Saturday, May 21, 2005

Daily Kos :: What quadrant of hell is hot enough for such men?

What quadrant of hell is hot enough for such men?
by SusanHu
[Subscribe]

Sat May 21st, 2005 at 10:20:17 CDT

"What quadrant of hell is hot enough for such men?"

"The unspeakable brutality," detailed in the NYT's "In U.S. Report, Brutal Details of 2 Afghan Inmates' Deaths, "stems directly -- absolutely directly -- from George W. Bush himself," writes Chris Floyd, a noted journalist. Among today's stories:

* "A leaked report on a military investigation into two killings of detainees at a US prison in Afghanistan has produced new evidence of connivance of senior officers in systematic prisoner abuse"
* A Univ of Minnesota bioethicist has found that two death certificates were issued for the Afghani taxi driver to cover up his death
* Sweden, a nation known for its human rights, is further implicated in U.S. rendition to nations that torture U.S. detainees

The accounts of detainee abuses "ricochet around the world," writes the NYT today, "instilling ideas about American power and justice, and sowing distrust of the United States."

Meanwhile, the U.S. media abets the diversion tactics of a single-paragraph Newsweek story and photos of Saddam that only Helen Gurley Brown would find titillating.

More below:

Diaries :: SusanHu's diary :: :: Trackback ::

___________________________________________________

Front-paged at BoomanTribune.

___________________________________________________

Yesterday afternoon, I watched MSNBC's Connected. The show's promo reads:

[M]ore on the fallout from the Saddam underpants fiasco. We've got bloggers Rahul Mahajan of "Empire Notes" and John Hinderaker from "Powerline."

There wasn't a word -- in the promo, in the intros, or in the questions -- about the NYT leak of the classified military investigation. The question for the show's daily poll was "Was it right for a British newspaper to publish photos of Saddam Hussein in his underwear?"

I watched as Rahul Mahajan of the EmpireNotes.org blog attempted to bring up the NYT story, only to be drowned out -- literally -- by a deafening cacophony of over-speak by Hinderaker and the rightwing host filling in for regular Monica Crowley.

Even the "left" host, Ron Reagan, dodged the story, steering the two bloggers back -- over and over -- to the Saddam-in-underpants photos. (To lighten their load even more, MSNBC interviewed comedian David Brenner for his take on the photos. Brenner noted that Saddam is "well hung" but that Muslims would find the photos embarrassing.)

I visited Rahul Mahajan's Empire Notes blog to learn more:

[H]ow about the strangest irony of this whole misbegotten war? Saddam gets the protection of the Geneva Conventions, but the thousands of poor souls in Guantanamo, Afghanistan, Iraq, and undisclosed locations around the world do not.

On the front page of the New York Times today, you can read about the fate of one of those men -- "Even as the young Afghan man was dying before them, his American jailers continued to torment him." Routinely left handcuffed and hanging from the ceiling for hours, the young man, a farmer and part-time taxi driver named Dilawar, was subjected to repeated knee strikes in the soft tissues of his lower body, until, said the coroner who looked at his corpse, he looked like "an individual run over by a bus." Most of his interrogators, apparently, were convinced that he had nothing to do with attacks on American forces.

If only the news media were to decide that any of those things was also a Real Story.

Here are some of the "Real Stories":

(1) Muslims around the world feel like they're "dirt":

For many Muslims, Guantánamo stands as a confirmation of the low regard in which they believe the United States holds them. For many non-Muslims, regardless of their feelings toward the United States, it has emerged as a symbol of American hypocrisy.

"The cages, the orange suits, the shackles - it's as if they're dealing with something that's like a germ they don't want to touch," said Daoud Kuttab, director of the Institute of Modern Media at Al Quds University in Ramallah, in the West Bank. "That's the nastiness of it." (NYT)

(2) The spectre of U.S. abuses has deeply affected politics in countries around the world:

Guantánamo provides rhetorical fodder for politicians seeking to bring down United States-allied rulers in their own countries, and it offers a ready rallying point against American dominance, even in countries whose own police and military have been known for severe violations of human rights.

"Even illiterate people pronounce it in a perfect manner, which surprises me a bit, quite frankly," said Irfan Siddiqui, a columnist for Pakistan's popular Urdu-language daily, Nawa-i-Waqt. "But it shows the significance this issue has attained." (NYT)

(3) The photos of Saddam's capture were far more disturbing to the Iraqi people, and Muslims, than these latest Sun tabloid photos:

[W]hen Saddam was captured in December 2003; then, TV viewers were besieged with endless replays of Saddam having a tongue depressor jammed in his mouth.

I was in Iraq about a month later. Iraqis I spoke to, almost universally, felt deeply shamed and humiliated, both by the circumstances of his capture, and by having to see the clip. One young woman, a rather apolitical Assyrian Christian, told me, "That was the first time I felt ashamed to be an Iraqi."

For the U.S. news media, it was simply displayed as a trophy, a metaphorical head stuck on the wall. The display required no collusion or even thought from TV news editors, just reflexive pandering to the lowest common denominator. [.....]

This [photos of Saddam's capture] was then to break their spirit and will to resist. It's hard to know if U.S. government officials were that sophisticated; what is clear is that the majority of Iraqis believed this. (Empire Notes)

___________________________________________________

These are among the real stories -- listed above the fold of this diary -- that the U.S. media should be headlining today, repeatedly mentioning, and discussing with pundits:

(A) "A leaked report on a military investigation into two killings of detainees at a US prison in Afghanistan has produced new evidence of connivance of senior officers in systematic prisoner abuse":

Report implicates top brass in Bagram scandal, Julian Borger in Washington for The Guardian, Saturday May 21, 2005

The investigation shows the military intelligence officers in charge of the detention centre at Bagram airport were redeployed to Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq in 2003, while still under investigation for the deaths of two detainees months earlier. Despite military prosecutors' recommendations, the officers involved have yet to be charged.

We at Daily Kos, and readers of Mother Jones, already knew this.

From my March 2, 2005 diary, "Bagram to Abu Ghraib: 'Aren't you kind of babying them?'"

Out of Bazelon's March/April 2005 Mother Jones article, we glean these observations:

* "it was at Bagram" -- a desolate desert U.S. air base in Afghanistan -- "that interrogators devised and tested the methods that would shame the United States in Iraq"
* "Captain Carolyn Wood, a 34-year-old officer and 10-year Army veteran ... rewrote the interrogation policy set by [the previous interrogation] group, adding to it nine techniques not approved by military doctrine or included in Army field manual"
* "instead of disciplining those involved" in the abuses at Bagram air base, "the Pentagon transferred key personnel from Afghanistan" to Abu Ghraib
* had the abuses at bases in Afghanistan (there are many Bagrams there) been investigated promptly, the abuses at Abu Ghraib might have been prevented
* "with the attention of the media and Congress focused on Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, the problems in Afghanistan seem to be continuing

I urge you to reread this diary because I also investigate, further, the abusive methods devised by 10-year-veteran Capt. Carolyn Wood. I also checked into the testimony that Capt. Wood gave at the trial of Lynndie England.

Capt. Wood implicated higher-ups: "[Wood] told the court that Col. Thomas Pappas, the commander of the 205th Military Intelligence Brigade, visited Tier 1, where much of the abuse was allegedly meted out around the clock."

But, to date, "[o]nly seven soldiers have been charged, all junior ranks," reports The Guardian today.

John Galligan, a Texas lawyer defending one of them - Private First Class Willie Brand - told the Guardian: "It happened over a period of time and involved a large number of individuals. To turn around and charge PFC Brand fails to take account of the environment and standard operating procedures.

"What is particularly offensive to me is that senior officials have gone unscathed."

(B) A Univ of Minnesota bioethicist has found that two death certificates were issued for the Afghani taxi driver to cover up his death:

Dr. Steven Miles, a University of Minnesota bioethicist who has been investigating alleged human rights abuses by U.S. military medical personnel in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The two death certificates, dated 17 months apart, both document the death of a 22-year-old taxi driver who was arrested by Afghan militiamen in December 2002. He was turned over to a U.S. detention center in Bagram, where he apparently died under interrogation a week later.

Both classify Dilawar's death as a homicide. But in one death certificate, he is a Caucasian of unspecified age and religion. In the other, he is a Muslim of "approximately 35 years," who was "found unresponsive in his cell while in custody."

Miles believes the twin death certificates -- one of them clearly altered -- are evidence of a cover-up. Pentagon officials say they've investigated Dilawar's death, along with at least two dozen other suspected criminal homicides, and have charged seven people. (Minneapolis Star-Tribune, May 21, 2005 - free subscription) via Raw Story

By the way, Miles is writing a book on this. I can't wait.

(C) Sweden, a nation known for its human rights, is further implicated in U.S. rendition to nations that torture U.S. detainees:

You'll recall you heard this story on CBS's "60 Minutes" and I diaried that program

U.N. Finds Sweden Broke Torture Convention

GENEVA -- Sweden broke international law when it sent a terror suspect home to Egypt despite his protests that he would be tortured there, a United Nations human rights body found Friday. (Newsday, May 20, 2005)

STOCKHOLM -- The CIA Gulfstream V jet touched down at a small airport west of here just before 9 p.m. on a subfreezing night in December 2001. A half-dozen agents wearing hoods that covered their faces stepped down from the aircraft and hurried across the tarmac to take custody of two prisoners, suspected Islamic radicals from Egypt.

Inside an airport police station, Swedish officers watched as the CIA operatives pulled out scissors and rapidly sliced off the prisoners' clothes, including their underwear, according to newly released Swedish government documents and eyewitness statements. They probed inside the men's mouths and ears and examined their hair before dressing the pair in sweat suits and draping hoods over their heads. The suspects were then marched in chains to the plane, where they were strapped to mattresses on the floor in the back of the cabin.

So began an operation the CIA calls an "extraordinary rendition," the forcible and highly secret transfer of terrorism suspects to their home countries or other nations where they can be interrogated with fewer legal protections.

The practice has generated increasing criticism from civil liberties groups; in Sweden a parliamentary investigator who conducted a 10-month probe into the case recently concluded that the CIA operatives violated Swedish law by subjecting the prisoners to "degrading and inhuman treatment" and by exercising police powers on Swedish soil.

"Should Swedish officers have taken those measures, I would have prosecuted them without hesitation for the misuse of public power and probably would have asked for a prison sentence," the investigator, Mats Melin, said in an interview. Washington Post, May 21, 2005

___________________________________________________

At his blog, Empire Burlesque, Chris Floyd -- an American journalist and columnist for The Moscow Times and St. Petersburg Times implores us:

If you are an American with even one drop of genuine love for the country in your soul, you cannot read this story without shedding "tears of rage, tears of grief," in Bob Dylan's haunting words. What have they done to us, these snarling apes in their thousand-dollar suits? What have they done to us, these sanctimonious killers, mouthing the name of God through teeth flecked with human guts?

What quadrant of hell is hot enough for such men?

Indeed.

Daily Kos :: What quadrant of hell is hot enough for such men?

Friday, May 20, 2005

News Hounds: Fox News in Ratings Free Fall

News Hounds: Fox News in Ratings Free Fall

A Look At Why The Carlyle Group Wanted to Drop George W. Bush From Its Board A Decade Ago

A Look At Why The Carlyle Group Wanted to Drop George W. Bush From Its Board A Decade Ago

Daily Kos :: Comments Reagan Republican Calls for Bush Impeachment

It could be that they are trying to go for the tried and true "poor GW being persecuted by hateful liburrals" that worked so well in the past to put their voters on "mother hen" mode.

Voters on "mother hen" mode
Voters on "mother hen" mode don't think, they act on instinct: defending poor little simpleton GW from the evil liburrals and Saddam lovers that attack him.

Add this to the extremely fishy Live grenade posed threat to Bush incident. When I read about it I wondered immediately if they were not going for pity and for getting their doubtful voters to get into "mother hen" mode.

Daily Kos :: Comments Reagan Republican Calls for Bush Impeachment

Daily Kos :: Reagan Republican Calls for Bush Impeachment

Reagan Republican Calls for Bush Impeachment
by mrboma
[Subscribe]

Fri May 20th, 2005 at 12:32:01 CDT

I searched for this in the diaries and stories but found nothing. If this has already been diaried. let me know and I will delete this.

Paul Craig Roberts, a well known and well respected conservative journalist and former Assistant Treasury Secretary under Reagan, has called for the impeachment and conviction of George W. Bush.


A Reputation in Tatters Wednesday, May 18, 2005

George W. Bush and his gang of neocon warmongers have destroyed America's reputation. It is likely to stay destroyed, because at this point the only way to restore America's reputation would be to impeach and convict President Bush for intentionally deceiving Congress and the American people in order to start a war of aggression against a country that posed no threat to the United States.

America can redeem itself only by holding Bush accountable.


Diaries :: mrboma's diary :: :: Trackback ::

As intent as Republicans were to impeach President Bill Clinton for lying about a sexual affair, they have a blind eye for President Bush's far more serious lies. Bush's lies have caused the deaths of tens of thousands of people, injured and maimed tens of thousands more, devastated a country, destroyed America's reputation, caused 1 billion Muslims to hate America, ruined our alliances with Europe, created a police state at home, and squandered $300 billion dollars and counting.
[snip]
Abundant evidence now exists in the public domain to convict George W. Bush of the crime of the century. The secret British government memo (dated July 23, 2002, and available here), leaked to the Sunday Times (which printed it on May 1, 2005), reports that Bush wanted "to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. . . . But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbors, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. . . . The (United Kingdom) attorney general said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defense, humanitarian intervention or UNSC (U.N. Security Council) authorization. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult."

This memo is the mother of all smoking guns. Why isn't Bush in the dock?

Has American democracy failed at home?

Roberts has been one of the most vocal conservative critics of the Bush administration. What are Roberts bonifieds, you ask? From his Bio on his homepage:

Paul Craig Roberts is a former editor and columnist for the Wall Street Journal and columnist for Business Week and the Scripps Howard News Service, he is a nationally syndicated columnist for Creators Syndicate in Los Angeles and a columnist for Investor's Business Daily. In 1992, he received the Warren Brookes Award for Excellence in Journalism. In 1993, the Forbes Media Guide ranked him as one of its top seven journalists.

Roberts was a distinguished fellow at the Cato Institute from 1993 to 1996. From 1982 through 1993, he held the William E. Simon Chair in Political Economy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. During 1981-82, he served as assistant secretary of the Treasury for economic policy. President Ronald Reagan and Treasury secretary Donald Regan credited him with a major role in the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, and he was awarded the Treasury Department's Meritorious Service Award for "his outstanding contributions to the formulation of United States economic policy." From 1975 to 1978, Roberts served on the congressional staff, where he drafted the Kemp-Roth bill and played a leading role in developing bipartisan support for a supply-side economic policy.

As we know from the excellent "Confessions of a Former Dittohead" diaries by advisorjim, one of the only ways to get through to the indoctrinated is to show them critiques by trusted sources. Paul Craig Roberts is one of those genuine conservatives who thinks the Bush administration has been a disaster. Show his articles to all your neo-conned friends.

Daily Kos :: Reagan Republican Calls for Bush Impeachment

Thursday, May 19, 2005

What's this 'WE' shit chickenhawks keep saying ?

From Kos:

The guy turned to us and said "I suppose you 'liberals' think we ought to just let the Arabs take over our country and kill all the adults and convert our children to muslim (sic) huh?"

Richie--"Not likely in any event, but we don't have an army worth the name anymore, thanks your lord Bush. I'm halfway through a tour over there and I don't see any way we can prevent a civil war, let alone win anything but what do I know? Back here in the land of SUVs and roses, you have a clearer picture don't you?" (I had always thought Richie was a republican--what's up with this?)

One of the others said something to the effect that Richie was full of shit, which he countered by producing his leave form and ID card from his wallet.
"We're winning. Why else would the insurgents do these large attacks that they know they can't win? It's frustration, or make sure they stay in the news. Things are getting better there all the time, but you probably can't see it at your level."

"If we're winning, how come the insurgents are even able to stage these large attacks? If we had that level of control, they wouldn't have any safe assembly areas from which to attack us in any numbers. All we can do is react to them, which means they have the initiative. That's bad," I said.

"They're attacking mainly Iraqis now," said one. "They're afraid to come out and fight us" she said.

"Three things," said Richie, "one, attacking Iraqis is a great way to start a civil war-that's a lovely thought-a three-way civil war with us in the middle, and two," he said, "they're attacking us more than enough as it is, thank you, and three," he asked, "are you in the military?"

"No, but I support the troops and our Commander in Chief," she replied.

"Then what's this 'WE' shit? It's not your ass over there getting IED'ed and RPG'ed and shot at and mortared, so who the fuck are you to talk about 'we'?"

"Come on, I'm sure the young republicans here all have yellow ribbon magnets on the SUVs their daddies bought them-go easy, man. They support us," I said. (One could, in fact, hear the italics in my voice.)

"He's been there, and got the t-shirt," Richie said, making a twirling motion with his finger to me. I turned around so they could see the image on the back of my shirt.

"Well, with attitudes like yours, we won't win," one of them said.

"Then why don't you join up so you can go over there and show us how it's done?" asked Richie. They looked away. "That's what I thought," he said, "so why don't you all shut your fucking yaps since you don't even believe in your own shit enough to stand up for it?"

Daily Kos :: Wingnuts in a Star Wars line:

Daily Kos :: WH reporter Revolt! Scottie Mc C's Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day

WH reporter Revolt! Scottie Mc C's Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day
by Magorn
[Subscribe]

Thu May 19th, 2005 at 11:13:09 CDT

Yesterday was a Very Bad Day for White House Spokesmanatrix Scott McClellan. It wasn't supposed to be that way.

Much to his surprise, the press corps proved to have a gag reflex after all. Scotty McC finally crossed a line, and they remembered that even whipped dogs have teeth.

the feeding frenzy started when early in the Press Conference:


Q: With respect, who made you the editor of Newsweek? Do you think it's appropriate for you, at that podium, speaking with the authority of the President of the United States, to tell an American magazine what they should print?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'm not telling them. I'm saying that we would encourage them to help --

Q You're pressuring them.

Even more remarkably, the question was asked by a reporter for an American TV Network!

Take a bow Terry Moran of ABC News.

Now I can feel your shock and disbelief so you might want to sit down for this next Part (assuming you blog standing up, which, I must tell you is a terribly odd thing to do):


Diaries :: Magorn's diary :: :: Trackback ::

Q Let me follow up on that. What -- you said that -- what specifically are you asking Newsweek to do? I mean, to follow up on Terry's question, are you saying they should write a story? Are you going that far? How else can Newsweek, you know, satisfy you here? { Must...resist...Jeff Gannon joke....}

Now in the excitement of seeing a reporter actually asking a follow-up question (and one about a question asked by another reporter!) I almost missed the identity of the questioner:

Elisabeth Bumiller of the NY Times.

Yes That Bumiller, the infamous author of the White House Letter. A recurring Puff piece on W, that's so slurpy, its a wonder she doesn't wear a blue dress when writing them

But not yesterday. Yesterday she was the Pit bull of the briefing room. She wanted specifics

Scotty tired to give a vague, but faintly indignant non-answer:


McCLELLAN: -- because of this report. I think Newsweek is going to be in the best position to determine how to achieve that.

And there are ways that I pointed out that they can help repair the damage. One way is to point out what the policies and practices of our United States military are. Our United States military personnel go out of their way to make sure that the Holy Koran is treated with care { Holy Koran Batman!, Scotty better hope Dr. Dobbie and his dominionist pals don't hear him talking like that}-

And Elisabeth wasn't havin none:


Q Are you asking them to write a story about how great the American military is; is that what you're saying here?

{and just to leave Scotty no wiggle room}

Q Are you asking them to write a story?

And dear Scotty, seeing thing veering badly off track tried to recover by launching into one of his patented Long Answers That Say Absolutely Nothing

MR. McCLELLAN: Elisabeth, let me finish my sentence. Our military -

Q You've already said what you're -- I know what -- how it ends.

Or in the vernacular "Scottie if all you are going to do is regurgitate the same bullshit, just save your breath

(She also got the quote yesterday that must have been hardest for WH official to say with a straight face. Speaking to her about the Newsweek Story an anonymous (natch) WH official said


"There's no expectation that they're going to bring down Newsweek, but there is a feeling that there is no check on what you guys do

Because, if there's one thing the Republicans have proven this week, they are all about them checks and balances aren't they?

Bumiller wasn't the only one getting all up in his grill neither. Blood was in the water and it wasn't going to be pretty. Another reporter apparently remembered that WH press briefings aren't supposed to be a closed book exam:

Q Back on Newsweek. Richard Myers, last Thursday -- I'm going to read you a quote from him. He said, "It's a judgment of our commander in Afghanistan, General Eichenberry, that in fact the violence that we saw in Jalalabad was not necessarily the result of the allegations about disrespect for the Koran."

He said it was "more tied up in the political process and reconciliation that President Karzai and his cabinet were conducting." And he said that that was from an after-action report he got that day.

So what has changed between last Thursday and today, five days later, to make you now think that those -- that that violence was a result of Newsweek?

Ooooh now looky there! The reporter did his homework and came prepared!

Scotty for his part didn't appreciate facts getting in the way of his quivering moral indignation, and tried mightily to make the truth disappear by simply ignoring it


Well, clearly, the report was used to incite violence by people who oppose the United States and want to mischaracterize the values and the views of the United States of America. The protests may have been pre-staged by those who oppose the United States and who may be opposed to moving forward on freedom and democracy in the region, but the images that we have seen across our television screens over the last few days clearly show that this report was used to incite violence. People lost their lives -

{ See? It those darn enemies of freedom again! We keep trying to liberate them but they say "no, no I want to be oppressed, I Hate freedom}


But the reporter wasn't going to let him get away with that: Behold the power of Facts


Q But may I just follow up, please? He didn't say "protest," he said -- he used the word very specifically, "violence." He said the violence, as far as they know from their people on the ground -- which is something that you always say you respect wholeheartedly -- it was not because of Newsweek.

MR. McCLELLAN: Dana, I guess I'm not looking at it the same way as you do,....{ see if you hold it upside down read it backwards it clearly says "the Walrus was Paul"}

Q You don't think there's any way that perhaps you're looking at it a little bit differently, now that you understand that the Newsweek report is false?

And When Scotty tried to regain the moral high ground by denying that again, another Reporter pounced:


Q Scott, to go back to Dana's question, are you saying that General Myers was wrong, therefore, that this -- the violence he's talking about? Are you saying he was wrong in his assessment of what happened in Afghanistan?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, not at all. In fact, maybe you didn't hear me, but as I said, there are people that are opposed to the United States that look at every opportunity to try to do damage to our image in the region, and --
Q Okay - {, Eyes rolling}

MR. McCLELLAN: Hang on, let me finish

Poor Scotty, he's either got to admit he's a liar or call his top military commander in the region one. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

And then there was the coup de grace a question both logical, brilliant and wickedly pointed (Ken Herman of Cox News tossed the fatal dart>


Q In context of the Newsweek situation, I think we hear the caution you're giving us about reporting things based on a single anonymous source. What, then, are we supposed to do with information that this White House gives us under the conditions that it comes from a single anonymous source?

Boom. Nailed it. Reporters HATE the fact that this WH won't even tell them what time it is without first insisting that the answer be used only on background. Scotty tried to Play Dumb but Ken was having none of it.


MR. McCLELLAN: I'm not sure what exactly you're referring to.
Q Frequent briefings by senior administration officials, in which the ground rules are we can only identify them as a single anonymous source.

And Scotty tried to spin mightily, promising to reduce such background briefings (but ducking the question as why it can't simply eliminate them here and now) And then again lecturing the press about the credibility problems of anonymous sources, yada, yada

But Mr. Herman boiled it all down and exposed Scotty's hypocrisy on this issue


Q With all due respect, though, it sounds like you're saying your single anonymous sources are okay and everyone else's aren't.

Well. There it is then.

All in all it wasn't a bad day's work for the Corps. Not quite yet to the level of say, Latvian TV, or Dutch High School kids perhaps, but they are making steps in the right direction. With some dedication and good coaching they've got a solid shot at a spot on the JV squad...

What we don't know yet is if the Corps can maintain this newfound courage. I'd be happier if the issue that threw them into open revolt didn't essentially involve protection one of their own. It'd be nice to see the same level of outrage about, say, a hypothetical smoking gun memo , or the routine use of torture by the CIA, or maybe even record deficits and a non-existent social security plan. All in all though, you have to admit it's a start.

I'd like to think that today wasn't so much about protecting turf but of the final straw being laid. I'm hoping that the spectacle of little Scotty openly bullying a major news magazine opened their eyes. Maybe the cognitive dissonance finally got to be too much and the truth began to dawn on them .

When they saw the WH all but giving orders to the press about what to write, maybe they realized their freedoms weren't any more secure than the rest of ours and it was time to do their job before it was to late. That's what I want to think.

Whether I'm proven to be idiotically optimistic or not remains to be seen. But at least for yesterday we had a free and skeptical press again. For however long it lasts, its nice to see.

Daily Kos :: WH reporter Revolt! Scottie Mc C's Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day

Falling in line is required for Republicans.

It's official: Toe to the party line or else... See my tag line at kos below: Better get some ballalaika lessons, Stalinism is coming to town

We're back in the U.S.S.R.
(You don't know how lucky you are boy
Back in the U.S.S.R!)

Republican Stalinism
Via TAPPED, Jonah Goldberg asks The National Review to explain itself:

Let's stir the pot nice and early. I'm not sure I understand NR's reversal on filibusters. In a December editorial -- titled "Let them Filibuster" -- the magazine said:

So we sympathize with those Republicans who have been proposing to change the Senate rules to make it easier to confirm nominees who have majority support. Nevertheless, we think the idea is a mistake.

And yesterday we said:

For Republicans to leave the filibusters in place now after months of demanding a change would be ignominious. The same pundits who are saying that the majority party should not insist on its prerogatives would turn around and say that the majority party is responsible and should be held accountable for everything the government does. More important, a surrender would tell everyone -- conservative voters, Democratic senators and interest groups, and the White House -- that Republican senators were irresolute in their support for judicial conservatism. It would thus set back the urgent cause of a reformation of the federal judiciary.

Here's what I don't get: Is NR's argument that ending the filibuster would be bad but now that GOP prestige is on the line it's necessary?

Kudos to Goldberg for asking The National Review a difficult political question. BTW, the answer to his question is falling in line is required for Republicans.

Daily Kos :: Honest Jonah

Tuesday, May 17, 2005

Daily Kos :: Comments Corrente knocks the Newsweek story out of the park

Daily Kos :: Comments Corrente knocks the Newsweek story out of the park: "

If we don't stand by Newsweek now we can't complain the MSM only covers Michael Jackson, can we ?

Newsweek strayed out of Bushianity's approved topics and got burned. Guess how many news orgs will cover anything smelling of news if this attempt at censorship sticks ?

We're back in the U.S.S.R.
(You don't know how lucky you are boy
Back in the U.S.S.R!)"

White House wants more than Newsweek retraction - U.S. News - MSNBC.com

White House wants more than Newsweek retraction - U.S. News - MSNBC.com



Administration blasts Newsweek
May 17: Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was among the Bush administration officials critical of the Newsweek's Quran report. NBC's David Gregory reports"

Bush 'turned blind eye to Iraq deals'

Bush 'turned blind eye to Iraq deals'
By Patrick Sawer, Evening Standard
17 May 2005

George Galloway arrived in Washington today to rebuff accusations that he profited from Iraqi oil sales as a Senate investigation found that the US government turned a blind eye to millions of dollars of sanctions busting.

The Bush administration knew about the illegal oil sales and kickbacks to Saddam Hussein's regime but did nothing about them, according to a report from Democrats on a Senate committee.

ThisisLondon

Monday, May 16, 2005

Pharyngula::Secular reproductionists!

Secular reproductionists!

First Tom the Dancing Bug, and now Tom Tomorrow—Salon has been doing a great job of making fun of the Intelligent Design creationists.

Stupid storkists. I'm proud to be a secular reproductionist.



Pharyngula::Secular reproductionists!: "

Daily Kos :: dKos Takes On Washington Post And Wins!

dKos Takes On Washington Post And Wins!
by Apian
[Subscribe]

Sun May 15th, 2005 at 22:38:55 CDT

BREAKING THROUGH US MEDIA BLACKOUT -- ILLEGAL IRAQ WAR

Michael Getler of the Washington Post stirred up a hornets nest when, on May 10, he refused to answer complaints from a handful of readers that the paper was not covering the story of the Downing Street evidence of Bush/Blair war crimes. Media Matters, FAIR and dKos jumped at Mr. Getler and the Washington Post, flooding his office with 1,000 emails over a three day period. On the third day, the email attack subsided to a trickle, when Walter Pincus finally covered the story.

Mr. Getler must be some kind of saint to sit at the complaints desk of the Washington Post. But while patient, he is also a sharp journalist, and has shown in the affair of the non-story story an insight and independence hard to find in the MSM today. Mr. Getler is no apologist for the editorial policies of the paper, and his criticism of his collegue Walter Pincus was apt and deserved.

Diaries :: Apian's diary :: :: Trackback ::

dKos Takes on the Washington Post and Wins!
Today Mr. Getler has responded to the email campaign with an excellent article on the substance of the Downing Street evidence that surfaced during the lead-up to the May 5 election in Britain. Kossacks can take their share of the victory in breaking through the MSM news blackout. It's a good beginning, and a good time to pause and find out what we did right, and where we were off target. As Congressman John Conyers said May 11, "Pat yourselves on the back, and go back to work. Don't let up until FOX covers it."

News Over There, Not Over Here
Getler's coverage of the story today, and why there has been a media blackout of the story is the closest the MSM has come so far, in reporting the truth - of the most incindiary kind. "Intelligence was fixed around the policy" of an illegal invasion of Iraq. The second most explosive piece of information came from an "unnamed former senior US official" who is quoted as saying the account of the senior British Intelligence officer's visit to Washington as "an absolutely accurate description of what transpired." These two statements could mean the beginning of the end for the Bush administration.

Why This Story Is So Critically Important
As a result of ignorance, Sen. John McCain has come out today on CNN as saying he disagrees with the "memo." Well, that's like me saying I disagree that sunrise follows sunset. Senator McCain may be suffering the effects of the media blackout that has been going on for quite a while. But that does not explain why most Americans are unaware of the story, or that the "memo" can not be disputed, having been released from Downing Street and Prime Minister Tony Blair.

Where's The Outrage?
Reading Getler's piece today reveals why so few people are outraged over the evidence of a crime we have all known about for years. To begin with, the left, right, and center have minimized and confused the story by calling the Downing Street war documents "a memo." The set (so far) is actually five pieces of damning incontrovertable evidence. BBC transcript; minutes of a war council attended by attorney general, prime minister's closest aide, intelligence minister, defence minister, and staff.; Goldsmith's March 7 legal ruling on the illegality of the Iraq war; the March 17 final ruling that further UN Resolutions were not necessary and the invasion would proceed; and the Civil Defence report that is the "cooked intelligence."

Evidence In Plain Sight
The story concerning the Downing Street documents first broke with the BBC on March 20, 2005. The leaked documents were released over a three week period. First Lord Peter Goldsmith's March 7, 2003 opinion on the illegality of war in Iraq ws released on the 25th of April. Then on May 1, 2005 the Sunday Times did an intel dump -- the minutes of a July 2002 war council meeting, the Goldsmith ruling, the March 17 war declaration, and the Civil Defense report.

Tony Blair -- War Criminal
The effect of these documents on the British elections? It brought about the demise of Tony Blair. The tide was turned when families of 10 British soldiers killed in Iraq, confronted Blair face to face. They charged him with war crimes -- that their sons had died in an illegal war, and Blair was to blame for leading their country into an illegal war. That case is being brought by the bereaved families before the International Criminal Court. Tony Blair's political career is finished. Baroness Morgan, who co-authored, with Lord Falkoner the final Iraq invasion ruling on the 17th of March, has resigned from government. One Labour party minister said, "Tony Blair has become a liability."

News Over Here, Not Over There
There is no excuse for any American not knowing this story. No excuse for Sen. McCain, no excuse for the New York Times, no excuse for the Washington Post, no excuse for dKossacks either. This story comes from the BBC world news service, the evidence has been released from the British government.Any American who is unaware of this story and its import is unaware because they have blinders on. American foreign policy for the last 5 years has reflected the attitude that the rest of the world, its news reporting, its leaders and its people do not exist, do not matter. This attitude is nowhere so blatant that in Bush and Co's disregard for the United Nations, the International Criminal Court, the Geneva Conventions, and international humanitarian law.

US Diplomacy of Brutality
In this case, Sen. McCain's pleading ignorance was disingenious. Ignorance, arrogance, and disrespect has been the foundation of American foreign policy for the last five years. If anyone read and understood this story it would be the end of John Bolton, for starters. Who else is implicated? John Ashcroft, Alberto Gonzales, Bybee, Haynes, Condoleezza Rice and John Bolton. And there are loads of documents not yet uncovered

The contrasts between the UK and the US are revealed dramatically in the coverage or non-coverage of this story. In Britain, a free press and a government accountable to its people, corrupt leaders shamed and forced to stand down from government. In the United States censorship of the news, a public that accepts a corrupt government and an illegal war, and representatives in government like Sen. McCain, who plead ignorance, and who explain away the Iraq war as a "massive failure of intelligence," which means, again, ignorance -- of which Sen. McCain should not be proud.

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

ACTION PLAN: What we should be doing now:

Start by reading both Walter Pincus' May 12 article and Michael Getler's May 15th article.
British Intelligence Warned of Iraq War; Walter Pincus; May 12, 2005
News Over There, But Not Here; Michael Getler; May 14, 2005

Before you go off on a tear, consider this: The Washington Post is the greatest newspaper in the United States. Why do I say this? If you look into the Alberto Gonzales' torture/interrogation story and the evil imaginations at work in the Department of Justice, you will find that the Washington Post wrote 79 stories in the last year, and the New York Times only 25. The Washington Post published the Bybee legal opinion which was the most damaging document to come out of the Bush administration, so damaging, in fact, that the Office of Legal counsel disavowed it altogether, rewriting in December of 2004, and trying to make like it never happened.

Once armed with the facts, write to the New York Times, refer them to ombudsman Michael Getler's article, and demand that they cover the story at least as well. Try, if you can, to find someone at the New York Times who is as patient, responsive and as good a journalist as Michael Getler. When on a letter writing campaign, remember that no one is obliged to respond to you or to print your letter.

Caution: As Mr. Getler pointed out, mass e mailings are most unpopular. It doesn't take too much imagination to figure out why. To be effective, put on your subject line: Downing Street War Documents Illegal Iraq War. You have a better chance of your e mail being read if you send to one address at a time. If it's a good letter, and you want ti printed, send it to Letters to the Editor of your local newspaper, including your address, e mail and phone number...

Daily Kos :: dKos Takes On Washington Post And Wins!

Sunday, May 15, 2005

Daily Kos :: On May 19th STICK IT UP THEIR BEHINDS - Tie a Yellow Ribbon to a Gas Pump

Gonzo comments:

BAGnewsNotes: Sticking It To 'Em


Americans don't take The War seriously.. I mean, if Americans were serious about The War, and Supporting The Troops, they would be tying these yellow ribbons around the hoses of their petrol station pumps. Rather than pasting them on the bumpers and windows of their 'All-American' trucks.. they would be sticking them on all their fuel filler caps, light switches and HVAC thermostats!







How many GI's does an SUV make per gallon ?

Energy and OIL has always been the crux of the Iraq conflict. How about we remind some people about it ?

Daily Kos :: On May 19th STICK IT UP THEIR BEHINDS - Tie a Yellow Ribbon to a Gas Pump