| |
 |
|
(JavaScript Error)
|
| Archives |
|
|
|
|
Subscribe
|
| Now you
can subscribe to this blog and receive new blogs direct to
your email! |
|
RSS/XML Syndication
| |
|
|
|
|
Video: Alternative
Views
|
|
Censured Casualties
features rare footage
of war crimes against the Iraqi people suffered during
and after the Gulf War. The footage is from former Attorney
General Ramsey
Clark in his attempt to document the injustice
of United States military actions in the region.
|
|
|
Video: Alternative
Views
|
|
Another Unknown
War
features a film on the
struggle of the indigenous people of West Papua to remain
sovereign in the face of an Indonesian invasion backed
by world capital. Footage of Noam
Chomsky on Western involvments in the region and
the relation to East Timor.
|
|
|
Doug's New Books & Related
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TV/Radio
|
|
|
| |
 |
| |
|
|
|
Wednesday, August 31, 2005
|
Salon.com - War Room
Salon's War Room offers some good analysis of how Bush administration ignored New Orleans hurricane warning threats, as they did terrorism threats pre-9/11 and why there are no troops available to help out because of Iraq and Bush foreign policy adventures; who'se going to pay for the rebuilding? US is draining its wealth on Iraq and Bush corporate and tax give-aways
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/
from Salon:
The real cause of Hurricane Katrina?
Sometimes, it's hard to keep up.
We reported last night on the cause of Hurricane Katrina -- at least in the eyes of an anti-abortion group called Columbia Christians for Life. The storm, the group says, is God's way of punishing Louisiana for having ten abortion clinics.
Well, at least that's what the Columbia Christians for Life were saying yesterday. We've just received another email from the group, and now it seems to be saying that God sent Katrina after Louisiana to prevent Southern Decadence, an annual gay-themed bash that was scheduled for Labor Day weekend in New Orleans.
The Columbia Christians for Life forwarded to us a press release from a Philadelphia-based outfit called Repent America. In it, Repent American director Michael Marcavage explains: "Although the loss of lives is deeply saddening, this act of God destroyed a wicked city. From 'Girls Gone Wild' to 'Southern Decadence,' New Orleans was a city that had its doors wide open to the public celebration of sin. May it never be the same."
-- T.G.
Print Email
Permalink [14:12 EDT, August 31, 2005]
The 9/11 of New Orleans
Is Hurricane Katrina the new 9/11?
The death toll almost certainly won't approach 9/11 numbers, but the insurance industry says the financial losses could come close. Americans in Kansas and California aren't feeling the same sort of "we could be next" vulnerability they did on that Tuesday morning four years ago -- and this isn't the first hurricane to strike the homeland -- but there's at least some sense that the county is sharing the pain of a national tragedy again. The editorial writers at the New York Times see the pictures from Louisiana and can't help thinking of "the time after 9/11, when the rest of the nation made it clear that our city was their city, and that everyone was part of the battle to restore it."
A little less poetically, Aaron Brooks, the quarterback of the displaced New Orleans Saints, says: "It's not a 9/11 deal, but it has the feeling of it."
That's certainly what they're hoping over at the White House. The attacks of 9/11 were very, very good for George W. Bush. His job approval ratings were sliding amid the sour economy in the weeks before the attacks, but Americans rallied around their president in the days and months afterward. Bush was able to use 9/11 to sell a war and hide the effect of his tax cuts, and he rode the often-invoked memories of 9/11 to reelection in November.
So Bush heads back to Washington today -- and soon, to the scene of the disaster in Louisiana -- but for what? What can Bush do for the people of New Orleans that isn't being done already? What can he do that he couldn't do in Crawford? Scott McClellan didn't have much of an answer yesterday. Throughout the president's vacation -- as American soldiers were killed and the political progress faltered in Iraq -- the White House insisted that Bush had all the powers of the modern presidency in his command down in Crawford. So why does Bush have to go back to Washington now? Isn't it just symbolic, like standing on that fire truck and shouting in a bullhorn after 9/11?
"No, I think -- no, I disagree," McClellan said yesterday. "Like I said, this is one of the most devastating storms in our nation's history, and the president, after receiving a further update this morning, made the decision that he wanted to get back to D.C. and oversee the response efforts from there." Pressed on what Bush could do in Washington that he couldn't do in Crawford, McClellan said: "We'll talk to you all later. We've got to go. Thank you."
-- T.G.
Print Email
Permalink [13:41 EDT, August 31, 2005]
Where have all the soldiers gone?
Is the war in Iraq hampering rescue and relief efforts back home?
It's hard to get a straight answer. Governors have been warning for months that the deployment of so many National Guard troops in Iraq has left their states short-handed. Back in June, Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer warned that his state could be high and dry come fire season if some of its soldiers didn't come home. Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee warned of being "stretched thin" if a natural disaster struck in his state. And Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco said she was worried about what would happen if a hurricane struck.
So when a hurricane did strike this week, the Pentagon's public relations machinery was ready for the questions that it knew would be coming. Pentagon spokesman Lawrence Di Rita immediately assured the Associated Press that the states in Katrina's path would have adequate National Guard units at home to handle any needs that might arise.
But a story in this morning's Washington Post begins to cast a little doubt on those assurances. While the Pentagon puts on a good show, the Post says that National Guard officials in the damaged states have "acknowledged that the scale of the destruction is stretching the limits of available manpower while placing another extraordinary demand on their troops -- most of whom have already served tours in Iraq or Afghanistan or in homeland defense missions since 2001."
"Missing the personnel is the big thing in this particular event," Mississippi National Guard Lt. Andy Thaggard tells the Post. "We need our people." The Post says about 40 percent of Mississippi's Guard contingent is either in Iraq or getting ready to go there. The rest is being deployed for hurricane work now, and it's not going to be enough: Mississippi has requested troops and aircraft from about eight other states, the Post says, and other states hit by Katrina are also calling out for help.
The Pentagon has promised governors that they'll always have at least 50 percent of their Guard contingents at home, and so far it's making good on the vow. One catch: With National Guard enlistment down in many states, 50 percent of a state's contingent isn't always what it used to be.
-- T.G.
Print Email
Permalink [11:43 EDT, August 31, 2005]
The real crisis in New Orleans? Looting!
GOPUSA says its mission is to bring "the conservative message to America." If the site's top news today is any indication, the "conservative message" today is this: Looters have run amok in New Orleans.
We'd think there are all sorts of angles one might take on the hurricane. How many people have died? When will people be allowed to go home? Did government ineptness make matters worse? How can the people of the world help?
But if you're GOPUSA -- the folks who brought us Jeff Gannon and Talon News -- the central fact of the Hurricane is that people are "breaking into stores and making off with anything and everything they could get their hands on -- and not just food for survival." And GOPUSA isn't alone: On Fox News last night, Sean Hannity said that "these images of looting" -- in heavy rotation on his own network "have literally shocked the nation." Not to be outdone, one of Hannity's colleagues asked a legal expert on the air yesterday whether it would be OK if the law-abiding citizens or New Orleans started shooting looters.
|
|
|
Progress Report Archives - American Progress Action Fund
good analysis of politics behind Hurricane disaster
http://www.americanprogressaction.org/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=klLWJcP7H&b=914257&ct=1364537
|
|
Tuesday, August 30, 2005
|
|
|
|
|
Salon.com News | Katrina's destructive waves
good analysis of hurricane devastation
Salon.com News | Katrina's destructive waves
Katrina's destructive waves
An MIT global warming expert argues that the damage wrought by Atlantic hurricanes in the past decade has more to do with rampant development than a vengeful Mother Nature.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Katharine Mieszkowski
Aug. 30, 2005 | Hurricane Katrina has turned New Orleans into "a wilderness," said one public health official, who begged evacuated residents not to return to the city for at least a week. Rife with poisonous water moccasins and fire ants, downed trees and power lines, without fresh drinking water, power, gas or sewage, the storm has made the battered and flooded city uninhabitable.
Katrina is just the latest in a rash of powerful hurricanes that have been pummeling the Atlantic in recent years, including a record-breaking 33 between 1995 and 1999. It's made many wonder if global warming is bringing the wrath of the planet down upon all our heads. Kerry Emanuel, a professor of atmospheric science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who has studied historical records of hurricanes around the globe, said the answer is yes and no.
In a recent paper, "Increasing Destructiveness of Tropical Cyclones Over the Past 30 Years," published in the science journal Nature, Emanuel found that as sea temperatures rise, the duration and intensity of hurricanes are going up, too.
The reason for the correlation is pretty straightforward: "Hurricanes derive their energy from the evaporation of sea water," Emanuel explained in a phone interview. "When you evaporate water from the ocean you actually transfer heat from the ocean to the atmosphere. A similar effect happens when you come out of the shower in the morning. You feel cold because water is evaporating from your skin, and taking heat from your body. That heat energy doesn't disappear." Instead, it fuels the intensity of hurricanes.
So, as global warming increases, expect hurricanes to get stronger. However, that doesn't mean, as some perceive, that there are actually more of them lately. "When we looked at the historical record, we found that the frequency of storms globally hasn't really changed at all," Emanuel said. "It's about 90 per year, plus or minus 10. The frequency globally appears to be steady."
The recent hurricanes in the Atlantic, Emanuel explained, represent a natural fluctuation. Every 20 to 30 years, since records started being kept in the 19th century, there have been big shifts in the frequency of hurricanes in the Atlantic. "For example, in the 1940s and '50s, there were very busy years, whereas the 1970s and '80s were very quiet years," he said. "And we've had a big upswing in the Atlantic beginning in about 1995. That's all natural."
The reason violent Atlantic hurricanes like Katrina may strike people as unnatural, and cause them to blame the CO2 pouring out of their neighbors' Hummers, is not because of their frequency but their destruction to people and places.
"This natural fluctuation occurs in a social environment where there is a huge shift in demographic trends, and this makes a big difference in people's perception," Emanuel said. "In the 1940s and '50s, there were lots of hurricanes in Florida, but there weren't lots of people there. So now that we're having this upswing again, it's being perceived very differently" -- for the simple fact that there is a lot more stuff to be ruined.
Meteorologists performed admirably in alerting public officials to Katrina's rising destruction, allowing them to evacuate New Orleans and other Gulf Coast cities in plenty of time. But Emanuel said that other warnings by meteorologists have gone unheeded in past decades -- warnings to go easy on the housing and commercial development in areas like Florida that are highly at risk to Atlantic hurricanes.
"A lot of people in my business had been, even in the 1980s, warning anybody who would listen -- which was very few, it turned out -- that there was going to be this upswing in hurricanes," Emanuel said. "It's not rocket science. We've been building all this stuff in Florida during this lull that lasted 20 years. We built all this stuff, and it's waiting to get creamed. There's been a fantastic amount of construction. A lot of people have built homes on the water. And nobody really listened. And now all of those predictions are exactly coming true. But it doesn't have much to do with global warming."
To Emanuel, Katrina is not an unusual hurricane. "Not that many hurricanes get that powerful, but we've had hurricanes like Katrina before," he said. "Camille was about the same strength. Andrew was about the same strength. Katrina was just unfortunate, because it happened to hit a very densely populated area."
Ultimately, Emanuel said, it's not a vengeful Mother Nature but man's politics that are to blame for the destruction. As long as people insist on erecting homes and businesses, aided by low insurance rates and business lobbyists, in vulnerable areas like the Gulf Coast, there's little scientists can do to prevent the havoc. "I like to say that there is no such thing as a 100 percent natural disaster," Emanuel said. "We have to put stuff in harm's way for there to be a disaster, and we're very good at doing that, and subsidizing people who continue to do it."
|
|
Monday, August 29, 2005
|
TFake cowboy, fake ranch: Burnishing an image at the USA Corral
a fake ranch for a fake President
The Smirking Chimp: "Fake cowboy, fake ranch: Burnishing an image at the USA Corral"
|
|
Sunday, August 28, 2005
|
|
|
|
|
Robert Parry: 'Explaining the Bush cocoon'
Slacker President Living in a Cocoon
The Smirking Chimp
|
|
|
Strategizing a Christian coup d'etat: A group of believers wants to establish Scriptures-based government one city and county at a time.
Christofacists on the march...
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/article.php?sid=22519&mode=nested&order=0
|
|
Friday, August 26, 2005
|
|
|
|
Thursday, August 25, 2005
|
TRose Aguilar: 'One state at a time'
could the Dems actually get it together?
The Smirking Chimp: "Rose Aguilar: 'One state at a time'"
|
|
|
Salon.com | Questioning the president
More heat on the Slacker President
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2005/08/25/questions/print.html
Questioning the president
A servile Congress has let Bush go on permanent vacation. But with U.S. security hanging in the balance, it's time to ask the hard-hitting questions.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Sidney Blumenthal
Aug. 25, 2005 | President Bush took a brief break this week from his monthlong vacation to deliver speeches in Utah and Idaho calling for staying the course in Iraq. Because American soldiers have died there, we must continue. "We will finish the task that they gave their lives for," Bush said in Salt Lake City on Monday.
He moved his vacationing in between to the Tamarack Resort in Donnelly, Idaho, where he made a short statement to the traveling White House press corps. He described the drafting of the Iraqi constitution as an "amazing event" in its guarantees of democracy and women's rights, and compared its deliberations to those at the Philadelphia convention that gave rise to the U.S. Constitution. "We had a little trouble with our own conventions writing a constitution," he said. Then he took a few questions.
"She expressed her opinion. I disagree with it," Bush said about Cindy Sheehan, the mother of a 24-year-old soldier killed in Iraq, who had camped outside the president's ranch asking for a meeting to hear her critical comments on the war. "I met with a lot of families. She doesn't represent the view of a lot of the families I have met with. And I'll continue to meet with families."
Later, Bush asked, "We've got somebody from Fox here, somebody told me?"
"Does the administration's goal -- I'll ask you about the Iraqi constitution. You said you're confident that it will honor the rights of women."
"Yes."
"If it's rooted in Islam, as it seems it will be -- is there still the possibility of honoring the rights of women?"
"I've talked to Condi, and there is not -- as I understand it, the way the constitution is written is that women have got rights, inherent rights recognized in the constitution, and that the constitution talks about, you know, not 'the religion,' but 'a religion.' Twenty-five percent of the assembly is going to be women, which is a -- is embedded in the constitution. OK. It's been a pleasure."
"What else are you going to do? Are you going to bike today?"
"I may bike today. Been on the phone all morning. Spent a little time with the CIA man this morning, catching up on the events of the world. And, as I said, I talked to Condi a couple of times. And tonight I'm going to be dining with the governor and the delegation from Idaho; spend a little quality time with the first lady here in this beautiful part of the world. May go for a bike ride."
"Fishing?"
"I don't know yet. I haven't made up my mind yet. I'm kind of hanging loose, as they say." With that, the questions ended and the vacation continued.
While Bush has allowed only abbreviated and controlled access for the press, he has been coddled by the Republican Congress, despite the spike in public disapproval of his conduct of the Iraq war.
In February 1966, Sen. J. William Fulbright, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, held the first hearings on the Vietnam War, which were televised nationally for six days. The public was riveted by the penetrating questioning of administration officials and the debates among the members of the committee. Fulbright had been a friend of President Lyndon Johnson for years. Johnson, after all, had been the Senate majority leader, and Fulbright was a fellow Southerner. But the escalation of the war and the absence of a clear strategy of resolution prompted Fulbright to call the hearings. He held additional hearings in August 1966, in October-November of 1967 and, when Richard Nixon became president, in April-May 1971 for 11 days. Fulbright believed that it was his constitutional duty to exercise oversight of the executive.
No similar Senate hearings on the origins, conduct and strategy of the Iraq war have been held. During the Johnson period, the Democrats controlled both chambers of the Congress. But Fulbright did not feel that partisan discipline under the whip of the White House was a higher principle than performing as a check and balance. Fulbright was a Democrat raising pointed questions about the policy of a Democratic president. But no Republican Senate chairman has seen fit to follow the Fulbright example. The one-party Republican rule of the Congress has resulted in the stifling of inquiry. Abandoning its powers and duties, the Republican Senate as a body refuses to hold the executive accountable.
The Democrats, suffering the debilities of the minority, are a congressional party without authority to initiate committee hearings. They cannot set an agenda or command television cameras. Their Republican colleagues have shunted them to the sidelines; the White House is deaf to their entreaties. Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware, the ranking Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, after fact-finding missions to Iraq, has offered numerous ideas to the administration, none of which have been accepted. Biden's good-faith effort at offering helpful practical advice has been ignored as though he had said nothing.
The opposition party cries in the wilderness. There is no specific policy on Iraq coming from the Democrats that the administration will heed other than blind support. It is impossible for the Democrats to be expected to arrive at answers to problems about which they, like the public, have been denied essential information. Why should Democrats produce polished answers when the administration won't or can't explain itself? Developing hard-and-fast positions on particular difficulties in Iraq will not make the White House hear them. The Democrats' greatest potential strength now is simply to ask questions.
The unanswered questions of consequence that might be asked, if there were a responsible Congress to pose them, are many, extending from Iraq to Iran, from public diplomacy to intelligence, and to the fate of our military.
On Iraq: Why was it necessary for the Bush administration to impose an arbitrary deadline on the drafting of the Iraqi constitution, the single most important document for a new Iraq? The constitution appears to undermine the administration's commitment to a unitary state and to democracy, and enshrines Islamic law as a basis of governmental legitimacy. Why didn't the administration allow the Iraqi communities to attempt to arrive at acceptable compromises on their own timetable?
Recent reports, including in the Washington Post, document the growth of sectarian militias that engage routinely in abductions, assassinations and other violence against domestic opponents. In many towns and cities, these militias have supplanted or run national security and police forces. What plans does the administration have to contain or disband them? Are there any plans for integrating these militias into national security forces so that they lose their sectarian identity and command structure? If there are no such plans, what analyses has the administration done to determine the future effectiveness of an Iraqi national security force in this environment?
On the U.S. military: Retired four-star Gen. Barry McCaffrey, reflecting the views of many senior officers, has stated that "the wheels are going to come off" the military in Iraq in 24 months and that the Reserve and National Guard systems are approaching meltdown. What is the administration's strategy for ensuring combat readiness and preparedness? Are the various conflicting statements by administration and military commanders on the withdrawals of some troops dictated by this meltdown or by some assessment, not yet publicly articulated, of the security conditions in Iraq?
Gen. Schoomaker, the chief of staff of the Army, has declared that U.S. troops may be stationed in Iraq for at least four more years. Where will these troops be found?
As of May 2005, the U.S. military has plans to build four large bases in Iraq -- each designed to hold a brigade-size combat team, aviation units and other support personnel -- that have the air of permanence. Does the administration intend to establish these as permanent U.S. bases? What is the long-term strategy behind their construction? How will the current levels of U.S. forces in the region extended over a period of six years affect other potential security contingencies?
On Iran: When asked about military action, President Bush has stated that all options are on the table regarding Iran. Has the administration drawn up military options? What are the assessments of military analysts of likely outcomes in exercising such options?
The administration has emphasized that Iran is a proliferator of weapons of mass destruction, a major supporter of terrorism, and a notorious violator of human rights. Recent reports in the press have documented that Iran is the principal funder of the leading Shiite political parties and militias in Iraq. Iran has also expanded its influence in Lebanon through Hezbollah's gains in legislative elections. What assessments has the administration made about Iran's response to any U.S. military action against it?
German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder has declared he would not support such an action. Which allies have agreed to support the administration's military option in Iran? What responses has the administration planned to deal with a military action against Iran within international bodies including the United Nations Security Council and NATO?
On U.S. intelligence: Has the administration commissioned a National Intelligence Estimate for military options against Iran? Has the new director of national intelligence John Negroponte assured the intelligence community that its objectivity and integrity will be protected from any political pressure? Will the DNI prominently raise caveats from intelligence analysts where there are disagreements? Will any new NIE be shared with the Congress in a timely fashion before any debate of any action is undertaken?
The administration has used Republican members of the House of Representatives in the past to attack senators of both parties for raising serious questions about the administration's policies. (Rep. Duncan Hunter's attack on Sen. John Warner for conducting hearings on Abu Ghraib is a notable example.) Will the president take steps to ensure that the oversight responsibilities of the Congress are not compromised or inhibited? Will he make every effort to inform his political aides that they are not to interfere with the congressional oversight process so that information and analysis are not twisted by political criteria?
On oil: The president recently signed an energy bill that provided no new measures for lessening U.S. dependence on foreign oil. In the absence of a commitment to achieve more energy independence, what measures does the administration propose to Arab nations to guarantee a steady supply and stable price of oil? The administration's advocacy of opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil exploration would have only a marginal and transient impact. What conservation measures does the administration propose?
On U.S. alliances: A number of member states in the coalition involved in the Iraq war and occupation have withdrawn their troops. Has the administration drawn up plans for our military to fill these gaps now and in the future? What policies does the administration plan to create a more cooperative environment, especially within the Western alliance? Does the president plan to consult fully with our historic allies on military options in the future? Has the administration shared its military options involving Iran with key allies? If the administration does not plan to change its policies on extra-legal actions, such as going to war without advance consultation, how does it propose to strengthen our traditional alliances? With Iran and Iraq under the sway of Shia fundamentalism, how does the administration plan to encourage the cooperation of other Arab nations in the region?
On public diplomacy: Longtime Bush political aide Karen Hughes has recently been confirmed as undersecretary of state for public diplomacy and public affairs. Two previous appointees have resigned this post in frustration. With U.S. prestige at an all-time low throughout the world, according to several polls conducted by independent organizations such as the Pew Trust and the German Marshall Fund's Transatlantic Institute, what policies does the administration plan to change to reverse this trend?
Given that the draft Iraqi constitution enshrines Shiite Islamic law restricting the rights of women, how does the new undersecretary explain the administration's acquiescence in such an obviously undemocratic development? How does the undersecretary explain the administration's goal of spreading democracy in the Middle East given that the process of constitution drafting in Iraq has alienated secular Iraqis, Sunnis and Kurds and aligned the U.S. with the dominant Shiite factions heavily influenced by Iran? In pursuing its stated goal of democratization the administration has particularly focused on Sunni-ruled nations -- Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria. What does the undersecretary offer as incentives to these nations in the light of the administration's failure to protect Sunni and women's rights in Iraq?
The Pentagon continues to block a federal court order to publicly release photographs and videotapes of torture committed at the Abu Ghraib prison. The president has threatened to veto the military appropriations bill if an amendment sponsored by three Republican senators, John McCain, Lindsey Graham and John Warner, that would outlaw torture and abuse of prisoners is attached. How does the administration foresee any change in the international perception of the U.S. image if it continues to follow these policies?
The president's policy has involved his abrogation of U.S. adherence to the Geneva Conventions that protect prisoners against torture. Will the administration pledge to comply with these conventions in the future? Will the administration permit the International Red Cross unfettered access to all prisoners under U.S. supervision?
These are only some of the pressing questions that might be asked by members of Congress. The Republican Congress has left a vacuum of responsibility. Raising these matters would not merely foster necessary public debate. It would stir to life the legislative branch and begin to show what an energetic Democratic majority might do on the public's behalf.
Sen. Fulbright was the first to critique the pathology of the imperial presidency that he called "the arrogance of power." He also stands as a political exemplar. Fulbright's fearlessness, skepticism and precision present a historical model for the Democrats, even if they lack his committee chairmanship.
Only by asking questions can the Democrats hope to determine the substance of Bush's increasingly evanescent and futile policies to which they are supposed to respond. Only by asking questions can they demonstrate that they understand the nature of the Congress and should be granted control in it. Question time is their opportunity and obligation.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
About the writer
Sidney Blumenthal, a former assistant and senior advisor to President Clinton and the author of "The Clinton Wars," is writing a column for Salon and the Guardian of London.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wednesday, August 24, 2005
|
My Private Idaho - New York Times
The Vacation President idles and races bikes while Iraq burns; has there ever been such a slacker and lazy president? On the other hand, given his monumental incompetence maybe its better he does nothing since his major decisions have been disastrous (except for Bush-Cheney allies who profit from suffering and death)
My Private Idaho - New York Times
|
|
|
Stew Albert: 'Fascism in America: Are we there yet?'
Fascism on the move in the US: the salient feature of US extreme Right is coalition of rightwing Christians with rightwing ideologues; e.g. Pat Robertson who combines rightwing christian discourse with fascist thuggery
The Smirking Chimp
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tuesday, August 23, 2005
|
Linwood Barclay: 'What boneheaded design guides Dubya's moves?'
The Bush Boneheads
The Smirking Chimp
|
|
|
Bernie Weiner: 'A cancerous tumor in the body politic: Time for surgery'
good analysis of Bush administration as a malignant disease needing to be removed from body politic a la the Nixon administration'
The Smirking Chimp
|
|
|
|
|
|
Saturday, August 20, 2005
|
|
|
|
|
Bad Iraq war news worries some in G.O.P. on '06 vote
Let Bush and Iraq take the Republicans down....
The Smirking Chimp: "Bad Iraq war news worries some in G.O.P. on '06 vote"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wednesday, August 17, 2005
|
|
|
|
|
Salon.com News | Cracks in the fortress?
cracks in the New York Times over Judith Miller; Salon story=
With Miller now incarcerated for 43 days and counting, interviews with nearly a dozen Times staffers reveal widespread concern for Miller's welfare and support for the principle for which she is being jailed. "It is extremely upsetting to see a colleague in jail," says Adam Nagourney, a Washington correspondent. Adds Eric Schmitt, another D.C. colleague, "Everyone remains quite concerned about what happened to her." "I think most people have nothing but sympathy for Judy's situation," noted Craig Whitney, an assistant managing editor and 40-year Times veteran. "And outrage that she has to go to jail for a principle that we all believe in." Indeed, both inside the Times and elsewhere in journalism, the paper is being praised for standing by its reporter as she defends a journalistic tenet most in the industry find sacred.
But numerous staffers also have told Salon that Miller's legal saga has become a burden, and not just for the paper's 12-person in-house legal team, which has been swamped by her case. Troubling many staffers is the dark cloud of unanswered questions about Miller's reporting and role in the Plame affair. Some at the Times contend that Miller has drawn unwanted attention to the paper at a time when it is still healing after the Jayson Blair fiasco dealt a body blow to its credibility. "It is a big bet for the paper," one reporter who requested anonymity said of the Times' unyielding support for Miller. "The paper chose to make this into something to fight to the death. It may have possible negative consequences for the paper's image when people are spending an enormous amount of time and energy on the credibility of the paper." Although several Times staffers were willing to offer criticism of the paper, none would do so on the record for fear of retaliation.
The grumblings inside the Times have grown louder as more questions have been raised about the scope and nature of Miller's role in "Plamegate." Many of Miller's colleagues are unclear about exactly whom or what Miller is protecting. In the face of limited information, some speculation has surfaced that Miller is only pretending to protect a source to divert attention from her past problems. No proof exists that the theory is true.
More prominently, a recent report that Miller met with I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, less than a week before Robert Novak outed former CIA agent Valerie Plame in a 2003 column, has added to the speculation over what role Miller may have played in the leak of Plame's identity. The theory being peddled on the Huffington Post and elsewhere in the lefty blogosphere has Miller not on the receiving end of information from an administration leaker about Plame's identity, but as the one disseminating information about Plame to administration officials. This is just a theory, of course, with no known evidence supporting it. But it's fair to say that many Times staffers want Miller's role in the Plame affair clarified, and some of her Times colleagues are downright angry about what is known, and unknown, about her involvement.
Although Miller never wrote a story about Plame, she is one of several journalists targeted by special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald in his investigation of who leaked the agent's identity more than two years ago. Although Fitzgerald has subpoenaed and interviewed several reporters, Miller is the only one who has so far refused to disclose her sources, prompting a federal judge to sentence her to jail until either she gives up the source or the grand jury ends its work, likely sometime in October.
Some insiders claim the Miller case has sparked new questions from Times critics -- and employees -- about the paper's credibility given Miller's controversial past. Other staffers say the paper has not been very forthright with employees about exactly what Miller knows, what she had been working on when she learned of Plame's identity, and how much editors know about her sources.
"The most common denominator is that there are a lot of unknowns about it," says one Times reporter, who did not want to be identified. "Both what happened, what's going to happen, and how the case will proceed. There are different levels of knowledge." Another reporter adds, "There are a lot of unanswered questions about what the editors really know and the public should know."
Some staffers say Miller's reputation as a hard-driving news person who "has stepped on a lot of toes" makes it difficult for them to back her completely. Others point to her questionable reporting in recent years related to the buildup to the Iraq war, in which she wrongly reported the likelihood of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Such reporting prompted the Times to publish an unusual editor's note last year admitting it had failed to adequately question such claims.
"She is obviously a very contentious person," one co-worker, who requested anonymity, said. "There are people who have a question about the integrity of [her] reporting." Another colleague called her WMD reporting "a dark chapter." "I'm not sure there is a lot of sympathy or support," a third fellow reporter said about Miller. Her baggage even prompted one journalism group, the American Society of Journalists and Authors, to rethink giving her an award in early August for her efforts. After an ASJA committee approved the award, an outcry from some ASJA members sparked a reversal at the board level.
But reports from within the Times about growing discontent about the Miller case and the paper's handling of it are in sharp contrast to how executive editor Bill Keller sees the situation. Responding via e-mail to submitted questions from Salon, Keller disputed reports that the case had drawn a lot of internal dissent. "A lot of things that are 'reportedly' true about this case and the newsroom reaction are either flat wrong or grossly inflated," he stated. "I think the prevailing sense in the newsroom -- regardless of what feelings individual reporters have about Judy and her past work -- is that they are glad the paper is standing up for her and defending the principle of reporters' need to protect their sources."
Other editors also contend that they have not heard internal discord. "If any member of the staff dissatisfied about our internal communication approached me, I would try to get some answers, within the limits of our necessary protection of sources, of course," assistant managing editor Allan Siegal said in a statement. "But no staff member has expressed that frustration to me." Whitney offered a similar view, saying, "I am unaware of any undercurrent of discontent."
Keller said he understood the staff concerns, but remains somewhat limited in what he can tell them due to the investigation and the involvement of a confidential source. "Believe me, I would like nothing better than to tell our staff whatever I know about this case. But we have a colleague who has been in jail for more than a month, and I'd need an awfully compelling reason to divulge information that could in any way complicate her situation further," Keller wrote. "I've talked about this case a lot -- in public, in interviews with various news organizations, and more privately with members of the staff -- but I have a responsibility to be cautious."
As for the paper's image, Keller remains unconcerned, saying the journalistic principle involved is more important. "It's of course secondary to the question of whether we are doing something we believe in," he said about the paper's image. "We've heard from noisy critics (mostly on the left) who are angry at Judy for earlier coverage, or angry because they suspect her source is someone they don't approve of. But this is not, at bottom, about any one reporter or any one source. It's about a principle. We've heard from others (mostly on the right) who disapprove of anything The Times does. But there's also been a significant outpouring of support for her courage and our steadfastness."
Keller also spoke to the questions surrounding what Miller's assignment was at the time she learned Plame's identity, but declined to spell it out. "While the questions of what Judy knew, and what she was working on, may be matters of general curiosity, the answers don't touch the heart of the case," he claims. "The question of what is going on with the case -- meaning what the special prosecutor is up to, and why he seems to regard Judy as important to the case -- is a mystery to me. It's something I'd like to have answered -- not just for our staff, but for our readers."
The Times has been steadfast in its public support of Miller and persistent in calling for her release. Unlike Time magazine, which handed over the notes and e-mails of its reporter, Matthew Cooper, after he was subpoenaed in the same case, the Times stood behind Miller's defiance of such an order. The Times editorial page on Aug. 8 even took to linking increased harassment of the press in other countries, like Nepal and Burundi, to Miller's incarceration. An Aug. 15 editorial followed with a clear demand that Miller be freed, stating, "If she is not willing to testify after 41 days, then she is not willing to testify."
Miller remains in jail at the Alexandria [Va.] Detention Center. Reports from visitors indicate she is holding up well, but has had some stomach problems related to jail food, misses the Internet and outside contact, and has had to withstand a constant stream of hip-hop videos on the communal television sets. She's had no shortage of visitors, ranging from Keller to Tom Brokaw to Lucy Dalglish of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press to one report of embattled United Nations ambassador-designate John Bolton getting face time with her behind bars.
Observes Times columnist Thomas Friedman, "People really support Judy and this principle." Adds Nagourney, "I hope it works out for her."
ahref="http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/08/17/times_miller/print.html">Salon.com News | Cracks in the fortress?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tuesday, August 16, 2005
|
Salon.com | The hollow man
good analysis of hollow and blindly stubborn Bush and parallels with another Alamoesque Texan LBJ
Salon.com | The hollow man
|
|
|
< |
