Was the White House psychic ... Not exactly ... [they] referred to Tropical Storm Cindy, which struck the state a full seven weeks earlier

Hurricane PoliticsWEB-EXCLUSIVE COMMENTARY | By Richard Wolffe and Holly Bailey | Newsweek | Updated: 10:54 p.m. ET Aug. 31, 2005

As Katrina forced President Bush to cut short his vacation, the White House is facing a perfect storm of trouble at home and abroad.
...
Beyond the poll numbers, the Bush administration faces some immediate, urgent challenges—and serious questions about its response to the disaster. For all the president’s statements ahead of the hurricane, the region seemed woefully unprepared for the flooding of New Orleans—a catastrophe that has long been predicted by experts and politicians alike. There seems to have been no contingency planning for a total evacuation of the city, including the final refuges of the city’s Superdome and its hospitals. There were no supplies of food and water ready offshore—on Navy ships for instance—in the event of such flooding, even though government officials knew there were thousands of people stranded inside the sweltering and powerless city.

Then there’s the speed of the Bush administration’s response to such disasters. Just one week ago the White House declared that a major disaster existed in Louisiana, specifically most of the areas (such as Jefferson Parish) that are now under water. Was the White House psychic about the disaster ahead? Not exactly. In fact the major disaster referred to Tropical Storm Cindy, which struck the state a full seven weeks earlier. That announcement triggered federal aid for the stricken areas, where the clean-up had been on hold for almost two months while the White House chewed things over.

Now, faced with a far bigger and deadlier disaster, the Bush administration faces at least two difficult questions: Was it ready to deal with the long-predicted flooding of New Orleans? And is it ready to deal with the long-predicted terrorist attack that might some day strike another of our big cities?

Reuters news agency said Wednesday it was shocked and appalled by the sentencing of one of its cameraman to Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison.

Excite Money & Investing: "Reuters:'Appalled' By Cameraman's Imprisonment In Baghdad | Wednesday August 31, 6:46 PM EDT

LONDON (AP)--The Reuters news agency said Wednesday it was shocked and appalled by the sentencing of one of its cameraman to Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison.

Reuters Group PLC (RTR.LN) said 36-year-old cameraman Ali al-Mashhadani, who was detained by U.S. forces in Iraq three weeks ago, had been ordered by a secret tribunal to be held without charge in Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison until his case was reviewed - a process which could take up to six months.

'I am shocked and appalled that such a decision could be taken without his having access to legal counsel of his choosing, his family or his employers,' said David Schlesinger, Reuters Global Managing Editor.

Schlesinger said the U.S. military had refused the news organization's requests to disclose why the cameraman was being detained.

"I call on the authorities to release him immediately or publicly air the case against him and give him the opportunity to defend himself," Schlesinger said.

Reuters claim al-Mashhadani was detained after U.S. marines examined images on his and a colleague's cameras.

Another Reuters cameraman in Iraq, Haider Kadhem, 24, was released Wednesday after being held and questioned by the U.S. military since Sunday. Kadhem was traveling with his brother Waleed, 35, a Reuters sound technician, when the pair's vehicle was fired upon, injuring Haider and killing Waleed.

NY TImes Skews the News… pro-war/pro-Bush: 1,301 words, seven quotes, two photos + opening and close VS antiwar/anti-Bush: only 327 words, 4 quotes

NY Times Skews the News… Again - by Dr. Teresa Whitehurst: "August 30, 2005

The New York Times, sheltered by its legendary but mythical "liberal" reputation, has become increasingly bold and transparent in its defense of President Bush and his policies, both foreign and domestic. This support is not found, of course, on the labeled editorial pages (which can be discounted as mere opinion), but on the attention-grabbing front page and in other news sections.

Artfully skewed "news" pieces pay lip service to balance, fairness, and objectivity by mentioning or even quoting the opposition, but the writers' loyalty is clear: These "factual" pieces unabashedly devote far more direct quotes, positive editorial descriptions, and emotionally appealing photos to Bush supporters than to those who oppose him or his policies.
...
In a shameless repeat performance of the piece I analyzed earlier this year, the New York Times has gone for the jugular of the antiwar movement by portraying its strongest spokespersons – military family members who oppose Bush and are calling for troops to be withdrawn from Iraq – as weak, misguided, confused, mentally unbalanced, and unpatriotic.
...
The title of the copycat article, eerily reminiscent of the previous article's title ("GI Families United in Grief, but Split by the War," Jan. 2, 2005) is "In War Debate, Parents of Fallen Are United Only in Grief." Clearly, the Times has an agenda to pursue: To overshadow the shared sorrow and rage experienced by parents of slain soldiers across America with simplistic pro-Bush vs. anti-Bush opinions – opinions that divide onlookers, thereby undercutting public support for people like Cindy Sheehan, and for all parents who don't support the war that killed their children.

For anyone who doubts that the Times has devolved into a house organ of the Bush administration and the Pentagon, the following facts and figures about this new "aren't those antiwar parents just awful?" article will be eye-opening.

WORD COUNT: The article is composed of 1,628 words. Of these, only 327 words were devoted to the antiwar/anti-Bush side (primarily in direct quotes, many of which portray the speaker as seeking therapy, confused, or looking for answers), while 1,301 words were devoted to the pro-war/pro-Bush side (in both direct quotes and positively worded descriptions of Bush/war supporters).

PHOTOS: Two photos accompanied the supposedly "balanced" article, both of which were Bush/war supporters. Notably, in one of the photos, a woman who uncannily resembles Cindy Sheehan is kneeling in front of a white cross, mirroring the photo of Sheehan at Camp Casey that millions of Americans have already seen. Thus the pro-war camp, the reader is to assume, has its own Cindy Sheehans – a sure sign that somebody at the New Bush Times is getting terribly nervous about her persuasive appeal.

DIRECT QUOTES: The article quoted seven pro-Bush/pro-war family members (some of them repeatedly), but only four who oppose Bush and the war.

OPENING AND CLOSING PARAGRAPHS:

Move America Forward ( the Hate crowd ) was outed today by Keith Olbermann as launched by a Sacramento P.R. firm which has strong ties to Republicans

Crooks and Liars: "MAF: Republican Shills

Move America Forward ( the Hate crowd ) was outed today by Keith Olbermann as having been launched by a Sacramento P.R. firm which has strong ties to the Republican party. Later in the segment Dana Milbank said that they were part of the Orin Hatch for President campaign. lol That's grassroots for you. This diary at Kos was the first one that I found which uncovered the scam."

Darfur genocide: NBC News featured 5 minutes, and CBS only had three ... in ALL of 2004 -- , “about a minute of coverage for every 100,000 deaths.”

Think Progress � BREAKING: NBC, CBS, ABC Reject Ad Criticizing Their News Coverage: "Apparently you can’t even pay TV networks to cover genocide.

American Progress created a television advertisement for BeAWitness.org, our netroots campaign that calls out the television news media for their deplorable coverage of the genocide in Darfur. Over the last few days, three Washington DC television affiliates, NBC-4, CBS-9, and ABC-7, informed us that they refuse to air the ad.

Since the major networks seem to have their hands full covering stories like Natalee Holloway and the Runaway Bride, the ad does what the media won’t — puts the spotlight on Darfur, and suggests that genocide warrants increased coverage.

ABC News broadcast just 18 minutes of Darfur coverage in its nightly newscasts in all of 2004 — “and that turns out to be a credit to Peter Jennings,” as Nicholas Kristof pointed out. NBC News featured 5 minutes, and CBS only had three, “about a minute of coverage for every 100,000 deaths.” Now they won’t allow us to pay for 30 seconds to urge better coverage of the genocide."

The Swift Boating of Cindy Sheehan - especially vicious if the critic has more battle scars than a president who connived to serve stateside

The Swift Boating of Cindy Sheehan - New York Times: "By FRANK RICH | Published: August 21, 2005

CINDY SHEEHAN couldn't have picked a more apt date to begin the vigil that ambushed a president: Aug. 6 was the fourth anniversary of that fateful 2001 Crawford vacation day when George W. Bush responded to an intelligence briefing titled 'Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States' by going fishing. On this Aug. 6 the president was no less determined to shrug off bad news. Though 14 marine reservists had been killed days earlier by a roadside bomb in Haditha, his national radio address that morning made no mention of Iraq. Once again Mr. Bush was in his bubble, ensuring that he wouldn't see Ms. Sheehan coming. So it goes with a president who hasn't foreseen any of the setbacks in the war he fabricated against an enemy who did not attack inside the United States in 2001.

When these setbacks happen in Iraq itself, the administration punts. But when they happen at home, there's a game plan. Once Ms. Sheehan could no longer be ignored, the Swift Boating began. Character assassination is the Karl Rove tactic of choice, eagerly mimicked by his media surrogates, whenever the White House is confronted by a critic who challenges it on matters of war. The Swift Boating is especially vicious if the critic has more battle scars than a president who connived to serve stateside and a vice president who had "other priorities" during Vietnam. ...

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

The Progressive Magazine: "McCarthyism Watch | Santorum’s People Toss Young Women out of Barnes & Noble, Trooper Threatens Them with Prison | Matthew Rothschild | August 19, 2005

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

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

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

Shaffer, her friends, and two other young women were booted out of the store and threatened with imprisonment even before they had a chance to say a word to Santorum, as Al Mascitti first noted in the Delaware News Journal.
...
A state trooper in full uniform, including hat and gun, was in the store, and, according to Shaffer and Galperin, he met with the person who didn’t care for the Dan Savage joke, along with a few others, including members of the store and Santorum’s people.

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

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

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

“Your business is not wanted here. They don’t want you here anymore. If you don’t leave, you’re going to be arrested. If you can’t post bail, you’ll go to prison. Those of you who are under 18 will go to Ferris [the juvenile detention center]. And those of you over 18 will go either to Gander Hill Prison or the woman’s correctional facility. Any questions?”
...
He told Rocek to put her hands on the squad car, and then told both of them to call their parents and tell them to bring “at least $1,000 in bail money,” Galperin says.

Galperin reached her father, an attorney.

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

Her father asked to speak to the sergeant.

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

And so they both left. ...

TV Station Refuses to Air Anti-War Ad featuring Cindy Sheehan, whose son's death in Iraq prompted a vigil outside President Bush's Texas ranch

TV Station Refuses to Air Anti-War Ad - Yahoo! News: "By JENNIFER DOBNER, Associated Press Writer Sun Aug 21, 2:13 AM ET

SALT LAKE CITY - A Utah television station is refusing to air an anti-war ad featuring Cindy Sheehan, whose son's death in Iraq prompted a vigil outside President Bush's Texas ranch.

THE BRAD BLOG: "CENSORING AGAIN: Comcast Blocks Emails Linking to Cindy Sheehan Website! Cox Cable Joins Nation's Largest Net Provider in Keeping Citi

THE BRAD BLOG: "CENSORING AGAIN: Comcast Blocks Emails Linking to Cindy Sheehan Website! Cox Cable Joins Nation's Largest Net Provider in Keeping Citizens in the Dark!": "8/17/2005 @ 11:14pm PT... Guest blogged by Winter Patriot

CENSORING AGAIN: Comcast Blocks Emails Linking to Cindy Sheehan Website! Cox Cable Joins Nation's Largest Net Provider in Keeping Citizens in the Dark!
Other ISPs doing the same thing -- here we go again! only bigger!!

Guest blogged by Winter Patriot UPDATE: Since the following item was posted, we have had confirmed reports of emails being blocked by other ISPs as well as Comcast. We'll post...

UPDATE: Since the following item was posted, we have had confirmed reports of emails being blocked by other ISPs as well as Comcast. We'll post more when we know more. In the meantime, please try the tests described below, regardless of your e-mail provider, so we can get some sense of the scope of the problem. Thank you very much, as always.

Five weeks ago The BRAD BLOG ran a report indicating that Comcast, the nation's most popular email provider, was automatically deleting emails containing the web address 'www.afterdowningstreet.org'. Shortly after the report was published, 6 or 7 people made such a commotion that the problem was suddenly fixed. Various explanations were given, none of which cut any ice in the opinion of this lowly and nearly frozen blogger, but at least the problem went away.

Why am I telling you this? Background info. Today we have received a report indicating that something similar is happening again, but this time the address that triggers Comcast's automatic deletion is 'www.meetwithcindy.org'."

"We need to get our own U.S. government colleagues to be leaking like a sieve,”

The Lone Star Iconoclast Online: "Former Ambassador Urges U.S. Officials To Leak More Memos | By Nathan Diebenow | Associate Editor

AUSTIN — The former ambassador to Afghanistan, Ann Wright, called on U.S. federal employees to leak more secret memos on the lead-up to the war in Iraq like Downing Street memos uncovered by the British press this last May.

“It seems like the British government is leaking like a sieve. We need to get our own U.S. government colleagues to be leaking like a sieve,” said Wright, who gave up her career in the foreign service because she disagreed with the U.S. invasion of Iraq. “We need more documents — certainly not documents that are really going to jeopardize the security of the United States — but documents that show the sequence of events within our own government.”

Wright said that many federal employees disagree with the policies of the current administration but stay involved for a host of reasons, one of which more often than not is that they have mouths to feed. A closer look of the major U.S. newspapers, however, shows that those discouraged officials inside the government are sending signals of hope to the American people, she said.

“It’s important that we encourage our colleagues in the U.S. federal government to think really seriously about the future of our country and to inform their conscience and look to see if they can find the equivalent memos that we have in our United States government,” said Wright. “So if you have any colleagues, cousins, aunts, uncles, brothers, sisters, sons or daughters that are working in whatever level of government, talk to them. Just casually mention it. You never can tell.”"

What has become of media watchdogs: hounded Nixon, Reagan, impeached Clinton ... now co-opted as a propaganda organ for the Bush administration

Armageddon Gets No Press - by Paul Craig Roberts: "August 2, 2005 | by Paul Craig Roberts

What has become of the print and TV media watchdogs who hounded President Nixon from office because he lied about when he learned of a minor burglary of no consequence in itself?

What became of the watchdog media that bayed after President Reagan because some low-level neoconservative officials sold arms to Iran and diverted the money to anti-communist insurgents in Latin America?

President Clinton was impeached by the House, though not convicted by the Senate, for lying about a sexcapade with a White House intern.

Now that we really need them, the watchdog media has hired out as public relations and propaganda shills for the Bush administration and the neocon network.

The entire Bush administration – not merely the president – is involved in the most extraordinary lies and fabrication of false intelligence claims in order to lead America into an unwarranted and illegal invasion of Iraq, an invasion that has cost the U.S. taxpayers $300 billion and resulted in the deaths and maiming of tens of thousands of people.
...
The mainstream media has been co-opted as a propaganda organ for the Bush administration. How did this come about?

It came about through media concentration. There are no longer independent voices in the mainstream media. American news reporting is a corporate operation run with a view to advertising profits and the accommodation of government in order to protect holdings of valuable federal licenses. For reporters and editors, knowing what to say and not to say is the main qualification for job security.