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.

Bush administration obsession with controlling the flow of information: Officials Routinely Rewarded for Lying and Punished for Telling the Truth

Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility: News Releases: "July 20, 2005
Contact: Chas Offutt (202) 265-7337

“DISINFORMATION SYNDROME” AFFLICTS FEDERAL GOVERNMENT — Officials Routinely Rewarded for Lying and Punished for Telling the Truth

Washington, DC — The federal government suffers from a “severe disinformation syndrome” in which agency specialists are pressured to alter reports by managers who are promoted for breaking the law, according to congressional testimony delivered today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). As a consequence, scientific and technical papers, particularly within environmental agencies, are routinely censored, altered or manipulated for political purposes.

“The Bush administration obsession with controlling the flow of information means that factual information that does not serve its political agenda rarely sees the light of day,” stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch who testified today. “Public servants who wish to speak honestly about matters outside officially approved agency talking points are required to cast a profile in courage because their honesty could cost them their jobs.”
...
The PEER testimony outlines a pervasive effort to edit out vital but discordant information across the range of environmental activities:

* Science. PEER and the Union of Concerned Scientists have conducted surveys among federal scientists showing a high degree of political intervention to amend scientific findings;
* Land Management. Federal agencies are routinely issuing documents that do not withstand judicial scrutiny because the documents are at variance with the agency’s own internal data; and
* Public Health. Whistleblowers lack meaningful protections so that professionals who raise concerns are banished or terminated as a result.

A major problem cited by PEER is that Congress extends no meaningful legal protections for executive branch employees who communicate information to oversight committees or individual members. As a consequence, official reports to Congress are often inaccurate, incomplete or untimely.

“If agencies can lie with impunity to Congress, why should they be expected to tell anyone else the truth?” Ruch asked, calling for Congress to put teeth into laws forbidding interference with or retaliation for transmitting information to elected representatives. “Right now, the federal civil service is scared to death.”

Fedrs decline to press charges of impersonating a Secret Service agent against White House volunteer who forcibly ousted three progressives

Rocky Mountain News: News: "No charges in Denver 3 ouster | By Ann Imse, Rocky Mountain News | July 29, 2005

Federal prosecutors have declined to press charges of impersonating a Secret Service agent against a White House volunteer who forcibly ousted three people from a speech by President George W. Bush in Denver on March 21.

The announcement was made without explanation today in a letter from the Secret Service to Colorado Sen. Ken Salazar and Reps. Mark Udall and Diana DeGette, all Democrats who had asked for the agency to investigate the incident.
...
Although the three are involved in a political group called the Denver Progressives, they did nothing to interfere with the event and were bounced before the president arrived. They admitted to wearing t-shirts under their clothing that said, "No more lies." They said they considered revealing the t-shirts, but decided not to do so. Later, though they had done nothing disruptive, the unidentified man forced them to leave.

Pentagon probes use of apparent fake quotes in Iraq news releases

Pentagon probes use of apparent fake quotes in Iraq news releases - Yahoo! News: "Tue Jul 26, 7:17 PM ET

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The Pentagon said it was investigating the use of near-identical quotations from unidentified Iraqis in official news releases that criticized insurgent bombings.
...
Journalists in Iraq first complained Sunday to US authorities in Baghdad about the questionable quotes in the releases.

"If a journalist were to make up a quote or copy a quote or misuse a quote like that, he could lose his job," a reporter told DiRita Tuesday.

Estate Tax Myths: numbers [of farmers and owners of small businesses] that owed estate tax were paltry

Estate Tax Myths: "Sunday, July 24, 2005; Page B06

ONE OF THE chief arguments of those seeking permanent repeal of the estate tax is that it cruelly penalizes farmers and owners of small businesses whose heirs are forced to sell off their holdings to pay the tax. 'In order to make sure our farms stay within our farming families, we need to get rid of the death tax once and for all,' President Bush proclaimed in a speech last month to the Future Farmers of America."
...
A new study by the Congressional Budget Office examined estate tax returns filed by farmers and owners of small businesses in 1999 and 2000. The numbers that owed estate tax, the CBO found, were paltry, and the number without enough cash on hand to pay the bill even punier: In 2000, for example, just 1,659 farm estates had taxes due, of which 138 didn't report enough liquid assets to cover their tax liability. ... But members of Congress debating the issue now ought to look at the facts assembled by the CBO -- not the misinformation peddled by those maneuvering to make repeal permanent.

56% say "[news] stories and reports are often inaccurate,"

David Domke: There's No Shield Against Public Anger: "July 22, 2005 | The American Press and Credibility | By DAVID DOMKE
...
A recent Pew Research Center poll shows U.S. press credibility at historic lows. In early June, 56% of randomly sampled U.S. adults said that "[news] stories and reports are often inaccurate," an increase from 34% of the public who held this view in 1985. Similarly, 72% of Americans today say news organizations "tend to favor one side" when covering political and social issues, up from 53% two decades ago. And 75% of Americans said news organizations' reporting is most concerned about "attracting the biggest audience," while only 19% said it was "keeping the public informed."
...
The desire for pro-American news produces this outcome: when news content is critical of U.S. actions, many Americans become angry with the press, rather than the government. In other words, the public becomes likely to shoot the messenger. It would help if the news media stopped providing ammunition.

Iraq: The War We Are Not Being Shown: It’s like a pair of blinders has been removed

Iraq: The War We Are Not Being Shown Huffington Post | 07.20.2005 Arianna Huffington

My vacation has been remarkably eye-opening. Now, when travelers say things like that, they usually are talking about being introduced to new cultures, different foods, singular settings… but in my case, I’m talking about war. Specifically, how shockingly different the coverage of the war in Iraq is here in Europe compared to what we get back home.

It’s like a pair of blinders has been removed and I’m suddenly seeing for myself what I’ve long known to be the case: just how sanitized a version of the war the American mainstream media are delivering, and how little of even this cleaned-up coverage we get.

Take Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari’s lovefest visit to Tehran on Sunday, where he laid a wreath on the tomb of Ayatollah Khomeini and hailed what he called “a new chapter in brotherly ties” between Iran and Iraq. Now, by all rights, this should have been a major story in the U.S. Here you have the leader of the new government we’re spending hundreds of billions of dollars creating in Iraq making very nice with the terror-funding and nuke-building mullahs in Iran. So this is what our soldiers are putting their lives on the line for -- 1,770 killed so far -- a budding alliance between fundamentalist theocracies? (And yesterday’s news about the Iraqi constitution being based on fundamentalist Islamic principles, including curtailing women’s rights only confirms these fears) Surely that’s front page news, right? Not in America.

In fact, the historic visit was barely covered in the mainstream American press. The only major U.S. newspaper to report it was the Washington Post -- and its story was on page A-21. A-21?! The consequences of this lack of coverage are enormous. As the blogger Billmon at Whiskey Bar nailed it:

“How would the folks back home feel if they knew their sons and daughters were getting limbs blown off so that Iraqi politicians could jaunt off to Tehran and say warm and fuzzy things about the crazy old man who gave us the Iranian hostage crisis? And what kind of surrealist cover story would the GOP propaganda machine come up with to convince the Fox News audience that fighting and dying to keep Khomeini lovers in power is really a good thing?”

Another example of this lack of proper coverage -- and of the media’s bizarre priorities -- came when the Iraq Body Count dossier on civilian casualties in Iraq that HuffPost’s Jane Wells blogged about was released. Despite the vitally important information it contained, the Washington Post story on it ran on page A-18, the LA Times’ on page A-12, and the New York Times’ on A-8 . Thirty-seven percent of all non-combatant deaths were caused by US led coalition forces -- compared to 9% caused by insurgents -- and in the nation’s capital it runs on A-18.

Comcast Corporation has been automatically deleting email sent to Comcast customers with the text "www.afterdowningstreet.org" in the body of the emai

THE BRAD BLOG: "COMCAST KILLS EMAIL FROM 'AFTERDOWNINGSTREET' COALITION!": "7/15/2005 @ 3:10pm PT...
...
The BRAD BLOG has learned that cable company and Internet service provider, Comcast Corporation has been automatically deleting email sent to Comcast customers with the text "www.afterdowningstreet.org" in the body of the email.

AfterDowningStreet.org ("ADS") is the citizen's coalition advocacy group organized to raise awareness of the leaked British memos and minutes referred to as the "Downing Street Documents". Those documents, first reported by Michael Smith of the Sunday Times suggest that the Bush Administration had determined to topple Saddam Hussein by military means and planned to "fix" the facts and intelligence around the policy" at least eight months prior to receiving authorization of the U.S. Congress to wage war in Iraq. At the same time, George W. Bush and administration officials were routinely telling both Congress and the American people that no tactical decisions had yet been made regarding regime change in Iraq.
...
The BRAD BLOG has been able to independently confirm that email sent to two different Comcast customers with the text "www.afterdowningstreet.org" in the body of the mail, is not currently reaching those customers as expected. Though messages with only "afterdowningstreet.org" are, in fact, able to get through to those same customers without a problem.

Knight Ridder's Baghdad Chief Replies to Criticismof war coverage as 'bad' for focusing on the negative

Knight Ridder's Baghdad Chief Replies to Criticism From Back Home: "By Greg Mitchell | (July 13, 2005)

Early this week, Mark Yost, an editorial writer at Knight Ridder's St. Paul Pioneer Press, wrote a column that sharply criticized Iraq war coverage as 'bad' for focusing on the negative. Today, another Knight Ridder writer who may actually know what's going on in Baghdad, penned a reply.
...
Knight Ridder's Baghdad bureau chief, Hannah Allam, has read Mark Yost's column. Her response, from the front, says it far better than I could.
***

From Hannah Allam:

It saddens me to read Mark Yost's editorial in the Pioneer Press, the Knight Ridder paper that hired me as a rookie reporter and taught me valuable lessons in life and journalism during the four years I spent there before heading to Iraq.

I invite Mr. Yost to spend a week in our Baghdad bureau, where he can see our Iraqi staff members' toothbrushes lined up in the bathroom because they have no running water at home. I frequently find them camping out in the office overnight because electricity is still only sporadic in their sweltering neighborhoods, despite what I'm sure are the best-intentioned efforts of people like his Marine buddy working on the electrical grid.

Mr. Yost could have come with me today as I visited one of my own military buddies, who like most officers doesn't leave the protected Green Zone compound except by helicopter or massive convoy. The Army official picked me up in his air-conditioned Explorer, took me to Burger King for lunch and showed me photos of the family he misses so terribly. The official is a great guy, and like so many other soldiers, it's not politics that blind him from seeing the real Iraq. The compound's maze of tall blast wall and miles of concertina wire obscure the view, too.

Mr. Yost can listen to our bureau's morning planning meetings, where we orchestrate a trip to buy bottled water (the tap water is contaminated, when it works) as if we're plotting a military operation. I wonder whether he prefers riding in the first car -- the most exposed to shrapnel and bullets -- or the chase car, which is designed to act as a buffer between us and potential kidnappers.

Perhaps Mr. Yost would be moved by our office's tribute wall to Yasser Salihee, our brave and wonderful colleague, who at age 30 joined the ranks of Iraqi civilians shot to death by American soldiers. Mr. Yost would have appreciated one of Yasser's last stories -- a rare good-news piece about humanitarian aid reaching the holy city of Najaf.

Mr. Yost's contention that 14 of Iraq's 18 provinces are stable is pure fantasy. On his visit to Baghdhad, he can check that by chatting with our resident British security consultant, who every day receives a province-by-province breakdown of the roadside bombs, ambushes, assassinations and other violence throughout the country.

If Baghdad is too far for Mr. Yost to travel (and I don't blame him, given the treacherous airport road to reach our fortress-like hotel), why not just head to Oklahoma? There, he can meet my former Iraqi translator, Ban Adil, and her young son. They're rebuilding their lives under political asylum after insurgents in Baghdad followed Ban's family home one night and gunned down her 4-year-old daughter, her husband and her elderly mother in law.

Freshly painted schools and a new desalination plant might add up to "mission accomplished" for some people. Too bad Ban's daughter never got to enjoy those fruits of her liberation.

CNN, ABC offered unchallenged legal analysis on Plame leak from Novak's partisan friends

CNN, ABC offered unchallenged legal analysis on ... [Media Matters for America]: "CNN, ABC offered unchallenged legal analysis on Plame leak from Novak's partisan friends

Reporting on White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove's alleged involvement in the leaking of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity, CNN and ABC News presented unchallenged legal analysis from Victoria Toensing and Joseph E. DiGenova, respectively, both of whom defended Rove and were identified only as a 'legal analyst' and a 'former US attorney.' Toensing and DiGenova, however, are partisan Republicans and personal friends of CNN host and columnist Robert D. Novak, who originally outed Plame in July 2003.

DiGenova and Toensing are married and are the founding partners of DiGenova & Toensing LLP, a Washington law firm. Toensing was President Reagan's deputy assistant attorney general and chief counsel to former Sen. Barry Goldwater (R-AZ). DiGenova has been described as a "confidant" of independent counsel Kenneth Starr during the Monica Lewinsky investigation [The Baltimore Sun, 9/21/00] and as "a former federal prosecutor now working for House Republicans" [The Washington Post, 2/23/98]. In 1998, Toensing and DiGenova angered House Democrats by repeatedly discussing the Lewinsky investigation in the media while under contract with the House Committee on Education and the Workforce to investigate the Teamsters union [The Washington Post, 2/13/98]. Toensing and DiGenova have a well-documented personal relationship with Novak. ...

Once again a scientific report has been recast for the sake of political expediency and used as the basis for a federal rule that puts industry profit

Science Fiction: "July 5, 2005 latimes.com :EDITORIAL | Science Fiction

The altering of reports to fit policies is dismaying.

Once again a scientific report has been recast for the sake of political expediency and used as the basis for a federal rule that puts industry profit over the health of people and the environment. If that sounds familiar, it's because it has been happening regularly throughout President Bush's tenure.

In the most recent case, a government biologist and hydrologist complained that their findings on how cattle grazing damages wildlands were rewritten to produce contrary conclusions. A 'significant adverse impact' on wildlife, for instance, somehow became 'beneficial to animals.' Then the Bush administration announced that based on these rosy findings, it would relax rules that limit grazing on public lands.

The Bush administration's efforts to undermine, ignore and edit scientific findings add up to something even more dismaying than the resulting poor public policy. It's bad enough to push an ill-considered idea — such as increasing budgets for abstinence-only sex education — despite studies that show the idea doesn't work. Even more disheartening is the rewriting and deletion of scientific truth. It damages the scientific disciplines that have held the rational pursuit of truth above all else and, in that pursuit, have produced technical and medical marvels. This country already faces unprecedented challenges to its scientific supremacy from India, China and Singapore. It's not going to help the nation's scientific prestige to downgrade the work U.S. experts do.

The grazing case follows revelations weeks earlier that a former lobbyist for the oil industry, while working for the White House, tinkered with government reports on climate change to make global warming appear a more dubious and trivial phenomenon. ...

Demands that Fox News remove C. Boyden Gray as a Supreme Court analyst: spent many hours raising millions to confirm Bush judicial nominees

David Brock to Fox: Drop Gray as Supreme Court ... [Media Matters for America]: "July 1, 2005 |

Roger Ailes
Chairman and CEO
Fox News Channel
1211 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York 10036

Dear Mr. Ailes:

I am writing to demand that Fox News Channel remove C. Boyden Gray from his position as a Supreme Court analyst. Gray's involvement as a leading player in the coming Supreme Court nomination battle makes him an inappropriate choice to serve as an analyst for Fox News, and Fox's failure to disclose Gray's conflict of interest to its viewers only compounds the problem.

In its initial coverage of the retirement of Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, Fox News featured extended commentary by Gray, identifying him only as a 'Fox Supreme Court Analyst.' But this does not fully inform Fox News viewers of Gray's involvement in the Supreme Court fight.

Gray is founder and chairman of the Committee for Justice, a group formed to advance the confirmation of President Bush's judicial nominees. In a May 24 profile of Gray, The Washington Post reported: 'Every Monday morning for months, veteran Washington lawyer C. Boyden Gray has plotted strategy via a conference call with the heads of groups that want to ease the confirmation of President Bush's judicial nominees. He has also spent many hours raising millions of dollars for the cause.'"

Bush's Iraq-9/11 link irks US press: we had hoped he would resist the temptation to raise the bloody flag of 9/11 .. to justify a war ...

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."

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.

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.