Aljazeera.Net - Bush's Iraq-9/11 link irks US press: "Wednesday 29 June 2005, 15:03 Makka Time, 12:03 GMT
US newspapers have said President George Bush failed, in his televised Tuesday speech, to speak honestly about Iraq and should not have linked the US-led fight there to September 11.
'Sadly, Mr Bush wasted his opportunity last night, giving a speech that only answered questions no one was asking,' said the New York Times on Wednesday, referring to Bush's mantra that a stable and democratic Iraq would be worth US sacrifices.
'We did not expect Mr Bush would apologise for the misinformation that helped lead us into this war, or for the catastrophic mistakes his team made in running the military operation.
'But we had hoped he would resist the temptation to raise the bloody flag of 9/11 over and over again to justify a war in a country that had nothing whatsoever to do with the terrorist attacks,' said the daily.
Rather than explain that 'it will take years before the Iraqi government and its military are able to stand on their own' and that 'all those years of effort and suffering' could still result in civil war, Bush offered 'the usual emotional rhetoric about the advance of freedom', added the Times."
Wednesday, June 29, 2005
As usual, he failed to mention that the Sept. 11 commission found no credible evidence linking saddam Hussein and the 2001 terror attacks
Newsday.com: Linking Iraq with 9/11: "BY CRAIG GORDON | wASHINGTON BUREAU | June 29, 2005
With war worries growing, the president evokes the attacks of 2001 in a speech he hopes will rally support"
FORT BRAGG, N.C. -- In the past, when sagging polls have put President George W. Bush in trouble, he has invoked the event that shaped his presidency to confront critics and rally public support, the Sept. 11 attacks.
He did it again last night, wrapping the Iraq war in the mantle of 9/11 to reject calls for an exit timetable and appeal for patience from an increasingly skeptical public. Never forget "the lessons of September the 11th," Bush warned, or risk handing victory in Iraq to the likes of Osama bin Laden.
It was Bush's most direct and high-profile link between Iraq and Sept. 11 since winning re-election - and as usual, he failed to mention that the Sept. 11 commission found no credible evidence linking the former Iraqi government of Saddam Hussein and the 2001 terror attacks.
Instead, he invoked 9/11 to crystallize public support for what has become an open-ended conflict, much the way he asked the nation in the days after Sept. 11, 2001, to brace for a war-on-terror both global and generational in scope.
...
Flag-draped appeals
Bush administration critics have long faulted the president for trying to conflate the Iraq war with the Sept. 11 attacks as a way to drum up public support with flag-draped appeals to patriotism, especially in the face of slipping poll numbers during the presidential campaign last year.
Bush at that time said he never tried to blame Hussein for the attacks even as he continued to talk up Baghdad's links with al-Qaida - an argument that took root with sizable numbers of American voters who believed Hussein had a role in 9/11.
And just last week, 9/11 made another appearance, when Bush's top political adviser, Karl Rove, accused liberals of a weak response to the Sept. 11 attacks, prompting Democratic cries that he was politicizing the tragedy.
With war worries growing, the president evokes the attacks of 2001 in a speech he hopes will rally support"
FORT BRAGG, N.C. -- In the past, when sagging polls have put President George W. Bush in trouble, he has invoked the event that shaped his presidency to confront critics and rally public support, the Sept. 11 attacks.
He did it again last night, wrapping the Iraq war in the mantle of 9/11 to reject calls for an exit timetable and appeal for patience from an increasingly skeptical public. Never forget "the lessons of September the 11th," Bush warned, or risk handing victory in Iraq to the likes of Osama bin Laden.
It was Bush's most direct and high-profile link between Iraq and Sept. 11 since winning re-election - and as usual, he failed to mention that the Sept. 11 commission found no credible evidence linking the former Iraqi government of Saddam Hussein and the 2001 terror attacks.
Instead, he invoked 9/11 to crystallize public support for what has become an open-ended conflict, much the way he asked the nation in the days after Sept. 11, 2001, to brace for a war-on-terror both global and generational in scope.
...
Flag-draped appeals
Bush administration critics have long faulted the president for trying to conflate the Iraq war with the Sept. 11 attacks as a way to drum up public support with flag-draped appeals to patriotism, especially in the face of slipping poll numbers during the presidential campaign last year.
Bush at that time said he never tried to blame Hussein for the attacks even as he continued to talk up Baghdad's links with al-Qaida - an argument that took root with sizable numbers of American voters who believed Hussein had a role in 9/11.
And just last week, 9/11 made another appearance, when Bush's top political adviser, Karl Rove, accused liberals of a weak response to the Sept. 11 attacks, prompting Democratic cries that he was politicizing the tragedy.
Sunday, June 26, 2005
Limbaugh, Noonan attempt to distance Klein book ... "Truth about Hillary" ... "poorly written, poorly thought, poorly sourced."
Limbaugh, Noonan attempt to distance Klein book ... [Media Matters for America]: "Limbaugh, Noonan attempt to distance Klein book from conservatives
Wall Street Journal contributing editor Peggy Noonan and nationally syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh wrongly denied that conservatives are behind the promotion of Edward Klein's discredited attack book The Truth About Hillary (Sentinel, June 2005).
Limbaugh claimed that conservatives 'have nothing to do with' the book, instead speculating that it was a 'left-wing idea' intended to 'inoculate' Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) from criticism through the dismissal of the book's claims as 'a right-wing hatchet job.'" ...
...
In her June 23 column, Noonan similarly denied conservative involvement with the book, which she called "poorly written, poorly thought, poorly sourced." Claiming the book will "inoculate" Clinton "against future and legitimate criticism and revelations," she characterized Klein as having "no conservative bona fides" and described the book as "an anti-Hillary book by the MSM [mainstream media]."
Limbaugh claimed that The Truth about Hillary "has nothing to do with anybody in the conservative wing of any party. It has nothing to do with a bunch of right-wingers." He further stated that it was neither written by a conservative author nor published by a conservative publishing house like Regnery, the publisher of Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry, the book co-written by Jerome R. Corsi and Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (SBVT) co-founder John E. O'Neill. But as Media Matters for America has noted The Truth About Hillary has much in common with SBVT's discredited attack on Sen. John Kerry (D-MA):
-- Sentinel, the two-year-old conservative imprint of the Penguin Putnam publishing house that published Klein's book, has stated as its goal: "Just as the Swift Boat Veterans convinced millions of voters that John Kerry lacked the character to be president, Klein's book will influence everyone who is sizing up the character of Hillary Clinton." ...
...
Other conservatives have joined in promoting the book, including Hannity, syndicated columnist and CNN political analyst Robert D. Novak, Washington Times editorial page editor Tony Blankley, and Limbaugh himself.
Wall Street Journal contributing editor Peggy Noonan and nationally syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh wrongly denied that conservatives are behind the promotion of Edward Klein's discredited attack book The Truth About Hillary (Sentinel, June 2005).
Limbaugh claimed that conservatives 'have nothing to do with' the book, instead speculating that it was a 'left-wing idea' intended to 'inoculate' Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) from criticism through the dismissal of the book's claims as 'a right-wing hatchet job.'" ...
...
In her June 23 column, Noonan similarly denied conservative involvement with the book, which she called "poorly written, poorly thought, poorly sourced." Claiming the book will "inoculate" Clinton "against future and legitimate criticism and revelations," she characterized Klein as having "no conservative bona fides" and described the book as "an anti-Hillary book by the MSM [mainstream media]."
Limbaugh claimed that The Truth about Hillary "has nothing to do with anybody in the conservative wing of any party. It has nothing to do with a bunch of right-wingers." He further stated that it was neither written by a conservative author nor published by a conservative publishing house like Regnery, the publisher of Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry, the book co-written by Jerome R. Corsi and Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (SBVT) co-founder John E. O'Neill. But as Media Matters for America has noted The Truth About Hillary has much in common with SBVT's discredited attack on Sen. John Kerry (D-MA):
-- Sentinel, the two-year-old conservative imprint of the Penguin Putnam publishing house that published Klein's book, has stated as its goal: "Just as the Swift Boat Veterans convinced millions of voters that John Kerry lacked the character to be president, Klein's book will influence everyone who is sizing up the character of Hillary Clinton." ...
...
Other conservatives have joined in promoting the book, including Hannity, syndicated columnist and CNN political analyst Robert D. Novak, Washington Times editorial page editor Tony Blankley, and Limbaugh himself.
Saturday, June 25, 2005
Mad Cow Test: for seven months there was no bad intention or cover-up, and the test in question was only experimental.
For Months, Agriculture Department Delayed Announcing Result of Mad Cow Test - New York Times: "By DONALD G. McNEIL Jr. and ALEXEI BARRIONUEVO | Published: June 26, 2005
Although the Agriculture Department confirmed Friday that a cow that died last year was infected with mad cow disease, a test the agency conducted seven months ago indicated that the animal had the disease. The result was never publicly disclosed."
...
For seven months, all that was known was that a test on the same cow done at the same laboratory at roughly the same time had come up negative. The negative result was obtained using a test that the Agriculture Department refers to as its "gold standard."
The explanation that the department gave late Friday, when the positive test result came to light, was that there was no bad intention or cover-up, and that the test in question was only experimental.
"The laboratory folks just never mentioned it to anyone higher up," said Ed Loyd, an Agriculture Department spokesman. "They didn't know if it was valid or not, so they didn't report it."
Although the Agriculture Department confirmed Friday that a cow that died last year was infected with mad cow disease, a test the agency conducted seven months ago indicated that the animal had the disease. The result was never publicly disclosed."
...
For seven months, all that was known was that a test on the same cow done at the same laboratory at roughly the same time had come up negative. The negative result was obtained using a test that the Agriculture Department refers to as its "gold standard."
The explanation that the department gave late Friday, when the positive test result came to light, was that there was no bad intention or cover-up, and that the test in question was only experimental.
"The laboratory folks just never mentioned it to anyone higher up," said Ed Loyd, an Agriculture Department spokesman. "They didn't know if it was valid or not, so they didn't report it."
Two weeks after the attacks, 84% of self-described liberals supported 'military action' against the terrorists and 75% supported 'going to war with...
www.AndrewSullivan.com - Daily Dish: "'LIBERALS' AND 9/11: Mystery pollster went back and looked at the polling data on how self-described 'liberals' responded to 9/11. Bottom line:
Two weeks after the attacks, 84% of self-described liberals supported 'military action' against the terrorists and 75% supported 'going to war with a nation that is harboring those responsible.'
What a bunch of wimps and traitors. Of course, the Bush-Rove strategy of dividing the homeland while at war for partisan purposes has turned this around somewhat. The hard left's vileness and stupidity did the rest."
Two weeks after the attacks, 84% of self-described liberals supported 'military action' against the terrorists and 75% supported 'going to war with a nation that is harboring those responsible.'
What a bunch of wimps and traitors. Of course, the Bush-Rove strategy of dividing the homeland while at war for partisan purposes has turned this around somewhat. The hard left's vileness and stupidity did the rest."
Only 118 people comprise the membership on the boards of the 10 big media giants ... 8 out of 10 share common memberships on boards ...
Big Media Interlocks with Corporate America: "June 24, 2005 by CommonDreams.org | Big Media Interlocks with Corporate America | by Peter Phillips
Mainstream media is the term often used to describe the collective group of big TV, radio and newspapers in the United States. ...
...
Instead it is more accurate to speak of big media in the US today as the corporate media and to use the term in the singular tense-as it refers to the singular monolithic top-down power structure of self-interested news giants.
A research team at Sonoma State University has recently finished conducting a network analysis of the boards of directors of the ten big media organizations in the US. The team determined that only 118 people comprise the membership on the boards of director of the ten big media giants. This is a small enough group to fit in a moderate size university classroom. These 118 individuals in turn sit on the corporate boards of 288 national and international corporations. In fact, eight out of ten big media giants share common memberships on boards of directors with each other. NBC and the Washington Post both have board members who sit on Coca Cola and J. P. Morgan, while the Tribune Company, The New York Times and Gannett all have members who share a seat on Pepsi. It is kind of like one big happy family of interlocks and shared interests. The following are but a few of the corporate board interlocks for the big ten media giants in the US:
* New York Times: Caryle Group, Eli Lilly, Ford, Johnson and Johnson, Hallmark, Lehman Brothers, Staples, Pepsi
* Washington Post: Lockheed Martin, Coca-Cola, Dun & Bradstreet, Gillette, G.E. Investments, J.P. Morgan, Moody's
* Knight-Ridder: Adobe Systems, Echelon, H&R Block, Kimberly-Clark, Starwood Hotels
* The Tribune (Chicago & LA Times): 3M, Allstate, Caterpillar, Conoco Phillips, Kraft, McDonalds, Pepsi, Quaker Oats, Shering Plough, Wells Fargo
* News Corp (Fox): British Airways, Rothschild Investments
* GE (NBC): Anheuser-Busch, Avon, Bechtel, Chevron/Texaco, Coca-Cola, Dell, GM, Home Depot, Kellogg, J.P. Morgan, Microsoft, Motorola, Procter & Gamble
* Disney (ABC): Boeing, Northwest Airlines, Clorox, Estee Lauder, FedEx, Gillette, Halliburton, Kmart, McKesson, Staples, Yahoo
* Viacom (CBS): American Express, Consolidated Edison, Oracle, Lafarge North America
* Gannett: AP, Lockheed-Martin, Continental Airlines, Goldman Sachs, Prudential, Target, Pepsi
* AOL-Time Warner (CNN): Citigroup, Estee Lauder, Colgate-Palmolive, Hilton
Mainstream media is the term often used to describe the collective group of big TV, radio and newspapers in the United States. ...
...
Instead it is more accurate to speak of big media in the US today as the corporate media and to use the term in the singular tense-as it refers to the singular monolithic top-down power structure of self-interested news giants.
A research team at Sonoma State University has recently finished conducting a network analysis of the boards of directors of the ten big media organizations in the US. The team determined that only 118 people comprise the membership on the boards of director of the ten big media giants. This is a small enough group to fit in a moderate size university classroom. These 118 individuals in turn sit on the corporate boards of 288 national and international corporations. In fact, eight out of ten big media giants share common memberships on boards of directors with each other. NBC and the Washington Post both have board members who sit on Coca Cola and J. P. Morgan, while the Tribune Company, The New York Times and Gannett all have members who share a seat on Pepsi. It is kind of like one big happy family of interlocks and shared interests. The following are but a few of the corporate board interlocks for the big ten media giants in the US:
* New York Times: Caryle Group, Eli Lilly, Ford, Johnson and Johnson, Hallmark, Lehman Brothers, Staples, Pepsi
* Washington Post: Lockheed Martin, Coca-Cola, Dun & Bradstreet, Gillette, G.E. Investments, J.P. Morgan, Moody's
* Knight-Ridder: Adobe Systems, Echelon, H&R Block, Kimberly-Clark, Starwood Hotels
* The Tribune (Chicago & LA Times): 3M, Allstate, Caterpillar, Conoco Phillips, Kraft, McDonalds, Pepsi, Quaker Oats, Shering Plough, Wells Fargo
* News Corp (Fox): British Airways, Rothschild Investments
* GE (NBC): Anheuser-Busch, Avon, Bechtel, Chevron/Texaco, Coca-Cola, Dell, GM, Home Depot, Kellogg, J.P. Morgan, Microsoft, Motorola, Procter & Gamble
* Disney (ABC): Boeing, Northwest Airlines, Clorox, Estee Lauder, FedEx, Gillette, Halliburton, Kmart, McKesson, Staples, Yahoo
* Viacom (CBS): American Express, Consolidated Edison, Oracle, Lafarge North America
* Gannett: AP, Lockheed-Martin, Continental Airlines, Goldman Sachs, Prudential, Target, Pepsi
* AOL-Time Warner (CNN): Citigroup, Estee Lauder, Colgate-Palmolive, Hilton
Klein nailed on falsehoods in Al Franken Show grilling [on "Truth about Hillary"] ... Podhoretz [neo-con] calls it "Smear for Profit."
Klein nailed on falsehoods in Al Franken Show grilling about "The Truth about Hillary" ... [Media Matters for America]: "
Hosts Al Franken and Katherine Lanpher, and guest Joe Conason confronted author Edward Klein on the many factual errors, distortions, and misleading claims in his attack book on Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY), The Truth About Hillary (Sentinel, 2005). On the June 24 edition of the Al Franken Show on Air America Radio, Klein acknowledged his falsehood in portraying the chronology of the reporting of Clinton's Jewish step-grandfather and her controversial meeting with Suha Arafat, first noted by Media Matters for America. He also admitted that he had never seen Clinton's chief of staff Melanne Verveer (whose name he misspelled in the book), although he described her appearance as 'mannish-looking.' But he refused to retract other false claims when confronted by Franken, Conason and Lanpher."
...
FRANKEN: You know why? Because I -- here -- this is what I think, Ed, and you may take issue with this. I think you deliberately left it out because it would have hurt the sentence where you say, "For Moynihan it was easier to say 'she' than 'Hillary.' " I think that's why you left out the sentence that says, "Hillary."
...
FRANKEN: And, you know, he's not alone. There are critics of the book that are even, like John Podhoretz on the right. He says -- writes -- he's a conservative. He writes, "This is one of the most sordid volumes I've ever waded through. Thirty pages into it, I wanted to take a shower. Sixty pages into it, I wanted to be decontaminated. And 200 pages into it, I wanted someone to drive stakes through my eyes so I wouldn't have to suffer through another word." Now this is a conservative, and I gotta say that it wasn't that bad.
...
FRANKEN: OK. Ah, let's talk about the FBI files that you talk about, sort of what was called "Filegate." And you call it the "Purloined FBI Files," and you write about it on page 39.
KLEIN: Mm-hmm [affirmative].
FRANKEN: And later, in a Salon interview, you said, "Like Nixon, Hillary has used FBI files against her enemies."
KLEIN: Mm-hmm [affirmative].
FRANKEN: Now, you know that she was absolved of this by the Office of Independent Counsel.
...
KLEIN: It's still my -- it's still my belief and contention that Craig Livingstone was responsible for taking those files, and that he was operating under direct orders from Hillary.
CONASON: Do you know whose files those were? I mean, did you ever look at the names of the people whose files they were?
KLEIN: They were a lot of Republican activists --
CONASON: There were not, actually. They were not. Can -- name one Republican activist whose file was taken. One.
KLEIN: I couldn't do that 'cause I --
CONASON: You couldn't! 'Cause you haven't looked at the names! Did you ever look at the names?
KLEIN: No, I haven't.
CONASON: Okay. Ah, you've never looked at the names, but you know they're a lot of Republican activists. How would you know that if you've never looked at the names?
KLEIN: I've read it in The New York Times and other publications.
CONASON: Oh, no, you didn't. You did not. You did not.
FRANKEN: You know, Ed, the first --
CONASON: Because the people whose names were on that list were former White House employees. Most of them were people like gardeners and janitors and people like that. I've looked at every name on that list --
KLEIN: Former White House employees --
CONASON: That's correct.
KLEIN: in the previous Republican administration.
CONASON: Oh, no. James Carville's name was on that list!
KLEIN: Well, ah, yes, but there [inaudible] --
CONASON: Why was his name on the list?
KLEIN: Many Republican officials on that list, as well.
CONASON: There were --
KLEIN: Are you saying there weren't?
CONASON: No, I'm saying there was no, there were no Republican activists of any note on that list. If you look through that list, it's hundreds of names of people that you had never heard of and that the Republican Party had no significant connection to.
...
FRANKEN: Okay. Well, thank you, Ed. And I will say that John Podhoretz did write his -- the headline on his thing was "Smear for Profit." So I think that he actually does believe that, ah, that you did this for money, which actually you do say that that's why you write books. So -- but I want to thank you for joining us, and I know that this couldn't have been, ah, fun, because it really was us ganging up on you, so I really appreciate it. And, you know, talk to Adrian, because I really did tell him that Joe was gonna be here. Thank you! Really, honestly, thank you for coming on.
Hosts Al Franken and Katherine Lanpher, and guest Joe Conason confronted author Edward Klein on the many factual errors, distortions, and misleading claims in his attack book on Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY), The Truth About Hillary (Sentinel, 2005). On the June 24 edition of the Al Franken Show on Air America Radio, Klein acknowledged his falsehood in portraying the chronology of the reporting of Clinton's Jewish step-grandfather and her controversial meeting with Suha Arafat, first noted by Media Matters for America. He also admitted that he had never seen Clinton's chief of staff Melanne Verveer (whose name he misspelled in the book), although he described her appearance as 'mannish-looking.' But he refused to retract other false claims when confronted by Franken, Conason and Lanpher."
...
FRANKEN: You know why? Because I -- here -- this is what I think, Ed, and you may take issue with this. I think you deliberately left it out because it would have hurt the sentence where you say, "For Moynihan it was easier to say 'she' than 'Hillary.' " I think that's why you left out the sentence that says, "Hillary."
...
FRANKEN: And, you know, he's not alone. There are critics of the book that are even, like John Podhoretz on the right. He says -- writes -- he's a conservative. He writes, "This is one of the most sordid volumes I've ever waded through. Thirty pages into it, I wanted to take a shower. Sixty pages into it, I wanted to be decontaminated. And 200 pages into it, I wanted someone to drive stakes through my eyes so I wouldn't have to suffer through another word." Now this is a conservative, and I gotta say that it wasn't that bad.
...
FRANKEN: OK. Ah, let's talk about the FBI files that you talk about, sort of what was called "Filegate." And you call it the "Purloined FBI Files," and you write about it on page 39.
KLEIN: Mm-hmm [affirmative].
FRANKEN: And later, in a Salon interview, you said, "Like Nixon, Hillary has used FBI files against her enemies."
KLEIN: Mm-hmm [affirmative].
FRANKEN: Now, you know that she was absolved of this by the Office of Independent Counsel.
...
KLEIN: It's still my -- it's still my belief and contention that Craig Livingstone was responsible for taking those files, and that he was operating under direct orders from Hillary.
CONASON: Do you know whose files those were? I mean, did you ever look at the names of the people whose files they were?
KLEIN: They were a lot of Republican activists --
CONASON: There were not, actually. They were not. Can -- name one Republican activist whose file was taken. One.
KLEIN: I couldn't do that 'cause I --
CONASON: You couldn't! 'Cause you haven't looked at the names! Did you ever look at the names?
KLEIN: No, I haven't.
CONASON: Okay. Ah, you've never looked at the names, but you know they're a lot of Republican activists. How would you know that if you've never looked at the names?
KLEIN: I've read it in The New York Times and other publications.
CONASON: Oh, no, you didn't. You did not. You did not.
FRANKEN: You know, Ed, the first --
CONASON: Because the people whose names were on that list were former White House employees. Most of them were people like gardeners and janitors and people like that. I've looked at every name on that list --
KLEIN: Former White House employees --
CONASON: That's correct.
KLEIN: in the previous Republican administration.
CONASON: Oh, no. James Carville's name was on that list!
KLEIN: Well, ah, yes, but there [inaudible] --
CONASON: Why was his name on the list?
KLEIN: Many Republican officials on that list, as well.
CONASON: There were --
KLEIN: Are you saying there weren't?
CONASON: No, I'm saying there was no, there were no Republican activists of any note on that list. If you look through that list, it's hundreds of names of people that you had never heard of and that the Republican Party had no significant connection to.
...
FRANKEN: Okay. Well, thank you, Ed. And I will say that John Podhoretz did write his -- the headline on his thing was "Smear for Profit." So I think that he actually does believe that, ah, that you did this for money, which actually you do say that that's why you write books. So -- but I want to thank you for joining us, and I know that this couldn't have been, ah, fun, because it really was us ganging up on you, so I really appreciate it. And, you know, talk to Adrian, because I really did tell him that Joe was gonna be here. Thank you! Really, honestly, thank you for coming on.
The return of '1984' - ''newspeak,' ''doublethink,' and ''the mutability of the past," -- Orwell's ''Ministry of Truth,'
The return of '1984' - The Boston Globe - Boston.com - Op-ed - News: "By H.D.S. Greenway | June 24, 2005
IF YOU TAKE something to read at the beach this summer make sure it is not one of George Orwell's books. The comparison with current events will ruin your day.
In what was then the futuristic, nightmare world of ''1984,' written in 1949, Orwell introduced the concepts of ''newspeak,' ''doublethink,' and ''the mutability of the past,' all concepts that seem to be alive and well in 2005, half a century after Orwell's death. In the ever-changing rationale of why we went to war in Iraq, we can imagine ourselves working in Orwell's ''Ministry of Truth,' in which ''reality control' is used to ensure that ''the lie passed into history and became the truth.'
And what about the Bush administration's insistence that all is going well in Iraq? In the Ministry of Truth, statistics are adjustable to suit politics -- ''merely the substitution of one piece of nonsense for another,' Orwell wrote. ''Most of the material that you were dealing with had no connection to anything in the real world, not even the kind of connection that is contained in a direct lie. Statistics were just as much a fantasy in their original version as in the rectified version.' Welcome to the Iraq war, Mr. Orwell.
What of Donald Rumsfeld's newspeak, or was it doublethink, saying that ''no detention facility in the history of warfare has been more transparent' than Guantanamo? We have the FBI's word for it that prisoners were chained hand and foot in a fetal position to the floor, left for 18 to 24 hours with no food and no water, left to defecate and urinate on themselves.
The deaths by torture in Abu Ghraib and Afghanistan sound very much like what happens in Orwell's fictional torture chamber: Room 101.
He might as well have been writing about the Bush administration's redefinition of torture when he wrote about using ''logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it.'
In Orwell's profoundly pessimistic view: ''Political language . . . is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.'"
IF YOU TAKE something to read at the beach this summer make sure it is not one of George Orwell's books. The comparison with current events will ruin your day.
In what was then the futuristic, nightmare world of ''1984,' written in 1949, Orwell introduced the concepts of ''newspeak,' ''doublethink,' and ''the mutability of the past,' all concepts that seem to be alive and well in 2005, half a century after Orwell's death. In the ever-changing rationale of why we went to war in Iraq, we can imagine ourselves working in Orwell's ''Ministry of Truth,' in which ''reality control' is used to ensure that ''the lie passed into history and became the truth.'
And what about the Bush administration's insistence that all is going well in Iraq? In the Ministry of Truth, statistics are adjustable to suit politics -- ''merely the substitution of one piece of nonsense for another,' Orwell wrote. ''Most of the material that you were dealing with had no connection to anything in the real world, not even the kind of connection that is contained in a direct lie. Statistics were just as much a fantasy in their original version as in the rectified version.' Welcome to the Iraq war, Mr. Orwell.
What of Donald Rumsfeld's newspeak, or was it doublethink, saying that ''no detention facility in the history of warfare has been more transparent' than Guantanamo? We have the FBI's word for it that prisoners were chained hand and foot in a fetal position to the floor, left for 18 to 24 hours with no food and no water, left to defecate and urinate on themselves.
The deaths by torture in Abu Ghraib and Afghanistan sound very much like what happens in Orwell's fictional torture chamber: Room 101.
He might as well have been writing about the Bush administration's redefinition of torture when he wrote about using ''logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it.'
In Orwell's profoundly pessimistic view: ''Political language . . . is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.'"
Friday, June 24, 2005
Republican candidate calls Bush Admin 'Nazis,' quits party: Those who disagree with any aspect of the administration are branded as traitors
The Raw Story | Republican candidate calls Bush Admin 'Nazis,' quits party: "RAW STORY
The following is excerpted from the Lincoln Tribune. Their servers went down when we linked to it directly. The North Carolina Supreme Court Justice candidate's personal website is available here.
Cary, NC - A candidate for North Carolina Chief Justice of the North Carolina Supreme Court has announced on her campaign's blog that she is leaving the Republican Party and denounced the Bush administration's policy on troop withdrawal from Iraq. Rachel Lea Hunter, a Republican and a candidate for Chief Justice, likens Bush’s administration to the “Nazis” and says that all who disagree with the administration are being branded as “traitors”."
...
"What I find disturbing is that we are criticized for nothing more than the exercise of our Constitutional rights. Those who disagree with any aspect of the administration are branded as traitors and must be silenced. I thought the previous administration was bad because of the amorality. This is far worse.
The following is excerpted from the Lincoln Tribune. Their servers went down when we linked to it directly. The North Carolina Supreme Court Justice candidate's personal website is available here.
Cary, NC - A candidate for North Carolina Chief Justice of the North Carolina Supreme Court has announced on her campaign's blog that she is leaving the Republican Party and denounced the Bush administration's policy on troop withdrawal from Iraq. Rachel Lea Hunter, a Republican and a candidate for Chief Justice, likens Bush’s administration to the “Nazis” and says that all who disagree with the administration are being branded as “traitors”."
...
"What I find disturbing is that we are criticized for nothing more than the exercise of our Constitutional rights. Those who disagree with any aspect of the administration are branded as traitors and must be silenced. I thought the previous administration was bad because of the amorality. This is far worse.
Rove is not merely a hypocrite. He's a thug.
David Corn: "Rove: Not Just a Hypocrite, a Thug....And Explaining Durbin's Unnecessary Apology"
...
in an interview on Hardball on Tuesday, Rove said the Senate Democrats opposing the John Bolton nomination are "putting their commitment to politics above their commitment to doing what's right for the country." That is, he was impugning their motives, not answering their arguments.
That made him a hypocrite. But it gets worse. Yesterday, Rove spoke at a Conservative Party fundraiser in New York City and said,
Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers,
...
Rove, not satisfied with lying about liberals, also claimed that US troops overseas now faced greater risk because of the remarks of Senator Dick Durbin, who last week said interrogation practices at Guantanamo were befitting of "Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime--Pol Pot or others." Rove huffed,
...
Durbin did nothing other than speak frankly about FBI reports that noted that interrogators at Guantanamo were using "torture techniques" and that described horrific conditions at the camp. Anyone who reads Durbin's full statement would see he was motivated by a deep concern about the conduct of interrogations at Gitmo and the potential harm to US national security these practices could cause.
...
Soon after that, Durbin decided to issue an apology. ... Once they had done that, Rove still found it useful to kick Durbin further and accuse him of harboring anti-US motives and engaging in traitorous conduct. Rove is not merely a hypocrite. He's a thug.
...
in an interview on Hardball on Tuesday, Rove said the Senate Democrats opposing the John Bolton nomination are "putting their commitment to politics above their commitment to doing what's right for the country." That is, he was impugning their motives, not answering their arguments.
That made him a hypocrite. But it gets worse. Yesterday, Rove spoke at a Conservative Party fundraiser in New York City and said,
Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers,
...
Rove, not satisfied with lying about liberals, also claimed that US troops overseas now faced greater risk because of the remarks of Senator Dick Durbin, who last week said interrogation practices at Guantanamo were befitting of "Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime--Pol Pot or others." Rove huffed,
...
Durbin did nothing other than speak frankly about FBI reports that noted that interrogators at Guantanamo were using "torture techniques" and that described horrific conditions at the camp. Anyone who reads Durbin's full statement would see he was motivated by a deep concern about the conduct of interrogations at Gitmo and the potential harm to US national security these practices could cause.
...
Soon after that, Durbin decided to issue an apology. ... Once they had done that, Rove still found it useful to kick Durbin further and accuse him of harboring anti-US motives and engaging in traitorous conduct. Rove is not merely a hypocrite. He's a thug.
Senator Durbin apologizes, for what? Telling the truth? while The howling banshees of the GOP and corrupt media sprout hair under a full moon
t r u t h o u t - John Cory | The Howling:Perspective | Friday 23 June 2005
Sometimes I get so angry I could just spit.
What the hell is wrong with you Democratic politicians? Why do you turn on each other? Why won't you stand by your own words and ideals? Why do you keep apologizing for telling the truth? And why can't anyone see McCain's true colors? Or Lieberman or Biden?
And why in God's name do you expect folks like me to come support you after you turn tail and run?
Senator Durbin apologizes, for what? Telling the truth?
The howling banshees of the GOP and corrupt media sprout hair under a full moon and wail into the sky until the noise becomes unbearable for simpering politicians. And the jackals of right-wing power feast on the carcass of democracy. Warm jelly spine is such a delicacy for these carnivores.
We know the truth out here. We will stand with anyone who stands up for us. Where are you?"
Sometimes I get so angry I could just spit.
What the hell is wrong with you Democratic politicians? Why do you turn on each other? Why won't you stand by your own words and ideals? Why do you keep apologizing for telling the truth? And why can't anyone see McCain's true colors? Or Lieberman or Biden?
And why in God's name do you expect folks like me to come support you after you turn tail and run?
Senator Durbin apologizes, for what? Telling the truth?
The howling banshees of the GOP and corrupt media sprout hair under a full moon and wail into the sky until the noise becomes unbearable for simpering politicians. And the jackals of right-wing power feast on the carcass of democracy. Warm jelly spine is such a delicacy for these carnivores.
We know the truth out here. We will stand with anyone who stands up for us. Where are you?"
Rove Under Intense Fire for 9/11 Smear; White House rejected Democrats' demands for an apology [... immeidately after Durbin outcry!! ]
t r u t h o u t - Rove Under Intense Fire for 9/11 Smear: "Democrats Demand Rove Apologize for 9/11 Remarks | By Raymond Hernandez | The New York Times | Friday 24 June 2005
Washington - Leading Democrats reacted furiously on Thursday to remarks by Karl Rove that liberals had responded to the Sept. 11 attacks by wanting to 'offer therapy and understanding for our attackers,' with some Democrats calling for him to apologize or resign as a White House adviser.
The remarks also rippled through New York political circles, putting two top Republicans, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and Gov. George E. Pataki, on the defensive in the state that bore the brunt of the terror attacks in 2001.
Mr. Rove made the comments at a fund-raiser in Manhattan on Wednesday, saying: 'Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers.'
'Conservatives saw what happened to us on 9/11 and said, 'We will defeat our enemies,' ' Mr. Rove continued at a gathering in Midtown for the Conservative Party of New York State. 'Liberals saw what happened to us and said, 'We must understand our enemies.' '
The remarks led to a cascade of criticism from Democratic lawmakers, particularly in the Senate, where Republicans have sought to put the party on the defensive for days after a leading Democratic senator, Richard J. Durbin, compared abusive treatment of prisoners at Guant�namo Bay, Cuba, to the war crimes of the Nazis and the Khmer Rouge.
'Karl Rove should immediately and fully apologize for his remarks or he should resign,' Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic minority leader, said in a statement. 'Dividing our country for political gain is an insult to all Americans and to the common memory we all carry with us from that day.'
The White House immediately rejected the Democrats' demands for an apology, offering a strenuous defense of Mr. Rove and suggesting that his statements had been taken out of context."
Washington - Leading Democrats reacted furiously on Thursday to remarks by Karl Rove that liberals had responded to the Sept. 11 attacks by wanting to 'offer therapy and understanding for our attackers,' with some Democrats calling for him to apologize or resign as a White House adviser.
The remarks also rippled through New York political circles, putting two top Republicans, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and Gov. George E. Pataki, on the defensive in the state that bore the brunt of the terror attacks in 2001.
Mr. Rove made the comments at a fund-raiser in Manhattan on Wednesday, saying: 'Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers.'
'Conservatives saw what happened to us on 9/11 and said, 'We will defeat our enemies,' ' Mr. Rove continued at a gathering in Midtown for the Conservative Party of New York State. 'Liberals saw what happened to us and said, 'We must understand our enemies.' '
The remarks led to a cascade of criticism from Democratic lawmakers, particularly in the Senate, where Republicans have sought to put the party on the defensive for days after a leading Democratic senator, Richard J. Durbin, compared abusive treatment of prisoners at Guant�namo Bay, Cuba, to the war crimes of the Nazis and the Khmer Rouge.
'Karl Rove should immediately and fully apologize for his remarks or he should resign,' Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic minority leader, said in a statement. 'Dividing our country for political gain is an insult to all Americans and to the common memory we all carry with us from that day.'
The White House immediately rejected the Democrats' demands for an apology, offering a strenuous defense of Mr. Rove and suggesting that his statements had been taken out of context."
Bush's Invitation-Only Speech Riles Crowd in Montgomery [... President for a chosen few?]
Bush's Invitation-Only Speech Riles Crowd in Montgomery: "Opponents of President, Social Security Plan Block Traffic | By Nancy Trejos | Washington Post Staff Writer | Friday, June 24, 2005; Page A08
President Bush visited Montgomery Blair High School yesterday for a town hall-style meeting to discuss his plan to partially privatize Social Security -- an appearance that drew about 400 protesters outside the Silver Spring school.
The loudest voices came from some Montgomery County residents and Blair students who questioned why they were not allowed inside. They were kept far from the president, but their shouts and beating drums could be heard by some of the 500 invitees waiting to pass through security."
...
U.S. Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), a possible candidate for Senate next year, joined County Executive Douglas M. Duncan (D) and state Sen. Ida G. Rubin (D-Montgomery) at a news conference outside the school to speak out against Bush's Social Security plan. Duncan is expected to run for governor.
Van Hollen said Bush should return to the school in the fall to talk to Blair students. "The president has very carefully scripted these meetings," he said after the news conference.
President Bush visited Montgomery Blair High School yesterday for a town hall-style meeting to discuss his plan to partially privatize Social Security -- an appearance that drew about 400 protesters outside the Silver Spring school.
The loudest voices came from some Montgomery County residents and Blair students who questioned why they were not allowed inside. They were kept far from the president, but their shouts and beating drums could be heard by some of the 500 invitees waiting to pass through security."
...
U.S. Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), a possible candidate for Senate next year, joined County Executive Douglas M. Duncan (D) and state Sen. Ida G. Rubin (D-Montgomery) at a news conference outside the school to speak out against Bush's Social Security plan. Duncan is expected to run for governor.
Van Hollen said Bush should return to the school in the fall to talk to Blair students. "The president has very carefully scripted these meetings," he said after the news conference.
Wednesday, June 22, 2005
If you had been told that prisoners had been found in this state in one of Saddam's or Stalin's jails, would you have believed it? Of course
www.AndrewSullivan.com - Daily Dish: "DURBIN, AGAIN:
I'm a little bemused by some of the emails saying that I've gone crazy about Dick Durbin. They're missing an important nuance. If Durbin had said, as Amnesty unfortunately did, that Gitmo was another Gulag, I'd be dismayed and critical, as I was with Amnesty. There's no comparison in any way between the scale, intent and context of the Soviet gulags and Gitmo. If Durbin had said that what was being done there in the aggregate was comparable to Auschwitz or Siberian death camps, the same would be true. But Durbin said something subtler. Now I know subtlety is not something that plays well on talk radio. But in this case, it matters. Durbin focused on one very credible account of inhumane treatment and abuse of detainees (see below) and asked an important question:
'If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime--Pol Pot or others--that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.'
So go ahead: answer his implied question. If you had been told that prisoners had been found in this state in one of Saddam's or Stalin's jails, would you have believed it? Of course, you would. In fact, I spent much time and effort before the war documenting the cruel and inhumane conduct of the regime we were trying to destroy - a regime whose cruelty encompassed low-level inhumanity like Gitmos - and, of course, unimaginably worse."
I'm a little bemused by some of the emails saying that I've gone crazy about Dick Durbin. They're missing an important nuance. If Durbin had said, as Amnesty unfortunately did, that Gitmo was another Gulag, I'd be dismayed and critical, as I was with Amnesty. There's no comparison in any way between the scale, intent and context of the Soviet gulags and Gitmo. If Durbin had said that what was being done there in the aggregate was comparable to Auschwitz or Siberian death camps, the same would be true. But Durbin said something subtler. Now I know subtlety is not something that plays well on talk radio. But in this case, it matters. Durbin focused on one very credible account of inhumane treatment and abuse of detainees (see below) and asked an important question:
'If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime--Pol Pot or others--that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.'
So go ahead: answer his implied question. If you had been told that prisoners had been found in this state in one of Saddam's or Stalin's jails, would you have believed it? Of course, you would. In fact, I spent much time and effort before the war documenting the cruel and inhumane conduct of the regime we were trying to destroy - a regime whose cruelty encompassed low-level inhumanity like Gitmos - and, of course, unimaginably worse."
'Almost no working farmers [pay the estate tax], according to data from an Internal Revenue Service
Sirotablog: CLAIM vs. FACT: Bush on the Estate Tax: "
CLAIM:
'For the sake of family farmers, Congress needs to get rid of the death tax forever.'
- President Bush, 6/14/05
FACT:
'Almost no working farmers [pay the estate tax], according to data from an Internal Revenue Service analysis of 1999 returns that has not yet been published. Neil Harl, an Iowa State University economist whose tax advice has made him a household name among Midwest farmers, said he had searched far and wide but had never found a farm lost because of estate taxes. 'It's a myth,' he said. Even one of the leading advocates for repeal of estate taxes, the American Farm Bureau Federation, said it could not cite a single example of a farm lost because of estate taxes.'
- NY Times, 4/8/01"
CLAIM:
'For the sake of family farmers, Congress needs to get rid of the death tax forever.'
- President Bush, 6/14/05
FACT:
'Almost no working farmers [pay the estate tax], according to data from an Internal Revenue Service analysis of 1999 returns that has not yet been published. Neil Harl, an Iowa State University economist whose tax advice has made him a household name among Midwest farmers, said he had searched far and wide but had never found a farm lost because of estate taxes. 'It's a myth,' he said. Even one of the leading advocates for repeal of estate taxes, the American Farm Bureau Federation, said it could not cite a single example of a farm lost because of estate taxes.'
- NY Times, 4/8/01"
Tuesday, June 21, 2005
Public Broadcasting Chairman Tomlinson hid polls ... that show ... around 80 percent of Americans believe that public television is “fair and balanced
16 Senators Urge President to Call for Removal of Public Broadcasting Chairman Tomlinson: "June 21, 2005 | BUZZFLASH NEWS ALERT
News from Sen. Schumer:
House GOP Slashes Funding of PBS, Tomlinson Doesn’t Even Speak up to Defend CPB, Hires Lobbyists to Undermine Influence of Member Stations on CPB Board
80% of Public Believes PBS is “Fair and Balanced” in Poll Hidden by Tomlinson
Schumer: Overt Political Agenda Undermines Credibility of Public Television
U.S. Senators Charles E. Schumer (D-NY), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and fourteen other Senators urged President George W. Bush to call for the removal of the Chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Kenneth Tomlinson. In a letter today, sixteen Senators stated that Mr. Tomlinson has spent a great deal of time and the public’s money undermining public television in his new post and making the CPB weaker than before he took over the chairmanship. Public broadcasting, in particular the Public Broadcasting System (PBS) is an invaluable resource for our TV-watching public. Congress created this not-for-profit entity in 1967, and it has become one of the most relied upon sources of news and educational programs for all Americans, and especially their children.
The Senators wrote, “We strongly disagree with your Administration’s decision to appoint an individual to head a not-for-profit corporation such as public broadcasting who is actively undermining, under-funding, and ultimately undoing its mission.
Mr. Tomlinson has made a series of decisions that call into question his commitment to public television:
- He hid polls from the public that show that public support for PBS is around 80 percent of Americans believe that public television is “fair and balanced;”
- He has spent unnecessary funds to investigate individual news programs for bias;
- He adjusted programming to cut news programs because of perceived bias;
- He didn’t speak out publicly against cuts to massive cuts to public television by the House Appropriations Committee;
- He hired expensive lobbyists to strategize about how to encourage senators to oppose a bill that would have allowed individual public television stations to have more representations on the board of the CPB; and
- He has recommended Patricia Harrison, a former Republican Party co-chair, to be the new CPB President.
The Republican leadership in the House has cut nearly $200 million for CPB’s budget – and has slashed the “Ready to Learn” shows such as Reading Rainbow and Sesame Street by $23 million in the House Appropriations Committee.
“We urge you to immediately replace Mr. Tomlinson with an executive who takes his or her responsibility to the public television system seriously, not one who so seriously undermines the credibility and mission of public television,” their letter concluded.
News from Sen. Schumer:
House GOP Slashes Funding of PBS, Tomlinson Doesn’t Even Speak up to Defend CPB, Hires Lobbyists to Undermine Influence of Member Stations on CPB Board
80% of Public Believes PBS is “Fair and Balanced” in Poll Hidden by Tomlinson
Schumer: Overt Political Agenda Undermines Credibility of Public Television
U.S. Senators Charles E. Schumer (D-NY), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and fourteen other Senators urged President George W. Bush to call for the removal of the Chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Kenneth Tomlinson. In a letter today, sixteen Senators stated that Mr. Tomlinson has spent a great deal of time and the public’s money undermining public television in his new post and making the CPB weaker than before he took over the chairmanship. Public broadcasting, in particular the Public Broadcasting System (PBS) is an invaluable resource for our TV-watching public. Congress created this not-for-profit entity in 1967, and it has become one of the most relied upon sources of news and educational programs for all Americans, and especially their children.
The Senators wrote, “We strongly disagree with your Administration’s decision to appoint an individual to head a not-for-profit corporation such as public broadcasting who is actively undermining, under-funding, and ultimately undoing its mission.
Mr. Tomlinson has made a series of decisions that call into question his commitment to public television:
- He hid polls from the public that show that public support for PBS is around 80 percent of Americans believe that public television is “fair and balanced;”
- He has spent unnecessary funds to investigate individual news programs for bias;
- He adjusted programming to cut news programs because of perceived bias;
- He didn’t speak out publicly against cuts to massive cuts to public television by the House Appropriations Committee;
- He hired expensive lobbyists to strategize about how to encourage senators to oppose a bill that would have allowed individual public television stations to have more representations on the board of the CPB; and
- He has recommended Patricia Harrison, a former Republican Party co-chair, to be the new CPB President.
The Republican leadership in the House has cut nearly $200 million for CPB’s budget – and has slashed the “Ready to Learn” shows such as Reading Rainbow and Sesame Street by $23 million in the House Appropriations Committee.
“We urge you to immediately replace Mr. Tomlinson with an executive who takes his or her responsibility to the public television system seriously, not one who so seriously undermines the credibility and mission of public television,” their letter concluded.
a George W. Bush Jr. was convicted in a Midland, Texas court on a vague “unlawful practice of medicine” charge
Fresh Intelligence May 27 2005 : Radar Online: "Dubya’s Double Trouble?
Since George W. Bush’s first presidential campaign, journalists have been trying to verify reports that the president was once arrested on a cocaine posession charge. Now, for the first time, court records obtained by Radar may be able to shed some light on the mystery. Filed in 1986, the same year that the president claims to have given up drinking, the documents clearly show that a George W. Bush Jr. was convicted in a Midland, Texas court on a vague “unlawful practice of medicine” charge. Only thing is, it appears to be the wrong George W. Bush. Although they were born mere months apart, lived in the same town (the president grew up in Midland), and both have blue eyes and similar builds, only one was slapped with a $2000 fine and a year’s probation. The other became leader of the free world.
The arrest story stems from Texas journalist J.H. Hatfield’s much-maligned 1999 book Fortunate Son: George W. Bush and the Making of an American President. Hatfield, who committed suicide a year after his book was published, alleged that Bush was once arrested for drug possession in Texas but persuaded the judge to expunge his record by volunteering for an inner-city outreach program. It was rumored that the architect of the deal was legendary Texas lawyer Warren Burnett, who added further intrigue by cagily refusing to answer definitively whether or not he had represented George W. Bush. (The president has always vehemently denied the drug claim and a White House spokeperson did not return calls by press time.) Perhaps reporters should have specified which Bush they were talking about: The court documents list Burnett as George W. Bush Jr.’s lawyer in the 1986 arrest. Unfortunately, Burnett, who died in 2002, was unavailable to comment on his bizarro client."
Since George W. Bush’s first presidential campaign, journalists have been trying to verify reports that the president was once arrested on a cocaine posession charge. Now, for the first time, court records obtained by Radar may be able to shed some light on the mystery. Filed in 1986, the same year that the president claims to have given up drinking, the documents clearly show that a George W. Bush Jr. was convicted in a Midland, Texas court on a vague “unlawful practice of medicine” charge. Only thing is, it appears to be the wrong George W. Bush. Although they were born mere months apart, lived in the same town (the president grew up in Midland), and both have blue eyes and similar builds, only one was slapped with a $2000 fine and a year’s probation. The other became leader of the free world.
The arrest story stems from Texas journalist J.H. Hatfield’s much-maligned 1999 book Fortunate Son: George W. Bush and the Making of an American President. Hatfield, who committed suicide a year after his book was published, alleged that Bush was once arrested for drug possession in Texas but persuaded the judge to expunge his record by volunteering for an inner-city outreach program. It was rumored that the architect of the deal was legendary Texas lawyer Warren Burnett, who added further intrigue by cagily refusing to answer definitively whether or not he had represented George W. Bush. (The president has always vehemently denied the drug claim and a White House spokeperson did not return calls by press time.) Perhaps reporters should have specified which Bush they were talking about: The court documents list Burnett as George W. Bush Jr.’s lawyer in the 1986 arrest. Unfortunately, Burnett, who died in 2002, was unavailable to comment on his bizarro client."
Monday, June 20, 2005
Re Durbin's comments on Gitmo abuse: The rank hysteria being perpetrated by some on the right is what is shameful
www.AndrewSullivan.com - Daily Dish: "DURBIN SAID NOTHING WRONG:
I've now read and re-read Senator Dick Durbin's comments on interrogation techniques at Guantanamo Bay. They are completely, perfectly respectable. The rank hysteria being perpetrated by some on the right is what is shameful. Hugh Hewitt should answer one single question: does he doubt the FBI interrogator who witnessed the appalling treatment of some detainees at Guantanamo? Here's the report:
On a couple of occasions, I entered interview rooms to find a detainee chained hand and foot in a fetal position to the floor, with no chair, food, or water. Most times they urinated or defecated on themselves, and had been left there for 18-24 hours or more. On one occasion, the air conditioning had been turned down so far and the temperature was so cold in the room, that the barefooted detainee was shaking with cold... On another occasion, the [air conditioner] had been turned off, making the temperature in the unventilated room well over 100 degrees. The detainee was almost unconscious on the floor, with a pile of hair next to him. He had apparently been literally pulling his hair out throughout the night. On another occasion, not only was the temperature unbearably hot, but extremely loud rap music was being played in the room, and had been since the day before, with the detainee chained hand and foot in the fetal position on the tile floor.'
Is Hewitt arguing that the interrogator was lying? Does he believe that the kind of tactics used against this prisoner are worthy of the United States? Does he believe that this happened without authorization? If he were told this story and informed that it occurred in, say, Serbia under Milosevic, would he be surprised? Hewitt should then answer the same question about the 5 detainees which the U.S. government itself has acknowledged were tortured to death by U.S. interrogators, and the scores of others who died in detention during or after "interrogation". Does he deny that this happened? Does he honestly believe that removing the legal restrictions on cruel and inhumane treatment of detainees by our current president had nothing to do with this? Maybe he needs a little refresher on the extraordinary range and scale of the record of abuse that is still accumulating. I'm just amazed that some can view what has happened and their first instinct is to attack those who have criticized it, rather than those who have perpetrated it. It is this administration that has brought indelible shame on America, and it's people like Dick Durbin who prove that some can actually stand up against this stain on American honor and call it what it is. Good for him. Thank God for him.
I've now read and re-read Senator Dick Durbin's comments on interrogation techniques at Guantanamo Bay. They are completely, perfectly respectable. The rank hysteria being perpetrated by some on the right is what is shameful. Hugh Hewitt should answer one single question: does he doubt the FBI interrogator who witnessed the appalling treatment of some detainees at Guantanamo? Here's the report:
On a couple of occasions, I entered interview rooms to find a detainee chained hand and foot in a fetal position to the floor, with no chair, food, or water. Most times they urinated or defecated on themselves, and had been left there for 18-24 hours or more. On one occasion, the air conditioning had been turned down so far and the temperature was so cold in the room, that the barefooted detainee was shaking with cold... On another occasion, the [air conditioner] had been turned off, making the temperature in the unventilated room well over 100 degrees. The detainee was almost unconscious on the floor, with a pile of hair next to him. He had apparently been literally pulling his hair out throughout the night. On another occasion, not only was the temperature unbearably hot, but extremely loud rap music was being played in the room, and had been since the day before, with the detainee chained hand and foot in the fetal position on the tile floor.'
Is Hewitt arguing that the interrogator was lying? Does he believe that the kind of tactics used against this prisoner are worthy of the United States? Does he believe that this happened without authorization? If he were told this story and informed that it occurred in, say, Serbia under Milosevic, would he be surprised? Hewitt should then answer the same question about the 5 detainees which the U.S. government itself has acknowledged were tortured to death by U.S. interrogators, and the scores of others who died in detention during or after "interrogation". Does he deny that this happened? Does he honestly believe that removing the legal restrictions on cruel and inhumane treatment of detainees by our current president had nothing to do with this? Maybe he needs a little refresher on the extraordinary range and scale of the record of abuse that is still accumulating. I'm just amazed that some can view what has happened and their first instinct is to attack those who have criticized it, rather than those who have perpetrated it. It is this administration that has brought indelible shame on America, and it's people like Dick Durbin who prove that some can actually stand up against this stain on American honor and call it what it is. Good for him. Thank God for him.
Sunday, June 19, 2005
Mainstream media cover-up: In five weeks following its disclosure, Downing Street memo drew little attention
Mainstream media cover-up: In five weeks following its disclosure, Downing Street memo drew little attention
Network and cable news prime-time coverage of Downing Street memo
| ABC | CBS | NBC | CNN | MSNBC | Fox News |
5/1-5/7 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
5/8-5/14 |
|
|
|
|
| Hannity & Colmes (passing mention, 5/11) |
5/15-5/21 |
|
|
| Wolf Blitzer Reports (full report, 5/16) | Countdown with Keith Olbermann (full report, 5/16) | Hannity & Colmes (passing mention, 5/16) |
5/22-5/28 |
|
|
|
| Hardball with Chris Matthews (passing mention, 5/25) | The O'Reilly Factor (passing mention, 5/23) |
5/29-6/6 |
|
|
|
|
| Special Report with Brit Hume (panel discussion, 6/6) |
June 7: Bush-Blair Press Conference | ||||||
6/7-6/11 |
| CBS Evening News (partial report, 6/7) | Nightly News (full report, 6/7) | Lou Dobbs Tonight (partial report, 6/7); NewsNight with Aaron Brown (full report, 6/7); NewsNight (full report, 6/8) | Countdown (passing mention, 6/6); Countdown (full report, 6/7); Hardball (partial discussion, 6/7); Hardball (passing mention, 6/9) | Special Report (partial report, 6/7); The Big Story with John Gibson (partial report, 6/7) |
6/12-6/14 |
|
| Nightly News (partial report, 6/14) |
| Countdown (partial report, 6/14); Hardball (passing mention, 6/14) |
|
The search results are based on two Nexis database searches in "Transcripts" from May 1 through June 14:
Think Progress � Rice Says Administration Told Americans Iraq Would Be A “Generational Commitment”
Think Progress � Rice Says Administration Told Americans Iraq Would Be A “Generational Commitment”: "Rice Says Administration Told Americans Iraq Would Be A “Generational Commitment”
This morning on Fox News Sunday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was asked if “the Bush administration fairly [can] be criticized for failing to level with the American people about how long and difficult this commitment will be?” Rice responded:
[T]he administration, I think, has said to the American people that it is a generational commitment to Iraq.
That’s not true. To build support for the war the administration told the American people that the conflict in Iraq will be short and affordable.
Vice President Dick Cheney, 3/16/03:
[M]y belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. . . . I think it will go relatively quickly. . . (in) weeks rather than months
Donald Rumsfeld, 2/7/03:
It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."
This morning on Fox News Sunday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was asked if “the Bush administration fairly [can] be criticized for failing to level with the American people about how long and difficult this commitment will be?” Rice responded:
[T]he administration, I think, has said to the American people that it is a generational commitment to Iraq.
That’s not true. To build support for the war the administration told the American people that the conflict in Iraq will be short and affordable.
Vice President Dick Cheney, 3/16/03:
[M]y belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. . . . I think it will go relatively quickly. . . (in) weeks rather than months
Donald Rumsfeld, 2/7/03:
It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."
Saturday, June 18, 2005
Everyone is rather too mindful of the backstairs influence of the White House in companies such as Viacom and News Corporation that own the TV news
MediaChannel.org Features: "A Study in Emasculation | By Henry Porter | The Guardian (UK) | June 16, 2005
...
Since 9/11, when the heroic fortitude of America was at its most visible, the Bush administration has gradually contrived to cast all criticism and investigation into its activities as unpatriotic and an obstruction to its jihad against Islamist terrorism. Few cross the line in the White House, where a wary and unforgiving regime - not unlike that run by Bob Haldeman and John Ehrlichman for Richard Nixon - ensures that leaks are very rare indeed. Much the same atmosphere of fear and obedience obtains in the Pentagon under Donald Rumsfeld and at the justice department, though less so at the state department and CIA.
Broadcasters have largely accepted that attacks on the White House can only harm America's interests, and when they don't they are bamboozled and vilified by the shrill voices of the right.
I visit the States three or four times a year, and watching the television news in hotel rooms in the last three years has been like witnessing a time-lapse study of emasculation. It's not just the unbearable lightness of purpose in most news shows; it's the sense that everyone is rather too mindful of the backstairs influence of the White House in companies such as Viacom and News Corporation that own the TV news. The anchorman Dan Rather, for example, was eased out by Viacom - CBS's owner - after he wrongly made allegations about the president's time in the Texas Air National Guard. It was not a mistake that required his head on a platter.
The result of this climate of fear and caution is that few Americans have any idea of the circumstances in which 1,600 of their countrymen have lost their lives in Iraq, the hideous injuries suffered by both Iraqi and American victims of suicide bombers, or even the profound responsibility that lies with Rumsfeld for mishandling practically every facet of the occupation. The mission to explain has been replaced by the mission to avoid. ...
...
Since 9/11, when the heroic fortitude of America was at its most visible, the Bush administration has gradually contrived to cast all criticism and investigation into its activities as unpatriotic and an obstruction to its jihad against Islamist terrorism. Few cross the line in the White House, where a wary and unforgiving regime - not unlike that run by Bob Haldeman and John Ehrlichman for Richard Nixon - ensures that leaks are very rare indeed. Much the same atmosphere of fear and obedience obtains in the Pentagon under Donald Rumsfeld and at the justice department, though less so at the state department and CIA.
Broadcasters have largely accepted that attacks on the White House can only harm America's interests, and when they don't they are bamboozled and vilified by the shrill voices of the right.
I visit the States three or four times a year, and watching the television news in hotel rooms in the last three years has been like witnessing a time-lapse study of emasculation. It's not just the unbearable lightness of purpose in most news shows; it's the sense that everyone is rather too mindful of the backstairs influence of the White House in companies such as Viacom and News Corporation that own the TV news. The anchorman Dan Rather, for example, was eased out by Viacom - CBS's owner - after he wrongly made allegations about the president's time in the Texas Air National Guard. It was not a mistake that required his head on a platter.
The result of this climate of fear and caution is that few Americans have any idea of the circumstances in which 1,600 of their countrymen have lost their lives in Iraq, the hideous injuries suffered by both Iraqi and American victims of suicide bombers, or even the profound responsibility that lies with Rumsfeld for mishandling practically every facet of the occupation. The mission to explain has been replaced by the mission to avoid. ...
Milbank used the valuable real estate of the Post to mock Rep. John Conyers, who arranged the meeting, and his “hearty band of playmates.”
Bush's WMD 'Joke': Is the Media Still Laughing?: "Bush's WMD 'Joke': Is the Media Still Laughing? | By Greg Mitchell | (June 18, 2005)
A brief comment at a forum in Washington this week resurrects one of the most shameful episodes in recent media history: The night a roomful of journalists laughed along with a president making fun of the bogus threat that led to a costly war.
Dana Milbank of The Washington Post, in an article Friday, suggested that the congressional forum the previous day on the Downing Street memos was something of a joke. In his opening sentence he declared that House Democrats “took a trip to the land of make-believe” in pretending that the basement conference room was actually a real hearing room, even importing a few American flags to make it look more official.
Oddly, he seem less interested in the far more serious “make-believe” that inspired the basement session: the administration’s fake case for WMDs in Iraq that has already led to the deaths of over 1,700 Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis. No, Milbank used the valuable real estate of the Post to mock Rep. John Conyers, who arranged the meeting, and his “hearty band of playmates.”
This fun-loving “band” included a mother who had lost her son in Iraq."
A brief comment at a forum in Washington this week resurrects one of the most shameful episodes in recent media history: The night a roomful of journalists laughed along with a president making fun of the bogus threat that led to a costly war.
Dana Milbank of The Washington Post, in an article Friday, suggested that the congressional forum the previous day on the Downing Street memos was something of a joke. In his opening sentence he declared that House Democrats “took a trip to the land of make-believe” in pretending that the basement conference room was actually a real hearing room, even importing a few American flags to make it look more official.
Oddly, he seem less interested in the far more serious “make-believe” that inspired the basement session: the administration’s fake case for WMDs in Iraq that has already led to the deaths of over 1,700 Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis. No, Milbank used the valuable real estate of the Post to mock Rep. John Conyers, who arranged the meeting, and his “hearty band of playmates.”
This fun-loving “band” included a mother who had lost her son in Iraq."
Friday, June 17, 2005
Congressman Conyers hammers the Washington Post's Dana Milbank
The Raw Story | Congressman Conyers hammers the Washington Post's Dana Milbank: "
June 17, 2005
Mr. Michael Abramowitz, National Editor; Mr. Michael Getler, Ombudsman; Mr. Dana Milbank; The Washington Post, 1150 15th Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20071
Dear Sirs:
I write to express my profound disappointment with Dana Milbank's June 17 report, "Democrats Play House to Rally Against the War," which purports to describe a Democratic hearing I chaired in the Capitol yesterday. In sum, the piece cherry-picks some facts, manufactures others out of whole cloth, and does a disservice to some 30 members of Congress who persevered under difficult circumstances, not of our own making, to examine a very serious subject: whether the American people were deliberately misled in the lead up to war. The fact that this was the Post's only coverage of this event makes the journalistic shortcomings in this piece even more egregious.
...
The article begins with an especially mean and nasty tone, claiming that House Democrats "pretended" a small conference was the Judiciary Committee hearing room ... Despite the fact that a number of other suitable rooms were available in the Capitol and House office buildings, Republicans declined my request for each and every one of them. Milbank could have written about the perseverance of many of my colleagues in the face of such adverse circumstances, but declined to do so. Milbank also ignores the critical fact picked up by the AP, CNN and other newsletters that at the very moment the hearing was scheduled to begin, the Republican Leadership scheduled an almost unprecedented number of 11 consecutive floor votes, making it next to impossible for most Members to participate in the first hour and one half of the hearing.
...
In a typically derisive and uninformed passage, Milbank makes much of other lawmakers calling me "Mr. Chairman" and says I liked it so much that I used "chairmanly phrases." Milbank may not know that I was the Chairman of the House Government Operations Committee from 1988 to 1994. By protocol and tradition in the House, once you have been a Chairman you are always referred to as such. Thus, there was nothing unusual about my being referred to as Mr. Chairman.
...
By the way, the "Downing Street Memo" is actually the minutes of a British cabinet meeting. In the meeting, British officials - having just met with their American counterparts - describe their discussions with such counterparts. I mention this because that basic piece of context, a simple description of the memo, is found nowhere in Milbank's article.
...
The fact that I and my fellow Democrats had to stuff a hearing into a room the size of a large closet to hold a hearing on an important issue shouldn't make us the object of ridicule. In my opinion, the ridicule should be placed in two places: first, at the feet of Republicans who are so afraid to discuss ideas and facts that they try to sabotage our efforts to do so; and second, on Dana Milbank and the Washington Post, who do not feel the need to give serious coverage on a serious hearing about a serious matter-whether more than 1700 Americans have died because of a deliberate lie. Milbank may disagree, but the Post certainly owed its readers some coverage of that viewpoint.
June 17, 2005
Mr. Michael Abramowitz, National Editor; Mr. Michael Getler, Ombudsman; Mr. Dana Milbank; The Washington Post, 1150 15th Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20071
Dear Sirs:
I write to express my profound disappointment with Dana Milbank's June 17 report, "Democrats Play House to Rally Against the War," which purports to describe a Democratic hearing I chaired in the Capitol yesterday. In sum, the piece cherry-picks some facts, manufactures others out of whole cloth, and does a disservice to some 30 members of Congress who persevered under difficult circumstances, not of our own making, to examine a very serious subject: whether the American people were deliberately misled in the lead up to war. The fact that this was the Post's only coverage of this event makes the journalistic shortcomings in this piece even more egregious.
...
The article begins with an especially mean and nasty tone, claiming that House Democrats "pretended" a small conference was the Judiciary Committee hearing room ... Despite the fact that a number of other suitable rooms were available in the Capitol and House office buildings, Republicans declined my request for each and every one of them. Milbank could have written about the perseverance of many of my colleagues in the face of such adverse circumstances, but declined to do so. Milbank also ignores the critical fact picked up by the AP, CNN and other newsletters that at the very moment the hearing was scheduled to begin, the Republican Leadership scheduled an almost unprecedented number of 11 consecutive floor votes, making it next to impossible for most Members to participate in the first hour and one half of the hearing.
...
In a typically derisive and uninformed passage, Milbank makes much of other lawmakers calling me "Mr. Chairman" and says I liked it so much that I used "chairmanly phrases." Milbank may not know that I was the Chairman of the House Government Operations Committee from 1988 to 1994. By protocol and tradition in the House, once you have been a Chairman you are always referred to as such. Thus, there was nothing unusual about my being referred to as Mr. Chairman.
...
By the way, the "Downing Street Memo" is actually the minutes of a British cabinet meeting. In the meeting, British officials - having just met with their American counterparts - describe their discussions with such counterparts. I mention this because that basic piece of context, a simple description of the memo, is found nowhere in Milbank's article.
...
The fact that I and my fellow Democrats had to stuff a hearing into a room the size of a large closet to hold a hearing on an important issue shouldn't make us the object of ridicule. In my opinion, the ridicule should be placed in two places: first, at the feet of Republicans who are so afraid to discuss ideas and facts that they try to sabotage our efforts to do so; and second, on Dana Milbank and the Washington Post, who do not feel the need to give serious coverage on a serious hearing about a serious matter-whether more than 1700 Americans have died because of a deliberate lie. Milbank may disagree, but the Post certainly owed its readers some coverage of that viewpoint.
USDA plants its own news
Chicago Tribune news : Business: "USDA plants its own news | Critics liken radio, TV spots to propaganda; agency defends use | By Andrew Martin and Jeff Zeleny | Washington Bureau | Published June 16, 2005
WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Department of Agriculture has churned out three dozen radio and television news segments since the first of the year that promote a controversial trade agreement with Central America opposed by labor unions, the sugar industry and many members of Congress, including some Republicans.
Amid an intense debate over government-funded efforts to influence news coverage, the prepackaged reports have been widely distributed to broadcast outlets across the country for easy insertion into newscasts.
About a third of the reports deal specifically with the politically powerful sugar industry, which has emerged as the major obstacle to the Central American Free Trade Agreement, or CAFTA.
"
WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Department of Agriculture has churned out three dozen radio and television news segments since the first of the year that promote a controversial trade agreement with Central America opposed by labor unions, the sugar industry and many members of Congress, including some Republicans.
Amid an intense debate over government-funded efforts to influence news coverage, the prepackaged reports have been widely distributed to broadcast outlets across the country for easy insertion into newscasts.
About a third of the reports deal specifically with the politically powerful sugar industry, which has emerged as the major obstacle to the Central American Free Trade Agreement, or CAFTA.
"
Wednesday, June 15, 2005
GOP Committee Targets International Red Cross
GOP Committee Targets International Red Cross: "Senators ask Bush to reconsider financial support for the agency after its criticism of how U.S. forces treat their detainees abroad. | By Sonni Efron, Times Staff Writer
WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans are calling on the Bush administration to reassess U.S. financial support for the International Committee of the Red Cross, charging that the group is using American funds to lobby against U.S. interests.
The Senate Republican Policy Committee, which advances the views of the GOP Senate majority, said in a report that the international humanitarian organization had 'lost its way' and veered from the impartiality on which its reputation was based. The Republican policy group titled its report: 'Are American Interests Being Disserved by the International Committee of the Red Cross?'"
WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans are calling on the Bush administration to reassess U.S. financial support for the International Committee of the Red Cross, charging that the group is using American funds to lobby against U.S. interests.
The Senate Republican Policy Committee, which advances the views of the GOP Senate majority, said in a report that the international humanitarian organization had 'lost its way' and veered from the impartiality on which its reputation was based. The Republican policy group titled its report: 'Are American Interests Being Disserved by the International Committee of the Red Cross?'"
Thursday, June 02, 2005
United States is in a McCarthy-like era in which the government stifles political dissent while the news media and the public fail to speak out in op
March 21, 2005 Headlines | Montana governor wants Guard back from Iraq: "Newsman says dissent stifled
DANVILLE, KY — Former National Public Radio newsman Bob Edwards says the United States is in a McCarthy-like era in which the government stifles political dissent while the news media and the public fail to speak out in opposition.
Speaking at Centre College, Edwards, now host on XM Satellite Radio, said the “Bush administration holds reporters in contempt” and has become the “all-time champion of information control,” the Lexington Herald-Leader reported.
Edwards built a theme based on a quote by Bush’s former press secretary Ari Fleischer in the wake of 9/11: “People should watch what they say.”
Edwards also said journalists “have done a terrible job explaining their role to the public,” the newspaper reported.
He quoted Edward R. Murrow’s famous TV response to Sen. Joseph McCarthy’s communist witch hunt: “We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty,” and “we cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home.”"
DANVILLE, KY — Former National Public Radio newsman Bob Edwards says the United States is in a McCarthy-like era in which the government stifles political dissent while the news media and the public fail to speak out in opposition.
Speaking at Centre College, Edwards, now host on XM Satellite Radio, said the “Bush administration holds reporters in contempt” and has become the “all-time champion of information control,” the Lexington Herald-Leader reported.
Edwards built a theme based on a quote by Bush’s former press secretary Ari Fleischer in the wake of 9/11: “People should watch what they say.”
Edwards also said journalists “have done a terrible job explaining their role to the public,” the newspaper reported.
He quoted Edward R. Murrow’s famous TV response to Sen. Joseph McCarthy’s communist witch hunt: “We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty,” and “we cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home.”"
Wednesday, June 01, 2005
"Even we at Fox News manage to get some lefties on the air occasionally, and often let them finish their sentences before we club them to death"
Fox News Admits Bias! - Its London bureau chief blurts out the political slant that dare not speak its name. By Timothy Noah: "Posted Tuesday, May 31, 2005, at 9:40 AM PT
...
Norvell is London bureau chief for Fox News, and on May 20 he let the mask slip in, of all places, the Wall Street Journal. So far, the damage has been contained, because Norvell's comments—in an op-ed he wrote decrying left-wing bias at the BBC—appeared only in the Journal's European edition. But Chatterbox's agents are everywhere.
Here is what Norvell fessed up to in the May 20 Wall Street Journal Europe:
Even we at Fox News manage to get some lefties on the air occasionally, and often let them finish their sentences before we club them to death and feed the scraps to Karl Rove and Bill O'Reilly. And those who hate us can take solace in the fact that they aren't subsidizing Bill's bombast; we payers of the BBC license fee don't enjoy that peace of mind.
Fox News is, after all, a private channel and our presenters are quite open about where they stand on particular stories. That's our appeal. People watch us because they know what they are getting. The Beeb's institutionalized leftism would be easier to tolerate if the corporation was a little more honest about it.
...
Norvell is London bureau chief for Fox News, and on May 20 he let the mask slip in, of all places, the Wall Street Journal. So far, the damage has been contained, because Norvell's comments—in an op-ed he wrote decrying left-wing bias at the BBC—appeared only in the Journal's European edition. But Chatterbox's agents are everywhere.
Here is what Norvell fessed up to in the May 20 Wall Street Journal Europe:
Even we at Fox News manage to get some lefties on the air occasionally, and often let them finish their sentences before we club them to death and feed the scraps to Karl Rove and Bill O'Reilly. And those who hate us can take solace in the fact that they aren't subsidizing Bill's bombast; we payers of the BBC license fee don't enjoy that peace of mind.
Fox News is, after all, a private channel and our presenters are quite open about where they stand on particular stories. That's our appeal. People watch us because they know what they are getting. The Beeb's institutionalized leftism would be easier to tolerate if the corporation was a little more honest about it.
Once again it has taken grieving relatives to point out that the Bush administration will exploit even a heroic death for its own partisan purposes.
A Cover-Up as Shameful as Tillman's Death: " May 31, 2005
Once again it has taken grieving relatives to point out that the Bush administration will exploit even a heroic death for its own partisan purposes.
As with the widows of Sept. 11 who demanded that our obfuscating leaders investigate what went wrong on that terrible day, or the wounded Army Pfc. Jessica Lynch, who resisted efforts to make her into some kind of Rambo figure, so relatives of late NFL star Pat Tillman are demanding to know why their celebrated war hero son's death in 2004 was exploited for public relations purposes by the U.S. military and the administration.
ADVERTISEMENT
Rail Europe
'They blew up their poster boy,' Tillman's father, Patrick, a San Jose lawyer, told the Washington Post last week. He joined his former wife to demand accountability for the latest military cover-up to happen on Commander in Chief Bush's watch. High-ranking Army officials, he said, told 'outright lies.'
'After it happened, all the people in positions of authority went out of their way to script this,' Tillman said. 'They purposely interfered with the investigation …. I think they thought they could control it, and they realized that their recruiting efforts were going to go to hell in a handbasket if the truth about his death got out.'"
Once again it has taken grieving relatives to point out that the Bush administration will exploit even a heroic death for its own partisan purposes.
As with the widows of Sept. 11 who demanded that our obfuscating leaders investigate what went wrong on that terrible day, or the wounded Army Pfc. Jessica Lynch, who resisted efforts to make her into some kind of Rambo figure, so relatives of late NFL star Pat Tillman are demanding to know why their celebrated war hero son's death in 2004 was exploited for public relations purposes by the U.S. military and the administration.
ADVERTISEMENT
Rail Europe
'They blew up their poster boy,' Tillman's father, Patrick, a San Jose lawyer, told the Washington Post last week. He joined his former wife to demand accountability for the latest military cover-up to happen on Commander in Chief Bush's watch. High-ranking Army officials, he said, told 'outright lies.'
'After it happened, all the people in positions of authority went out of their way to script this,' Tillman said. 'They purposely interfered with the investigation …. I think they thought they could control it, and they realized that their recruiting efforts were going to go to hell in a handbasket if the truth about his death got out.'"
Bush: "Catapulting the propaganda" ... "Culture of life" ... but not in Iraq
WorkingForChange-Catapulting the propaganda: "Bush supports culture of life; not in Iraq, of course | Molly Ivins | 05.31.05
AUSTIN, Texas -- As a longtime fan of both George Bushes' eccentric grasp of English, I naturally enjoyed this gem from W.: 'See, in my line of work, you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda.' (Bush in Greece, N.Y., May 24, once more explaining his Social Security plan to a town hall meeting of perfectly average citizens -- except they had all been pre-screened to allow only those who agree with him into the hall.)"
"Catapulting the propaganda" would explain his performance at the press opportunity that same day at which he appeared surrounded by babies born from frozen embryos. He used the phrase "culture of life" at least 27 dozen times (I think I exaggerate, but maybe not). "The use of federal dollars to destroy life is something I simply do not support," he said to the press the following day.
Meanwhile, back in Baghdad, federal dollars are being used to destroy life at pretty good clip because Bush decided to wage an entirely elective war against a country that presented little or no threat to us. And according to the Downing Street memo, he damn well knew it, too.
AUSTIN, Texas -- As a longtime fan of both George Bushes' eccentric grasp of English, I naturally enjoyed this gem from W.: 'See, in my line of work, you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda.' (Bush in Greece, N.Y., May 24, once more explaining his Social Security plan to a town hall meeting of perfectly average citizens -- except they had all been pre-screened to allow only those who agree with him into the hall.)"
"Catapulting the propaganda" would explain his performance at the press opportunity that same day at which he appeared surrounded by babies born from frozen embryos. He used the phrase "culture of life" at least 27 dozen times (I think I exaggerate, but maybe not). "The use of federal dollars to destroy life is something I simply do not support," he said to the press the following day.
Meanwhile, back in Baghdad, federal dollars are being used to destroy life at pretty good clip because Bush decided to wage an entirely elective war against a country that presented little or no threat to us. And according to the Downing Street memo, he damn well knew it, too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)