Health Systems and Design at Texas A&M University.

The Discomfort of Noise

Noise levels may be more integral to effective care than hospitals realize. Television sets blare, moans issue from the room next door, nurses gossip in the corridor.

In a recent study, Dr. Ulrich and researchers at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden monitored the health of 94 heart disease patients. About a third of the patients received care in a unit with commonly used plaster ceiling tiles, which bounced sound waves back into the room. The other two-thirds were treated in rooms with sound-absorbing ceiling tiles, which muted echoes and reduced overall noise noticeably.

After three months, the study found, the patients in the quieter rooms were less likely to be readmitted for further health problems than the others, and on questionnaires they rated the staff higher. They also had significantly lower pulse amplitude at night, a marker of better circulatory health.

"Not to mention that when it's quieter, you can actually hear and understand what staff members are saying to you," Dr. Ulrich said. "These are the kinds of environmental factors that do not show up in a hospital's brochure but we're finding are very important not only to outcomes - how fast people get better - but to their overall experience as patients."

Experts say that many hospitals have already incorporated design improvements, including clearer hallway signs, courtyards, fountains, even flat-screen television sets in some rooms. In May, Dr. Ulrich was in England to advise the government on patient-friendly design for some $40 billion in new hospital projects, he said.

But if the social and psychological culture of patient care is to improve, experts say, it is likely to depend on patients and families knowing their rights and acting on them.

Ms. Duffy now works as a hospital volunteer, giving other breast cancer patients advice on how to avoid situations like her post-operative humiliation: Stop being a good girl, she says; you've got a mouth; you should use it. Have someone with you at all meetings with doctors, if possible. And take notes.

"Otherwise," she said, "you cease being a person and become 'the carcinoma in Room B-2,' like I was."


Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company
Home
Link

<><><><><><><><>

by Alan Bisbort
August 15, 2005 -- HARTFORD (apj.us) --

Did he really say that?

Did he really do that?

These are questions that many Americans have been asking daily since Bush was appointed president in Jan. 2001 by the U.S. Supreme Court. At first, it was the malapropisms, the dyslexic, nearly incoherent mangling of our shared language. Then it was the policy, the day-in, day-out ruination of all that we hold dear, all the tenets of an open democracy under which this nation has, for the most part, operated for two centuries.

Like abuse victims, Americans became inured to the viciousness and bullying, as did the Democratic Party, backing away, apologizing, blaming themselves for the pain and suffering, even asking for more when the pain from the previous whipping had subsided. Thus, it takes a really special whipping, a really appalling act of brazenness and viciousness, to break through this cycle and wake up the body politic.

By reducing the equation to a one-on-one, person-to-person level, Cindy Sheehan, who lost her son Casey in the illegal war in Iraq last year, may have helped provide that special whipping we need.

There she sits, in the Texas heat outside Bush's little cowboy ranch, day after day, as the fat cat Republicans in their air-conditioned pimpmobiles, Hummers and limos drive back and forth along the route to Bush's sagebrush bunker, which is always open to them but never to the nearly 2,000 grieving mothers of the soldiers who've died in Iraq. They slow down to get a peek, and undoubtedly crack jokes at Sheehan's expense, laughing among themselves inside their soundproof, bulletproof, mirrored metal bubbles, and then speed on to their fund-raising or oil-policy appointment with Bubble Boy.

It was callous enough that Bush sped past Sheehan on the way to a fund-raising event the other night, leaving her to ask the obvious, if rhetorical, question, "Why do you make time for donors and not for me?"

It was inexcusable, then, when Bush told reporters the next day that he would not meet with Cindy Sheehan because "It's important for me to go on with my life." This little man, who is incapable of even faking humility, compassion, or self-doubt, who has pathologically dodged responsibility for his actions all of his life, then said, "I think the people want the president to be in a position to make good, crisp decisions and to stay healthy, and part of my being [healthy?] is to be outside exercising."

This adolescent sentiment -- which amounted to telling the grieving mother to "Git over it, bitch, and git yore ass back to Californy" -- was said just prior to his going on another manic, Pee Wee Herman-like bike ride on his ranch rather than take five minutes to go down the road to speak with Sheehan. On the same day, he had scheduled other more important things, as well, such as viewing a Little League Baseball playoff game, having lunch with Condi Rice, a nap, "some fishing and some reading."

I think it is now safe to say that no American president has ever been as small a human being as George W. Bush. Historians can, and will, chew over his nearly seamless series of failures and poor decisions and right-wing pandering for many years. But psychologists and humanists will simply nod their heads in dismay and wonder how this great nation could have been, for eight years, under the thumb of such a lost soul, such a lout. What must life be like under his skin? What happened to this man's conscience, his heart, his mind? It must be horrible to be so distant from real emotion and feelings, to be so cluelessly mean-spirited.

What, then, must life be like on that protected, high-security Crawford ranch? What do his aides and daily associates really feel about this most insulated of human beings? Surely, they have to go back at the end of every day to live in the real world. Surely they have neighbors and interests and pursuits that aren't as limited as those of their boss. Surely they have moments of, uh, doubt or humility or even humanity.

Because we are never told the truth about anything involving George W. Bush, we can only use our imaginations and our gut feelings. Thus, it was that I was visited by what Edmund Wilson has called "the shock of recognition" last night while watching "Downfall," the brilliant, painfully true-to-life depiction of the last days of Adolf Hitler in his Berlin bunker. Watching this, then reading about the same events in Gitta Sereny's brilliant book Albert Speer: His Battle with the Truth, I was struck by how familiar it sounded. While the Americans and the Russians converged on the devastated German capital, Hitler continued to give orders to his generals, impossible orders to follow given the lack of equipment and manpower in the army's decimated ranks.

Hitler's associates, meanwhile, were holed up in the Chancellory -- beneath which, 50-feet down, sat Der Fuhrer's Bunker -- drinking champagne, gorging themselves on food, listening to music and dancing. This loyal coterie was so psychotically attached to this little man below them in his Bunker, that they were, literally, fiddling while Berlin burned. It was Jonestown without the Kool-Aid.

When Hitler made the decision to commit suicide, he called for his secretary Traudl Junge and asked her to take down his "Political Testament." This man, who had destroyed Europe and nearly the world in his megalomaniacal drive to exterminate his perceived enemies, did not evince even a scintilla of regret, remorse or humility. Instead, his "Political Testament" consisted of ten pages of ranting. Junge, in her postwar recollections, said, "You know, here we were, all of us doomed, I thought -- the whole country doomed -- and here, in what he was dictating to me there was not one word of compassion or regret, only awful, awful anger. I remember thinking, ‘My God, he hasn't learned anything. It's all just the same.'"

To the very end, Hitler embraced his narcissistic pathology, one that pinned blame on others. He did not even offer one word of sorrow or apology to the people of Germany. He did not even offer fond farewells to those who surrounded him in the bunker and who would, following his death, either commit suicide or be captured by Russians and spend years in Soviet gulags. Hitler even killed his favorite dog and her puppies. IT WAS ALL ABOUT HIM.

Jesus Christ, that sounds familiar. Way too familiar.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Alan Bisbort is a columnist for the Hartford Advocate.
Link

<><><><><><><><>


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Last September Melanie House of Simi Valley, California was the proud wife of Petty Officer 3rd Class John House, who was deployed to Iraq as a Navy medical corpsman. Eight months ago, on January 26, she became a
widow at age 27 when John House died in Iraq. This week, after hearing the story of Cindy Sheehan, Melanie signed up to organize one of 1,400 vigils scheduled for tonight (sorry - last night.. DN) to honor her husband and the sacrifices of all who have died in Iraq.

Last night I spoke with Melanie about her decision to get involved. Here is some of what she said:

I said when John left that if something happened to him I would make it my number one goal to speak out.

I'm still grieving and probably will be forever. As soon as I found out he died, I felt like I had no strength in my body. I said to myself, "I can't fight for this cause, I can't eat, sleep or move." I was paralyzed both mentally and physically. I became numb to hearing about Iraq or President Bush. What could I possibly say? I remembered that promise to speak out but I couldn't go there, it felt too bad.

As time keeps going, I kept saying I wanted to speak out but I don't know where to start. It has been enough to bury my husband, care for my son and move from Hawaii to California. It wasn't until I got an e-mail from my sister who is a member of MoveOn.org. She would e-mail me throughout about stuff going on about the war. When she e-mailed me about Cindy Sheehan, I said, "I want to be there with Cindy. I want to tell my story."

That's when I started to do some research online. I started to research Cindy and see if this is something I could support. I looked into Gold Star Families for Peace. I wanted to make sure she was supporting the troops. People don't understand that this is FOR the troops. People think Cindy is saying the troops aren't heroes. (Well, that's what the Repukian rats are saying she says. Their lies have no boundaries... --DN) My husband will always be my hero. He was not for this war but, as a member of the military, he had to do what he had to do. It makes me very proud. This is exactly what I would do if I had a chance.

If it wasn't for President Bush lying my husband would be alive and I wouldn't be raising my son by myself. I never imagined myself a 27-year old widow and single mom. My husband was my soul mate and the love of my life. My son will be raised knowing what a wonderful man my husband was and what a loving father he would've been. I will tell my son everything about this father. I will be 100 percent honest about my feeling towards this war and my husband's death.

People need to understand, this doesn't just happen to people on the news. It happens to your friends, neighbors. They need to speak out.

Jeff Danziger
Link

<><><><><><><><>


Pat Oliphant
* * * * * * * * *

August 17, 2005
By MAUREEN DOWD

How could President Bush be cavorting around on a long vacation with American troops struggling with a spiraling crisis in Iraq?

Wasn't he worried that his vacation activities might send a frivolous signal at a time when he had put so many young Americans in harm's way?

"I'm determined that life goes on," Mr. Bush said stubbornly.

That wasn't the son, believe it or not. It was the father - 15 years ago. I was in Kennebunkport then to cover the first President Bush's frenetic attempts to relax while reporters were pressing him about how he could be taking a month to play around when he had started sending American troops to the Persian Gulf only three days before.

On Saturday, the current President Bush was pressed about how he could be taking five weeks to ride bikes and nap and fish and clear brush even though his occupation of Iraq had become a fiasco. "I think it's also important for me to go on with my life," W. said, "to keep a balanced life."

Pressed about how he could ride his bike while refusing to see a grieving mom of a dead soldier who's camped outside his ranch, he added: "So I'm mindful of what goes on around me. On the other hand, I'm also mindful that I've got a life to live and will do so."

Ah, the insensitivity of reporters who ask the President Bushes how they can expect to deal with Middle East fighting while they're off fishing.

The first President Bush told us that he kept a telephone in his golf cart and his cigarette boat so he could easily stay on top of Saddam's invasion of Kuwait. But at least he seemed worried that he was sending the wrong signal, as his boating and golfing was juxtaposed on the news with footage of the frightened families of troops leaving for the Middle East.

"I just don't like taking questions on serious matters on my vacation," the usually good-natured Bush senior barked at reporters on the golf course. "So I hope you'll understand if I, when I'm recreating, will recreate." His hot-tempered oldest son, who was golfing with his father that day, was even more irritated. "Hey! Hey!" W. snapped at reporters asking questions on the first tee. "Can't you wait until we finish hitting, at least?"

Junior always had his priorities straight.

As W.'s neighbors get in scraps with the antiwar forces coalescing around the ranch; as the Pentagon tries to rustle up updated armor for our soldiers, who are still sitting ducks in the third year of the war; as the Iraqi police we train keep getting blown up by terrorists, who come right back every time U.S. troops beat them up; as Shiites working on the Iraqi constitution conspire with Iran about turning Iraq into an Islamic state that represses women; and as Iraq hurtles toward a possible civil war, W. seems far more oblivious than his father was with his Persian Gulf crisis.

This president is in a truly scary place in Iraq. Americans can't get out, or they risk turning the country into a terrorist haven that will make the old Afghanistan look like Cipriani's. Yet his war, which has not accomplished any of its purposes, swallows ever more American lives and inflames ever more Muslim hearts as W. reads a book about the history of salt and looks forward to his biking date with Lance Armstrong on Saturday.

The son wanted to go into Iraq to best his daddy in the history books, by finishing what Bush senior started. He swept aside the warnings of Brent Scowcroft and Colin Powell and didn't bother to ask his father's advice. Now he is caught in the very trap his father said he feared: that America would get bogged down as "an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land," facing a possibly "barren" outcome.

It turns out that the people of Iraq have ethnic and religious identities, not a national identity. Shiites and Kurds want to suppress the Sunnis who once repressed them and break off into their own states, smashing the Bush model kitchen of democracy.

At long last, a senior Bush official admits that administration officials can no longer cling to their own version of reality. "We are in a process of absorbing the factors of the situation we're in and shedding the unreality that dominated at the beginning," the official told The Washington Post.

They had better start absorbing and shedding a lot faster, before many more American kids die to create a pawn of Iran. And they had better tell the Boy in the Bubble, who continues to dwell in delusion, hailing the fights and delays on the Iraqi constitution as "a tribute to democracy."

The president's pedaling as fast as he can, but he's going nowhere.

E-mail: liberties@nytimes.com
Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company
Link

<><><><><><><><>

"You're talking about a president who says that the jury is out on evolution, so what possible evidence would you need to muster to prove the existence of global warming?" says Robert F. Kennedy Jr., author of the new book "Crimes Against Nature." "We've got polar ice caps melting, glaciers disappearing all over the world, ocean levels rising, coral reefs dying. But these people are flat-earthers."
- - - - - - - - - - - -
The Observer has obtained a remarkable email sent to the press secretaries of all Republican congressmen advising them what to say when questioned on the environment in the run-up to November's election. The advice: tell them everything's rosy.
It tells them how global warming has not been proved, air quality is 'getting better', the world's forests are 'spreading, not deadening', oil reserves are 'increasing, not decreasing', and the 'world's water is cleaner and reaching more people'.
http://www.countercurrents.org/en-barnett050404.htm
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
The draft statement shows that the Bush administration is engaged in an "extraordinary effort" to "undermine completely the science of climate change and show that the US position has hardened during the G-8 negotiations. They [the leaked documents] also reveal that the White House has withdrawn from a crucial United Nations commitment to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions."
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0620/dailyUpdate.html
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
The planet's getting hotter, ecosystems are going haywire, government scientists know it -- and still the president denies there's a problem. Guess which industry continues to fuel his campaign?

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((()))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

8/8/2005
Chris Rader, a marine biologist in the Florida Keys, recalls summers during his childhood when his father, Environmental Defense scientist Doug Rader, would take him diving in the Virgin Islands: "Schools of butterflyfish and Queen angelfish would swim by," remembers Chris. "I learned to identify hundreds of tropical reef fish."

Later, as a marine biology student at the University of North Carolina, the younger Rader was snorkeling off the Tar Heel coast to study temperate-water fish. Much to his surprise, he saw some of the same tropical fish he'd seen in the Caribbean. "This was not what I was expecting at all — warm-water fish so far north," he says.

But the elder Rader confirms that tropical fish showing up in temperate waters is no longer a rarity. Ocean experts have spotted larvae of butterfly, angelfish and other tropical fish floating in coastal waters as far north as Woods Hole, Mass. This evidence points to fish shifting their ranges in response to warming waters.

Tropical French angelfish. PHOTO: OAR/National Undersea Research Program

New scientific consensus Observations show that the oceans have been heating up since 1975. Climate and ocean experts now agree on the cause of the temperature rise — human-produced global warming.

But scientists did not always see eye to eye. "About 15 years ago, some of us in the scientific community were met with a firestorm of criticism from some of our colleagues when we said that the episodes of mass coral bleachings during the 1980s and 90s were probably due to climate change," says Environmental Defense marine ecologist Rod Fujita. "Many scientists thought we were crazy, and many thought the oceans could absorb the extra heat pretty well."

Why has the scientific community now reached a consensus?

For one, ocean surface temperatures worldwide have risen on average 0.9 degrees Fahrenheit, or 0.5 degrees Celsius, and ocean waters in many tropical regions have risen by almost 2 degrees F (1 degree C) over the past century. This is 30 times the amount of heat that has been added to the atmosphere, a significant amount even though the ocean has a lot more mass than the atmosphere.

Also, the incidence of coral bleaching has increased worldwide since 1979, and scientists now generally link these mass bleachings to global warming. The largest bout of coral bleaching ever (1997-1998) occurred during the warmest 12-month period on record and in nearly every region of the world. It was a wake-up call that global warming was not just a distant threat.

Scientists have known for a long time that the ocean plays a huge role in climate. Covering 70% of the globe, it stores 1,000 times more heat than the atmosphere. But often overlooked in the public debate on climate change is the ocean's synergistic role — how the ocean responds to the growing amount of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere.

"Even five years ago most people had no inkling of the extent to which global warming was affecting the oceans – but slowly over the years a consensus has been building," says Fujita. "Today, we are witnessing impacts that we largely attribute to warming – like the bleaching of corals, changing fish habitat. We've gone from denial to talking about how to manage the impacts and reduce the threat of climate change."

Eye-opening studies link oceans and climate changeRecently, however, a tide of studies has swept through the scientific community, making headlines and setting off alarm bells that global warming is happening and its impacts are playing out in the ocean now.

One ground-breaking study about the relationship between oceans and the climate, published in the April 28, 2005 issue of the journal Science, "goes a long way in laying to rest the arguments that atmospheric warming is caused by anything other than manmade greenhouse gases accumulating in the atmosphere," says Environmental Defense Chief Scientist Dr. Bill Chameides. "This study is a critical piece of the global warming 'jigsaw puzzle' — one of the pieces that enables us to see the overall picture more clearly."

Another headlining study in the June issue of Science comes from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography. Scientist Tim Barnett reported, "This is perhaps the most compelling evidence yet that global warming is happening right now and it shows that we can successfully simulate its past and likely future evolution." The findings projected water shortages in the western U.S. and western China and the Andes due to changing rainfall patterns and less snowpack.

Two other studies from earlier this year also published in Science show that even if we were to stabilize greenhouse gas at 2000 levels, the earth's temperature and sea levels would continue to rise over the next hundred years.

"The ship is already in motion, and it will take immediate action to turn it away from the danger ahead," sums up Environmental Defense climate scientist Dr. James Wang.

http://www.sptimes.com/2005/08/17/Tampabay/Red_Tide_choking_life.shtml
Next Section: How much more heat can the oceans handle? —>Solutions: What we can do —>
http://actionnetwork.org/campaign/oceans_alive_pledge?

Sources for this special report.
Link

<><><><><><><><>


R.J. Matson, NY, The New York Observer and Roll Call

Cindy's Victory By William Rivers Pitt
Monday 15 August 2005

This thing, the wheels are coming off it. - Gen. Barry McCaffrey, after returning from an inspection of Iraq, 08/12/2005.

They are sunburned and storm-lashed. They sleep in tents that sit along the muddy earth of drainage ditches by the side of the road. They have been heckled by "counter-demonstrators" who chanted "We don't care!" during a rendition of "God Bless America." They have been attacked by fire ants and hassled by local health inspectors. On Thursday morning, at about 5:30am, they were blasted awake by a fourteen-car convoy of Secret Service SUVs which roared through the camp at high speed while leaning on their horns the whole time. (Another of Traitor Rove's golden ideas? Ahh ... compassion - ain't it grand? ... --DN

They have been jolted with fear when a local resident fired his weapon into the air several times to make them go away. When the shooter, one Larry Mattlage, was asked why he was firing his gun, he said, "We're going to start doing our war and it's going to be underneath the law. We're going to do whatever it takes." It is safe to say, therefore, that their lives have been threatened. (Hey - this is Texas, where they don't even pretend to be rational, civilized human beings. No wonder the patrician Bushes from Connecticut love it so much they pretend they've always been there... --DN)

The thing is, they've already won.

Cindy Sheehan and her ever-growing band of supporters intend to stay in those ditches outside Bush's Crawford "ranch" until he comes out to talk or until August 31st, whichever comes first. If he does not come out by the end of the month, she intends to follow him to Washington and camp out in front of the White House. She and the others have been there for more than a week now, garnering more and more attention from the national and international press. Yes, they are tired. Yes, they are uncomfortable. Yes, they have already won.

The nearly 2,000 crosses, crescents and Stars of David that make up the Arlington West cemetery, erected by the demonstrators a few days ago to represent all the fallen American soldiers in Iraq, stretch almost a mile down the country road. Bush had to drive past that on Friday when he went to his fundraising shindig at the Broken Spoke Ranch. 54 crosses have been added to the cemetery since he first showed up for his vacation at the beginning of August. It takes a while to drive past them all. This man, who cannot abide hearing or seeing anything in the way of dissent or disagreement, saw those crosses whistle past his window. That is a victory.


August 10, 2005 A portion of Arlington West in Crawford. (Photo: Will Pitt / t r u t h o u t)

Over the weekend, as the camp prepared for the arrival of the counter-demonstrators, a huge diesel pickup truck rumbled into camp with its nose menacingly pointed towards the tents. It sat for a while, and everyone waited to see what would happen. Ann Wright, the main organizer of camp activities, finally approached the truck and met the driver. He was a father, Wright discovered, and his son had been killed in Iraq.

He did not agree with this protest, he said, but wanted to know if his son's name was on one of the crosses in the Arlington West cemetery. Ann Wright invited the man to walk the rows of crosses and find his son's name. They found it. Ann and the man from the truck sat down in front of the cross, wrapped their arms around each other, and wept. Later, the man shared a beer with Cindy Sheehan and told her he loved her. That is a victory, one that surpasses any sort of mean politics.


August 10, 2005 The grave of Casey Sheehan, who died in Iraq, from the Arlington West cemetery. (Photo: Will Pitt / t r u t h o u t)

For three years now, both before the invasion of Iraq began and then after it was unleashed, millions of people have marched and screamed and stomped in order to try to put a stop to this disaster. The Bush administration was not pushed off its tracks even an inch in all this time. Discussions and debates on why we are there and whether or not we should leave have been bunted aside.

Half a dozen reasons for the invasion and occupation have been put forth - weapons of mass destruction, ties to al Qaeda terrorism, the building of a democracy, Hussein was a bad man - but in the end, the debate is halted by the kind of brainless thinking that left us in Vietnam for far too long: "We are there, so we have to stay." This was the accepted wisdom.

Not anymore.

All the protests, all the articles, all the books, all the whistleblowers, all the criticism combined have not packed the kind of punch that one mother in a ditch has delivered to this administration's carefully crafted fantasy vision of what is happening in Iraq. Suddenly, Bush has been forced to go before cameras and try to explain why staying in Iraq is the only option available. Suddenly, the accepted wisdom isn't so accepted anymore. A majority of Americans, according to every available poll, agree with the lady in the ditch and not with the president.

Bush isn't doing a very good job of explaining his side of things, and his people seem unable to keep their stories straight. After the fourteen Marines from Ohio were killed in Iraq, Bush got up and stated that it would be unreasonable for him to lay down a timetable for withdrawal. Yet at the same time, his generals were bent over maps and logistics notebooks, trying to do exactly that.

The Los Angeles Times on Saturday took a look at the mixed messages coming from the war party. "Are the president and the Pentagon on the same page over the war in Iraq?" asked the Times. "That question is percolating in Washington after President Bush twice in the last 10 days tried to clarify a message sent by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and military leaders. After Rumsfeld and other Pentagon officials indicated their desire to shift away from discussing the struggle against terrorism as a 'war' - saying it placed too much emphasis on military solutions to terrorism - Bush repeatedly used the word 'war' in an Aug. 3 speech to conservative state legislators."

"Then," continued the Times article, "on Thursday, Bush dismissed as 'rumors' and 'speculation' reports that U.S. commanders were contemplating significant withdrawals of American troops from Iraq next year. His comments came after Army Gen. George W. Casey, the top U.S. military official in Iraq, and Army Lt. Gen. John R. Vines, the top ground commander, had publicly raised exactly that possibility."

Hm.

On Sunday, out of nowhere, the Washington Post published a page-one story titled "US Lowers Sights on What Can Be Achieved in Iraq." The story stated, "The Bush administration is significantly lowering expectations of what can be achieved in Iraq, recognizing that the United States will have to settle for far less progress than originally envisioned during the transition due to end in four months. The United States no longer expects to see a model new democracy, a self-supporting oil industry or a society in which the majority of people are free from serious security or economic challenges."

The article goes on to describe how any "democracy" will have to bend itself around the laws of Islam, a fact that chucks the secular-government talking points into the round file. Iraqi women, should not get their hopes up about being granted significant rights of any kind. The kicker came in the third paragraph, which quotes an unnamed US official saying, "What we expected to achieve was never realistic given the timetable or what unfolded on the ground. We are in a process of absorbing the factors of the situation we're in and shedding the unreality that dominated at the beginning."

In other words, the whole thing was a Charlie Foxtrot from soup to nuts. There are no weapons of mass destruction, the terrorists connected to 9/11 were not there (though there are plenty there now learning how best to kill Americans with bombs), and democracy is not to be found anywhere on the menu. The hearts and flowers we were promised have not come, and are not coming. Sure, Hussein is still a bad man, but that rationale for this war is an outright laugher when compared to the cost of getting rid of him. Though Bush clings desperately to his canned lines to defend his actions, the facts speak for themselves. This whole bloody enterprise has been a colossal, expensive, murderous failure.


August 10, 2005 Wearing a hat with supporting messages from friends, Cindy Sheehan of Vacaville, California, takes a moment's rest in the ditch on Wednesday. On Friday afternoon, she was contacted by Coretta Scott King and Rosa Parks. (Photo: Will Pitt / t r u t h o u t)

The funny part is that Bush almost certainly could have maintained the public fantasy with one simple act. He could have jumped into his pickup truck last Saturday, when Cindy Sheehan was alone except for her sister in that ditch, and driven down to see her. He could have invited her into the shotgun seat and driven her around the neighborhood for a few minutes. He could have then gone back up to the "ranch" and told the press corps that he met with her, and that they had looked into each other's hearts. That would have been the end of it.

He did not do that. Now, his generals are at loggerheads with the public line coming from the White House about getting out of Iraq. Unnamed officials are going on the record to state that the whole plan was hare-brained from the word "go," and that the entire deal sits now in the ashes of its own utterly ruined failure. Bush has to keep explaining why we have to stay, why rearranging the deck chairs on this Titanic is a noble and worthwhile process. Meanwhile, the whole world mocks him for hiding from one woman and her broken heart.

Cindy Sheehan has done this with one act of conscience. She has managed to do what no other protest or action or statement has been able to do. She has knocked the wheels right off this absurd applecart. She has called the man to account. She can hang her own "Mission Accomplished" banner above her tent in that ditch. She has already won.

Her son would be very, very proud.



Link

<><><><><><><><>

Suppose you were an idiot... And suppose you were a member of Congress...But I repeat myself. -- Mark Twain

THE DIALOGUE

What shameful toads you are! Yes you, our elected lawmakers. Yes you, the folks we sent to Washington in our names. Yes you, the most spineless, cowardly and craven Congress people in history. Yes you, the most bullied, gutless and shameful herd of legislators ever elected. And you know exactly who you are.

Where in hell is your integrity? Where in hell is your self-respect? You’ve been led by your submissive noses to do the bidding of liars and warmongers. You’ve been suckered into applauding some of the most egregious crimes ever committed by a US government. You’ve become such a pitiful collection of sniveling sycophants. And you know damn well who you are.

What’s that? You want to know what you’ve done? Of what odious crimes are you guilty to evoke such striking condemnation? Is that what you’re asking? Is that what you really want to know? You’re joking, right? Do you want the American people to believe have no idea what this is all about? What nonsense that is.

But, for the sake of discourse, let’s accept your ignorance for the moment. For starters, let’s take a look at two provisions in that forgotten document, the Constitution of the United States. Perhaps their significance will ring a bell somewhere in your pathetic and paralyzed minds.

We can begin with Article 1, Section 8. Here, the Constitution clearly states that you, and only you, have the right to declare war. Did you get that? Only Congress can take on the awesome responsibility of causing death and mayhem when there is a need to go to war. Only the Congress of the United States has the Constitutional power do that. Keep that in mind as we go on.

Next, let’s do a replay of an Article you knew only too well a few years ago: Article II, Section 4. It says that the President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. Remember that one?

Do you remember how you fell over one another to speak at the podia of your respective Houses to condemn Bill Clinton’s private affair with Monica Lewinsky? You came out from under every piece of woodwork in the Capitol with such pompous indignation. You came from both political parties to wail to your constituents about the sexual indiscretions of a sitting President. And then you impeached him.

Yes, you were divided, but you crossed party lines to demand a trial for perjury and obstruction of justice. Keep that in mind, too.

You still don’t understand, do you? Of course, you don’t. You still want to know what it is you’ve allegedly done. You have no clue at all. You cannot see that your guilt has nothing at all to do with anything you have done. Rather, your collective culpability lies in your INACTION, your SILENCE, your ACQUIESCENCE and your docile SURRENDER to the administration of PNAC as fronted by George W. Bush. Your cowardice is reflected in your complicity in his crimes against this nation and the world, and your refusal to stand up and denounce the secrecy, the duplicity, and the blatant lies that have brought the United States to this terrible moment in its history.

You forfeited whatever integrity you might have had as you timidly allowed a curtain of fear and intimidation to fall over Washington and the nation. You knew that, but you probably don’t want to deal with it. Denial is salvation for some, and you probably needed to feel self-righteous about your role in Congress and your loyalty to your voters. Some joke. In fact, you are little more than cheap imitations of true public servants. And you know without any doubt at all who you are.

You still don’t have a clue as to what this is all about, do you? That, too, is nonsense. You do know, you really do, but feigning ignorance is clever and effective. So let’s lay it out for you in simple terms that even you can understand Maybe, when you take a close look, at the facts, you will look in the mirror with a little more skepticism. Maybe, just maybe, you will see yourselves as the lemmings you are. And maybe, just maybe, a few among you will reach back to see if your backbones have any chance of regeneration.

A SHORT LIST OF OFFENSES

George W. Bush came to the Presidency and immediately appointed a cadre of convicted felons and their associates from the Iran Contra era to many extremely important government positions. AND YOU NEVER SAID A WORD.

Members of the Project for a New American Century, proponents of preemptive wars against Iraq and Afghanistan were immediately given more than a dozen strategic positions in the new Bush government. AND YOU NEVER SAID A WORD.

After 9/11, George Bush refused – for eighteen months - to investigate the causes of the worst attacks in history on American soil. AND YOU NEVER SAID A WORD.

Condoleezza Rice lied to the nation about never having imagined the use of hijacked airliners as weapons. AND YOU NEVER SAID A WORD.

Rice, Bush and Cheney had to be coerced to testify before the Kean Commission. Rice refused to testify under oath, and Bush and Cheney testified for a very limited time and only as a team. AND YOU NEVER SAID A WORD.

Rice admitted to the Kean Commission that the August memo had warned about possible attacks on AMERICAN soil by Al Qaeda, and yet the President remained on vacation at his ranch for the remainder of the summer. AND YOU NEVER SAID A WORD.

George Bush manipulated intelligence information in order to gain support for his plans to attack Iraq. That is an impeachable offense. AND YOU NEVER SAID A WORD.

Colin Powell lied to the United Nations in a fabricated presentation designed to gain support for a preventive attack against Iraq. AND YOU NEVER SAID A WORD.

George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Condoleezza Rice lied over and over and over to the nation about Saddam Hussein’s WMD’s, his connection to Al Qaeda, and his plans to attack the US. AND YOU NEVER SAID A WORD.

George Bush wrested away your power to declare war by lying to the Congress about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. He promised to use military force as a last resort, after all other options had been exhausted. He lied to Congress. That is an impeachable offence. AND YOU NEVER SAID A WORD.

George Bush handed Haliburton, Dick Cheney’s former company, multi billion dollar, no-bid contracts in Iraq. AND YOU NEVER SAID A WORD.

George Bush sent Ahmed Chalabi, a convicted felon, and his source for false WMD information to Iraq with and team of 800 armed thugs. They staged the infamous statue toppling, and bilked American taxpayers out of billions of dollars in regular payments to set up a pro Bush interim government. AND YOU NEVER SAID A WORD.

In May of 2003, George Bush declared major conflict ended in Iraq. His mission was accomplished. Since then horrific chaos, death and destruction have followed. AND YOU NEVER SAID A WORD.

The Pentagon refused to allow photographs of returning flag-draped coffins, and refused to count civilian deaths in Iraq. Yet, they managed to stage the rescue of Jessica Lynch, which was exposed as a fabrication. (By, among others, Jessica herself... --DN) AND YOU NEVER SAID WORD

Our young men and women in Iraq were dying and being maimed because they had no armor on their Humvees to protect them from roadside bombs. They were sent to die without adequate body armor, radios, night goggles and flashlights. AND YOU NEVER SAID A WORD.

Tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians were killed by our so-called smart bombs and illegal weapons, including napalm and depleted uranium shells which were used as standard weapons. AND YOU NEVER SAID A WORD.

Photographs and eye-witness testimony from the ICRC and other agencies proved that the US was breaking international law by torturing prisoners in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay. The problem was systemic and condoned at the highest levels of government. AND YOU NEVER SAID A WORD.

Private airliners were being used by the Pentagon to transport prisoners for interrogation in other countries that condone and practice horrific methods of torture. AND YOU NEVER SAID A WORD.

George Bush and his cohorts changed the rationale for going to war over and over, manipulating their mantras as each lie was exposed and new reasons were needed to justify their illegal war. AND YOU NEVER SAID A WORD.

There was no plan to keep the peace, no plan to stop the looting, no plan to deal with an insurgency despite the warnings of so many in the military. AND YOU NEVER SAID A WORD.

The chaos increased, the deaths and the destruction grew, and the insurgency proved to be unending. But your President told you we were making progress. AND YOU NEVER SAID A WORD.

The Downing Street Minutes were leaked to the public months ago. The content of these nine documents made it clear that George Bush had planned an invasion of Iraq at all costs, and that he planned to ‘fix’ intelligence information to gain support for his war of choice. That is an unquestionable high crime that merits impeachment. AND YOU NEVER SAID A WORD.

The Downing Street Minutes remain ignored by the White House, and neither the Congress nor the media have demanded answers from the President. Rep. John Conyers was refused a meeting room for an airing of these important documents and had to hold his hearing in a tiny basement room. Such disrespect was unprecedented and inexcusable. AND YOU NEVER SAID A WORD.

This, dear Congress people, is the short list. But even in its brevity, it is a powerful indictment of your villainous roles in tacit support of the affairs d’etat of the Bush administration. But, to really get to you, to really make you sit up and look at yourselves with some pangs of conscience, the list needs a powerful finale, - one that makes all the other items almost pale by comparison. So here it is:

In March of 2003, someone in the White House committed a serious felony. He or she or they leaked the identity of a CIA operative to the press. This was done to punish Joseph Wilson, a man who had dared to expose George Bush’s lie about yellow cake uranium sales to Saddam Hussein. Despite the seriousness of this crime, George Bush did nothing to try and discover who was responsible. In fact, he refused to conduct any investigation of his own staff to uncover a felony under his roof. AND YOU NEVER SAID A WORD.

After three months of ignoring a crime by someone in the WH, the CIA demanded an inquiry of what they termed a crime. Only then was the case given to WH buddy and supporter, then AG John Ashcroft. AND YOU NEVER SAID A WORD.

Finally, after five months had passed, the case was handed to a Special Counsel working on behalf of the Justice Department. Two years and millions of dollars after the Novak article outing Valerie Plame appeared, George Bush has yet to call Karl Rove aside and demand an explanation. AND YOU NEVER SAID A WORD.

Two years and millions of dollars after the article appeared, George Bush has yet to come forward and tell us what he knew and when he knew it. AND YOU NEVER SAID A WORD. YOU STILL REFUSE TO UTTER A SINGLE WORD!

ENDING THE CONVERSATION

So there it is, folks. There is your non-response, your silence, your inertia in the face of the actions that have brought this country to its most divisive state since the Vietnam conflict. There is a short list of your kow-towing to an administration that has made our country hated all over the globe, and turned our leaders into international targets of ridicule and disgust.

There it is, folks, and if the shoe fits, you know what to do. Your silence has been both appalling and immoral. You are as responsible for the death and destruction in Iraq as the Bush/PNAC warmongers, and your legacy will mark you as the lackeys and bootlickers you are.

But everything changed with 9/11, you claim. We wouldn’t dare question the President, you say. We would surely have been called traitors, or appeasers, or even worse….liberals. We had to go along with him, you insist. And in a way, you’re right.

9/11 did change things. It separated the cowards from those with principle and conviction. The latter, sadly, were far outnumbered in Congress by the former. But that is how history is always made. The few who dare, take the risks. And those few earn a lasting and much admired place in history. Not so, you.

Yes, for certain, you know who you are. But more important, so do the American people. They have watched you cower and crawl and promote the crimes of your President and his handlers. Despite the silence of the media and their complicity along with yours, the truth is gradually seeping into the consciousness of the public. If there is any justice in the world, you will answer to them for your cowardice.

Public opinion polls must be making you nervous right now. You men and women, who represent us in the hallowed halls of Congress, have lost the confidence of more than 63 percent of the voters! In truth, you have not lost it; you have systematically and cravenly destroyed it. You made choices, and hopefully, you will have to answer for them. You saw what was happening, you learned the truth, you were witness to the crimes and the treason, and you sat back and did nothing. You saw the evil grow and spread. AND YOU NEVER SAID A WORD.

Next November, the voting public will have its turn (that is if we solve the election fraud situation that has dominated elections since the 2000 coup d’etat.) They will either thank you for your honorable work, or will remove you from office for your betrayal of their trust. Start worrying now, because your time is short. On Election Day, 2006, the full House and one third of the Senate are up for election. On that day Americans will have a chance to have the very last word. If there is any justice, that word to you will be goodbye.
Link

<><><><><><><><>


Mike Thompson, Detroit, Michigan, The Detroit Free Press

Published on Tuesday, August 16, 2005 by Salon.com
Cindy Sheehan has almost single-handedly launched an American antiwar movement. And in the process, she's exposed a president's feet of clay.
by Joan Walsh

The smearing may continue, but it's already too late: Cindy Sheehan has launched an American antiwar movement. Maybe, as Matt Drudge blared over the weekend, she's said controversial things about Israel. Maybe the IRS will chase her for tax evasion, since she's reportedly announced that she won't pay taxes for 2004, the year her son Casey died in Iraq. Maybe her family has been shaken by her activism. Maybe the smears will even work, and cost Sheehan some of her mainstream political credibility. It doesn't matter: Someone else will take her place.

Sheehan's central demand -- that the president meet with her and explain why her son died -- has immense power in a country that's beginning to understand it was lied to about the reasons for the Iraq war, at a time when the carnage seems not only endless but futile. To build on that power, the antiwar movement being born at Camp Casey must understand and hold onto the source of Sheehan's moral authority: her authentic grief over her son's death and her fearless demand to talk honestly about it, even with supporters of the war.

Bush backers are clearly spooked by Sheehan, and they're shifting their stories as fast as they can get away with it. Early last week, you'll remember, she was a naive flip-flopper who supposedly changed her mind about the war and President Bush, because she'd had some mild words of praise for the president after they met last June. That line of attack didn't work, so this week she's a hardened left-wing agitator, plotting alongside the likes of Michael Moore, Medea Benjamin and Viggo Mortensen to help America's enemies. Need some proof? She's got Fenton Communications doing her media, for God's sake!

There's actually a tiny shard of truth in the latest right-wing attack on Sheehan, but it serves to underscore how dangerous she is to their cause. Sheehan has in fact been active in opposing the war since just after Casey died -- she starred in anti-Bush ads last year. (She was the lead in Michelle Goldberg's Salon feature on the ads last September.) Almost a year later, Sheehan has managed to break through to the American public, in a way that she obviously didn't in the Real Voices ads. But it's not because of the help of Code Pink and Fenton (which joined her after she was already in Crawford, by the way). It's because Americans are souring on the war and ready to hear what she has to say.

After more than two years of denial, the war is coming home to the American people. It's a journalistic cliché to talk about what you learned on summer vacation, but indulge me: With mostly network news and USA Today to provide my news-junkie fix, I learned this August that the war is finally a mainstream news story. I'm just old enough to remember grim footage from Vietnam on the nightly news, and it's starting to look familiar -- maps of the latest attacks, the dead and wounded soldiers, the grieving families and, now, Cindy Sheehan and antiwar protesters. If there's anybody still eating dinner watching the "CBS Evening News," now with Bob Schieffer and not Walter Cronkite, it's unsettling suppertime fare.

But the news is following public opinion, not leading it. The percentage of people who support the president's handling of the war has been sinking, as the number of casualties, and the apparent power of the insurgency, continue to rise. The other thing that's starting to break through is the president's cluelessness and callousness, his tin ear when it comes to the war and to Cindy Sheehan's appeal. Bush is such a polarizing force in American politics that it's hard to objectively describe either his personal political assets or his flaws. Most of his opponents can't even imagine his appeal to his supporters -- the regular Texan, the man's man, the guy you'd prefer to have a beer with over John Kerry -- and of course his admirers can't see what enrages his detractors, the smirking shiftless bully behind the regular-guy veneer.

Maybe it's just wishful thinking, but it felt to me as if with Bush's latest remarks about Sheehan over the weekend, the clownish lightweight his critics know and despise was beginning to shine through for all to see. If you haven't already, take a moment to ponder what he told Cox News about why he could find time for a bike ride on Saturday but not to meet with Sheehan:

"I think it's important for me to be thoughtful and sensitive to those who have got something to say. But I think it's also important for me to go on with my life, to keep a balanced life ... I think the people want the president to be in a position to make good, crisp decisions and to stay healthy. And part of my being is to be outside exercising. So I'm mindful of what goes on around me. On the other hand, I'm also mindful that I've got a life to live and will do so."

You don't have to be Cindy Sheehan to think that yammering on about "staying healthy" and living a "balanced life" while so many are suffering and dying in Iraq is unthinkably cruel, as well as unbelievably politically tone deaf. When I read Bush's quote -- I read it over and over -- I found myself wondering not just about his character but about his fundamental emotional health. It's as if he's confessing he couldn't stay "balanced" if he had to confront Sheehan's grief, and even worse, her questions about why her son died.

And yet, even as Sheehan's public relations victories give people reason to be optimistic about the administration's unraveling in Iraq, liberals and war opponents have to be careful not to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. It's important to understand why Sheehan matters, and how she's gained traction on the war. Yes, it's the uptick in violence in Iraq, and the decided downturn in optimism, even among war supporters, who are continually defining success downward. Sunday's Washington Post had a great account of how the war architects are ready to declare victory -- not a Democratic Iraq but "some form of Islamic republic" -- and get out of Vietnam, I mean, Iraq. And yes, it's also true that August is a slow news month, giving Sheehan more room to tell her story. (I'd add that karma required that the president's stubborn monthlong vacation in Texas -- whether it's after he got a warning about terrorists using airplanes as weapons in 2001, on the eve of 9/11, or during one of the bloodiest months yet in Iraq -- would come back to bite him.)

But mainly it's the sincerity and humanity of Sheehan's core message.
The anecdotes coming out of Camp Casey tell the story: Sheehan's quiet discussion with a soldier who opposes her views, which ended in a hug. Another Camp Casey activist had a respectful talk with a trucker who supports the war but stopped by to see if his dead son was listed among the casualties there. (He was, and the visit reportedly ended with him declaring his love for Sheehan.)
Against the backdrop of an administration that refuses to acknowledge the dead, that prohibits photos of coffins and flies the wounded home under cover of darkness, that lets the president vacation and "stay healthy" instead of talking to the mother of a dead veteran, Sheehan and Camp Casey can get attention and win converts just by bearing witness to the violence and despair of a war whose goal nobody really understands anymore, in which victory seems less and less likely.

To build on her success it's important that organizers understand her appeal. Sheehan doesn't have all the answers -- she's smart enough to know she doesn't need to provide them. By simply asking why her son died, she's starting a dialogue about a war in which we've been lied to from the outset.

Moving forward and coming up with a broader message that can unify an antiwar movement will be tougher. Even war opponents aren't sure whether the message should be "Out now," or "Out soon," or "A lot of us out now and the rest asap." But if the goal is to build a big-tent antiwar movement, the messages must be simple, inclusive and from the heart.

The right will continue to use Sheehan's more controversial statements against her, of course. And it could, conceivably, hurt her appeal with the American people -- especially if antiwar allies choose to play up those positions. While I think there's plenty of room to blame the pro-Israel Project for a New American Century for helping lead us to war on false pretenses, as Sheehan does, let's remember that we won't end the war by requiring a litmus test on Israel and Palestine. Too often antiwar organizers have driven away supporters by leading with their most divisive views -- and by failing to communicate with those who hold different views.

Sheehan is outspoken -- and like all Americans, she has the right to be outspoken -- but she hasn't made that mistake. Camp Casey has become an outpost of grief and dialogue, and that's what gives it worldwide recruiting power. In Kentucky, the Republican grandmother of Marine Lance Cpl. Chase Johnson Comley, killed in Amiriyah, Iraq, earlier this month, told local media she wished she could join Sheehan in Crawford because she's "on a rampage" against Bush and the war. "When someone gets up and says, 'My son died for our freedom,' or I get a sympathy card that says that, I can hardly bear it," 80-year-old Geraldine Comley told the Lexington Herald-Leader. "And it irritates me no small amount that Dick Cheney, in the Vietnam War, said he had 'other priorities.' He didn't mind sending my grandson over there" to Iraq.

Michael Moore couldn't have put it any more harshly. Smart organizers will make sure the Geraldine Comleys of the world are always welcome at Camp Casey. Because, sadly, their ranks are growing by the day.

Joan Walsh is Salon's editor in chief.
© 2005 Salon.com
###

postamble();
Link

<><><><><><><><>

The Independent

Saturday, 13th August 2005, by Robert Fisk

There’s the wreckage of a car bomb that killed seven Americans on the corner of a neighbouring street. Close by stands the shuttered shop of a phone supplier who put pictures of Saddam on a donkey on his mobiles.

He was shot three days ago, along with two other men who had committed the same sin. In the al-Jamia neighbourhood, a US Humvee was purring up the road so we gingerly backed off and took a side street. In this part of Baghdad, you avoid both the insurgents and the Americans - if you are lucky.

Yassin al-Sammerai was not. On 14 July, the second grade schoolboy had gone to spend the night with two college friends and - this being a city without electricity in the hottest month of the year - they decided to spend the night sleeping in the front garden. Let his broken 65 year-old father Selim take up the story, for he’s the one who still cannot believe his son is dead - or what the Americans told him afterwards.

"It was three-thirty in the morning and they were all asleep, Yassin and his friends Fahed and Walid Khaled. There was an American patrol outside and then suddenly, a Bradley armoured vehicle burst through the gate and wall and drove over Yassin. You know how heavy these things are. He died instantly. But the Americans didn’t know what they’d done. He was lying crushed under the vehicle for 17 minutes. Um Khaled, his friends’ mother, kept shouting in Arabic: "There is a boy under this vehicle."

According to Selim al-Sammerai, the Americans’ first reaction was to put handcuffs on the two other boys. But a Lebanese Arabic interpreter working for the Americans arrived to explain that it was all a mistake. "We don’t have anything against you,’’she said. The Americans produced a laminated paper in English and Arabic entitled "Iraqi Claims Pocket Card" which tells them how to claim compensation.

The unit whose Bradley drove over Yassin is listed as "256 BCT A/156 AR, Mortars". Under "Type of Incident", an American had written: "Raid destroyed gate and doors." No one told the family there had been a raid. And nowhere - but nowhere - on the form does it suggest that the "raid’’ destroyed the life of the football-loving Yassin al-Sammerai.

InsideYassin’s father’s home yesterday, Selim shakes with anger and then weeps softly, wiping his eyes. "He is surely in heaven," one of his surviving seven sons replies. And the old man looks at me and says: "He liked swimming too. "

A former technical manager at the Baghdad University college of arts, Selim is now just a shadow.He is half bent over on his seat, his face sallow and his cheeks drawn in. This is a Sunni household in a Sunni area. This is "insurgent country" for the Americans, which is why they crash into these narrow streets at night. Several days ago, a collaborator gave away the location of a group of Sunni guerrillas and US troops surrounded the house. A two-hour gun-battle followed until an Apache helicopter came barrelling out of the darkness and dropped a bomb on the building, killing all inside.

There is much muttering around the room about the Americans and the West and I pick up on this quickly and say how grateful I am that they have let a Westerner come to their home after what has happened. Selim turns and shakes me by the hand. "You are welcome here," he says. "Please tell people what happened to us." Outside, my driver is watching the road; it’s the usual story. Any car with three men inside or a man with a mobile phone means "get out". The sun bakes down. It is a Friday.

"These guys take Fridays off," the driver offers by way of confidence.

"The Americans came back with an officer two days later," Selim al-Sammerai continues. "They offered us compensation. I refused. I lost my son, I told the officer. ’I don’t want the money - I don’t think the money will bring back my son.’ That’s what I told the American." There is a long silence in the room. But Selim, who is still crying, insists on speaking again.

"I told the American officer: ’You have killed the innocent and such things will lead the people to destroy you and the people will make a revolution against you. You said you had come to liberate us from the previous regime. But you are destroying our walls and doors.’"

I suddenly realise that Selim al-Sammerai has straightened up on his seat and his voice is rising in strength. "Do you know what the American said to me? He said, ’This is fate.’ I looked at him and I said, ’I am very faithful in the fate of God - but not in the fate of which you speak.’"

Then one of Yassin’s brothers says that he took a photograph of the dead boy as he lay on the ground, a picture taken on his mobile phone, and he printed a picture of it and when the Americans returned on the second day they asked to see it. "They asked me why I had taken the picture and I said it was so people here could see what the Americans had done to my brother. They asked if they could borrow it and bring it back. I gave it to them but they didn’t bring it back. But I still kept the image on my mobile and I was able to print another." And suddenly it is in my hands, an obscene and terrible snapshot of Yassin’s head crushed flat as if an elephant had stood upon it, blood pouring from what had been the back of his brains. "So now, you see," the brother explains, "the people can still see what the Americans have done."

In the heat, we slunk out of al-Jamia yesterday, the place of insurgents and Americans and grief and revenge. "When the car bomb blew up over there," my driver says, "the US Humvees went on burning for three hours and the bodies were still there. The Americans took three hours to reach them. Al the people gathered round and watched." And I look at the carbonised car that still lies on the road and realise it has now become a little icon of resistance. How, I ask myself again, can the Americans ever win?

Link

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>



HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH

Stain of Torture Lingers

By Reed Brody, special counsel, published in Baltimore Sun, 4/28/05

IT HAS NOW been one year since the appearance of the first pictures of U.S. soldiers humiliating and torturing detainees at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

When the pictures first stunned the world, Washington sought to portray them as an isolated incident, the work of a few "bad apples." President Bush spoke of "disgraceful conduct by a few American troops who dishonored our country and disregarded our values."

We now know, however, that the only truly exceptional aspect of the horrors at Abu Ghraib was that they were photographed. Abu Ghraib was, in fact, only the tip of the iceberg. Around the world, in a long archipelago of recognized and secret detention centers, the United States is brutalizing Muslim detainees in the name of the war on terror.

The United States must investigate the role of top officials, such as Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and former CIA Director George J. Tenet, in this scandal that has done so much to harm the reputation and interests of the country. If Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, who is involved in these policies, will not begin such a probe, a special prosecutor should be appointed.

At Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, reports have recently emerged about FBI agents who witnessed chained detainees forced to sit in their own excrement, adding to accounts of painful stress positions, female interrogators humiliating detainees and prolonged exposure to extremes of heat and cold.

In Afghanistan, where at least nine prisoners have died in U.S. custody, detainees have been beaten severely by guards and interrogators, deprived of sleep for extended periods and intentionally exposed to extreme cold. At least 11 al-Qaida suspects, and most likely many more, have simply "disappeared." The CIA is holding them in undisclosed locations, with no notification to their families, no access to the International Committee of the Red Cross and no oversight of their treatment, effectively placing them beyond the protection of the law.

One detainee, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, an alleged architect of 9/11, was reportedly "waterboarded" - strapped down, forcibly pushed under water and made to believe he might drown. About 100 to 150 detainees have been "rendered" to countries where torture is routine. For example, Maher Arar, a Canadian in airplane transit in New York, was detained and sent to Syria. On his release 10 months later, he described repeated torture, often with cables and electrical cords.

This pattern of abuse across several countries did not result from the acts of individual soldiers who broke the rules. It resulted from decisions made by senior U.S. officials to bend, ignore or cast rules aside. Yet only the soldiers at the bottom of the chain, such as Pfc. Lynndie R. England and Spc. Charles A. Graner Jr. who were photographed at Abu Ghraib, are taking the heat while the policy-makers are going free. Just last week, the Army cleared Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the former senior U.S. commander in Iraq, of any wrongdoing. Yet General Sanchez gave the interrogators at Abu Ghraib the authority to use dogs to terrorize detainees, and they did, and we know what happened.

And there is still a lot we do not know. Directives reportedly signed by President Bush authorizing the CIA to establish secret detention facilities and to "render" suspects to countries where torture is used remain classified. Many more photos and videos of detainee abuse remain secret. Although these policies were adopted in the name of the war on terror, the United States' widespread mistreatment of Muslim prisoners has certainly been a boon for al-Qaida.

The U.S. actions also pose a direct challenge to human rights enforcement worldwide. Perpetrators of atrocities from Sudan to Zimbabwe have been all too happy to point to the U.S. treatment of prisoners to deflect criticism of their conduct.

Most disturbing, however, may be the idea that the United States has become a nation that finds torture acceptable. And despite all the damage done, Attorney General Gonzales still insisted in January that the CIA was not barred from using cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment when it interrogates non-Americans outside the United States.

If the United States is to wipe away the stain of Abu Ghraib, it needs to prosecute those at the top who ordered or condoned torture, come clean on what the president has authorized, and repudiate, once and for all, the mistreatment of detainees.

Reed Brody is special counsel with Human Rights Watch and author of its report "The Road to Abu Ghraib."

Related Material
Getting Away with Torture? Command Responsibility for the U.S. Torture of Detainees
Report, April 25, 2005
U.S. Torture and Abuse of Detainees
Thematic Page
From: http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/04/28/usint10555.htm
© Copyright 2003, Human Rights Watch 350 Fifth Avenue, 34th Floor New York, NY 10118-3299 USA
Link

<><><><><><><><>


Chan Lowe, The South Florida Sun Sentinel



Submitted by davidswanson on Fri, 2005-08-12 12:33. Cindy Sheehan

By Arianna Huffington
HuffingtonPost.com

During my many years as a writer, I've interviewed hundreds of people. But talking with Cindy Sheehan this morning was unlike any conversation I've ever had. Even though we were talking via cell phone - and had a crummy, staticky connection at that - her authenticity and passion reached through the receiver and both touched my heart and punched me in the gut.

She spoke with a combination of utter determination, unassailable integrity, fearlessness, and the peace of someone who knows that their cause is just. Her commitment was palpable - and infectious. It reminded me an old quote about the great Greek orators: "When Pericles spoke, the people said, 'How well he speaks.' But when Demosthenes spoke, they said, 'Let us march!'"

That's the feeling I got from this former Catholic youth minister. She of the floppy hat and the six foot frame (though she's standing even taller than that these days). A woman driven by faith and conviction who used to think that one person couldn't make a difference and is learning otherwise. Her humanity stands in stark contrast to the inhumanity of those who refuse to admit their mistakes and continue to send our young men and women to die in Iraq.

She may not be the kind of media figure the cable news channels would order up from newsmaker central, a la Natalee Holloway. But she is the kind of unexpected leader I've been writing about for years. One who springs not from the corridors of power, but from among the people. One who may come from Vacaville, California, but who makes nonsense of red state/blue state distinctions.

The time has passed when we can stand around waiting for a knight on a white horse to ride to our rescue. We've got to look to ourselves - to the leader in the mirror. Our elected officials have woefully failed to provide the leadership needed on this most vital issue of our time. And stepping into that void is Cindy Sheehan. Inspiring us. Touching our conscience. Calling forth our courage and our commitment. Focusing our outrage. And acting as a catalyst for the tens of millions of Americans who know that the war in Iraq is a disgrace.

Who knows, her example might even be just the thing to give Hillary and Harry and the rest of the Democratic leaders the spine transplant they so desperately need. But don't hold your breath. Instead, use it to show your support for Cindy Sheehan - and for our troops.
Link

<><><><><><><><>

November 4, 2004

Dear George,

You don’t mind if I call you George do you? When you sent me a letter offering your condolences on the death of my son, Spc. Casey Austin Sheehan, in the illegal and unjust war on Iraq, you called me Cindy, so I naturally assume we are on a first name basis.

George, it has been seven months today since your reckless and wanton foreign policies killed my son, my big boy, my hero, my best-friend: Casey. It has been seven months since your ignorant and arrogant lack of planning for the peace murdered my oldest child. It has been two days since your dishonest campaign stole another election…but you all were way more subtle this time than in 2000, weren’t you? You hardly had to get the Supreme Court of the United States involved at all this week.

You feel so proud of yourself for betraying the country again, don’t you? You think you are very clever because you pulled the wool over the eyes of some of the people again. You think that you have some mandate from God…that you can “spend your political capital” any way that you want.

George, you don’t care or even realize that 56,000,000 plus citizens of this country voted against you and your agenda. Still, you are going to continue your ruthless work of being a divider and not a uniter.

George, in 2000 when you stole that election and the Democrats gave up, I gave up too. I had the most ironic thought of my life then: "Oh well, how much damage can he do in four years?" Well, now I know how much you have damaged my family, this country, and this world. If you think I am going to allow you another four years to do even more damage, then you truly are mistaken. I will fight for a true vote count and if that fails, your impeachment. Also, the impeachment of your Vice President. The only thing is, I'm not politically savvy, and I don't have a Karl Rove to plan my strategy, but I do have a big mouth and a righteous cause, which still mean something in this country, I hope.

All of this lying, fooling, and betraying must be “hard work” George. You really think you know what hard work is?

George, let me tell you what “hard work” really is.

Hard work is seeing your oldest son, your brave and honorable man-child go off to a war that had, and still has, no basis in reality. Hard work is worrying yourself gray and not being able to sleep for 2 weeks because you don’t know if your child is safe.

Hard work is seeing your son’s murder on CNN one Sunday evening while you’re enjoying the last supper you’ll ever truly enjoy again.
Hard work is having three military officers come to your house a few hours later to confirm the aforementioned murder of your son…your first born…your kind and gentle sweet baby.

Hard work is burying your child 46 days before his 25th birthday. Hard work is holding your other three children as they lower the body of their big “baba” into the ground. Hard work is not jumping in the grave with him and having the earth cover you both.

But, Dear George, do you know what the hardest work of all is? Trying to digest the fact that the leader of the country that your family has fought for and died for, for generations, lied to you and betrayed your dear boy’s sense of honor and exploited his courage and exploited his loyalty to his buddies. Hard work is having your country abandon you after they killed your son. Hard work is coming to the realization that your son had his future robbed from him and that you have had your son's future and future grand-children stolen from you. Hard work is knowing that there are so many people in this world that have prospered handsomely from your son's death.

George, I must confess that I and my family worked very HARD to re-defeat you this time, but you refuse to stay defeated. Well, we are watching you very carefully. We are going to do everything in our power to have you impeached for misleading the American people into a disastrous war and for mis-using and abusing your power as Commander-in-Chief. We are going to scream until our last breath to bring the rest of our babies home from this quagmire of a war that you have gotten our country in to: before too many more families learn the true meaning of Hard Work. We know it is going to be an uphill battle, knowing how Republican Congress is, but thanks to you, we know the meaning of Hard Work and we’re not afraid of hard work at all.

The 56,000,000 plus citizens who voted against you and your agenda have given me a mandate to move forward with my agenda. Also, thanks to you and your careless domestic policies, I am unemployed, so this will be my full-time job. Being your political downfall will be the most noble accomplishment of my life, and it will bring justice for my son and 1125 (so far) other brave Americans and tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis your lies have killed. By the way, George, how many more innocent Iraqis are your policies going to kill before you convince them that you are better than Saddam? How many more of their cities are you going to level before you consider that they are liberated? If you really had any moral values, or if you were an honorable man at all you would resign. My son was a man who had high moral values and true courage.

Humanity lost a bright light on April 04, 2004. I will live the rest of my life missing Casey desperately. Thank you for that, George. Have a nice day.

God Bless America!! We surely need it!
Cindy Sheehan
Broken hearted mother of a True American Hero: Spc Casey Austin Sheehan, KIA 04/04/04 Sadr City, Baghdad

"When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love has always won. There have been tyrants and murderers and for a time they seem invincible but in the end, they always fall - think of it, always."- Gandhi
Link

<><><><><><><><>

Cenk Uygur Fri Aug 12,12:47 PM ET

Cindy Sheehan – in case you’ve been living in a box or you only watch the mainstream media – is the mom of slain Iraq War veteran Casey Sheehan. She is protesting in front of George Bush’s Crawford
ranch this month. This grieving mom has been characterized as a flip-flopper, accused of putting on a public circus, lambasted as a publicity seeking grandstander and criticized for not truly speaking for her family since an aunt and a godmother Matt Drudge found somewhere in the Sheehan family disagrees with her. The conservative attack machine is in high gear in the efforts to tear this woman down.

That made me think of how it would have been in the Civil Rights era if Fox News Channel, Rush Limbaugh, Matt Drudge and the rest of the gang were around back then.

O’Reilly: “Rosa Parks claims she speaks for all of the African-Americans in the South, but in fact, we have found two African-Americans who say they disagree with her. They say she’s just trying to gain publicity and doesn’t speak for anyone in her race. They would know, they’re black.”

Hannity: “Could Rosa Parks be angling for a Senate run? What does she have to gain from her public stand? Coming up next, the incredible story of how this woman might be deceiving the whole country!”

Drudge: “We have found three members of the Parks family who say that Rosa doesn’t speak for them. That, in fact, they are very happy with the government of the state of Alabama. The uncle, step-brother-in-law and niece three-times removed all agree that the better route is a dignified, respectful silent deference to authority. Developing …”

Limbaugh: “We have just found information that before Rosa Parks sat in the front of the bus, there were numerous times, she sat in the back of the bus! Ah ha! A flip-flopper!"

Drudge: “More stories on Rosa Parks scandalous history of consistently sitting in the back of the bus before she changed her position and insisted she would only sit in the front of the bus. Developing …”

Malkin: “I think I speak for the entire Parks family, and especially her children, when I say that they are so embarrassed by their mother who is making a public spectacle of herself.”

Hannity: “Rosa Parks has turned this whole so-called civil rights issue into a public circus. We have information that Ted Kennedy might have put her up to this. That amazing story when we come back!”

Colmes: “You’re right, Sean. I’m sorry.”

O’Reilly: “To question the government of Alabama and implicitly the entire United States government by defying the political order like this has to be considered treasonous. Civil disobedience is a code word for I hate America. These people are criminals, simple criminals. It's ridiculous that they think they don't have to live by the same rules as the rest of us.”

Scarborough: “Yeah, whatever they just said on Fox News Channel! Well … I mostly agree with it.”

Kaplan: “Can we hire Shep Smith to cover this? Maybe give him his own show?”

Limbaugh: “What did I tell you folks? These libs like Parks would rather live in France where they can sit anywhere they want on the bus. They hate America. They want special privileges to be able to sit anywhere they want. They hide behind the color of their skin to try to undermine this country.”

Coulter: “Rosa Parks is a dyke!”

Blitzer: “Dr. King, is it true that you support the liberal agitator Rosa Parks in her defiance of America? Can you confirm whether she has in fact sat in the back of the bus before? Do you think this makes her a flip-flopper? If she has been so inconsistent on this, how can we trust her on anything?”

Drudge: “MY SOURCES TELL ME THAT THIS MIGHT BE THE FIRST TIME ROSA PARKS HAS EVER SAT IN THE FRONT OF THE BUS. A whole life of sitting in the back of the bus and now this woman claims all of a sudden she wants to sit in the front of the bus. Developing …”

O’Reilly: “Unbelievable, just unbelievable. Ridiculous!”

Hannity: “Incredible!”

Scarborough: “What did they just say?”

In Unison: “Flip-flopper! Flip-flopper! Flip-flopper!”

Blitzer: “Ms. Parks left the bus in disgrace today after it was confirmed that some members of her family did not agree with her, she had ruined her credibility by working for the NAACP before the bus incident, and she had in fact sat in the back of the bus on previous occasions. Now back to the emotionally wrenching story of the girl missing in …”
Link

<><><><><><><><>

It is not only Iraq that is occupied. America is too

My country is in the grip of a president surrounded by thugs in suits

Howard Zinn Friday August 12, 2005

It has quickly become clear that Iraq is not a liberated country, but an occupied country. We became familiar with that term during the second world war. We talked of German-occupied France, German-occupied Europe. And after the war we spoke of Soviet-occupied Hungary, Czechoslovakia, eastern Europe. It was the Nazis, the Soviets, who occupied countries. The United States liberated them from occupation.

Now we are the occupiers. True, we liberated Iraq from Saddam Hussein, but not from us. Just as in 1898 we liberated Cuba from Spain, but not from us. Spanish tyranny was overthrown, but the US established a military base in Cuba, as we are doing in Iraq. US corporations moved into Cuba, just as Bechtel and Halliburton and the oil corporations are moving into Iraq. The US framed and imposed, with support from local accomplices, the constitution that would govern Cuba, just as it has drawn up, with help from local political groups, a constitution for Iraq.

Not a liberation. An occupation.

And it is an ugly occupation. On August 7 2003 the New York Times reported that General Sanchez in Baghdad was worried about the Iraqi reaction to occupation. Pro-US Iraqi leaders were giving him a message, as he put it: "When you take a father in front of his family and put a bag over his head and put him on the ground, you have had a significant adverse effect on his dignity and respect in the eyes of his family." (That's very perceptive.)

We know that fighting during the US offensive in November 2004 destroyed three-quarters of the town of Falluja (population 360,000), killing hundreds of its inhabitants. The objective of the operation was to cleanse the town of the terrorist bands acting as part of a "Ba'athist conspiracy".

But we should recall that on June 16 2003, barely six weeks after President Bush had claimed victory in Iraq, two reporters for the Knight Ridder newspaper group wrote this about the Falluja area: "In dozens of interviews during the past five days, most residents across the area said there was no Ba'athist or Sunni conspiracy against US soldiers, there were only people ready to fight because their relatives had been hurt or killed, or they themselves had been humiliated by home searches and road stops ... One woman said, after her husband was taken from their home because of empty wooden crates which they had bought for firewood, that the US is guilty of terrorism."

Soldiers who are set down in a country where they were told they would be welcomed as liberators and find they are surrounded by a hostile population become fearful and trigger-happy. On March 4 nervous, frightened GIs manning a roadblock fired on the Italian journalist Giuliana Sgrena, just released by kidnappers, and an intelligence service officer, Nicola Calipari, whom they killed.

We have all read reports of US soldiers angry at being kept in Iraq. Such sentiments are becoming known to the US public, as are the feelings of many deserters who are refusing to return to Iraq after home leave. In May 2003 a Gallup poll reported that only 13% of the US public thought the war was going badly. According to a poll published by the New York Times and CBS News on June 17, 51% now think the US should not have invaded Iraq or become involved in the war. Some 59% disapprove of Bush's handling of the situation.

But more ominous, perhaps, than the occupation of Iraq is the occupation of the US. I wake up in the morning, read the newspaper, and feel that we are an occupied country, that some alien group has taken over. I wake up thinking: the US is in the grip of a president surrounded by thugs in suits who care nothing about human life abroad or here, who care nothing about freedom abroad or here, who care nothing about what happens to the earth, the water or the air, or what kind of world will be inherited by our children and grandchildren.

More Americans are beginning to feel, like the soldiers in Iraq, that something is terribly wrong. More and more every day the lies are being exposed. And then there is the largest lie, that everything the US does is to be pardoned because we are engaged in a "war on terrorism", ignoring the fact that war is itself terrorism, that barging into homes and taking away people and subjecting them to torture is terrorism, that invading and bombing other countries does not give us more security but less.

The Bush administration, unable to capture the perpetrators of the September 11 attacks, invaded Afghanistan, killing thousands of people and driving hundreds of thousands from their homes. Yet it still does not know where the criminals are. Not knowing what weapons Saddam Hussein was hiding, it invaded and bombed Iraq in March 2003, disregarding the UN, killing thousands of civilians and soldiers and terrorising the population; and not knowing who was and was not a terrorist, the US government confined hundreds of people in Guantánamo under such conditions that 18 have tried to commit suicide.
The Amnesty International Report 2005 notes: "Guantánamo Bay has become the gulag of our times ... When the most powerful country in the world thumbs its nose at the rule of law and human rights, it grants a licence to others to commit abuse with impunity".

The "war on terrorism" is not only a war on innocent people in other countries; it is a war on the people of the US: on our liberties, on our standard of living. The country's wealth is being stolen from the people and handed over to the super-rich. The lives of the young are being stolen.

The Iraq war will undoubtedly claim many more victims, not only abroad but also on US territory. The Bush administration maintains that, unlike the Vietnam war, this conflict is not causing many casualties. True enough, fewer than 2,000 service men and women have lost their lives in the fighting. But when the war finally ends, the number of its indirect victims, through disease or mental disorders, will increase steadily. After the Vietnam war, veterans reported congenital malformations in their children, caused by Agent Orange.

Officially there were only a few hundred losses in the Gulf war of 1991, but the US Gulf War Veterans Association has reported 8,000 deaths in the past 10 years. Some 200,000 veterans, out of 600,000 who took part, have registered a range of complaints due to the weapons and munitions used in combat. We have yet to see the long-term effects of depleted uranium on those currently stationed in Iraq.

Our faith is that human beings only support violence and terror when they have been lied to. And when they learn the truth, as happened in the course of the Vietnam war, they will turn against the government. We have the support of the rest of the world. The US cannot indefinitely ignore the 10 million people who protested around the world on February 15 2003.

There is no act too small, no act too bold. The history of social change is the history of millions of actions, small and large, coming together at points in history and creating a power that governments cannot suppress.


· Howard Zinn is professor emeritus of political science at Boston University; his books include A People's History of the United States
© Le Monde diplomatique
A version of this article appears in the August issue of Le Monde diplomatique's English language edition Mondediplo.com
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
Link

<><><><><><><><>

Meanwhile, over at Hayseed Central, where the bushies just managed (at Blair's urging) to raise their IQ's to 10 degrees below room temp, the Reality Train, like Amtrak, remains derailed.

If anything, ANYTHING, including, apparently, life on the third planet, threatens to move a decimal point one digit to the left on the multinational, fascist pigs slopping at the trough of capitalism's corporate headquarters balance sheet, the call goes out: Deny Global Warming - it's just another myth those pointy-headed 'librul' "scientists" are tryin' to make us evolution-is-only-a-theory fundamentalist whackos swallow. We ain't a'buyin' it... glub, glub, gurgle, gurgle... --DN
http://www.temple-news.com/media/paper143/news/2005/04/05/Opinion/Global.Warming.myth.Proving.To.Be.A.Grave.Reality-912894.shtml

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Warming hits 'tipping point'

Siberia feels the heat

It's a frozen peat bog the size of France and Germany combined, contains billions of tonnes of greenhouse gas and, for the first time since the ice age, it is melting...

Ian Sample, science correspondent
Thursday August 11, 2005
Guardian

A vast expanse of western Siberia is undergoing an unprecedented thaw that could dramatically increase the rate of global warming, climate scientists warn today.

Researchers who have recently returned from the region found that an area of permafrost spanning a million square kilometres - the size of France and Germany combined - has started to melt for the first time since it formed 11,000 years ago at the end of the last ice age.

The area, which covers the entire sub-Arctic region of western Siberia, is the world's largest frozen peat bog and scientists fear that as it thaws, it will release billions of tonnes of methane, a greenhouse gas 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide, into the atmosphere.

It is a scenario climate scientists have feared since first identifying "tipping points" - delicate thresholds where a slight rise in the Earth's temperature can cause a dramatic change in the environment that itself triggers a far greater increase in global temperatures.

The discovery was made by Sergei Kirpotin at Tomsk State University in western Siberia and Judith Marquand at Oxford University and is reported in New Scientist today.

The researchers found that what was until recently a barren expanse of frozen peat is turning into a broken landscape of mud and lakes, some more than a kilometre across.

Dr Kirpotin told the magazine the situation was an "ecological landslide that is probably irreversible and is undoubtedly connected to climatic warming". He added that the thaw had probably begun in the past three or four years.

Climate scientists yesterday reacted with alarm to the finding, and warned that predictions of future global temperatures would have to be revised upwards.

"When you start messing around with these natural systems, you can end up in situations where it's unstoppable. There are no brakes you can apply," said David Viner, a senior scientist at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.

"This is a big deal because you can't put the permafrost back once it's gone. The causal effect is human activity and it will ramp up temperatures even more than our emissions are doing."

In its last major report in 2001, the intergovernmental panel on climate change predicted a rise in global temperatures of 1.4C-5.8C between 1990 and 2100, but the estimate only takes account of global warming driven by known greenhouse gas emissions.

"These positive feedbacks with landmasses weren't known about then. They had no idea how much they would add to global warming," said Dr Viner.

Western Siberia is heating up faster than anywhere else in the world, having experienced a rise of some 3C in the past 40 years. Scientists are particularly concerned about the permafrost, because as it thaws, it reveals bare ground which warms up more quickly than ice and snow, and so accelerates the rate at which the permafrost thaws.

Siberia's peat bogs have been producing methane since they formed at the end of the last ice age, but most of the gas had been trapped in the permafrost. According to Larry Smith, a hydrologist at the University of California, Los Angeles, the west Siberian peat bog could hold some 70bn tonnes of methane, a quarter of all of the methane stored in the ground around the world.

The permafrost is likely to take many decades at least to thaw, so the methane locked within it will not be released into the atmosphere in one burst, said Stephen Sitch, a climate scientist at the Met Office's Hadley Centre in Exeter.

But calculations by Dr Sitch and his colleagues show that even if methane seeped from the permafrost over the next 100 years, it would add around 700m tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere each year, roughly the same amount that is released annually from the world's wetlands and agriculture.

It would effectively double atmospheric levels of the gas, leading to a 10% to 25% increase in global warming, he said.

Tony Juniper, director of Friends of the Earth, said the finding was a stark message to politicians to take concerted action on climate change. "We knew at some point we'd get these feedbacks happening that exacerbate global warming, but this could lead to a massive injection of greenhouse gases.

"If we don't take action very soon, we could unleash runaway global warming that will be beyond our control and it will lead to social, economic and environmental devastation worldwide," he said. "There's still time to take action, but not much.

"The assumption has been that we wouldn't see these kinds of changes until the world is a little warmer, but this suggests we're running out of time."

In May this year, another group of researchers reported signs that global warming was damaging the permafrost. Katey Walter of the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, told a meeting of the Arctic Research Consortium of the US that her team had found methane hotspots in eastern Siberia. At the hotspots, methane was bubbling to the surface of the permafrost so quickly that it was preventing the surface from freezing over.

Last month, some of the world's worst air polluters, including the US and Australia, announced a partnership to cut greenhouse gas emissions through the use of new technologies.

The deal came after Tony Blair struggled at the G8 summit to get the US president, George Bush, to commit to any concerted action on climate change and has been heavily criticised for setting no targets for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
Link

<><><><><><><><>


NOTE: Of course, the Freepers, the O'Reilly's, the Drudge's, the Clear Channel's, the Limbaugh's and the rest of that scummy alliance have already started bleating about the reporting of Bush's 2004 meeting at Ft. Lewis. For the story behind that, see this:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200508100009

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Grieving Mother's War Protest Draws Notice

By ANGELA K. BROWN, Associated Press Writer 16 minutes ago

CRAWFORD, Texas - Cindy Sheehan's eyes well with tears when she talks about her oldest son, Casey, an easygoing young man with a quiet wit.

Casey joined the Army in 2000, never imagining he would see combat. Five days after he arrived in
Iraq' last year, the 24-year-old was killed in Sadr City.

Sheehan knows nothing can bring back her son, but she wants to talk to
President Bush. The Vacaville, Calif., mother has been camping out along a road near his ranch since Saturday, vowing to remain until his Texas vacation ends later this month.

"Before my son was killed, I used to think that one person could not make a difference," she said Wednesday under a tent where she has slept since arriving. "But one person that is surrounded and supported by millions of people can be heard."

Bush National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley and a deputy White House chief of staff talked to Sheehan on Saturday. She said the meeting, which she called "pointless," lasted 20 minutes. The White House said it lasted 45 minutes. (Why are we not surprised that they lie about EVERY. LITTLE. THING!... --DN)

By Thursday, about 50 people had joined her cause, pitching tents in muddy, shallow ditches and hanging anti-war banners; two dozen others have sent flowers. Her name was among the most popular search topics Wednesday on Internet blogs.

The soft-spoken Sheehan, 48, is surprised and touched at the overwhelming response — most of which is positive, she says.

But not everyone supports her. Kristinn Taylor, co-leader of the Washington, D.C., chapter of FreeRepublic.com, said Sheehan's protest is misguided and is hurting troop morale.

"She has a political agenda that goes way beyond her son's death in combat," said Taylor, whose conservative group has held pro-troop rallies since the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks and counter-protests of anti-war demonstrations.

Sheehan, a Catholic youth minister for eight years, never wanted Casey to join the military. She said he did after being misled by his recruiter.

Although he also opposed the war, he didn't try to back out.

"I begged him not to go," she said through tears. "I said, 'I'll take you to Canada' ... but he said, 'Mom, I have to go. It's my duty. My buddies are going.'"

Sheehan has spent the past several days in rainy weather talking to scores of reporters, hugging fellow protesters and taking brief breaks to eat sandwiches and fruit brought by supporters.

She and her husband are separated, affected by the stress of losing their son. But her three other children, ages 19 to 24, may join her in Crawford, she said.

Sheehan did meet with Bush in June 2004: She was among grieving military families who met with the president at Fort Lewis, Wash. She has said her feelings have shifted from shock to anger since then, in part because of various reports that have disputed some of the Bush administration's justifications for the war.

Many supporters decided to go to Crawford because of rumors that Sheehan would be arrested.

But no protesters will be arrested unless they trespass on private property or block the road, said Capt. Kenneth Vanek of the McLennan County Sheriff's Office.

Trucker Craig Delaney, 53, was in Georgia on Monday when he heard numerous radio shows discussing Sheehan — some criticizing her. He altered his route to California, heading for Texas, and got to Sheehan's site Wednesday morning.

"I felt compelled to come and tell her I support her," said Delaney, a self-described hippie from Sly Park, Calif. "The way they were bad-mouthing a mother whose son was killed in the war is un-American."

Nearly 40 Democratic members of Congress have asked Bush to talk to her. On Wednesday, a coalition of anti-war groups in Washington also called on Bush to speak with Sheehan, who they say has helped to unify the peace movement.

"Cindy Sheehan has become the Rosa Parks of the anti-war movement," said Rev. Lennox Yearwood, leader of the Hip Hop Caucus, an activist group. "She's tired, fed up and she's not going to take it anymore, and so now we stand with her."

Earlier this year Sheehan formed Gold Star Families for Peace and has spoken to groups across the nation and overseas.

Judith Young, national president of the The American Gold Star Mothers of America Inc., said she is concerned the public will mistake her 76-year-old Washington, D.C., nonprofit organization with Sheehan's group.
In Young's group, commonly known as Gold Star Moms, mothers whose children died in the line of duty volunteer in veterans' hospitals and programs. Members don't do advocacy work, Young said.
___
On the Net:
Gold Star Families For Peace: http://pages.zdnet.com/trimb/id278.html
Link

<><><><><><><><><>


Persian Gulf War Veteran Dennis Kyne (center, in camouflage jacket) led Cindy Sheehan's supporters in a chant four miles from President Bush's Prairie Chapel Ranch last Saturday. Kyne, a former battlefield medic, is author of Support The Truth, a book about his experience on the effects of depleted uranium weapons and PB Tablets (www.denniskyne.com).

(All photos on this post thanks to:
http://www.iconoclast-texas.com/News/2005/31-40/31news02.htm
which is published in --- you guessed it, Crawford, Texas. They, believe it or not, supported John Kerry in the last so-called "election" - sic... --DN)

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Mr. Bush, let's talk
By Joan Vennochi, Globe Columnist
August 9, 2005

AMERICA HAS a president, not a king. But just like royalty, the nation's commander in chief can keep his distance from the common man or woman.

Cindy Sheehan, the mother of a son who died in Iraq, is camped out in Crawford, Texas, trying to get a face-to-face meeting with the vacationing George W. Bush. She wants to tell the president that he should pull all American troops out of Iraq. Her son, Casey, was killed at age 24 in the Sadr City section of Baghdad on April 4, 2004.

The police blocked her a few miles from the Bush ranch. On Saturday, two Bush administration officials were dispatched to speak to her. But Sheehan says she will not leave until she sees the president. ''I plan on staying here the entire month of August or until he comes out to talk to me," she told USA Today.

Democracy in America begins with a very intimate connection between the people and those who seek to represent them. In the initial quest for votes, those running for elective office, including the presidency, will talk and meet with virtually anyone. There is no coffee hour too small to attend nor person too humble to approach. Once the vote-seeker wins office, it's a different story. The walls go up. The doors lock. The distance grows.

It happens, to some degree, at every level of government, although, obviously, the higher the office, the higher the wall. It is so much easier to conduct the people's business without dealing directly with the people, especially with disagreeable people.

Once a politician takes up residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, much business is conducted through intermediaries. Intermediaries, via the press, ask questions. Intermediaries -- press secretaries and underlings -- convey the president's thoughts. Occasionally, the president holds a press conference. For the most part, contact with average voters is reduced to ceremonial photo opportunities with political supporters.

This is not a Bush White House phenomenon, although Bush is perfecting the art of presidential isolation. During the 2004 presidential contest, Bush's campaign events were packed with supporters and screened for dissidents. Since his January 2005 inauguration, he held four press conferences. During his first term, he held the fewest solo press conferences of any president in the television age.

Bush also escapes frequently to his 1,600-acre ranch. He is currently immersed in a five-week stay away from Washington, the longest presidential retreat in at least 36 years, according to The Washington Post.

A presidential spokesman said the time in Crawford is a time for Bush to ''shed his coat and tie and meet with folks in the heartland and hear what's on their minds."

This week, the president will meet with his economic advisers and foreign policy team, go to a fundraising lunch, and attend a Little League championship game. So far, Sheehan is not on his agenda. But he knows what is on her mind, and that is his excuse for declining to meet with her.

Sheehan and other families of fallen troops met with Bush two months after her son's death. Since then, she has made her antiwar feelings clear. She speaks around the country against the war. After Bush was reelected, she and other protesters on Pennsylvania Avenue turned their backs on Bush's motorcade.

According to press reports, Sheehan said she decided to come to Crawford after Bush said once again that US troops are dying for a noble cause and the mission must be completed. Now, she says, she wants to ask the president, ''What did my son die for?"

Sheehan told the AP that the Bush advisers dispatched to talk to her told her ''we are in Iraq because they believed Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, that the world's a better place with Saddam gone, and that we're making the world a safer place with what we're doing over there."

She said that one of the advisers said that Bush ''really does care." Her reply: ''If he does care, why doesn't he come out and talk to me?"

Driven by personal grief, Sheehan does not accept the commonly accepted boundaries between the people and the person who occupies the Oval Office. With nothing to lose since she lost her son, she is barging into personal presidential space and posing rude questions.

How long before more Americans join her and the clamor invades the Bush castle -- and that other castle known as Congress?

Joan Vennochi's e-mail address is vennochi@globe.com.
© Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company



"In the name of 1,828 soldiers that should be alive, I'm going to see the president," said Cindy Sheehan, co-founder of Gold Star Families for Peace (center, left). "He killed my son." An hour of so later, two of Bush's aides met with her for 45 minutes; however, Sheehan vowed to stay in Crawford Saturday until she met face-to-face with the president.
Link

<><><><><><><><>

We embedded some comments in Martha's letter.

Sorry, I just couldn't resist smacking her batting practice fastball of a self-serving letter into the upper deck. Well, at least *I* think I did. My objectivity: Zero. May it ever be thus when dealing with scum... --DN

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
August 10, 2005
A Mother and a Nation Seek Answers (6 Letters)

To the Editor:

"One Mother in Crawford" (editorial, Aug. 9) describes how Cindy Sheehan, the mother of a soldier killed in Iraq, has been trying since last Saturday, in the broiling Texas sun, to speak to President Bush to ask him why he thinks her son died for a noble cause.

Before Mr. Bush left for Texas, his spokesman said that it is the president's desire to "shed his coat and tie and meet with folks out in the heartland and hear what's on their minds."

Apparently, meeting with the folks in the heartland does not include listening to those people who would dare disagree with the administration that has brought this country into a war filled with
deception and untruths.

Clifford J. Hutchins Rochester, Wash., Aug. 9, 2005•
* * * * * *
To the Editor:
Cindy Sheehan is my hero because she, unlike any politician, has the guts and commitment to demand a genuine accounting from the president for this disastrous war.
Perhaps the only thing that will get this administration to face reality is a thousand mothers camping out in Crawford.
Judy Levine Kingston, N.Y., Aug. 9, 2005•
* * * * * *
To the Editor:
Cindy Sheehan gave a very different account of her visit with President Bush in June 2004. (Another time, another place, a naive, grief-stricken lack of complete understanding of all the issues. Or, as the thieves, thugs and murderers, and their apologists and supporters like to cram down our throats whenever we bring up Bush's 40+ years of being a monstrous wastrel, among many, many other items having to do with what they've done, as opposed to what they say - and tell us how to behave - "That was then - this is now." ... DN) There has been no president in modern times who has spent as much time meeting individually with families of military personnel who made the ultimate sacrifice. (When did 'modern times' start for you, Martha - yesterday afternoon? When did the "compassionate conservative" begin to show a shred of TRUE empathy for anyone beyond his "base?" A scripted appointment, between workouts and naps, with the kinfolk of those HE KILLED does not constitute absolution for this monster... --DN)

I think the real issue is, Whom do you blame if your son dies and he volunteered for duty? In the days of the draft, you could blame the government. But if he volunteered and believed in the mission, whom do you blame? (You blame the SOB who lied about the mission. The same SOB who won't face the reality of his stupid, lying decisions. The same SOB who won't at least make ALL of Amerika sacrifice for those stupid decisions, in the form of taxes and conscription, for starters. God forbid we have a draft in an attempt to remove mercenary status from the kids doing the job. At least let's attempt to get Jenna and Barbara into the Marines or the Infantry. Or the Air National Guard. Remember the good ol' days when it was a hiding place for the kids of the rich and politically connected? The cowards who wanted us to kill Vietnamese in the name of stopping Communism from fighting us on the shores of Malibu? As long as they, personally, or their spawn, didn't have to touch a weapon? Or, heaven forbid, actually get shot at, as Kerry volunteered to do - and did, even though he was not exactly underprivileged. Yeah, I'm talking to you, you swaggering, smirking, stupid little spoiled brat frat boy... --DN)

My heart breaks for Ms. Sheehan and other mothers of the fallen. I deal with that by doing as much as I can for soldiers, sailors, airmen, marines and coasties during this war.

This is America's war and the world's war on terror. (NO IT'S NOT! This is the war the warmongering, imperialist neocons have wanted for years on end. This is the war for nation-building, power, oil, greed and Israel, among other reasons. We got mugged in Central Park. [Yeah, I know where things are in Manhattan - it's a euphemism] Lots of folks have gotten mugged in Central Park. We used to call it crime, and dealt with it appropriately. The NYPD never started magnifying their response into an illegal, immoral invasion and occupation of a sovereign nation. A starving nation incapable of harming us in any significant way, with no WMD's, no navy, no air force, no standing army to speak of, a nation whose neighbors said was no threat to even them, since we had been illegally bombing the crap out of their civilian/military infrastructure for years on end... --DN) We are proud of the sacrifices of the fallen, and they are proud to have fought and died for Ms. Sheehan's right to question her president. (Whoa - back up the bus here. Maybe YOU'RE proud of the fictitious reasons given to have CAUSED the 'sacrifices of the fallen.' And where the hell do you come off speaking for the dead? Where did you get the idea they died for her right to 'question her president?' Please stop all this nationalistic jingoism, you're not fooling the real patriots. The ones who know that if idiots in power are not at least questioned, then we have no democracy, no liberties, no freedoms. Which is what this illegal mal- and mis-administration is all about. Have we mentioned 'dictatorship' before? Have we mentioned 'police state' before? Yeah - and we'll keep doing it until the boxcars come for us... --DN)

Martha Zoller Gainesville, Ga., Aug. 9, 2005
The writer, a radio talk show host, (Read: Rightwingnut apologist for lies and murder... --DN) visited with soldiers in Iraq in July.•
* * * * * *
To the Editor:
If Cindy Sheehan is able to meet President Bush, she might well ask him why his two daughters, both eligible for the military, do not enlist and serve in Iraq. After all, his recent statement, "We will stay the course; we will complete the job in Iraq," suggests shared involvement.

Who is the "we" he is referring to? Sadly, Ms. Sheehan, the "we" is your son, and the less well-connected brave men and women who do our nation's fighting and dying.
William Lyons Irvington-on-Hudson, N.Y.Aug. 9, 2005•
* * * * * *
To the Editor:
We all owe a debt to Cindy Sheehan, not only for the sacrifice of her son's life, but also for informing the American people of a truth about our president: he doesn't even bother to learn the basic facts about the men and women who have died in a senseless war, for which he holds the supreme responsibility.
Roger WaldingerLondon, Aug. 9, 2005•
* * * * * *
To the Editor:
Cindy Sheehan, whose son was killed in Iraq, is camped by the side of the road in Crawford, Tex., insisting that President Bush owes her an explanation for his war policies.

So far, the president has refused to meet with her again, sending instead two subordinates, who failed to mollify this "gold star mom."

The reason Mr. Bush will not meet with her is obvious: he cannot explain his policy in Iraq in any way that a growing number of Americans will accept. Weapons of mass destruction? None. Saddam Hussein's link to 9/11? None. Fighting terrorists over there? They weren't there until the United States lured them in.

This war is a classic example of bait and switch, and people are beginning to catch on.
Jim Calio Marina del Rey, Calif., Aug. 9, 2005
* * * * * *
Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
August 10, 2005
Why No Tea and Sympathy?
By MAUREEN DOWD
WASHINGTON

W. can't get no satisfaction on Iraq.

There's an angry mother of a dead soldier camping outside his Crawford ranch, demanding to see a president who prefers his sympathy to be carefully choreographed.

A new CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll shows that a majority of Americans now think that going to war was a mistake and that the war has made the U.S. more vulnerable to terrorism. So fighting them there means it's more likely we'll have to fight them here?

Donald Rumsfeld acknowledged yesterday that sophisticated bombs were streaming over the border from Iran to Iraq.

And the Rolling Stones have taken a rare break from sex odes to record an antiwar song called "Sweet Neo Con," chiding Condi Rice and Mr. Bush. "You call yourself a Christian; I call you a hypocrite," Mick Jagger sings.

The N.F.L. put out a press release on Monday announcing that it's teaming up with the Stones and ABC to promote "Monday Night Football." The flag-waving N.F.L. could still back out if there's pressure, but the mood seems to have shifted since Madonna chickened out of showing an antiwar music video in 2003. The White House used to be able to tamp down criticism by saying it hurt our troops, but more people are asking the White House to explain how it plans to stop our troops from getting hurt.

Cindy Sheehan, a 48-year-old Californian with a knack for P.R., says she will camp out in the dusty heat near the ranch until she gets to tell Mr. Bush face to face that he must pull all U.S. troops out of Iraq. Her son, Casey, a 24-year-old Army specialist, was killed in a Sadr City ambush last year.

The president met with her family two months after Casey's death. Capturing W.'s awkwardness in traversing the line between somber and joking, and his love of generic labels, Ms. Sheehan said that W. had referred to her as "Mom" throughout the meeting, and given her the sense that he did not know who her son was.

The Bush team tried to discredit "Mom" by pointing reporters to an old article in which she sounded kinder to W. If only her husband were an undercover C.I.A. operative, the Bushies could out him. But even if they send out a squad of Swift Boat Moms for Truth, there will be a countering Falluja Moms for Truth.

It's amazing that the White House does not have the elementary shrewdness to have Mr. Bush simply walk down the driveway and hear the woman out, or invite her in for a cup of tea. But W., who has spent nearly 20 percent of his presidency at his ranch, is burrowed into his five-week vacation and two-hour daily workouts. He may be in great shape, but Iraq sure isn't.


© Steve Bradenton

It's hard to think of another president who lived in such meta-insulation. His rigidly controlled environment allows no chance encounters with anyone who disagrees. He never has to defend himself to anyone, and that is cognitively injurious. He's a populist who never meets people - an ordinary guy who clears brush, and brush is the only thing he talks to. Mr. Bush hails Texas as a place where he can return to his roots. But is he mixing it up there with anyone besides Vulcans, Pioneers and Rangers?

W.'s idea of consolation was to dispatch Stephen Hadley, the national security adviser, to talk to Ms. Sheehan, underscoring the inhumane humanitarianism of his foreign policy. Mr. Hadley is just a suit, one of the hard-line Unsweet Neo Cons who helped hype America into this war.

It's getting harder for the president to hide from the human consequences of his actions and to control human sentiment about the war by pulling a curtain over the 1,835 troops killed in Iraq; the more than 13,000 wounded, many shorn of limbs; and the number of slain Iraqi civilians - perhaps 25,000, or perhaps double or triple that. More people with impeccable credentials are coming forward to serve as a countervailing moral authority to challenge Mr. Bush.

Paul Hackett, a Marine major who served in Iraq and criticized the president on his conduct of the war, narrowly lost last week when he ran for Congress as a Democrat in a Republican stronghold in Cincinnati. Newt Gingrich warned that the race should "serve as a wake-up call to Republicans" about 2006.

Selectively humane, Mr. Bush justified his Iraq war by stressing the 9/11 losses. He emphasized the humanity of the Iraqis who desire freedom when his W.M.D. rationale vaporized.

But his humanitarianism will remain inhumane as long as he fails to understand that the moral authority of parents who bury children killed in Iraq is absolute.

E-mail: liberties@nytimes.com
Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company
Link

<><><><><><><><><>

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=ad5dMFpGUfi8&refer=us

From "simplyappalling," March 22, 2005:
U.S. ambassador to Turkey resigns, contemplates more mischief

The State Department announced Friday that U.S. Ambassador to Turkey Eric Edelman has resigned both from the ambassadorship and from the Foreign Service. According to Louis Meixler of the AP,
U.S. Ambassador Eric Edelman plans to resign from the Foreign Service this summer for personal reasons, said Adam Ereli, a spokesman for the State Department. Ereli said the ambassador "is leaving Turkey on positive, friendly, cooperative terms," and the spokesman declined to comment on Turkish reports that the ambassador would take a position in the Pentagon.

During a trip to the country earlier this year, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice reportedly instructed Edelman to do more to calm anti-Americanism in the Turkish media. [emphasis added]

If you read the Turkish press, you might easily speculate that Edelman's decision to resign was taken in an effort to "calm anti-Americanism in the Turkish media."

Here's what Ibrahim Karagul, a Turkish columnist, had to say about him—
.... Eric Edelman acts more like a colonial governor than an ambassador. Since his appointment as US ambassador to Turkey, Edelman’s actions have always caused discomfort among the public. His latest ‘suggestions’ on Sezer’s upcoming visit to Syria had the same impact.

Edelman is probably the least-liked and trusted American ambassador in Turkish history, and his reputation is not likely to recuperate. Edelman’s actions have exceeded his diplomatic mission. His ‘interest’ in nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), the Turkish media and ethnic minorities make him go beyond his role as an ambassador. His presence here has never contributed to Turkish-American relations, and it never will. If we want to address the reasons for anti-Americanism, Edelman must be issue one. As long as Edelman stays in Turkey, the chill wind disturbing bilateral relations will last.

But before you conclude that the Bush administration has belatedly discovered the meaning of the word "diplomacy," consider what the Turkish newspaper Zaman has reported and about which the State
Department will not comment—

It is noted that Edelman could be appointed as the Deputy Defense Secretary, the position recently vacated by Paul Wolfowitz after President Bush reassigned him to the head of the World Bank. According to diplomatic circles, if this is not the case, Edelman may be assigned as a replacement for Douglas Feith, the Undersecretary of Defense. (BINGO! - we have a winner!... --DN)

In line with the administration's policy of rewarding neocon failure, Edelman will be promoted, and that right soon. Zaman says he will stay on until July.

In a previous post I predicted the near-term departure of Donald Rumsfeld based on the nomination of Wolfowitz to the World Bank and mentioned the Newsweek speculation that Deputy U.S. Secretary of State Richard Armitage will be replacing Rumsfeld. Now take a look at this AP photo released on Friday. How odd that Edelman should be shown with Armitage! It's not that there wasn't a perfectly good photo of him solo.

And thus our media prepare us for the next load of crap to appear on the public plate. By the time the appointment of the Armitage-Edelman team has been announced, you'll feel as if you attended the wedding.

The July effective date of Edelman's resignation suggests the timeline of the events to follow. I say Rummy will be out by summer.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
And then there's this, from http://www.freemuslims.org/news/article.php?article=530,
detailing, from their point of view, how "Ambassador" Edelman made himself persona non grata by dint of diplomatic interference in the affairs of the nation in which he was a personal representative of the United States of America. Another arrogant, "Ugly American" jerk.

And Shrubbie thinks he knows "why they hate us." He has no clue. Edelman is just one of millions of reasons... --DN
Link

<><><><><><><><>

The Lantern Project
Shining New Light into the Dark Recesses of the Radical Right Wing's Agenda

SantorumExposed.com is a product of The Lantern Project. Formed as an independent political organization under Section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code, The Lantern Project’s goal is to expose right wing public officials as the extremists they are rather than the pillars of mainstream, middle-American values they claim to be.

We are Pennsylvanians and Americans who believe, for example, that Rick Santorum’s harsh and often hostile brand of politics has coarsened our public conversation, divided Americans and perverted the spirit of John F. Kennedy’s proclamation that “here on earth, God’s work must truly be our own.”

Yet we also believe the facts and the record will show that far from being an apostle of “traditional values,” Rick Santorum has built a political machine which, like Tom DeLay’s, is fueled by an unholy alliance of K-Street lobbyists, corporate influence-peddlers and conservative ideologues who have misused government to put their own narrow special interests ahead of the long-term national interest.
In fact, we believe that Rick Santorum's extreme agenda has simply failed to improve the lives of most Americans -- shortchanging critical investments we need today, while building up mountains of IOUs for our children to pay.

And worst of all, we believe Rick Santorum and his fellow absolutists are guilty of forgetting Judge Learned Hand’s proclamation that “The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right.”
(Like, what are the chances a Rick Santorum would have voted to confirm THAT guy to the federal bench?)

This is the spirit of The Lantern Project – a determination to shine a light onto the facts about elected officials like Rick Santorum …and let the facts speak for themselves.
http://santorumexposed.com/index.php
http://santorumexposed.com/pages/issues/issues.php
http://santorumexposed.com/pages/news/news.php
http://santorumexposed.com/pages/video/video.php
Link

<><><><><><><><>

Editorial: CIA & Iraq/An effort to shift the blame
July 28, 2005


In addition to potentially indicting one or more people in the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame in the literal sense, special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald could very well figuratively indict the Bush administration's case for going to war in Iraq, plus its cynical behavior when that case began to unravel. He could also expose just how badly columnist Robert Novak behaved in all this.

The Washington Post's Walter Pincus is the gold standard in trustworthy, hard-nosed reporting these days, and he, with Jim VandeHei, put together a powerful report for Wednesday's Post that illuminates several aspects of the Plame affair.

Pincus and VandeHei write that Fitzgerald is exploring the fight between the White House and the CIA over who was responsible for the discredited claim that Iraq sought to buy enriched uranium in Niger. He's exploring this because "the effort to discredit [Ambassador Joseph] Wilson was part of the larger campaign to distance Bush from the Niger controversy."

Wilson, you will recall, was dispatched by the CIA to Niger to investigate the Iraq connection, which he debunked, only to see it appear in Bush's State of the Union message a year later. On July 6, 2003, Wilson wrote on the New York Times op-ed page that it appeared the administration was "twisting" intelligence.

The White House, Pincus and VandeHei write, "responded with twin attacks: one on Wilson and the other on the CIA, which it wanted to take the blame for allowing the 16 words [about uranium from Africa] to remain in Bush's speech. As part of this effort, then-Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen J. Hadley spoke with [CIA Director George] Tenet during the week about clearing up CIA responsibility for the 16 words, even though both knew the agency did not think Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger, according to a person familiar with the conversation."

In fact, the CIA had worked hard to convince the White House that the Iraq-Niger allegations didn't hold water. So what you have here is the White House, which got caught erecting a fanciful case for war, aggressively trying to pin responsibility on the CIA and undermine the credibility of whistleblower Wilson.

Karl Rove's signature political tactics is: Attack your enemy's strength. With Wilson it was his sterling diplomatic reputation. With critics of Bush's case for war, it was CIA hesitancy sign on to that case.
So with Wilson, you put out the story that his Niger trip was a boondoggle authorized by his wife (it wasn't), and accuse him of saying falsely that Vice President Dick Cheney sent him (Wilson never said that). With the critics of the case for war, you pin the tail on the CIA, thus camouflaging White House efforts to create a solid case for war where none existed.

The Niger-Wilson-Plame-Iraq scheme involved much more than the politics such tactics usually further. It involved decisions about spending American blood and money in an unnecessary war. Rove's patented tactics are ugly on the campaign trail; they have absolutely no place in the White House.

Which is where Novak comes in. Pincus and VandeHei write that former CIA spokesman Bill Harlow spoke with Novak twice before the columnist outed Plame. Harlow said "he warned Novak, in the strongest terms he was permitted to use without revealing classified information, that Wilson's wife had not authorized the mission and that if he did write about it, her name should not be used." Harlow said he then checked that Plame was indeed working under cover and called Novak back to reiterate that she did not send her husband to Niger and that her name should not be used. Novak later wrote that the person he spoke to at the CIA said if her name were revealed, she probably would never get another overseas assignment and that there might be "difficulties" if she even traveled abroad. But, Novak said, he wasn't told that revealing her identity would endanger her or anyone else.

Novak has been around Washington for decades. Even a novice would know Harlow's message meant that outing Plame would be dangerous. Novak appears so eager to carry White House water that he ignored the CIA warnings.

Indicted or not, by the time this investigation has run its course, chances are good that no one in the White House, nor Novak, will find themselves covered in glory.
Link

<><><><><><><><>

Have we mentioned the lovely Repugthug Senator from Pennsylvania lately? We have? Well, let's do it again.

This fundamentalist wackjob... ahhh ... don't get me started -- let's see what some others have to say about him. You know how suspect my opinions are... --DN
http://www.exhibit5a.com/?p=852
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/07/12/in_sanctum_santorum/
http://www.outsantorum.org/
http://slate.msn.com/id/2123557/
http://www.dailykos.net/archives/002489.html

The Top 10 Conservative Idiots (No. 209)
(From: http://www.democraticunderground.com/top10/05/209.html)


Rick Santorum

Even über-loon Rick Santorum disagrees with Bush on "intelligent design," saying last week that it lacks scientific credibility. "I'm not comfortable with intelligent design being taught in the science classroom," he announced.
Poor old Rick - I guess he finally took a look at the polls and realized that he's got an uphill struggle in 2006 unless he severs ties with the radical right and tries to drag his ass back to the middle.
Strangely enough though, Senator Fecal-Matter's latest comments are apparently at odds with comments he's made in the recent past. And when I say "at odds with" I mean "100% diametrically opposed to."
See, in 2002, Rick Santorum wrote that "intelligent design is a legitimate scientific theory that should be taught in science classes." Huh? And there's more: according to Think Progress, Rick "tried to attach an amendment to the No Child Left Behind Act that would encourage the teaching of intelligent design." Wha?
One might be tempted to refer to Santorum's recent change of opinion as "quite the flip-flop."

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Keep weather forecasts free
A Times Editorial
Published August 9, 2005

A recent visit to AccuWeather's Web site produced a pop-up ad for an online travel agency, another for traveler's checks, and some weather information. You could click on AccuWeather's animated loop of the weather radar covering Florida. Or you could go to the National Weather Service Web site and get the same information in even more detail and without the pop-up ads.

Most Floridians already are familiar with the National Weather Service and its Web site, http://www.nws.noaa.gov/ When four hurricanes threatened the state last year, the site got 9 -billion visits from people trying to track the storms and prepare for the worst.

AccuWeather, a private weather service located in Pennsylvania, wants to stop the National Weather Service from providing timely weather information directly to the public. Instead, it wants that information to be filtered through AccuWeather and other profit-making weather services that, essentially, repackage national weather data and sell it to the public.

So AccuWeather got Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum to sponsor a bill in Congress that would accomplish the goal. The bill states that the weather service "shall not provide ... a product or service that is or could be provided by the private sector."

Santorum was only too happy to front for AccuWeather and the 13 other private weather services operating out of Pennsylvania, because he could use their help in his upcoming re-election bid. "This is about job retention in Pennsylvania," said Chrissy Shott, his spokeswoman.

Presumably she wasn't referring to Santorum's job.

All taxpayers have an interest in defeating this bill, because they already have paid for the weather service. While private companies may fill a market niche for specialized weather information, most Americans can rely on the National Weather Service.

Floridians have a large stake in the outcome, because they need the weather service for accurate, up-to-date (and free) hurricane forecasts.

When Congress returns from its summer vacation, Floridians need to let lawmakers know which way the wind blows on this bill: Leave the National Weather Service alone.

© Copyright 2003 St. Petersburg Times. All rights reserved
Link

<><><><><><><><>

Yeah, this is yet another Christian Coalition Right-Wingnut Crazy-Wacko-Uncle-in-the-Attic who took a look at the drooling Alfred E. Newman in Al Gore's White House and said to himself: "Self, I can be just as embarrassing to the world as that unconscious moron in the Offal... err... Oval Office.

This is the same guy who wants to do away with the taxpayer-paid-for reports from the National Weather Service, in favor of private weather reporting services. Has nothing to do with the fact he's in bed with and has received numerous donations from Accuweather, a fee-based private weather forecasting corporation, which, of course, gets a lot of its info from the NWS. Of course not. Nope. Not him. He's a swell guy. Have we mentioned he's a Republic-rat? Goes without saying.

So here he comes, along with Cat-Killer Frist and the rest of the hooded lynch mob misrepresenting the Republican Party. Throwing his protecting-the-softspot-until-the-skull-has-time-to-grow helmet in the I-wanna-be-the-prez-this-time-mom ring... --DN

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Sunday, July 31, 2005

Hi, I'm Senator Batshit Crazy, vote for me.

Our bodily fluids, George, which is why I only drink grain alcohol and branch water. Have to protect those fluids. (Spot on, Steve. Nice nod to Sterling Hayden, R.I.P., the mostly under-appreciated actor who played 'General Jack D. Ripper' to perfection in Doctor Strangelove... --DN)

Senator Batshit becomes unglued again on TV.

Some people were pissed at the way Jon Stewart talked to him, but his approach was to get the man to hang himself.

People forget that Stephanopoulos is a minister's kid and knows religion real well. His father is a Greek Orthodox priest, so when the Holy Rollers come on, he knows how full of shit they are. So he went for the throat.The whole segment is filled with crazy, but this is extra special crazy

George Stephanopoulos Interviews Sen. Rick Santorum, 7/31/05..................................

STEPHANOPOULOS: Let's talk about something else in the book, radical feminists. A second quote from the book, you say, respect for stay-at-home mothers has been poisoned by a toxic combination of the village elders' war on the traditional family and radical feminism's misogynistic crusade to make working outside the home the only marker of social value and self-respect.
Let's get specific here. Name one or two of these radical feminists who are on this crusade.

SANTORUM: Well, I mean, you know, you have - you go back to, what's her name, well, Gloria Steinem, but I'm trying to remember - I can't remember the woman's name. It's terrible. Anyway...

STEPHANOPOULOS: But it's kind of an important point. Because you paint this broad brush: radical feminists, village elders. Name one.

SANTORUM: There's lots of - no, there's lot's of - well, Gloria Steinem. There's one. I mean, there's lots of writings out there -

STEPHANOPOULOS: She's been on a crusade against stay-at-home moms?

SANTORUM: There's lots of writings out there, and there is an opinion by the elite in this country across academia, across the media, that stay-at-home motherhood is not adequately affirmed and respected by our society. And if you don't believe that, get a panel of stay-at- home moms here on your show, and you ask them whether they feel affirmed by society, whether they feel affirmed by the culture.
'
STEPHANOPOULOS: Listen, I can go home. My wife Wendy both works and stays at home at various times. And sometimes, when she's not working, you know, she gets upset, but it's not some message that's being driven by -
SANTORUM: Isn't it?

STEPHANOPOULOS: - specific people.

SANTORUM: Isn't it a message for us? I mean, where does this come from? Does this come from the ether?

STEPHANOPOULOS: Well, I'm asking you. Where are these radical feminists?

SANTORUM: It comes from an elite culture, dictated, again, from academia, dictated, again, from the Hollywood culture and the news media, that says, the only thing that's affirming, the only thing that really counts is what you do at work.
And that goes for men and women. And it's wrong. It's wrong to tell that to fathers. It's wrong to tell that to mothers. And we need to value mothers and fathers spending time with their children much more than we do in America.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Hillary Clinton wrote much the same in her book, It Takes a Village. Do you believe she's a radical feminist?

SANTORUM: Yes, I do. I mean, read her work and what she's done on children's rights. I mean, that's radical. I mean, you're talking about giving children the same - that children have rights equal to adults. I mean, that is not a nurturing atmosphere of mothers and fathers taking responsibility for shaping the moral vision of their children. She doesn't agree with that, at least if you look at her earlier writings.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Have you talked to her about your book?

SANTORUM: We've had conversations in passing about it.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Tell us about them.

SANTORUM: Oh, just, you know, pass in the hallway, you know, she made a comment to me about that it takes a village, and I responded, no, it really does take a family.

STEPHANOPOULOS: So no serious debate?

SANTORUM: No serious debate. I'd love to have a serious debate.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You may have drawn her out now, calling her a radical feminist.

SANTORUM: I'd love to have a serious debate. If she'd like to have a serious debate about her view of how society should be ordered and structured - I believe her view is one that says government and top-down. I believe my view is the view that's held by most Americans, which means we need strong families and strong communities, and we don't need government really dissembling those institutions, which I think her view of the world does.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Let's move on to another controversy you stirred up, the question of the sexual abuse scandal in the Catholic church. You made a statement in July 2002 which has drawn a lot of fire.
You said, in a publication called Catholic On-Line, When the culture is sick, every element in it becomes infected. While there's no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm.
You've reaffirmed that just a couple of weeks ago. Ted Kennedy, John Kerry say you have to apologize. Mitt Romney, Republican governor, says basically you don't know what you're talkin