Jack Shafer: How Far Can You Trust Anonymice?
Posted Thursday, September 11, 2003 by vgdesign

Reading the week's leakiest stories

I trust all leakers and anonymous sources—I trust them to give a selective account that will benefit them, one that pleases their patrons and screws their enemies. Telling the truth, I guarantee you, ranks very low on most leakers' list of motives.

Leakers and anonymice thrive everywhere in modern journalism, even the sports pages, but where they really thrive is in the "A" section, especially in times of national security crises like these, as the U.S. wages its never-ending war against Osama Bin Laden, the Baathists, Iran, and North Korea. Cloaked in the invisibility of background, the various spooks, foreign diplomats, Saudi flacks, politicians, administration officials, Hill, State, and Pentagon staffers, and others with a saw to grind have been stepping up to assess blame, take credit, and settle old scores.

Not every anonymously sourced article is suspect, but every anonymously sourced article invites the reader to ask why the reporter agreed to camouflage his source and what hidden agenda might be operating. >>More

Richard Perle, Go Home
Posted Thursday, September 11, 2003 by vgdesign

The Connecticut Forum makes a hard right turn - By Alan Bisbort, Hartford Advocate

The Connecticut Forum will take one of the first major missteps in its 10-year history on Sept. 18, when it gives a seat at its Bushnell table to Richard Perle, "key architect of America's global security policies." While I greatly admire all that Doris and Richard Sugarman have done to encourage the free exchange of ideas with their forum, and while I welcome the opportunity to hear people with whom I politically and personally disagree, I draw the line with Richard Perle. And I think most Americans -- from all points of the political compass -- would too if they knew the truth about this man.

Richard Perle is a member of the Defense Policy Board, formerly its chair, a position he had to relinquish earlier this year due to his conflict of interests. This board directly advises Defense Secretaries Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, and indirectly President Bush, on all matters related to war. Since Perle has long been middleman for weapons manufacturers, his advice will always be Kill First, Invoice Later.
...
But don't mistake my criticism of the forum's Sept. 18 event as an attempt to dissuade you from going. On the contrary, I hope that every seat in the Bushnell is filled. And I hope someone has the courage, during the course of the event, or in the public question-and-answer segment at the end, to ask Perle, "How much money have you personally made from the war in Iraq?" >>More

Paul Krugman, New York Times Columnist and Author of "The Great Unraveling: Losing Our Way in the New Century"
Posted Thursday, September 11, 2003 by symbolman

A BUZZFLASH INTERVIEW

Paul Krugman to BuzzFlash.com: "Well, a couple of things. The first is that a good part of the media are essentially part of the machine. If you work for any Murdoch publication or network, or if you work for the Rev. Moon's empire, you're really not a journalist in the way that we used to think. You're basically just part of a propaganda machine. And that's a pretty large segment of the media.

As for the rest, certainly being critical at the level I've been critical –- basically saying that these guys are lying, even if it's staring you in the face –- is a very unpleasant experience. You get a lot of heat from people who should be on your side, because they accuse you of being shrill, which is everybody's favorite word for me. And you become a personal target."

----

Thank God for this Man! A Princeton University professor who pens a column for the New York Times, Krugman is probably the most visible mainstream media commentator, among a handful, who "gets it." He views the Bush Cartel as "revolutionary power...a movement whose leaders do not accept the legitimacy of our current political system." In short, Krugman understands that the Bush gang is anti-democracy at its core.>> More

WHY DON'T WE HAVE ANSWERS TO THESE 9/11 QUESTIONS?
Posted Thursday, September 11, 2003 by symbolman

WHY DON'T WE HAVE ANSWERS TO THESE 9/11 QUESTIONS? - By WILLIAM BUNCH

NO EVENT IN recent history has been written about, talked about, or watched and rewatched as much as the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 - two years ago today.

Not only was it the deadliest terrorist strike inside America, but the hijackings and attacks on New York City's World Trade Center and the Pentagon in Washington were also a seminal event for an information-soaked media age of Internet access and 24- hour news.

So, why after 730 days do we know so little about what really happened that day?

No one knows where the alleged mastermind of the attack is, and none of his accomplices has been convicted of any crime. We're not even sure if the 19 people identified by the U.S. government as the suicide hijackers are really the right guys.

Who put deadly anthrax in the mail? Where were the jet fighters that were supposed to protect America's skies that morning? And what was the role of our supposed allies Saudi Arabia and Pakistan?

There are dozens of unanswered questions about the 2001 attacks, but we've narrowed them down to 20 - or 9 plus 11.>> More

Rumsfeld Agrees: September 11 was "a blessing in disguise"
Posted Thursday, September 11, 2003 by vgdesign

Newshour Transcript: Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld discusses the challenge of rebuilding Iraq, pre-war intelligence, and the president's call for more international involvement

JIM LEHRER: Tomorrow will be the second anniversary of 9/11. An airplane went into the Pentagon, of course, into... two planes went into New York and another one in Pennsylvania. But a plane went into your building not far from where you and I are sitting. You were in the building at the time. Do you still think about that?

DONALD RUMSFELD: Of course. I mean we lost hundreds of people and thousands nationwide.

JIM LEHRER: I mean, do you think about those moments?

DONALD RUMSFELD: Sure, you bet. And I also think about the statement that was made to me shortly thereafter when I was in the Gulf and a senior leader there said to me, Maybe that was a blessing in disguise. Maybe that will wake up the world to the fact that there are people out teaching people to kill innocent men, women and children. They're being taught that as young kids, and if the world doesn't wake up, there will be so many of those people and they will have weapons so powerful that maybe there be will a 9/11 -- a September 11 -- not where 3,000 are killed but 30,000 or 300,000. And that would be a terrible thing, he said. We've got... this has to be a wake-up call for the world.

JIM LEHRER: Was he right? Do you feel that it was a wake- up call?

DONALD RUMSFELD: I think so absolutely, yeah. >>More

WHY DID YOU FIRE ON HIM?
Posted Thursday, September 11, 2003 by vgdesign

By Tom Newton Dunn, Defence Correspondent - The Daily Mirror

FURIOUS ITN bosses have demanded that the Pentagon explain why US forces fired on a civilian Iraqi minibus taking injured reporter Terry Lloyd to hospital.

The shocking new evidence about the veteran newsman's death was revealed by the Daily Mirror  yesterday.

A Basra businessman told Army investigators Lloyd was not killed in crossfire, as originally believed.

He claims Lloyd died later, when his vehicle was strafed by an American helicopter gunship on the way to hospital.

ITN also revealed for the first time yesterday details of their own internal investigation into what happened to 50-year-old Lloyd.

They also believe a US helicopter shot at the back of the retreating minibus, ITN chief executive Mark Wood said.

A US bullet hit Lloyd in the head while he was in the minibus, an ITN spokeswoman added. >>More

US troops arrest Al Jazeera journalist in Iraq
Posted Thursday, September 11, 2003 by vgdesign

(Albawaba.com) - A female Al Jazeera reporter was detained by United States forces in Baghdad overnight, Iraqi television and a US military spokesman said Thursday.

Atwar Bahjat was arrested while covering a bomb attack in the Al-Ghazzaliyah district of Baghdad and held in a US military holding area at Baghdad airport overnight, Al-Jazeera reported.

The Qatar-based station charged that her glasses and microphone had been scattered on the ground during her arrest Wednesday night that had been made "in a violent way".

Meanwhile, a US military spokesman confirmed an Al-Jazeera correspondent had been detained but declined to provide further details. >>More

Spanish Judge Jails Al-Jazeera Reporter
Posted Thursday, September 11, 2003 by vgdesign

MADRID, Spain (AP) - A Spanish judge on Thursday formally charged a top reporter for Al-Jazeera of being a member of al-Qaida, saying he carried out ``support, financing and coordination'' for the terrorist network.

Investigating judge Baltasar Garzon charged Tayssir Alouni, 48, with membership in an armed group and ordered him held in the high-security Soto del Real prison near Madrid after a 72-hour extension of his arrest expired, the National Court said. Alouni was not present during the hearing.

``Removed from his work as a journalist but taking advantage of it he carries out support, financing and coordination, which are the characteristics of a qualified militant of the organization,'' Garzon's statement read.

The charge will be followed by a more detailed indictment. In the Spanish legal system, investigating judges issue the indictments against defendants, who then go to a full trial.

Alouni's wife, Fatima Zohra Hamed Layesi, burst into tears upon learning the news. >>More

Pentagon seeks cut in danger pay in Iraq
Posted Wednesday, September 10, 2003 by symbolman

The Pentagon has urged Congress not to extend recent increases in "imminent danger pay" and "family separation allowances" to U.S. troops in war zones, citing the extra $225 monthly for the two pay categories.

The action has stirred anger among military families, veterans groups, congressional Democrats and even prompted an editorial attack in the Army Times, a weekly newspaper for military personnel and their families that is seldom so outspoken.

Imminent-danger pay, given to Army, Navy, Marine and Air Force members in combat zones, was raised to $225 from $150 a month in April. The family separation allowance, which goes to help military families pay rent, child care or other expenses while troops are away, was raised from $100 a month to $250.

The Pentagon's personnel chief, David Chu, yesterday told reporters that the outrage was misguided and that overall compensation for troops in Iraq and Afghanistan remains stable by giving them other forms of pay raises.>> More

HOW DARE THIS ADMINSTRATION LIE TO THESE TROOPS AND FAMILIES? WHILE they KILL our brothers and sisters in a war THEY LIED them into and won't get them OUT OF WHILE Cheney's HALLIBURTON and RUMSFELD'S BECHTEL CHEAT the Troops IN the War zone at the same time! INSUFFERABLE CROOKS! INHUMAN Greedy bastards! WRITE/CALL/EMAIL Congress and tell them to take care of our troops OR WE WILL VOTE THEM ALL OUT. ALL OF THEM. NO MATTER WHAT THEIR PARTY. Then IMPEACH BUSH and his whole slimy cabinet. ALL OF THEM. It's time to clean HOUSE folks.

Don't forget to watch ARMY OF ONE by Symbolman and donate so we can get the word out NATIONALLY on TV about these TRAITOROUS ACTIONS!

Heroes battle health problems
Posted Wednesday, September 10, 2003 by symbolman

WASHINGTON - When Mr Dan Kochensparger was on his hands and knees sifting through cement, metal and other debris at the World Trade Center site in New York, specks were floating in the thick air. He did not think about what they were.

He was doing his job as a hazardous materials specialist, monitoring the wreckage as he and other members of Ohio's emergency response team searched for survivors of the Sept 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

The breathing problems came later.

'The air was pretty much filled with particulate matter the whole time,' said Mr Kochensparger.

About 7,500 of the estimated 30,000 workers who toiled at the ruins have been examined. Preliminary results from 1,100 patients screened between July 2002 and April 2003 show 48 per cent of workers with ear, nose and throat problems such as nasal congestion, hoarseness, headaches and throat irritation.

Thirty per cent have pulmonary problems, including shortness of breath.>> More

Anyone still wondering why BUSH AND CHENEY aren't going to be in NYC on the Anniversary of the 911 Disaster? Maybe they are afraid of being treated Like the MONSTERS they are by angry villagers - the entire CITY - and not just the widows and survivors they INSULT with their REFUSAL to investigate the Crime of the Century. Actually, they are too busy Looting the Treasury while Good Americans, both troops and civilians DIE for their GREED. IMPEACH THEM and take all their money for REPARATIONS.

Conservative Christians Call For Boycott Of Gay TV Sponsors
Posted Wednesday, September 10, 2003 by symbolman

(Helena, Montana) This may have been the breakthrough year for the number of gay shows and themes on television, but it has all been too much for a conservative Christian action group.

The Montana Family Coalition is organizing a political action campaign targeting the sponsors of gay oriented shows. The Coalition, which used to be known as the Montana Christian Coalition, is specifically targeting the Bravo hit series Queer Eye For The Straight Guy, but says it intends to add more to the list, including Boy Meets Boy, Will and Grace and others.

The group, which successfully has fought gay rights issues in Montana, intends to voice its opposition to the shows' advertisers and if they continue to buy commercial time, MFC says its members will refuse to buy their products.

Julie Millam, the coalition's executive director, singled out Queer Eye, as trash that should not be on TV.

"To me, that's not a reality show about gay people," Millam told the Billings Gazette.

"A really good reality show for gay people would be five gay men dying of AIDS.">> More

No one is argueing with these "christians" right to boycott - it's the american way. But "five gay men dying of AIDS"? Is this more of that "Compassionate Conservatism" we've all heard about from BUSH and his followers? Who cares if they are gay, it's a great show - tho to be honest I told the wife the other day it would be great to see a "Straight eye for the Gay guy" (five macho guys throwing beer cans and socks in the corners of gay apartments - all in good fun folks!) Here's the site for these "christians". Wow, you can drive a tractor if you're a Montana "christian" who wishes gays were dead!

Bush* Cites 9/11 on All Manner of Questions
Posted Wednesday, September 10, 2003 by symbolman

In the past six weeks, Bush has referred to "9/11" or Sept. 11, 2001, in arguing for his energy policy and in response to questions about campaign fundraising, tax cuts, unemployment, the deficit, airport security, Afghanistan and the length, cost and death toll of the Iraq occupation.

A spate of recent polls has shown voters becoming more concerned about the economy than about terrorism. Bush's earlier popularity for his handling of the attacks' aftermath never translated to approval for his domestic policies, and now his overall approval rating is receding.

White House officials say they are wary of appearing to use the attacks cynically.

Republicans chose to hold next year's national convention on Manhattan, and at an unusually late date, Aug. 30 to Sept. 2. The traditional post-convention bounce will take Bush right up to the third anniversary of the hijackings.

"A lot of Americans have been apprehensive, and through this constant talk, the Bush administration has been shameless in using 9/11 for partisan political gain," Democratic National Committee Chairman Terence R. McAuliffe said.

Even some Republicans say Bush will need a fresher message next year. One presidential adviser said one of the crucial trials for the White House's political arm will be to avoid exploiting memories of the attacks.>> More

Not CYNICAL? BUT they ARE holding their Convention at GROUND ZERO. SICKENING - no class, no respect, everything is for self gain. IMPEACH BUSH, START AT THE TOP and work your way down. THE People ARE waking up - look at BUSH'S poll numbers DIVE. The Media keeps saying Bush is popular - how can you be popular when you can't even go to New York because you'll get BOOED by the Firemen, Policemen, Survivors and WIDOWS?

''Iraq Watch'' Turns One-Man Protest into Rhetorical House Fray
Posted Wednesday, September 10, 2003 by vgdesign

By Lara Jakes Jordan, Associated Press

WASHINGTON -- It started as a one-man protest on the House floor by a hawkish Democrat disgruntled with his president's strategy in Iraq.

But the weekly ''Iraq Watch,'' spearheaded by Rep. Joseph Hoeffel, has since found strength in numbers. A half-dozen Democrats now take the floor regularly to lambaste the White House at the start of Congress' legislative week.

''I was frustrated,'' said Hoeffel, D-Pa. ''I thought my own party's leadership was timid on Iraq. And I just wanted to start talking about it I thought we needed to be more vocal.

''So I started on my own and found, when I started, other guys were interested,'' Hoeffel said. ''We're gaining speed.''

The vitriol remains constant during the hourlong discussion as the Democrats hone in on Bush administration policy, from the search for weapons of mass destruction to sending in NATO and United Nations peacekeepers. Some of the back-and-forth conversation is tinged with humor, other parts with sarcasm. >>More

*Next Iraq Watch Debate: Evening of 9/16/03 - Live on C-Span >>Don't Miss IRAQ WATCH!

Iraq Watch: We Must Do Right By The American Taxpayer
Posted Wednesday, September 10, 2003 by vgdesign

Transcript: Iraq Watch Special Session - House of Representatives, September 9, 2003

Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Speaker, we come to the floor again this evening as part of the Iraq Watch. For the last 2 months or so, four of us have been coming here the first evening that the House is in session each week to talk about Iraq, to talk about the policies that we think are flawed, to suggest new policies that the Nation might pursue, to ask questions about our policies and involvement in Iraq that we believe the American people need to know about and that Congress needs to know about.

The four of us who have done this week after week include the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt), the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie), and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel). We have been joined each week by several others, and we look forward to the discussion this evening and to continuing this each week until our involvement in Iraq has been clarified and stabilized and until we get answers to some of the questions that we think Congress is entitled to and the American people are entitled to.
...
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, if I could make a final concluding remark, and then I will then defer to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel). There was a report today, or rather Monday, in The Washington Post  that the Secretary of Defense, Mr. Rumsfeld, when he was concluding his 4-day trip to Iraq and Afghanistan, complained that critics of the Bush administration's Iraq policy are encouraging terrorists and complicating the war on terrorism. Give me a break.

Mr. STRICKLAND. Can I respond to that, please?

Mr. DELAHUNT. Yes. Give me a break. We are going to ask the question.

Mr. STRICKLAND. I hope the Secretary never says that in my presence, because if he does, I am going to have to challenge him. None of us, none of us condone terrorism. In fact, we are here because we are concerned that this administration is not adequately waging the war on terrorism. ``Osama bin Forgotten'' is out there somewhere planning the next attack on this country. The President said he can run, but he cannot hide. Well, he ran and he has hidden, and he is planning the next attack. And for the Secretary to say such a thing outside the country, outside the country I think is grossly unfair and I think the Secretary owes this Congress and each of us who have a responsibility under the Constitution to represent our constituents and to speak our mind as we believe the truth to be, he has no right to make such an accusation against any of us.
...
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. King of Iowa). As a general reminder, the Chair would like to reiterate that as stated in section 370 of the House Rules and Manual, suggesting mendacity on the part of the President is not in order, even by innuendo. As such, the Chair would reiterate that accusations of intentional deception are not in order. >>More

**Next Iraq Watch Debate: Evening of 9/16/03 - Live on C-Span >>IRAQ WATCH

Byrd to Wolfowitz: "Congress is not an ATM"
Posted Wednesday, September 10, 2003 by vgdesign

Critics rap misjudgment on war costs - Knight Ridder Newspapers

WASHINGTON--Democratic senators charged Tuesday that President Bush's request for $87 billion, most of it for Iraq, illustrates how badly the administration misjudged the costs of the war.

The criticism wasn't confined to Democrats.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., accused the administration of failing to "anticipate the size of the challenge we would face" and deploying too few troops.
...
Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., the senior Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, said he would push for hearings to examine the administration's Iraq strategy, including how the new money would be spent.

"I, for one, will not be a rubber stamp for this request," he said. "Congress is not an ATM." >>More

Iraqis beg for actions not "words"
Posted Tuesday, September 9, 2003 by vgdesign

By Firas Yaseen Nadeem, Iraq Today

Have things have turned from worse to worse again?
The senior officials of this country seem at their wit's end, trying their utmost to pick up the country out of its dilemmas and miserable situation but to no avail. Five months passed; yet we are still jumbling in the same hodgepodge.

Iraqis are quickly becoming sick of big words and promises from the CPA.

It has become the fashion that wherever a regime change takes place, people must put up with an unremitting chain of promises never to be carried out.

Mr. Bremer promised Iraqis all that they have been missing-- freedom, democracy, welfare, and a say in the governance of their country.

But so far we have had very little say in anything. We have been like a TV audience, watching as the world goes by. The governing council was picked, and we watched. New laws were passed and implemented, and we watched. The army was wiped away, and we watched.

A long list of basic needs has been postponed; now that list has grown. >>More

Robert Scheer: He Must Admit the Error of His Ways
Posted Tuesday, September 9, 2003 by vgdesign

How can the president tell us with a straight face that we taxpayers have a patriotic duty to cough up $87 billion more to enable him to sink us deeper into the Iraq quagmire of his making?

That's a lot of money on top of the $79 billion already appropriated by Congress in April — enough to bail out California and every other state experiencing a budget crisis because of economic problems this president has only exacerbated. Shouldn't those who warned against Bush's folly at least qualify for another one of his signature tax rebates?

Once again, Bush is using the Big Lie technique, continuing to slyly conflate those responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks with Saddam Hussein and Iraq, despite there being no evidence of such a relationship. It is an insult to those who died on that day of infamy to exploit them to defend a failed policy of preemptive war designed by a bunch of think tank neoconservatives as part of a cockamamie plan to remake the Middle East. >>More

Murdoch Predicts Veto on FCC Bill
Posted Tuesday, September 9, 2003 by vgdesign

BLOOMBERG NEWS - News Corp. chairman Rupert Murdoch said there's a 60-40 chance that President George W. Bush will veto a bill that blocks a federal rule allowing television networks such as Murdoch's Fox to buy more local stations.

Bush will veto the bill if he has enough support in Congress to sustain the move, Murdoch said yesterday in remarks at a Morgan Stanley media and communications conference in Boston. The Federal Communications Commission passed new media-ownership rules in June.

"If there's any chance at all of the presidential veto being upheld by either the Senate or Congress, I think you'll find that Bush will veto it and the new rules put out by the FCC will stand," Murdoch said. "I give that a 60-40 chance." >>More

Will Press Roll Over Again on New WMD Report?
Posted Tuesday, September 9, 2003 by vgdesign

By Greg Mitchell, Editor & Publisher

Some time in the next two weeks, David Kay, head of the Iraqi Survey Group, is expected to finally release a crucial report on his findings so far in his search for weapons of destruction.

"I am confident that when people see what David Kay puts forward they will see that there was no question that such weapons exist, existed, and so did the programs to develop more," Secretary of State Colin Powell said Sunday. "We did not try to hype it or blow it out of proportion."

Since no weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) have been found in Iraq, close observers now report that Kay is likely to drop on the media a massive weapon of his own: hundreds or thousands of pages of summaries and documents purporting to prove that Saddam Hussein had WMDs recently (and hid them) and/or had numerous WMD programs underway that we succeeded in pre-empting.

In the parlance once used by Howell Raines, Kay thereby will "flood the zone" and hope the press portrays what may be largely assertion -- not fact -- as compelling proof. Would the media possibly fall for this? There are disturbing indications that they would. >>More