Radar Contact

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

Been noticing more than a few talking heads and other pundits going into full blown "blame the victim" mode, one the favorites of White Supremacists, Ayn Rand aficionados, the Republican Party and lynch mobs everywhere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_supremacist
http://world.std.com/~mhuben/critobj.html
http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/encyclopedia/l/ly/lynching.htm


By Jonathan Freedland
05 September, 2005
The Guardian

The waters flow in and the waters flow out, washing away all that once lay on the surface -and revealing what lies beneath. So it is with all floods in all places, but now it is America which stands exposed. And neither America nor the world much likes what it sees.

The first revelation was not spoken in words, but written in the faces of those left behind. Television viewers from Bradford to Bangalore could not help but notice it, and Americans from Buffalo to Bakersfield could not deny it. The women pleading for their lives in handwritten signs, the children clinging to tree branches, the prisoners herded on to a jail roof - they were overwhelmingly black.

This will not be news to most Americans. They know that a racial divide still haunts their country, as it has from its very founding. Like a character in Shakespearean tragedy, race is America's fatal flaw, the weakness which so often brings it low.Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, could see the danger. "I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just," he wrote in 1785, reflecting on the crime that was slavery. "His justice cannot sleep forever."

Time and time again, America has been forced to wake up to the racial injustice which has been its historic curse. It was the source of a civil war in the 19th century and of repeated battles through the 20th. From the desegregation and civil rights struggles of the 1950s and 1960s to the Los Angeles riots and even the OJ Simpson trial of the 1990s, America has undergone periodic reminders that it is in the relationship between black and white that it has failed to honour its own, animating ideals.

Katrina has rammed home that message once more, with lacerating force. White Americans, who regarded New Orleans as a kind of playground, a place to enjoy the carnal pleasures of music, food, drink and more, have learned things about that city - and therefore their society - that they would probably have preferred not to know. They have discovered that it was mainly white folks who lived on the higher, safer ground, while poorer, black families had to huddle in the cheaper, low-lying housing - that race, in other words, determined who got hit.

They have also learned that 35% of black households in the area did not have a car. Or that the staff and guests of the Hyatt hotel were evacuated first, while the rest, the mainly poor and black, were at the back of the queue. Or that 28% of the people of New Orleans live in poverty and that 84% of those are black. Or that some people in that city were so poor, they did not have the money even to catch a bus out of town - that race, in other words, determined who got left behind.

Most Americans want to believe that kind of inequality belongs in the past, in the school textbooks. But Katrina has shaken them from that delusion.

They have had to face another painful truth. Their government has proved itself incompetent. Yes, it could act quickly once it had decided to act - but it idled for days. This disastrous performance will surely saddle the remainder of George Bush's presidency, just as the botched Desert One rescue of American hostages from the besieged US embassy in Tehran hobbled that of Jimmy Carter. Americans expect competence from their leader as a minimum requirement. And if an image of a crashed helicopter in the Iranian desert could undo one president, surely pictures of an American city reduced to a Somali or Bangladeshi kind of chaos spell disaster for this one.

But the shock may well do more than shift perceptions of the current administration. For 25 years, the dominant US ideology has been to shrink the state. "Government is not the solution to our problem," declared Ronald Reagan. "Government is the problem."


That defined the limits for state activism thereafter. After decades of energetic government programmes, from Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal in the 1930s to Lyndon Johnson's Great Society in the 1960s, the state was compelled to retreat. Taxes would go down and the government would do less.

Mr Bush personifies that ideology with more vigour than anyone since Reagan. Yet now, after Katrina, the national mood might alter. Americans have seen where small government leads. The authorities in Louisiana, including the military, pleaded long ago with Washington to reinforce the levees that were designed to save New Orleans from a great flood. The Army Corps of Engineers asked for $105m (£57m): the White House gave them $40m.

It is conceivable that Americans will now call a halt to their quarter-century experiment in limited government - and the neglected infrastructure that has entailed. There are some tasks, they may conclude, which neither individuals nor private companies can do alone - and evacuating tens of thousands of people from a drowning city is one of them.

Yesterday the New York Times' resident conservative columnist David Brooks wondered if there could now be a "progressive resurgence". There is a precedent. After an earlier Louisiana disaster, the floods of 1927, there was public outrage that not a single federal dollar had gone to feed or shelter the victims: the army had even demanded reimbursement from the Red Cross for the use of its tents. From now on, the public resolved, the federal government would have to protect the vulnerable. That shift paved the way for the activism of FDR and all that followed. Nearly 80 years on, history might be about to repeat itself.

Finally, America will have to get over the shock of seeing itself in a new, unflattering light. It is not just the lawlessness, violence and gun culture that has been on show in New Orleans. It is also that America likes to think of itself as the "indispensable nation", the strongest, richest, most capable country on the face of the earth.

That belief had already taken a few blows. The vulnerability exposed on 9/11 was one. The struggle in Iraq - where America has become a Gulliver, tied down - was another. But now the giant has been hit again, its weak spot exposed. When corpses float in the streets for five days, the indispensable nation looks like a society that cannot take care of its own. When Sri Lanka offers to send emergency aid, the humiliation is complete.

That could lead to a shift in priorities, a sense that too many energies were diverted to Iraq and Afghanistan and away from the home front. It could even see the US retreating from the world and hunkering down.

But don't count on it. At the end of the 1970s, American confidence was also shaken - by defeat in Vietnam, by the serial failure (and worse) of government institutions. What followed, after the interval of the Carter presidency, was a period of gung-ho bullishness that became the Reagan era. It may look battered - but only a fool would count America out.

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
Link

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

"Labor Day differs in every essential from the other holidays of the year in any country," said Samuel Gompers, founder and longtime president of the American Federation of Labor. "All other holidays are in a more or less degree connected with conflicts and battles of man's prowess over man, of strife and discord for greed and power, of glories achieved by one nation over another. Labor Day...is devoted to no man, living or dead, to no sect, race, or nation."

Labor Day, the first Monday in September, is a creation of the labor movement and is dedicated to the social and economic achievements of American workers. It constitutes a yearly national tribute to the contributions workers have made to the strength, prosperity and well-being of our country.

Founder of Labor Day

More than 100 years after the first Labor Day observance, there is still some doubt as to who first proposed the holiday for workers.

Some records show that Peter J. McGuire, general secretary of the Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners and a co-founder of the American Federation of Labor, was first in suggesting a day to honor those "who from rude nature have delved and carved all the grandeur we behold."

But Peter McGuire's place in Labor Day history has not gone unchallenged. Many believe that Matthew Maguire, a machinist, not Peter McGuire, founded the holiday. Recent research seems to support the contention that Matthew Maguire, later the secretary of Local 344 of the International Association of Machinists in Paterson, N.J., proposed the holiday in 1882 while serving as secretary of the Central Labor Union in New York. What is clear is that the Central Labor Union adopted a Labor Day proposal and appointed a committee to plan a demonstration and picnic.

The First Labor Day

The first Labor Day holiday was celebrated on Tuesday, September 5, 1882, in New York City, in accordance with the plans of the Central Labor Union. The Central Labor Union held its second Labor Day holiday just a year later, on September 5, l883.

In l884 the first Monday in September was selected as the holiday, as originally proposed, and the Central Labor Union urged similar organizations in other cities to follow the example of New York and celebrate a "workingmen's holiday" on that date. The idea spread with the growth of labor organizations, and in l885 Labor Day was celebrated in many industrial centers of the country.

Labor Day Legislation

Through the years the nation gave increasing emphasis to Labor Day. The first governmental recognition came through municipal ordinances passed during 1885 and 1886. From them developed the movement to secure state legislation. The first state bill was introduced into the New York legislature, but the first to become law was passed by Oregon on February 2l, l887. During the year four more states -- Colorado, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York -- created the Labor Day holiday by legislative enactment. By the end of the decade Connecticut, Nebraska, and Pennsylvania had followed suit. By 1894, 23 other states had adopted the holiday in honor of workers, and on June 28 of that year, Congress passed an act making the first Monday in September of each year a legal holiday in the District of Columbia and the territories.

A Nationwide Holiday

The form that the observance and celebration of Labor Day should take were outlined in the first proposal of the holiday -- a street parade to exhibit to the public "the strength and esprit de corps of the trade and labor organizations" of the community, followed by a festival for the recreation and amusement of the workers and their families. This became the pattern for the celebrations of Labor Day. Speeches by prominent men and women were introduced later, as more emphasis was placed upon the economic and civic significance of the holiday. Still later, by a resolution of the American Federation of Labor convention of 1909, the Sunday preceding Labor Day was adopted as Labor Sunday and dedicated to the spiritual and educational aspects of the labor movement.

The character of the Labor Day celebration has undergone a change in recent years, especially in large industrial centers where mass displays and huge parades have proved a problem. This change, however, is more a shift in emphasis and medium of expression. Labor Day addresses by leading union officials, industrialists, educators, clerics and government officials are given wide coverage in newspapers, radio and television.

The vital force of labor added materially to the highest standard of living and the greatest production the world has ever known and has brought us closer to the realization of our traditional ideals of economic and political democracy. It is appropriate, therefore, that the nation pay tribute on Labor Day to the creator of so much of the nation's strength, freedom, and leadership -- the American worker.

Lest we forget...
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/journals/EH/EH37/Pels.html
http://patco81.com/
http://patcodocumentary.com/
http://eightiesclub.tripod.com/id296.htm
http://www.socialistworker.org/2001/374/374_10_PATCO.shtml
http://www.stfrancis.edu/ba/ghkickul/stuwebs/btopics/works/atcstrike.htm
http://patco81.com/news.htm
http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/ducote/37395.php
Link

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

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=bush+lies
http://www.bushlies.net/pages/10/index.htm

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Recent Changes Find Page Like Pages Back Links
Bush Lies

BUSH Lies

"Reporters and editors who "protect" their readers and viewers from the truth about Bush's lies are doing the nation--and ultimately George W. Bush--no favors. Take a look at the names at that long black wall on the Mall. Consider the tragic legacy of LBJ's failed presidency. Ask yourself just who is being served when the media allow Bush to lie, repeatedly, with impunity, in order to take the nation into war." (Magazine article by Eric Alterman; The Nation, Vol. 275, November 25, 2002)

BUSH CLAIMS: “Gosh, I don’t think I ever said I’m not worried about Osama Bin Laden. That’s kinda like one of those... exaggerations.”

REALITY:
Bush: “I Am Truly Not That Concerned About Him.” In 2002 Bush said: “Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I--I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him.” http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html

BUSH CLAIMS: “three-quarters of Al Qaida leaders have been brought to justice.” (Bush Remarks, Third Presidential Debate, 10/13/04)

REALITY:
Bush Claims To Have Wiped Out 3/4 Of Al Qaeda, Yet The Organization Is Resurging And Morphing. Despite Bush’s claims over the past several months that “much of Al Qaeda’s leadership has been killed or captured,” new evidence from Al Qaeda double-agent Mohammed Naeem Noor Khan’s computer, seized in Pakistan, shows that a “new generation of operatives…(appears) to be filling the vacuum created when leaders were killed or captured.” According to intelligence analysts, “Al Qaeda’s upper ranks are being filled by lower-ranking members and more recent recruits.” Al Qaeda is “more resilient than was previously understood and has sought to find replacements for operational commanders like Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah and Walid Muhammad Salih bin Attash, known as Khallad, all of whom have been captured.” Although several major leaders have been captured, “the new operatives appear as committed to striking the U.S.” (Bush Remarks, 9/14/04; New York Times, 8/10/04; Wall Street Journal, 8/16/04)

BUSH CLAIMS: “We have a problem with litigation in the United States of America. Vaccine manufacturers are worried about getting sued, and therefore they have backed off from providing this kind of vaccine.”

REALITY:
Mergers, Not Lawsuits, To Blame for Lack of Vaccine Producing Companies. “Also, Bush blamed lawsuits for the shortage, but that's not the cause of frequent vaccine shortages, according to the Institute of Medicine, a division of the National Academy of Sciences. The problem is that vaccines aren't profitable and drug companies keep merging. In 1967, nearly 30 drug companies made vaccines. That was down to five last year, and of those only two make flu vaccines.” (Pioneer Press, 10/14/04)

BUSH CLAIMS: “Most of the tax cuts went to low and middle income Americans, and now the tax code is more fair, 20 percent of the upper income people pay about 80 percent of the taxes in America today because of how we structured the tax cuts.”

REALITY:
In 2004, Top One Percent Will Receive Average Tax Cut Of $35,000; Middle Class Will Receive Average Tax Cut Of $647. The benefits of Bush’s tax cuts primarily benefit the rich. The top one percent of households will receive tax cuts averaging almost $35,000--or 54 times more than middle-class families. Households with incomes above $1 million will receive tax cuts averaging about $123,600. (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 4/14/04)
George Bush's Plan Shifts the Tax Burden to the Middle Class. In contrast, under the Bush plan the "Tax Burden Shifts to the Middle" according to a Washington Post headline, and "middle America - average annual income $75,600 - saw its share of the federal tax burden increase from 18.7 percent to 19.5 percent." In addition, George Bush has imposed a tax of thousands of dollars on families through higher costs for health care, gasoline, college tuition, and state and local taxes. (Washington Post, 8/13/04)

BUSH CLAIMS: “I understand that they need to get better rates of return than the rates of return being given in the current Social Security trust, and the compounding rate of interest effect will make it more likely that the social security system is solvent for our children and our grandchildren.”

REALITY:
CBO: Bush Plan Will Force Benefit Cuts. According to CBO, the President’s plan “would reduce expected retirement benefits relative to scheduled benefits, even when the benefits paid from IAs (individual accounts) under CSSS Plan 2 are included… For example, benefits for the 1980s birth cohort would be 30 percent lower, and benefits for the 2000s cohort would be 45 percent lower.” (CBO, “Long-term Analysis of Plan 2 of the President’s Commission to Strengthen Social Security,” 7/21/2004, page 15 and Table 2)

BUSH CLAIMS: “He (Kerry) voted to increase taxes 98 times.”

REALITY:
Bush Exaggerates Kerry’s Tax Record. “Bush recycled his charge that Kerry voted 98 times to raise taxes. But FactCheck.org, a nonpartisan group, says nearly half were not for tax increases per se, and many others were on procedural motions. The Bush total also includes several votes on a single tax bill.” (Washington Post, 10/14/04)
Kerry has gone on the legislative record over 640 times for lower taxes. (Congressional Quarterly Votes; CQ's Congress And The Nation; CQ Almanacs; Senate Republican Policy Committee Vote Analysis; Congressional Research Service Bill Summaries (via thomas.loc.gov), bill texts (via thomas.loc.gov))

BUSH CLAIMS: “I proposed a constitutional amendment. The reason I did so was because I was worried that activist judges are actually defining the definition of marriage, and the surest way to protect marriage between a man and woman is to amend the constitution.”

REALITY:
Bush Previously Claimed Gay Marriage Was a State Issue. In a 2000 Republican primary debate, Bush responded to a question about same-sex marriage as follows: "The state can do what they want to do. Don't try to trap me in this state's issue." (2/15/00 Republican primary debate) - http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0002/15/lkl.00.html

BUSH CLAIMS: “He talks about PAYGO. I'll tell you what PAYGO means, when you're a senator from Massachusetts, when you're a colleague of Ted Kennedy, pay go means: You pay, and he goes ahead and spends.”

REALITY:
Bush Has Increased Non-Defense Discretionary Spending By 36 Percent During His First Term. In total, non-defense discretionary outlays increased approximately 36 percent during Bush’s first term in office. Brian Riedl, a budget analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation, estimates that government spending has climbed twice as fast under Bush as under Clinton. (Heritage study, 12/16/03; Cato Institute, 3/3/04; New York Times, 1/24/04)
Bush Has Not Vetoed A Single Spending Bill. During his first term in office, Bush has not vetoed any bills. (Heritage study, 12/16/03; Cato Institute, 3/3/04; New York Times, 1/24/04; Economist, 10/9/04; Denver Post, 8/29/04; Congressional Quarterly)

BUSH CLAIMS: “It will be the largest increase in government health care ever.”

REALITY:
Bush’s Charges About Kerry’s Health Care Plan Have Been Roundly Discredited. ABC News said they were “not true.” “This is hardly a government takeover that would put bureaucrats in charge of your health care, as President Bush has shamelessly contended,” said the New York Times. The Washington Post said, “There is no evidence that the Kerry blueprint is a ‘government-run’ plan.” The Detroit News said they are “absurd accusations.” And the St. Louis Post-Dispatch said, “Mr. Bush's allegations are wildly inaccurate.” (ABC News World News Tonight, 9/13/04; New York Times Editorial, 10/3/04; Washington Post, 9/14/04; Detroit Free Press, 9/26/04; St. Louis Post-Dispatch Editorial, 9/27/04)

BUSH CLAIMS: “That’s why I am such a strong believer in medical liability reform. The last debate my opponent said the lawsuits only cause it to go up by 1 percent. He didn't include the defensive practice of medicine that costs the Federal government some $28 billion a year and costs our society between 60 and 100 billion a year.”

REALITY:
GAO Found No Evidence that Tort Reform Would Reduce Medical Spending. Both the General Accountability Office (GAO) and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) criticize the 1996 study the Bush administration uses as their main support for that claim…When the CBO attempted to duplicate the Stanford economists’ methods for other types of ailments they found “no evidence that restrictions on tort liability reduce medical spending.” http://factcheck.org/

BUSH CLAIMS: “We ought…to make sure when they get out of high school there's Pell Grants available for them, which is what we've done.” (Bush, 10/13/04)

REALITY:
Bush Broke Campaign Promise to Increase Maximum Pell Grant Award Amount. Bush promised to increase the maximum Pell Grant award to $5,100 during the 2000 campaign. Bush’s FY 2005 budget is the third in a row that has refused to increase the value over the current $4,050. The maximum value of the Pell grant covers 68 percent of public two-year tuition, down from 94 percent three decades ago. (Bush Speech in Hampton, New Hampshire, 8/30/00; FY 2005 budget)
Bush Tried to Drop 84,000 Students From Pell Program By Changing Eligibility Formula. Department of Education proposed Pell Grant formula changes would have eliminated Pell Grants for 84,000 students and reduced the grants for 1.5 million additional students. Fortunately, implementation of the proposed changes was delayed by Congress. (American Council on Education, 12/8/03)

BUSH CLAIMS: “Well, first of all, it is just not true that I haven't met with the Black Congressional Caucus. I met with the Black Congressional Caucus at the White House.”

REALITY:
Bush Has Purposely Ignored the Congressional Black Caucus. “Bush did meet with the Congressional Black Caucus during his first two weeks in office -- on Jan. 31, 2001 -- but Kerry's overall charge was correct: Bush has repeatedly turned down requests to meet with the group since then. Caucus members have complained that not only has Bush refused to meet with them on specific issues, including his plans to attack Iraq, but also the White House often has not even responded to their letters.” (Washington Post, 10/14/04)

BUSH CLAIMS: “And now this economy is growing. We added 1.9 million new jobs over the last 13 months.”

REALITY:
Bush “Oversimplifies” The Employment Picture. Bush “oversimplified” the employment picture by saying that the number of jobs has increased by 1.9 million in the past 13 months…Bush was referring to only a brief window of time. The latest job figures released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics last week showed that 96,000 jobs were added in September, fewer than the 145,000 predicted by economists, for a net loss of 821,000 during Bush's tenure. Bush is on track to be the first president in 72 years to preside over a loss of jobs.” (Washington Post, 10/14/04)

BUSH CLAIMS: “What he's asking me is, ‘Will I have a litmus test for my judges?’ And the answer is, no, I will not have a litmus test.”

REALITY:
Bush Has Promised to Pack the Courts with Right Wing Judges. Bush has pledged to continue to pack the courts with his right wing judicial nominees and has said that Antonin Scalia is his role model for Supreme Court judges. At a GOP fundraiser in March 2002, Bush said, “First, we’ve got to get good, conservative judges appointed to the bench and approved by the United States Senate.” Non-partisan studies have found that in civil rights and civil liberties cases, Bush’s judges made liberal decisions only 26.5% of the time. (Bush Remarks at a Fundraiser for Senatorial Candidate John Cornyn; 3/28/02; Detroit Free Press, 6/19/00; “Redefining Rights in America: The Civil Rights Record of the George W. Bush Administration”, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 9/04; Reuters, 9/9/04)

BUSH CLAIMS: “He's proposed $2.2 trillion of new spending…”

REALITY:
Bush Plans Would Cost $3 Trillion “Bush, making his case that Kerry is a tax-and-spend liberal, charged that he has promised more than $2.2 trillion in new spending over the next 10 years. Kerry has disputed that estimate, and Bush's own tax-cut proposals and plan to create private Social Security accounts -- and his spending proposals -- would add more than $3 trillion to the deficit, according to administration figures.” (Washington Post, 10/14/04)

BUSH CLAIMS: “My biggest disappointment in Washington is how partisan the town is.”

REALITY:
Bush a “Divider Not Uniter”: The Washington Post reported, “As Bush begins the final year of his term with Tuesday night’s State of the Union address, partisans on both sides say the tone of political discourse is as bad as ever -- if not worse.” One senior administration official said, Bush could have built “trust and goodwill” by pursuing more broadly appealing initiatives. One former Bush aide said the White House “relished the ‘us versus them’ thing.” The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has also found that Bush has failed “to build common ground” and “missed opportunities to build consensus on key civil rights issues.” Instead he has “adopted policies that divide Americans.” (“Redefining Rights in America: The Civil Rights Record of the George W. Bush Administration”, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 9/04;Washington Post, 1/18/04)

BUSH CLAIMS: “Today in America more minorities own a home than ever before.”

REALITY:
Homeownership Gap Between African Americans And Whites Has Grown 6.4 Percent Under Bush. Despite Bush’s claims that he is focusing on narrowing disparities in minority home ownership, the gap between black and white homeowners has increased 6.4 percent since Bush took office, from 24.8 percentage pts in 2001 to 26.5 in the last period reported. What’s more, African Americans continue to be twice as likely as whites to be denied home loans. (U.S. Dept. of Housing and Urban Development, US Housing Market Conditions, www.hud.gov; Census Bureau Reports on Residential Vacancies and Homeownership, 7/29/04; Akron Beacon Journal, 10/16/03; Orlando Sentinel, 10/16/03; Columbus Dispatch, 10/16/03; CBS Market Watch, 10/16/03)

BUSH CLAIMS: “In order to make sure people have jobs for the 21st century, we've got to get it right in the education system, and we're beginning to close a minority achievement gap now. “

REALITY:
Nationwide Achievement Gaps in Reading Have Not Closed Since NCLB. Although many groups began to close the achievement gap from 1998 to 2002, there is no nationwide evidence that the gaps in reading have closed after No Child Left Behind. In fact in 2003, the Nation’s Report Card shows that in grade 4, the gap between white and African American students grew slightly larger, while the achievement gap for Hispanics was unchanged. In grade 8, the gap between white and Hispanic students grew slightly larger while the achievement gap for African Americans was unchanged. (National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of Educational Progress)
Bush Exaggerates Evidence of Minority Gains. “There is fragmentary data to support Bush's claim that the additional federal dollars to schools and the new accountability standards have helped minority students improve their test scores relative to white students, but education specialists agree there is not yet enough evidence to declare the act a nationwide success. Besides, the ‘achievement gap’ has been getting narrower for roughly the past decade, said Paul Peterson, director of the Program in Education Policy and Governance at Harvard's Kennedy School.” (Boston Globe, 9/24/04)

BUSH CLAIMS: “We are doing everything we can to protect our borders and ports. Absolutely we can be secure in the long run.”

REALITY:
American Borders Less Secure Since 9-11. “In a single day, more than 4,000 illegal aliens will walk across the busiest unlawful gateway into the U.S., the 375-mile border between Arizona and Mexico each day…The U.S.’s borders, rather than becoming more secure since 9/11 have grown more porous. And the trend has accelerated in the past year. The number of illegal aliens flooding into the U.S. this year will total 3 million…the largest wave since 2001.” (Time, 9/20/04)

BUSH CLAIMS: “Why should they insure somebody when the government's going to insure it for them? It's estimated that 8 million people will go from private insurance to government insurance.”

REALITY:
97% of Americans Keep Existing Health Coverage Under Kerry Plan. “Lewin's vice president John Sheils told FactCheck.org that his computer model projects that only 8.2 million (of the 243 million who currently have private or government health insurance) would change their insurance plans under Kerry's plan.” http://factcheck.org/ - (10/4/04)
Bush Citing Study Produced By His Own Health Care Advisor From 2000 Campaign. John Goodman, the chief author of the study Bush cites, was a health care adviser to the Bush campaign in 2000. He still works informally for Bush and Congressional Republicans as an advocate for Bush’s health savings accounts. Goodman appeared as recently as July 30, 2004 on “Ludlow and Cramer” as a Bush adviser. (National Journal, 2/7/04; CNBC Transcript, “Ludlow & Cramer,” 7/30/04; Insight on the News, 1/5/04, New York Times, 4/24/00)
All quoting is in compliance with the Fair Use Doctrine per Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, Copyright Law.
More Lies
Who Dies for Bush Lies?
Transcluded from http://www.bushlies.net/pages/10/
See: http://www.bushlies.net/pages/10/
Link

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

Brown pushed from last job
--Horse group: FEMA chief had to be 'asked to resign' - The federal official in charge of the bungled New Orleans rescue was fired from his last private-sector job overseeing horse shows. And before joining the Federal Emergency Management Agency as a deputy director in 2001, GOP activist Mike Brown had no significant experience that would have qualified him for the position... "I look at FEMA and I shake my head,'' said a furious Gov. (R) Mitt Romney yesterday, calling the response "an embarrassment.'' Katrina -

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

EXCERPTS from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9179790/ transcript:

(Jefferson Paris President)MR. BROUSSARD:
Sir, they were told like me, every single day, "The cavalry's coming," on a federal level, "The cavalry's coming, the cavalry's coming, the cavalry's coming." I have just begun to hear the hoofs of the cavalry. The cavalry's still not here yet, but I've begun to hear the hoofs, and we're almost a week out.

Let me give you just three quick examples. We had Wal-Mart deliver three trucks of water, trailer trucks of water. FEMA turned them back. They said we didn't need them. This was a week ago. FEMA--we had 1,000 gallons of diesel fuel on a Coast Guard vessel docked in my parish. The Coast Guard said, "Come get the fuel right away." When we got there with our trucks, they got a word. "FEMA says don't give you the fuel." Yesterday--yesterday--FEMA comes in and cuts all of our emergency communication lines. They cut them without notice. Our sheriff, Harry Lee, goes back in, he reconnects the line. He posts armed guards on our line and says, "No one is getting near these lines." Sheriff Harry Lee said that if America--American government would have responded like Wal-Mart has responded, we wouldn't be in this crisis.

(...)

MR. RUSSERT: All right.

MR. BROUSSARD: ...that have worked 24/7. They're burned out, the doctors, the nurses. And I want to give you one last story and I'll shut up and let you tell me whatever you want to tell me. The guy who runs this building I'm in, emergency management, he's responsible for everything. His mother was trapped in St. Bernard nursing home and every day she called him and said, "Are you coming, son? Is somebody coming?"
And he said, "Yeah, Mama, somebody's coming to get you.
Somebody's coming to get you on Tuesday.
Somebody's coming to get you on Wednesday.
Somebody's coming to get you on Thursday.
Somebody's coming to get you on Friday."
And she drowned Friday night.
She drowned Friday night.

MR. RUSSERT: Mr. President...

MR. BROUSSARD: Nobody's coming to get us. Nobody's coming to get us. The secretary has promised. Everybody's promised. They've had press conferences. I'm sick of the press conferences. For God sakes, shut up and send us somebody.
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

MSNBC.com

The Lost City
What Went Wrong: Devastating a swath of the South, Katrina plunged New Orleans into agony. The story of a storm—and a disastrously slow rescue.

Newsweek

Sept. 12, 2005 issue - It wasn't exactly a surprise. "This ain't gonna last," New Orleans City Council President Oliver Thomas told his security guard as they watched the waters of Lake Pontchartrain rising and racing and eating away at the dirt levee beneath the concrete floodwall built to protect New Orleans from disaster. It was 4 o'clock on Sunday afternoon, Aug. 28. Hurricane Katrina was still 14 hours away, but the sea surge had begun. Thomas returned to the city's hurricane war room and announced, to anyone who was listening, "The water's coming into the city."

Thomas was asleep on his office couch early Tuesday morning when he was awakened by the sound of banging on his door and someone yelling, "The levee broke!" Thomas stood up on his soaked carpet and felt as though he were standing in concrete. He was paralyzed, he later said, by the fear of predictions coming true. Thomas, who had been rescued off the roof of his house in New Orleans during Hurricane Betsy in 1965, had been a city councilman for a dozen years. His specialty is water. He knew all about the studies and reports and dire warnings stacked up on the desks of bureaucrats, he knew about all the relief and reconstruction and restoration projects that had been discussed but never paid for or carried out, and he knew his beloved old city was doomed.

A few rescuers were ready, but precious few. On Monday morning, as the storm slammed into the Gulf Coast, Col. Tim Tarchick of the 920th Rescue Wing, Air Force Reserve Command, got on the phone to call every agency he could think of to ask permission to take his three rescue helicopters into the disaster zone as soon as the storm abated. The response was noncommittal. FEMA, the federal agency that is supposed to handle disasters, told Tarchick that it wasn't authorized to task military units. That had to come from the Defense Department. Tarchick wasn't able to cut through the red tape until 4 p.m. Tuesday—more than 24 hours after the storm had passed. His crews plucked hundreds of people off rooftops, but when they delivered them to an assigned landing zone, there was "total chaos. No food, no water, no bathrooms, no nothing." There was "no structure, no organization, no command center," Tarchick told NEWSWEEK.

Only despair. The news could not have been more dispiriting: The reports of gunfire at medical-relief helicopters. The stories of pirates capturing rescue boats. The reports of police standing and watching looters—or joining them. The TV images of hundreds and thousands of people, mostly black and poor, trapped in the shadow of the Superdome. And most horrific: the photographs of dead people floating facedown in the sewage or sitting in wheelchairs where they died, some from lack of water. For many across the city and the Gulf Coast, prayer seemed one of their few options. On CNN, Mayor C. Ray Nagin asked the country to "pray for us," a plea repeated by survivors who needed that, and much more.

New Orleans has long been an inspiration to soulful writers and artists who sing the blues. But there was nothing romantic about Katrina's wake. Most of the poets had headed for higher ground (although legendary R&B man "Fats" Domino stayed, was reported missing, then found alive). Left behind were the poor who couldn't get out, a few defiant members of the local gentry and gangs of predators.

No one seemed to have any idea how many people died, but it was clearly the worst natural disaster since a hurricane wiped out Galveston, Texas, in 1900, killing 6,000 to 12,000 people. No major American city had been evacuated since Richmond and Atlanta in the Civil War. The economic cost will be enormous, starting with gasoline prices jumping to more than $3 a gallon. The political cost to President Bush could also be stiff. When Air Force One dipped below the clouds on Tuesday so the president could peer out the window down at the disaster, the image was uncomfortably imperial. A folksier Bush toured the wretched region on Friday, hugged some victims and did a rare but necessary thing: he admitted that the results of the relief effort had been "not acceptable."

Day after day of images showed exhausted families and their crying children stepping around corpses while they begged: Where is the water? Where are the buses? They seemed helpless, powerless, at the mercy of forces far beyond their control. The lack of rapid response left people in the United States, and all over the world, wondering how an American city could look like Mogadishu or Port-au-Prince. The refugee crisis—a million people without homes, jobs, schools—hardly fit George W. Bush's vision of the American Colossus.

What went wrong? Just about everything. How the system failed is a tangled story, but the basic narrative is becoming clearer: hesitancy, bureaucratic rivalries, failures of leadership from city hall to the White House and epically bad luck combined to create a morass. In the early aftermath, fingers pointed in all directions. The president was to blame; no, the looters. No, the bureaucrats. No, the local politicians. It was FEMA's fault—unless it was the Department of Homeland Security's. Or the Pentagon's. Certainly the government failed, and the catastrophe exposed, for all the world to see, raw racial divisions.

Bush's many critics will say that the president was disengaged, on vacation, distracted by Iraq and insensitive to the needs of poor black people. The White House blames the magnitude of the storm itself, patchy information on the ground and a confused chain of command, according to a senior Bush aide who requests anonymity in order to speak freely about internal administration discussions. The truth probably lies somewhere in between. Bush is fighting a war, and he is sometimes slow to react, and he may have been lulled by early reports that New Orleans had been spared the worst of the storm. These are all legitimate excuses. (!!!) Still, we expect more from a president.

Mother Nature was a major villain. A hurricane like Katrina packs the energy of a 10-megaton nuclear bomb—exploding every 20 minutes. Global warming does not explain the recent increase in hurricanes, the scientists say. A natural cycle of rising and lowering ocean temperatures accounts for the frequency of tropical storms; a lull in hurricanes from about the mid-'60s to the '90s was the exception, not the norm. But man may be making storms worse. As the planet heats, hurricanes will become more intense. And during that period of relative calm, homeowners and industry crowded the fragile shore all along the path of hurricanes in the South and Eastern United States.

Man robbed the Mississippi Delta of its natural protection from storms—ironically, to prevent flooding. Dikes and levees that channeled silt, and would have normally been allowed to build up the bayous and outer islands surrounding New Orleans, have instead been left to sink slowly into the mud. The wetlands along the Gulf Coast have been disappearing at the rate of about 33 football fields a day.

The government knew this and planned for the "Big One," at least in theory. The latest exercise by state, local and federal officials, looking at the impact of a fictional "Hurricane Pam" last year, pretty well predicted the crushing impact of Katrina on New Orleans and the Gulf Coast. But the Department of Homeland Security, which is supposed to coordinate the relief effort for all disasters, natural and man-made, has been more focused on the terror threat since the sprawling agency was created post 9/11. Planners spend more time preparing for exotic (but less predictable) biochem or dirty-bomb attacks, which are more likely to get funding from Congress or the administration. (Though given the events after Katrina, one has to wonder about the nation's readiness to respond to such terrorist strikes.)

Wedged between the Mississippi River on the south and Lake Pontchartrain on the north, New Orleans is mostly below sea level, a saucer waiting to be filled. The "Big Easy" is a city of indolent charm, and its residents can be fatalist about enjoying the moment. The city, known for its "Cities of the Dead" because bodies must be buried aboveground, is somewhat otherworldly. It has long been better known for corruption than efficiency.

Over the years, hundreds of miles of earthen levees, concrete floodwalls and pumping stations have been built to keep out the water. Louisiana politicians have lobbied for more money to shore up and heighten the walls and to restore the entire Delta coastline. In June, Sen. Mary Landrieu brought 25 schoolkids into the French Quarter, put them in life jackets and had them stand on the beautiful old wrought-iron balconies. A blue tarp was draped below them to show how high the water would reach. That's almost how high the water—not blue, but brown with sewage, gas and chemicals—did rise last week.

For years, the Army Corps of Engineers has asked for more money for New Orleans and not received it. The Bush administration, strapped by the war in Iraq and eager to hold down spending and cut taxes, actually reduced funding for bolstering the city's levees. Patchworked and aging, the levee system was originally built to withstand a Category 3 hurricane. With winds reaching 140 miles an hour, Katrina was a Category 4 storm when it hit New Orleans at dawn on Monday.

Incredibly, the hurricane could have been worse. It had grown to Category 5, with winds of 165 miles an hour, as it bore down on the Gulf Coast over the weekend. A hurricane is like a huge straw sucking up water, which creates a storm surge. The surge that hit the Gulf Coast, some 29 feet, was the highest ever recorded. The storm steered just to the east of New Orleans and blew away much of Biloxi, Miss. One Biloxi survivor, a Navy vet named Kevin Miller, described clinging to a tree as people floated by, "some dead." Miller told NEWSWEEK of grabbing a desperate woman by the hair—and losing her. "I just lost my grip," he said, choking up. The suffering all along the Gulf Coast, where homes and whole islands vanished, has been terrible, with people's whole lives falling into ruin.

A poll taken for the "Hurricane Pam" planning exercise in 2004 predicted that, if ordered to evacuate New Orleans, about 30 percent of the city of a half-million people would stay behind. So it should have come as no surprise that some 80,000 to 100,000 people chose not to heed the order of Mayor Nagin to get out of town on the Saturday before the storm. A few stayed behind by choice. Brooke Duncan, who was "Rex, King of Carnival," at the 1971 Mardi Gras, wanted to remain in the city his family had first come to before the Civil War. But when the water began to lap at his house in the French Quarter, Duncan, 81, set out carrying his pet dog, a corgi, and a gun to a friend's house. He joined a convoy of well-off Garden District residents driving out of the city. "We had weapons and displayed them through the window," said Duncan, who is now in Cincinnati.

About a fifth of New Orleans residents live below the poverty line, and one in five does not have a car. This disadvantaged population is overwhelmingly African-American. The South has a sordid history when it comes to poor blacks and hurricanes. In 1927, when the Mississippi flooded, blacks were herded as virtual prisoners upriver in Greenville, Miss. As a steamboat, half-filled with whites, took off to safety, the band played "Bye-Bye, Blackbird." Racial tensions may have been even worse this time round. "I think the black population feels abandoned, and they were abandoned" in Katrina, says John M. Barry, author of "Rising Tide," a history of the Great Flood of 1927.

Those who were unable to leave New Orleans were told to go to the Superdome for safe haven from the storm. It quickly became the first circle of hell. First the air conditioning failed. Then the lights. A generator kicked in, but with only enough power to keep the huge arena dimly lit. (When the sun came out, it sent Biblical shafts through a couple of holes Katrina had blown in the roof.) The Salvation Army doled out thousands of ready-made meals (a choice of jambalaya, spaghetti or Thai chicken), but bottled water was scarce, and in the steamy heat, the stench of unwashed bodies ripened. On Wednesday, all running water shut off, and the reeking toilets overflowed.

In the dark bathrooms, the walls and floor were smeared with feces. A black market grew up. Hot sellers were cigarettes (at $10 a pack) and antidiuretics, to enable people to go longer without peeing. The occasional gunshot rang out. A man fell or jumped from the upper deck onto the concrete below and died. In a dank bathroom, someone attacked a National Guardsman with a lead pipe and tried to steal his automatic weapon. In the scuffle, the Guardsman was shot in the leg. Crack vials were scattered around the floor. At least two rapes were reported, one of a child.

At the adjoining and equally squalid New Orleans Arena, people began putting plastic bags on their feet to walk through the pools of urine. And yet, in a scene from Hieronymus Bosch, a man named Samuel Thompson, 34, took out his violin and played Bach's famous lamentation, Sonata No. 1 in G minor. He told L.A. Times reporter Scott Gold, who witnessed the scene, "These people have nothing. I have a violin. And I should play for them. They should have something."

Life went on, barely. On Monday night, in a dark attic surrounded by floodwater, Waldrica Nathan, 19, gave birth to a baby boy. The child was delivered by his father and grandparents, who had picked up a few tips by watching cable TV. The grandfather "knew just where to cut the cord and how to tie a shoestring around it," a hospital spokesman later told the New Orleans Times-Picayune. To keep the baby cool, family members fashioned a combination crib/boat out of a laundry basket and floated it in the cool waters of the flooded living room.

Throughout Tuesday and Wednesday, the water kept rising in New Orleans. The floodwalls breached in at least three places. Trying to plug one 300-foot gap on the 17th Street Canal, the Corps of Engineers dropped giant sandbags and concrete blocks from helicopters. But the choppers were called away to rescue people crying for help from rooftops, and the engineers were never able to get ahead of the flooding. As the water rose, New Orleans's Canal Street became a canal again. In a looted travel agency, some homeless men sat around eating potato chips and drinking Miller Lite beer.

Stranded residents became resourceful. People tore off chair legs and used them as torches after dark. Some people screamed as they waded by giant rats in the garbage-strewn water, but others improvised, making boats out of empty refrigerators. Rumors flew. There were alligators swimming in the ghetto. And sharks from the flooded aquarium downtown. Not true—but there were poisonous cottonmouth snakes and water moccasins. (Uh, a "cottonmouth" [Ancistrodon piscivorus] IS a water moccasin, NEWSWEEK... --DN)

The giant Wal-Mart store in the Lower Garden District stayed above the floodwaters and did a booming business—in freeloaders. Some people emerged with shopping carts full of food and water and medical supplies. Others appeared with TVs and DVDs. "Is everything free?" asked one woman arriving at the door. Told yes, she began chanting, "TV! TV! TV!" The looters took chain saws and fishing poles. One gang chased away the security guards and emptied the Wal-Mart of guns and ammunition, enough to arm a company of soldiers. The police themselves may have helped trigger the lawlessness, as reports that some of their own had engaged in looting swept through the city.

On Wednesday night, Mayor Nagin ordered 1,500 policemen—virtually the entire city force—to stop trying to rescue people from attics and rooftops, and to turn instead to stopping the looting. "They are starting to get to the heavily populated areas—hotels, hospitals—and we're going to stop it right now," he said.

By Thursday, New Orleans was on the verge of anarchy. Policemen, many of whom had lost their homes, were turning in their badges rather than face the looters for another day. Jail inmates were moved out of town, but their criminal records are underwater. Sorting out who has been charged and with which crime could be a nightmare. Shoplifters might be incarcerated with rapists, and the system might be compelled to let some suspects go free.

Mayor Nagin issued what he called a "desperate S.O.S." to the federal government. In a radio interview, he exploded at the Feds for holding "goddamn press conferences" instead of doing much to help his city. Nagin himself had problems of his own. He had opened up the Superdome to thousands of people—but nobody seemed to have had a plan to care for them or to get them out of there. There were promises of buses that never came. Some 500 National Guardsmen showed up to keep order, but the nervous young soldiers waved their weapons about. People began to complain that they were being held in a prison. Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco seemed uncertain and sluggish, hesitant to declare martial law or a state of emergency, which would have opened the door to more Pentagon help.

Washington, too, was slow to react to the crisis. The Pentagon, under Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, was reluctant for the military to take a lead role in disaster relief, a job traditionally performed by FEMA and by the National Guard, which is commanded by state governors. President Bush could have "federalized" the National Guard in an instant. That's what his father, President George H.W. Bush, did after the Los Angeles riots in 1992. Back then, the Justice Department sent Robert Mueller, a jut-jawed ex-Marine (who is now FBI director), to take charge, showing, in effect, that the cavalry had arrived. FEMA's current head, Michael Brown, has appeared over his head and even a little clueless in news interviews. He is far from the sort of take-charge presence New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani conveyed after 9/11.

Up to now, the Bush administration has not hesitated to sweep aside the opinions of lawyers on such matters as prisoners' rights. But after Katrina, a strange paralysis set in. For days, Bush's top advisers argued over legal niceties about who was in charge, according to three White House officials who declined to be identified because of the sensitivity of the negotiations. Beginning early in the week, Justice Department lawyers presented arguments for federalizing the Guard, but Defense Department lawyers fretted about untrained 19-year-olds trying to enforce local laws, according to a senior law-enforcement official who requested anonymity citing the delicate nature of the discussions.

While Washington debated, the situation in New Orleans and along the Gulf Coast deteriorated. Bush traveled to the region in part to work out a deal with local officials to establish a clearer chain of command. By the weekend, federal officials said there could be tens of thousands of troops in New Orleans in short order. Saturday, Bush pledged to return to the region on Monday—and to deploy 7,000 additional active-duty troops under the Pentagon's control. But for many, the help was arriving too late. Officials worked through the weekend trying to hammer out the jurisdictional issues.

The losses in the meantime have been heartbreaking. At Tulane University, Dr. James Robinson, a prominent AIDS researcher, and his wife, Monique, decided to stay behind to protect some cell lines—white blood cells infected with the disease—that represent decades of research on his part. He packed his lab with food and water and relied on generators to keep his freezers and incubators operating. He and his wife even managed to have a glass of wine and watch a DVD on a computer after the storm abated. But by Wednesday, with the water rising, his generator failed. Fearful of getting robbed or drowned, the Robinsons made their way to a Tulane parking lot, secured by guards, where he called his daughter in Providence, R.I., to tell her they were all right—for now. "I didn't dare ask him about his work," said his daughter, Lisette Dorsey. "I fear it's all probably a loss."

At least the Robinsons seemed safe. Sherri Johnson, a 52-year-old woman who walks with a cane, fled her house and all her belongings to spend Tuesday night on the St. Claude Bridge, where she cowered amid isolated shooting. In the morning, she was ordered off the bridge and began a three-mile hike to the convention center. She arrived at a scene of mayhem. Someone had opened fire on a crowd, which panicked, knocking Johnson to the ground. There was no security, no water, no medical help, aside from a pair of overwhelmed nurses—no sign of any organized relief—at the convention center. Just people crying "Help us!" to passing cameramen. "Where is the Red Cross?" Johnson plaintively asked a NEWSWEEK reporter.

The skies in New Orleans gradually filled with search-and-rescue helicopters, but there was no central command to coordinate them. A NEWSWEEK reporter on a helo flown by the Arizona Air Reserve heard this conversation as the crew readied to leave New Orleans Louis Armstrong Airport after dropping off two evacuees. FIRST CREWMAN: "F---, is he hearing us?" (referring to the air-traffic controller). LIEUTENANT: "I don't know, we should just take off." ENGINEER: "We just got back from Afghanistan. Organization's a lot better there."

Overwhelmed local officials struggled to bring order to chaos. The cloverleaf where Interstate 10 meets the causeway in Jefferson Parish became a kind of crude sorting place. As helicopters landed, disgorging hundreds of dazed and often filthy refugees, Dr. Joel Eldridge, the medical director for Louisiana, set up a makeshift hospital and medical triage. On Thursday, he wearily lamented that he had medicines—but not water or toilets. "It is difficult to see a child ask you for water and you don't have anything to give him," said Eldridge.

Sad little groups dragged their meager possessions on pieces of Styrofoam. Col. Stanley Griffin, in charge of the muddy, jammed cloverleaf site for the state police, tried to quell a small riot as the first buses finally arrived Thursday. He waded into the fracas as people screamed and pushed. A baby was handed into the bus, but the doors closed, leaving a frantic woman behind. Griffin could only hammer on the windscreen of the bus, urging the driver to move out.

When the first buses arrived in Houston, to unload their unhappy cargo at the next domed stadium—the Astrodome—desperation mixed with relief. "I have no idea where my 2-year-old son is," said Nicole Williams, 41. She wore a T shirt marked PLEASE HELP ME FIND MY FAMILY. On the back were listed the names of four family members. They were separated at the I-10 cloverleaf. When Williams tried to reach for her baby so he could ride in her lap, she says, a state trooper sprayed Mace in her face to keep her from getting off the bus. "They maced my mother and my daughter," she said. "Then the door slammed shut."

The feeling of despair was not confined to the refugees. On Friday afternoon, Chief Bill Hunter, the No. 2 man at the New Orleans Criminal Sheriff's Department, stopped City Council President Oliver Thomas. "I hate to say this, Oliver, I really do, but it's over." Thomas resisted the blues. "No, we'll rebuild," he said. "At least 20 years," said Hunter, shaking his head.

For many refugees of New Orleans, the weekend brought just the first stage in a long, arduous journey to a better place. But at least there were some hopeful signs. On Craigslist.com, the popular Internet site, offers of housing and help poured in from all over the country (though how many of the refugees could go online was another question). Even the French offered to help. In time, the city will rebuild. Thomas scoffed at a remark by House Speaker Dennis Hastert of Illinois that New Orleans could not be saved. "I'm ready to show the Dennis Hasterts of the world that we will rebuild, that we have the best jazz, the best gumbo, the best Margaritas, the best French Quarter. And they'll be better than before." Cities do die. But they can come back from the dead—even Hiroshima and Nagasaki did. Chicago was rebuilt after its fire in 1871, and San Francisco came back after its earthquake in 1906.

Fires and earthquakes are spectacular. Water is more insidious. It seeps and lurks, undermines and rots. The water in New Orleans is a toxic stew of chemicals, petroleum and waterborne diseases. It will take months just to pump it out. If New Orleans can muster the human spirit, the sense of soulfulness and joy that has sustained it through the centuries, through a British invasion, Yankee occupation, floods and earlier hurricanes, it is not too much to imagine that the good times will one day roll again. But the 21st-century Battle of New Orleans has just begun.
This story was written by Evan Thomas with reporting from T. Trent Gegax in Baton Rouge; Jonathan Darman with the National Guard; Catharine Skipp and Joseph Contreras in New Orleans; John Barry, Pat Wingert, Martha Brant, Daniel Klaidman, Mark Hosenball, Michael Isikoff, Holly Bailey, Susannah Meadows and Steve Tuttle in Washington; Carol Rust and Staci Semrad in Texas, and Andrew Murr and Jessica Silver-Greenberg

© 2005 Newsweek, Inc.
© 2005 MSNBC.com
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9179587/page/5/
http://mediamatters.org/items/200509010006
Link

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

An Angry 'Times-Picayune' Calls for Firing of FEMA Chief and Others in Open Letter to President On Sunday

By E&P StaffPublished: September 04, 2005 10:40 AM ET

NEW YORK
The Times-Picayune of New Orleans on Sunday published its third print edition since the hurricane disaster struck, chronicling the arrival, finally, of some relief but also taking President Bush to task for his handling of the crisis, and calling for the firing of FEMA director Michael Brown and others.

In an "open letter" to the president, published on page 15 of the 16-page edition, the paper said it still had grounds for "skepticism" that he would follow through on saving the city and its residents. It pointed out that while the government could not get supplies to the city numerous TV reporters, singer Harry Connick and Times-Picayune staffers managed to find a way in.

It also cited "bald-faced" lies by Michael Brown. "Those who should have been deploying troops were singing a sad song about how our city was impossible to reach," the staffers pointed out. "We’re angry, Mr. President, and we’ll be angry long after our beloved city and surrounding parishes have been pumped dry."

Here is the text.

***

We heard you loud and clear Friday when you visited our devastated city and the Gulf Coast and said, "What is not working, we’re going to make it right."

Please forgive us if we wait to see proof of your promise before believing you. But we have good reason for our skepticism.

Bienville built New Orleans where he built it for one main reason: It’s accessible. The city between the Mississippi River and Lake Pontchartrain was easy to reach in 1718.

How much easier it is to access in 2005 now that there are interstates and bridges, airports and helipads, cruise ships, barges, buses and diesel-powered trucks.

Despite the city’s multiple points of entry, our nation’s bureaucrats spent days after last week’s hurricane wringing their hands, lamenting the fact that they could neither rescue the city’s stranded victims nor bring them food, water and medical supplies.

Meanwhile there were journalists, including some who work for The Times-Picayune, going in and out of the city via the Crescent City Connection. On Thursday morning, that crew saw a caravan of 13 Wal-Mart tractor trailers headed into town to bring food, water and supplies to a dying city.

Television reporters were doing live reports from downtown New Orleans streets. Harry Connick Jr. brought in some aid Thursday, and his efforts were the focus of a "Today" show story Friday morning.

Yet, the people trained to protect our nation, the people whose job it is to quickly bring in aid were absent. Those who should have been deploying troops were singing a sad song about how our city was impossible to reach.

We’re angry, Mr. President, and we’ll be angry long after our beloved city and surrounding parishes have been pumped dry. Our people deserved rescuing. Many who could have been were not. That’s to the government’s shame.

Mayor Ray Nagin did the right thing Sunday when he allowed those with no other alternative to seek shelter from the storm inside the Louisiana Superdome. We still don’t know what the death toll is, but one thing is certain: Had the Superdome not been opened, the city’s death toll would have been higher. The toll may even have been exponentially higher.

It was clear to us by late morning Monday that many people inside the Superdome would not be returning home. It should have been clear to our government, Mr. President. So why weren’t they evacuated out of the city immediately? We learned seven years ago, when Hurricane Georges threatened, that the Dome isn’t suitable as a long-term shelter. So what did state and national officials think would happen to tens of thousands of people trapped inside with no air conditioning, overflowing toilets and dwindling amounts of food, water and other essentials?

State Rep. Karen Carter was right Friday when she said the city didn’t have but two urgent needs: "Buses! And gas!" Every official at the Federal Emergency Management Agency should be fired, Director Michael Brown especially.

In a nationally televised interview Thursday night, he said his agency hadn’t known until that day that thousands of storm victims were stranded at the Ernest N. Morial Convention Center. He gave another nationally televised interview the next morning and said, "We’ve provided food to the people at the Convention Center so that they’ve gotten at least one, if not two meals, every single day."

Lies don’t get more bald-faced than that, Mr. President.

Yet, when you met with Mr. Brown Friday morning, you told him, "You’re doing a heck of a job."

That’s unbelievable.

There were thousands of people at the Convention Center because the riverfront is high ground. The fact that so many people had reached there on foot is proof that rescue vehicles could have gotten there, too.

We, who are from New Orleans, are no less American than those who live on the Great Plains or along the Atlantic Seaboard. We’re no less important than those from the Pacific Northwest or Appalachia. Our people deserved to be rescued.

No expense should have been spared. No excuses should have been voiced. Especially not one as preposterous as the claim that New Orleans couldn’t be reached.

Mr. President, we sincerely hope you fulfill your promise to make our beloved communities work right once again.

When you do, we will be the first to applaud.

(IF you do, we'll be the first to say: Where the hell were you, you racist, uncaring bastard, and why did it take so long? And why are you still in office? --DN)

E&P Staff (letters@editorandpublisher)

Links referenced within this article letters@editorandpublishermailto:letters@editorandpublisher

Find this article at: http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001054586


© 2005 VNU eMedia Inc. All rights reserved.
postamble();
setTimeout('showLayer();',200);
Link

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


September 2, 2005
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Before 9/11 the Federal Emergency Management Agency listed the three most likely catastrophic disasters facing America: a terrorist attack on New York, a major earthquake in San Francisco and a hurricane strike on New Orleans. "The New Orleans hurricane scenario," The Houston Chronicle wrote in December 2001, "may be the deadliest of all." It described a potential catastrophe very much like the one now happening.

So why were New Orleans and the nation so unprepared? After 9/11, hard questions were deferred in the name of national unity, then buried under a thick coat of whitewash. This time, we need accountability.

First question: Why have aid and security taken so long to arrive? Katrina hit five days ago - and it was already clear by last Friday that Katrina could do immense damage along the Gulf Coast. Yet the response you'd expect from an advanced country never happened. Thousands of Americans are dead or dying, not because they refused to evacuate, but because they were too poor or too sick to get out without help - and help wasn't provided. Many have yet to receive any help at all.

There will and should be many questions about the response of state and local governments; in particular, couldn't they have done more to help the poor and sick escape? But the evidence points, above all, to a stunning lack of both preparation and urgency in the federal government's response.

Even military resources in the right place weren't ordered into action. "On Wednesday," said an editorial in The Sun Herald in Biloxi, Miss., "reporters listening to horrific stories of death and survival at the Biloxi Junior High School shelter looked north across Irish Hill Road and saw Air Force personnel playing basketball and performing calisthenics. Playing basketball and performing calisthenics!"

Maybe administration officials believed that the local National Guard could keep order and deliver relief. But many members of the National Guard and much of its equipment - including high-water vehicles - are in Iraq. "The National Guard needs that equipment back home to support the homeland security mission," a Louisiana Guard officer told reporters several weeks ago.

Second question: Why wasn't more preventive action taken? After 2003 the Army Corps of Engineers sharply slowed its flood-control work, including work on sinking levees. "The corps," an Editor and Publisher article says, citing a series of articles in The Times-Picayune in New Orleans, "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."

In 2002 the corps' chief resigned, reportedly under threat of being fired, after he criticized the administration's proposed cuts in the corps' budget, including flood-control spending.

Third question: Did the Bush administration destroy FEMA's effectiveness? The administration has, by all accounts, treated the emergency management agency like an unwanted stepchild, leading to a mass exodus of experienced professionals.

Last year James Lee Witt, who won bipartisan praise for his leadership of the agency during the Clinton years, said at a Congressional hearing: "I am extremely concerned that the ability of our nation to prepare for and respond to disasters has been sharply eroded. I hear from emergency managers, local and state leaders, and first responders nearly every day that the FEMA they knew and worked well with has now disappeared."

I don't think this is a simple tale of incompetence. The reason the military wasn't rushed in to help along the Gulf Coast is, I believe, the same reason nothing was done to stop looting after the fall of Baghdad. Flood control was neglected for the same reason our troops in Iraq didn't get adequate armor.

At a fundamental level, I'd argue, our current leaders just aren't serious about some of the essential functions of government. They like waging war, but they don't like providing security, rescuing those in need or spending on preventive measures. And they never, ever ask for shared sacrifice.

Yesterday Mr. Bush made an utterly fantastic claim: that nobody expected the breach of the levees. In fact, there had been repeated warnings about exactly that risk.

So America, once famous for its can-do attitude, now has a can't-do government that makes excuses instead of doing its job. And while it makes those excuses, Americans are dying.

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

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

September 3, 2005
By MAUREEN DOWD

Stuff happens.

And when you combine limited government with incompetent government, lethal stuff happens.

America is once more plunged into a snake pit of anarchy, death, looting, raping, marauding thugs, suffering innocents, a shattered infrastructure, a gutted police force, insufficient troop levels and criminally negligent government planning. But this time it's happening in America.

W. drove his budget-cutting Chevy to the levee, and it wasn't dry. Bye, bye, American lives. "I don't think anyone anticipated the breach of the levees," he told Diane Sawyer.

Shirt-sleeves rolled up, W. finally landed in Hell yesterday and chuckled about his wild boozing days in "the great city" of N'Awlins. He was clearly moved. "You know, I'm going to fly out of here in a minute," he said on the runway at the New Orleans International Airport, "but I want you to know that I'm not going to forget what I've seen." Out of the cameras' range, and avoided by W., was a convoy of thousands of sick and dying people, some sprawled on the floor or dumped on baggage carousels at a makeshift M*A*S*H unit inside the terminal.

Why does this self-styled "can do" president always lapse into such lame "who could have known?" excuses.

Who on earth could have known that Osama bin Laden wanted to attack us by flying planes into buildings? Any official who bothered to read the trellis of pre-9/11 intelligence briefs.

Who on earth could have known that an American invasion of Iraq would spawn a brutal insurgency, terrorist recruiting boom and possible civil war? Any official who bothered to read the C.I.A.'s prewar reports.

Who on earth could have known that New Orleans's sinking levees were at risk from a strong hurricane? Anybody who bothered to read the endless warnings over the years about the Big Easy's uneasy fishbowl.

In June 2004, Walter Maestri, emergency management chief for Jefferson Parish, fretted to The Times-Picayune in New Orleans: "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."

Not only was the money depleted by the Bush folly in Iraq; 30 percent of the National Guard and about half its equipment are in Iraq.

Ron Fournier of The Associated Press reported that the Army Corps of Engineers asked for $105 million for hurricane and flood programs in New Orleans last year. The White House carved it to about $40 million. But President Bush and Congress agreed to a $286.4 billion pork-filled highway bill with 6,000 pet projects, including a $231 million bridge for a small, uninhabited Alaskan island.

Just last year, Federal Emergency Management Agency officials practiced how they would respond to a fake hurricane that caused floods and stranded New Orleans residents. Imagine the feeble FEMA's response to Katrina if they had not prepared.

Michael Brown, the blithering idiot in charge of FEMA - a job he trained for by running something called the International Arabian Horse Association - admitted he didn't know until Thursday that there were 15,000 desperate, dehydrated, hungry, angry, dying victims of Katrina in the New Orleans Convention Center.

Was he sacked instantly? No, our tone-deaf president hailed him in Mobile, Ala., yesterday: "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job."

It would be one thing if President Bush and his inner circle - Dick Cheney was vacationing in Wyoming; Condi Rice was shoe shopping at Ferragamo's on Fifth Avenue and attended "Spamalot" before bloggers chased her back to Washington; and Andy Card was off in Maine - lacked empathy but could get the job done. But it is a chilling lack of empathy combined with a stunning lack of efficiency that could make this administration implode.

When the president and vice president rashly shook off our allies and our respect for international law to pursue a war built on lies, when they sanctioned torture, they shook the faith of the world in American ideals.

When they were deaf for so long to the horrific misery and cries for help of the victims in New Orleans - most of them poor and black, like those stuck at the back of the evacuation line yesterday while 700 guests and employees of the Hyatt Hotel were bused out first - they shook the faith of all Americans in American ideals. And made us ashamed.

Who are we if we can't take care of our own?

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

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

Hurricane Katrina and its Aftermath:
A Crisis Papers Special Edition

Article Links: The Katrina Catastrophe
Multi-Media Links

Hurricane Katrina was The Perfect Storm, predicted and predictable, and yet the Federal response to the victims of this Category Five hurricane was chillingly lackadaisical, unfeeling, late and insufficient. Not surprising, actually, as this is George Bush's usual days-late-and-a-dollar-short response to tragedies. (Remember his initial, late, piddling response to the Asian tsunami. He had to be shamed by the international community to recognize the magnitude of the need. Solipsism personified.)

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the National Guard in Louisiana were AWOL -- or their troops and funds had been diverted to Iraq. Meanwhile, thousands of survivors of the Katrina hurricane and flood were starving and dying of dehydration. Government helicopters weren't dropping food and water to them -- because adequate supplies weren't pre-positioned or because nobody was in charge to give the orders (not aided any by the disruption of communication networks).

Bush was at fundraisers or playing golf, before his handlers finally caught on that this was a major disaster that was going to require some compassionate PR spin and actual help being delivered pronto.

Condi was buying thousands of dollars of shoes at Ferragamo's in New York and heading out to a night at the theater. Disgraceful! (When a patron berated Rice for her uncaring behavior while thousands were homeless or dying in the New Orleans flood, she had the manager order security guards to throw the customer out. Par for the course in a Bush Cabinet.) Disgraceful!

What we've done in this Special Edition of The Crisis Papers is to collect a wide variety of articles and links and video clips that will help us all understand what happened, why, and what can be done about it. We also include links to donation sites, where those of us untouched by this disaster can become directly involved in making the situation better in the Southern Gulf States. More on our regular update on Tuesday.

The Editors
Link

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

CRITIC'S NOTEBOOK

The Show Didn't Benefit by Censors
By Robert Hilburn, Times Staff Writer

AS we enter the celebrity telethon phase of the Katrina tragedy, NBC's "A Concert for Hurricane Relief" stands as a blueprint for its own kind of institutional failure.

By censoring Grammy-winning rapper Kanye West's remarks critical of President Bush during its West Coast feed of the program Friday night, the network violated the most moving and essential moment in an otherwise sterile, self-serving corporate broadcast.

"It would be most unfortunate," the network said in a statement defending its action, "if the efforts of the artists who participated tonight and the generosity of millions of Americans who are helping those in need are overshadowed by one person's opinion."

Excuse me, but whose tragedy is this: NBC's or America's?

NBC may have been nervous about West's comments, including the notion that America and its president are unresponsive to the needs of the poor. But you can be sure those remarks would have been cheered more than anything else in the program by the black parents and children still trapped in the New Orleans Convention Center and the Superdome if they had been able to hear them.

The line NBC stopped us from hearing on the West Coast: "George Bush doesn't care about black people."

The puzzling thing is why NBC axed that, but allowed another provocation, potentially more disturbing, to stay in: "We already realized a lot of the people that could help are at war right now, fighting another way, and they've given them permission to go down and shoot us."

West was apparently referring to the National Guard troops who were sent to New Orleans to help the flood victims and stop the looting.

The show was aired live on the East Coast, where West's full comments were heard.

There was a several-second tape delay, but the person in charge "was instructed to listen for a curse word and didn't realize [West] had gone off script," NBC spokeswoman Rebecca Marks told Associated Press.

Whether we agree or disagree with West's impassioned riff on media and government racism, the network's relentless self-promotion was by far the more offensive part of the broadcast.

It started with a welcome from Bob Wright, the chief executive of NBC Universal, which was followed by thoughts from another chief executive, Capital One's Richard D. Fairbank.

Why Fairbank?

Capital One "underwrote" the telethon, which makes you immediately ask: Was his appearance part of the underwriting deal? The fact that the question comes up at all shows you how wrong that move was.

Then we had Matt Lauer, perhaps the most famous male face of NBC east of Jay Leno, host the program, and "feel-good" scenes of NBC anchor Brian Williams walking the streets with New Orleans musician Harry Connick Jr.

Surely Connick, also known for his appearances on NBC's "Will & Grace," knew his way around without Williams' help.

The censorship of West only added to the insult.

West, a black artist who is arguably the dominant creative force in mainstream popular music right now, isn't one of the thug-life rappers who might use a moment on a telethon for shock or exploitation purposes.

The most respected newcomer in rap, he has refocused interest on socially conscious themes, as did Curtis Mayfield and Stevie Wonder in R&B decades ago. There's even a spiritual undercurrent in his biggest hit, "Jesus Walks."

His provocative on-air comments come as his new album, "Late Registration," is expected to enter the national sales chart at No. 1 this week.

Because he is widely seen by critics and industry tastemakers as an influential spokesman for the American black experience, you could feel the strain of his attempt to fulfill that role — to step beyond the generic comments of other celebrities Friday to reflect on the horror being experienced by the flood victims.

You could disagree with his views, but you couldn't deny his passion.

"I hate the way they portray us in the media," West began his remarks during the hourlong program, on which he was one of several celebrities, including Hilary Swank and Leonardo DiCaprio, who spoke between musical numbers. "If you see a black family, it says they're looting. See a white family, it says they're looking for food."

West, 28, who attended Chicago State University before entering the music business, seemed to be talking extemporaneously, so he might have chosen his words differently if he'd had time to write them down.

But maybe not.

There's the possibility of more unscripted passion breaking through this week as NBC and the other networks, along with PBS, join forces Friday for another special. BET will air a separate benefit the same night. And the MTV networks will present a special Saturday.

In planning these events, the executives should look at tapes of "America: A Tribute to Heroes," the two-hour special that was carried by all the major television networks and dozens of cable channels shortly after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

The focus that night was entirely on the music: no commercials, no audience, not even introductions as the singers, including Bruce Springsteen and Neil Young, took their turns onstage. It was a night totally without showbiz ego.

The worst example of telethon-type coverage recently was MTV's commercial-packed coverage of the Live 8 concerts in July, in which there was so little respect for the music that cameras frequently cut away from key performances for inane MTV chatter. On Friday NBC, at least, limited the commercials to one: for NBC.

Hilburn, pop music critic of The Times, can be reached at robert.hilburn@latimes.com.
Link

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

I always like to see what others have to say about the crap coming at us, don't you? ... --DN

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The BuzzFlash Mailbag
The opinions expressed in the Mailbag are not necessarily those of BuzzFlash. Read the BuzzFlash FAQ for info on submitting to the Mailbag.

Subject: The Witless Wonder
I normally don't watch any newscast with Mr. Bush speaking. However, this morning a regular program was interrupted for a special report. Bush had just landed in Mississippi. Several important leaders were standing with Bush telling him what they have been doing to deal with the situation. Bush was so out of touch it was pathetic. When he said, "Trent Lott also lost his big home here, but we will rebuild him another bigger and better home and I look forward to coming down and sitting on his front porch." Can you believe such a statement? Republican's when are you going to wake up?
A BuzzFlash Reader

Subject: Enough evidence for a lifetime of impeachments.
And if you needed any more evidence that Bush and boys just don't get it, did you see Bush's remarks after being debriefed by FEMA in Mobile, Alabama? He closes his comments about how "we're going to rebuild" by acknowledging that Trent Lott lost his house in the hurricane, but an even greater one will be built in its place, and I "look forward to sitting on that porch." People are without food, water, and most basic necessities of life and he's talking about rebuilding the home of a millionaire, who owns 2 other houses. Good to see he has his priorities straight.
Drew Nannis

Subject: Pumped fists, no action
Dear Buzzflash,
The cat is out of the bag! The Federal Government could not have responded to any major homeland security disaster anywhere in the country and it's now common knowledge. They committed too many National Guard Troops to Iraq. They went to Iraq on lies leaving our Homeland at complete risk. Even without a hurricane, terrorists could have blown up the levees in New Orleans with the same effect. And there would have been no warning and NO mandatory evacuation that had already taken place, thus protecting hundreds of thousands.
Bush pumped his fist and got to Baghdad faster than he got to New Orleans.
We are all at risk with this President. When are we going to realize it and impeach him and his partying crowd?
M. W.
Medicine Park, OK

Subject: The disaster after the disaster
I hope this time the people of this country hold the Bush administration responsible for the utter ineptness and criminal negligence in the handling of the rescue operation in New Orleans and the Gulf coast. I knew we could expect photo ops today of Bush hugging victims of Katrina and sure enough I read about him hugging some poor hysterical woman and telling her to "hang in there." We have a 59-year-old chief executive who talks like a frat boy. He simply cannot comprehend this level of shock and misery because he has led nothing but a protected, pampered life.
To be fair, the clueless head of FEMA said he was unaware that the Convention center, not the Superdome was sheltering thousands of people (today's BuzzFlash editorial). How could the head of FEMA not know that thousands of people were at the Convention Center where they had been told to go to seek shelter?
This is, of course, what happens when political appointees who know nothing about the agency they head up are put into these positions. Lee Witt, who was an expert in disaster management was replaced by Bush with a guy who knows nothing whatsoever about disaster management or, apparently, any other kind of management. He is nothing but a political hack.
After this horrifying debacle I hope that, finally, the American people will hold the Bush administration accountable but I'm not holding my breath. Already the right wing mouthpieces are blaming the victims and the mayor of NO and the governor of Louisiana. If the Democrats don't show some spine and stand up to this spin then they are as worthless as the Bushies.
Bush has some nerve saying the results of this "rescue" operation are not acceptable. Is he not the CEO and Commander in Chief? Didn't he appoint these people to head these agencies? I would love to hear what he thinks his job is.
A BuzzFlash Reader

Subject: Homeland Defense
While Katrina was still bearing down on the Gulf Coast it was being predicted as early as Friday Night that a devastating blow was coming and that it could be a worst case scenario for New Orleans. We now have spent billions on Homeland Security and one of Homeland Security's worst case fears is a major US City being rendered uninhabitable by some form of terrorist attack, be it a radiation "dirty" bomb or contamination from a biological agent like anthrax or smallpox, or an attack on a chemical or nuclear facility. So it wasn't al Qaeda. It was Katrina. New Orleans is uninhabitable and will be for quite a while. Homeland Security has failed in the bare essentials.
There was no evacuation plan. There was no plan for rescue or relocation. They failed to even establish a command and control center. Where is the plan? These poor people will need shelter and food for months, possibly years. Where will the kids go to school? Are they going to build huge camps or will they settle people into other cities and absorb the kids into existing schools? The Astrodome is only going to provide temporary shelter for a few months. Then what? The city has to be rebuilt. The bridges and roads are gone. This is not the usual hurricane damage, where some communities have to be replaced but most just need some repairs, a clean up and some wires replaced. This is rebuilding infrastructure from scratch. Roads, bridges, housing and buildings on a grand scale. Where do these people go until then? And why does the government seem so clueless 4 years after 9/11 supposedly set off big spending on big plans for such big problems?
Robert Sandinsky

Subject: Further Modifications of the American Dream
(Dreaming About Living in Squalor)
We've got a million poor folks down south here in America Dreaming about living in squalor. I'm sure they'd all pitch in for gas to send our leaders to hell But they ain't got a dollar. (I'll pitch in ten.)
The world is in disbelief that our Bunnypants-in-Chief and his cronies seem to not care less. They're only capable of destruction, corruption, and more tax cuts for the rich. Now we know why Iraq is such a mess.
Racism in America finally made the news. New Orleans pictures tell a thousand words. Our government's reaction in dealing with the non-white and poor kinda' resembles Saddam when he gassed the Kurds. We must believe this nightmare in the bayou is the Republican's Chernobyl; that they'll be thrown out of office and into a "for-profit" jail. The overthrow of the Bunnypants Gang has just started. The rainstorm has just turned to hail.
FubarFSouthern Arizona

Subject: FEMA director's statements
As much as it infuriates me to hear yet another BushCo stumblebum - FEMA director Michael Brown, in this case - issue the same rosy, see-no-evil, fantasyland statements they always dish out about whatever crisis is unfolding (not to mention their despicable but oh-so-typical "blame the victims" game), it pisses me off even more that our corporate MSM lets them get away with it.
Asked on CNN how he could blame the victims, Brown fell back on the McClellan-tested "now is not the time to be blaming," after having just done that very thing. I don't suppose he was asked why Washington didn't "heed the advance warnings," to use his words, that they'd gotten not only in the days preceding the storm, but for several years now, about the inevitability of this event, and the need for preparedness.
'Scuse me; I gotta go punch a wall or make Bush-Cheney voodoo dolls or something.
Steven A. Wells Glendale, CA

Subject: Compare and Contrast
Thursday's newspapers had this small article along side the horrors unfolding in New Orleans: China evacuates 600,000 as typhoon nears September 1, 2005 - 11:40AM
“Nearly 600,000 people have been evacuated as Typhoon Talim, packing winds of up to 185 kilometers per hour, heads for southern China. Authorities issued a top-level "black alarm" as heavy rain and moderate gales swept through Fujian province's capital, Fuzhou.
“A total of 286,000 people were evacuated in the province, and rescue teams were standing by for emergencies, the official Xinhua News Agency reported.
“Just to the north in Zhejiang province, more than 291,000 people were moved away from the coastline, rivers, and raging reservoirs, mountain villages and dilapidated housing, according to the official China News Service.
“More than 29,000 ships and fishing vessels had taken shelter in harbors, it's said.
“Authorities predicted Talim would reach shore in the afternoon or evening between the Fujian cities of Lianjiang and Jinjiang, about 750 kilometres south of Beijing.”
What can we expect when the next disaster strikes us here? We now know for sure we have little leadership, we convinced ourselves that although Bush was inept that surely his appointed staff could think straight. What they've done to our sense of security, that was our last refuge when disasters strike, the certainty that it couldn't happen here, now we know better.
I think we can no longer wait for the next elections and trust to the vote counters with their Diebold voting machines. The same company who makes the Super market register machines that give such detail, and the ATM machines, but who claim they cannot give a paper trail with each vote. How much more are we going to endure, and pretend there is nothing terribly wrong here?
Andrew,
A Renton Barber
Link

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


Posted on Fri, Sep. 02, 2005

Congressman can't get Bush on the line
DAVID PACE
Associated Press

WASHINGTON - Thousands of people stranded in two swamped parishes south of New Orleans are just as desperate for supplies as those trapped in the city but can't get the attention of federal disaster relief officials, their congressman said Friday.

And to make matters worse, says Rep. Charlie Melancon, D-La., he was unable to deliver that message to President Bush during his visit to New Orleans because the president's security detail couldn't clear him to board Air Force One.

After waiting 90 minutes Friday while a U.S. marshal using a satellite phone repeatedly tried, and failed, to contact Bush's plane - located just 300 yards away at New Orleans' Armstrong airport - a disgusted Melancon left.

"After an hour and a half of that, and two hours to get down there, I am now back on my way, without seeing the president, not accomplishing anything in my mind today. I've wasted time while people are dying in South Louisiana," he said in a telephone interview. "It's not personal to the president. It's just that this whole thing has been handled terribly."

Melancon said the communications problems that kept him from meeting with Bush are symptomatic of the problems that have plagued the slow-moving federal response to the devastation left by Hurricane Katrina.

In St. Bernard and Plaquemines parishes, just south of New Orleans, victims of the hurricane are still waiting for food and water and for buses to escape the floodwaters, Melancon said. And for the entire time Bush was in the state, the congressman said, a ban on helicopter flights further stalled the delivery of food and supplies.

"I thank the president for his visit today, but it was more show than substance," Melancon said. "Frankly, we needed action days ago."


© 2005 AP Wire and wire service sources. All Rights Reserved.http://www.macon.com

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

Kanye West Rips Bush at Hurricane Aid Show

By FRAZIER MOORE,
AP Television Writer
2 hours, 2 minutes ago

NEW YORK - A celebrity telethon for Hurricane Katrina survivors took an unexpected turn when outspoken rapper Kanye West went off script during the live broadcast, declaring America is set up "to help the poor, the black people, the less well-off as slow as possible."

"A Concert for Hurricane Relief," which aired on NBC and other networks Friday night, began, fittingly enough, with jazz from New Orleans natives Harry Connick Jr. and Wynton Marsalis.

The host was NBC News' Matt Lauer, who invited viewers to contribute to the American Red Cross Disaster Relief Fund.

Appearing two-thirds through the program, West took the government to task, claiming "George Bush doesn't care about black people."

Comedian Mike Myers was paired with West for a 90-second segment that began with Myers speaking of Katrina's devastation. Then, to Myers' evident surprise, West began a rant by saying, "I hate the way they portray us in the media. If you see a black family, it says they're looting. See a white family, it says they're looking for food."

While allowing that "the Red Cross is doing everything they can," West — who delivered an emotional outburst at the American Music Awards after he was snubbed for an award — declared that government authorities are intentionally dragging their feet on aid to the Gulf Coast. Without getting specific, he added, "They've given them permission to go down and shoot us."

After he stated, "George Bush doesn't care about black people," the camera cut away to comedian Chris Tucker.
Link

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

Rumsfeld on looting in Iraq: 'Stuff happens' --Varying views of the Bush regime on looting, compiled by Lori Price

"While no one condones looting, on the other hand, one can understand the pent-up feelings that may result from decades of repression." --Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, explaining why some Iraqis resorted to looting during the Iraq war, in 2003.

Rumsfeld on looting in Iraq: 'Stuff happens' 12 Apr 2003

Declaring that freedom is "untidy," Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Friday the looting in Iraq was a result of "pent-up feelings" of oppression and that it would subside as Iraqis adjusted to life without Saddam Hussein. He also asserted the looting was not as bad as some television and newspaper reports have indicated and said there was no major crisis in Baghdad, the capital city, which lacks a central governing authority. The looting, he suggested, was "part of the price" for what the United States and Britain have called the liberation of Iraq. "Freedom's untidy, and free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes and do bad things," Rumsfeld said. Looting, he added, was not uncommon for countries that experience significant social upheaval. "Stuff happens," Rumsfeld said.

Rumsfeld: There's nothing wrong with a bit of looting 11 Apr 2003

The United States Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, has tonight dismissed reports of mass chaos and lawlessness in Iraq as "exaggerated". "The so-called looting is not as bad as some reports have suggested," he said at a Pentagon briefing. "Yes, people are ransacking hospitals, burning down buildings and fighting each other in the streets, but it's not that bad. Stuff happens."

How and why the US encouraged looting in Iraq By Patrick Martin 15 Apr 2003

"The widespread looting in Baghdad, Basra, Mosul, Kirkuk and other Iraqi cities, following the collapse of the Ba’athist regime of President Saddam Hussein, was not merely an incidental byproduct of the US military conquest of Iraq. It was deliberately encouraged and fostered by the Bush administration and the Pentagon for definite political and economic reasons."

Bush calls for a "zero tolerance" policy against looters in New Orleans (01 September 2005)

Looting chaos hits New Orleans relief effort 01 Sep 2005 President [sic] Bush called for a "zero tolerance" policy against looters and profiteering today as New Orleans descended into lawlessness.

Bush Promises to Restore Order in N.O. 01 Sep 2005

President Bush opened the day at the White House where he expressed unhappiness with the efforts so far to provide food and water to hurricane victims and to stop looting and lawlessness in New Orleans.

New Orleans police ordered to halt looting 31 Aug 2005 Mayor Ray Nagin ordered 1,500 police officers to leave their search-and-rescue mission Wednesday night and return to the streets to stop looting that has turned increasingly hostile as the city plunges deeper into chaos. The number of officers called off the search-and-rescue mission amounts to virtually the entire police force in New Orleans. Looters also chased down a police truck full of food.
*****
Link

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

Progressive News & Views (since 1982)

Everybody but you, George....
Bush said, "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees."

How is it possible that anyone can be that dumb? And especially the president of the United States. He is an embarrassment. If he is that dumb what can be said about all those who voted for him?

Why five days after the disaster are there 100,000 still trapped in New Orleans. Others get in and out but for them, there is no place to go,or to take them.

Bush says to victims to go to the Salvation Army. What is wrong with the U.S. Army?

There is a debate waging about those who are being saved last and it is always the poor and African-Americans who received services last, if at all.

The CPUSA (8/2/2005) says this about George Bush and his bucking his responsibility before he went on vacation, during his month-long vacation and since returning to his Rose Garden:

"Putting the responsibility of solving this crisis situation onto individuals is a cop-out. Bush wants to dodge demands for federal aid to rebuild the shattered lives, homes, and jobs of the victims. Bush has made only vague allusions to federal funds. What a contrast to his ruthless arm-twisting to ram through Congress $200 billion for the continued occupation of Iraq. Much of that money flowed into the coffers of Halliburton and other military corporations with crony ties to Bush and Dick Cheney."

"...National Guard units now needed in the Gulf Coast states are badly depleted because so many soldiers are and so much equipment is deployed in Iraq. We demand that these soldiers be brought home. Now! Assign them to assist the people in rebuilding the Gulf Coast. This calamity has brought home an inescapable truth: We cannot afford George W. Bush's atrocious war in Iraq."

"Could this tragedy have been avoided? The U.S. Congress, at Bush's request, slashed $71 million from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers budget for strengthening the levees that protect New Orleans. For years, engineers have warned that a breach in the levees is a disaster waiting to happen. Bush and Congress turned a deaf ear. They needed that money to pay for the occupation of Iraq. They needed that money to pay for Bush's tax cuts for the rich."

There is a $500 billion Pentagon weapons budget but not enough to prepare for national disasters. The Gulf Coast is not the only region at risk.

Everywhere there are flood control structures and other infrastructure for security of the homeland, there have been budget cuts. These national disasters are more man-made than environmental. Tax cuts to the rich are insane when those revenues are NEEDED for these preparedness projects.

Maybe I don't understand the pricing for gas at the pump but it just seems incredible to me that oil companies are making record profits and they still insist there is a need to raise their prices. Why don't they share the burden of suffering that the rest of the country must now deal with in time of a national emergency? Isn't it unpatriotic for them to raise their prices and in many instances I know they are price gouging simply because they can.

And who is going to rebuild after Katrina? What is wrong with a WPA project? These people are the poorest in the nation and many are unemployed. So give them jobs fixing the city. The federal government must find the funds and the workers are there to rebuild. No sweetheart deal for Halliburton to clean-up and fix the city's infrastructure. No more of that. The needs should be assessed predicated on the needs of the people, even if Halliburton says they can do it better. If we can find the money for Iraq, they can find the money for the people -- and if conservatives say it will cost more, I don't believe it, but who cares. Put them to work. Give them a job. Turn this into something positive after-all - so the 10,000 (my guess for when the final count is taken) who dies will not have died in vain.

There should be an immediate repeal of the "shoot-to-kill" order. While there is always lawlessness and looting and other crimes, the vast majority of those people are desperate and should not be killed for trying to find food, water, medicines, diapers, or other necessities. That order was stupid.

"Global warming is heating up the south Atlantic and the Caribbean making for ever more ferocious hurricanes. Yet our know-nothing President vetoed the Kyoto Agreement aimed at curbing global warming, calling it unproven science. Bush is bought and paid for by the energy conglomerates that reap enormous profits from the burning of fossil fuels. His recently approved Energy Act guarantees that millions more tons of greenhouse gases will be pumped into the biosphere. Its time to say enough! We demand that the U.S. immediately ratify the Kyoto Agreement and implement an energy program that reduces greenhouse gases." (CPUSA)

The congress should impeach George W. Bush for criminal neglect and culpable negligence for his ignorance, his lies, his avoidance of serious problems, his stupid anti-science mentality, and he should be sent packing. He isn't competent to be leading this country - to have that much power in his hands.

Hank Roth
Link

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


Go to Original
Why New Orleans Is in Deep Water
By Molly Ivins
Creators Syndicate
Thursday 01 September 2005

Austin, Texas - Like many of you who love New Orleans, I find myself taking short mental walks there today, turning a familiar corner, glimpsing a favorite scene, square or vista. And worrying about the beloved friends and the city, and how they are now.

To use a fine Southern word, it's tacky to start playing the blame game before the dead are even counted. It is not too soon, however, to make a point that needs to be hammered home again and again, and that is that government policies have real consequences in people's lives.

This is not "just politics" or blaming for political advantage. This is about the real consequences of what governments do and do not do about their responsibilities. And about who winds up paying the price for those policies.

This is a column for everyone in the path of Hurricane Katrina who ever said, "I'm sorry, I'm just not interested in politics," or, "There's nothing I can do about it," or, "Eh, they're all crooks anyway."

Nothing to do with me, nothing to do with my life, nothing I can do about any of it. Look around you this morning. I suppose the National Rifle Association would argue, "Government policies don't kill people, hurricanes kill people." Actually, hurricanes plus government policies kill people.

One of the main reasons New Orleans is so vulnerable to hurricanes is the gradual disappearance of the wetlands on the Gulf Coast that once stood as a natural buffer between the city and storms coming in from the water. The disappearance of those wetlands does not have the name of a political party or a particular administration attached to it. No one wants to play, "The Democrats did it," or, "It's all Reagan's fault." Many environmentalists will tell you more than a century's interference with the natural flow of the Mississippi is the root cause of the problem, cutting off the movement of alluvial soil to the river's delta.

But in addition to long-range consequences of long-term policies like letting the Corps of Engineers try to build a better river than God, there are real short-term consequences, as well. It is a fact that the Clinton administration set some tough policies on wetlands, and it is a fact that the Bush administration repealed those policies - ordering federal agencies to stop protecting as many as 20 million acres of wetlands.

Last year, four environmental groups cooperated on a joint report showing the Bush administration's policies had allowed developers to drain thousands of acres of wetlands.

Does this mean we should blame President Bush for the fact that New Orleans is underwater? No, but it means we can blame Bush when a Category 3 or Category 2 hurricane puts New Orleans under. At this point, it is a matter of making a bad situation worse, of failing to observe the First Rule of Holes (when you're in one, stop digging).

Had a storm the size of Katrina just had the grace to hold off for a while, it's quite likely no one would even remember what the Bush administration did two months ago. The national press corps has the attention span of a gnat, and trying to get anyone in Washington to remember longer than a year ago is like asking them what happened in Iznik, Turkey, in A.D. 325.

Just plain political bad luck that, in June, Bush took his little ax and chopped $71.2 million from the budget of the New Orleans Corps of Engineers, a 44 percent reduction. As was reported in New Orleans CityBusiness at the time, that meant "major hurricane and flood projects will not be awarded to local engineering firms. Also, a study to determine ways to protect the region from a Category 5 hurricane has been shelved for now."

The commander of the corps' New Orleans district also immediately instituted a hiring freeze and canceled the annual corps picnic.

Our friends at the Center for American Progress note the Office of Technology Assessment used to produce forward-thinking plans such as "Floods: A National Policy Concern" and "A Framework for Flood Hazards Management." Unfortunately, the office was targeted by Newt Gingrich and the Republican right, and gutted years ago.

In fact, there is now a governmentwide movement away from basing policy on science, expertise and professionalism, and in favor of choices based on ideology. If you're wondering what the ideological position on flood management might be, look at the pictures of New Orleans - it seems to consist of gutting the programs that do anything.

Unfortunately, the war in Iraq is directly related to the devastation left by the hurricane. About 35 percent of Louisiana's National Guard is now serving in Iraq, where four out of every 10 soldiers are guardsmen. Recruiting for the Guard is also down significantly because people are afraid of being sent to Iraq if they join, leaving the Guard even more short-handed.

The Louisiana National Guard also notes that dozens of its high-water vehicles, Humvees, refuelers and generators have also been sent abroad. (I hate to be picky, but why do they need high-water vehicles in Iraq?)

This, in turn, goes back to the original policy decision to go into Iraq without enough soldiers and the subsequent failure to admit that mistake and to rectify it by instituting a draft.

The levees of New Orleans, two of which are now broken and flooding the city, were also victims of Iraq war spending. Walter Maestri, emergency management chief for Jefferson Parish, said on June 8, 2004, "It appears that the money has been moved in the president's budget to handle homeland security and the war in Iraq."

This, friends, is why we need to pay attention to government policies, not political personalities, and to know whereon we vote. It is about our lives.
Link

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



BUSH STRAFES NEW ORLEANS
WHERE IS OUR HUEY LONG?
by Greg Palast
Friday, September 2, 2005

The National Public Radio news anchor was so excited I thought she'd piss on herself: the President of the United States had flown his plane down to 1700 feet to get a better look at the flood damage! And there was a photo of our Commander-in-Chief taken looking out the window. He looked very serious and concerned.

That was yesterday. Today he played golf. No kidding.

I'm sure the people of New Orleans would have liked to show their appreciation for the official Presidential photo-strafing, but their surface-to-air missiles were wet.

There is nothing new under the sun. In 1927, a Republican President had his photo taken as the Mississippi rolled over New Orleans. Calvin Coolidge, "a little fat man with a notebook in his hand," promised to rebuild the state. He didn't. Instead, he left to play golf with Ken Lay or the Ken Lay railroad baron equivalent of his day.

In 1927, the Democratic Party had died and was awaiting burial. As depression approached, the coma-Dems, like Franklin Roosevelt, called for balancing the budget.

Then, as the waters rose, one politician finally said, roughly, "Screw this! They're lying! The President's lying! The rich fat cats that are drowning you will do it again and again and again. They lead you into imperialist wars for profit, they take away your schools and your hope and when you complain, they blame Blacks and Jews and immigrants. Then they push your kids under. I say, Kick'm in the ass and take your rightful share!"

Huey Long laid out a plan: a progressive income tax, real money for education, public works to rebuild Louisiana and America, an end to wars for empire, and an end to financial oligarchy. The waters receded, the anger did not, and Huey "Kingfish" Long was elected Governor of Louisiana in 1928.

At the time, Louisiana schools were free, but not the textbooks. Governor Long taxed Big Oil to pay for the books. Rockefeller's oil companies refused pay the textbook tax, so Long ordered the National Guard to seize Standard Oil's fields in the Delta.

Huey Long was called a "demagogue" and a "dictator." Of course. Because it was Huey Long who established the concept that a government of the people must protect the people, school, house, and feed them and give every man or woman a job who needs one.

Government, he said, "We The People," not plutocrats nor Halliburtons, must build bridges and levees to keep the waters from rising over our heads. All we had to do was share the nation's wealth we created as a nation. But that meant facing down what he called the "concentrations of monopoly power" to finance the needs of the public.

In other words, Huey Long founded the modern Democratic Party. Franklin Roosevelt and the party establishment, scared senseless of Long's ineluctable march to the White House, adopted his program, called it the New Deal, and later The New Frontier and the Great Society.

America and the party prospered.

America could use a Democratic Party again and there's a rumor it's alive -- somewhere.

And now is the moment, as it was in '27. As the bodies float in the streets of New Orleans, now is not the time for the Democrats to shirk and slink away, bleating they can't "politicize" this avoidable disaster.

Seventy-six years ago this week, Huey Long was shot down, assassinated at the age of 43. But the legacy of his combat remains, from Social Security to veterans' mortgage loans.

There is no such thing as a "natural" disaster. Hurricanes happen, but death comes from official neglect, from tax cuts for the rich that cut the heart out of public protection. The corpses in the street are victims of a class war in which only one side has a general.

Where is our Huey Long? America needs just one Kingfish to stand up and say that our nation must rid itself of the scarecrow with the idiot chuckle, who has left America broken and in danger while he plays tinker-toy Napoleon on other continents.

I realize that the middle of rising flood is a hell of a bad time to give Democrats swimming lessons; but it's act up now or we all go under.


**********
A pedagogical note: As I travel around the USA, I'm just horrified at America's stubborn historical amnesia. Americans, as Sam Cooke said, don't know squat about history. We don't learn the names of a nation's capitol until the 82d Airborne lands there. And it doesn't count if you've watched a Ken Burns documentary on PBS.

I suggest starting with this: read "Huey Long" by the late historian Harry T. Williams. If you want to ease into it, get the Randy Newman album based on it (Good Old Boys) with the song, "Louisiana 1927." Listen to part of the song at www.GregPalast.com Do NOT watch the crappy right-wing agit-prop film, "Huey Long," by Ken Burns.

Greg Palast is the author of the New York Times bestseller, The Best Democracy Money Can Buy. Subscribe to his commentaries or view his investigative reports for BBC Television at www.GregPalast.com
Link

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

You know my opinion of the MSM is lower than the cut of Brittney Spears' jeans.

Imagine my surprise as I watched CNN the last couple of days and could almost see a vestigial spine growing on some of their drones.

I almost came out of my flip-flops when Anderson Cooper did everything but run up to Baton Rouge and tar and feather that faux-Dem Landrieu within an inch of her hypocritical life.

As I've said before, hope springs eternal... --DN

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Newscasters, sick of official lies and stonewalling, finally start snarling.

By Jack Shafer
Posted Friday, Sept. 2, 2005, at 2:36 PM PT

A former deputy chief of FEMA told Knight Ridder Newspapers yesterday (Sept. 1) that there "are two kinds of levees—the ones that breached and the ones that will be breached." A similar aphorism applies to broadcasters: They come in two varieties, the ones that have gone stark, raving mad on air and the ones who will.

In the last couple of days, many of the broadcasters reporting from the bowl-shaped toxic waste dump that was once the city of New Orleans have stopped playing the role of wind-swept wet men facing down a big storm to become public advocates for the poor, the displaced, the starving, the dying, and the dead.

Last night, CNN's Anderson Cooper abandoned the old persona to throttle Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., in a live interview. (See the video or read the transcript.)

"Does the federal government bear responsibility for what is happening now? Should they apologize for what is happening now?" Cooper opened.

As if campaigning before the local Democratic Ladies' Club lunch, Landrieu sing-songed back, "Anderson, there will be plenty of time to discuss all of those issues, about why, and how, and what, and if." She went on to thank President Bush, President Clinton, former President Bush, Senators Frist and Reid, and "all leaders that are coming to Louisiana, and Mississippi, and Alabama, "for their help.

Her condescending filibuster continued: "Anderson, tonight, I don't know if you've heard—maybe you all have announced it—but Congress is going to an unprecedented session to pass a $10 billion supplemental bill tonight to keep FEMA and the Red Cross up and operating."

Cooper suspended the traditional TV rules of decorum and, approaching tears of fury, said:

Excuse me, Senator, I'm sorry for interrupting. I haven't heard that, because, for the last four days, I've been seeing dead bodies in the streets here in Mississippi. And to listen to politicians thanking each other and complimenting each other, you know, I got to tell you, there are a lot of people here who are very upset, and very angry, and very frustrated.

And when they hear politicians slap—you know, thanking one another, it just, you know, it kind of cuts them the wrong way right now, because literally there was a body on the streets of this town yesterday being eaten by rats because this woman had been laying in the street for 48 hours. And there's not enough facilities to take her up.

Do you get the anger that is out here? …

I mean, I know you say there's a time and a place for, kind of, you know, looking back, but this seems to be the time and the place. I mean, there are people who want answers, and there are people who want someone to stand up and say, "You know what? We should have done more. Are all the assets being brought to bear?"

Landrieu kept her cool, probably because she's in Baton Rouge, while the stink of corpses caused Cooper to tremble in rage all the way to the commercial break.

Yesterday, on NPR's All Things Considered, Robert Siegel didn't get medieval on Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, in part because the microphones there are specially fabricated to decant all emotion from the voices of their reporters. But Siegel aggressively blocked every escape route that Chertoff took to evade hard questions about "corpses" and "human waste" piling up at the city's convention center, where thousands were stranded without provisions. (Siegel gets tough at about minute four in the audio clip.)

Siegel kept asking Chertoff how long it would take to serve or rescue these people, and a couple times Chertoff answered that the government was doing a great job at the Superdome.

When he cautioned Siegel about the danger of relying on "anecdotal" "rumors" of people in dire straits, Siegel said, no—these are facts presented by reporters who have covered war zones. There are 2,000 people at the convention center in need, he said. Having finally broken through the steel plate that is Chertoff's skull, the secretary confessed he hadn't heard those reports—reports that the television networks were documenting, live, with their cameras. Chertoff promised he'd look into the matter.

Several readers directed me to CNN reporter Miles O'Brien's hard-boiled interview with Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour in which he repeatedly invited the governor to agree with him that the federal government had "dropped the ball." When Barbour demurred on this and other points of culpability, O'Brien came back at him without the politesse reporters usually extend to dissembling pols.

I recall Andrea Mitchell all but editorializing on NBC the other night about Congress taking its sweet time to reconvene and pass a hurricane-relief bill … Fox News Channel's Shepard Smith chasing after a mute police officer down the New Orleans freeway overpass and asking in outrage when the stranded would get help … and MSNBC's Joe Scarborough in Biloxi transforming himself into the voice of the disenfranchised to put in a good word for the looters:

You got to understand that these are people who have young babies who haven't had water in four days, in some cases, haven't had formula, haven't had basic necessities. I just wonder what you would do, what I would do if we were in a situation where our 15-month-old child or our 2-year-old baby needed something to stay alive. I don't know what you would do. I know I would do anything it took to get what they needed.

Now, I should be getting it from the federal government if I am in New Orleans, from the state government. But I will tell you what. It is amateur hour, and it has been amateur hour over the past four or five days. This is completely different, friends, from the way the crises were handled in Florida last year, four hurricanes, two of them major, it was handled with ruthless efficiency. I know. I was there. That is not happening tonight in New Orleans.

This morning the discontent spread to the anchor booth at CNN, as Wonkette notes, when Soledad O'Brien openly mocked FEMA in an interview with its director, Michael Brown:

As you can tell, the situation clearly is deteriorating. You've got armed bandits roving the streets. They're heavily armed. You've got people living out on the streets with absolutely no protection, no help whatsoever, no food, no water. How many armed National Guardsmen do you have on the ground right now? …

How is it possible that we're getting better intel than you're getting? …

FEMA has been on the ground for four days, going into the fifth day. Why no massive airdrop of food and water? In Banda Aceh, in Indonesia, they got food dropped two days after the tsunami struck. …

It's five days that FEMA has been on the ground. The head of police says it's been five days that FEMA has been there. The mayor, the former mayor, putting out SOS's on Tuesday morning, crying on national television, saying please send in some troops. So the idea that, yes, I understand that you're feeding people and trying to get in there now, but it's Friday. It's Friday. …

CNN anchor Jack Cafferty growled about the media coverage of Katrina's victims yesterday on Wolf Blitzer's The Situation Room, name-checking me and citing my Wednesday column about the broadcasters' failure to acknowledge the race and economic class of the hardest-hit.

Said Cafferty:

We knew it was coming. And yet, the poorest and the neediest and the most helpless of those in New Orleans, well, they're still there, aren't they? Despite the many angles of this tragedy—and lord knows there've been a lot of them in New Orleans—there is a great big elephant in the living room that the media seems content to ignore.

That would be until now. Slate.com's Jack Shafer wrote today in his column that television coverage has shied away from talking about race and class. Shafer says that we in the media are ignoring the fact that almost all of the victims in New Orleans are black and poor. And he's right. Almost every person we've seen, from the families stranded on their rooftops waiting to be rescued, to the looters, to the people holed up in the Superdome, are black and poor.

Many of them didn't follow the evacuation orders because they didn't have the means to get out of town. They just couldn't do it. A lot of them are sick, a lot of them don't have cars, a lot of them just didn't have the means to leave "The Big Easy." And they're still there.

This gave the Washington-based Blitzer a perfect opening to comment on race and class, but he stumbled and fell into a "Campanis moment." While airing file footage of victims trudging through hip-deep water looking for help, Blitzer, no racist, said:

You simply get chills every time you see these poor individuals, as Jack Cafferty just pointed out, so tragically, so many of these people, almost all of them that we see, are so poor and they are so black, and this is going to raise lots of questions for people who are watching this story unfold. [Emphasis added.]

(Note to Blitzer: You might be one of those guys, like Campanis, who shouldn't talk about race extemporaneously. Next time, try channeling your outrage from the pages of a well-thought-out news script.)

The rebellion of the talking heads reached its culmination today as CNN.com contrasted "the official version" of events in New Orleans with its "in-the-trenches" account by its reporters and authoritative sources. Muted compared to the on-air growling, the Web story still portrays the government as a pack of liars, or worse, as bumbling idiots. The broadcasters' angry dispatches break with the "public face" they usually give their work: polite, patient, neutral, generous. A steady diet of such confrontational reporting would probably be as edifying as a Jerry Springer show. But when the going gets this tough—when government incompetence and lies become so insurmountable—sometimes the only way to get the story is by getting mad.

******
Jack Shafer is Slate's editor at large. Article URL: http://www.slate.com/id/2125581/
Link

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

Friday, September 2nd, 2005

Dear Mr. Bush:

Any idea where all our helicopters are? It's Day 5 of Hurricane Katrina and thousands remain stranded in New Orleans and need to be airlifted. Where on earth could you have misplaced all our military choppers? Do you need help finding them? I once lost my car in a Sears parking lot. Man, was that a drag.

Also, any idea where all our national guard soldiers are? We could really use them right now for the type of thing they signed up to do like helping with national disasters. How come they weren't there to begin with?

Last Thursday I was in south Florida and sat outside while the eye of Hurricane Katrina passed over my head. It was only a Category 1 then but it was pretty nasty. Eleven people died and, as of today, there were still homes without power. That night the weatherman said this storm was on its way to New Orleans. That was Thursday! Did anybody tell you? I know you didn't want to interrupt your vacation and I know how you don't like to get bad news. Plus, you had fundraisers to go to and mothers of dead soldiers to ignore and smear. You sure showed her!

I especially like how, the day after the hurricane, instead of flying to Louisiana, you flew to San Diego to party with your business peeps. Don't let people criticize you for this -- after all, the hurricane was over and what the heck could you do, put your finger in the dike?

And don't listen to those who, in the coming days, will reveal how you specifically reduced the Army Corps of Engineers' budget for New Orleans this summer for the third year in a row. You just tell them that even if you hadn't cut the money to fix those levees, there weren't going to be any Army engineers to fix them anyway because you had a much more important construction job for them -- BUILDING DEMOCRACY IN IRAQ!

On Day 3, when you finally left your vacation home, I have to say I was moved by how you had your Air Force One pilot descend from the clouds as you flew over New Orleans so you could catch a quick look of the disaster. Hey, I know you couldn't stop and grab a bullhorn and stand on some rubble and act like a commander in chief. Been there done that.

There will be those who will try to politicize this tragedy and try to use it against you. Just have your people keep pointing that out. Respond to nothing. Even those pesky scientists who predicted this would happen because the water in the Gulf of Mexico is getting hotter and hotter making a storm like this inevitable. Ignore them and all their global warming Chicken Littles. There is nothing unusual about a hurricane that was so wide it would be like having one F-4 tornado that stretched from New York to Cleveland.

No, Mr. Bush, you just stay the course. It's not your fault that 30 percent of New Orleans lives in poverty or that tens of thousands had no transportation to get out of town. C'mon, they're black! I mean, it's not like this happened to Kennebunkport. Can you imagine leaving white people on their roofs for five days? Don't make me laugh! Race has nothing -- NOTHING -- to do with this!

You hang in there, Mr. Bush. Just try to find a few of our Army helicopters and send them there. Pretend the people of New Orleans and the Gulf Coast are near Tikrit.

Yours,

Michael MooreMMFlint@aol.com
www.MichaelMoore.com

P.S. That annoying mother, Cindy Sheehan, is no longer at your ranch. She and dozens of other relatives of the Iraqi War dead are now driving across the country, stopping in many cities along the way. Maybe you can catch up with them before they get to DC on September 21st.
Link

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

New Orleans in Anarchy With Fights, Rapes
Friday September 2, 2005 12:46 AM

By ALLEN G. BREED
Associated Press Writer

NEW ORLEANS (AP) - New Orleans descended into anarchy Thursday, as corpses lay abandoned in street medians, fights and fires broke out and storm survivors battled for seats on the buses that would carry them away from the chaos. The tired and hungry seethed, saying they had been forsaken. ``This is a desperate SOS,'' mayor Ray Nagin said.

``We are out here like pure animals,'' the Rev. Issac Clark said outside the New Orleans Convention Center, where he and other evacuees had been waiting for buses for days amid the filth and the dead.

``I'm not sure I'm going to get out of here alive,'' said tourist Larry Mitzel of Saskatoon, Canada, who handed a reporter his business card in case he goes missing. ``I'm scared of riots. I'm scared of the locals. We might get caught in the crossfire.''

Four days after Hurricane Katrina roared in with a devastating blow that inflicted potentially thousands of deaths, the frustration, fear and anger mounted, despite the promise of 1,400 National Guardsmen a day to stop the looting, plans for a $10 billion recovery bill in Congress and a government relief effort President Bush called the biggest in U.S. history.
New Orleans' top emergency management official called that effort a ``national disgrace'' and questioned when reinforcements would actually reach the increasingly lawless city.

About 15,000 to 20,000 people who had taken shelter at New Orleans convention center grew increasingly hostile after waiting for buses for days amid the filth and the dead. Police Chief Eddie Compass said he sent in 88 officers to quell the situation at the building, but they were quickly driven back by an angry mob.

``We have individuals who are getting raped, we have individuals who are getting beaten,'' Compass said. ``Tourists are walking in that direction and they are getting preyed upon.''

A military helicopter tried to land at the convention center several times to drop off food and water. But the rushing crowd forced the choppers to back off. Troopers then tossed the supplies to the crowd from 10 feet off the ground and flew away.

In hopes of defusing the situation at the convention center, Mayor Ray Nagin gave the refugees permission to march across a bridge to the city's unflooded west bank for whatever relief they could find. But the bedlam made that difficult.

``This is a desperate SOS,'' Nagin said in a statement. ``Right now we are out of resources at the convention center and don't anticipate enough buses.''

At least seven bodies were scattered outside the convention center, a makeshift staging area for those rescued from rooftops, attics and highways. The sidewalks were packed with people without food, water or medical care, and with no sign of law enforcement.

An old man in a chaise lounge lay dead in a grassy median as hungry babies wailed around him. Around the corner, an elderly woman lay dead in her wheelchair, covered up by a blanket, and another body lay beside her wrapped in a sheet.

``I don't treat my dog like that,'' 47-year-old Daniel Edwards said as he pointed at the woman in the wheelchair.

``You can do everything for other countries, but you can't do nothing for your own people,'' he added. ``You can go overseas with the military, but you can't get them down here.''

The street outside the center, above the floodwaters, smelled of urine and feces, and was choked with dirty diapers, old bottles and garbage.

``They've been teasing us with buses for four days,'' Edwards said.

``They're telling us they're going to come get us one day, and then they don't show up.''

Every so often, an armored state police vehicle cruised in front of the convention center with four or five officers in riot gear with automatic weapons. But there was no sign of help from the National Guard.

At one point the crowd began to chant ``We want help! We want help!'' Later, a woman, screaming, went on the front steps of the convention center and led the crowd in reciting the 23rd Psalm, ``The Lord is my shepherd ...''

``We are out here like pure animals,'' the Issac Clark said.

``We've got people dying out here - two babies have died, a woman died, a man died,'' said Helen Cheek. ``We haven't had no food, we haven't had no water, we haven't had nothing. They just brought us here and dropped us.''

Tourist Debbie Durso of Washington, Mich., said she asked a police officer for assistance and his response was, ``'Go to hell - it's every man for himself.'''

``This is just insanity,'' she said. ``We have no food, no water ... all these trucks and buses go by and they do nothing but wave.''

At the hot and stinking Superdome, where 30,000 were being evacuated by bus to the Houston Astrodome, fistfights and fires erupted amid a seething sea of tense, suffering people who waited in a lines that stretched a half-mile to board yellow school buses.

After a traffic jam kept buses from arriving for nearly four hours, a near-riot broke out in the scramble to get on the buses that finally did show up, with a group of refugees breaking through a line of heavily armed National Guardsmen.

One military policeman was shot in the leg as he and a man scuffled for the MP's rifle, police Capt. Ernie Demmo said. The man was arrested.

Some of those among the mostly poor crowd had been in the dome for four days without air conditioning, working toilets or a place to bathe.

An ambulance service airlifting the sick and injured out of the Superdome suspended flights as too dangerous after it was reported that a bullet was fired at a military helicopter.

``If they're just taking us anywhere, just anywhere, I say praise God,'' said refugee John Phillip. ``Nothing could be worse than what we've been through.''

By Thursday evening, 11 hours after the military began evacuating the Superdome, the arena held 10,000 more people than it did at dawn. National Guard Capt. John Pollard said evacuees from around the city poured into the Superdome and swelled the crowd to about 30,000 because they believed the arena was the best place to get a ride out of town.

As he watched a line snaking for blocks through ankle-deep waters, New Orleans' emergency operations chief Terry Ebbert blamed the inadequate response on the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

``This is not a FEMA operation. I haven't seen a single FEMA guy,'' he said. He added: ``We can send massive amounts of aid to tsunami victims, but we can't bail out the city of New Orleans.''

FEMA officials said some operations had to be suspended in areas where gunfire has broken out.

A day after Nagin took 1,500 police officers off search-and-rescue duty to try to restore order in the streets, there were continued reports of looting, shootings, gunfire and carjackings - and not all the crimes were driven by greed.

When some hospitals try to airlift patients, Coast Guard Lt. Cmdr. Cheri Ben-Iesan said, ``there are people just taking potshots at police and at helicopters, telling them, `You better come get my family.'''

Outside a looted Rite-Aid drugstore, some people were anxious to show they needed what they were taking. A gray-haired man who would not give his name pulled up his T-shirt to show a surgery scar and explained that he needs pads for incontinence.

``I'm a Christian. I feel bad going in there,'' he said.

Earl Baker carried toothpaste, toothbrushes and deodorant. ``Look, I'm only getting necessities,'' he said. ``All of this is personal hygiene. I ain't getting nothing to get drunk or high with.''

While floodwaters in the city appeared to stabilize, efforts continued to plug three breaches that had opened up in the levee system that protects this below-sea-level city.

Helicopters dropped sandbags into the breach and pilings were being pounded into the mouth of the canal Thursday to close its connection to Lake Pontchartrain, state Transportation Secretary Johnny Bradberry said. He said contractors had completed building a rock road to let heavy equipment roll to the area by midnight.

The next step called for using about 250 concrete road barriers to seal the gap.

In Washington, the White House said Bush will tour the devastated Gulf Coast region on Friday and has asked his father, former President George H.W. Bush, and former President Clinton to lead a private fund-raising campaign for victims.

The president urged a crackdown on the lawlessness.

``I think there ought to be zero tolerance of people breaking the law during an emergency such as this - whether it be looting, or price gouging at the gasoline pump, or taking advantage of charitable giving or insurance fraud,'' Bush said. ``And I've made that clear to our attorney general. The citizens ought to be working together.''

Donald Dudley, a 55-year-old New Orleans seafood merchant, complained that when he and other hungry refugees broke into the kitchen of the convention center and tried to prepare food, the National Guard chased them away.

``They pulled guns and told us we had to leave that kitchen or they would blow our damn brains out,'' he said. ``We don't want their help. Give us some vehicles and we'll get ourselves out of here!''
----

Associated Press reporters Adam Nossiter, Brett Martel, Robert Tanner and Mary Foster contributed to this report.
Link

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

In my last post I said this:
"Now he's proposing $30 million for Katrina relief. Let's see, that's what - about six weeks worth of dollars we're stuffing into that rathole in the Middle East? For a lot less than that, he could have probably ensured that the levees would not have given way, leading to the unmitigated disaster which has overtaken the Queen City of the South. He, and his slimy friends in the House, made sure that didn't happen."

If I had had my wits about me (I think they're around here someplace, unless I've started to link "senior moments" together), I would have realized I was way short on my math.

According to many sources, we're spending upwards of five (5) BILLION dollars a month (and let's see a show of hands of those who believe we're getting the truth on that) on the quagmire in Mess O'Potamia, so the paltry 30 million total The Moron proposes for Katrina relief ain't but a drop in the ol' bucket compared to that. (Not even gonna' try the division/multiplication necessary to put it into more perspective - given my miserable track record here. [OK, I think that's about 5 hours worth - am I close?])

I apologize for mixing my millions with my billions. Then again, easy mistake with politicians. Wasn't it the late Senator Dirkson who once opined: "A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking real money?"

BTW - I think it was the mayor of Biloxi (if not, somebody stop me before I kill facts again - I hate when I do that...) who said Katrina's devastation was "our tsunami.") Sorry, mayor (is he a Republican?), not even close. Let me know when the northern Gulf Coast death toll approaches 150,000. Then we can perhaps start talking comparables. I'll even give ya' the 11 dead in South Florida on Katrina's first landfall. Lest we forget.

But whatever the eventual toll, it didn't have to be this great, given what we know about the Bush mis-administration and their friends in the House cutting funds which could have perhaps prevented the levee failures. Or ignoring a problem which was pointed out to them much earlier. But they have a history of ignoring problems pointed out to them in advance, don't they? Did someone say Osama bin Laden? Did someone say memo to the President (sic)?

And another thing, the racism over this hurricane's aftermath is rampant, pervasive, un-American and un-Christian, to name a couple of "un's" which spring to mind.

First there was the bleating from talking heads and politicos about how often "they" were warned to evacuate, and, since they "chose" to stay, the implication was "tough - stew in your own filthy flood waters now, we'll get to ya' when we can." Notice how 99% of those waiting hours in the heat and the rain and the wind to pass the wand-test for entry into the dome were "not white?" Hey, did they really think there was a suicide bomber in that crowd? Oh well, same mentality which strip searches Grandma at the airport because she's 25th in line was in action there. Same mentality which stops a baby in arms from boarding a plane with mom and dad 'cause it's name is supposedly on the "no-fly" list.

Sorry, but if they've been paying attention (yeah, when will THAT start?) they'll notice that those who didn't leave were the elderly, the infirm, and most of all... the poor (read: usually not white). Those without a job (thanks to Bush and the multi-national corporations who can't wait to continue abandoning the American worker), and those perhaps with menial jobs which don't allow them the wherewithal to purchase their own transportation, including a train, bus or plane ticket out. Or own a car. Do the same jerks who always blame the victims think those folks stayed because they relished the idea of getting killed?

And another thing, this rabid Reich-wing radio station in Tampa, WFLA, 970 (http://www.970wfla.com/) on the hate-monger's dial (a Clear Channel-owned piece of crap - what else would you expect?), has a morning show comprised of scum named Ted Webb, Jack Harris and the token Alan Colmes foil (non-scum) who, like him, purposely chosen because of a willingness to be inarticulate and ignorant and unable to intelligently contradict the hate and lies spewing from the other hosts, named Sharon Taylor. Did I mention she also has to sit there and take their personal insults and their thinly veiled condescension without standing up and walking out? Why does she do that? Maybe because putting food on her kid's table trumps principle?

Anyway, some of the hate they vomited the other day was beyond belief. Well, I guess not, given the nature of their hateful personalities. Mr. Webb is the most egregious in his hatred. Among many comments too numerous to remember, he came out with this tidbit, pointing out his conclusion that all the looters were Democrats. He made the point over and over. Hey a*hole, we know the code. After all, this is Florida, home to Jeb and Cruella DeVille and the infamous illegal purging of voter rolls. You remember, if a black Floridian has a name somewhere in the ballpark of a felon's name in, say, Oregon, don't let him vote, and it'll be up to him to appeal. The appeal takes 6 months, folks. Another vote not counted. The clear implication being that, since the news showed mostly non-whites, (namely those not Northern European Anglo-Saxon Protestants) doing the looting, the conclusion of the bigots and hate-mongers which comprise most of the Repukian Party, was that the bad guys, as usual, were Democrats. Mr. Webb was also of the repugthug opinion that all looters were deserving of being shot on sight, on site, as it were. And left to rot, where they fell, to be eaten by rats and dogs - as is starting to happen now with the bodies being brushed aside. Have to admit, though, Mr. Webb did lighten up a bit when he said some of them could also be clubbed with baseball bats, in lieu of shooting. Gotta love the street justice of vigilantes theory from the dark side. Is that part of this whole "intelligent design" crap they're spewing? Or is that another topic altogether? Hard to keep up with the myths, lies and superstitions of these guys...

Is it me, or has this country turned upside down since January of 2001? How is all this different from Stalinism or wacko Islamic fundamentalism?


Oh, almost forgot a couple of other choice comments overheard: 'Of course, those damn Hollywood celebrities (read "libruls") wouldn't lift a finger to help.' Well, they're not only generously lifting fingers, as they have in the past, but they are planning for benefits, etc., to raise even more relief funds. They don't have to, since their taxes are supposed to help pay for American disasters, but they do, as do many other of us 'ordinary' citizens.

They also mentioned, again of course, that foreign countries, especially those we've helped in the past, would not help us now. Forgetting, of course, it's WE who are the richest nation on earth. Would you ask your poor neighbor to bail you out if your Benz was stolen? (Except for the fact we are technically bankrupt. Minor matter, right? As long as we can create wealth by bookkeeping entries and printing presses, it is.) Again, Reich-wing lies. But that's what they're good at. BTW, this Clear Channel Crap station is also the home of - who wouldda' guessed - Rush Gasbag, Matt Dredge, Glenn Beck and Phil Hendrie... --DN

*****************************************************

Angela Perkins drops to her knees begging for help among thousands of people gathered at the New Orleans Convention Centre waiting for help in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
Photo:AP

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/8/31/163230/120

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
NEWS YOU WON'T FIND ON CNN

"No One Can Say they Didn't See it Coming"
By Sidney Blumenthal 09/01/05 "Der Spiegel"

-- -- In 2001, FEMA warned that a hurricane striking New Orleans was one of the three most likely disasters in the U.S.

But the Bush administration cut New Orleans flood control funding by 44 percent to pay for the Iraq war.

Biblical in its uncontrolled rage and scope, Hurricane Katrina has left millions of Americans to scavenge for food and shelter and hundreds to thousands reportedly dead. With its main levee broken, the evacuated city of New Orleans has become part of the Gulf of Mexico. But the damage wrought by the hurricane may not entirely be the result of an act of nature. A year ago the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers proposed to study how New Orleans could be protected from a catastrophic hurricane, but the Bush administration ordered that the research not be undertaken. After a flood killed six people in 1995, Congress created the Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Control Project, in which the Corps of Engineers strengthened and renovated levees and pumping stations. In early 2001, the Federal Emergency Management Agency issued a report stating that a hurricane striking New Orleans was one of the three most likely disasters in the U.S., including a terrorist attack on New York City.

But by 2003 the federal funding for the flood control project essentially dried up as it was drained into the Iraq war. In 2004, the Bush administration cut funding requested by the New Orleans district of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for holding back the waters of Lake Pontchartrain by more than 80 percent. Additional cuts at the beginning of this year (for a total reduction in funding of 44.2 percent since 2001) forced the New Orleans district of the Corps to impose a hiring freeze.

The Senate had debated adding funds for fixing New Orleans' levees, but it was too late. The New Orleans Times-Picayune, which before the hurricane published a series on the federal funding problem, and whose presses are now underwater, reported online: "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."

The Bush administration's policy of turning over wetlands to developers almost certainly also contributed to the heightened level of the storm surge. In 1990, a federal task force began restoring lost wetlands surrounding New Orleans. Every two miles of wetland between the Crescent City and the Gulf reduces a surge by half a foot. Bush had promised "no net loss" of wetlands, a policy launched by his father's administration and bolstered by President Clinton. But he reversed his approach in 2003, unleashing the developers.

The Army Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency then announced they could no longer protect wetlands unless they were somehow related to interstate commerce.

In response to this potential crisis, four leading environmental groups conducted a joint expert study, concluding in 2004 that without wetlands protection New Orleans could be devastated by an ordinary, much less a Category 4 or 5, hurricane. "There's no way to describe how mindless a policy that is when it comes to wetlands protection," said one of the report's authors.

The chairman of the White House's Council on Environmental Quality dismissed the study as "highly questionable," and boasted, "Everybody loves what we're doing."

"My administration's climate change policy will be science based," President Bush declared in June 2001. But in 2002, when the Environmental Protection Agency submitted a study on global warming to the United Nations reflecting its expert research, Bush derided it as "a report put out by a bureaucracy," and excised the climate change assessment from the agency's annual report.

The next year, when the EPA issued its first comprehensive "Report on the Environment," stating, "Climate change has global consequences for human health and the environment," the White House simply demanded removal of the line and all similar conclusions.

At the G-8 meeting in Scotland this year, Bush successfully stymied any common action on global warming.

Scientists, meanwhile, have continued to accumulate impressive data on the rising temperature of the oceans, which has produced more severe hurricanes. In February 2004, 60 of the nation's leading scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates, warned in a statement, "Restoring Scientific Integrity in Policymaking": "Successful application of science has played a large part in the policies that have made the United States of America the world's most powerful nation and its citizens increasingly prosperous and healthy ... Indeed, this principle has long been adhered to by presidents and administrations of both parties in forming and implementing policies. The administration of George W. Bush has, however, disregarded this principle ... The distortion of scientific knowledge for partisan political ends must cease."

Bush completely ignored this statement.

In the two weeks preceding the storm in the Gulf, the trumping of science by ideology and expertise by special interests accelerated. The Federal Drug Administration announced that it was postponing sale of the morning-after contraceptive pill, despite overwhelming scientific evidence of its safety and its approval by the FDA's scientific advisory board.

The United Nations special envoy for HIV/AIDS in Africa accused the Bush administration of responsibility for a condom shortage in Uganda -- the result of the administration's evangelical Christian agenda of "abstinence." When the chief of the Bureau of Justice Statistics in the Justice Department was ordered by the White House to delete its study that African-Americans and other minorities are subject to racial profiling in police traffic stops and he refused to buckle under, he was forced out of his job.

When the Army Corps of Engineers' chief contracting oversight analyst objected to a $7 billion no-bid contract awarded for work in Iraq to Halliburton (the firm at which Vice President Cheney was formerly CEO), she was demoted despite her superior professional ratings.

At the National Park Service, a former Cheney aide, a political appointee lacking professional background, drew up a plan to overturn past environmental practices and prohibit any mention of evolution while allowing sale of religious materials through the Park Service.

On the day the levees burst in New Orleans, Bush delivered a speech in Colorado comparing the Iraq war to World War II and himself to Franklin D. Roosevelt: "And he knew that the best way to bring peace and stability to the region was by bringing freedom to Japan."

Bush had boarded his very own "Streetcar Named Desire."

Sidney Blumenthal, a former assistant and senior advisor to President Clinton and the author of "The Clinton Wars," is writing a column for Salon and the Guardian of London.

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Information Clearing House has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is Information Clearing House endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)






Link

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

The BFEE & Dictatorship, Inc. illegally took control of the Executive Branch in 2001.

Since then, among a jillion other mean-spirited things, he took Clinton's surplus and gave it to his rich-beyond-reason friends, while throwing scraps to some in the general populace so he could lie and brag that he was giving the people back their money.

He has bankrupted our country for decades to come with his evil schemes, principal among them the illegal, immoral, bombing, blitzkrieg invasion and occupation of a sovereign nation which was no threat to us, or their neighbors, using lie upon lie while wrapping himself in the flag and dragging the ignorant along with him into the quicksand from which there appears to be no escape.

Now he's proposing $30 million for Katrina relief. Let's see, that's what - about six weeks worth of dollars we're stuffing into that rathole in the Middle East? For a lot less than that, he could have probably ensured that the levees would not have given way, leading to the unmitigated disaster which has overtaken the Queen City of the South. He, and his slimy friends in the House, made sure that didn't happen.

Now, our own Dafur appears to be rising out of the petroleum-laden waters in which the least of our people are wading and swimming for their lives, tired, sick, scared cum furious, waiting for FEMA's and Bush's promises of clean water, food, sanitation, medicine, shelter, etc., etc. And waiting...

Bush and the sycophants fiddle... err... pick, while New Orleans drowns... --DN



>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

From Scientific American
October 2001
Select individual items or download the full issue.$7.95 or included with a Digital subscription
File size: 11.1 MB

Drowning New Orleans; October 2001; by Mark Fischetti; 10 page(s)

THE BOXES are stacked eight feet high and line the walls of the large, windowless room. Inside them are new body bags, 10,000 in all. If a big, slow-moving hurricane crossed the Gulf of Mexico on the right track, it would drive a sea surge that would drown New Orleans under 20 feet of water. "As the water recedes," says Walter Maestri, a local emergency management director, "we expect to find a lot of dead bodies."

New Orleans is a disaster waiting to happen. The city lies below sea level, in a bowl bordered by levees that fend off Lake Pontchartrain to the north and the Mississippi River to the south and west. And because of a damning confluence of factors, the city is sinking further, putting it at increasing flood risk after even minor storms. The low-lying Mississippi Delta, which buffers the city from the gulf, is also rapidly disappearing. A year from now another 25 to 30 square miles of delta marsh-an area the size of Manhattan-will have vanished. An acre disappears every 24 minutes. Each loss gives a storm surge a clearer path to wash over the delta and pour into the bowl, trapping one million people inside and another million in surrounding communities. Extensive evacuation would be impossible because the surging water would cut off the few escape routes. Scientists at Louisiana State University (L.S.U.), who have modeled hundreds of possible storm tracks on advanced computers, predict that more than 100,000 people could die. The body bags wouldn't go very far.
File size: 2.13 MB






Waiting for a Leader
The New York Times
Thursday 01 September 2005

George W. Bush gave one of the worst speeches of his life yesterday, especially given the level of national distress and the need for words of consolation and wisdom. In what seems to be a ritual in this administration, the president appeared a day later than he was needed. He then read an address of a quality more appropriate for an Arbor Day celebration: a long laundry list of pounds of ice, generators and blankets delivered to the stricken Gulf Coast. He advised the public that anybody who wanted to help should send cash, grinned, and promised that everything would work out in the end.

We will, of course, endure, and the city of New Orleans must come back. But looking at the pictures on television yesterday of a place abandoned to the forces of flood, fire and looting, it was hard not to wonder exactly how that is going to come to pass. Right now, hundreds of thousands of American refugees need our national concern and care. Thousands of people still need to be rescued from imminent peril. Public health threats must be controlled in New Orleans and throughout southern Mississippi. Drivers must be given confidence that gasoline will be available, and profiteering must be brought under control at a moment when television has been showing long lines at some pumps and spot prices approaching $4 a gallon have been reported.

Sacrifices may be necessary to make sure that all these things happen in an orderly, efficient way. But this administration has never been one to counsel sacrifice. And nothing about the president's demeanor yesterday - which seemed casual to the point of carelessness - suggested that he understood the depth of the current crisis.

While our attention must now be on the Gulf Coast's most immediate needs, the nation will soon ask why New Orleans's levees remained so inadequate. Publications from the local newspaper to National Geographic have fulminated about the bad state of flood protection in this beloved city, which is below sea level. Why were developers permitted to destroy wetlands and barrier islands that could have held back the hurricane's surge? Why was Congress, before it wandered off to vacation, engaged in slashing the budget for correcting some of the gaping holes in the area's flood protection?

It would be some comfort to think that, as Mr. Bush cheerily announced, America "will be a stronger place" for enduring this crisis. Complacency will no longer suffice, especially if experts are right in warning that global warming may increase the intensity of future hurricanes. But since this administration won't acknowledge that global warming exists, the chances of leadership seem minimal.

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

And here's what our fearless leader and his Repukian friends in Congress did recently for the late, great city of New Orleans: (--DN)

FindArticles > New Orleans CityBusiness > Jun 6, 2005 > Article >
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4200/is_20050606/ai_n14657367

EXCERPTS:
Also, a study to determine ways to protect the region from a Category 5 hurricane has been shelved for now.
--------------
Landrieu said the Bush administration is not making Corps of Engineers funding a priority.

I think it's extremely shortsighted, Landrieu said. When the Corps of Engineers' budget is cut, Louisiana bleeds. These projects are literally life-and-death projects to the people of south Louisiana and they are (of) vital economic interest to the entire nation. (How prophetic were THOSE words! ... --DN)


by Deon Roberts
In fiscal year 2006, the New Orleans district of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is bracing for a record $71.2 million reduction in federal funding.

It would be the largest single-year funding loss ever for the New Orleans district, Corps officials said.

I've been here over 30 years and I've never seen this level of reduction, said Al Naomi, project manager for the New Orleans district. I think part of the problem is it's not so much the reduction, it's the drastic reduction in one fiscal year. It's the immediacy of the reduction that I think is the hardest thing to adapt to.

There is an economic ripple effect, too. The cuts mean major hurricane and flood protection projects will not be awarded to local engineering firms. Also, a study to determine ways to protect the region from a Category 5 hurricane has been shelved for now.

Money is so tight the New Orleans district, which employs 1,300 people, instituted a hiring freeze last month on all positions. The freeze is the first of its kind in about 10 years, said Marcia Demma, chief of the Corps' Programs Management Branch.

Stephen Jeselink, interim commander of the New Orleans Corps district, told employees in an internal e-mail dated May 25 that the district is experiencing financial challenges. Execution of our available funds must be dealt with through prudent districtwide management decisions. In addition to a hiring freeze, Jeselink canceled the annual Corps picnic held every June.

Congress is setting the Corps budget.
The House of Representatives wants to cut the New Orleans district budget 21 percent to $272.4 million in 2006, down from $343.5 million in 2005. The House figure is about $20 million lower than the president's suggested $290.7 million budget.

It's now up to the Senate. Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-New Orleans, is making no promises.

It's going to be very tough, Landrieu said. The House was not able to add back this money ... but hopefully we can rally in the Senate and get some of this money back.

Landrieu said the Bush administration is not making Corps of Engineers funding a priority.

I think it's extremely shortsighted, Landrieu said. When the Corps of Engineers' budget is cut, Louisiana bleeds. These projects are literally life-and-death projects to the people of south Louisiana and they are (of) vital economic interest to the entire nation.

The Corps' budget could still be beefed up, as it is every year, through congressional additions. Last year, Congress added $20 million to the overall budget of the New Orleans district but a similar increase this year would still leave a $50 million shortfall.

One of the hardest-hit areas of the New Orleans district's budget is the Southeast Louisiana Urban Flood Control Project, which was created after the May 1995 flood to improve drainage in Jefferson, Orleans and St. Tammany parishes. SELA's budget is being drained from $36.5 million awarded in 2005 to $10.4 million suggested for 2006 by the House of Representatives and the president.

The project manager said there would be no contracts awarded with this $10.4 million, Demma said.

The construction portion of the Corps' budget would suffer if Congress doesn't add money. In 2005, the district received $94.3 million in federal dollars dedicated to construction. In 2006, the proposal is for $56 million.
It would be critical to this city if we had a $50 million construction budget compared with the past years, Demma said. It would be horrible for the city, it would be horrible for contractors and for flood protection if this were the final number compared to recent years and what the city needs.

Construction generally has been on the decline for several years and focus has been on other projects in the Corps.

The district has identified $35 million in projects to build and improve levees, floodwalls and pumping stations in St. Bernard, Orleans, Jefferson and St. Charles parishes. Those projects are included in a Corps line item called Lake Pontchartrain, where funding is scheduled to be cut from $5.7 million this year to $2.9 million in 2006. Naomi said it's enough to pay salaries but little else.

We'll do some design work. We'll design the contracts and get them ready to go if we get the money. But we don't have the money to put the work in the field, and that's the problem, Naomi said.

The Appropriations Committee in Congress will ultimately decide how much the New Orleans district will receive, he said.

Obviously, the decisions are being made up there that are not beneficial to the state, in my opinion, Naomi said. Let's put it this way: When (former Rep.) Bob Livingston (R-Metairie) was chairman of the Appropriations Committee, we didn't have a monetary problem. Our problem was how do we spend all the money we were getting.

Copyright 2005 Dolan Media Newswires
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>...


From NationalLedger.com
BreakingKatrina's Human Devastation: Bodies Floating in New Orleans
By Cris Bergman
Aug 31, 2005

Words can't describe the devastation that Hurricane Katrina has left in the Gulf Coast region of the American south. The pictures being shown on news networks and the still pictures available on the Internet at times take your breath away.

A round up of incredible shots is available here.

"There are dead bodies floating in some of the water," New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin told CNN. "The rescuers would basically push them aside as they were trying to save individuals."

The words from those that lived through this tragedy gathered by the wire services tell the sad stories of the human devastation.

--"The looting is out of control. The French Quarter has been attacked," said Jackie Clarkson, a New Orleans councilwoman. "We're using exhausted, scarce police to control looting when they should be used for search and rescue."

--"I prayed like I've never prayed in all my life," said 46-year-old Fluffy Sparks, who watched in terror as the waters rose to under her chin as she sat in her wheelchair. "I told God, 'I can't believe you're ready for me now. Don't let me die in this water here by myself.' Somehow Sparks managed to haul herself up onto her small kitchen table. The water stopped rising just as it reached the table's top.

-- Bill Higginbotham, a 91-year-old retired carpenter from Biloxi said "Most probably I don't have a home anymore," he said of the single-story, timber-frame home he built in 1940 on the Back Bay of Biloxi. "I wanted to live, but after this I don't want to live no more."

-- "People are just casually walking in and filling up garbage bags and walking off like they're Santa Claus," said Marty Desei, owner of a Super 8 motel in Biloxi. "I haven't seen anything like this in my whole life."

-- Frank Mills was in a New Orleans boarding house with three elderly residents when water started swirling up to the ceiling. Mills, 56, made for the front door but an elderly man went to retrieve something, and a woman went to help him. "And when I saw her in the hallway, she was floating face up," Mills said Tuesday, adding that he never saw the other man again.

--"It's over for a lot of people here," Dale Wade, owner of a shrimp boat that lay smoldering on its side in Alabama said as he surveyed the damage. "We're going to need some help. We're all alive," said Wade. "That's all that really matters to us."

Matt Drudge is citing a top White House source and is reporting that President Bush is considering an address to the nation asking citizens to conserve energy.

Bush has already ordered the release of oil from federal petroleum reserves to help refiners affected by Hurricane Katrina.

http://www.nationalledger.com/artman/publish/article_2726503.shtml
--Cris Bergman from wire services and broadcast reports.© Copyright by NationalLedger.com
Link

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

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