Think Progress � Rice Falsely Asserts ‘Most Iraqis’ Want Us To Stay: "
Condoleezza Rice, today on Meet the Press:
Some Iraqis — most Iraqis in fact — are willing, and want, to keep coalition forces there until they can take care of this themselves.
That’s not true. In fact, the Program on International Policy Attitudes conducted a poll of Iraqis in January. Here’s what the poll reported:
Asked what they would like the newly elected Iraqi government to ask the US-led forces to do, 70% of Iraqis favor setting a timeline for the withdrawal of US forces. This number divides evenly between 35% who favor a short time frame of “within six months” and 35% who favor a gradual reduction over two years. Just 29% say it should “only reduce US-led forces as the security situation improves in Iraq.”
Not only is the Bush administration out of touch with what the American public wants, it is also out of touch with what Iraqis themselves want." ...
Sunday, March 26, 2006
We are not showing pictures of the twenty five hundred bodies coming back because they won't let us show the pictures
Crooks and Liars: "Matthews:They don't want the whole truth out and that's the fact.'
...
...
Matthews: "Well I am just going to stick to this point that the president led us in there with the background music of American culture. Everybody was led to believe that we were getting payback, we were avenging what happened on 9/11 and that we are going to get them. Vice President Cheney said we are going to attack terrorism at its base. Over and over the language was, this is where it came from, in fact most recently the President suggested that it was always the hot pursuit, like a new York police chase, we chased them back into their country. We pursued the terrorists back to Iraq and it's all nonsense. The reason there are terrorists in Iraq today like Zarqawi is we created the opening by blowing the country apart.
From the beginning it's been not true. Now you can't prove motive and you can't prove somebody lies, but from the beginning everything about how they've got WMD's, they are a threat to us, they are going to bomb us with a nuclear weapon, this country is going to be an easy liberate, it's going to be a cake walk. As Cheney said as recently as ten months ago the insurgents are in their last throws. Everything that is said is not true. And right to the end here, here we are now and it's not a civil war and when Allawi the prime Minster is saying it is a civil war and here is the president quoting his own people that it's not a civil war. I mean the denial has been continuous. So you really can't count on the administration to tell you what is going on. That is just the fact. You've got to check it out.
By the way, the president said this week that he wants the whole truth about what is going on in Iraq, the whole truth and that the media isn't telling the whole story. I'll tell you what we are not telling. We are not showing pictures of the twenty five hundred bodies coming back because they won't let us show the pictures. They don't want the whole truth out and that's the fact." ..
Sunday, March 19, 2006
The farcical end of the American dream
The farcical end of the American dream: "The US press is supposed to be challenging the lies of this war | By Robert Fisk | 03/18/06 "The Independent"
...
Here are the sources - on pages one and 10 for the yarn spun by reporters Josh Meyer and Mark Mazzetti: "US officials said", "said one US Justice Department counter-terrorism official", "Officials ... said", "those officials said", "the officials confirmed", "American officials complained", "the US officials stressed", "US authorities believe", "said one senior US intelligence official", "US officials said", "Jordanian officials ... said" - here, at least is some light relief - "several US officials said", "the US officials said", "American officials said", "officials say", "say US officials", "US officials said", "one US counter-terrorism official said".
I do truly treasure this story. It proves my point that the Los Angeles Times - along with the big east coast dailies - should all be called US OFFICIALS SAY. But it's not just this fawning on political power that makes me despair. ...
...
Let's move to a more recent example of what I can only call institutionalised racism in American reporting of Iraq.
...
Mr Welshofer, it transpired in court, had stuffed the Iraqi General Abed Hamed Mowhoush head-first into a sleeping bag and sat on his chest, an action which - not surprisingly - caused the general to expire. The military jury ordered - reader, hold your breath - a reprimand for Mr Welshofer, the forfeiting of $6,000 of his salary and confinement to barracks for 60 days. But what caught my eye was the sympathetic detail. Welshofer's wife's Barbara, the AP told us, "testified that she was worried about providing for their three children if her husband was sentenced to prison. 'I love him more for fighting this,' she said, tears welling up in her eyes. 'He's always said that you need to do the right thing, and sometimes the right thing is the hardest thing to do'".
...
But the real scandal about these reports is we're not told anything about the general's family. Didn't he have a wife? I imagine the tears were "welling up in her eyes" when she was told her husband had been done to death. Didn't the general have children? Or parents? Or any loved ones who "fought back tears" when told of this vile deed? Not in the AP report he didn't. General Mowhoush comes across as an object, a dehumanised creature who wouldn't let the Americans "break the back" of the insurgency after being stuffed headfirst into a sleeping bag.
...
... One of them records the trial of since-released British prisoner Feroz Abbasi, in which Mr Abbasi vainly pleads with his judge, a US air force colonel, to reveal the evidence against him, something he says he has a right to hear under international law.
And here is what the American colonel replied: "Mr Abbasi, your conduct is unacceptable and this is your absolute final warning. I do not care about international law. I do not want to hear the words international law. We are not concerned about international law."
Alas, these words - which symbolise the very end of the American dream - are buried down the story.
...
Here are the sources - on pages one and 10 for the yarn spun by reporters Josh Meyer and Mark Mazzetti: "US officials said", "said one US Justice Department counter-terrorism official", "Officials ... said", "those officials said", "the officials confirmed", "American officials complained", "the US officials stressed", "US authorities believe", "said one senior US intelligence official", "US officials said", "Jordanian officials ... said" - here, at least is some light relief - "several US officials said", "the US officials said", "American officials said", "officials say", "say US officials", "US officials said", "one US counter-terrorism official said".
I do truly treasure this story. It proves my point that the Los Angeles Times - along with the big east coast dailies - should all be called US OFFICIALS SAY. But it's not just this fawning on political power that makes me despair. ...
...
Let's move to a more recent example of what I can only call institutionalised racism in American reporting of Iraq.
...
Mr Welshofer, it transpired in court, had stuffed the Iraqi General Abed Hamed Mowhoush head-first into a sleeping bag and sat on his chest, an action which - not surprisingly - caused the general to expire. The military jury ordered - reader, hold your breath - a reprimand for Mr Welshofer, the forfeiting of $6,000 of his salary and confinement to barracks for 60 days. But what caught my eye was the sympathetic detail. Welshofer's wife's Barbara, the AP told us, "testified that she was worried about providing for their three children if her husband was sentenced to prison. 'I love him more for fighting this,' she said, tears welling up in her eyes. 'He's always said that you need to do the right thing, and sometimes the right thing is the hardest thing to do'".
...
But the real scandal about these reports is we're not told anything about the general's family. Didn't he have a wife? I imagine the tears were "welling up in her eyes" when she was told her husband had been done to death. Didn't the general have children? Or parents? Or any loved ones who "fought back tears" when told of this vile deed? Not in the AP report he didn't. General Mowhoush comes across as an object, a dehumanised creature who wouldn't let the Americans "break the back" of the insurgency after being stuffed headfirst into a sleeping bag.
...
... One of them records the trial of since-released British prisoner Feroz Abbasi, in which Mr Abbasi vainly pleads with his judge, a US air force colonel, to reveal the evidence against him, something he says he has a right to hear under international law.
And here is what the American colonel replied: "Mr Abbasi, your conduct is unacceptable and this is your absolute final warning. I do not care about international law. I do not want to hear the words international law. We are not concerned about international law."
Alas, these words - which symbolise the very end of the American dream - are buried down the story.
Wednesday, March 15, 2006
[billboard monopoly] media giant Clear Channel run ad that informs the people about the tainted money Jim Gerlach has taken from indicted Tom Delay
Give It Back, Jim!: "FACT: Jim Gerlach has taken $30,000 in contributions from indicted former House Majority leader Tom DeLay and he won’t give it back. Read more >>
FACT: Jim Gerlach has voted with Tom DeLay 90% of the time.
FACT: We asked Gerlach to give back DeLay’s money, but he has refused.
These are the facts. They are indisputable.
And Clear Channel won't let you see them.
That’s right, media giant Clear Channel wouldn't let us run an ad that informs the people of Pennsylvania’s Sixth Congressional District about the tainted money Jim Gerlach has taken from indicted former Majority Leader Tom DeLay. Clear Channel refused to run this billboard (pictured above).
FACT: Jim Gerlach has voted with Tom DeLay 90% of the time.
FACT: We asked Gerlach to give back DeLay’s money, but he has refused.
These are the facts. They are indisputable.
And Clear Channel won't let you see them.
That’s right, media giant Clear Channel wouldn't let us run an ad that informs the people of Pennsylvania’s Sixth Congressional District about the tainted money Jim Gerlach has taken from indicted former Majority Leader Tom DeLay. Clear Channel refused to run this billboard (pictured above).
Clear Channel is a supporter of Jim Gerlach and has contributed money to his campaign.
Clear Channel executives gave more than $42,000 worth of campaign contributions to George Bush in 2004 and they are big contributors to Republicans. Read more > ...
Monday, March 13, 2006
Vanessa Redgrave: Censorship of the Worst Kind
Vanessa Redgrave: Censorship of the Worst Kind: "March 6, 2006 | The Second Death of Rachel Corrie | By VANESSA REDGRAVE
I am urging the Royal Court Theatre to sue the New York Theatre Workshop for the cancellation of the production of 'My Name Is Rachel Corrie'. Not because I donated money for this production, which the Royal Court have been fundraising for--a target of 50,000 pounds, underwritten by Alan Rickman.
This is censorship of the worst kind. More awful even than that.It is black-listing a dead girl and her diaries.A very brave and exceptional girl who all citizens, whatever their faith or nationality, should be proud and grateful for her existence. They couldn't silence her voice while she lived, so she was killed. Her voice began to speak again as Alan Rickman read her diaries, and Megan Dodds became Rachel Corrie.Now the New York Theatre Workshop have silenced that dear voice." ...
I am urging the Royal Court Theatre to sue the New York Theatre Workshop for the cancellation of the production of 'My Name Is Rachel Corrie'. Not because I donated money for this production, which the Royal Court have been fundraising for--a target of 50,000 pounds, underwritten by Alan Rickman.
This is censorship of the worst kind. More awful even than that.It is black-listing a dead girl and her diaries.A very brave and exceptional girl who all citizens, whatever their faith or nationality, should be proud and grateful for her existence. They couldn't silence her voice while she lived, so she was killed. Her voice began to speak again as Alan Rickman read her diaries, and Megan Dodds became Rachel Corrie.Now the New York Theatre Workshop have silenced that dear voice." ...
nothing is more troubling to me than the obsequious press during the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. They lapped up everything White House dished out
Lap Dogs of the Press: "Lap Dogs of the Press | By Helen Thomas | 03/12/06 'The Nation' -- --
Of all the unhappy trends I have witnessed--conservative swings on television networks, dwindling newspaper circulation, the jailing of reporters and 'spin'--nothing is more troubling to me than the obsequious press during the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. They lapped up everything the Pentagon and White House could dish out--no questions asked.
Reporters and editors like to think of themselves as watchdogs for the public good. But in recent years both individual reporters and their ever-growing corporate ownership have defaulted on that role. Ted Stannard, an academic and former UPI correspondent, put it this way: 'When watchdogs, bird dogs, and bull dogs morph into lap dogs, lazy dogs, or yellow dogs, the nation is in trouble.'
The naïve complicity of the press and the government was never more pronounced than in the prelude to the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. The media became an echo chamber for White House pronouncements. One example: At President Bush's March 6, 2003, news conference, in which he made it eminently clear that the United States was going to war, one reporter pleased the "born again" Bush when she asked him if he prayed about going to war. And so it went.
After all, two of the nation's most prestigious newspapers, the New York Times and the Washington Post, had kept up a drumbeat for war with Iraq to bring down dictator Saddam Hussein. They accepted almost unquestioningly the bogus evidence of weapons of mass destruction, the dubious White House rationale that proved to be so costly on a human scale, not to mention a drain on the Treasury. The Post was much more hawkish than the Times--running many editorials pumping up the need to wage war against the Iraqi dictator--but both newspapers played into the hands of the Administration.
...
My concern is why the nation's media were so gullible. Did they really think it was all going to be so easy, a "cakewalk," a superpower invading a Third World country? Why did the Washington press corps forgo its traditional skepticism? Why did reporters become cheerleaders for a deceptive Administration? Could it be that no one wanted to stand alone outside Washington's pack journalism? ...
Of all the unhappy trends I have witnessed--conservative swings on television networks, dwindling newspaper circulation, the jailing of reporters and 'spin'--nothing is more troubling to me than the obsequious press during the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. They lapped up everything the Pentagon and White House could dish out--no questions asked.
Reporters and editors like to think of themselves as watchdogs for the public good. But in recent years both individual reporters and their ever-growing corporate ownership have defaulted on that role. Ted Stannard, an academic and former UPI correspondent, put it this way: 'When watchdogs, bird dogs, and bull dogs morph into lap dogs, lazy dogs, or yellow dogs, the nation is in trouble.'
The naïve complicity of the press and the government was never more pronounced than in the prelude to the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. The media became an echo chamber for White House pronouncements. One example: At President Bush's March 6, 2003, news conference, in which he made it eminently clear that the United States was going to war, one reporter pleased the "born again" Bush when she asked him if he prayed about going to war. And so it went.
After all, two of the nation's most prestigious newspapers, the New York Times and the Washington Post, had kept up a drumbeat for war with Iraq to bring down dictator Saddam Hussein. They accepted almost unquestioningly the bogus evidence of weapons of mass destruction, the dubious White House rationale that proved to be so costly on a human scale, not to mention a drain on the Treasury. The Post was much more hawkish than the Times--running many editorials pumping up the need to wage war against the Iraqi dictator--but both newspapers played into the hands of the Administration.
...
My concern is why the nation's media were so gullible. Did they really think it was all going to be so easy, a "cakewalk," a superpower invading a Third World country? Why did the Washington press corps forgo its traditional skepticism? Why did reporters become cheerleaders for a deceptive Administration? Could it be that no one wanted to stand alone outside Washington's pack journalism? ...
Friday, March 10, 2006
Did 308,000 cancelled Ohio voter registrations put Bush back? ... exit polls show Kerry by 4.2% -- loses, a virtual statistical impossibility
The Free Press -- Independent News Media - Election Issues: "Did 308,000 cancelled Ohio voter registrations put Bush back in the White House? | by Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman | February 28, 2006
While life goes on during the Bush2 nightmare, so does the research on what really happened here in 2004 to give George W. Bush a second term.
...
But things get curiouser and curiouser.
In our 2005 compendium HOW THE GOP STOLE OHIO'S 2004 ELECTION & IS RIGGING 2008 (www.freepress.org), we list more than a hundred different ways the Republican Party denied the democratic process in the Buckeye State. For a book of documents to be published September 11 by the New Press entitled WHAT HAPPENED IN OHIO?, we are continuing to dig.
...
One of them has just surfaced to the staggering tune of 175,000 purged voters in Cuyahoga County (Cleveland), the traditional stronghold of the Ohio Democratic Party. An additional 10,000 that registered to vote there for the 2004 election were lost due to "clerical error."
As we reported more than a year ago, some 133,000 voters were purged from the registration rolls in Hamilton County (Cincinnati) and Lucas County (Toledo) between 2000 and 2004. The 105,000 from Cincinnati and 28,000 from Toledo exceeded Bush's official alleged margin of victory---just under 119,000 votes out of some 5.6 million the Republican Secretary of State. J. Kenneth Blackwell, deemed worth counting.
Exit polls flashed worldwide on CNN at 12:20 am Wednesday morning, November 3, showed John Kerry winning Ohio by 4.2% of the popular vote, probably about 250,000 votes. We believe this is an accurate reflection of what really happened here.
But by morning Bush was being handed the presidency, claiming a 2.5% Buckeye victory, as certified by Blackwell. In conjunction with other exit polling, the lead switch from Kerry to Bush is a virtual statistical impossibility. Yet John Kerry conceded with more than 250,000 ballots still uncounted, though Bush at the time was allegedly ahead only by 138,000, a margin that later slipped to less than 119,000 in the official vote count.
At the time, very few people knew about those first 133,000 voters that had been eliminated from the registration rolls in Cincinnati and Toledo. County election boards purged the voting registration lists. Though all Ohio election boards are allegedly bi-partisan, in fact they are all controlled by the Republican Party. Each has four seats, filled by law with two Democrats and two Republicans.
But all tie votes are decided by the Secretary of State, in this case Blackwell, the extreme right-wing Republican now running for Governor. Blackwell served in 2004 not only as the man in charge of the state's vote count, but also a co-chair of the Ohio Bush-Cheney campaign. ...
While life goes on during the Bush2 nightmare, so does the research on what really happened here in 2004 to give George W. Bush a second term.
...
But things get curiouser and curiouser.
In our 2005 compendium HOW THE GOP STOLE OHIO'S 2004 ELECTION & IS RIGGING 2008 (www.freepress.org), we list more than a hundred different ways the Republican Party denied the democratic process in the Buckeye State. For a book of documents to be published September 11 by the New Press entitled WHAT HAPPENED IN OHIO?, we are continuing to dig.
...
One of them has just surfaced to the staggering tune of 175,000 purged voters in Cuyahoga County (Cleveland), the traditional stronghold of the Ohio Democratic Party. An additional 10,000 that registered to vote there for the 2004 election were lost due to "clerical error."
As we reported more than a year ago, some 133,000 voters were purged from the registration rolls in Hamilton County (Cincinnati) and Lucas County (Toledo) between 2000 and 2004. The 105,000 from Cincinnati and 28,000 from Toledo exceeded Bush's official alleged margin of victory---just under 119,000 votes out of some 5.6 million the Republican Secretary of State. J. Kenneth Blackwell, deemed worth counting.
Exit polls flashed worldwide on CNN at 12:20 am Wednesday morning, November 3, showed John Kerry winning Ohio by 4.2% of the popular vote, probably about 250,000 votes. We believe this is an accurate reflection of what really happened here.
But by morning Bush was being handed the presidency, claiming a 2.5% Buckeye victory, as certified by Blackwell. In conjunction with other exit polling, the lead switch from Kerry to Bush is a virtual statistical impossibility. Yet John Kerry conceded with more than 250,000 ballots still uncounted, though Bush at the time was allegedly ahead only by 138,000, a margin that later slipped to less than 119,000 in the official vote count.
At the time, very few people knew about those first 133,000 voters that had been eliminated from the registration rolls in Cincinnati and Toledo. County election boards purged the voting registration lists. Though all Ohio election boards are allegedly bi-partisan, in fact they are all controlled by the Republican Party. Each has four seats, filled by law with two Democrats and two Republicans.
But all tie votes are decided by the Secretary of State, in this case Blackwell, the extreme right-wing Republican now running for Governor. Blackwell served in 2004 not only as the man in charge of the state's vote count, but also a co-chair of the Ohio Bush-Cheney campaign. ...
Report posits that [(MS)NBC mainstay] Chris Matthews has accepted hefty speaking fees from conservative groups
The Raw Story | Report posits that Chris Matthews has accepted hefty speaking fees from conservative groups: "John Byrne | Published: March 9, 2006
A new report advanced to RAW STORY Thursday suggests that Chris Matthews, the star of the MSNBC's daily talk show Hardball, has accepted hefty speaking fees from an array of conservative trade associations.
A new report advanced to RAW STORY Thursday suggests that Chris Matthews, the star of the MSNBC's daily talk show Hardball, has accepted hefty speaking fees from an array of conservative trade associations.
Matthews has given speeches to at least ten major conservative trade associations since 2001. The report's author, Dave Johnson, who blogs at Seeing The Forest and is also a fellow at the progressive Commonweal Institute, could find no records indicating that Matthews has spoken before any Democratic-leaning organizations. The report is not a product of the Commonweal Institute.
"Why is Matthews speaking at so many events with Republican-associated trade organizations?" Johnson asks. "What is NBC policy on speaking engagements and why does NBC keep it hidden? Are these trade associations paying Matthews to purchase influence?"
...
The report, available here, notes that these associations have given heavily to conservative candidates for public office.
... An NBC spokesperson could not confirm to RAW STORY whether the network had banned the acceptance of speaking fees. It seems unlikely that Matthews would have spoken to so many groups pro bono. ...
Tuesday, March 07, 2006
Georgetown Law Students Turn Backs To US Attorney General Gonzales
Georgetown Law Students Turn Backs To Gonzales: "3-6-6
Future American lawyers to be proud of.
Alberto Gonzales spoke before law students at Georgetown Law School today, justifying illegal, unauthorized surveilance of US citizens, but during the course of his speech the students in class did something pretty ballsy and brave. They got up from their seats and turned their backs to him.
To make matters worse for Gonzales, additional students came into the room, wearing black cowls and carrying a simple banner, written on a sheet.
Fortunately for him, it was a brief speech... followed by a panel discussion that basically ripped his argument in half.
And, as one of the people on the panel said,
'When you're a law student, they tell you that if you can't argue the law, argue the facts. They also tell you if you can't argue the facts, argue the law. If you can't argue either, apparently, the solution is to go on a public relations offensive and make it a political issue... to say over and over again 'it's lawful', and to think that the American people will somehow come to believe this if we say it often enough.
In light of this, I'm proud of the very civil civil disobedience that was shown here today.'"
Future American lawyers to be proud of.
Alberto Gonzales spoke before law students at Georgetown Law School today, justifying illegal, unauthorized surveilance of US citizens, but during the course of his speech the students in class did something pretty ballsy and brave. They got up from their seats and turned their backs to him.
To make matters worse for Gonzales, additional students came into the room, wearing black cowls and carrying a simple banner, written on a sheet.
Fortunately for him, it was a brief speech... followed by a panel discussion that basically ripped his argument in half.
And, as one of the people on the panel said,
'When you're a law student, they tell you that if you can't argue the law, argue the facts. They also tell you if you can't argue the facts, argue the law. If you can't argue either, apparently, the solution is to go on a public relations offensive and make it a political issue... to say over and over again 'it's lawful', and to think that the American people will somehow come to believe this if we say it often enough.
In light of this, I'm proud of the very civil civil disobedience that was shown here today.'"
Monday, March 06, 2006
Capitol Hill Blue - Bush declares war on freedom of the press
Capitol Hill Blue - Bush declares war on freedom of the press: "March 6, 2006 07:44 AM / The Rant . | By DOUG THOMPSON
Using many of the questionable surveillance and monitoring techniques that brought both questions and criticism to his administration, President George W. Bush has launched a war against reporters who write stories unfavorable to his actions and is planning to prosecute journalists to make examples of them in his 'war on terrorism.'
Bush recently directed Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to use 'whatever means at your disposal' to wiretap, follow, harass and investigate journalists who have published stories about the administration's illegal use of warrantless wiretaps, use of faulty intelligence and anything else he deems 'detrimental to the war on terror.'
Reporters for The New York Times, which along with Capitol Hill Blue revealed use of the National Security Agency to monitor phone calls and emails of Americans, say FBI agents have interviewed them and criminal prosecutors at the Justice Department admit they are laying 'the groundwork for a grand jury that could lead to criminal charges,'
CIA Director Porter Goss told Congress recently that 'it is my aim and it is my hope that we will witness a grand jury investigation with reporters present being asked to reveal who is leaking this information. I believe the safety of this nation and the people of this country deserve nothing less.'" ...
Using many of the questionable surveillance and monitoring techniques that brought both questions and criticism to his administration, President George W. Bush has launched a war against reporters who write stories unfavorable to his actions and is planning to prosecute journalists to make examples of them in his 'war on terrorism.'
Bush recently directed Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to use 'whatever means at your disposal' to wiretap, follow, harass and investigate journalists who have published stories about the administration's illegal use of warrantless wiretaps, use of faulty intelligence and anything else he deems 'detrimental to the war on terror.'
Reporters for The New York Times, which along with Capitol Hill Blue revealed use of the National Security Agency to monitor phone calls and emails of Americans, say FBI agents have interviewed them and criminal prosecutors at the Justice Department admit they are laying 'the groundwork for a grand jury that could lead to criminal charges,'
CIA Director Porter Goss told Congress recently that 'it is my aim and it is my hope that we will witness a grand jury investigation with reporters present being asked to reveal who is leaking this information. I believe the safety of this nation and the people of this country deserve nothing less.'" ...
Insurgency, Katrina, Medicare: experts who warned of trouble ahead were told to shut up.
Sound off: Where the views and opinions of our staff and others are expressed on various topics that relate to Bush: "George the Unready | by Paul Krugman | The New York Times | March 3, 2006
Iraqi insurgents, hurricanes and low-income Medicare recipients have three things in common. Each has been at the center of a policy disaster. In each case experts warned about the impending disaster. And in each case -- well, let's look at what happened.
Knight Ridder's Washington bureau reports that from 2003 on, intelligence agencies 'repeatedly warned the White House' that 'the insurgency in Iraq had deep local roots, was likely to worsen and could lead to civil war.' But senior administration officials insisted that the insurgents were a mix of dead-enders and foreign terrorists.
Intelligence analysts who refused to go along with that line were attacked for not being team players. According to U.S. News & World Report, President Bush's reaction to a pessimistic report from the C.I.A.'s Baghdad station chief was to remark, 'What is he, some kind of defeatist?'
Many people have now seen the video of the briefing Mr. Bush received before Hurricane Katrina struck. Much has been made of the revelation that Mr. Bush was dishonest when he claimed, a few days later, that nobody anticipated the breach of the levees.
But what's really striking, given the gravity of the warnings, is the lack of urgency Mr. Bush and his administration displayed in responding to the storm. A horrified nation watched the scenes of misery at the Superdome and wondered why help hadn't arrived. But as Newsweek reports, for several days nobody was willing to tell Mr. Bush, who 'equates disagreement with disloyalty,' how badly things were going. 'For most of those first few days,' Newsweek says, 'Bush was hearing what a good job the Feds were doing.'
Now for one you may not have heard about. The new Medicare drug program got off to a disastrous start: 'Low-income Medicare beneficiaries around the country were often overcharged, and some were turned away from pharmacies without getting their medications, in the first week of Medicare's new drug benefit,' The New York Times reported.
How did this happen? The same way the other disasters happened: experts who warned of trouble ahead were told to shut up." ...
Iraqi insurgents, hurricanes and low-income Medicare recipients have three things in common. Each has been at the center of a policy disaster. In each case experts warned about the impending disaster. And in each case -- well, let's look at what happened.
Knight Ridder's Washington bureau reports that from 2003 on, intelligence agencies 'repeatedly warned the White House' that 'the insurgency in Iraq had deep local roots, was likely to worsen and could lead to civil war.' But senior administration officials insisted that the insurgents were a mix of dead-enders and foreign terrorists.
Intelligence analysts who refused to go along with that line were attacked for not being team players. According to U.S. News & World Report, President Bush's reaction to a pessimistic report from the C.I.A.'s Baghdad station chief was to remark, 'What is he, some kind of defeatist?'
Many people have now seen the video of the briefing Mr. Bush received before Hurricane Katrina struck. Much has been made of the revelation that Mr. Bush was dishonest when he claimed, a few days later, that nobody anticipated the breach of the levees.
But what's really striking, given the gravity of the warnings, is the lack of urgency Mr. Bush and his administration displayed in responding to the storm. A horrified nation watched the scenes of misery at the Superdome and wondered why help hadn't arrived. But as Newsweek reports, for several days nobody was willing to tell Mr. Bush, who 'equates disagreement with disloyalty,' how badly things were going. 'For most of those first few days,' Newsweek says, 'Bush was hearing what a good job the Feds were doing.'
Now for one you may not have heard about. The new Medicare drug program got off to a disastrous start: 'Low-income Medicare beneficiaries around the country were often overcharged, and some were turned away from pharmacies without getting their medications, in the first week of Medicare's new drug benefit,' The New York Times reported.
How did this happen? The same way the other disasters happened: experts who warned of trouble ahead were told to shut up." ...
Sunday, March 05, 2006
considering legislation that would criminalize the leaks ... classified information ... similar to earlier legislation that was vetoed by Pres.Clinton
White House Trains Efforts on Media Leaks: "Sources, Reporters Could Be Prosecuted | By Dan Eggen | Washington Post Staff Writer | Sunday, March 5, 2006; A01
The Bush administration, seeking to limit leaks of classified information, has launched initiatives targeting journalists and their possible government sources. The efforts include several FBI probes, a polygraph investigation inside the CIA and a warning from the Justice Department that reporters could be prosecuted under espionage laws.
In recent weeks, dozens of employees at the CIA, the National Security Agency and other intelligence agencies have been interviewed by agents from the FBI's Washington field office, who are investigating possible leaks that led to reports about secret CIA prisons and the NSA's warrantless domestic surveillance program, according to law enforcement and intelligence officials familiar with the two cases.
Numerous employees at the CIA, FBI, Justice Department and other agencies also have received letters from Justice prohibiting them from discussing even unclassified issues related to the NSA program, according to sources familiar with the notices. Some GOP lawmakers are also considering whether to approve tougher penalties for leaking. ...
...
Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), chairman of the Senate intelligence committee, said last month that he is considering legislation that would criminalize the leaking of a wider range of classified information than what is now covered by law. The measure would be similar to earlier legislation that was vetoed by President Bill Clinton in 2000 and opposed by then-Attorney General John D. Ashcroft in 2002.
But the vice chairman of the same committee, Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), complained in a letter to the national intelligence director last month that "damaging revelations of intelligence sources and methods are generated primarily by Executive Branch officials pushing a particular policy, and not by the rank-and-file employees of the intelligence agencies."
As evidence, Rockefeller points to the case of Valerie Plame, a CIA officer whose identity was leaked to the media. A grand jury investigation by Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald resulted last year in the jailing of Judith Miller, then a reporter at the New York Times, for refusing to testify, and in criminal charges against I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, who resigned as Vice President Cheney's chief of staff. In court papers, Libby has said that his "superiors" authorized him to disclose a classified government report. ...
Wednesday, March 01, 2006
Curtains for 'Rachel Corrie' - So much for freedom of speech, let alone thought
Curtains for 'Rachel Corrie' - Yahoo! News: " The Nation Mon Feb 27, 2:46 PM ET
-- So much for freedom of speech, let alone thought.
The play My Name Is Rachel Corrie, directed in London by actor Alan Rickman and due to open in New York City in March, has been canceled for fear of controversy.
The play adapts the diaries of the 23-year-old woman from Seattle who was murdered in Rafah in 2003, when she was deliberately run down by an Israeli Defense Forces bulldozer. Rachel had traveled to the " type="hidden"> SEARCH
News | News Photos | Images | Web
My Name Is Rachel Corrie has enjoyed two sell-out runs in London at the Royal Court Theatre and great critical acclaim; it was due to open at the New York Theatre Workshop in the East Village.
In private conversations with those who staged the play in London, the Theatre Workshop cited the election of Hamas in Palestine, " type="hidden"> SEARCH
News | News Photos | Images | Web
Curtains for 'Rachel Corrie' - So much for freedom of speech, let alone thought
Curtains for 'Rachel Corrie' - Yahoo! News: " The Nation Mon Feb 27, 2:46 PM ET
-- So much for freedom of speech, let alone thought.
The play My Name Is Rachel Corrie, directed in London by actor Alan Rickman and due to open in New York City in March, has been canceled for fear of controversy.
The play adapts the diaries of the 23-year-old woman from Seattle who was murdered in Rafah in 2003, when she was deliberately run down by an Israeli Defense Forces bulldozer. Rachel had traveled to the " type="hidden"> SEARCH
News | News Photos | Images | Web
My Name Is Rachel Corrie has enjoyed two sell-out runs in London at the Royal Court Theatre and great critical acclaim; it was due to open at the New York Theatre Workshop in the East Village.
In private conversations with those who staged the play in London, the Theatre Workshop cited the election of Hamas in Palestine, " type="hidden"> SEARCH
News | News Photos | Images | Web
Curtains for 'Rachel Corrie' - So much for freedom of speech, let alone thought
Curtains for 'Rachel Corrie' - Yahoo! News: " The Nation Mon Feb 27, 2:46 PM ET
News | News Photos | Images | Web" type="hidden"> Gaza Strip during the last intifada as an activist for the International Solidarity Movement.
News | News Photos | Images | Web" type="hidden"> Ariel Sharon's medical condition and the furor over the Danish cartoons as reasons for refusing to stage the play. ...
The Nation -- So much for freedom of speech, let alone thought.
The play My Name Is Rachel Corrie, directed in London by actor Alan Rickman and due to open in New York City in March, has been canceled for fear of controversy.
The play adapts the diaries of the 23-year-old woman from Seattle who was murdered in Rafah in 2003, when she was deliberately run down by an Israeli Defense Forces bulldozer. Rachel had traveled to the
" type="hidden"> SEARCHNews | News Photos | Images | Web" type="hidden"> Gaza Strip during the last intifada as an activist for the International Solidarity Movement.
My Name Is Rachel Corrie has enjoyed two sell-out runs in London at the Royal Court Theatre and great critical acclaim; it was due to open at the New York Theatre Workshop in the East Village.
In private conversations with those who staged the play in London, the Theatre Workshop cited the election of Hamas in Palestine,
" type="hidden"> SEARCHNews | News Photos | Images | Web" type="hidden"> Ariel Sharon's medical condition and the furor over the Danish cartoons as reasons for refusing to stage the play. ...
Rickman Slams 'Censorship' of Play about US Gaza Activist
Rickman Slams 'Censorship' of Play about US Gaza Activist: "February 28, 2006 by the Guardian / UK | by Julian Borger
A New York theatre company has put off plans to stage a play about an American activist killed by an Israeli bulldozer in Gaza because of the current 'political climate' - a decision the play's British director, Alan Rickman, denounced yesterday as 'censorship'.
...
A New York theatre company has put off plans to stage a play about an American activist killed by an Israeli bulldozer in Gaza because of the current 'political climate' - a decision the play's British director, Alan Rickman, denounced yesterday as 'censorship'.
...
"In our pre-production planning and our talking around and listening in our communities in New York, what we heard was that after Ariel Sharon's illness and the election of Hamas, we had a very edgy situation," Mr Nicola said.
"We found that our plan to present a work of art would be seen as us taking a stand in a political conflict, that we didn't want to take."
He said he had suggested a postponement until next year.
Mr Rickman, best known for his film acting roles in Love, Actually and the Harry Potter series and who directed the play at London's Royal Court Theatre, denounced the decision.
"I can only guess at the pressures of funding an independent theatre company in New York, but calling this production "postponed" does not disguise the fact that it has been cancelled," Mr Rickman said in a statement.
"This is censorship born out of fear, and the New York Theatre Workshop, the Royal Court, New York audiences - all of us are the losers."
Rachel Corrie was a 23-year-old activist from Washington state crushed in March 2003 when she put herself between an Israeli army bulldozer and a Palestinian home it was about to demolish in Rafah, on the Egyptian border. ...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)