Keith Olbermann blasts President Bush in his latest "Special Comment" section on Countdown tonight. He leaves no stone unturned…
Video capture and full text of comments courtesy Crooks&Liars.com
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/09/11/keith-olbermanns-special-commnet-on-bush-who-has-left-this-hole-in-the-ground-we-have-not-forgotten-mr-president-you-have-may-this-country-forgive-you/
Video-WMP Video-QT
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/CountDown-SpecialComment-Bush-911.wmv
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/CountDown-SpecialComment-Bush-911.mov
(This was probably the most powerful special comment yet by Keith. If you would like, please feel free to use the Spotlight link below to help spread the word about this incredible commentary to others in the media)
Full Transcript, Keith Olberman's closing statement, MSNBC "COUNTDOWN" live, Monday 9-11-2006
And lastly tonight a Special Comment on why we are here. Half a lifetime ago, I worked in this now-empty space.
And for 40 days after the attacks, I worked here again, trying to make sense of what happened, and was yet to happen, as a reporter.
And all the time, I knew that the very air I breathed contained the remains of thousands of people, including four of my friends, two in the planes and — as I discovered from those "missing posters" seared still into my soul — two more in the Towers.
And I knew too, that this was the pyre for hundreds of New York policemen and firemen, of whom my family can claim half a dozen or more, as our ancestors.
I belabor this to emphasize that, for me… this was, and is, and always shall be, personal.
And anyone who claims that I and others like me are "soft", or have "forgotten" the lessons of what happened here — is at best a grasping, opportunistic, dilettante — and at worst, an idiot — whether he is a commentator, or a Vice President, or a President.
However. Of all the things those of us who were here five years ago could have forecast — of all the nightmares that unfolded before our eyes, and the others that unfolded only in our minds… none of us could have predicted… this.
Five years later this space… is still empty.
Five years later there is no Memorial to the dead.
Five years later there is no building rising to show with proud defiance that we would not have our America wrung from us, by cowards and criminals.
Five years later this country’s wound is still open.
Five years… later this country’s mass grave is still unmarked.
Five years later… this is still… just a background for a photo-op.
It is beyond shameful.
—
At the dedication of the Gettysburg Memorial — barely four months after the last soldier staggered from another Pennsylvania field, Mr. Lincoln said "we can not dedicate - we can not consecrate — we can not hallow — this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract."
Lincoln used those words to immortalize their sacrifice.
Today our leaders could use those same words to rationalize their reprehensible inaction. "We can nto dedicate — we can not consecrate — we can not hallow — this ground." So we won’t.
Instead they bicker and buck-pass. They thwart private efforts, and jostle to claim credit for initiatives that go nowhere. They spend the money on irrelevant wars, and elaborate self-congratulations, and buying off columnists to write how good a job they’re doing — instead of doing any job at all.
Five years later, Mr. Bush… we are still fighting the terrorists on these streets. And look carefully, sir — on these 16 empty acres, the terrorists… are clearly, still winning.
And, in a crime against every victim here and every patriotic sentiment you mouthed but did not enact, you have done nothing about it.
—
And there is something worse still than this vast gaping hole in this city, and in the fabric of our nation.
There is, its symbolism — of the promise unfulfilled, the urgent oath, reduced to lazy execution.
The only positive on 9/11 and the days and weeks that so slowly and painfully followed it… was the unanimous humanity, here, and throughout the country. The government, the President in particular, was given every possible measure of support.
Those who did not belong to his party — tabled that.
Those who doubted the mechanics of his election — ignored that.
Those who wondered of his qualifications — forgot that.
History teaches us that nearly unanimous support of a government cannot be taken away from that government, by its critics.
It can only be squandered by those who use it not to heal a nation’s wounds, but to take political advantage.
Terrorists did not come and steal our newly-regained sense of being American first, and political, fiftieth. Nor did the Democrats. Nor did the media. Nor did the people.
The President — and those around him — did that.
They promised bi-partisanship, and then showed that to them, "bi-partisanship" meant that their party would rule and the rest would have to follow, or be branded, with ever-escalating hysteria, as morally or intellectually confused; as appeasers; as those who, in the Vice President’s words yesterday, "validate the strategy of the terrorists."
They promised protection, and then showed that to them "protection" meant going to war against a despot whose hand they had once shaken… a despot who we now learn from our own Senate Intelligence Committee, hated Al-Qaeda as much as we did.
The polite phrase for how so many of us were duped into supporting a war, on the false premise that it had ’something to do’ with 9/11, is "lying by implication."
The impolite phrase, is "impeachable offense."
Not once in now five years has this President ever offered to assume responsibility for the failures that led to this empty space… and to this, the current, curdled, version of our beloved country.
Still, there is a last snapping flame from a final candle of respect and fairness: even his most virulent critics have never suggested he alone bears the full brunt of the blame for 9/11.
Half the time, in fact, this President has been so gently treated, that he has seemed not even to be the man most responsible — for anything — in his own administration.
Yet what is happening this very night?
A mini-series, created, influenced — possibly financed by — the most radical and cold of domestic political Machiavellis, continues to be televised into our homes.
The documented truths of the last fifteen years are replaced by bald-faced lies; the talking points of the current regime parroted; the whole sorry story blurred, by spin, to make the party out of office seem vacillating and impotent, and the party in office, seem like the only option.
How dare you, Mr. President, after taking cynical advantage of the unanimity and love, and transmuting it into fraudulent war and needless death… after monstrously transforming it into fear and suspicion and turning that fear into the campaign slogan of three elections… how dare you or those around you… ever "spin" 9/11.
—
Just as the terrorists have succeeded — are still succeeding — as long as there is no memorial and no construction here at Ground Zero…
So too have they succeeded, and are still succeeding — as long as this government uses 9/11 as a wedge to pit Americans against Americans.
This is an odd point to cite a television program, especially one from March of 1960. But as Disney’s continuing sell-out of the truth (and this country) suggests, even television programs can be powerful things.
And long ago, a series called "The Twilight Zone" broadcast a riveting episode entitled "The Monsters Are Due On Maple Street."
In brief: a meteor sparks rumors of an invasion by extra-terrestrials disguised as humans. The electricity goes out. A neighbor pleads for calm.
Suddenly his car — and only his car — starts. Someone suggests he must be the alien. Then another man’s lights go on.
As charges and suspicion and panic overtake the street, guns are inevitably produced.
An "alien" is shot — but he turns out to be just another neighbor, returning from going for help.
The camera pulls back to a near-by hill, where two extra-terrestrials areseen, manipulating a small device that can jam electricity. The veteran tells his novice that there’s no need to actually attack, that you just turn off a few of the human machines and then, "they pick the most dangerous enemy they can find, and it’s themselves."
And then, in perhaps his finest piece of writing, Rod Serling sums it up with words of remarkable prescience, given where we find ourselves tonight.
"The tools of conquest do not necessarily come with bombs and explosions and fallout. There are weapons that are simply thoughts, attitudes, prejudices - to be found only in the minds of men.
"For the record, prejudices can kill and suspicion can destroy, and a thoughtless, frightened search for a scapegoat has a fallout all its own — for the children, and the children yet unborn."
—
When those who dissent are told time and time again — as we will be, if not tonight by the President, then tomorrow by his portable public chorus — that he is preserving our freedom, but that if we use any of it, we are somehow un-American…
When we are scolded, that if we merely question, we have "forgotten the lessons of 9/11"… look into this empty space behind me and the bi-partisanship upon which this administration also did not build, and tell me:
Who has left this hole in the ground?
We have not forgotten, Mr. President.
You have.
May this country forgive you.
Tuesday, September 12, 2006
Monday, September 11, 2006
Disney/ABC whores their 9-11 propaganda "docu-drama" movie on behalf of Bush-Cheney-Rove Republicans...
- Last night Disney corp, sole owners of ABC, ran their production of a 9-11 movie as a "docu-drama," with the obligatory disclaimer that the movie was not based entirely on facts, but was written for "drama content" as well.
The long and short of it is that Disney pimped out the production of their 9-11 movie to a known Hate-Clinton Right-Wing pro-Bush producer; that Disney then refused to supervise the production; and recently when the movie was finally completed, the producers shipped the DVD to friendly Right-Wing media allies and commentators, WHILE REFUSING to ship the DVD to interested Democratic parties, including the FORMER PRESIDENT (Clinton) and SECRETARY of STATE Madeline Albright!
THIS clear and present PROPAGANDA EFFORTS on behalf of the Right-WIng administration is now the unstated but official policy of the Disney Mouse!
The movie as written portrays Clinton, Albright, and National Security Advisor SANDY BERGER as being at the heart of Osama's successful run of a decade spent attacking America... DESPITE THE FACT that it was the CLINTON National Security team that salvoed CRUISE MISSILES against Bin Laden, and it was REPUBLICANS in Congress who shouted "WAG THE DOG!", as if investigating Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky was more important than responding to bin Laden's Al Qaida murderous ATTACKS ON AMERICAN EMBASSIES and military personel!
Thus it is that the DISNEY movie portrays THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION as TO BLAME for 9-11 - even though it was George W. Bush who, despite being WARNED by the outgoing Clinton administration that "AL QAIDA TERROR will be America's NUMBER ONE SECURITY THREAT in the coming decade," (it was President Bush who) TOOK A ONE MONTH VACATION in August of 2001, a full 8 months after taking office, and on that vacation Mr. Bush put CLEARING BRUSH, fishing, and talking about his dog CHASING ARMADILLOS as a HIGHER PRIORITY than doing ANYTHING about the CIA dossier he was personally briefed on, "Bin Laden DETERMINED_TO_ATTACK_in_AMERICA."
This glaring, criminal negligence and DERELICTION_of_DUTY on the part of President Bush is made ALL THE WORSE when one reads THIS CNN puff piece from January of that year (2001), not only lauding Bush for taking the time to meet with his CIA briefers "FACE TO FACE," but snidely comparing Bush to Clinton in a way that makes Clinton look derelict for "only meeting with his CIA briefers every other day"!
Bush prefers CIA intelligence briefings face to face
Clinton liked written summaries
From David Ensor
CNN National Security Correspondent
January 18, 2001
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/stories/01/18/bush.briefing/index.html
THANK YOU, DISNEY/ABC, for exposing yourselves as Republican Propaganda THUGS.
You care far more for your corporate TAX BREAKS and Florida tax breaks (from the Florida Republican-dominated state house and governor's office) than HONESTLY portraying the events that lead up to America's massive security failure before 9-11.
(And a genuine "Thanks!" to E&P editors and staff, a real exception to the trend of the WHORING of America's press and media.)
=====================================
ABC Airs 9/11 Film -- Contested Scenes Remain
By E&P Staff
September 10, 2006
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003119721
NEW YORK The first part of the controversial "The Path to 9/11" movie aired as scheduled on ABC on Sunday -- despite pleas that it be halted by several top officials in the Clinton administraton, among others -- and while several last-minute cuts were made, the key scenes that enraged many liberals remained essentially intact.
E&P had seen a review copy earlier this week. After the edits, the finalized first half of the film (at two hours and forty minutes) was, at most, only about a minute shorter than the review copy.
The final film revealed trims at certain points, and some new dialogue, but key scenes extremely critical of former Clinton national security advisor Sandy Berger and Secretary of State Madeline Albright retained most of their bite.
As ABC had promised, the film included a kind of disclaimer, shown on the screen (though only about three times), noting that the film is "not a documentary" and includes "fictonalized scenes," "representative characters" and "time compression." It also de-emphasized its earlier claims that it was mainly based on the official 9/11 Commission Report.
Many critics, including some conservatives, had stated that they objected to any fictonaliizing of 9/11. At the same time, many conservatives were also monitoring the edits as the movie aired, concerned about ABC caving in to liberals' demands.
The two scenes that received the most attention this week involved, first, a near-attack on bin Laden's camp in Afghanistan called off by Clinton aide Sandy Berger; and another in which Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was fingered for tipping off bin Laden about a missile attack by notifying Pakistan in advance.
The Berger scene, after some trims, remained largely intact, as he rebuffs pleas by CIA to order the kidnapping of bin Laden when a "snatch" team is nearby -- but it no longer shows him ending the conversation by suddenly cutting the phone call. The filmmakers did edit out many of the shots from Afghanistan that underscored how close we allegedly were to bin Laden's camp. (That may be because, according to the 9/11 Commission, this specific episode did not take place.) But that scene still cut directly to our ally, Afghan rebel Massood, calling Americans back in Washington "cowards."
The Albright scene has new dialogue, and some old dialogue cut, but still indicted her for telling Pakistan about the later missile attack on bid Laden. She claims in the film that she had to do this since cruise missiles had to fly over Pakistani territory and might have set off nuclear fears, but she remains the heavy.
Another key scene, in which a composite CIA agent named "Kirk" complains about Clinton's lack of action, is now softened somewhat. But the star of the film, Harvey Keitel, as a top FBI agent, still utters a sharp line about the administration viewing terrorism as just a "law and order problem."
And that scene still cuts (another sore point from the Clinton officials' point of view) to the president's famous assertion that he did not have "sexual relations" with Monica Lewinsky. In the new edit, however, Richard Clarke, the terror expert, now says that Clinton's people had assured him that the president was not distracted from terrorism by the sex scandal.
It edits out the FBI agent's reference to Clinton being afraid to move against bin Laden because of the impeachment climate -- but leaves in his description of the Clinton paralysis as "pathetic."
One brief scene in the review copy that showed Clinton testifying in the Lewinsky matter was cut from this version.
A Nightline special followed the movie, focusing on some of the same subject matter and same time frame, in examining whether bin Laden could have been halted.
The long and short of it is that Disney pimped out the production of their 9-11 movie to a known Hate-Clinton Right-Wing pro-Bush producer; that Disney then refused to supervise the production; and recently when the movie was finally completed, the producers shipped the DVD to friendly Right-Wing media allies and commentators, WHILE REFUSING to ship the DVD to interested Democratic parties, including the FORMER PRESIDENT (Clinton) and SECRETARY of STATE Madeline Albright!
THIS clear and present PROPAGANDA EFFORTS on behalf of the Right-WIng administration is now the unstated but official policy of the Disney Mouse!
The movie as written portrays Clinton, Albright, and National Security Advisor SANDY BERGER as being at the heart of Osama's successful run of a decade spent attacking America... DESPITE THE FACT that it was the CLINTON National Security team that salvoed CRUISE MISSILES against Bin Laden, and it was REPUBLICANS in Congress who shouted "WAG THE DOG!", as if investigating Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky was more important than responding to bin Laden's Al Qaida murderous ATTACKS ON AMERICAN EMBASSIES and military personel!
Thus it is that the DISNEY movie portrays THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION as TO BLAME for 9-11 - even though it was George W. Bush who, despite being WARNED by the outgoing Clinton administration that "AL QAIDA TERROR will be America's NUMBER ONE SECURITY THREAT in the coming decade," (it was President Bush who) TOOK A ONE MONTH VACATION in August of 2001, a full 8 months after taking office, and on that vacation Mr. Bush put CLEARING BRUSH, fishing, and talking about his dog CHASING ARMADILLOS as a HIGHER PRIORITY than doing ANYTHING about the CIA dossier he was personally briefed on, "Bin Laden DETERMINED_TO_ATTACK_in_AMERICA."
This glaring, criminal negligence and DERELICTION_of_DUTY on the part of President Bush is made ALL THE WORSE when one reads THIS CNN puff piece from January of that year (2001), not only lauding Bush for taking the time to meet with his CIA briefers "FACE TO FACE," but snidely comparing Bush to Clinton in a way that makes Clinton look derelict for "only meeting with his CIA briefers every other day"!
Bush prefers CIA intelligence briefings face to face
Clinton liked written summaries
From David Ensor
CNN National Security Correspondent
January 18, 2001
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/stories/01/18/bush.briefing/index.html
THANK YOU, DISNEY/ABC, for exposing yourselves as Republican Propaganda THUGS.
You care far more for your corporate TAX BREAKS and Florida tax breaks (from the Florida Republican-dominated state house and governor's office) than HONESTLY portraying the events that lead up to America's massive security failure before 9-11.
(And a genuine "Thanks!" to E&P editors and staff, a real exception to the trend of the WHORING of America's press and media.)
=====================================
ABC Airs 9/11 Film -- Contested Scenes Remain
By E&P Staff
September 10, 2006
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003119721
NEW YORK The first part of the controversial "The Path to 9/11" movie aired as scheduled on ABC on Sunday -- despite pleas that it be halted by several top officials in the Clinton administraton, among others -- and while several last-minute cuts were made, the key scenes that enraged many liberals remained essentially intact.
E&P had seen a review copy earlier this week. After the edits, the finalized first half of the film (at two hours and forty minutes) was, at most, only about a minute shorter than the review copy.
The final film revealed trims at certain points, and some new dialogue, but key scenes extremely critical of former Clinton national security advisor Sandy Berger and Secretary of State Madeline Albright retained most of their bite.
As ABC had promised, the film included a kind of disclaimer, shown on the screen (though only about three times), noting that the film is "not a documentary" and includes "fictonalized scenes," "representative characters" and "time compression." It also de-emphasized its earlier claims that it was mainly based on the official 9/11 Commission Report.
Many critics, including some conservatives, had stated that they objected to any fictonaliizing of 9/11. At the same time, many conservatives were also monitoring the edits as the movie aired, concerned about ABC caving in to liberals' demands.
The two scenes that received the most attention this week involved, first, a near-attack on bin Laden's camp in Afghanistan called off by Clinton aide Sandy Berger; and another in which Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was fingered for tipping off bin Laden about a missile attack by notifying Pakistan in advance.
The Berger scene, after some trims, remained largely intact, as he rebuffs pleas by CIA to order the kidnapping of bin Laden when a "snatch" team is nearby -- but it no longer shows him ending the conversation by suddenly cutting the phone call. The filmmakers did edit out many of the shots from Afghanistan that underscored how close we allegedly were to bin Laden's camp. (That may be because, according to the 9/11 Commission, this specific episode did not take place.) But that scene still cut directly to our ally, Afghan rebel Massood, calling Americans back in Washington "cowards."
The Albright scene has new dialogue, and some old dialogue cut, but still indicted her for telling Pakistan about the later missile attack on bid Laden. She claims in the film that she had to do this since cruise missiles had to fly over Pakistani territory and might have set off nuclear fears, but she remains the heavy.
Another key scene, in which a composite CIA agent named "Kirk" complains about Clinton's lack of action, is now softened somewhat. But the star of the film, Harvey Keitel, as a top FBI agent, still utters a sharp line about the administration viewing terrorism as just a "law and order problem."
And that scene still cuts (another sore point from the Clinton officials' point of view) to the president's famous assertion that he did not have "sexual relations" with Monica Lewinsky. In the new edit, however, Richard Clarke, the terror expert, now says that Clinton's people had assured him that the president was not distracted from terrorism by the sex scandal.
It edits out the FBI agent's reference to Clinton being afraid to move against bin Laden because of the impeachment climate -- but leaves in his description of the Clinton paralysis as "pathetic."
One brief scene in the review copy that showed Clinton testifying in the Lewinsky matter was cut from this version.
A Nightline special followed the movie, focusing on some of the same subject matter and same time frame, in examining whether bin Laden could have been halted.
Sunday, September 10, 2006
Cowardly, Whore Sulzberger NY Times BETRAYS 9-11 First Responders...
Here is one of those articles where "us good libruls" and Democratic voters are supposed to cheer "Hooray! The New York Times is FINALLY writing a long-overdue article or editorial on an issue that exposes Bush admin. craven deception, betrayal or corruption."
But the flip-side of that story is. "WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE?"!
Why does the Clinton's overnight GUEST LIST at the White House - the so-called "Lincoln bedroom scandal" - rate FRONT PAGE screaming, above-the-fold bold HEADLINES, while the craven SULZBERGER New York Times BURIES the BETRAYAL of 9-11 First Responders WA-AY DEEP in the editorial section, a few paragraphs and then "FORGOTTEN!"
"FORGOTTEN!" is how the SULZBERGER TIMES **JOINS** the Karl Rove Republican PROPAGANDA MACHINE, effectively CENSORING IMPORTANT SUBJECTS by making them VERBOTTEN! on the front pages of the New York Times.
We "bleeding heart libruls" have been aware since shortly after rescue and demolition work began on the site of the twin World Trade Center tower's collapse that the pit was a hazardous environmental NIGHTMARE for workers. The toxins, smoke, asbestos, and other dust in the air at that site was SO DEADLY, that ALL workers there should have been equipped with, NOT respirators or rebreathers, but scuba-diving type completely closed air tanks. Because breathing air at ground level (above water level) has much less outside pressure than breathing air underwater, scuba tanks last a very long time when used above ground level, and even a small "pony-tank" bottle of compressed air can last over an hour. Hooking up a replacement bottle involves no more than closing the empy tank, opening and unhooking the connector from the old tank to the new in about 30 seconds, and then opening the new tank's valve. Simple, easy, no-risk, and a COMPLETE ISOLATION of the user's lungs from the toxins, smoke, and carcinogens at Ground Zero, for the cost or running an air compressor for a few minutes at a site where the air quality is good.
Filling scuba tanks with clean filtered air (from some remote site in the case of the deadly air around the 9-11 site) is relatively inexpensive - dive operators usually throw two 80 cu. ft. airtanks in with a charter dive for just $10-15 more than the price of the trip without provided air tanks - and dive shops sell the air hose and regulator (air valve and mouthpiece) that will complete the set up for just over $100 (or less, especially in bulk) all day long. For those operating heavy equipment, tanks could be mounted on the machinery; otherwise, using small "pony" air bottles, breathing clean, filtered, isolated air is not much more cumbersome than wearing the small hydration backpacks with hydration nozzle, as bikers and ultra-marathon runners do every day. (eg. "Camelback" and other brank hydration backpacks.)
The above two paragraphs digression into the utility of using scuba-type airtanks for workers at ground zero, just to explain one possible low-cost solution to the hazards of breathing contaminated, toxic air at ground zero. To arrive at a figure of how much this would have cost, multiply the total human (labor) hours of working at the ground zero site by the cost-per-hour figure of providing clean compressed air tanks and regulators. In bulk, the figure could or should have been far less than $100 per worker per day.
BUT such closed-circuit air OPTIONS WERE NOT EXAMINED, or conducted on a large scale in the field on 9-11, BECAUSE THE Bush White House AND GOVERNMENT effectively CENSORED the information about the hazardous quality of air at ground zero!
AND THE NEW YORK TIMES **JOINED IN** that information CENSORSHIP, the Times could EASILY HAVE RUN THEIR OWN INVESTIGATION into the air quality at ground-zero; "quality" here been an Orwellian word, "the Times could easily have run their own investigation into the air TOXICITY at ground zero." TOXICITY being of course a much more accurate description of the hazardous breathing environment at Ground Zero, and an organization as huge and well funded as the Times could easily have hired experts, or even two or three different air quality labs, which all would have reported the same thing: "THE AIR at Ground Zero is TOXIC and HAZARDOUS to work in, much less for extended periods of time."
Buzzflash.com is running an editorial today [http://www.buzzflash.com/editorial/04/08/edi04057.html] that decries the loss of COMMON SENSE in America.
The Arthur Suzlberger NEW YORK TIMES **JOINING** the Bush White House CENSORSHIP and WET-BLANKETING of the vital information of the HAZARDOUS AIR at Ground Zero for demolition and reconstruction workers is a TEXT-BOOK EXAMPLE of that COMPLETE LACK OF COMMON SENSE in the editorial board room of the New York Times.
OSAMA bin LADEN sent hijackers and terrorists to KILL American workers and citizens in the 9-11 towers...
Mr. Suzlberger SENDS AMERICAN WORKERS TO THEIR EVENTUAL DEATHS in the 9-11 ground zero PIT, by CENSORING, DENYING THEM THE IFORMATION, that would make workers think twice about putting the future of their own families on the line.
------------------------------------------
And Mr. Sulzberger: getting away from the issue of air quality at ground zero for First Responders and working stiffs;
....IT DOESN'T MATTER **HOW** MUCH you kiss bush-rove-cheney-scalia-scaife-murdoch butt, the Ann Coulter INSANE Right-Wing is STILL going to hate you and the Times ANYWAYS.
(Coulter infamously declared that it was a shame that Timmy McVeigh had not bombed the New York Times building before he went off to bomb the Murrah Federal building in Oklahoma City... and because America has an incredibly loud double-standard when it comes to Right-Wingers 'right' to urge people to hate, violence, and lying propaganda spin, Ann Coulter IS STILL WELCOME on PRIME TIME TV 'news' casts.)
SO, Mr. Sulzberger, you might as well STAND FOR HONESTY and TRUTH IN REPORTING, instead of this slimey "Kiss Bush butt, SQUASH the CIA outing scandal story; JOIN the Bush administration in STALLING or STONEWALLING the need for a 9-11 Commission in the first place; and then, when the Commission releases it Final Report, "D" and "F" FAILING GRADES for preparations to PREVENT FUTURE 9-11 attacks, YOUR PAPER conveniently BURIES that news as well!
(Or runs it only once or twice on the front pages, effectively FORGETTING about the whole issue after that.)
And all THAT's not to mention, the AUDACITY and CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT CORRUPTION, of the Bush administration's "Homeland Security" department putting pig-farms in Indiana (and other such Red-state sites) as a HIGHER counter-TERROR-FUNDING PRIORITY than dozens of vital targets in New York and Washington DC!
- Official Final Report of 9-11 Commission (pdf)
- "D" and FAILING Grades for post-9-11 counter-terror reforms!
http://www.9-11pdp.org/press/2005-12-05_report.pdf
- US is Given FAILING GRADES by 9-11 Panel - Washington Post headline
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/05/AR2005120500097.html
- D.C.'S STUPID SCROOGES SLASH NYC
TERROR AID AND SPLURGE ON THE STICKS
by NY Post writer GEOFF EARLE Post Correspondent
http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/66878.htm
And, courtesy of the NEW YORK TIMES, now this, joining the Bush administration in NEGLECTING the health and financial needs of 9-11 First Responders... and helping BushCo BURY.... YOUR OWN PAPER's conclusion, earlier today, "A Rising Threat" and "Taliban STRENGTHENING in Afghanistan and Pakistan"
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/10/weekinreview/10rohde.html
Oh yeah... Mr. Sulzberger, we know, we know... you and your editorial writers are charter members of that whole AIPAC/neo-con/PNAC bow-down-to-the-furher President in his "wars-against-terrarists-anywhere" thing.
Sorry... we all have our priorities, and making YOUR paper a font of HONEST REPORTING and relentless investigative journalism sure 'n hell ain't it!
=====================================
An Enemy of the People
Carl Pope at HuffingtonPost.com
09.10.2006
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carl-pope/an-enemy-of-the-people_b_29132.html
Veterans of 9-11
NY Times unsigned (editorial board) editorial
9 Sept. 2006
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/09/opinion/09sat1.html
Five years after the attack on the World Trade Center, more of the truth is making its way into the mainstream media. The New York Times last week finally editorialized about the appalling lack of support that the government provided to first responders -- the police, fire, and emergency workers who responded to the crisis five years ago and in the months that followed, saying that "One of the worst things about listening to those who rushed to ground zero after the attacks on Sept.
11 is that you can barely hear their stories. For many, the lungs hardly work. The cough, the ragged breathing, the confusion and even the bitterness make it hard for some of those who labored in that toxic cloud to explain how they feel forgotten... as many as seven in 10 of those who worked at ground zero and Fresh Kills on Staten Island have felt their lungs deteriorate because of their heroism."
Last Tuesday, the Times reported in some depth on the reality that "for many of the ill and those worried about becoming sick, government actions -- coming from officials whom they see as more concerned about the politics of the moment than the health of those who responded to the emergency -- are too limited and too late." Also last Tuesday, Mt. Sinai Medical Center released a new study showing that the health problems facing responders were increasing, not easing, with time. Dr. Philip J. Landrigan one of the authors of the new study, said that the toxic character of the dust at Ground Zero convinced doctors "that there would be serious health issues for years to come, especially for workers who were exposed to the heaviest concentrations in the early days after the terrorist attack.
"'This was extremely toxic dust,' Dr. Landrigan said."
Yet, official denial of this tragedy continues. New York Mayor Bloomberg says that, despite whatever data exists showing that the first responders are suffering as a group from an overwhelming set of respiratory illnesses, he's not convinced it proves anything. "I don't believe that you can say specifically a particular problem came from this particular event," the Mayor opined, saying that no correlation could ever prove causation. (One suspects that the correlation between stepping in front of a speeding New York taxi and getting injured would persuade him, so he probably doesn't mean this literally.)
And it is still very difficult to get mainstream media coverage of another grim reality -- that many, perhaps most, of these lethal health effects could have been avoided. The government knowingly chose to put these first responders at risk. Worse, this is now official U.S. government policy for any natural disaster -- to ignore basic health and safety precautions not only during a crisis but after it. A new Sierra Club report, "Harmful Legacy of Pollution and Deception at Ground Zero: How Post 9/11 Disaster Policy Endangers America," warns that federal policies for national disasters compromise worker safety, fail to require precautionary health warnings, and -- in the event of a "dirty bomb" attack -- allow for lower cleanup standards for radiological contamination. The report cites a new Bush Administration policy for our response to terrorist attacks that release radioactive contamination, such as from a "dirty bomb" or illegal nuclear device. Cleanup decisions will balance public health against a list of economic factors that even includes the impact on tourism.
The report also documents that, in responding to Katrina, many of the post-hurricane problems are the direct result of the Bush Administration's applying its new approach to cleaning up after disasters, whether natural or man-made. It reveals that, like a guilty corporation seeking to protect itself against litigation, the Department of Homeland Security has now instructed its staff working on disasters to destroy certain types of unclassified documents "when they are no longer needed." (Or it might become embarrassing.) And it raises the concern, based on an earlier Inside EPA article, that another possible step in exposing Americans to greater risk from terrorist attacks -- weakening health standards in the event of an attack on a chemical plant or refinery -- appears to be under consideration.
In 1882 Henrik Ibsen wrote a play about the efforts of a small town doctor to warn the public of a contaminated drinking water supply. The doctor's message is ignored by the political leadership in the town, and he himself is branded "an enemy of the people" because his message may discourage tourism and hurt the local economy. The Bush Administration has adopted the same approach to cleanups after a terrorist attack and natural disasters as it has adopted to global warming -- suppress and ignore the science, do what is convenient for the short-term needs of the economy, and conceal the truth from the public.
But unlike the Administration's assault on the science of global warming, which has been widely reported, its policy decision that it will ignore reasonable public health precautions in any future disaster has been almost ignored. While Clear Channel, of all media outlets, carried the Sierra Club report last week, the New York Times itself has never reported the existence of this chilling official policy. Nor has the Washington Post, the L.A. Times or the Wall Street Journal, as far as I can tell. This may be one of the biggest cover-ups yet.
But the flip-side of that story is. "WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE?"!
Why does the Clinton's overnight GUEST LIST at the White House - the so-called "Lincoln bedroom scandal" - rate FRONT PAGE screaming, above-the-fold bold HEADLINES, while the craven SULZBERGER New York Times BURIES the BETRAYAL of 9-11 First Responders WA-AY DEEP in the editorial section, a few paragraphs and then "FORGOTTEN!"
"FORGOTTEN!" is how the SULZBERGER TIMES **JOINS** the Karl Rove Republican PROPAGANDA MACHINE, effectively CENSORING IMPORTANT SUBJECTS by making them VERBOTTEN! on the front pages of the New York Times.
We "bleeding heart libruls" have been aware since shortly after rescue and demolition work began on the site of the twin World Trade Center tower's collapse that the pit was a hazardous environmental NIGHTMARE for workers. The toxins, smoke, asbestos, and other dust in the air at that site was SO DEADLY, that ALL workers there should have been equipped with, NOT respirators or rebreathers, but scuba-diving type completely closed air tanks. Because breathing air at ground level (above water level) has much less outside pressure than breathing air underwater, scuba tanks last a very long time when used above ground level, and even a small "pony-tank" bottle of compressed air can last over an hour. Hooking up a replacement bottle involves no more than closing the empy tank, opening and unhooking the connector from the old tank to the new in about 30 seconds, and then opening the new tank's valve. Simple, easy, no-risk, and a COMPLETE ISOLATION of the user's lungs from the toxins, smoke, and carcinogens at Ground Zero, for the cost or running an air compressor for a few minutes at a site where the air quality is good.
Filling scuba tanks with clean filtered air (from some remote site in the case of the deadly air around the 9-11 site) is relatively inexpensive - dive operators usually throw two 80 cu. ft. airtanks in with a charter dive for just $10-15 more than the price of the trip without provided air tanks - and dive shops sell the air hose and regulator (air valve and mouthpiece) that will complete the set up for just over $100 (or less, especially in bulk) all day long. For those operating heavy equipment, tanks could be mounted on the machinery; otherwise, using small "pony" air bottles, breathing clean, filtered, isolated air is not much more cumbersome than wearing the small hydration backpacks with hydration nozzle, as bikers and ultra-marathon runners do every day. (eg. "Camelback" and other brank hydration backpacks.)
The above two paragraphs digression into the utility of using scuba-type airtanks for workers at ground zero, just to explain one possible low-cost solution to the hazards of breathing contaminated, toxic air at ground zero. To arrive at a figure of how much this would have cost, multiply the total human (labor) hours of working at the ground zero site by the cost-per-hour figure of providing clean compressed air tanks and regulators. In bulk, the figure could or should have been far less than $100 per worker per day.
BUT such closed-circuit air OPTIONS WERE NOT EXAMINED, or conducted on a large scale in the field on 9-11, BECAUSE THE Bush White House AND GOVERNMENT effectively CENSORED the information about the hazardous quality of air at ground zero!
AND THE NEW YORK TIMES **JOINED IN** that information CENSORSHIP, the Times could EASILY HAVE RUN THEIR OWN INVESTIGATION into the air quality at ground-zero; "quality" here been an Orwellian word, "the Times could easily have run their own investigation into the air TOXICITY at ground zero." TOXICITY being of course a much more accurate description of the hazardous breathing environment at Ground Zero, and an organization as huge and well funded as the Times could easily have hired experts, or even two or three different air quality labs, which all would have reported the same thing: "THE AIR at Ground Zero is TOXIC and HAZARDOUS to work in, much less for extended periods of time."
Buzzflash.com is running an editorial today [http://www.buzzflash.com/editorial/04/08/edi04057.html] that decries the loss of COMMON SENSE in America.
The Arthur Suzlberger NEW YORK TIMES **JOINING** the Bush White House CENSORSHIP and WET-BLANKETING of the vital information of the HAZARDOUS AIR at Ground Zero for demolition and reconstruction workers is a TEXT-BOOK EXAMPLE of that COMPLETE LACK OF COMMON SENSE in the editorial board room of the New York Times.
OSAMA bin LADEN sent hijackers and terrorists to KILL American workers and citizens in the 9-11 towers...
Mr. Suzlberger SENDS AMERICAN WORKERS TO THEIR EVENTUAL DEATHS in the 9-11 ground zero PIT, by CENSORING, DENYING THEM THE IFORMATION, that would make workers think twice about putting the future of their own families on the line.
------------------------------------------
And Mr. Sulzberger: getting away from the issue of air quality at ground zero for First Responders and working stiffs;
....IT DOESN'T MATTER **HOW** MUCH you kiss bush-rove-cheney-scalia-scaife-murdoch butt, the Ann Coulter INSANE Right-Wing is STILL going to hate you and the Times ANYWAYS.
(Coulter infamously declared that it was a shame that Timmy McVeigh had not bombed the New York Times building before he went off to bomb the Murrah Federal building in Oklahoma City... and because America has an incredibly loud double-standard when it comes to Right-Wingers 'right' to urge people to hate, violence, and lying propaganda spin, Ann Coulter IS STILL WELCOME on PRIME TIME TV 'news' casts.)
SO, Mr. Sulzberger, you might as well STAND FOR HONESTY and TRUTH IN REPORTING, instead of this slimey "Kiss Bush butt, SQUASH the CIA outing scandal story; JOIN the Bush administration in STALLING or STONEWALLING the need for a 9-11 Commission in the first place; and then, when the Commission releases it Final Report, "D" and "F" FAILING GRADES for preparations to PREVENT FUTURE 9-11 attacks, YOUR PAPER conveniently BURIES that news as well!
(Or runs it only once or twice on the front pages, effectively FORGETTING about the whole issue after that.)
And all THAT's not to mention, the AUDACITY and CRIMINALLY NEGLIGENT CORRUPTION, of the Bush administration's "Homeland Security" department putting pig-farms in Indiana (and other such Red-state sites) as a HIGHER counter-TERROR-FUNDING PRIORITY than dozens of vital targets in New York and Washington DC!
- Official Final Report of 9-11 Commission (pdf)
- "D" and FAILING Grades for post-9-11 counter-terror reforms!
http://www.9-11pdp.org/press/2005-12-05_report.pdf
- US is Given FAILING GRADES by 9-11 Panel - Washington Post headline
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/05/AR2005120500097.html
- D.C.'S STUPID SCROOGES SLASH NYC
TERROR AID AND SPLURGE ON THE STICKS
by NY Post writer GEOFF EARLE Post Correspondent
http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/66878.htm
And, courtesy of the NEW YORK TIMES, now this, joining the Bush administration in NEGLECTING the health and financial needs of 9-11 First Responders... and helping BushCo BURY.... YOUR OWN PAPER's conclusion, earlier today, "A Rising Threat" and "Taliban STRENGTHENING in Afghanistan and Pakistan"
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/10/weekinreview/10rohde.html
Oh yeah... Mr. Sulzberger, we know, we know... you and your editorial writers are charter members of that whole AIPAC/neo-con/PNAC bow-down-to-the-furher President in his "wars-against-terrarists-anywhere" thing.
Sorry... we all have our priorities, and making YOUR paper a font of HONEST REPORTING and relentless investigative journalism sure 'n hell ain't it!
=====================================
An Enemy of the People
Carl Pope at HuffingtonPost.com
09.10.2006
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/carl-pope/an-enemy-of-the-people_b_29132.html
Veterans of 9-11
NY Times unsigned (editorial board) editorial
9 Sept. 2006
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/09/opinion/09sat1.html
Five years after the attack on the World Trade Center, more of the truth is making its way into the mainstream media. The New York Times last week finally editorialized about the appalling lack of support that the government provided to first responders -- the police, fire, and emergency workers who responded to the crisis five years ago and in the months that followed, saying that "One of the worst things about listening to those who rushed to ground zero after the attacks on Sept.
11 is that you can barely hear their stories. For many, the lungs hardly work. The cough, the ragged breathing, the confusion and even the bitterness make it hard for some of those who labored in that toxic cloud to explain how they feel forgotten... as many as seven in 10 of those who worked at ground zero and Fresh Kills on Staten Island have felt their lungs deteriorate because of their heroism."
Last Tuesday, the Times reported in some depth on the reality that "for many of the ill and those worried about becoming sick, government actions -- coming from officials whom they see as more concerned about the politics of the moment than the health of those who responded to the emergency -- are too limited and too late." Also last Tuesday, Mt. Sinai Medical Center released a new study showing that the health problems facing responders were increasing, not easing, with time. Dr. Philip J. Landrigan one of the authors of the new study, said that the toxic character of the dust at Ground Zero convinced doctors "that there would be serious health issues for years to come, especially for workers who were exposed to the heaviest concentrations in the early days after the terrorist attack.
"'This was extremely toxic dust,' Dr. Landrigan said."
Yet, official denial of this tragedy continues. New York Mayor Bloomberg says that, despite whatever data exists showing that the first responders are suffering as a group from an overwhelming set of respiratory illnesses, he's not convinced it proves anything. "I don't believe that you can say specifically a particular problem came from this particular event," the Mayor opined, saying that no correlation could ever prove causation. (One suspects that the correlation between stepping in front of a speeding New York taxi and getting injured would persuade him, so he probably doesn't mean this literally.)
And it is still very difficult to get mainstream media coverage of another grim reality -- that many, perhaps most, of these lethal health effects could have been avoided. The government knowingly chose to put these first responders at risk. Worse, this is now official U.S. government policy for any natural disaster -- to ignore basic health and safety precautions not only during a crisis but after it. A new Sierra Club report, "Harmful Legacy of Pollution and Deception at Ground Zero: How Post 9/11 Disaster Policy Endangers America," warns that federal policies for national disasters compromise worker safety, fail to require precautionary health warnings, and -- in the event of a "dirty bomb" attack -- allow for lower cleanup standards for radiological contamination. The report cites a new Bush Administration policy for our response to terrorist attacks that release radioactive contamination, such as from a "dirty bomb" or illegal nuclear device. Cleanup decisions will balance public health against a list of economic factors that even includes the impact on tourism.
The report also documents that, in responding to Katrina, many of the post-hurricane problems are the direct result of the Bush Administration's applying its new approach to cleaning up after disasters, whether natural or man-made. It reveals that, like a guilty corporation seeking to protect itself against litigation, the Department of Homeland Security has now instructed its staff working on disasters to destroy certain types of unclassified documents "when they are no longer needed." (Or it might become embarrassing.) And it raises the concern, based on an earlier Inside EPA article, that another possible step in exposing Americans to greater risk from terrorist attacks -- weakening health standards in the event of an attack on a chemical plant or refinery -- appears to be under consideration.
In 1882 Henrik Ibsen wrote a play about the efforts of a small town doctor to warn the public of a contaminated drinking water supply. The doctor's message is ignored by the political leadership in the town, and he himself is branded "an enemy of the people" because his message may discourage tourism and hurt the local economy. The Bush Administration has adopted the same approach to cleanups after a terrorist attack and natural disasters as it has adopted to global warming -- suppress and ignore the science, do what is convenient for the short-term needs of the economy, and conceal the truth from the public.
But unlike the Administration's assault on the science of global warming, which has been widely reported, its policy decision that it will ignore reasonable public health precautions in any future disaster has been almost ignored. While Clear Channel, of all media outlets, carried the Sierra Club report last week, the New York Times itself has never reported the existence of this chilling official policy. Nor has the Washington Post, the L.A. Times or the Wall Street Journal, as far as I can tell. This may be one of the biggest cover-ups yet.
It's official! Bush PERSONALLY LEANED on NYT's Bill Keller, Arthur Sulzberger, to HOLD THE STORY on WARRANTLESS wiretapping until AFTER the 2004 elec
Actually, not to confuse the matter, but it is already well known that NEW YORK TIMES owner and publisher ARTHUR SULZBERGER and editor BILL KELLER *SAT ON* the story that, WHILE KARL ROVE was telling the public, America, and Times' readers that he had NO INFLUENCE on the illegal "outing" of CIA undercover operative Valerie Plame, Rove was SIMULTANEOUSLY explaining to the independent prosecutor's office (Pat. Fitzgerald) exactly what his role was in exactly that orchestrated, pre-meditated, illegal "outing" of Ms. Plame, the wife of Ambassador Joseph Wilson, a critic and insider-whistleblower of Mr. Bush's lies-to-war.
The story of this meeting BETWEEN Mr. Bush AND THE TIMES' editor(s) and publisher was originally reported on by Jonathan Alter of Newsweek (a wholly owned Washington Post group subsidiary)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10536559/site/newsweek/
Just by way of comparison, CAN ANYONE IMAGINE President Nixon CALLING the Washington POST's EDITORS and PUBLISHERS into the White House to tell them to "HOLD!" the "Watergate" reporting of Woodward & Bernstein?
==========================================
New York Mag: Bush Warned NYT's Keller Of Having "Blood On Your Hands"
Rachel Sklar
Huffington Post
Posted Sunday September 10, 2006
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eat-the-press/2006/09/10/new-york-mag-bu_e_28985.html
New York Magazine runs a big cover story next week on the beleaguered New York Times, bane of the Bush Administration for its stories on NSA spying and secretly-reviewed bank records. Joe Hagan gets more details on the fateful December 5th* meeting at the White House where Bush had summoned the Times brass — consisting of executive editor Bill Keller, publisher Arthur Sulzberger and Washington Bureau Chief Philip Taubman — to prevail upon them not to publish the warrantless-wiretapping exposé. According to Howard Kurtz in WaPo, those meetings were supposed to be off the record; but in the NY Mag story, Keller reveals to Hagan many previously unpublished details of the meeting, including the fact that Bush warned Keller that, if they published the story, the NYT would bear responsibility if there was another attack:
"The basic message," recalls Keller, "was, 'You'll have blood on your hands."
Hagan also reports that joining Bush, Keller, Sulzberger and Taubman were national security adviser Stephen Hadley, Bush lawyer Harriet Miers, and the then-current NSA Director Michael Hayden "with a thick briefing book in his lap." The story had already been held for over a year. Keller, Sulzberger and Taubman listened to Bush, and eleven days later, they published the story.
Hagan explores the aftermath of that decision, the right-wing backlash against the NYT (as well as from the left), plummeting public support and eroding press freedom in the piece, which the mag teases as wondering "Is this the right time for quiet and deliberate leadership at the Paper of Record?" To this end (based on the cover, which contains a mock-up of the NYT front page with the actual stories excerpted for verisimilitude), New York also profiles Keller, calling him "fiercely intelligent, taciturn, [and] occassionally prickly," and citing New Yorker editor David Remnick who says: "To watch him work, there's a certain kind of cool intelligence to his bearing."
The New York Times is a popular subject at New York: Kurt Anderson wrote scathinly of Sulzberger last fall following the debacle over Judith Miller, and in the recent "Influentials" issue** the magazine described the Times as "America's most vital news outlet, the chief codebook with which New Yorkers (and the world) decipher the interesting times we've been cursed to live in." (NY Mag editor Adam Moss was formerly the editor of the New York Times Magazine). Hagan's most recent NY Mag story was a feature on ABC's Charlie Gibson which was contested by the anchor, who called Hagan a snake (NYMag stood by the story).
The full text of the story can be found later on today at www.nymag.com.
* Reported as Dec. 6, 2005, in Newsweek by Jonathan Alter, who originally broke news of the meeting.
**Disclosure: I contributed to that section.
The story of this meeting BETWEEN Mr. Bush AND THE TIMES' editor(s) and publisher was originally reported on by Jonathan Alter of Newsweek (a wholly owned Washington Post group subsidiary)
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10536559/site/newsweek/
Just by way of comparison, CAN ANYONE IMAGINE President Nixon CALLING the Washington POST's EDITORS and PUBLISHERS into the White House to tell them to "HOLD!" the "Watergate" reporting of Woodward & Bernstein?
==========================================
New York Mag: Bush Warned NYT's Keller Of Having "Blood On Your Hands"
Rachel Sklar
Huffington Post
Posted Sunday September 10, 2006
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eat-the-press/2006/09/10/new-york-mag-bu_e_28985.html
New York Magazine runs a big cover story next week on the beleaguered New York Times, bane of the Bush Administration for its stories on NSA spying and secretly-reviewed bank records. Joe Hagan gets more details on the fateful December 5th* meeting at the White House where Bush had summoned the Times brass — consisting of executive editor Bill Keller, publisher Arthur Sulzberger and Washington Bureau Chief Philip Taubman — to prevail upon them not to publish the warrantless-wiretapping exposé. According to Howard Kurtz in WaPo, those meetings were supposed to be off the record; but in the NY Mag story, Keller reveals to Hagan many previously unpublished details of the meeting, including the fact that Bush warned Keller that, if they published the story, the NYT would bear responsibility if there was another attack:
"The basic message," recalls Keller, "was, 'You'll have blood on your hands."
Hagan also reports that joining Bush, Keller, Sulzberger and Taubman were national security adviser Stephen Hadley, Bush lawyer Harriet Miers, and the then-current NSA Director Michael Hayden "with a thick briefing book in his lap." The story had already been held for over a year. Keller, Sulzberger and Taubman listened to Bush, and eleven days later, they published the story.
Hagan explores the aftermath of that decision, the right-wing backlash against the NYT (as well as from the left), plummeting public support and eroding press freedom in the piece, which the mag teases as wondering "Is this the right time for quiet and deliberate leadership at the Paper of Record?" To this end (based on the cover, which contains a mock-up of the NYT front page with the actual stories excerpted for verisimilitude), New York also profiles Keller, calling him "fiercely intelligent, taciturn, [and] occassionally prickly," and citing New Yorker editor David Remnick who says: "To watch him work, there's a certain kind of cool intelligence to his bearing."
The New York Times is a popular subject at New York: Kurt Anderson wrote scathinly of Sulzberger last fall following the debacle over Judith Miller, and in the recent "Influentials" issue** the magazine described the Times as "America's most vital news outlet, the chief codebook with which New Yorkers (and the world) decipher the interesting times we've been cursed to live in." (NY Mag editor Adam Moss was formerly the editor of the New York Times Magazine). Hagan's most recent NY Mag story was a feature on ABC's Charlie Gibson which was contested by the anchor, who called Hagan a snake (NYMag stood by the story).
The full text of the story can be found later on today at www.nymag.com.
* Reported as Dec. 6, 2005, in Newsweek by Jonathan Alter, who originally broke news of the meeting.
**Disclosure: I contributed to that section.
Anne Flaherty & her editors WHORE for BushCo AGAIN, report 'MORE TORTURE!' story in fuzzy, friendly terms...
Well, to see just how far the American press-media has degenerated to the arms of State-run Propaganda, one need merely switch a couple of words in this AP Headline of today's Anne Plummer Flaherty column:
"Bill would EASE CIA interrogation LIMITS" becomes:
"Nazis EASE LIMITS on Rounding Up and Deporting East European Jews."
We can't say for certain what AP's links are to the NEW YORK TIMES, but over at the Boston.com the BOSTON GLOBE, a wholly owned subsidiary of the New York Times, ran a Flaherty/AP piece in July of 2006 with a similar "soft and fuzzy" headline;
- "Bush Submits New Terror Detainee Bill," which contains the NOT SO FUZZY first sentence:
<>
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/07/28/bush_submits_new_terror_detainee_bill/
GET THAT? Our hypothetically reworded sentence "Nazi Courts EASE LIMITS on Rounding Up and Deporting Jewish Terrorists" doesn't really seem so far-fetched, WHEN THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION WANTS THE POWER to ARREST ("detain") AND HOLD "INDEFINITELY" **ANY ONE THEY WANT TO**....
- *** WITHOUT ACESS TO COURTS, outside observers, or judges!!! ***
Yep, 60 years after the death of Hiter, the JEWISH OWNED NEW YORK TIMES is SOFT-PEDDLING (which is to say, PROMOTING) the vey NAZI-esque powers of #1.) TORTURE; and #2.) UNLIMITED ARREST, DETENTION, DEPORTATION (to nowhere/anywhere) and/or death by torture/summary judgement THAT WERE THE VERY HALLMARKS of Nazi rule.
OK, proving the link between Anne Plumber Flaherty > AP> Boston Globe> New York Times> Sulzberger Family ownership of The Times is, we concede, at this point a tenous linkage.
Yet the VAST PREPONDERANCE of EVIDENCE, available in the pages of The Boston Globe, the Times, and in widely syndicated NYT articles and editorials, is that, by SOFT REPORTING and FUZZY HEADLINES ("limits eased" meaning UNLIMITED TORTURE POWERS), the NEW YORK TIMES ENTIRELY APPROVES of the new Himmler/Heydrich agenda.
"ROUND 'em UP, SHIP 'em OFF, and NO QUESTIONS ASKED OR ANSWERED, IN THE NAME OF State Security, the New Imperial Empire.... salute the National Leader Uber Alles!"
..... the new 'standard' of reporting from the Sulzberger owned NEW YORK TIMES.
(Indeed, perhaps we should call Fallujah "the New York Times' very own Lidice," as the Times' own William Safire was the first, the most persistent, and the most widely syndicated writer calling for the Lidice/Guernica treatment for Fallujah back in 2003 after some US mercenaries entered that town and were killed by local insurgents.)
======================================
Bill would ease CIA interrogation limits
By ANNE PLUMMER FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer
Sun Sep 10, 2006
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060910/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/detainee_interrogations;_ylt=AlRwAyB89YDQZIElRXftaR2s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3OXIzMDMzBHNlYwM3MDM-
WASHINGTON - To many of President Bush's allies, it is time to free intelligence officials from "legislative purgatory" and get the CIA back in the business of effective interrogations of suspected terrorists.
ADVERTISEMENT
That chance could come this week if the Senate takes up a White House proposal limiting the punishable offenses that CIA interrogators may face when questioning "high-value" terrorist suspects. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., is expected to begin debate on the bill as early as Tuesday.
Through omissions and legal definitions, the proposal could authorize harsh techniques that critics contend potentially violate the Geneva Conventions, which govern the treatment of war prisoners. These methods include hypothermia, stress positions and "waterboarding," a practice of simulated drowning.
The bill would keep in law prohibitions on war crimes such as rape and torture that are widely accepted as illegal.
The proposal would apply back to 2001 the Bush administration's standards for treatment of detainees. That would shield CIA personnel from liability under a 1996 law intended to uphold the Geneva Conventions, since the fight against terrorism began and harsher interrogation methods were approved.
The New York Times, meanwhile, reported in a story posted Saturday on its Web site for Sunday newspapers that sharp differences arose between the CIA and the FBI over tactics used in the questioning of Abu Zubaydah at a safe house in Thailand in the spring of 2002.
In a speech last Wednesday, Bush cited the questioning of Zubaydah, who was believed to be a link between Osama bin Laden and many al-Qaida cells, in saying that questioning of various terrorists in CIA custody has played a role in the capture or questioning of nearly every senior al-Qaida member or associate detained by the U.S. and its allies.
The Times said interviews with "nearly a dozen" officials that it did not identify showed disagreements over the interrogation methods used on Zubaydah exposed a rupture between the FBI and CIA that has yet to heal.
"It would be improper for us to comment on operational issues involving any sensitive or ongoing matters," FBI Special Agent Richard Kolko said Saturday in response to the Times story. "It is also important to note that we have a strong and vital partnership with the CIA. We work together every day to ensure the safety of Americans everywhere."
Sen. John Warner (news, bio, voting record), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, has developed his own plan to address concerns he has related to the military commissions that would prosecute terrorism detainees. According to a draft copy of the bill, his legislation also may amend that 1996 law, the War Crimes Act.
Bush sent his plan to Capitol Hill last Wednesday, the same day the Pentagon issued rules forbidding military personnel from using those same harsh techniques.
"The net effect is that at least some of the alternative techniques are rendered, in effect, lawful" for the CIA, said Martin Lederman, a Georgetown law professor and former legal adviser at the Justice Department during the Clinton administration.
Lederman and other legal experts, along with human rights activists, say the White House proposal would undermine the 1949 Geneva Conventions by providing a more narrow definition of objectionable treatment.
"I think that's the bombshell ... because no other country has done that," said Elisa Massimino, the Washington director for Human Rights First. "And once we do, we lower the floor and the whole structure could crumble."
But according to conservatives, the move was necessary to repair damage done to the White House's intelligence program since a Supreme Court ruling in June. The court ruled against Bush's claim that interrogators did not have to comply with the Geneva Conventions when dealing with members of al-Qaida.
The court's decision to grant suspected terrorists certain rights potentially exposed Americans to prosecution under the War Crimes Act. The result, conservatives say, was a profound cooling effect on the CIA interrogation program.
"We're interviewing, not interrogating," said Sen. Pat Roberts (news, bio, voting record), chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee.
Roberts, R-Kan., said in a recent interview that he believes intelligence officials are frozen in a type of "legislative purgatory." He said that keeps them from wanting to "walk up to the line, as has been the case before where we got 50 percent of our intelligence on what the terrorists were doing."
Tom Crispell, a CIA spokesman, declined comment on the agency's program.
According to recent public opinion polls, Roberts is not alone with his concerns. In an August poll conducted by Time, 55 percent of those surveyed said they support the harsh interrogation methods sometimes used to obtain information from prisoners in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. In a separate poll also by Time, 15 percent of respondents favored torture, even though it is against the law.
Such a willingness to be tough on terrorists could help Bush push a hard line on his legislation. At the same the president is asking Congress to amend the War Crimes Act and establish military tribunals to try detainees, he also wants lawmakers to approve the National Security Agency's terrorist surveillance program.
The effort is seen by many critics as an election-season push to expand his authorities to monitor suspected terrorists at a time when lawmakers from both parties are selling themselves as tough on terrorism.
"Bill would EASE CIA interrogation LIMITS" becomes:
"Nazis EASE LIMITS on Rounding Up and Deporting East European Jews."
We can't say for certain what AP's links are to the NEW YORK TIMES, but over at the Boston.com the BOSTON GLOBE, a wholly owned subsidiary of the New York Times, ran a Flaherty/AP piece in July of 2006 with a similar "soft and fuzzy" headline;
- "Bush Submits New Terror Detainee Bill," which contains the NOT SO FUZZY first sentence:
<
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/07/28/bush_submits_new_terror_detainee_bill/
GET THAT? Our hypothetically reworded sentence "Nazi Courts EASE LIMITS on Rounding Up and Deporting Jewish Terrorists" doesn't really seem so far-fetched, WHEN THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION WANTS THE POWER to ARREST ("detain") AND HOLD "INDEFINITELY" **ANY ONE THEY WANT TO**....
- *** WITHOUT ACESS TO COURTS, outside observers, or judges!!! ***
Yep, 60 years after the death of Hiter, the JEWISH OWNED NEW YORK TIMES is SOFT-PEDDLING (which is to say, PROMOTING) the vey NAZI-esque powers of #1.) TORTURE; and #2.) UNLIMITED ARREST, DETENTION, DEPORTATION (to nowhere/anywhere) and/or death by torture/summary judgement THAT WERE THE VERY HALLMARKS of Nazi rule.
OK, proving the link between Anne Plumber Flaherty > AP> Boston Globe> New York Times> Sulzberger Family ownership of The Times is, we concede, at this point a tenous linkage.
Yet the VAST PREPONDERANCE of EVIDENCE, available in the pages of The Boston Globe, the Times, and in widely syndicated NYT articles and editorials, is that, by SOFT REPORTING and FUZZY HEADLINES ("limits eased" meaning UNLIMITED TORTURE POWERS), the NEW YORK TIMES ENTIRELY APPROVES of the new Himmler/Heydrich agenda.
"ROUND 'em UP, SHIP 'em OFF, and NO QUESTIONS ASKED OR ANSWERED, IN THE NAME OF State Security, the New Imperial Empire.... salute the National Leader Uber Alles!"
..... the new 'standard' of reporting from the Sulzberger owned NEW YORK TIMES.
(Indeed, perhaps we should call Fallujah "the New York Times' very own Lidice," as the Times' own William Safire was the first, the most persistent, and the most widely syndicated writer calling for the Lidice/Guernica treatment for Fallujah back in 2003 after some US mercenaries entered that town and were killed by local insurgents.)
======================================
Bill would ease CIA interrogation limits
By ANNE PLUMMER FLAHERTY, Associated Press Writer
Sun Sep 10, 2006
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060910/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/detainee_interrogations;_ylt=AlRwAyB89YDQZIElRXftaR2s0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3OXIzMDMzBHNlYwM3MDM-
WASHINGTON - To many of President Bush's allies, it is time to free intelligence officials from "legislative purgatory" and get the CIA back in the business of effective interrogations of suspected terrorists.
ADVERTISEMENT
That chance could come this week if the Senate takes up a White House proposal limiting the punishable offenses that CIA interrogators may face when questioning "high-value" terrorist suspects. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., is expected to begin debate on the bill as early as Tuesday.
Through omissions and legal definitions, the proposal could authorize harsh techniques that critics contend potentially violate the Geneva Conventions, which govern the treatment of war prisoners. These methods include hypothermia, stress positions and "waterboarding," a practice of simulated drowning.
The bill would keep in law prohibitions on war crimes such as rape and torture that are widely accepted as illegal.
The proposal would apply back to 2001 the Bush administration's standards for treatment of detainees. That would shield CIA personnel from liability under a 1996 law intended to uphold the Geneva Conventions, since the fight against terrorism began and harsher interrogation methods were approved.
The New York Times, meanwhile, reported in a story posted Saturday on its Web site for Sunday newspapers that sharp differences arose between the CIA and the FBI over tactics used in the questioning of Abu Zubaydah at a safe house in Thailand in the spring of 2002.
In a speech last Wednesday, Bush cited the questioning of Zubaydah, who was believed to be a link between Osama bin Laden and many al-Qaida cells, in saying that questioning of various terrorists in CIA custody has played a role in the capture or questioning of nearly every senior al-Qaida member or associate detained by the U.S. and its allies.
The Times said interviews with "nearly a dozen" officials that it did not identify showed disagreements over the interrogation methods used on Zubaydah exposed a rupture between the FBI and CIA that has yet to heal.
"It would be improper for us to comment on operational issues involving any sensitive or ongoing matters," FBI Special Agent Richard Kolko said Saturday in response to the Times story. "It is also important to note that we have a strong and vital partnership with the CIA. We work together every day to ensure the safety of Americans everywhere."
Sen. John Warner (news, bio, voting record), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, has developed his own plan to address concerns he has related to the military commissions that would prosecute terrorism detainees. According to a draft copy of the bill, his legislation also may amend that 1996 law, the War Crimes Act.
Bush sent his plan to Capitol Hill last Wednesday, the same day the Pentagon issued rules forbidding military personnel from using those same harsh techniques.
"The net effect is that at least some of the alternative techniques are rendered, in effect, lawful" for the CIA, said Martin Lederman, a Georgetown law professor and former legal adviser at the Justice Department during the Clinton administration.
Lederman and other legal experts, along with human rights activists, say the White House proposal would undermine the 1949 Geneva Conventions by providing a more narrow definition of objectionable treatment.
"I think that's the bombshell ... because no other country has done that," said Elisa Massimino, the Washington director for Human Rights First. "And once we do, we lower the floor and the whole structure could crumble."
But according to conservatives, the move was necessary to repair damage done to the White House's intelligence program since a Supreme Court ruling in June. The court ruled against Bush's claim that interrogators did not have to comply with the Geneva Conventions when dealing with members of al-Qaida.
The court's decision to grant suspected terrorists certain rights potentially exposed Americans to prosecution under the War Crimes Act. The result, conservatives say, was a profound cooling effect on the CIA interrogation program.
"We're interviewing, not interrogating," said Sen. Pat Roberts (news, bio, voting record), chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee.
Roberts, R-Kan., said in a recent interview that he believes intelligence officials are frozen in a type of "legislative purgatory." He said that keeps them from wanting to "walk up to the line, as has been the case before where we got 50 percent of our intelligence on what the terrorists were doing."
Tom Crispell, a CIA spokesman, declined comment on the agency's program.
According to recent public opinion polls, Roberts is not alone with his concerns. In an August poll conducted by Time, 55 percent of those surveyed said they support the harsh interrogation methods sometimes used to obtain information from prisoners in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. In a separate poll also by Time, 15 percent of respondents favored torture, even though it is against the law.
Such a willingness to be tough on terrorists could help Bush push a hard line on his legislation. At the same the president is asking Congress to amend the War Crimes Act and establish military tribunals to try detainees, he also wants lawmakers to approve the National Security Agency's terrorist surveillance program.
The effort is seen by many critics as an election-season push to expand his authorities to monitor suspected terrorists at a time when lawmakers from both parties are selling themselves as tough on terrorism.
Friday, September 08, 2006
CENSORED by America's WHORE media: US Deficits DOUBLE what the "Watchdogs" at Cowardly W.Post and Craven NY Times deign to tell us....
CENSORED by America's WHORE media: US Deficits DOUBLE what the "Watchdogs" at Cowardly W.Post and Craven NY Times deign to tell us....
One may rest assured, that IF a Clinton, Gore, or Kerry were in the White House, the COWARDLY Washington Post, LYING New York Times, and ENTIRE CRAVEN US 'major-media' networks and press would be SHOUTING "CLINTON DEFICITS!" to the sky, in screaming bold headlines, 2, 3 and 4 times a week on the front-pages above-the-fold.
INSTEAD, we have a cowardly, craven, corrupt media SO COMPLICIT with those Bush-Republican TAX-CUTS for America's WEALTHIEST INDIVIDUALS and corporations, that they WILLINGLY join in in CENSORING the TRUE story of those mulit-billion dollar BUSH DEFICITS from American readers, voters, and tax-payers.
<<
* The true 2005 deficit was $760 billion, not the $318.5 billion Bush reported
* This is 6.2% of the GDP, not 2.6%
* That's $156,000 for every citizen, or $375,000 for every working American >>
The CRAVEN, COMPLICIT, CORRUPT American media has FAILED TO INFORM US that our share of the deficit is ONE-HUNDRED-and-FIFTY-SIX-THOUSAND DOLLARS per American Citizen???!!
You CORRUPT, craven, lying whores!
==========================================
Rep. Jim Cooper: Bush is Hiding the True National Debt.
It's Worse than You've Heard. Much Worse. [Almost TWICE as large as previously reported!]
BuzzFlash News Alert
Thu, 09/07/2006
http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/alerts/105
Though the Bush Administration's official budget lists the national debt and deficit as being incredibly high, they are actually far worse than reported, according to Rep. Jim Cooper (D-TN). But don’t just take his word for it, even if Cooper is a Rhodes Scholar and Harvard Law graduate. The following figures appear in the official U.S. Financial Report, released by the Treasury Department:
* The true 2005 deficit was $760 billion, not the $318.5 billion Bush reported
* This is 6.2% of the GDP, not 2.6%
* That's $156,000 for every citizen, or $375,000 for every working American
* The true national debt is $49 trillion, not the $8.3 trillion Bush reported
* This figure has more than doubled in the past five years
* We paid $327 billion last year on interest alone
* It's all getting worse
What accounts for the huge discrepancy? Unlike businesses, the government uses "cash" instead of "accrual" accounting. This means that the government does not report future spending promises like Medicare and Social Security, or even future spending guarantees like veterans' benefits and federal employee pensions.
"Cash accounting tells you what's in your bank account. Accrual accounting tells you what's in your bank account and what's on your credit card statement," Cooper told BuzzFlash in an interview. "Whether you're promising to buy a road or something at Target, you need to know what you promised to buy. That should be a binding obligation of the government. We've made a world of promises to folks that we need to keep."
But wait, there's more! The U.S. Financial Report does not mention that if Medicare and Social Security are factored into the equation (which the Treasury Department did not), the true deficit was actually a whopping $3.3 trillion last year, over ten times more than Bush claims. And when Social Security projections are adjusted to reflect current life expectancies instead of the old 75-year mark, Cooper said the true national debt is "probably closer to $65 trillion."
Worried that a new Democratic majority in the House would be blamed for the higher numbers in the future, Cooper has taken it upon himself to make it clear that the problem has already been created by Bush's failed economic policies. "This has to be announced on their watch, using their voice," he said. "There's a great urgency about this: we only have two months left to educate all Americans about how the Bush deficits are literally destroying America's credit."
"I think [the report] is the most powerful critique of the Bush Administration" because they produced it, Cooper added. "No Republican can deny this attack."
In order to get the word out, Cooper reprinted the entire U.S. Financial Report in a book with his own explanatory introduction and a warning on the cover reading, "The Official Report the White House Does Not Want You To Read." He said the measure was necessary because the Administration tried to hide the report by distributing it to fewer than 20 members of Congress in the midst of the Christmas holiday season with no accompanying press release or media announcement.
According to Cooper, conservatives won’t touch the issue because it would make Bush look bad, liberal newspapers think it's too confusing, and liberal politicians are worried the ensuing chaos from the higher numbers would limit social program spending. "The way we're going, we're going to have to eliminate programs," Cooper retorted. "Isn't it better to embarrass Bush while we can with his own words and to get Democrats in control?"
Cooper said he is determined to do everything he can to add honesty to the federal budget. He gave the first copy of his book to House Democrat Leader Nancy Pelosi and has introduced legislation directing the president to use accrual accounting in his reports. A similar measure was recently lost in the Senate after passing in the House.
The only compensation Cooper is receiving for the book are three complimentary copies.
One may rest assured, that IF a Clinton, Gore, or Kerry were in the White House, the COWARDLY Washington Post, LYING New York Times, and ENTIRE CRAVEN US 'major-media' networks and press would be SHOUTING "CLINTON DEFICITS!" to the sky, in screaming bold headlines, 2, 3 and 4 times a week on the front-pages above-the-fold.
INSTEAD, we have a cowardly, craven, corrupt media SO COMPLICIT with those Bush-Republican TAX-CUTS for America's WEALTHIEST INDIVIDUALS and corporations, that they WILLINGLY join in in CENSORING the TRUE story of those mulit-billion dollar BUSH DEFICITS from American readers, voters, and tax-payers.
<<
* The true 2005 deficit was $760 billion, not the $318.5 billion Bush reported
* This is 6.2% of the GDP, not 2.6%
* That's $156,000 for every citizen, or $375,000 for every working American >>
The CRAVEN, COMPLICIT, CORRUPT American media has FAILED TO INFORM US that our share of the deficit is ONE-HUNDRED-and-FIFTY-SIX-THOUSAND DOLLARS per American Citizen???!!
You CORRUPT, craven, lying whores!
==========================================
Rep. Jim Cooper: Bush is Hiding the True National Debt.
It's Worse than You've Heard. Much Worse. [Almost TWICE as large as previously reported!]
BuzzFlash News Alert
Thu, 09/07/2006
http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/alerts/105
Though the Bush Administration's official budget lists the national debt and deficit as being incredibly high, they are actually far worse than reported, according to Rep. Jim Cooper (D-TN). But don’t just take his word for it, even if Cooper is a Rhodes Scholar and Harvard Law graduate. The following figures appear in the official U.S. Financial Report, released by the Treasury Department:
* The true 2005 deficit was $760 billion, not the $318.5 billion Bush reported
* This is 6.2% of the GDP, not 2.6%
* That's $156,000 for every citizen, or $375,000 for every working American
* The true national debt is $49 trillion, not the $8.3 trillion Bush reported
* This figure has more than doubled in the past five years
* We paid $327 billion last year on interest alone
* It's all getting worse
What accounts for the huge discrepancy? Unlike businesses, the government uses "cash" instead of "accrual" accounting. This means that the government does not report future spending promises like Medicare and Social Security, or even future spending guarantees like veterans' benefits and federal employee pensions.
"Cash accounting tells you what's in your bank account. Accrual accounting tells you what's in your bank account and what's on your credit card statement," Cooper told BuzzFlash in an interview. "Whether you're promising to buy a road or something at Target, you need to know what you promised to buy. That should be a binding obligation of the government. We've made a world of promises to folks that we need to keep."
But wait, there's more! The U.S. Financial Report does not mention that if Medicare and Social Security are factored into the equation (which the Treasury Department did not), the true deficit was actually a whopping $3.3 trillion last year, over ten times more than Bush claims. And when Social Security projections are adjusted to reflect current life expectancies instead of the old 75-year mark, Cooper said the true national debt is "probably closer to $65 trillion."
Worried that a new Democratic majority in the House would be blamed for the higher numbers in the future, Cooper has taken it upon himself to make it clear that the problem has already been created by Bush's failed economic policies. "This has to be announced on their watch, using their voice," he said. "There's a great urgency about this: we only have two months left to educate all Americans about how the Bush deficits are literally destroying America's credit."
"I think [the report] is the most powerful critique of the Bush Administration" because they produced it, Cooper added. "No Republican can deny this attack."
In order to get the word out, Cooper reprinted the entire U.S. Financial Report in a book with his own explanatory introduction and a warning on the cover reading, "The Official Report the White House Does Not Want You To Read." He said the measure was necessary because the Administration tried to hide the report by distributing it to fewer than 20 members of Congress in the midst of the Christmas holiday season with no accompanying press release or media announcement.
According to Cooper, conservatives won’t touch the issue because it would make Bush look bad, liberal newspapers think it's too confusing, and liberal politicians are worried the ensuing chaos from the higher numbers would limit social program spending. "The way we're going, we're going to have to eliminate programs," Cooper retorted. "Isn't it better to embarrass Bush while we can with his own words and to get Democrats in control?"
Cooper said he is determined to do everything he can to add honesty to the federal budget. He gave the first copy of his book to House Democrat Leader Nancy Pelosi and has introduced legislation directing the president to use accrual accounting in his reports. A similar measure was recently lost in the Senate after passing in the House.
The only compensation Cooper is receiving for the book are three complimentary copies.
Thursday, September 07, 2006
Nazi Propaganda LA Times runs the UNDOCUMENTED and UNSUBSTANTIATED MYTH "Clinton turned down bin Laden capture!" headline... as gospel truth...
Nazi Propaganda LA Times runs the UNDOCUMENTED, UNSUBSTANTIATED, UNSOURCED MYTH "Clinton turned down bin Laden capture" **EDITORIAL** as an INDISPUTABLE FACT, WITH NO contesting headline , no independent sourcing, NO RESERVATIONS, and BLARING HEADLINE, as "undisputed fact."
NOTE: The Los Angeles Times ran this story in December of 2001, so some might argue that it is not a "current" example of media propaganda enabling the Bush-Republican portrayal of Democrats as USELESS or even TREASONOUS in fighting the war on terror. BUT, note as well, THE EXTREMELY INFLAMMATORY HEADLINE, "Clinton Let Bin Laden Slip Away and Metastasize," which, in context of AN LA Times HEADLINE can be used by tens of thousands of Clinton-HATING Righties as 'documenting' 'a gospel fact.'
THE REFUTATION of Mr. Mansoor Ijaz's editorial is literally as simple as a single click away: Simply SEARCH for "Sudan-BASHIR-genocide" and you will find that the regime of Sudan President Omar El Bashir IS AT THE VERY HEART AND SOUL of the ON-GOING SUDAN GENOCIDE of the non-Arab Black Africans in the South Sudan... and he has been since well before Mr. Ijaz makes the claim of "being offered bin Laden" in 1998 or even back to 1996... indeed, GENOCIDAL ethnic-cleansing policies have been a hallmark of the Khartoum regime dating all the way back to the coup which established the Presdent Omar al Bashir and Hasan al Turabi regime in June of 1989.
-------------------------------------------------
For those who haven't performed that three-word search, here is the About.com's results for SUDAN-GENOCIDE-BASHIR, documenting Bashir's CENTRAL ROLE in the tens-of-thousands-killed on behalf of Radical Arab Islamist GENOCIDE...
http://worldnews.about.com/od/sudan/ig/Darfur/Sudan-President-Omar-El-Bashir.htm
- and here is another link documenting that Bashir/Turabani's genocidal policies, funded by oil-state Arabs, were indeed being executed as far back as 1989.
<
http://home.earthlink.net/~drbettyh/Sudanpage.htm
-------------------------------------
HARDLY the kind of Arab-Islamist leader(s) who are going to ENRAGE al QAIDA (and thereby earn an eternal FATWAH or death sentence from the accomplished assassins of that terrorist organization) by capturing Al Qaida's leader and shipping him off to Bill Clinton!
(Not to overlook mention, bin Laden is STILL a scion of the second most powerful family in Saudi Arabia.. and the Saudis JUST HAPPEN TO BE the Bashir-Northern-Sudan murderous regime's BIGGEST SUPPORTERS!)
YET THIS BIT OF EDITORIAL HOKUM, "Clinton TURNED DOWN bin Laden capture," is being distributed ACROSS THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE by Hate-Clinton Righties, with the blessings of the LA Times' official, presented-as-dogma-and-fact headline, "CLINTON LET bin Laden SLIP AWAY."
NO! It was PRESIDENT BUSH who "LET bin Laden SLIP AWAY" at Tora Bora.
It was PRESIDENT BUSH who stated "I'm NOT THAT CONCERNED ABOUT HIM (bin Laden) ANYMORE."
[Note: OFFICIAL US government, WhiteHouse.gov website, Bush's "not that concerned about bin Laden" comments about 1/3rd from top of official transcript.]
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html
It IS President Bush who RENEGED on his "GET OSAMA DEAD OR ALIVE!" pledge, in order to RUSH IN TO THE IRAQ INVASION that Bush, Cheney, & PNAC neo-cons so lusted for.
And it IS indeed President Bush who is behind the "SMEAR CLINTON AS AN INCOMPETENT and/or TRAITOR!" Rove/Right-Wing SMEAR CAMPAIGN, just 7 weeks from election 2006.
-----------------------------------------
But in America media/cultural land, the MOST LOUDLY SHOUTED NARRATIVE becomes 'ESTABLISHED TRUTH." Or, as Goebbels said "repeat a lie BIG ENOUGH and OFTEN ENOUGH, and the public will accept it as truth."
In this case, the Right-Wing will SHOUT "CLINTON LET bin Laden SLIP AWAY" to the moon, 1,000,000 times PER DAY!
And the LIE is CERTAINLY BIG enough - it was President Bush who IGNORED CIA, FBI, Mossad, Egyptian, Russian, and even Italian security police WARNINGS that "Bin Laden was DETERMINED TO STRIKE IN AMERICA," AND IT WAS PRESIDENT BUSH who ALLOWED bin Laden to ESCAPE FROM TORA BORA!
---------------------------------------
Contrast the use of this LAT EDITORIAL by the Right-Wing MEDIA JUGGERNAUT, with the Ambassador Joe Wilson editorial in the New York Times which stated "President Bush KNEW the 'Niger yellowcake uranium ore for Iraq's WMD program" was FALSE when he, President Bush, included it in his Jan. 2003 State of the Union (SOTU) speech.
IN that case, the Cheney-Rove-Libby White House SMEARED Ambassador Wilson and ILLEGALLY "OUTED" the undercover CIA identity of his wife.
TO THIS DAY, the Right-Wing media juggernaut claims that #1.) Ambassador Wilson was lying; #2.) that he was only given his "junket" trip to Niger at the behest of his wife, as if going to Niger was a case of nepotism/favoritism; #3.) that she had already been 'outed' previously; #4.) that she wasn't even "undercover" or covert anyways; #5.) that "SOMEBODY ELSE DID IT FIRST!" - that Valerie Plame was outed by a State Dept. official or some journalists unrelated to the Libby-Rove-Cheney White House efforts to "shop around" the Valerie Plame identity; and etc.
ON top of all that, the lying NEW YORK TIMES, which SAT ON THE STORY that KARL ROVE had INDEED, PERSONALLY "shopped around" the story of Valerie Plame's identity - even though that very same New York Times published as truth his DENIAL of same - claims that it was some sort of 'forgetfulness' or 'journalistic oversight' that the NY Times ALLOWED Rove's PRE-MEDITATED LIE to remain undisclosed UNTIL AFTER the 2004 presidential elections!
Compare the ABOVE Rove/NY TImes/major media LIES and DISINFORMATION on a case that has now been practically FORGOTTEN, excused as "too complex" to condemn the Rove/Bush White House, with this LA Times EDITORIAL that portrays the Clinton White House as REFUSING an offer to CAPTURE bin Laden.
IN TIME OF WAR, this MEDIA MESSAGE BECOMES FACT... just as the whore-iffic media TURNED THE WHITE HOUSE TRASHING "scandal'", the "Lincoln bedroom 'scandal,'" and the "Travel-gate 'scandal'" into scandals or even CRIMES... even though THERE WAS NO SCANDAL or WRONGDOING THERE!
This is an ANCIENT propaganda technique, one that is more familiar to those who care to pay attention, by looking at the rhetoric of the Deep South on the eve of the Civil War, when White Southerners claimed loudly (and convinced themselves) that "SLAVERY WAS FOR THE GOOD OF THE SLAVES!", and "we treat them to harsh punishment out of 'COMPASSION,'" and of course "We can not permit the education of slaves FOR THEIR OWN GOOD!"
The difference between 2006 and 1860? In 1860 a significant portion of America was dedicated to the containment of slavery. In 2006, the AIPAC/neo-con lobby is dedicated to the EXPANSION of the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld WARS in the Middle-east, and if SMEARING President Bill Clinton, ALLOWING New Orleans poor citizens TO DROWN, LOOTING Enron investors and California consumers, OUTSOURCING American jobs, and turning huge chunks of America's former prosperity INTO ENDLESS DEFICITS is the price America will have to pay....
[national debt and trade deficits FAR WORSE THAN REPORTED,
the TRUE 2005 deficits were $760 billion, NOT the $318 billion bushCo reported...
a full 6.2% of US GDP, vs 2.6% as reported by BushCo and regurgitated by whoreiffic media]
http://www.fms.treas.gov/fr/index.html
....(not to mention torture, backdoor drafts, systematic vote fraud, and police-state "Patriot' acts).... IT IS A PRICE THAT THE MEDIA, DLC DEMOCRATS, AIPAC neo-cons, and the Bush-Rove-Republican Party ARE MORE THAN WILLING TO push on to ordinary Americans.
(Hell, HILLARY CLINTON is so clueless, or so corrupted as the DLC Senator from AIPAC, that SHE IS IN ON THE CON that seeks to portray her own husband as either criminally negligent, at best, or as traitorous for "ALLOWING" bin Laden to "get away," as this bogus "SUDAN OFFERED HIM ON A SILVER PLATTER! after bin Laden orchestrated the bombing attacks on US embassies" propaganda story would have it.
=================================
Clinton Let Bin Laden Slip Away and Metastasize
Sudan offered up the terrorist and data on his network. The then-president and his advisors didn't respond.
By MANSOOR IJAZ
December 5, 2001
http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowledge/Clinton_let_bin_laden.htm
President Clinton and his national security team ignored several opportunities to capture Osama bin Laden and his terrorist associates, including one as late as last year.
I know because I negotiated more than one of the opportunities.
From 1996 to 1998, I opened unofficial channels between Sudan and the Clinton administration. I met with officials in both countries, including Clinton, U.S. National Security Advisor Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger and Sudan's president and intelligence chief. President Omar Hassan Ahmed Bashir, who wanted terrorism sanctions against Sudan lifted, offered the arrest and extradition of Bin Laden and detailed intelligence data about the global networks constructed by Egypt's Islamic Jihad, Iran's Hezbollah and the Palestinian Hamas.
Among those in the networks were the two hijackers who piloted commercial airliners into the World Trade Center.
The silence of the Clinton administration in responding to these offers was deafening.
As an American Muslim and a political supporter of Clinton, I feel now, as I argued with Clinton and Berger then, that their counter-terrorism policies fueled the rise of Bin Laden from an ordinary man to a Hydra-like monster.
Realizing the growing problem with Bin Laden, Bashir sent key intelligence officials to the U.S. in February 1996.
The Sudanese offered to arrest Bin Laden and extradite him to Saudi Arabia or, barring that, to "baby-sit" him--monitoring all his activities and associates.
But Saudi officials didn't want their home-grown terrorist back where he might plot to overthrow them.
In May 1996, the Sudanese capitulated to U.S. pressure and asked Bin Laden to leave, despite their feeling that he could be monitored better in Sudan than elsewhere.
Bin Laden left for Afghanistan, taking with him Ayman Zawahiri, considered by the U.S. to be the chief planner of the Sept. 11 attacks; Mamdouh Mahmud Salim, who traveled frequently to Germany to obtain electronic equipment for Al Qaeda; Wadih El-Hage, Bin Laden's personal secretary and roving emissary, now serving a life sentence in the U.S. for his role in the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya; and Fazul Abdullah Mohammed and Saif Adel, also accused of carrying out the embassy attacks.
Some of these men are now among the FBI's 22 most-wanted terrorists.
The two men who allegedly piloted the planes into the twin towers, Mohamed Atta and Marwan Al-Shehhi, prayed in the same Hamburg mosque as did Salim and Mamoun Darkazanli, a Syrian trader who managed Salim's bank accounts and whose assets are frozen.
Important data on each had been compiled by the Sudanese.
But U.S. authorities repeatedly turned the data away, first in February 1996; then again that August, when at my suggestion Sudan's religious ideologue, Hassan Turabi, wrote directly to Clinton; then again in April 1997, when I persuaded Bashir to invite the FBI to come to Sudan and view the data; and finally in February 1998, when Sudan's intelligence chief, Gutbi al-Mahdi, wrote directly to the FBI.
Gutbi had shown me some of Sudan's data during a three-hour meeting in Khartoum in October 1996. When I returned to Washington, I told Berger and his specialist for East Africa, Susan Rice, about the data available. They said they'd get back to me. They never did. Neither did they respond when Bashir made the offer directly. I believe they never had any intention to engage Muslim countries--ally or not. Radical Islam, for the administration, was a convenient national security threat.
And that was not the end of it. In July 2000--three months before the deadly attack on the destroyer Cole in Yemen--I brought the White House another plausible offer to deal with Bin Laden, by then known to be involved in the embassy bombings. A senior counter-terrorism official from one of the United States' closest Arab allies--an ally whose name I am not free to divulge--approached me with the proposal after telling me he was fed up with the antics and arrogance of U.S. counter-terrorism officials.
The offer, which would have brought Bin Laden to the Arab country as the first step of an extradition process that would eventually deliver him to the U.S., required only that Clinton make a state visit there to personally request Bin Laden's extradition. But senior Clinton officials sabotaged the offer, letting it get caught up in internal politics within the ruling family--Clintonian diplomacy at its best.
Clinton's failure to grasp the opportunity to unravel increasingly organized extremists, coupled with Berger's assessments of their potential to directly threaten the U.S., represents one of the most serious foreign policy failures in American history.
*
Mansoor Ijaz, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, is chairman of a New York-based investment company.
NOTE: The Los Angeles Times ran this story in December of 2001, so some might argue that it is not a "current" example of media propaganda enabling the Bush-Republican portrayal of Democrats as USELESS or even TREASONOUS in fighting the war on terror. BUT, note as well, THE EXTREMELY INFLAMMATORY HEADLINE, "Clinton Let Bin Laden Slip Away and Metastasize," which, in context of AN LA Times HEADLINE can be used by tens of thousands of Clinton-HATING Righties as 'documenting' 'a gospel fact.'
THE REFUTATION of Mr. Mansoor Ijaz's editorial is literally as simple as a single click away: Simply SEARCH for "Sudan-BASHIR-genocide" and you will find that the regime of Sudan President Omar El Bashir IS AT THE VERY HEART AND SOUL of the ON-GOING SUDAN GENOCIDE of the non-Arab Black Africans in the South Sudan... and he has been since well before Mr. Ijaz makes the claim of "being offered bin Laden" in 1998 or even back to 1996... indeed, GENOCIDAL ethnic-cleansing policies have been a hallmark of the Khartoum regime dating all the way back to the coup which established the Presdent Omar al Bashir and Hasan al Turabi regime in June of 1989.
-------------------------------------------------
For those who haven't performed that three-word search, here is the About.com's results for SUDAN-GENOCIDE-BASHIR, documenting Bashir's CENTRAL ROLE in the tens-of-thousands-killed on behalf of Radical Arab Islamist GENOCIDE...
http://worldnews.about.com/od/sudan/ig/Darfur/Sudan-President-Omar-El-Bashir.htm
- and here is another link documenting that Bashir/Turabani's genocidal policies, funded by oil-state Arabs, were indeed being executed as far back as 1989.
<
http://home.earthlink.net/~drbettyh/Sudanpage.htm
-------------------------------------
HARDLY the kind of Arab-Islamist leader(s) who are going to ENRAGE al QAIDA (and thereby earn an eternal FATWAH or death sentence from the accomplished assassins of that terrorist organization) by capturing Al Qaida's leader and shipping him off to Bill Clinton!
(Not to overlook mention, bin Laden is STILL a scion of the second most powerful family in Saudi Arabia.. and the Saudis JUST HAPPEN TO BE the Bashir-Northern-Sudan murderous regime's BIGGEST SUPPORTERS!)
YET THIS BIT OF EDITORIAL HOKUM, "Clinton TURNED DOWN bin Laden capture," is being distributed ACROSS THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE by Hate-Clinton Righties, with the blessings of the LA Times' official, presented-as-dogma-and-fact headline, "CLINTON LET bin Laden SLIP AWAY."
NO! It was PRESIDENT BUSH who "LET bin Laden SLIP AWAY" at Tora Bora.
It was PRESIDENT BUSH who stated "I'm NOT THAT CONCERNED ABOUT HIM (bin Laden) ANYMORE."
[Note: OFFICIAL US government, WhiteHouse.gov website, Bush's "not that concerned about bin Laden" comments about 1/3rd from top of official transcript.]
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020313-8.html
It IS President Bush who RENEGED on his "GET OSAMA DEAD OR ALIVE!" pledge, in order to RUSH IN TO THE IRAQ INVASION that Bush, Cheney, & PNAC neo-cons so lusted for.
And it IS indeed President Bush who is behind the "SMEAR CLINTON AS AN INCOMPETENT and/or TRAITOR!" Rove/Right-Wing SMEAR CAMPAIGN, just 7 weeks from election 2006.
-----------------------------------------
But in America media/cultural land, the MOST LOUDLY SHOUTED NARRATIVE becomes 'ESTABLISHED TRUTH." Or, as Goebbels said "repeat a lie BIG ENOUGH and OFTEN ENOUGH, and the public will accept it as truth."
In this case, the Right-Wing will SHOUT "CLINTON LET bin Laden SLIP AWAY" to the moon, 1,000,000 times PER DAY!
And the LIE is CERTAINLY BIG enough - it was President Bush who IGNORED CIA, FBI, Mossad, Egyptian, Russian, and even Italian security police WARNINGS that "Bin Laden was DETERMINED TO STRIKE IN AMERICA," AND IT WAS PRESIDENT BUSH who ALLOWED bin Laden to ESCAPE FROM TORA BORA!
---------------------------------------
Contrast the use of this LAT EDITORIAL by the Right-Wing MEDIA JUGGERNAUT, with the Ambassador Joe Wilson editorial in the New York Times which stated "President Bush KNEW the 'Niger yellowcake uranium ore for Iraq's WMD program" was FALSE when he, President Bush, included it in his Jan. 2003 State of the Union (SOTU) speech.
IN that case, the Cheney-Rove-Libby White House SMEARED Ambassador Wilson and ILLEGALLY "OUTED" the undercover CIA identity of his wife.
TO THIS DAY, the Right-Wing media juggernaut claims that #1.) Ambassador Wilson was lying; #2.) that he was only given his "junket" trip to Niger at the behest of his wife, as if going to Niger was a case of nepotism/favoritism; #3.) that she had already been 'outed' previously; #4.) that she wasn't even "undercover" or covert anyways; #5.) that "SOMEBODY ELSE DID IT FIRST!" - that Valerie Plame was outed by a State Dept. official or some journalists unrelated to the Libby-Rove-Cheney White House efforts to "shop around" the Valerie Plame identity; and etc.
ON top of all that, the lying NEW YORK TIMES, which SAT ON THE STORY that KARL ROVE had INDEED, PERSONALLY "shopped around" the story of Valerie Plame's identity - even though that very same New York Times published as truth his DENIAL of same - claims that it was some sort of 'forgetfulness' or 'journalistic oversight' that the NY Times ALLOWED Rove's PRE-MEDITATED LIE to remain undisclosed UNTIL AFTER the 2004 presidential elections!
Compare the ABOVE Rove/NY TImes/major media LIES and DISINFORMATION on a case that has now been practically FORGOTTEN, excused as "too complex" to condemn the Rove/Bush White House, with this LA Times EDITORIAL that portrays the Clinton White House as REFUSING an offer to CAPTURE bin Laden.
IN TIME OF WAR, this MEDIA MESSAGE BECOMES FACT... just as the whore-iffic media TURNED THE WHITE HOUSE TRASHING "scandal'", the "Lincoln bedroom 'scandal,'" and the "Travel-gate 'scandal'" into scandals or even CRIMES... even though THERE WAS NO SCANDAL or WRONGDOING THERE!
This is an ANCIENT propaganda technique, one that is more familiar to those who care to pay attention, by looking at the rhetoric of the Deep South on the eve of the Civil War, when White Southerners claimed loudly (and convinced themselves) that "SLAVERY WAS FOR THE GOOD OF THE SLAVES!", and "we treat them to harsh punishment out of 'COMPASSION,'" and of course "We can not permit the education of slaves FOR THEIR OWN GOOD!"
The difference between 2006 and 1860? In 1860 a significant portion of America was dedicated to the containment of slavery. In 2006, the AIPAC/neo-con lobby is dedicated to the EXPANSION of the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld WARS in the Middle-east, and if SMEARING President Bill Clinton, ALLOWING New Orleans poor citizens TO DROWN, LOOTING Enron investors and California consumers, OUTSOURCING American jobs, and turning huge chunks of America's former prosperity INTO ENDLESS DEFICITS is the price America will have to pay....
[national debt and trade deficits FAR WORSE THAN REPORTED,
the TRUE 2005 deficits were $760 billion, NOT the $318 billion bushCo reported...
a full 6.2% of US GDP, vs 2.6% as reported by BushCo and regurgitated by whoreiffic media]
http://www.fms.treas.gov/fr/index.html
....(not to mention torture, backdoor drafts, systematic vote fraud, and police-state "Patriot' acts).... IT IS A PRICE THAT THE MEDIA, DLC DEMOCRATS, AIPAC neo-cons, and the Bush-Rove-Republican Party ARE MORE THAN WILLING TO push on to ordinary Americans.
(Hell, HILLARY CLINTON is so clueless, or so corrupted as the DLC Senator from AIPAC, that SHE IS IN ON THE CON that seeks to portray her own husband as either criminally negligent, at best, or as traitorous for "ALLOWING" bin Laden to "get away," as this bogus "SUDAN OFFERED HIM ON A SILVER PLATTER! after bin Laden orchestrated the bombing attacks on US embassies" propaganda story would have it.
=================================
Clinton Let Bin Laden Slip Away and Metastasize
Sudan offered up the terrorist and data on his network. The then-president and his advisors didn't respond.
By MANSOOR IJAZ
December 5, 2001
http://www.infowars.com/saved%20pages/Prior_Knowledge/Clinton_let_bin_laden.htm
President Clinton and his national security team ignored several opportunities to capture Osama bin Laden and his terrorist associates, including one as late as last year.
I know because I negotiated more than one of the opportunities.
From 1996 to 1998, I opened unofficial channels between Sudan and the Clinton administration. I met with officials in both countries, including Clinton, U.S. National Security Advisor Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger and Sudan's president and intelligence chief. President Omar Hassan Ahmed Bashir, who wanted terrorism sanctions against Sudan lifted, offered the arrest and extradition of Bin Laden and detailed intelligence data about the global networks constructed by Egypt's Islamic Jihad, Iran's Hezbollah and the Palestinian Hamas.
Among those in the networks were the two hijackers who piloted commercial airliners into the World Trade Center.
The silence of the Clinton administration in responding to these offers was deafening.
As an American Muslim and a political supporter of Clinton, I feel now, as I argued with Clinton and Berger then, that their counter-terrorism policies fueled the rise of Bin Laden from an ordinary man to a Hydra-like monster.
Realizing the growing problem with Bin Laden, Bashir sent key intelligence officials to the U.S. in February 1996.
The Sudanese offered to arrest Bin Laden and extradite him to Saudi Arabia or, barring that, to "baby-sit" him--monitoring all his activities and associates.
But Saudi officials didn't want their home-grown terrorist back where he might plot to overthrow them.
In May 1996, the Sudanese capitulated to U.S. pressure and asked Bin Laden to leave, despite their feeling that he could be monitored better in Sudan than elsewhere.
Bin Laden left for Afghanistan, taking with him Ayman Zawahiri, considered by the U.S. to be the chief planner of the Sept. 11 attacks; Mamdouh Mahmud Salim, who traveled frequently to Germany to obtain electronic equipment for Al Qaeda; Wadih El-Hage, Bin Laden's personal secretary and roving emissary, now serving a life sentence in the U.S. for his role in the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya; and Fazul Abdullah Mohammed and Saif Adel, also accused of carrying out the embassy attacks.
Some of these men are now among the FBI's 22 most-wanted terrorists.
The two men who allegedly piloted the planes into the twin towers, Mohamed Atta and Marwan Al-Shehhi, prayed in the same Hamburg mosque as did Salim and Mamoun Darkazanli, a Syrian trader who managed Salim's bank accounts and whose assets are frozen.
Important data on each had been compiled by the Sudanese.
But U.S. authorities repeatedly turned the data away, first in February 1996; then again that August, when at my suggestion Sudan's religious ideologue, Hassan Turabi, wrote directly to Clinton; then again in April 1997, when I persuaded Bashir to invite the FBI to come to Sudan and view the data; and finally in February 1998, when Sudan's intelligence chief, Gutbi al-Mahdi, wrote directly to the FBI.
Gutbi had shown me some of Sudan's data during a three-hour meeting in Khartoum in October 1996. When I returned to Washington, I told Berger and his specialist for East Africa, Susan Rice, about the data available. They said they'd get back to me. They never did. Neither did they respond when Bashir made the offer directly. I believe they never had any intention to engage Muslim countries--ally or not. Radical Islam, for the administration, was a convenient national security threat.
And that was not the end of it. In July 2000--three months before the deadly attack on the destroyer Cole in Yemen--I brought the White House another plausible offer to deal with Bin Laden, by then known to be involved in the embassy bombings. A senior counter-terrorism official from one of the United States' closest Arab allies--an ally whose name I am not free to divulge--approached me with the proposal after telling me he was fed up with the antics and arrogance of U.S. counter-terrorism officials.
The offer, which would have brought Bin Laden to the Arab country as the first step of an extradition process that would eventually deliver him to the U.S., required only that Clinton make a state visit there to personally request Bin Laden's extradition. But senior Clinton officials sabotaged the offer, letting it get caught up in internal politics within the ruling family--Clintonian diplomacy at its best.
Clinton's failure to grasp the opportunity to unravel increasingly organized extremists, coupled with Berger's assessments of their potential to directly threaten the U.S., represents one of the most serious foreign policy failures in American history.
*
Mansoor Ijaz, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, is chairman of a New York-based investment company.
SMEAR and Propaganda-meister KARL ROVE wants... PRIVACY for his own private life...!
Talk about gall!
Karl Rove, the slimey, sinister architect of George W. Bush's stolen election in 2004, and the ring-master of the 2004 "Swift Boaters Against Kerry" campaign to portray Vietnam combat veteran John Kerry as a.) an appease-the-enemy coward who singlehandedly lost the Vietnam war, and b.) simultaneously depicting Kerry as a brutal child-killing mass murderer (the incident so portrayed by Rove's Smear-Boat team was actually a firefight where then Navy Lt. John Kerry ran down a muddy delta trail after a wounded VC suspect armed with an AK-47, Kerry got the upper hand in that gunfight, and killed his teenaged, but machine-gun-armed adversary).
So today we read that Karl Rove JUST WANTS HIS PRIVACY, and his family life left UNDISTURBED.
Karl Rove, far from being the "UNITER, NOT DIVIDER" campaign strategist for George W. Bush (who famously used that slogan as his election 2000 mantra), is the "TEAR AMERICAN FAMILIES APART, RIP American workers from their jobs, TEAR Enron pensions and portfolios from the hands of Enron workers and investors, and SHOVE American voters AWAY from the election booth" defacto MINISTER of PROPAGANDA for America, and as such he richly deserves all the attention the American media could POSSIBLY focus on his life.
The Rove Less Traveled
DC Confidential
Sept. 7, 2006
http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2006/09/karls-closet-rove-fires-back-at-books-gay-dad-claim.php
Presidential pitbull Karl Rove has built his political career retailing his opponents' dirty laundry, but that hasn't stopped him from mounting a fierce campaign against an upcoming bio that delves a little too deeply into details of his own personal life. Sources say Rove has been furiously lobbying the authors to protest the impending publication of The Architect: Karl Rove and the Master Plan for Absolute Power.
The book was co-authored by Wayne Slater and James Moore, the veteran Texas journalists who previously wrote the Dubya-bashing bestseller, Bush's Brain. Their new book paints the beleaguered presidential aide as a ruthless political opportunist who let few things obstruct his march to power.
While the authors' description of Rove's relationship with indicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff is certain to have D.C. buzzing, their revelations about his family life are even more intriguing: According to the book, the architect of the Bush administration's anti-gay policies was raised by a homosexual father who abandoned his family to lead an openly gay life in Palm Springs. A decade later, Rove's mother, Reba, committed suicide, a tragedy the authors attribute to her husband's departure.
Rove has always been circumspect about his childhood. He told one reporter that he had not heard from his father since his youth. But the book claims Rove maintained a close relationship with Louis Rove until his death two years ago. Friends say he visited his father in Palm Springs at least twice a year, and frequently dined with him and his gay pals.
"He lived life exactly the way he wanted to live it," Rove said of Louis, who died just as his son was launching the Bush campaign's attack on same-sex marriage. Of course, his admiration for his father did not stop him from using the "gay issue" for his own political advantage.
For starters, the authors claim Rove was behind a series of lesbian rumors that helped defeat incumbent Texas governor Ann Richards in the 1994 gubernatorial election. During the same campaign he also allegedly intimidated a reporter at the Dallas Morning News, Anne Marie Kilday, by telling her he had obtained telephone records showing numerous late-night calls to her home from a lesbian state official. "You've got to be careful about your reputation and what people might think," Rove said.
Among the books other revelations:
Soon after Rove moved into his new office in the West Wing, previously occupied by Hillary Clinton, he invited three top Catholic priests to conduct a ceremony to purge the room of evil spirits. "It was an actual liturgical ceremony," says participant Deal Hudson. "We sat at the table, we prayed. A priest said a series of prayers, including a blessing."
Rove was so paranoid about his meetings with indicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff that he'd stroll a few blocks to meet Abramoff's limo on a nearby street corner where they would discuss business through a lowered window. "Like I said, everything that comes out of the White House is logged in," explained Abramoff. "The phone calls he makes. The phone calls he receives. So this is just easier. It keeps things a lot cleaner. And he's a fat fuck, and he can use the exercise."
Texas's then-governor George W. Bush once asked a reporter, "You know what I'm gonna tell those Jews when I get to Israel, don't you Herman?" When the journalist, Ken Herman, replied that he did not know, Bush reportedly quipped: "I'm telling 'em they're all going to hell."
Bush shocked Israel's Ariel Sharon at their first Oval Office meeting when, discussing Yasser Arafat, he asked, "Are you going to kill him?" Later he added, "No. If he needs killing, I'll do it."
Rove's longtime mentor is Michael Ledeen, an Iran-Contra dealmaker and plagiarist suspected of being linked to the forged documents the administration used to make the case for war in Iraq.
Though he earned his political stripes in his father's White House, the authors say Bush regularly derides his dad's tenure: "Don't underestimate what you can learn from a failed presidency," he once told campaign media consultant Don Sipple.
The senior Bush apparently holds his fortunate son in similarly low regard.
Karl Rove, the slimey, sinister architect of George W. Bush's stolen election in 2004, and the ring-master of the 2004 "Swift Boaters Against Kerry" campaign to portray Vietnam combat veteran John Kerry as a.) an appease-the-enemy coward who singlehandedly lost the Vietnam war, and b.) simultaneously depicting Kerry as a brutal child-killing mass murderer (the incident so portrayed by Rove's Smear-Boat team was actually a firefight where then Navy Lt. John Kerry ran down a muddy delta trail after a wounded VC suspect armed with an AK-47, Kerry got the upper hand in that gunfight, and killed his teenaged, but machine-gun-armed adversary).
So today we read that Karl Rove JUST WANTS HIS PRIVACY, and his family life left UNDISTURBED.
Karl Rove, far from being the "UNITER, NOT DIVIDER" campaign strategist for George W. Bush (who famously used that slogan as his election 2000 mantra), is the "TEAR AMERICAN FAMILIES APART, RIP American workers from their jobs, TEAR Enron pensions and portfolios from the hands of Enron workers and investors, and SHOVE American voters AWAY from the election booth" defacto MINISTER of PROPAGANDA for America, and as such he richly deserves all the attention the American media could POSSIBLY focus on his life.
The Rove Less Traveled
DC Confidential
Sept. 7, 2006
http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2006/09/karls-closet-rove-fires-back-at-books-gay-dad-claim.php
Presidential pitbull Karl Rove has built his political career retailing his opponents' dirty laundry, but that hasn't stopped him from mounting a fierce campaign against an upcoming bio that delves a little too deeply into details of his own personal life. Sources say Rove has been furiously lobbying the authors to protest the impending publication of The Architect: Karl Rove and the Master Plan for Absolute Power.
The book was co-authored by Wayne Slater and James Moore, the veteran Texas journalists who previously wrote the Dubya-bashing bestseller, Bush's Brain. Their new book paints the beleaguered presidential aide as a ruthless political opportunist who let few things obstruct his march to power.
While the authors' description of Rove's relationship with indicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff is certain to have D.C. buzzing, their revelations about his family life are even more intriguing: According to the book, the architect of the Bush administration's anti-gay policies was raised by a homosexual father who abandoned his family to lead an openly gay life in Palm Springs. A decade later, Rove's mother, Reba, committed suicide, a tragedy the authors attribute to her husband's departure.
Rove has always been circumspect about his childhood. He told one reporter that he had not heard from his father since his youth. But the book claims Rove maintained a close relationship with Louis Rove until his death two years ago. Friends say he visited his father in Palm Springs at least twice a year, and frequently dined with him and his gay pals.
"He lived life exactly the way he wanted to live it," Rove said of Louis, who died just as his son was launching the Bush campaign's attack on same-sex marriage. Of course, his admiration for his father did not stop him from using the "gay issue" for his own political advantage.
For starters, the authors claim Rove was behind a series of lesbian rumors that helped defeat incumbent Texas governor Ann Richards in the 1994 gubernatorial election. During the same campaign he also allegedly intimidated a reporter at the Dallas Morning News, Anne Marie Kilday, by telling her he had obtained telephone records showing numerous late-night calls to her home from a lesbian state official. "You've got to be careful about your reputation and what people might think," Rove said.
Among the books other revelations:
Soon after Rove moved into his new office in the West Wing, previously occupied by Hillary Clinton, he invited three top Catholic priests to conduct a ceremony to purge the room of evil spirits. "It was an actual liturgical ceremony," says participant Deal Hudson. "We sat at the table, we prayed. A priest said a series of prayers, including a blessing."
Rove was so paranoid about his meetings with indicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff that he'd stroll a few blocks to meet Abramoff's limo on a nearby street corner where they would discuss business through a lowered window. "Like I said, everything that comes out of the White House is logged in," explained Abramoff. "The phone calls he makes. The phone calls he receives. So this is just easier. It keeps things a lot cleaner. And he's a fat fuck, and he can use the exercise."
Texas's then-governor George W. Bush once asked a reporter, "You know what I'm gonna tell those Jews when I get to Israel, don't you Herman?" When the journalist, Ken Herman, replied that he did not know, Bush reportedly quipped: "I'm telling 'em they're all going to hell."
Bush shocked Israel's Ariel Sharon at their first Oval Office meeting when, discussing Yasser Arafat, he asked, "Are you going to kill him?" Later he added, "No. If he needs killing, I'll do it."
Rove's longtime mentor is Michael Ledeen, an Iran-Contra dealmaker and plagiarist suspected of being linked to the forged documents the administration used to make the case for war in Iraq.
Though he earned his political stripes in his father's White House, the authors say Bush regularly derides his dad's tenure: "Don't underestimate what you can learn from a failed presidency," he once told campaign media consultant Don Sipple.
The senior Bush apparently holds his fortunate son in similarly low regard.
FEAR & SMEAR- the propaganda technique that built the Nazi empire - works in America in 2006...
<< With the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks fast approaching, President Bush took to the podium Tuesday to speak to Americans about his administration's global war on terror.
Three things can be expected from Bush's speech, according to a new study by three Columbia University researchers: The media will repeat the president's remarks. PUBLIC FEAR of terrorism WILL INCREASE.. And the president's POLL NUMBERS WILL RISE.
===================================
Intense media scrutiny and politicians' rhetoric heighten sense of fear, researchers say
Matthew B. Stannard, Chronicle Staff Writer
Wednesday, September 6, 2006
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/09/06/MNG52L01KC1.DTL
With the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks fast approaching, President Bush took to the podium Tuesday to speak to Americans about his administration's global war on terror.
Three things can be expected from Bush's speech, according to a new study by three Columbia University researchers: The media will repeat the president's remarks. Public fear of terrorism will increase. And the president's poll numbers will rise.
Those have been the effects of presidential pronouncements on terrorism since the Sept. 11 attacks, according to political scientists Brigitte Nacos, Yaeli Bloch-Elkon and Robert Shapiro, in a report prepared for this month's annual meeting of the American Political Science Association.
"These are interesting findings, and confirm what many of us had suspected," said Mark Juergensmeyer, director of Global and International Studies at UC Santa Barbara, who reviewed the research at the request of The Chronicle.
"This public panic benefits the terrorists whose work is made easier by an overactive government response that magnifies their efforts. In an odd way this puts the government and the terrorists in league with one another," he said. "The main loser, alas, is the terrified public."
The Columbia researchers looked at past scholarship on the subject and a new review of terror threats, official warnings and the coverage of both by the mass media since 2001, seeking to close what Nacos called a gap in research of how terrorists try to achieve their goals of fomenting fear, not only through attack but by threatening attack.
"The real new thing here is the mere threat, heavily mass mediated, achieves at least part of what actual terrorism achieves," Nacos said. "(Terrorists) want to intimidate, they want to spread fear and anxiety, and they want to take influence through the public on government officials."
Much of the Columbia team's research focused on the press -- especially the television media -- and how it reacted to threats of terrorism.
"Any actual threat message -- a tape by bin Laden or al-Zawahiri or an alert -- results in a great deal of messages in the media," Nacos said. "People comment on it, they analyze it ... the administration, experts in the field, including myself."
That approach magnifies the sense of threat by repetition, Nacos said. And while increases in terror alerts always made the top of the news on the three major networks, decreases tended to be buried and far less time was devoted to them -- 1 minute, 34 seconds on average for a national alert being lowered, compared with 5 minutes, 20 seconds when the alert was raised.
"The threat alone brings them a great deal of media coverage, and the public takes notice -- we've shown that the threat perception by the public increases," Nacos said.
Officials in government and law enforcement also can have an effect on the public's perception of terror risk when their statements are magnified by the media.
In February 2003, for example, the percentage of people saying they were very worried about a terror attack "soon" stood at 18 percent. One month later, after the alert had been raised and lowered, it stood at 34 percent.
The official with the greatest ability to shift opinion on terrorism, the researchers found, is Bush, whose statements in the media about terrorism correlated highly with increases in the public's perception of terrorism as a major national problem -- and with increases in his approval ratings.
At the beginning of July 2002, for example, approval of the president's handling of terrorism was around 79 percent. After television coverage of one statement by Bush and seven public statements by administration officials about the terrorist threat, the president's rating rose to 83 percent.
In June 2004, approval for the president's handling of terrorism had fallen to 50 percent. One month later, after an increase in television coverage of Bush's comments on terrorism, that number had risen to 57 percent.
It's not clear that Bush, whose ratings have slipped to about 40 percent in national polls, will receive a bounce from his most recent remarks on terrorism, Nacos said -- past research suggests that such a bounce is more likely to come to presidents flying high in the polls than presidents with numbers in the doldrums. But the past pattern is clear.
"To me this is the most novel and interesting of the findings," said Larry Beutler, director of the National Center on the Psychology of Terrorism in Palo Alto, who reviewed the Columbia team's research. "There are findings suggesting that the administration's use of the alert system increased inordinately before the election and each time it did, Bush's numbers went up about 5 percent."
The research is also a "damning indictment of the media's bloodlust," said Matthew T. Felling, media director for the Center for Media and Public Affairs in Washington, D.C., who also reviewed the Columbia research.
"When you have media organs viewing fear-mongering as a payday, senior politicians seeing fear-mongering as sound political strategy, and terrorists considering fear-mongering as a victory unto itself, where are citizens expected to find a voice of reason?"
The Columbia study does not conclude the White House intentionally used terror alerts to influence the president's popularity.
But it is unlikely the White House is ignorant of the effect, said Nacos, who added that former Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge has complained publicly that he was sometimes pushed to raise the threat level on the basis of flimsy intelligence.
"Our data only shows these connections exist, these correlations exist," she said. "If anything, it should alert political players to be very careful with this."
For starters, Nacos said, politicians could reconsider when and how they warn the public of terror threats, especially when that warning is vague, and stop responding to bin Laden tapes, as many have in the past. "They magnify the role of this guy," she said. "They help him to be a world figure."
The press, too, could be more reflective in its coverage of terror threats, Nacos said, avoiding the kind of continuous coverage without new details that typified, for example, the recent arrest in the JonBenet Ramsey case.
"I really think that all of these actors have to think of what they're doing," she said. "Nobody means to do this, but one has to think about what they're doing."
E-mail Matthew B. Stannard at mstannard@sfchronicle.com.
Three things can be expected from Bush's speech, according to a new study by three Columbia University researchers: The media will repeat the president's remarks. PUBLIC FEAR of terrorism WILL INCREASE.. And the president's POLL NUMBERS WILL RISE.
===================================
Intense media scrutiny and politicians' rhetoric heighten sense of fear, researchers say
Matthew B. Stannard, Chronicle Staff Writer
Wednesday, September 6, 2006
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/09/06/MNG52L01KC1.DTL
With the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks fast approaching, President Bush took to the podium Tuesday to speak to Americans about his administration's global war on terror.
Three things can be expected from Bush's speech, according to a new study by three Columbia University researchers: The media will repeat the president's remarks. Public fear of terrorism will increase. And the president's poll numbers will rise.
Those have been the effects of presidential pronouncements on terrorism since the Sept. 11 attacks, according to political scientists Brigitte Nacos, Yaeli Bloch-Elkon and Robert Shapiro, in a report prepared for this month's annual meeting of the American Political Science Association.
"These are interesting findings, and confirm what many of us had suspected," said Mark Juergensmeyer, director of Global and International Studies at UC Santa Barbara, who reviewed the research at the request of The Chronicle.
"This public panic benefits the terrorists whose work is made easier by an overactive government response that magnifies their efforts. In an odd way this puts the government and the terrorists in league with one another," he said. "The main loser, alas, is the terrified public."
The Columbia researchers looked at past scholarship on the subject and a new review of terror threats, official warnings and the coverage of both by the mass media since 2001, seeking to close what Nacos called a gap in research of how terrorists try to achieve their goals of fomenting fear, not only through attack but by threatening attack.
"The real new thing here is the mere threat, heavily mass mediated, achieves at least part of what actual terrorism achieves," Nacos said. "(Terrorists) want to intimidate, they want to spread fear and anxiety, and they want to take influence through the public on government officials."
Much of the Columbia team's research focused on the press -- especially the television media -- and how it reacted to threats of terrorism.
"Any actual threat message -- a tape by bin Laden or al-Zawahiri or an alert -- results in a great deal of messages in the media," Nacos said. "People comment on it, they analyze it ... the administration, experts in the field, including myself."
That approach magnifies the sense of threat by repetition, Nacos said. And while increases in terror alerts always made the top of the news on the three major networks, decreases tended to be buried and far less time was devoted to them -- 1 minute, 34 seconds on average for a national alert being lowered, compared with 5 minutes, 20 seconds when the alert was raised.
"The threat alone brings them a great deal of media coverage, and the public takes notice -- we've shown that the threat perception by the public increases," Nacos said.
Officials in government and law enforcement also can have an effect on the public's perception of terror risk when their statements are magnified by the media.
In February 2003, for example, the percentage of people saying they were very worried about a terror attack "soon" stood at 18 percent. One month later, after the alert had been raised and lowered, it stood at 34 percent.
The official with the greatest ability to shift opinion on terrorism, the researchers found, is Bush, whose statements in the media about terrorism correlated highly with increases in the public's perception of terrorism as a major national problem -- and with increases in his approval ratings.
At the beginning of July 2002, for example, approval of the president's handling of terrorism was around 79 percent. After television coverage of one statement by Bush and seven public statements by administration officials about the terrorist threat, the president's rating rose to 83 percent.
In June 2004, approval for the president's handling of terrorism had fallen to 50 percent. One month later, after an increase in television coverage of Bush's comments on terrorism, that number had risen to 57 percent.
It's not clear that Bush, whose ratings have slipped to about 40 percent in national polls, will receive a bounce from his most recent remarks on terrorism, Nacos said -- past research suggests that such a bounce is more likely to come to presidents flying high in the polls than presidents with numbers in the doldrums. But the past pattern is clear.
"To me this is the most novel and interesting of the findings," said Larry Beutler, director of the National Center on the Psychology of Terrorism in Palo Alto, who reviewed the Columbia team's research. "There are findings suggesting that the administration's use of the alert system increased inordinately before the election and each time it did, Bush's numbers went up about 5 percent."
The research is also a "damning indictment of the media's bloodlust," said Matthew T. Felling, media director for the Center for Media and Public Affairs in Washington, D.C., who also reviewed the Columbia research.
"When you have media organs viewing fear-mongering as a payday, senior politicians seeing fear-mongering as sound political strategy, and terrorists considering fear-mongering as a victory unto itself, where are citizens expected to find a voice of reason?"
The Columbia study does not conclude the White House intentionally used terror alerts to influence the president's popularity.
But it is unlikely the White House is ignorant of the effect, said Nacos, who added that former Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge has complained publicly that he was sometimes pushed to raise the threat level on the basis of flimsy intelligence.
"Our data only shows these connections exist, these correlations exist," she said. "If anything, it should alert political players to be very careful with this."
For starters, Nacos said, politicians could reconsider when and how they warn the public of terror threats, especially when that warning is vague, and stop responding to bin Laden tapes, as many have in the past. "They magnify the role of this guy," she said. "They help him to be a world figure."
The press, too, could be more reflective in its coverage of terror threats, Nacos said, avoiding the kind of continuous coverage without new details that typified, for example, the recent arrest in the JonBenet Ramsey case.
"I really think that all of these actors have to think of what they're doing," she said. "Nobody means to do this, but one has to think about what they're doing."
E-mail Matthew B. Stannard at mstannard@sfchronicle.com.
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
MEDIA WHORES will enable Bush-Rove FEAR-and-SMEAR Campaign 2006...
Former Air Force Lt.Col and Ph.D Karen Kwiatkowski: MEDIA WHORES *ENABLE* the Bush-Rove-Cheney FEAR-and-SMEAR Campaign of 2006...
<< My prediction is neither earth-shattering nor genius. But between now and the November elections, EVERY OPPORTUNITY to cause American EMOTION to TRUMP American INTELLECT, will be SEIZED, SQUEEZED, and SUSTAINED, by this administration and its HANDMAIDENS. [i.e. the cowardly Washington Post, the craven New York Times, and the superficial and lying corporate media coast-to-coast] >>
================================
Without reservation
Karen Kwiatkowski, Ph.D., Lt. Col. USAF (ret.)
posted 04 Sep 2006
http://militaryweek.com/columns/withoutreservation.php?id=46
Last week, the administration addressed the 88th annual national convention of the American Legion. Rumsfeld spoke on the 29th of August, and Bush swept up on the 31st preaching the gospel of ongoing and future military operations.
The American Legion is a busy organization of three million, with a full-time staff of 300, split between the heartland in Indianapolis and K Street, Washington, D.C. It is a solid Bush organization, and a convention in the capital of the reddest of Red States, should have been guaranteed to be hospitable to Bush. Pay no attention to the large anti-Bush rallies there and
the anti-war speech given by SLC Mayor Rocky Anderson that week.
Several years ago, the American Legion's monthly magazine featured an article entitled “The Principled Vice President Cheney.' By 2006, Americans and several billion other people around the world understood very well that Cheney had lied about the planning and motivations for the American invasion of Iraq. Most were also appalled that Cheney's Chief of Staff Scooter Libby was
indicted for lying to a grand jury on a national security case in 2005.
But members of the American Legion read the papers, and they do honestly care about national security, so the President rose to the challenge and laid it on thickly in his address. He described past, present and future wars in a glorious manner.
On past wars, Bush told the Legion that Afghanistan is newly democratic, and “… the future of Afghanistan belongs to freedom.' How nice for the Afghans, I'm sure. Pay no attention to the headlines in American newspapers speaking of the resurgence of both the Taliban and al Qaeda or the words of Bush's own government bemoaning an explosion in the production of opium in Afghanistan “despite hundreds of millions of [U.S.] dollars spent to reduce the opium.' And pay no attention to the continued fighting there.
On current wars, Bush told the Legion that Saddam Hussein is in jail, and the Iraqi people have their “sovereignty.' How nice for the Iraqis, I'm sure. He said, “America has a clear strategy to help the Iraqi people protect their new freedom, and build a democracy that can govern itself, and sustain itself, and defend itself.' Bush reported that he has been told, “only a small number of Iraqis are engaged in sectarian violence.' Pay no attention to the monthly Iraqi death count of between 1000 and 2000 dead civilians, or to the Pentagon's latest report that warns “Iraq on the brink of civil war.' .
On future wars, Bush told the Legion that Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism, is led by a radical regime, and is seeking nuclear weapons. Bush told the Legionnaires that Iran has to make a choice, and we have already made ours. Presumably this is the same deal we gave Saddam Hussein, although it remains to be seen on whether Bush can pull off another such military fiasco in Iran in the time he has left.
Bush's speech in Utah, suggestively subtitled, “Winning the Struggle Between Freedom and Terror in the Middle East,' was in fact all about failure. He spoke of past wars (failed and not over in Afghanistan), current wars (not only failing in Iraq, but spiraling into a hated occupation, perhaps civil war, and a certain cancer on the world's oil supply), and future wars (not planned, of course – not even the bullish-on-war Mr. Bush wants to be accused of planning something as stupid as preemptively bombing or invading Iran).
Yet even the crowd of patriotic veterans associated with the American Legion and its publications could see that. Even they can think. And because they can see, and because they can think, we may better understand Rumsfeld's speech, given a few days earlier to the same crowd.
This infamous Rumsfeld speechhas already produced Pentagon “explanations' and backpedaling. For me, one of his most problematic statements, in a speech filled with problematic statements is this one, where Rumsfeld warns that in long wars or struggles,
“…any kind of moral or intellectual confusion about who and what is right or wrong, can weaken the ability of free societies to persevere.'
In this case, Rumsfeld gets it exactly and precisely wrong. Let's summarize: Using dubious information and a whole lot of propaganda, we launched the destructive power of the world's most expensive and deadliest military on extremely weak fourth rate Middle Eastern countries of narrowly perceived strategic value in the name of promoting “democracy.' If we question this situation on moral, ethical, logical (when they vote freely, aren't we the ones who get voted off the island first?), strategic or constitutional grounds, according to Rumsfeld, we are ourselves the enemies of “freedom.'
But Bush and Rumsfeld are right about one thing. They believe that if Americans think about and assess the Bush administration wars – overseas and at home on the Constitution – Americans will cease any remaining support for continued military actions in Afghanistan, Iraq, and potentially Iran. Rumsfeld and Bush believe that if we think, we will oppose their proposed military spending on same, and we will vote against politicians who have advocated such immoral, illegal, illogical, counter-strategic, and unconstitutional policies.
The Bush administration fears a true American legion – that growing multitude of thinking people who love this country and hate what Bush's foreign policy and domestic abuses are doing to it. This is why Rummy needed to chide, to threaten, and to name-call in a crowd of reliable and erstwhile supporters. Even in Salt Lake City, at an American Legion convention, people are increasingly morally or intellectually confused about what the Bush administration is doing around the world, and at home.
Last weeks' speeches indicate that Bush and Rumsfeld both know that if Americans become clear headed and logical, the Bush cabal loses and the party ends. Boldly unhampered by truth and increasingly menacing in tone, their words reveal panic and political desperation.
My prediction is neither earth-shattering nor genius. But between now and the November elections, every opportunity to cause American emotion to trump American intellect will be seized, squeezed and sustained by this administration and its handmaidens.
<< My prediction is neither earth-shattering nor genius. But between now and the November elections, EVERY OPPORTUNITY to cause American EMOTION to TRUMP American INTELLECT, will be SEIZED, SQUEEZED, and SUSTAINED, by this administration and its HANDMAIDENS. [i.e. the cowardly Washington Post, the craven New York Times, and the superficial and lying corporate media coast-to-coast] >>
================================
Without reservation
Karen Kwiatkowski, Ph.D., Lt. Col. USAF (ret.)
posted 04 Sep 2006
http://militaryweek.com/columns/withoutreservation.php?id=46
Last week, the administration addressed the 88th annual national convention of the American Legion. Rumsfeld spoke on the 29th of August, and Bush swept up on the 31st preaching the gospel of ongoing and future military operations.
The American Legion is a busy organization of three million, with a full-time staff of 300, split between the heartland in Indianapolis and K Street, Washington, D.C. It is a solid Bush organization, and a convention in the capital of the reddest of Red States, should have been guaranteed to be hospitable to Bush. Pay no attention to the large anti-Bush rallies there and
the anti-war speech given by SLC Mayor Rocky Anderson that week.
Several years ago, the American Legion's monthly magazine featured an article entitled “The Principled Vice President Cheney.' By 2006, Americans and several billion other people around the world understood very well that Cheney had lied about the planning and motivations for the American invasion of Iraq. Most were also appalled that Cheney's Chief of Staff Scooter Libby was
indicted for lying to a grand jury on a national security case in 2005.
But members of the American Legion read the papers, and they do honestly care about national security, so the President rose to the challenge and laid it on thickly in his address. He described past, present and future wars in a glorious manner.
On past wars, Bush told the Legion that Afghanistan is newly democratic, and “… the future of Afghanistan belongs to freedom.' How nice for the Afghans, I'm sure. Pay no attention to the headlines in American newspapers speaking of the resurgence of both the Taliban and al Qaeda or the words of Bush's own government bemoaning an explosion in the production of opium in Afghanistan “despite hundreds of millions of [U.S.] dollars spent to reduce the opium.' And pay no attention to the continued fighting there.
On current wars, Bush told the Legion that Saddam Hussein is in jail, and the Iraqi people have their “sovereignty.' How nice for the Iraqis, I'm sure. He said, “America has a clear strategy to help the Iraqi people protect their new freedom, and build a democracy that can govern itself, and sustain itself, and defend itself.' Bush reported that he has been told, “only a small number of Iraqis are engaged in sectarian violence.' Pay no attention to the monthly Iraqi death count of between 1000 and 2000 dead civilians, or to the Pentagon's latest report that warns “Iraq on the brink of civil war.' .
On future wars, Bush told the Legion that Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism, is led by a radical regime, and is seeking nuclear weapons. Bush told the Legionnaires that Iran has to make a choice, and we have already made ours. Presumably this is the same deal we gave Saddam Hussein, although it remains to be seen on whether Bush can pull off another such military fiasco in Iran in the time he has left.
Bush's speech in Utah, suggestively subtitled, “Winning the Struggle Between Freedom and Terror in the Middle East,' was in fact all about failure. He spoke of past wars (failed and not over in Afghanistan), current wars (not only failing in Iraq, but spiraling into a hated occupation, perhaps civil war, and a certain cancer on the world's oil supply), and future wars (not planned, of course – not even the bullish-on-war Mr. Bush wants to be accused of planning something as stupid as preemptively bombing or invading Iran).
Yet even the crowd of patriotic veterans associated with the American Legion and its publications could see that. Even they can think. And because they can see, and because they can think, we may better understand Rumsfeld's speech, given a few days earlier to the same crowd.
This infamous Rumsfeld speechhas already produced Pentagon “explanations' and backpedaling. For me, one of his most problematic statements, in a speech filled with problematic statements is this one, where Rumsfeld warns that in long wars or struggles,
“…any kind of moral or intellectual confusion about who and what is right or wrong, can weaken the ability of free societies to persevere.'
In this case, Rumsfeld gets it exactly and precisely wrong. Let's summarize: Using dubious information and a whole lot of propaganda, we launched the destructive power of the world's most expensive and deadliest military on extremely weak fourth rate Middle Eastern countries of narrowly perceived strategic value in the name of promoting “democracy.' If we question this situation on moral, ethical, logical (when they vote freely, aren't we the ones who get voted off the island first?), strategic or constitutional grounds, according to Rumsfeld, we are ourselves the enemies of “freedom.'
But Bush and Rumsfeld are right about one thing. They believe that if Americans think about and assess the Bush administration wars – overseas and at home on the Constitution – Americans will cease any remaining support for continued military actions in Afghanistan, Iraq, and potentially Iran. Rumsfeld and Bush believe that if we think, we will oppose their proposed military spending on same, and we will vote against politicians who have advocated such immoral, illegal, illogical, counter-strategic, and unconstitutional policies.
The Bush administration fears a true American legion – that growing multitude of thinking people who love this country and hate what Bush's foreign policy and domestic abuses are doing to it. This is why Rummy needed to chide, to threaten, and to name-call in a crowd of reliable and erstwhile supporters. Even in Salt Lake City, at an American Legion convention, people are increasingly morally or intellectually confused about what the Bush administration is doing around the world, and at home.
Last weeks' speeches indicate that Bush and Rumsfeld both know that if Americans become clear headed and logical, the Bush cabal loses and the party ends. Boldly unhampered by truth and increasingly menacing in tone, their words reveal panic and political desperation.
My prediction is neither earth-shattering nor genius. But between now and the November elections, every opportunity to cause American emotion to trump American intellect will be seized, squeezed and sustained by this administration and its handmaidens.
More on the Cowardly, Lying, Traitorous WASHINGTON POST editors and publishers LYING to polish Bush's boots....
In just one or two posts previously, we here at MediaWhoresUSA.blogspot.com documented the WASHINGTON POST's *CENTRAL* role in the current decline of American democracy ('small d' 'democracy").
For almost two decades, your humble editor(s) & writer(s) here at MediaWhoresUSA.com have realized that the Post is on a corporate JIHAD against 'small d' democracy, a Jihad actually starting in the late 1980's with the Post helping Republican crooks, liars, and thugs whitewash and cover-up their misdeeds. See Robert Parry's historical reporting on the Iran-Contra and related scandals which Newsweek, the Washington Post, and other 'news' organizations DOWNPLAYED to the point of abjectly lying and covering-up the reporting of well known and widely reported facts.
(A summary of which is contained in chapter 1. of Parry's book, "Secrecy and Privilege" available at ConsortiumNews.com. See also dozens of other books on the topic(s), including "Inside Job- The Looting of America's Savings & Loans" by Puzzo et al,
http://www.fictionwise.com/ebooks/eBook2072.htm
and "Spider's Web: The Secrety History of How the White House Illegally Armed Iraq"by Alan Friedman
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/0553096508
and other books on (#1.) the BCCI scandal; (#2.) the S&L scandal; (#3.) the illegal arming of Iraq; (#4.) the "October surprise" by which Republican out-of-official-government foreign policy officials (up to and including George H.W. Bush and Henry Kissinger) may have offered Iran's revolutionary authorities "A DEAL" for them to hold on to US hostages past the 1980 US presidential elections in return for future weapons shipments, thereby ensuring President Carter's defeat and Reagan/Bush Sr's victory in that election); and of course (#5.) the Iran-Contra scandal itself, the most well-known of all these scandals.)
The fact that the Iran-Contra and S&L scandals are fading into our (America's) collective memory, and that "October surprise," Iraq-gate, BCCI, and other scandals are already almost forgotten or unknown to much of America, is in itself PRIMAE FACIA evidence that the Washington Post and other 'news' organization opinion-makers have placed FAR MORE EMPHASIS on the Clinton era "Whitewater scandal" and Lewinsky scandal (and the ENTIRELY CONTRIVED, made-up, manufactured "Travel-gate," "Lincoln bedroom," and "White House trashing" "scandals") than on prosecuting and investigating GENUINE CRIMES committed by Republicans in power, including the theft of election 2000, the disenfranchisement of thousands of voters in Florida in that election, the Dieboldization of America's voting process using imminently corrupt and hackable voting software that is, beyond doubt, able to "switch" election results from the winning candidate to the losing candidate; the disenfranchisement of tens of thousands more voters in the 2004 election, the close links between the Bush White House and ENRON, the close links between Vice President Cheney and Halliburton's no-bid, no-contract, no-oversight, law-unto-itself contracts; the Cheney "SECRET ENERGY POLICY" that withing two years led to the Iraq war, etc. etc. etc.
Well, JUST KEEPING UP WITH Washingtonton Post's MENDACITY and COVER-UPS quickly turns into a book-length exposition, if only because the cowardly, lying editors of the Post have been turning Democrat non-scandals (such as "Travel-gate" and "Lincoln bedroom scandal," and "White House trashing scandal") into CRIMES, while giving Republican authorities' crimes, INCOMPETENCE, and in-your-face CORRUPTION short shrift.
So herewith, another page of DOCUMENTATION of the LIES, COMPLICITY, and treacherous, lying CORRUPTION of the EDITORS, PUBLISHERS, and WRITERS of the Washington Post:
PS - NO, the excuse "the Democrats did it too!" is NOT an excuse for the Post's WHOREIFFIC reporting over the past two decades. The FACTS of the BCCI, Iraqate, Iran-Contra, S&L, Diebold, torture, 9-11 dereliction of duty; and lies-to-war scandals stand over and above the 'he said, she said" narrative that the POST and other Washington 'news' writers prefer to write in selling blaring headlines to readers. For example, Democratic Senator John Glenn was a member of the "Keating 7," senators accused of assisting Charles Keating's Lincoln Savings & Loan avoiding scrutiny and the intensive audits that Lincoln's books demanded. The fact that some Democrats were on-board for the whitewash and corruption of the above crimes, DOES NOT MEAN that the Washington Post had an EXCUSE to MISREPORT, COVER-UP, and WHITEWASH those crimes, corruptions, and official negligence in the first place... and all through the 1980s, it was REPUBLICANs who ran the United States government executive branch.
=========================================
Why Did the Washington Post Ignore Its Own Reporting on PlameGate?
[and thereby LIE to DOWNPLAY Republican CRIMINALITY in 'outing' an undercover CIA operative]
September 4, 2006
http://libbydefensefund.com/news/06/0904.htm
In response to a recent highly flawed, factually incorrect (as in disproven by the Washington Post's own reporting), and blisteringly dishonest editorial by the Washington Post, LibbyDefenseFund.com and BuzzFlash.com received the following bullet point refutations of the egregiously misleading WP editorial. (The editorial ran in the September 1 edition of the Post, and could have been dictated by Cheney or Rove.)
WP Allegation: It is untrue that the White House orchestrated leak of Plame’s identity to ruin her career and punish Joe Wilson
• According to Washington Post article of 10/12/03: “two top White House officials disclosed Plame’s identity to at least six Washington journalists.” An administration source told the Post: “officials brought up Plame as part of their broader case against Wilson . . . It was unsolicited . . . They were pushing back. They used everything they had.”
• After Novak’s column appeared Rove called Chris Matthews and told him Mr. Wilson’s wife was “fair game” (Newsweek 7/11/05)
• Mr. Fitzgerald, who has long been aware of Mr. Armitage’s role, stated in court filing: “there is ample evidence that multiple officials in the White House discussed [Valerie Wilson’s] employment with reporters prior to (and after) July 14, “ and further that “it is hard to conceive of what evidence there could be that would disprove the existence of White House efforts to ‘punish’ [Mr.] Wilson.” (Washington Post 4/7/06)
WP Allegation: Mr. Wilson’s charge that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger is false
• The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Assessment of Iraq describes Mr. Wilson’s role:
• The CIA’s decision to send Mr. Wilson to Niger was part of an effort to obtain responses to questions from the Vice President’s Office and State and Defense on “the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal” (p. 39)
• Two CIA staffers debriefed Mr. Wilson upon his return from Niger and wrote a draft intelligence report that was sent to the CIA Director of Operations (“DO”) reports officer. (p. 43)
• The intelligence report based on Mr. Wilson’s trip was disseminated on March 8, 2002, and was “widely distributed.” It did not identify Mr. Wilson by name to protect him as a source, which the CIA had promised Mr. Wilson. (p. 43)
• According to the report, the CIA’s DO gave Mr. Wilson’s information a grade of “good” “which means it added to the IC’s body of understanding on the issue.” (p. 46)
• After Mr. Wilson’s July 6, 2003 New York Times op-ed, the Administration acted as if he had made a major revelation:
• The day after a spokesman for the President told The Washington Post: “the sixteen words [“The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa”] did not rise to the level of inclusion in the State of the Union.” (NY Times 7/8/03)
• On July 11, 2003, CIA Director George Tenet said “These 16 words should never have been included in the text written for the president.” (LA Times 7/12/03).
• According to a Washington Post article, the National Intelligence Council stated in a January 2003 memo that “the Niger story [that Iraq had been caught trying to buy uranium from Niger] was baseless and should be laid to rest.” (Washington Post 4/9/06)
• According to a Vanity Fair article of July 2006, there was a last-minute decision before the President’s State of the Union Address to attribute the Niger uranium deal to British intelligence even though “the CIA had told the White House again and again that it didn’t trust the British reports.”
• On March 7, 2003, Mohamed ElBaradei, the Director General of the IAEA, publicly disclosed that the Niger documents which formed the basis for reports of a Iraq-Niger uranium transaction were false. He stated that “the IAEA has concluded, with the concurrence of outside experts, that these documents . . . are in fact not authentic. We have therefore concluded that these specific allegations are unfounded.”WP Allegation: Mr. Wilson “ought to have expected . . . that the answer [to why he was sent to Niger] would point to his wife.”
• A July 22, 2003 Newsday article cites a senior intelligence officer who confirmed that “she [Valerie Plame] did not recommend her husband to undertake the Niger assignment.”
• Joe Wilson’s July 15, 2005 letter to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence explains that Valerie Wilson was not at the meeting at which the subject of him traveling to Niger was raised for the first time and then only after a discussion of what the participants at the meeting did not did not know about Niger. This is confirmed by SSCI report at p. 40.
For ongoing updates on the PlameGate investigation, please read http://www.buzzflash.com.
For almost two decades, your humble editor(s) & writer(s) here at MediaWhoresUSA.com have realized that the Post is on a corporate JIHAD against 'small d' democracy, a Jihad actually starting in the late 1980's with the Post helping Republican crooks, liars, and thugs whitewash and cover-up their misdeeds. See Robert Parry's historical reporting on the Iran-Contra and related scandals which Newsweek, the Washington Post, and other 'news' organizations DOWNPLAYED to the point of abjectly lying and covering-up the reporting of well known and widely reported facts.
(A summary of which is contained in chapter 1. of Parry's book, "Secrecy and Privilege" available at ConsortiumNews.com. See also dozens of other books on the topic(s), including "Inside Job- The Looting of America's Savings & Loans" by Puzzo et al,
http://www.fictionwise.com/ebooks/eBook2072.htm
and "Spider's Web: The Secrety History of How the White House Illegally Armed Iraq"by Alan Friedman
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/customer-reviews/0553096508
and other books on (#1.) the BCCI scandal; (#2.) the S&L scandal; (#3.) the illegal arming of Iraq; (#4.) the "October surprise" by which Republican out-of-official-government foreign policy officials (up to and including George H.W. Bush and Henry Kissinger) may have offered Iran's revolutionary authorities "A DEAL" for them to hold on to US hostages past the 1980 US presidential elections in return for future weapons shipments, thereby ensuring President Carter's defeat and Reagan/Bush Sr's victory in that election); and of course (#5.) the Iran-Contra scandal itself, the most well-known of all these scandals.)
The fact that the Iran-Contra and S&L scandals are fading into our (America's) collective memory, and that "October surprise," Iraq-gate, BCCI, and other scandals are already almost forgotten or unknown to much of America, is in itself PRIMAE FACIA evidence that the Washington Post and other 'news' organization opinion-makers have placed FAR MORE EMPHASIS on the Clinton era "Whitewater scandal" and Lewinsky scandal (and the ENTIRELY CONTRIVED, made-up, manufactured "Travel-gate," "Lincoln bedroom," and "White House trashing" "scandals") than on prosecuting and investigating GENUINE CRIMES committed by Republicans in power, including the theft of election 2000, the disenfranchisement of thousands of voters in Florida in that election, the Dieboldization of America's voting process using imminently corrupt and hackable voting software that is, beyond doubt, able to "switch" election results from the winning candidate to the losing candidate; the disenfranchisement of tens of thousands more voters in the 2004 election, the close links between the Bush White House and ENRON, the close links between Vice President Cheney and Halliburton's no-bid, no-contract, no-oversight, law-unto-itself contracts; the Cheney "SECRET ENERGY POLICY" that withing two years led to the Iraq war, etc. etc. etc.
Well, JUST KEEPING UP WITH Washingtonton Post's MENDACITY and COVER-UPS quickly turns into a book-length exposition, if only because the cowardly, lying editors of the Post have been turning Democrat non-scandals (such as "Travel-gate" and "Lincoln bedroom scandal," and "White House trashing scandal") into CRIMES, while giving Republican authorities' crimes, INCOMPETENCE, and in-your-face CORRUPTION short shrift.
So herewith, another page of DOCUMENTATION of the LIES, COMPLICITY, and treacherous, lying CORRUPTION of the EDITORS, PUBLISHERS, and WRITERS of the Washington Post:
PS - NO, the excuse "the Democrats did it too!" is NOT an excuse for the Post's WHOREIFFIC reporting over the past two decades. The FACTS of the BCCI, Iraqate, Iran-Contra, S&L, Diebold, torture, 9-11 dereliction of duty; and lies-to-war scandals stand over and above the 'he said, she said" narrative that the POST and other Washington 'news' writers prefer to write in selling blaring headlines to readers. For example, Democratic Senator John Glenn was a member of the "Keating 7," senators accused of assisting Charles Keating's Lincoln Savings & Loan avoiding scrutiny and the intensive audits that Lincoln's books demanded. The fact that some Democrats were on-board for the whitewash and corruption of the above crimes, DOES NOT MEAN that the Washington Post had an EXCUSE to MISREPORT, COVER-UP, and WHITEWASH those crimes, corruptions, and official negligence in the first place... and all through the 1980s, it was REPUBLICANs who ran the United States government executive branch.
=========================================
Why Did the Washington Post Ignore Its Own Reporting on PlameGate?
[and thereby LIE to DOWNPLAY Republican CRIMINALITY in 'outing' an undercover CIA operative]
September 4, 2006
http://libbydefensefund.com/news/06/0904.htm
In response to a recent highly flawed, factually incorrect (as in disproven by the Washington Post's own reporting), and blisteringly dishonest editorial by the Washington Post, LibbyDefenseFund.com and BuzzFlash.com received the following bullet point refutations of the egregiously misleading WP editorial. (The editorial ran in the September 1 edition of the Post, and could have been dictated by Cheney or Rove.)
WP Allegation: It is untrue that the White House orchestrated leak of Plame’s identity to ruin her career and punish Joe Wilson
• According to Washington Post article of 10/12/03: “two top White House officials disclosed Plame’s identity to at least six Washington journalists.” An administration source told the Post: “officials brought up Plame as part of their broader case against Wilson . . . It was unsolicited . . . They were pushing back. They used everything they had.”
• After Novak’s column appeared Rove called Chris Matthews and told him Mr. Wilson’s wife was “fair game” (Newsweek 7/11/05)
• Mr. Fitzgerald, who has long been aware of Mr. Armitage’s role, stated in court filing: “there is ample evidence that multiple officials in the White House discussed [Valerie Wilson’s] employment with reporters prior to (and after) July 14, “ and further that “it is hard to conceive of what evidence there could be that would disprove the existence of White House efforts to ‘punish’ [Mr.] Wilson.” (Washington Post 4/7/06)
WP Allegation: Mr. Wilson’s charge that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger is false
• The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Assessment of Iraq describes Mr. Wilson’s role:
• The CIA’s decision to send Mr. Wilson to Niger was part of an effort to obtain responses to questions from the Vice President’s Office and State and Defense on “the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal” (p. 39)
• Two CIA staffers debriefed Mr. Wilson upon his return from Niger and wrote a draft intelligence report that was sent to the CIA Director of Operations (“DO”) reports officer. (p. 43)
• The intelligence report based on Mr. Wilson’s trip was disseminated on March 8, 2002, and was “widely distributed.” It did not identify Mr. Wilson by name to protect him as a source, which the CIA had promised Mr. Wilson. (p. 43)
• According to the report, the CIA’s DO gave Mr. Wilson’s information a grade of “good” “which means it added to the IC’s body of understanding on the issue.” (p. 46)
• After Mr. Wilson’s July 6, 2003 New York Times op-ed, the Administration acted as if he had made a major revelation:
• The day after a spokesman for the President told The Washington Post: “the sixteen words [“The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa”] did not rise to the level of inclusion in the State of the Union.” (NY Times 7/8/03)
• On July 11, 2003, CIA Director George Tenet said “These 16 words should never have been included in the text written for the president.” (LA Times 7/12/03).
• According to a Washington Post article, the National Intelligence Council stated in a January 2003 memo that “the Niger story [that Iraq had been caught trying to buy uranium from Niger] was baseless and should be laid to rest.” (Washington Post 4/9/06)
• According to a Vanity Fair article of July 2006, there was a last-minute decision before the President’s State of the Union Address to attribute the Niger uranium deal to British intelligence even though “the CIA had told the White House again and again that it didn’t trust the British reports.”
• On March 7, 2003, Mohamed ElBaradei, the Director General of the IAEA, publicly disclosed that the Niger documents which formed the basis for reports of a Iraq-Niger uranium transaction were false. He stated that “the IAEA has concluded, with the concurrence of outside experts, that these documents . . . are in fact not authentic. We have therefore concluded that these specific allegations are unfounded.”WP Allegation: Mr. Wilson “ought to have expected . . . that the answer [to why he was sent to Niger] would point to his wife.”
• A July 22, 2003 Newsday article cites a senior intelligence officer who confirmed that “she [Valerie Plame] did not recommend her husband to undertake the Niger assignment.”
• Joe Wilson’s July 15, 2005 letter to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence explains that Valerie Wilson was not at the meeting at which the subject of him traveling to Niger was raised for the first time and then only after a discussion of what the participants at the meeting did not did not know about Niger. This is confirmed by SSCI report at p. 40.
For ongoing updates on the PlameGate investigation, please read http://www.buzzflash.com.
Saturday, September 02, 2006
AP's Anne Flaherty's turn to LIE for BushCo....
As the great guys (and gals) over at Buzzflash.com point out, you couldn't ask for a better example of A PROPAGANDA HEADLINE than this AP article entitled "Rumsfeld REACHES OUT to DEMOCRATS."
No, even a CASUAL reading of the article reveals QUITE THE OPPOSITE: Mr. Rumsfeld (on behalf of his Dark Lord and Master, Dick Cheney) is STICKING BY THE comments he made in a speech a day earlier: that to CRITICIZE his administration of the war in Iraq is "TO APPEASE TERRORISTS."
Yes, it is true: Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and George W. Bush think that because they ALLOWED 20 Saudi hijackers to plot and execute the 9-11 terrorist attacks, THEY HEREBY HAVE CARTE-BLANCHE, UNLIMITED POWERS TO RULE AMERICA as they so desire - ANY opposition or exposition of failures and corruption in Iraq is IMMEDIATELY portrayed as "AIDING THE TERRORISTS."
=====================================
Rumsfeld REACHES OUT to Democrats [NOT!]
By ANNE PLUMMER FLAHERTY,
Associated Press Writer Fri Sep 1, 2006
WASHINGTON - Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld reached out to Democrats late Friday, OPENING UP THE DOOR for them [NOT!] to retract their stinging indictment of him as Pentagon chief.
In a letter to Congress's top Democrats, Rumsfeld said recent remarks he made during a speech in Salt Lake City were MISREPRESENTED [?? Later in this same article, Rumsfeld STANDS BY those very same outspoken, direct, unambiguous statements!] by the media, including by the Associated Press. Rumsfeld said he was "concerned" by the reaction of Democrats, many of whom called for his resignation and said he was treading on dangerous territory.
"I know you agree that with America under attack and U.S. troops in the field, our national debate on this should be constructive," Rumsfeld wrote Friday.
During his speech before thousands of veterans Tuesday, Rumsfeld said the world faces "a new type of fascism" and warned against repeating the pre-World War II mistake of appeasement. He alluded to critics of the Bush administration's war policies in terms associated with the failure to stop Nazism in the 1930s, "a time when a certain amount of cynicism and moral confusion set in among the Western democracies."
WITHOUT EXPLICITLY CITING BUSH CRITICS [ ??? in just 5 sentences, those CRITICS will INDEED be singled out: "LAWMAKERS WHO HAVE CRITICIZED HIS REMARKS"!!] at home or abroad, he said "it is apparent THAT MANY ["THAT MANY" is an ambiguous designation that, as just highlighted, is NOT in the least bit ambiguous in the context of this Rumsfeld letter and his earlier speech] have still not learned history's lessons." Aides to Rumsfeld said later he was not accusing the administration's critics of trying to appease the terrorists but was cautioning against a repeat of errors made in earlier eras.
"Thought and careful preparation went into what I said," Rumsfeld wrote in the letter. "It is absolutely essential for us to look at lessons of history in this critical moment in the war on terror." I was honored by the reception my statements received from our veterans.
Pentagon press secretary Eric Ruff said Rumsfeld's letter "reaffirms his Salt Lake City speech and it suggests lawmakers who have criticized his remarks move beyond politics and read it for what it is." Ruff said the "speech raises important questions about how America and free societies are going to confront the 21st Century terrorists who are serious, lethal and relentless."
Democrats said Friday they stood by their remarks.
"We did read the speech and he makes comparisons to World War II" that are unjustified, said Brendan Daly, spokesman for House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi. "He needs to explain that. We stand behind what we said."
Pelosi, D-Calif., had said: "If Mr. Rumsfeld is so concerned with comparisons to World War II, he should explain why our troops have now been fighting in Iraq longer than it took our forces to defeat the Nazis in Europe."
"It's always been clear what Secretary Rumsfeld said," said Rebecca Kirszner, a spokeswoman for Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada. "What's not clear is that he has a strategy in Iraq and to keep America safe. This letter doesn't change that."
Sen. Jack Reed (news, bio, voting record), D-R.I., also "stands by his earlier comments," said spokeswoman Regan Lachapelle. "No one has misread history more than Secretary Rumsfeld, especially when it comes to Iraq."
Senate Democrats were expected to meet Wednesday to discuss several issues, including whether they will try to force a vote of no confidence on Rumsfeld. Sen. Barbara Boxer (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., has vowed to push legislation next week calling for Rumsfeld to resign.
"Nothing can change the fact that Secretary Rumsfeld insulted the patriotism of the American people, and he needs to be held accountable for it," Boxer said Friday.
Text of Rumsfeld's speech: http://www.defenselink.mil/Speeches/Speech.aspx?SpeechID1033
No, even a CASUAL reading of the article reveals QUITE THE OPPOSITE: Mr. Rumsfeld (on behalf of his Dark Lord and Master, Dick Cheney) is STICKING BY THE comments he made in a speech a day earlier: that to CRITICIZE his administration of the war in Iraq is "TO APPEASE TERRORISTS."
Yes, it is true: Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and George W. Bush think that because they ALLOWED 20 Saudi hijackers to plot and execute the 9-11 terrorist attacks, THEY HEREBY HAVE CARTE-BLANCHE, UNLIMITED POWERS TO RULE AMERICA as they so desire - ANY opposition or exposition of failures and corruption in Iraq is IMMEDIATELY portrayed as "AIDING THE TERRORISTS."
=====================================
Rumsfeld REACHES OUT to Democrats [NOT!]
By ANNE PLUMMER FLAHERTY,
Associated Press Writer Fri Sep 1, 2006
WASHINGTON - Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld reached out to Democrats late Friday, OPENING UP THE DOOR for them [NOT!] to retract their stinging indictment of him as Pentagon chief.
In a letter to Congress's top Democrats, Rumsfeld said recent remarks he made during a speech in Salt Lake City were MISREPRESENTED [?? Later in this same article, Rumsfeld STANDS BY those very same outspoken, direct, unambiguous statements!] by the media, including by the Associated Press. Rumsfeld said he was "concerned" by the reaction of Democrats, many of whom called for his resignation and said he was treading on dangerous territory.
"I know you agree that with America under attack and U.S. troops in the field, our national debate on this should be constructive," Rumsfeld wrote Friday.
During his speech before thousands of veterans Tuesday, Rumsfeld said the world faces "a new type of fascism" and warned against repeating the pre-World War II mistake of appeasement. He alluded to critics of the Bush administration's war policies in terms associated with the failure to stop Nazism in the 1930s, "a time when a certain amount of cynicism and moral confusion set in among the Western democracies."
WITHOUT EXPLICITLY CITING BUSH CRITICS [ ??? in just 5 sentences, those CRITICS will INDEED be singled out: "LAWMAKERS WHO HAVE CRITICIZED HIS REMARKS"!!] at home or abroad, he said "it is apparent THAT MANY ["THAT MANY" is an ambiguous designation that, as just highlighted, is NOT in the least bit ambiguous in the context of this Rumsfeld letter and his earlier speech] have still not learned history's lessons." Aides to Rumsfeld said later he was not accusing the administration's critics of trying to appease the terrorists but was cautioning against a repeat of errors made in earlier eras.
"Thought and careful preparation went into what I said," Rumsfeld wrote in the letter. "It is absolutely essential for us to look at lessons of history in this critical moment in the war on terror." I was honored by the reception my statements received from our veterans.
Pentagon press secretary Eric Ruff said Rumsfeld's letter "reaffirms his Salt Lake City speech and it suggests lawmakers who have criticized his remarks move beyond politics and read it for what it is." Ruff said the "speech raises important questions about how America and free societies are going to confront the 21st Century terrorists who are serious, lethal and relentless."
Democrats said Friday they stood by their remarks.
"We did read the speech and he makes comparisons to World War II" that are unjustified, said Brendan Daly, spokesman for House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi. "He needs to explain that. We stand behind what we said."
Pelosi, D-Calif., had said: "If Mr. Rumsfeld is so concerned with comparisons to World War II, he should explain why our troops have now been fighting in Iraq longer than it took our forces to defeat the Nazis in Europe."
"It's always been clear what Secretary Rumsfeld said," said Rebecca Kirszner, a spokeswoman for Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada. "What's not clear is that he has a strategy in Iraq and to keep America safe. This letter doesn't change that."
Sen. Jack Reed (news, bio, voting record), D-R.I., also "stands by his earlier comments," said spokeswoman Regan Lachapelle. "No one has misread history more than Secretary Rumsfeld, especially when it comes to Iraq."
Senate Democrats were expected to meet Wednesday to discuss several issues, including whether they will try to force a vote of no confidence on Rumsfeld. Sen. Barbara Boxer (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., has vowed to push legislation next week calling for Rumsfeld to resign.
"Nothing can change the fact that Secretary Rumsfeld insulted the patriotism of the American people, and he needs to be held accountable for it," Boxer said Friday.
Text of Rumsfeld's speech: http://www.defenselink.mil/Speeches/Speech.aspx?SpeechID1033
Friday, September 01, 2006
LA Times WHORES Jonah Goldberg's TRIPE. (Putting it very nicely.)
We've got a suggestion for the lying editors and publishers of the LA Times: IF you want screaming, attention-grabbing headlines, and IF you so desperately want to shill the latest insane Right-Wing talking points, WHY DON'T YOU JUST HIRE Jewish-nazi Michael Weiner (aka Mike SAVAGE, the right-wing shock-radio host who has called for, among other things, the mass-murder of thousands - or was it millions - of Muslims.)
Not only could Weiner's savage BS not be much worse than the TRIPE the LA Times is currently putting out (on behalf of ENRON and OIL BARONS and DEFENSE CONTRACTORS and other BushCo war profiteers), BUT IT WOULD ACTUALLY BE A LITTLE MORE HONEST - as we just mentioned, when Weiner ('Savage') advocates the mass-killing of Muslims, he doesn't hide his rhetoric under a mask of "bringing peace and democracy to our Mideast friends."
Jonah Goldberg's Logic Loops Will Kill the LA Times
Scott Thill
9-01-06
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-thill/jonah-goldbergs-logic-lo_b_28512.html
First, an admssion. I read the LA Times every day. But I'm also an American every day, and I don't have to prove my loyalty to either institution. That's my right as a journalist in the case of the former and a citizen in the case of the latter. So first principles in my wing of reality dictate that when the facts, evidence and other data collected outside the realm of hyperreality say things aren't going badly, they're going nowhere...well, facts are facts.
Not so, according to Jonah Goldberg -- the hellspawn of Lucianne Goldberg, collaborator to Linda Tripp and a Jeff Gannon before her time. And one would have to venture to include the Los Angeles Times in that pack of rats. After all, Jonah's leaky logic loops are paraded in the Opinion pages of the Times. Every time I turn around, another one of his circular projections is tainting the media's screens and turning a routine perusal of the Los Angeles Times into a sanity test.
Take his recent column for example, a limp defense of the Bush administration's total failure at pretty much every level of government, excepting of course their unparalelled talent for rewarding their donors and backers. They do that better than anyone, which is in fact the only reason anyone with any healthy sense of the world defends them at all. They know the House always wins.
Goldberg's twisted diction and phrasing, as is always the case with propagandists, are instructive -- and as transparent as the recent White House attempts to tar its opposition as Hitler lovers. As self-appointed ministers of truth, Goldberg and the Bush administration he loves to coddle (and cuddle) a bit too much with have decided also that they, like propagandists before them, are also the stand-alone arbiters of truth. Which is a huge difference, but increasingly hard to notice in our hyperreal echo chamber.
Take the Iraq "invasion," which Goldberg admits (after asking himself, of course, like all the rightnuts like to do), is "going badly." But then, like a suspicious lover, he pulls back from the brink, arguing that it would be crazy to deny it hasn't, but that it would be "cruel" to argue Bush meant it to flop. Well, I know some Iraqis -- OK a whole country of them! -- who'd argue that one, and they live there. Last I checked, Goldberg does not. Reality strike number one.
As for Goldberg's projection metric -- which I invented to catalogue the ways in which the Bush administration ineptly transmits their core values without knowing it -- check his piece's initial straw-man paragraph, wherein Goldberg pretends to bash a man he has come to defend by using these loaded terms in succession: "problems," "Bush," "monkey," "cocaine," "addiction," "falling backward." That's not supposed to make you wonder? I'm just saying. Sifting this way, Goldberg's logic comes into view. It can be thus translated as, "Yes, the president is a cocaine monkey who can't stop falling down, so it would be cruel to argue he screwed Iraq and America on purpose." Much clearer, isn't it?
The fun continues with Goldberg inviting Bush-bashers to email him, disguised as a snarky toss-off about how much hate mail he'll get for arguing that America, whose majority has incontrovertibly stated that it thinks the Bush administration are tools and Iraq is over, should "cut the guy some slack." Of course, he never offers any concrete reasons for why anyone should call the guy who loves to be called Commander-in-Chief to account for nothing but failures, relying instead on establishing Bush's legitimacy by doing what Cheney and Rumsfeld -- or Chumsfeld, as I like to call that freaky two-headed hydra -- are doing now: trashing the opposition.
This time, it's the credibility of the "Bush-bashers," a diaphanous term which we can only guess translates as "anyone who disagrees with the president's administration" (the majority of America, to beat a dead horse), which is the problem. Why? Because the source for the Plame outing was Richard Armitage not Karl Rove. Goldberg's logic loops kick into overdrive here: "Now it turns out that instead of 'Bush blows CIA agent's cover to silence a brave dissenter' -- as Wilson practices saying into the mirror every morning -- the story is, 'One Bush enemy inadvertently taken out by another's friendly fire.'" Nice theory, but it misses crucial points, especially the fact that Armitage was in the employ of none other than Bush to sell, what else, the war in Iraq. Armitage's boss Colin Powell (remember him?) sold the war to the U.N.
So yeah, no dice there. After that, Goldberg goes off the reservation like a true neocon, locked in a self-constructed house of mirrors. Inside of it, his inner propagandist shines so bright that his inhumanity and illogic come into sharp relief:
On Katrina: "Yes, the federal government could have responded better. And of course there were real tragedies involved in that disaster. But you know what? Bad stuff happens during disasters, which is why we don't call them tickle-parties." How sensitive.
On Jealousy: "Democrats love to note that Bush hasn't caught Osama bin Laden yet." Good point. More fodder for the projection metric.
On Fantasy: "But even nicer than catching Bin Laden is not having thousands of dead Americans in New York, Washington and L.A. Contrary to all expert predictions, there hasn't been a successful attack on the homeland since 9/11....the U.S. is in fact winning the war on terror, thanks largely to Bush's policies."
On Optimism: "Things could obviously be a lot better. But they could be a lot worse too." Now that's taking a stand, Jonah!
Man, I haven't had that much fun reading an administration stooge fumble through the fundamentals of philosophy and credulity since Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf, Iraq's ex-Minister of Information, fed the same everything-will-be-alright bullshit to a Baghdad set to burn. Like al-Sahaf, like Chumsfeld, like all the Bush mouthpieces, Jonah Goldberg isn't doing anything else besides mixing and matching terms, phrases and premises and hoping that, like the neocon's Iraq fantasyland, it all holds together. Meanwhile, the Los Angeles Times is content to let an obviously fact-challenged dork rant for it on the regular. Does that amount to collusion, something that would tarnish not just the credibility of the LA Times, but of print media in general? (You can find a deranged loudmouth anywhere online.) Can anyone truly complain about Wikipedia's credibility after this type of back-scratching?
That's for you to decide, because you are the readers. Us journalists have to find jobs anywhere we can, and tell the truth or lies to people for a living, pretending it's not our bottom lines that matter. Which is where Goldberg's true motivation resides: He just wants a job. Like AT&T, Halliburton, Verizon, Wal-Mart and Custer Battles, he's throwing his money down with the house. Even if the house is burning down. He practically admits it himself, albeit in his own hidden way: "Here's a wacky idea: Maybe it's not all Bush's fault."
"Wacky." "Bush." "Fault." Like I said, projection.
Not only could Weiner's savage BS not be much worse than the TRIPE the LA Times is currently putting out (on behalf of ENRON and OIL BARONS and DEFENSE CONTRACTORS and other BushCo war profiteers), BUT IT WOULD ACTUALLY BE A LITTLE MORE HONEST - as we just mentioned, when Weiner ('Savage') advocates the mass-killing of Muslims, he doesn't hide his rhetoric under a mask of "bringing peace and democracy to our Mideast friends."
Jonah Goldberg's Logic Loops Will Kill the LA Times
Scott Thill
9-01-06
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-thill/jonah-goldbergs-logic-lo_b_28512.html
First, an admssion. I read the LA Times every day. But I'm also an American every day, and I don't have to prove my loyalty to either institution. That's my right as a journalist in the case of the former and a citizen in the case of the latter. So first principles in my wing of reality dictate that when the facts, evidence and other data collected outside the realm of hyperreality say things aren't going badly, they're going nowhere...well, facts are facts.
Not so, according to Jonah Goldberg -- the hellspawn of Lucianne Goldberg, collaborator to Linda Tripp and a Jeff Gannon before her time. And one would have to venture to include the Los Angeles Times in that pack of rats. After all, Jonah's leaky logic loops are paraded in the Opinion pages of the Times. Every time I turn around, another one of his circular projections is tainting the media's screens and turning a routine perusal of the Los Angeles Times into a sanity test.
Take his recent column for example, a limp defense of the Bush administration's total failure at pretty much every level of government, excepting of course their unparalelled talent for rewarding their donors and backers. They do that better than anyone, which is in fact the only reason anyone with any healthy sense of the world defends them at all. They know the House always wins.
Goldberg's twisted diction and phrasing, as is always the case with propagandists, are instructive -- and as transparent as the recent White House attempts to tar its opposition as Hitler lovers. As self-appointed ministers of truth, Goldberg and the Bush administration he loves to coddle (and cuddle) a bit too much with have decided also that they, like propagandists before them, are also the stand-alone arbiters of truth. Which is a huge difference, but increasingly hard to notice in our hyperreal echo chamber.
Take the Iraq "invasion," which Goldberg admits (after asking himself, of course, like all the rightnuts like to do), is "going badly." But then, like a suspicious lover, he pulls back from the brink, arguing that it would be crazy to deny it hasn't, but that it would be "cruel" to argue Bush meant it to flop. Well, I know some Iraqis -- OK a whole country of them! -- who'd argue that one, and they live there. Last I checked, Goldberg does not. Reality strike number one.
As for Goldberg's projection metric -- which I invented to catalogue the ways in which the Bush administration ineptly transmits their core values without knowing it -- check his piece's initial straw-man paragraph, wherein Goldberg pretends to bash a man he has come to defend by using these loaded terms in succession: "problems," "Bush," "monkey," "cocaine," "addiction," "falling backward." That's not supposed to make you wonder? I'm just saying. Sifting this way, Goldberg's logic comes into view. It can be thus translated as, "Yes, the president is a cocaine monkey who can't stop falling down, so it would be cruel to argue he screwed Iraq and America on purpose." Much clearer, isn't it?
The fun continues with Goldberg inviting Bush-bashers to email him, disguised as a snarky toss-off about how much hate mail he'll get for arguing that America, whose majority has incontrovertibly stated that it thinks the Bush administration are tools and Iraq is over, should "cut the guy some slack." Of course, he never offers any concrete reasons for why anyone should call the guy who loves to be called Commander-in-Chief to account for nothing but failures, relying instead on establishing Bush's legitimacy by doing what Cheney and Rumsfeld -- or Chumsfeld, as I like to call that freaky two-headed hydra -- are doing now: trashing the opposition.
This time, it's the credibility of the "Bush-bashers," a diaphanous term which we can only guess translates as "anyone who disagrees with the president's administration" (the majority of America, to beat a dead horse), which is the problem. Why? Because the source for the Plame outing was Richard Armitage not Karl Rove. Goldberg's logic loops kick into overdrive here: "Now it turns out that instead of 'Bush blows CIA agent's cover to silence a brave dissenter' -- as Wilson practices saying into the mirror every morning -- the story is, 'One Bush enemy inadvertently taken out by another's friendly fire.'" Nice theory, but it misses crucial points, especially the fact that Armitage was in the employ of none other than Bush to sell, what else, the war in Iraq. Armitage's boss Colin Powell (remember him?) sold the war to the U.N.
So yeah, no dice there. After that, Goldberg goes off the reservation like a true neocon, locked in a self-constructed house of mirrors. Inside of it, his inner propagandist shines so bright that his inhumanity and illogic come into sharp relief:
On Katrina: "Yes, the federal government could have responded better. And of course there were real tragedies involved in that disaster. But you know what? Bad stuff happens during disasters, which is why we don't call them tickle-parties." How sensitive.
On Jealousy: "Democrats love to note that Bush hasn't caught Osama bin Laden yet." Good point. More fodder for the projection metric.
On Fantasy: "But even nicer than catching Bin Laden is not having thousands of dead Americans in New York, Washington and L.A. Contrary to all expert predictions, there hasn't been a successful attack on the homeland since 9/11....the U.S. is in fact winning the war on terror, thanks largely to Bush's policies."
On Optimism: "Things could obviously be a lot better. But they could be a lot worse too." Now that's taking a stand, Jonah!
Man, I haven't had that much fun reading an administration stooge fumble through the fundamentals of philosophy and credulity since Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf, Iraq's ex-Minister of Information, fed the same everything-will-be-alright bullshit to a Baghdad set to burn. Like al-Sahaf, like Chumsfeld, like all the Bush mouthpieces, Jonah Goldberg isn't doing anything else besides mixing and matching terms, phrases and premises and hoping that, like the neocon's Iraq fantasyland, it all holds together. Meanwhile, the Los Angeles Times is content to let an obviously fact-challenged dork rant for it on the regular. Does that amount to collusion, something that would tarnish not just the credibility of the LA Times, but of print media in general? (You can find a deranged loudmouth anywhere online.) Can anyone truly complain about Wikipedia's credibility after this type of back-scratching?
That's for you to decide, because you are the readers. Us journalists have to find jobs anywhere we can, and tell the truth or lies to people for a living, pretending it's not our bottom lines that matter. Which is where Goldberg's true motivation resides: He just wants a job. Like AT&T, Halliburton, Verizon, Wal-Mart and Custer Battles, he's throwing his money down with the house. Even if the house is burning down. He practically admits it himself, albeit in his own hidden way: "Here's a wacky idea: Maybe it's not all Bush's fault."
"Wacky." "Bush." "Fault." Like I said, projection.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)