Starting in mere minutes, The Laura Flanders Show:
On Air America Radio, 7-10 PM EST
We'll begin with Election Day success stories from Dover, Pennsylvania to the state of Maine, and we'll hear how California nurses stopped the Terminator in his tracks!
Plus some sobering news about what's sparked the flames in France, and the latest on US torture tactics at Guantanamo.
Then feminist heroes HOLLY NEAR and GLORIA STEINHEM join us Live in Studio.
And Timbuk 3's BARBARA KOOYMAN goes undercover on her latest album.
If you missed Laura's LIVE Broadcast from NEW ORLEANS last weekend - You can listen to it now: Download archived shows HERE or Subscribe to the Free PODCAST through the iTunes Music Store
Go to the Laura Flanders Blog
Remember you can listen to The Laura Flanders Show via broadcast radio (if there's an AAR in your area), via XM Satellite Radio (channel 167) or listen online.
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
the laura flanders show
laura flanders
radio
gloria steinem
holly near
barbara kooyman
Saturday, November 12, 2005
Iraquí: "Los estadounidenses bombardearon todo, nuestras casas están destruidas"
Maria: Hola. De parte de "Democracy Now!" trece cosas que vale hacer notar este fin de semana. Paz.
Iraquí: "Los estadounidenses bombardearon todo, nuestras casas están destruidas"
La mayor parte de las comunicaciones con los pueblos sunitas de Husayabah y Qaim fue cortada. Un periodista Iraquí en Husayabah dijo a Al-Jazeera: "La ciudad carece por completo de todo lo indispensable para las necesidades básicas de la vida. No hay combustible y el invierno está por llegar. No hay comida y no hay servicios de ningún tipo, ni siquiera servicios médicos". El periodista dijo que las ambulancias no pudieron responder a las emergencias debido a que no se permite la movilización dentro de la ciudad. Un residente de Qaim dijo a Reuters: "Destruyeron Qaim, los estadounidenses bombardearon todo, nuestras casas están destruidas, nuestros hijos son victimas y queremos una solución. ¿Qué debemos hacer? Necesitamos una solución". Los residentes fueron forzados a abandonar la localidad a pie. Associated Press informó que las fuerzas comandadas por Estados Unidos advirtieron por altavoces que dispararían a quienes se marcharan en vehículos. Estados Unidos dijo que la Operación "Cortina de Acero" era necesaria para evitar que combatientes extranjeros ingresen a Irak a través de la frontera con Siria. Mientras tanto, políticos sunitas criticaron los ataques dirigidos por Estados Unidos. El principal dirigente del Partido Islámico Iraquí, Mohsen Abdul-Hamid, dijo: "Rechazamos todas las operaciones militares contra civiles porque dichas acciones llevan a la muerte de gente inocente y a la destrucción de pueblos y ciudades".
Cinco soldados estadounidenses acusados de golpear a detenidos iraquíes
Mientras tanto, las Fuerzas Armadas anunciaron el lunes que se presentaron cargos contra cinco soldados estadounidenses por asestar golpes de puño y puntapiés a detenidos en Irak. Las golpizas ocurrieron hace dos meses.
Regresa a DC Ahmed Calabi, antes exiliado iraquí y desacreditado
El ex director del Congreso Nacional Iraquí, Ahmed Chalabi, llegará a Washington esta semana, en su primer viaje oficial en más de dos años. Planea hablar el miércoles en el American Enterprise Institute (Instituto de la Empresa Estadounidense) y se reunirá con la Secretaria de Estado, Condoleezza Rice, y con el Secretario del Tesoro, John Snow. Antes de la invasión a Irak, Chalabi tenía vínculos cercanos con el Pentágono y con algunos reporteros entre los cuales se encontraba Judith Miller, del New York Times. Chalabi fue acusado de proporcionar información inventada sobre las armas en Irak a las agencias de inteligencia estadounidenses y a periodistas, antes de la invasión a Irak. También surgieron preguntas acerca de sus cercanos vínculos con Irán. Durante el fin de semana, Chalabi estuvo en Teherán para entrevistarse a puertas cerradas con funcionarios iraníes de alto rango, entre ellos El Presidente Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. El año pasado, la Agencia de Inteligencia de Defensa concluyó que la inteligencia Iraní había utilizado a colaboradores de Chalabi para proporcionar información errónea a Estados Unidos.
La Casa Blanca recibió en 2002 advertencias de que Irak no estaba vinculado con Al Qaeda
El New York Times informa que el gobierno de Bush fue advertido en febrero de 2002 de que los informes de inteligencia sobre presuntos vínculos entre Irak y Al-Qaeda probablemente contenían datos falsos producidos por un integrante de Al-Qaeda detenido en Estados Unidos. Sin embargo, el gobierno de Bush ignoró las advertencias de la Agencia de Inteligencia de Defensa (DIA, por sus siglas en inglés) acerca de que el detenido, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, estaba mintiendo. Sus falsas afirmaciones fueron usadas reiteradas veces para justificar la invasión a Irak. Ocho meses después de que la DIA hizo esas advertencias, el Presidente Bush pronunció un importante discurso en Cincinnati en el que dijo: "Nos enteramos de que Irak entrenó a miembros de Al-Qaeda en la fabricación de bombas y venenos y gases." Este año, la revista Newsweek reveló que Al-Libi podría haber empezado a hablar en los interrogatorios luego de ser torturado. Al-Libi fue capturado en noviembre de 2001 en Afganistán. Fue entregado a la CIA para que lo interrogara y finalmente enviado a Egipto.
Corte Suprema decidirá sobre uso de tribunales militares en Guantánamo
La Corte Suprema de Estados Unidos anunció el lunes que decidirá si el gobierno de Bush puede utilizar tribunales militares para enjuiciar a los prisioneros detenidos en la Bahía de Guantánamo. En julio, un tribunal federal de apelaciones integrado por tres jueces decretó que un tribunal compuesto íntegramente por militares podía enjuiciar y sentenciar a Salim Ahmed Hamdan, un hombre Yemini acusado de ser el guardaespaldas y chofer de Osama Bin Laden. El lunes, el Presidente de la Corte Suprema, John Roberts, se retiró del caso debido a que él fue uno de los jueces del tribunal de apelaciones que dictaminó anteriormente en este caso.
El Senado votó para privar a prisioneros del derecho a impugnar su detención
El Senado votó el jueves en Capitol Hill para despojar a los prisioneros detenidos en la Bahía de Guantánamo del derecho a impugnar su detención ante tribunales de Estados Unidos. La medida, presentada por el Senador republicano Lindsey Graham, anularía una decisión de la Corte Suprema del año pasado. El New York Times informa que la enmienda dejará sin efecto las impugnaciones legales presentadas por 200 de los 500 prisioneros detenidos actualmente en Guantánamo. Cinco demócratas se unieron a 44 republicanos para aprobar la medida por 49 votos contra 42. Sin embargo, el New York Times informa que la victoria puede ser transitoria, debido a que nueve senadores estaban ausentes y presionan para que se realice una segunda votación el lunes 14.
Senado ordena a Rumsfeld que revele información sobre prisiones secretas
También el jueves, el Senado aprobó una enmienda a un proyecto de ley que ordena al Secretario de Defensa, Donald Rumsfeld, informar al Congreso acerca de los establecimientos carcelarios secretos administrados por Estados Unidos en el extranjero.
Lott sospecha que compañeros republicanos filtraron la existencia de las prisiones
Mientras tanto, el Los Ángeles Times informa que el Senador republicano Trent Lott dijo que senadores de su propio partido podrían ser los responsables de la filtración. Lott dijo que las instalaciones de las prisiones secretas fueron discutidas en un banquete republicano en Capitol Hill, que se llevo a cabo el 1 de noviembre, un día antes que el Post publicara su informe. El Vicepresidente Cheney asistió a ese banquete. Lott dijo: "No sé de dónde más pudo haber surgido... me pareció que al menos uno de esos informes surgió directamente de aquel lugar".
CIA advertida sobre procedimientos en los interrogatories
Según el New York Times, el inspector general de la CIA advirtió a la agencia que sus procedimientos en los interrogatorios podrían estar violando la Convención Internacional Contra la Tortura. En un informe, el inspector general dijo que las técnicas "crueles, inhumanas o degradantes" utilizadas en lugares secretos en el mundo podrían exponer a los agentes a responsabilidades jurídicas. Estas técnicas incluyen "el submarino", en la que se priva al detenido de aire, como si se estuviera ahogando. La Casa Blanca presiona en la actualidad por una enmienda del Congreso que exima a los agentes de la CIA de la prohibición por parte del Senado de utilizar torturas en los interrogatorios realizados en el extranjero.
Funcionario de la CIA revela presupuesto de la agencia
Otra noticia sobre los servicios de Inteligencia: una funcionaria de la CIA parece haber revelado el presupuesto de la agencia, que ha sido durante mucho tiempo un secreto nacional. En una conferencia de inteligencia en San Antonio la semana pasada, la subdirectora de Inteligencia Nacional, Mary Margaret Graham, dijo que el presupuesto anual de inteligencia es 44 mil millones de dólares.
Atentado suicida con bombas en restaurante de Bagdad
En Irak, dos bombarderos suicidas atacaron hoy un restaurante en Bagdad que es frecuentado por fuerzas de seguridad iraquíes, dejando un saldo de por lo menos 33 personas muertas y otras 19 heridas. Mientras tanto, un atentado con coche-bomba mató a siete reclutas del ejército en el pueblo de Tikkrit. En otras noticias sobre Irak, las Fuerzas Armadas estadounidenses admitieron el miércoles que causaron la muerte de varios civiles durante los ataques llevados a cabo esta semana en el pueblo de Husaybah, cerca de la frontera con Siria. Las fuerzas estadounidenses invadieron este pueblo el sábado, alegando que se había convertido en un caldo de cultivo de insurgentes extranjeros. El New York Times informa que aviones de la Marina destruyeron un hogar donde presuntamente se escondían insurgentes, matando a por lo menos cinco civiles que estaban adentro.
Judith Miller deja el New York Times
El New York Times anunció la renuncia de la periodista Judith Miller. Miller estuvo presa durante 85 días este año por negarse a testificar ante un gran jurado en el caso de filtración de la CIA. Fue liberada tras recibir autorización para testificar de su fuente, el asistente de la Casa Blanca acusado Lewis Libby. Miller, que fue elogiada al comienzo por defender la libertad de prensa, recibió críticas luego, cuando los editores del periódico la acusaron de haberlos engañado acerca de sus vínculos con la Casa Blanca. El trabajo periodístico de Miller también fue criticado por sus informes en el período previo a la guerra de Irak. Miller escribió una serie de artículos que afirmaban que Saddam Hussein tenía en su poder armas de destrucción masiva, afirmaciones que resultaron ser falsas. En una carta al editor publicada en la edición de hoy del New York Times, Miller escribió: "Decidí renunciar debido a que en los últimos meses me he convertido en noticia, algo que un periodista del New York Times nunca quiere ser". Un portavoz del Times dijo: "Se dejó claro a Miller que no podía seguir trabajando como periodista de ninguna clase" en el periódico.
Ali recibe la Medalla Presidencial de la Libertad
En Washington, el legendario boxeador Muhammad Ali fue galardonado el miércoles con la Medalla Presidencial de la Libertad. Ali es considerado el mejor boxeador de la historia del deporte. En su apogeo, apoyó el movimiento musulmán negro y criticó la Guerra de Vietnam. En 1967 fue despojado de su titulo de campeón de los pesos pesados por negarse a luchar en Vietnam. Las declaraciones de Alí que siguen fueron tomadas del documental "When We Were Kings" (Cuando fuimos reyes), sobre el combate de 1974 en el que Ali recuperó el título de campeón mundial, contra George Foreman en Kinshasa, que llegó a ser conocido como "La pelea en la jungla": "Si, estoy en África. Si, África es mi hogar. Maldito sea Estados Unidos y lo que Estados Unidos piensa. Si, vivo en Estados Unidos, pero África es el hogar del hombre negro, y yo fui un esclavo hace 400 años, y vuelvo a casa para pelear junto con mis hermanos".
Maria: In English, here are thirteen headlines fom Democracy Now! Remember that the headlines are provided daily in English and Spanish and please pass on to your friends. Peace.
Iraqi: "Americans Bombed Everything, Our Houses Are Destroyed"Most communication to the Sunni towns of Husaybah and Qaim has been cut off. An Iraqi journalist in Husaybah told Al-Jazeera "The city is suffering a complete lack of all of life's basic necessities. There is no fuel and winter is upon us. There is no food and there are no services whatsoever, not even health services." The journalist said that ambulances have been unable to respond to emergencies because no movement is allowed in the city. "They destroyed Qaim, Americans bombed everything, our houses are destroyed, our children are victims and we want a solution," one resident told Reuters. "What do we have to do? We need a solution." Residents have been forced to flee the town on foot. The Associated Press reported that the U.S.-led forces warned over loudspeakers that anyone leaving the town in vehicles would be shot. The U.S. said Operation Steel Curtain was needed to stop foreign fighters from crossing the Syrian border. Meanwhile Sunni politicians criticized the U.S.-led attack. The head of the moderate Iraqi Islamic Party Mohsen Abdul-Hamid said "We reject all military operations directed against civilian targets because such acts lead to the killing of innocent people and the destruction of towns and cities."
Five U.S. Soldiers Charged With Beating Iraqi DetaineesThe military announced Monday five U.S. soldiers had been charged with punching and kicking detainees in Iraq. The beatings occurred two months ago.
Once Disgraced Iraqi Exile, Ahmed Chalabi, Returns to DCThe former head of the Iraqi National Congress Ahmed Chalabi is heading to Washington this week for his first official trip in over two years. He is planning on speaking at the American Enterprise Institute on Wednesday and will be meeting with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Treasury Secretary John Snow. Before the invasion of Iraq, Chalabi had close ties to the Pentagon as well as some reporters including Judith Miller of the New York Times. He has been accused of feeding fabricated information about Iraq's weapons capabilities to US intelligence agencies and to journalists ahead of the Iraq invasion. Questions have also arisen over his close ties to Iran. Over the weekend Chalabi was in Tehran for closed-door meetings with high-ranking Iranian officials including President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Last year the Defense Intelligence Agency concluded Iranian intelligence had used aides of Chalabi to pass disinformation to the United States.
La Casa Blanca recibió en 2002 advertencias de que Irak no estaba vinculado con Al QaedaEl New York Times informa que el gobierno de Bush fue advertido en febrero de 2002 de que los informes de inteligencia sobre presuntos vínculos entre Irak y Al-Qaeda probablemente contenían datos falsos producidos por un integrante de Al-Qaeda detenido en Estados Unidos. Sin embargo, el gobierno de Bush ignoró las advertencias de la Agencia de Inteligencia de Defensa (DIA, por sus siglas en inglés) acerca de que el detenido, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, estaba mintiendo. Sus falsas afirmaciones fueron usadas reiteradas veces para justificar la invasión a Irak. Ocho meses después de que la DIA hizo esas advertencias, el Presidente Bush pronunció un importante discurso en Cincinnati en el que dijo: “Nos enteramos de que Irak entrenó a miembros de Al-Qaeda en la fabricación de bombas y venenos y gases.” Este año, la revista Newsweek reveló que Al-Libi podría haber empezado a hablar en los interrogatorios luego de ser torturado. Al-Libi fue capturado en noviembre de 2001 en Afganistán. Fue entregado a la CIA para que lo interrogara y finalmente enviado a Egipto.
Supreme Court To Rule on Guantanamo Military Tribunals
The U.S. Supreme Court announced Monday it will decide whether the Bush administration can use military tribunals to try detainees being held at Guantanamo Bay. In July a three-judge federal appeals court upheld that a tribunal made up entirely of military officials could try and sentence Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a Yemini man accused of being Osama Bin Laden's bodyguard and driver. On Monday Chief Justice John Roberts recused himself from the case since he was one of the appeals court judges who previously ruled on the case.
Senate Votes To Remove Prisoners' Right to Challenge Detentions
On Capital Hill Thursday, the Senate voted to take away Guantanamo Bay prisoners' right to challenge their detentions in United States courts. The measure, put forward by Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, would override a Supreme Court decision last year. The New York Times reports the amendment would nullify legal challenges currently filed by nearly 200 of the 500 detainees currently held at Guantanamo. Five Democrats joined 44 Republicans to pass the measure by a vote of 49 to 42. However the New York Times reports the victory may be short-lived as nine senators were absent, and are pushing for a second vote as early as Monday.
Senate Orders Rumsfeld to Disclose Secret Prisons
Also Thursday, the Senate passed an amendment to a defense bill that mandates Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to inform Congress on US-run secret prison facilities in foreign countries.
Lott Suspects Fellow Republicans in Prison Disclosure
Meanwhile, the Los Angeles Times reports Republican Senator Trent Lott said senators from his own party might be responsible for the leak. Lott said the secret prison facilities were discussed at a Republican luncheon on Capitol Hill -- one day before the Post published its report November 2nd. Vice President Cheney was among those in attendance. Lott said : "Information that was said in there, given out in there, did get into the newspaper. I don't know where else it came from…. It looked to me that at least one of those reports came right out of that room."
CIA Warned On Interrogation Procedures
The CIA’s inspector general has warned the agency its interrogation procedures could violate the international Convention Against Torture. This according to the New York Times. In a report, the inspector general said "cruel, inhuman or degrading" techniques used in secret locations around the world could expose agents to legal liability. These techniques include waterboarding, in which the detainee undergoes the experience of drowning. The White House is currently pushing a Congressional amendment that would exempt CIA agents from a Senate ban on torture for interrogations conducted overseas.
CIA Official Discloses Agency's Budget
In other intelligence news, a CIA official appears to have disclosed the agency's budget -- long a national secret. At an intelligence conference in San Antonio last week, Deputy Director of National Intelligence for Collection Mary Margaret Graham, said the annual intelligence budget was $44 billion.
Suicide Bombing Hits Baghdad Restaurant
In Iraq, two suicide bombers struck a Baghdad restaurant frequented by Iraqi security forces today, killing at least 33 people and wounding 19 others. Meanwhile a car bombing in the town of Tikkrit killed seven army recruits. In other Iraq news, the US military admitted Wednesday it caused civilian casualties during this week’s assault on the town of Husaybah, close to the Syrian border. US forces launched an invasion of the town Saturday, claiming it has become a hotbed for foreign insurgents. The New York Times is reporting Marine aircraft destroyed one home where insurgents were allegedly hiding, killing at least five civilians inside.
Judith Miller Leaves The New York Times
The New York Times has announced the retirement of reporter Judith Miller. Miller spent 85 days in jail this year for refusing to testify before the grand jury in the CIA leak case. She was released after receiving a waiver from her source, indicted White House aide Lewis Libby. Initially praised as a champion of press freedom, Miller drew criticism when her editors accused her of misleading them on her contacts with the White House. Miller's work has also come under question for her reporting in the lead-up to the Iraq war. Miller wrote a series of articles alleging Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, allegations that turned out to be false. In a letter to the editor printed in today's New York Times, Miller wrote: "I have chosen to resign because over the last few months, I have become the news, something a New York Times reporter never wants to be." A Times spokesperson said "it had been made clear to Ms. Miller that she would not be able to continue as a reporter of any kind" at the newspaper.
Ali Awarded Presidential Medal of Freedom
And in Washington, legendary boxer Muhammad Ali was awarded a Presidential Medal of Freedom Wednesday. Ali is considered the greatest boxer in the history of the sport. In his prime he was an outspoken advocate of the Black Muslim movement and a critic of the Vietnam War. In 1967, he was stripped of his heavyweight title for refusing to fight in Vietnam. This is from When We Were Kings, the documentary about Ali's 1974 championship bout with George Foreman in Kinshasa that came to be known as "the Rumble in the Jungle": "Yeah, I'm in Africa. Yeah, Africa is my home. Damn America and what America thinks. Yeah, I live in America, but Africa is the home of the black man, and I was a slave 400 years ago, and I'm going back home to fight among my brothers."
democracy now
news
iraq
Iraquí: "Los estadounidenses bombardearon todo, nuestras casas están destruidas"
La mayor parte de las comunicaciones con los pueblos sunitas de Husayabah y Qaim fue cortada. Un periodista Iraquí en Husayabah dijo a Al-Jazeera: "La ciudad carece por completo de todo lo indispensable para las necesidades básicas de la vida. No hay combustible y el invierno está por llegar. No hay comida y no hay servicios de ningún tipo, ni siquiera servicios médicos". El periodista dijo que las ambulancias no pudieron responder a las emergencias debido a que no se permite la movilización dentro de la ciudad. Un residente de Qaim dijo a Reuters: "Destruyeron Qaim, los estadounidenses bombardearon todo, nuestras casas están destruidas, nuestros hijos son victimas y queremos una solución. ¿Qué debemos hacer? Necesitamos una solución". Los residentes fueron forzados a abandonar la localidad a pie. Associated Press informó que las fuerzas comandadas por Estados Unidos advirtieron por altavoces que dispararían a quienes se marcharan en vehículos. Estados Unidos dijo que la Operación "Cortina de Acero" era necesaria para evitar que combatientes extranjeros ingresen a Irak a través de la frontera con Siria. Mientras tanto, políticos sunitas criticaron los ataques dirigidos por Estados Unidos. El principal dirigente del Partido Islámico Iraquí, Mohsen Abdul-Hamid, dijo: "Rechazamos todas las operaciones militares contra civiles porque dichas acciones llevan a la muerte de gente inocente y a la destrucción de pueblos y ciudades".
Cinco soldados estadounidenses acusados de golpear a detenidos iraquíes
Mientras tanto, las Fuerzas Armadas anunciaron el lunes que se presentaron cargos contra cinco soldados estadounidenses por asestar golpes de puño y puntapiés a detenidos en Irak. Las golpizas ocurrieron hace dos meses.
Regresa a DC Ahmed Calabi, antes exiliado iraquí y desacreditado
El ex director del Congreso Nacional Iraquí, Ahmed Chalabi, llegará a Washington esta semana, en su primer viaje oficial en más de dos años. Planea hablar el miércoles en el American Enterprise Institute (Instituto de la Empresa Estadounidense) y se reunirá con la Secretaria de Estado, Condoleezza Rice, y con el Secretario del Tesoro, John Snow. Antes de la invasión a Irak, Chalabi tenía vínculos cercanos con el Pentágono y con algunos reporteros entre los cuales se encontraba Judith Miller, del New York Times. Chalabi fue acusado de proporcionar información inventada sobre las armas en Irak a las agencias de inteligencia estadounidenses y a periodistas, antes de la invasión a Irak. También surgieron preguntas acerca de sus cercanos vínculos con Irán. Durante el fin de semana, Chalabi estuvo en Teherán para entrevistarse a puertas cerradas con funcionarios iraníes de alto rango, entre ellos El Presidente Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. El año pasado, la Agencia de Inteligencia de Defensa concluyó que la inteligencia Iraní había utilizado a colaboradores de Chalabi para proporcionar información errónea a Estados Unidos.
La Casa Blanca recibió en 2002 advertencias de que Irak no estaba vinculado con Al Qaeda
El New York Times informa que el gobierno de Bush fue advertido en febrero de 2002 de que los informes de inteligencia sobre presuntos vínculos entre Irak y Al-Qaeda probablemente contenían datos falsos producidos por un integrante de Al-Qaeda detenido en Estados Unidos. Sin embargo, el gobierno de Bush ignoró las advertencias de la Agencia de Inteligencia de Defensa (DIA, por sus siglas en inglés) acerca de que el detenido, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, estaba mintiendo. Sus falsas afirmaciones fueron usadas reiteradas veces para justificar la invasión a Irak. Ocho meses después de que la DIA hizo esas advertencias, el Presidente Bush pronunció un importante discurso en Cincinnati en el que dijo: "Nos enteramos de que Irak entrenó a miembros de Al-Qaeda en la fabricación de bombas y venenos y gases." Este año, la revista Newsweek reveló que Al-Libi podría haber empezado a hablar en los interrogatorios luego de ser torturado. Al-Libi fue capturado en noviembre de 2001 en Afganistán. Fue entregado a la CIA para que lo interrogara y finalmente enviado a Egipto.
Corte Suprema decidirá sobre uso de tribunales militares en Guantánamo
La Corte Suprema de Estados Unidos anunció el lunes que decidirá si el gobierno de Bush puede utilizar tribunales militares para enjuiciar a los prisioneros detenidos en la Bahía de Guantánamo. En julio, un tribunal federal de apelaciones integrado por tres jueces decretó que un tribunal compuesto íntegramente por militares podía enjuiciar y sentenciar a Salim Ahmed Hamdan, un hombre Yemini acusado de ser el guardaespaldas y chofer de Osama Bin Laden. El lunes, el Presidente de la Corte Suprema, John Roberts, se retiró del caso debido a que él fue uno de los jueces del tribunal de apelaciones que dictaminó anteriormente en este caso.
El Senado votó para privar a prisioneros del derecho a impugnar su detención
El Senado votó el jueves en Capitol Hill para despojar a los prisioneros detenidos en la Bahía de Guantánamo del derecho a impugnar su detención ante tribunales de Estados Unidos. La medida, presentada por el Senador republicano Lindsey Graham, anularía una decisión de la Corte Suprema del año pasado. El New York Times informa que la enmienda dejará sin efecto las impugnaciones legales presentadas por 200 de los 500 prisioneros detenidos actualmente en Guantánamo. Cinco demócratas se unieron a 44 republicanos para aprobar la medida por 49 votos contra 42. Sin embargo, el New York Times informa que la victoria puede ser transitoria, debido a que nueve senadores estaban ausentes y presionan para que se realice una segunda votación el lunes 14.
Senado ordena a Rumsfeld que revele información sobre prisiones secretas
También el jueves, el Senado aprobó una enmienda a un proyecto de ley que ordena al Secretario de Defensa, Donald Rumsfeld, informar al Congreso acerca de los establecimientos carcelarios secretos administrados por Estados Unidos en el extranjero.
Lott sospecha que compañeros republicanos filtraron la existencia de las prisiones
Mientras tanto, el Los Ángeles Times informa que el Senador republicano Trent Lott dijo que senadores de su propio partido podrían ser los responsables de la filtración. Lott dijo que las instalaciones de las prisiones secretas fueron discutidas en un banquete republicano en Capitol Hill, que se llevo a cabo el 1 de noviembre, un día antes que el Post publicara su informe. El Vicepresidente Cheney asistió a ese banquete. Lott dijo: "No sé de dónde más pudo haber surgido... me pareció que al menos uno de esos informes surgió directamente de aquel lugar".
CIA advertida sobre procedimientos en los interrogatories
Según el New York Times, el inspector general de la CIA advirtió a la agencia que sus procedimientos en los interrogatorios podrían estar violando la Convención Internacional Contra la Tortura. En un informe, el inspector general dijo que las técnicas "crueles, inhumanas o degradantes" utilizadas en lugares secretos en el mundo podrían exponer a los agentes a responsabilidades jurídicas. Estas técnicas incluyen "el submarino", en la que se priva al detenido de aire, como si se estuviera ahogando. La Casa Blanca presiona en la actualidad por una enmienda del Congreso que exima a los agentes de la CIA de la prohibición por parte del Senado de utilizar torturas en los interrogatorios realizados en el extranjero.
Funcionario de la CIA revela presupuesto de la agencia
Otra noticia sobre los servicios de Inteligencia: una funcionaria de la CIA parece haber revelado el presupuesto de la agencia, que ha sido durante mucho tiempo un secreto nacional. En una conferencia de inteligencia en San Antonio la semana pasada, la subdirectora de Inteligencia Nacional, Mary Margaret Graham, dijo que el presupuesto anual de inteligencia es 44 mil millones de dólares.
Atentado suicida con bombas en restaurante de Bagdad
En Irak, dos bombarderos suicidas atacaron hoy un restaurante en Bagdad que es frecuentado por fuerzas de seguridad iraquíes, dejando un saldo de por lo menos 33 personas muertas y otras 19 heridas. Mientras tanto, un atentado con coche-bomba mató a siete reclutas del ejército en el pueblo de Tikkrit. En otras noticias sobre Irak, las Fuerzas Armadas estadounidenses admitieron el miércoles que causaron la muerte de varios civiles durante los ataques llevados a cabo esta semana en el pueblo de Husaybah, cerca de la frontera con Siria. Las fuerzas estadounidenses invadieron este pueblo el sábado, alegando que se había convertido en un caldo de cultivo de insurgentes extranjeros. El New York Times informa que aviones de la Marina destruyeron un hogar donde presuntamente se escondían insurgentes, matando a por lo menos cinco civiles que estaban adentro.
Judith Miller deja el New York Times
El New York Times anunció la renuncia de la periodista Judith Miller. Miller estuvo presa durante 85 días este año por negarse a testificar ante un gran jurado en el caso de filtración de la CIA. Fue liberada tras recibir autorización para testificar de su fuente, el asistente de la Casa Blanca acusado Lewis Libby. Miller, que fue elogiada al comienzo por defender la libertad de prensa, recibió críticas luego, cuando los editores del periódico la acusaron de haberlos engañado acerca de sus vínculos con la Casa Blanca. El trabajo periodístico de Miller también fue criticado por sus informes en el período previo a la guerra de Irak. Miller escribió una serie de artículos que afirmaban que Saddam Hussein tenía en su poder armas de destrucción masiva, afirmaciones que resultaron ser falsas. En una carta al editor publicada en la edición de hoy del New York Times, Miller escribió: "Decidí renunciar debido a que en los últimos meses me he convertido en noticia, algo que un periodista del New York Times nunca quiere ser". Un portavoz del Times dijo: "Se dejó claro a Miller que no podía seguir trabajando como periodista de ninguna clase" en el periódico.
Ali recibe la Medalla Presidencial de la Libertad
En Washington, el legendario boxeador Muhammad Ali fue galardonado el miércoles con la Medalla Presidencial de la Libertad. Ali es considerado el mejor boxeador de la historia del deporte. En su apogeo, apoyó el movimiento musulmán negro y criticó la Guerra de Vietnam. En 1967 fue despojado de su titulo de campeón de los pesos pesados por negarse a luchar en Vietnam. Las declaraciones de Alí que siguen fueron tomadas del documental "When We Were Kings" (Cuando fuimos reyes), sobre el combate de 1974 en el que Ali recuperó el título de campeón mundial, contra George Foreman en Kinshasa, que llegó a ser conocido como "La pelea en la jungla": "Si, estoy en África. Si, África es mi hogar. Maldito sea Estados Unidos y lo que Estados Unidos piensa. Si, vivo en Estados Unidos, pero África es el hogar del hombre negro, y yo fui un esclavo hace 400 años, y vuelvo a casa para pelear junto con mis hermanos".
Maria: In English, here are thirteen headlines fom Democracy Now! Remember that the headlines are provided daily in English and Spanish and please pass on to your friends. Peace.
Iraqi: "Americans Bombed Everything, Our Houses Are Destroyed"Most communication to the Sunni towns of Husaybah and Qaim has been cut off. An Iraqi journalist in Husaybah told Al-Jazeera "The city is suffering a complete lack of all of life's basic necessities. There is no fuel and winter is upon us. There is no food and there are no services whatsoever, not even health services." The journalist said that ambulances have been unable to respond to emergencies because no movement is allowed in the city. "They destroyed Qaim, Americans bombed everything, our houses are destroyed, our children are victims and we want a solution," one resident told Reuters. "What do we have to do? We need a solution." Residents have been forced to flee the town on foot. The Associated Press reported that the U.S.-led forces warned over loudspeakers that anyone leaving the town in vehicles would be shot. The U.S. said Operation Steel Curtain was needed to stop foreign fighters from crossing the Syrian border. Meanwhile Sunni politicians criticized the U.S.-led attack. The head of the moderate Iraqi Islamic Party Mohsen Abdul-Hamid said "We reject all military operations directed against civilian targets because such acts lead to the killing of innocent people and the destruction of towns and cities."
Five U.S. Soldiers Charged With Beating Iraqi DetaineesThe military announced Monday five U.S. soldiers had been charged with punching and kicking detainees in Iraq. The beatings occurred two months ago.
Once Disgraced Iraqi Exile, Ahmed Chalabi, Returns to DCThe former head of the Iraqi National Congress Ahmed Chalabi is heading to Washington this week for his first official trip in over two years. He is planning on speaking at the American Enterprise Institute on Wednesday and will be meeting with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Treasury Secretary John Snow. Before the invasion of Iraq, Chalabi had close ties to the Pentagon as well as some reporters including Judith Miller of the New York Times. He has been accused of feeding fabricated information about Iraq's weapons capabilities to US intelligence agencies and to journalists ahead of the Iraq invasion. Questions have also arisen over his close ties to Iran. Over the weekend Chalabi was in Tehran for closed-door meetings with high-ranking Iranian officials including President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Last year the Defense Intelligence Agency concluded Iranian intelligence had used aides of Chalabi to pass disinformation to the United States.
La Casa Blanca recibió en 2002 advertencias de que Irak no estaba vinculado con Al QaedaEl New York Times informa que el gobierno de Bush fue advertido en febrero de 2002 de que los informes de inteligencia sobre presuntos vínculos entre Irak y Al-Qaeda probablemente contenían datos falsos producidos por un integrante de Al-Qaeda detenido en Estados Unidos. Sin embargo, el gobierno de Bush ignoró las advertencias de la Agencia de Inteligencia de Defensa (DIA, por sus siglas en inglés) acerca de que el detenido, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, estaba mintiendo. Sus falsas afirmaciones fueron usadas reiteradas veces para justificar la invasión a Irak. Ocho meses después de que la DIA hizo esas advertencias, el Presidente Bush pronunció un importante discurso en Cincinnati en el que dijo: “Nos enteramos de que Irak entrenó a miembros de Al-Qaeda en la fabricación de bombas y venenos y gases.” Este año, la revista Newsweek reveló que Al-Libi podría haber empezado a hablar en los interrogatorios luego de ser torturado. Al-Libi fue capturado en noviembre de 2001 en Afganistán. Fue entregado a la CIA para que lo interrogara y finalmente enviado a Egipto.
Supreme Court To Rule on Guantanamo Military Tribunals
The U.S. Supreme Court announced Monday it will decide whether the Bush administration can use military tribunals to try detainees being held at Guantanamo Bay. In July a three-judge federal appeals court upheld that a tribunal made up entirely of military officials could try and sentence Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a Yemini man accused of being Osama Bin Laden's bodyguard and driver. On Monday Chief Justice John Roberts recused himself from the case since he was one of the appeals court judges who previously ruled on the case.
Senate Votes To Remove Prisoners' Right to Challenge Detentions
On Capital Hill Thursday, the Senate voted to take away Guantanamo Bay prisoners' right to challenge their detentions in United States courts. The measure, put forward by Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, would override a Supreme Court decision last year. The New York Times reports the amendment would nullify legal challenges currently filed by nearly 200 of the 500 detainees currently held at Guantanamo. Five Democrats joined 44 Republicans to pass the measure by a vote of 49 to 42. However the New York Times reports the victory may be short-lived as nine senators were absent, and are pushing for a second vote as early as Monday.
Senate Orders Rumsfeld to Disclose Secret Prisons
Also Thursday, the Senate passed an amendment to a defense bill that mandates Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to inform Congress on US-run secret prison facilities in foreign countries.
Lott Suspects Fellow Republicans in Prison Disclosure
Meanwhile, the Los Angeles Times reports Republican Senator Trent Lott said senators from his own party might be responsible for the leak. Lott said the secret prison facilities were discussed at a Republican luncheon on Capitol Hill -- one day before the Post published its report November 2nd. Vice President Cheney was among those in attendance. Lott said : "Information that was said in there, given out in there, did get into the newspaper. I don't know where else it came from…. It looked to me that at least one of those reports came right out of that room."
CIA Warned On Interrogation Procedures
The CIA’s inspector general has warned the agency its interrogation procedures could violate the international Convention Against Torture. This according to the New York Times. In a report, the inspector general said "cruel, inhuman or degrading" techniques used in secret locations around the world could expose agents to legal liability. These techniques include waterboarding, in which the detainee undergoes the experience of drowning. The White House is currently pushing a Congressional amendment that would exempt CIA agents from a Senate ban on torture for interrogations conducted overseas.
CIA Official Discloses Agency's Budget
In other intelligence news, a CIA official appears to have disclosed the agency's budget -- long a national secret. At an intelligence conference in San Antonio last week, Deputy Director of National Intelligence for Collection Mary Margaret Graham, said the annual intelligence budget was $44 billion.
Suicide Bombing Hits Baghdad Restaurant
In Iraq, two suicide bombers struck a Baghdad restaurant frequented by Iraqi security forces today, killing at least 33 people and wounding 19 others. Meanwhile a car bombing in the town of Tikkrit killed seven army recruits. In other Iraq news, the US military admitted Wednesday it caused civilian casualties during this week’s assault on the town of Husaybah, close to the Syrian border. US forces launched an invasion of the town Saturday, claiming it has become a hotbed for foreign insurgents. The New York Times is reporting Marine aircraft destroyed one home where insurgents were allegedly hiding, killing at least five civilians inside.
Judith Miller Leaves The New York Times
The New York Times has announced the retirement of reporter Judith Miller. Miller spent 85 days in jail this year for refusing to testify before the grand jury in the CIA leak case. She was released after receiving a waiver from her source, indicted White House aide Lewis Libby. Initially praised as a champion of press freedom, Miller drew criticism when her editors accused her of misleading them on her contacts with the White House. Miller's work has also come under question for her reporting in the lead-up to the Iraq war. Miller wrote a series of articles alleging Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, allegations that turned out to be false. In a letter to the editor printed in today's New York Times, Miller wrote: "I have chosen to resign because over the last few months, I have become the news, something a New York Times reporter never wants to be." A Times spokesperson said "it had been made clear to Ms. Miller that she would not be able to continue as a reporter of any kind" at the newspaper.
Ali Awarded Presidential Medal of Freedom
And in Washington, legendary boxer Muhammad Ali was awarded a Presidential Medal of Freedom Wednesday. Ali is considered the greatest boxer in the history of the sport. In his prime he was an outspoken advocate of the Black Muslim movement and a critic of the Vietnam War. In 1967, he was stripped of his heavyweight title for refusing to fight in Vietnam. This is from When We Were Kings, the documentary about Ali's 1974 championship bout with George Foreman in Kinshasa that came to be known as "the Rumble in the Jungle": "Yeah, I'm in Africa. Yeah, Africa is my home. Damn America and what America thinks. Yeah, I live in America, but Africa is the home of the black man, and I was a slave 400 years ago, and I'm going back home to fight among my brothers."
democracy now
news
iraq
Ruth's Morning Editon Report
Ruth: The e-mails came in and then some. C.I. posted a notice about a column I killed last weekend. At first, I was going to rework it and hopefully have something ready for Sunday. But I could not rework it and told C.I. that I was going to take a pass. Which is when C.I. asked me what I wanted said since e-mails would come in wondering where I was?
C.I. summarized exactly what I said on Monday while noting, "Ruth, people are going to read this and think I'm making a comment on your pulled column." C.I. was right but those were my words and C.I. addressed the issue of the show involved.
CounterSpin, produced by the organization FAIR, is one of my favorite radio programs. Two Fridays ago, they had Robert Parry as a guest. Mr. Parry is the reporter who established himself in the mainstream press by taking on stories no one else wanted to deal with such as Iran-Contra. Now he is an author of books and also runs Consortium News online. When the interview ended, I thought to myself, "I wish it had been longer." Then the next interview started and that was the problem.
A law expert, a law professor, was the guest. I was underwhelmed by the guest. He was brought on to discuss Judge Sameul A. Alito Jr. who currently serves on the federal bench and is nominated for the Supreme Court. As Treva would say, Mr. Alito is a "biggie."
Janine Jackson was the interviewer. Ms. Jackson has strong interview skills and she needed every one of them while dealing with a guest who had not reviewed Mr. Alito's court decisions and repeatedly relied upon statements to the effect of "I'm told he ruled this way . . ."
It was as though I was asked to come on the show to discuss kugel and arrived with only, "I'm told Treva has an incredible recipe for it . . ." Did I look at Treva's recipe? No and I had no information to offer of any substance. P.S. Treva does make an incredible kuglel and I do have her recipe.
Ms. Jackson did an incredible job in the interview but I honestly felt the guest was ill prepapred and offered nothing of substance. I also took issue with the guest's use of "partial-birth abortion." "So-called" as a preface is quite different from other prefaces. I believe the guest used "what is known as partial-birth abortion" but I won't swear to that. As a feminist of more years than I have gray hairs, and I have a lot of gray hairs, I am really tired of hearing men weigh in on abortion. Especially those who use terms that are not medically supported. I was married to a doctor, many of my children have followed in their late father's footsteps, so I do take medicine seriously.
The guest was not to my liking. I had no desire to recommend that anyone go out of their way to listen to the show. That is where my back and forth on whether I'd have something came from.
I love CounterSpin. Robert Parry was a guest worth hearing. The critiques by Ms. Jackson, Peter Hart and Steve Rendell that start each episode are always on the money and funny. So the issue was one of do I want to recommend this episode or not?
As a feminist and someone who has a strong appreciation of real science, I had no desire to recommend that anyone listen to the legal expert brought on to discuss Judge Alito's record.
My hope was just to skip a week and come back this week where I would note the problems I had with the guest, as I have, and then recommend the latest edition of CounterSpin. C.I. called me to give me a heads up to a guest and warn me that I might want a "Ruth is on vacation" note posted at The Common Ills.
I cannot recommend this Friday's episode. I did not listen to it. I am sure there was value early on but there was a guest from an organization that this community would not support.
It is really too bad that the organization has never clarified their stance. Maybe the organization does not support the tactics used this summer? If so, the community would be happy to get behind the organization. But there has never been a statement from them on it. Now, as some leave the organization and go elsewhere, they may do so with a cloud over them.
C.I. said, "Ruth, it's your space, feel free to name the organization and write whatever you want." While I will gladly take C.I. up on the latter, I have no desire to promote the organization.
To recap, although I am sure every member of the community already knows what organization I am speaking of, this summer a high school kid, fifteen-years-old, goes to work with his father.
The kid plays around the internet. Coming from a family of good leftists, he seeks out leftist sites. He checks out the organization involved as well as some of the sites that the organization links to at its blog report.
The blog report is asking for feedback and allows comments. The kid notes some sites, four, in his comments. The kid also makes a comment that some of the topics being covered by the blog report are frivilous. I would agree with that statement. Instead, the kid steers the blog report author to posts at some other sites.
The Common Ills was one of the four sites. C.I. noted this event after the kid e-mailed, to the blog report author and each of the four sites, an apology because there was talk of the four sites not being mentioned as a result of the child's comments. That is where this community comes in.
But, thanks to the gina & krista round-robin and the fact that they ran the e-mails sent out by the organization -- both to West and those not to West, we know a bit more now than when C.I.'s statements on this were posted. So let's all back up a moment. On the first day when the student posted, already there was an effort by the author of the blog report, via e-mail, to attempt to find out information on the child. The author did not e-mail the child. That seems to me a bit sneaky, going around and attempting to get dirt on someone.
There was no dirt to be gotten from this community because the student was not a member of this community and no one knew him or of him. That was day one and I want to include it because it has not been noted here. That is due to the fact that C.I. did not know about this until Gina and Krista ran e-mails in their round-robin.
As my granddaughter Tracey pointed out, she is a big fan of Katrina vanden Heuvel at The Nation, "Some people post really mean things in reply to Katrina's Editor's Cut but I can't believe she would ever attempt to get dirt on them and she obviously doesn't ban them." That is because The Nation operates under the principle of free speech.
Which brings us to day two. On day two, the blog report included praise for Michelle Malkin and links to her. Was the news that day so slow that the left needs to praise Michelle Malkin? I do not think we have had a news day that slow since the Bully Boy stepped into the oval office.
The child posted something to the effect of "step out of the GOP closet" and that is where things really hit the fan.
At this point, it is not only the author of the blog report but also a member of management of the organization involved that is on record: "Step out of the GOP closet" was "hate speech."
The child was informed of that and informed that he was banned and the possibility of harm to the four web sites was floated if the child did not immediately apologize. This occurred in a flurry of e-mail messages from the organization which apparently has nothing better to do on a mid-week day than harrass fifteen-year-olds.
So the child e-mails an apology. The child apologizes to the author of the blog report and to the four blogs he had praised. He sends that out in a group e-mail and then receives an e-mail from the author of the blog report saying he wished the child had not done that.
Of course he wishes the child had not done that. What the author and the one member of managment at the organization had done goes against everything that the left is supposed to stand for. It goes against freedom of speech, which is not supported in the comments that you can post, at your own risk, at the organization, as noted by management in an e-mail to the child.
What it boils down to is a bad writer did a bad blog report. Critical comments were not allowed. Prior to the banning, there was an attempt to seek out dirt on the child. When no dirt came back to the author of the blog report, at least from this community who did not know the child, they looked for an excuse to ban the child. The excuse they latched onto was that "step out of the GOP closet" was "hate speech."
"Step out of the GOP closet" is not hate speech. No one in their right mind would attempt to argue that it was. I spoke with my grandson Jayson and several friends who are lesbians to make sure that I was not missing something, as a straight woman, but the feedback was the same, "That is not hate speech and has nothing to do with sexuality."
What is was, I would argue, was an excuse to ban the kid who was making humorous criticism, but insightful criticism. Instead of taking a look at that criticism, they elected to ban the child, after first seeking out dirt on him and then going so far as to force an apology out of him.
The child's parents are still bothered by the actions of the organization. I spoke with the father on Friday and he said that to this day the child has not received an apology from the organization in any form.
As a mother and grandparent, I will say that no organization calling itself "left" should go after a child the way they did that student.
I also spoke to Pru who had advocated the linking to that blog report. Being one of our European members, Pru lives in London, Pru feels that C.I. gave special consideration to her request once Gareth, Polly and James in Brighton joined in. She states that they are appalled to this day over the events of this summer and that, speaking for herself and Gareth, they do not go to that blog report or to anything on that organization's site.
C.I. states that the decision was not Pru's and that C.I. takes full responsibility for that link.
When the child sent out the group e-mail, Rebecca, who operates one of the four sites the child had praised -- the other two are not community sites, immdiately responded. She e-mailed the child and asked that they speak on the phone. She immediately posted her feelings of disgust over the treatment of this child at Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude. C.I. learned of what had happened from Rebecca who phoned. C.I. immediately posted at this site. C.I. noted that the link was being pulled and that the behavior was not of the left. C.I., being C.I., didn't name the organization. C.I. offered the hope that the treatment of the child was not policy at the organization and that an apology would be made to the child. C.I. also stated that the child could consider himself a member of this community because anyone who is beat up for advocating this site and others on the left is a member. We know the child by "West" now.
I told West's parents that if that had been Tracey, Jayson or any of my grandchildren, I would be on the phone every day screaming at the organization, demanding an apology. West's parents are practicing Buddhists and a bit more sanguine than I am and feel that karma will hold the organization accountable. They say, both the mother and the father, that they have just eliminated visiting that web site and purchasing from it. West's father feels very badly about all of this because he actually had the site bookmarked on his computer at work and had suggested to his son that he visit it.
They were not aware, like everyone else, until Gina and Krista reproduced all the e-mails involved on this in their gina & krista round-robin, that the blog author had attempted to get dirt on their child. West's father is most vocal on that topic. He says that the site can certainly ban anyone that they wish to, for whatever trumped up charges, but it is quite another option to attempt to do covert research.
"If my son's comments bothered him [the blog author] so much the first day, he should have e-mailed my son. To instead attempt to hunt down dirt on him behind his back is more the sort of actions one expects from J. Edgar Hoover than from a purported left site."
The parents appreciate the strong support from the community on this. West no longer leaves a comment on any site he visits as a result although he maintains he is putting the incident behind him. As a mother and grandmother, I question whether he can?
That is some message the organization elected to send to a fifteen-year-old child. But West seems very bright and will hopefully be able to realize that some organizations practice free speech and some not only do not practice it but also attempt to launch covert actions.
I asked C.I. what I could say about this and was informed, no surprise, whatever I wanted to say would go up. "This is your space, Ruth. This is your op-ed."
As Rebecca pointed out over the phone Friday night, C.I. delinked from them as soon as what was done to West was learned. C.I. welcomed West into the community, apologized that there would be no e-mail reply to West's e-mail that night, due to the late hour. C.I. also delinked from the blog report. The blog report author immediately delinked from The Common Ills. The author obviously read C.I.'s entry yet the author has never made any effort to apologize to West.
C.I.'s comments on the future with regards to that organization are "I stand with the community" and nothing else. To every question I asked, "I stand with the community." Rebecca's belief is that had the author attempted to contact West and state that the author's behavior was "questionable," since the parents want to put this all behind them, C.I. would have probably linked to the organization. As it stands now, the organization is not promoted at this site. C.I. stated that Rebecca's opinions are her own opinions and may or may not reflect C.I.'s but that the operating prinicple at this site is that we do not promote or reward bad behaviors. If the organization had a spokesperson on Democracy Now!, a link would simply not be provided for that segment.
Could I have promoted the interview on CounterSpin in my column? Yes, I was told I could because this is my space though C.I. added that knowing my own feelings towards the treatment of West, it is highly unlikely that I would promote them. C.I. is correct. I came of age when, if something was wrong, you said it was wrong.
That all these months later, the organization has still not offered any sort of olive branch to West is appalling. There has not even been an e-mail stating, "I was under a lot of stress and, in reflection, if I had it to do over, I probably would have conducted myself differently."
So for this community, the organization does not exist. When this all went down, my eldest son was dropping off Elijah the next morning and I honestly had not read C.I.'s post on it. It went up very late and I always start with the top entry and work my way down. So I learned of it from my eldest son and I will note his reaction to it and insist that it make it into my report today. I will insist upon it because the only editing C.I. ever does of my column is to remove references to C.I.
My eldest son expressed amazement that the organization would treat anyone that way, let alone a child. He had bought a paper book from the organization and, I believe, a few DVDs. He stated then, and has kept his word, that he was not going to purchase anything from them anymore nor was he going to visit it. He also felt C.I. was brave to take the stand since it would likely cost a "link." It did. But, as Rebecca will tell you, C.I. could care less. There is right and there is wrong. You stand for what you believe in or you do not.
The only response from the blog author has not been an olive branch of any sort to West, it has been just to delink from The Common Ills. The blog author may feel that "addresses" the situation and possibly upper management at the organization does as well. It does not address what was done to West.
As a result, I did not listen to my favorite radio program. I will catch CounterSpin next week and enjoy it as I usually do. But in the wishy-washy world we live in where Bully Boy is treated with kid gloves and a corporate media repeats, but does not analyze, White House spin, it is very important that we take strong stands. The organization was one of several that could not take a stand on the war following the elections. They refused to run a piece by Tom Hayden that was "on the money" as we used to say in my day.
I applaud strong stands. The Nation has an amazing editorial. Hopefully that issue will arrive in the mail soon because I am highly tempted to use the link provided Friday to read it. ("Democrats and the War.") This is not a time for cowardice.
Which brings me to two programs I wanted to highlight from public radio. KPFA's The Morning Show provided an in depth look at adoption this week, exploring various issues over several days. I do not think that I have heard a more in depth discussion on that topic. They approached the topic from a variety of angles including the rights of the LGBT community, the issues involved in raising children that are a different race or ethnicity from the parent or parents and, on Friday, the issue of how a natural tragedy in one corner of the world can lead to adoptions in another and what are the ethics involved in that? Andrea Lewis did an amazing job interviewing the guests and everyone involved in the series deserves praise. With a multi-part series, the last installment often features some attempt to close the gate and state, "So here's how it is." There was no attempt to simplify this complex issue. Listeners were treated like adults.
I will also note that Friday, November 4th, Ms. Lewis interviewed Eddi Fiegel, the author of a new book entitled Dream A Little Dream Of Me: The Life of Cass Elliot. During her research for the book, Crosby, Stills and Nash's David Crosby offered Fiegel a hundred dollars if she found anyone who knew Cass Ellliot and had anything bad to say about Ms. Elliot. Ms. Fiegel did not collect a hundred dollars from Mr. Crosby. She did, however, learn a great amount of information about Cass Elliot. One of the reasons this was such a strong interview was because Ms. Lewis actually knew about Mama Cass. That surprised me as I listened and I kept thinking, "Surely she is not my age?" During the interview, it was revealed that, no, she is not my age. She was a child at the time of the Mamas and the Papas. But she does appreciate the vocals of Cass. Fans of Cass and those interested in the book, as well as those interested in hearing a good interview, should use the link to listen to the archived edition of the broadcast. For any impatient listeners, I will note that Ms. Fiegel comes on in the last hour of the broadcast.
The other program I want to steer to you towards is Law & Disorder on WBAI. [Dallas note: To hear this broadcast, click here and scroll down to November 7th.]
The hosts are "Michael Ratner, President of the Center for Constitutional Rights, Dalia Hashad, Muslim, Arab and South Asian Advocate with the ACLU, Michael Steven Smith, civil rights attorney and author and Heidi Boghosian, Executive Director of the National Lawyers' Guild."
There were many topics discussed but I will note the one that holds everyone's interest when I mention it, author Joan Mellen about her forthcoming book A Farewell to Justice: Jim Garrison, JFK's Assassination, and the Case That Should Have Changed History. [C.I. note: This book will be released Tuesday, November the 15th.] Utilizing documents from the National Archives, Mellen explores new data on the JFK assassination. The discussion included noting that the late Hale Boggs, House Majority Leader and father of Cokie Roberts, was the one who first steered Jim Garrison to questions regarding the Warren Report. Ms. Mellen draws strong conclusions and if you are interested in them, you should listen to the broadcast. [Dallas note: Again, click here and scroll down to November 7th.]
Earlier this week, C.I. noted of the departure of Judith Miller from the New York Times, "The Times, the original Survivor, has spoken. Everyone's to feed on Miller now." I found the line both apt and humorous. Tracey told me I had to include it and her mother will swear that Tracey has laughed "nonstop like a hyena" at that line. Apparently, if you have watched the program Survivor, it is especially funny. Being a doting grandmother, I immediately agreed it would be included. I was not sure how I would work it in until Friday morning when I flipped on NPR out of the blue and found Renee Montaigne suddenly, also out of the blue?, remembering that she was a reporter.
Here is the segment:
Judith Miller Defends Her Reporting at the 'Times'
Morning Edition, November 11, 2005 · Former New York Times reporter Judith Miller says she disagrees with criticism of her reporting on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. She maintains that her sources got their facts wrong, and denies that her stories were improperly vetted.
Renee obviously got the memo that "everyone's to feed on Judy Miller" which explains Renee's interview "style." Does anyone else remember the tut-tutting from the NPR ombudsman over Terry Gross' Fresh Air interview with Bill O'Reilly? Will he have anything to say about the fact that Renee repeatedly cut off and interrupted Ms. Miller? That Renee was openly hostile to Ms. Miller?
If NPR wants to make this their "style," by all means do so but apply it to all. Curiously, Ahmad Chalabi was intervied by Steve Inskeep immediately prior to Renee's interview with Ms. Miller being aired and Steve handled Mr. Chalabi with kid gloves.
This is not Renee's normal "style." You can contrast her interview with Ms. Miller with any number of people. You can focus solely on her interviews on to the topic of Iraq. She has held hands with administration officials repeatedly. Nor was this a case of Renee being frustrated because she had been a brave voice in the lead up to the war. She was not. As a sometime host of Morning Edition, then anchored by Bob Edwards, Renee never challenged any assertions or Colin Powell's infamous United Nations speech.
So since this is not her normal style and since she was not a brave voice standing alone on the coverage of Iraq, the only conclusion I can draw is she wanted to score some points. She did so.
She presented herself as belligerant and combative. If NPR wants to be that way, I have no problem with it provided that "style" is carried out with everyone.
Judith Miller is now disgraced publicly. Due to that, Renee apparently feels she can alter the tone of NPR and go into attack mode to score a few points.
I doubt the ombudsman will take a look at the issue and I doubt even more that he would issue a "finding" against Renee. It is open season on Ms. Miller.
While Ms. Miller has herself to blame for that, the fact remains that Renee's attention seeking interview "style," which I would term a "tantrum," did not meet the standards of NPR. If Renee wants to cut off administration officials and snap at them, by all means do so. But unless she is willing to provide that "style" across the board, the conclusions many listeners will draw is that Renee thought she could get away with dropping what NPR terms "professionalism" and go into attack mode since Ms. Miller is an easy target.
How bad was the interview? Ms. Miller said at one point, "Renee, I'm not going to argue with you about this." At one point, Ms. Miller asserted that "chest beating" was not the answer but that the answer was "going out and doing more journalism." While Ms. Miller's name is in tatters, a real interviewer might have asked the obvious question, "How would that be done? What would be pursued?"
Renee was not interested in pursuing that topic which is too bad because, now that Ms. Miller can admit her reporting is wrong, she might also be able to admit how the truth could be discovered. She might not be able to but we will never know that since Renee did not follow up on it. Instead, Renee show boated in a manner that goes against anything I have ever heard on NPR.
I have no respect for, nor good thoughts of, Judith Miller. But it bears noting that standards are apparently relaxed when Ms. Miller is a guest. The reason for that is a question NPR needs to explore.
Whether Ms. Miller's statements were sincere or not, she is correct that more reporting is needed. It is needed to rectify the reporting on record which was not reporting but stenography and which carries not just Ms. Miller's name but the names of many other "reporters."
If the conclusion from all of this is that Ms. Miller was a bad reporter I have no idea why people have spent so many hours addressing this. Ms. Miller was a bad reporter and that is not "news" or even fresh gossip at this point.
The news value is in exploring how a compliant press abdicated their duties and responsibilities to the public not in the usual manner of pursuing some titilating story but in one sided, unquestioning coverage of an issue as serious as war. That is the story. Ms. Miller is a character in that story. She, however, is not the only character.
It is very interesting that the press is so willing to examine Ms. Miller's motives but not the motives of people at their own organizations or, for that matter, the motives of the administration. Perhaps if they were Bully Boy's speech Friday would have been greeted with the laughter and ridicule it deserved.
counterspin
robert parry
cass elliot
mama cass
katrina vanden heuvel
the nation
david+crosby
andrea lewis
eddie+fiegel
kpfa
the morning show
wbai
law and disorder
judith miller
morning edition
steve inskeep
renee+montagne
joan mellen
jfk
chalabi
janine jackson
michael ratner
consortium news
center for constitutional rights
adoption
the mamas and the papas
C.I. summarized exactly what I said on Monday while noting, "Ruth, people are going to read this and think I'm making a comment on your pulled column." C.I. was right but those were my words and C.I. addressed the issue of the show involved.
CounterSpin, produced by the organization FAIR, is one of my favorite radio programs. Two Fridays ago, they had Robert Parry as a guest. Mr. Parry is the reporter who established himself in the mainstream press by taking on stories no one else wanted to deal with such as Iran-Contra. Now he is an author of books and also runs Consortium News online. When the interview ended, I thought to myself, "I wish it had been longer." Then the next interview started and that was the problem.
A law expert, a law professor, was the guest. I was underwhelmed by the guest. He was brought on to discuss Judge Sameul A. Alito Jr. who currently serves on the federal bench and is nominated for the Supreme Court. As Treva would say, Mr. Alito is a "biggie."
Janine Jackson was the interviewer. Ms. Jackson has strong interview skills and she needed every one of them while dealing with a guest who had not reviewed Mr. Alito's court decisions and repeatedly relied upon statements to the effect of "I'm told he ruled this way . . ."
It was as though I was asked to come on the show to discuss kugel and arrived with only, "I'm told Treva has an incredible recipe for it . . ." Did I look at Treva's recipe? No and I had no information to offer of any substance. P.S. Treva does make an incredible kuglel and I do have her recipe.
Ms. Jackson did an incredible job in the interview but I honestly felt the guest was ill prepapred and offered nothing of substance. I also took issue with the guest's use of "partial-birth abortion." "So-called" as a preface is quite different from other prefaces. I believe the guest used "what is known as partial-birth abortion" but I won't swear to that. As a feminist of more years than I have gray hairs, and I have a lot of gray hairs, I am really tired of hearing men weigh in on abortion. Especially those who use terms that are not medically supported. I was married to a doctor, many of my children have followed in their late father's footsteps, so I do take medicine seriously.
The guest was not to my liking. I had no desire to recommend that anyone go out of their way to listen to the show. That is where my back and forth on whether I'd have something came from.
I love CounterSpin. Robert Parry was a guest worth hearing. The critiques by Ms. Jackson, Peter Hart and Steve Rendell that start each episode are always on the money and funny. So the issue was one of do I want to recommend this episode or not?
As a feminist and someone who has a strong appreciation of real science, I had no desire to recommend that anyone listen to the legal expert brought on to discuss Judge Alito's record.
My hope was just to skip a week and come back this week where I would note the problems I had with the guest, as I have, and then recommend the latest edition of CounterSpin. C.I. called me to give me a heads up to a guest and warn me that I might want a "Ruth is on vacation" note posted at The Common Ills.
I cannot recommend this Friday's episode. I did not listen to it. I am sure there was value early on but there was a guest from an organization that this community would not support.
It is really too bad that the organization has never clarified their stance. Maybe the organization does not support the tactics used this summer? If so, the community would be happy to get behind the organization. But there has never been a statement from them on it. Now, as some leave the organization and go elsewhere, they may do so with a cloud over them.
C.I. said, "Ruth, it's your space, feel free to name the organization and write whatever you want." While I will gladly take C.I. up on the latter, I have no desire to promote the organization.
To recap, although I am sure every member of the community already knows what organization I am speaking of, this summer a high school kid, fifteen-years-old, goes to work with his father.
The kid plays around the internet. Coming from a family of good leftists, he seeks out leftist sites. He checks out the organization involved as well as some of the sites that the organization links to at its blog report.
The blog report is asking for feedback and allows comments. The kid notes some sites, four, in his comments. The kid also makes a comment that some of the topics being covered by the blog report are frivilous. I would agree with that statement. Instead, the kid steers the blog report author to posts at some other sites.
The Common Ills was one of the four sites. C.I. noted this event after the kid e-mailed, to the blog report author and each of the four sites, an apology because there was talk of the four sites not being mentioned as a result of the child's comments. That is where this community comes in.
But, thanks to the gina & krista round-robin and the fact that they ran the e-mails sent out by the organization -- both to West and those not to West, we know a bit more now than when C.I.'s statements on this were posted. So let's all back up a moment. On the first day when the student posted, already there was an effort by the author of the blog report, via e-mail, to attempt to find out information on the child. The author did not e-mail the child. That seems to me a bit sneaky, going around and attempting to get dirt on someone.
There was no dirt to be gotten from this community because the student was not a member of this community and no one knew him or of him. That was day one and I want to include it because it has not been noted here. That is due to the fact that C.I. did not know about this until Gina and Krista ran e-mails in their round-robin.
As my granddaughter Tracey pointed out, she is a big fan of Katrina vanden Heuvel at The Nation, "Some people post really mean things in reply to Katrina's Editor's Cut but I can't believe she would ever attempt to get dirt on them and she obviously doesn't ban them." That is because The Nation operates under the principle of free speech.
Which brings us to day two. On day two, the blog report included praise for Michelle Malkin and links to her. Was the news that day so slow that the left needs to praise Michelle Malkin? I do not think we have had a news day that slow since the Bully Boy stepped into the oval office.
The child posted something to the effect of "step out of the GOP closet" and that is where things really hit the fan.
At this point, it is not only the author of the blog report but also a member of management of the organization involved that is on record: "Step out of the GOP closet" was "hate speech."
The child was informed of that and informed that he was banned and the possibility of harm to the four web sites was floated if the child did not immediately apologize. This occurred in a flurry of e-mail messages from the organization which apparently has nothing better to do on a mid-week day than harrass fifteen-year-olds.
So the child e-mails an apology. The child apologizes to the author of the blog report and to the four blogs he had praised. He sends that out in a group e-mail and then receives an e-mail from the author of the blog report saying he wished the child had not done that.
Of course he wishes the child had not done that. What the author and the one member of managment at the organization had done goes against everything that the left is supposed to stand for. It goes against freedom of speech, which is not supported in the comments that you can post, at your own risk, at the organization, as noted by management in an e-mail to the child.
What it boils down to is a bad writer did a bad blog report. Critical comments were not allowed. Prior to the banning, there was an attempt to seek out dirt on the child. When no dirt came back to the author of the blog report, at least from this community who did not know the child, they looked for an excuse to ban the child. The excuse they latched onto was that "step out of the GOP closet" was "hate speech."
"Step out of the GOP closet" is not hate speech. No one in their right mind would attempt to argue that it was. I spoke with my grandson Jayson and several friends who are lesbians to make sure that I was not missing something, as a straight woman, but the feedback was the same, "That is not hate speech and has nothing to do with sexuality."
What is was, I would argue, was an excuse to ban the kid who was making humorous criticism, but insightful criticism. Instead of taking a look at that criticism, they elected to ban the child, after first seeking out dirt on him and then going so far as to force an apology out of him.
The child's parents are still bothered by the actions of the organization. I spoke with the father on Friday and he said that to this day the child has not received an apology from the organization in any form.
As a mother and grandparent, I will say that no organization calling itself "left" should go after a child the way they did that student.
I also spoke to Pru who had advocated the linking to that blog report. Being one of our European members, Pru lives in London, Pru feels that C.I. gave special consideration to her request once Gareth, Polly and James in Brighton joined in. She states that they are appalled to this day over the events of this summer and that, speaking for herself and Gareth, they do not go to that blog report or to anything on that organization's site.
C.I. states that the decision was not Pru's and that C.I. takes full responsibility for that link.
When the child sent out the group e-mail, Rebecca, who operates one of the four sites the child had praised -- the other two are not community sites, immdiately responded. She e-mailed the child and asked that they speak on the phone. She immediately posted her feelings of disgust over the treatment of this child at Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude. C.I. learned of what had happened from Rebecca who phoned. C.I. immediately posted at this site. C.I. noted that the link was being pulled and that the behavior was not of the left. C.I., being C.I., didn't name the organization. C.I. offered the hope that the treatment of the child was not policy at the organization and that an apology would be made to the child. C.I. also stated that the child could consider himself a member of this community because anyone who is beat up for advocating this site and others on the left is a member. We know the child by "West" now.
I told West's parents that if that had been Tracey, Jayson or any of my grandchildren, I would be on the phone every day screaming at the organization, demanding an apology. West's parents are practicing Buddhists and a bit more sanguine than I am and feel that karma will hold the organization accountable. They say, both the mother and the father, that they have just eliminated visiting that web site and purchasing from it. West's father feels very badly about all of this because he actually had the site bookmarked on his computer at work and had suggested to his son that he visit it.
They were not aware, like everyone else, until Gina and Krista reproduced all the e-mails involved on this in their gina & krista round-robin, that the blog author had attempted to get dirt on their child. West's father is most vocal on that topic. He says that the site can certainly ban anyone that they wish to, for whatever trumped up charges, but it is quite another option to attempt to do covert research.
"If my son's comments bothered him [the blog author] so much the first day, he should have e-mailed my son. To instead attempt to hunt down dirt on him behind his back is more the sort of actions one expects from J. Edgar Hoover than from a purported left site."
The parents appreciate the strong support from the community on this. West no longer leaves a comment on any site he visits as a result although he maintains he is putting the incident behind him. As a mother and grandmother, I question whether he can?
That is some message the organization elected to send to a fifteen-year-old child. But West seems very bright and will hopefully be able to realize that some organizations practice free speech and some not only do not practice it but also attempt to launch covert actions.
I asked C.I. what I could say about this and was informed, no surprise, whatever I wanted to say would go up. "This is your space, Ruth. This is your op-ed."
As Rebecca pointed out over the phone Friday night, C.I. delinked from them as soon as what was done to West was learned. C.I. welcomed West into the community, apologized that there would be no e-mail reply to West's e-mail that night, due to the late hour. C.I. also delinked from the blog report. The blog report author immediately delinked from The Common Ills. The author obviously read C.I.'s entry yet the author has never made any effort to apologize to West.
C.I.'s comments on the future with regards to that organization are "I stand with the community" and nothing else. To every question I asked, "I stand with the community." Rebecca's belief is that had the author attempted to contact West and state that the author's behavior was "questionable," since the parents want to put this all behind them, C.I. would have probably linked to the organization. As it stands now, the organization is not promoted at this site. C.I. stated that Rebecca's opinions are her own opinions and may or may not reflect C.I.'s but that the operating prinicple at this site is that we do not promote or reward bad behaviors. If the organization had a spokesperson on Democracy Now!, a link would simply not be provided for that segment.
Could I have promoted the interview on CounterSpin in my column? Yes, I was told I could because this is my space though C.I. added that knowing my own feelings towards the treatment of West, it is highly unlikely that I would promote them. C.I. is correct. I came of age when, if something was wrong, you said it was wrong.
That all these months later, the organization has still not offered any sort of olive branch to West is appalling. There has not even been an e-mail stating, "I was under a lot of stress and, in reflection, if I had it to do over, I probably would have conducted myself differently."
So for this community, the organization does not exist. When this all went down, my eldest son was dropping off Elijah the next morning and I honestly had not read C.I.'s post on it. It went up very late and I always start with the top entry and work my way down. So I learned of it from my eldest son and I will note his reaction to it and insist that it make it into my report today. I will insist upon it because the only editing C.I. ever does of my column is to remove references to C.I.
My eldest son expressed amazement that the organization would treat anyone that way, let alone a child. He had bought a paper book from the organization and, I believe, a few DVDs. He stated then, and has kept his word, that he was not going to purchase anything from them anymore nor was he going to visit it. He also felt C.I. was brave to take the stand since it would likely cost a "link." It did. But, as Rebecca will tell you, C.I. could care less. There is right and there is wrong. You stand for what you believe in or you do not.
The only response from the blog author has not been an olive branch of any sort to West, it has been just to delink from The Common Ills. The blog author may feel that "addresses" the situation and possibly upper management at the organization does as well. It does not address what was done to West.
As a result, I did not listen to my favorite radio program. I will catch CounterSpin next week and enjoy it as I usually do. But in the wishy-washy world we live in where Bully Boy is treated with kid gloves and a corporate media repeats, but does not analyze, White House spin, it is very important that we take strong stands. The organization was one of several that could not take a stand on the war following the elections. They refused to run a piece by Tom Hayden that was "on the money" as we used to say in my day.
I applaud strong stands. The Nation has an amazing editorial. Hopefully that issue will arrive in the mail soon because I am highly tempted to use the link provided Friday to read it. ("Democrats and the War.") This is not a time for cowardice.
Which brings me to two programs I wanted to highlight from public radio. KPFA's The Morning Show provided an in depth look at adoption this week, exploring various issues over several days. I do not think that I have heard a more in depth discussion on that topic. They approached the topic from a variety of angles including the rights of the LGBT community, the issues involved in raising children that are a different race or ethnicity from the parent or parents and, on Friday, the issue of how a natural tragedy in one corner of the world can lead to adoptions in another and what are the ethics involved in that? Andrea Lewis did an amazing job interviewing the guests and everyone involved in the series deserves praise. With a multi-part series, the last installment often features some attempt to close the gate and state, "So here's how it is." There was no attempt to simplify this complex issue. Listeners were treated like adults.
I will also note that Friday, November 4th, Ms. Lewis interviewed Eddi Fiegel, the author of a new book entitled Dream A Little Dream Of Me: The Life of Cass Elliot. During her research for the book, Crosby, Stills and Nash's David Crosby offered Fiegel a hundred dollars if she found anyone who knew Cass Ellliot and had anything bad to say about Ms. Elliot. Ms. Fiegel did not collect a hundred dollars from Mr. Crosby. She did, however, learn a great amount of information about Cass Elliot. One of the reasons this was such a strong interview was because Ms. Lewis actually knew about Mama Cass. That surprised me as I listened and I kept thinking, "Surely she is not my age?" During the interview, it was revealed that, no, she is not my age. She was a child at the time of the Mamas and the Papas. But she does appreciate the vocals of Cass. Fans of Cass and those interested in the book, as well as those interested in hearing a good interview, should use the link to listen to the archived edition of the broadcast. For any impatient listeners, I will note that Ms. Fiegel comes on in the last hour of the broadcast.
The other program I want to steer to you towards is Law & Disorder on WBAI. [Dallas note: To hear this broadcast, click here and scroll down to November 7th.]
The hosts are "Michael Ratner, President of the Center for Constitutional Rights, Dalia Hashad, Muslim, Arab and South Asian Advocate with the ACLU, Michael Steven Smith, civil rights attorney and author and Heidi Boghosian, Executive Director of the National Lawyers' Guild."
There were many topics discussed but I will note the one that holds everyone's interest when I mention it, author Joan Mellen about her forthcoming book A Farewell to Justice: Jim Garrison, JFK's Assassination, and the Case That Should Have Changed History. [C.I. note: This book will be released Tuesday, November the 15th.] Utilizing documents from the National Archives, Mellen explores new data on the JFK assassination. The discussion included noting that the late Hale Boggs, House Majority Leader and father of Cokie Roberts, was the one who first steered Jim Garrison to questions regarding the Warren Report. Ms. Mellen draws strong conclusions and if you are interested in them, you should listen to the broadcast. [Dallas note: Again, click here and scroll down to November 7th.]
Earlier this week, C.I. noted of the departure of Judith Miller from the New York Times, "The Times, the original Survivor, has spoken. Everyone's to feed on Miller now." I found the line both apt and humorous. Tracey told me I had to include it and her mother will swear that Tracey has laughed "nonstop like a hyena" at that line. Apparently, if you have watched the program Survivor, it is especially funny. Being a doting grandmother, I immediately agreed it would be included. I was not sure how I would work it in until Friday morning when I flipped on NPR out of the blue and found Renee Montaigne suddenly, also out of the blue?, remembering that she was a reporter.
Here is the segment:
Judith Miller Defends Her Reporting at the 'Times'
Morning Edition, November 11, 2005 · Former New York Times reporter Judith Miller says she disagrees with criticism of her reporting on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. She maintains that her sources got their facts wrong, and denies that her stories were improperly vetted.
Renee obviously got the memo that "everyone's to feed on Judy Miller" which explains Renee's interview "style." Does anyone else remember the tut-tutting from the NPR ombudsman over Terry Gross' Fresh Air interview with Bill O'Reilly? Will he have anything to say about the fact that Renee repeatedly cut off and interrupted Ms. Miller? That Renee was openly hostile to Ms. Miller?
If NPR wants to make this their "style," by all means do so but apply it to all. Curiously, Ahmad Chalabi was intervied by Steve Inskeep immediately prior to Renee's interview with Ms. Miller being aired and Steve handled Mr. Chalabi with kid gloves.
This is not Renee's normal "style." You can contrast her interview with Ms. Miller with any number of people. You can focus solely on her interviews on to the topic of Iraq. She has held hands with administration officials repeatedly. Nor was this a case of Renee being frustrated because she had been a brave voice in the lead up to the war. She was not. As a sometime host of Morning Edition, then anchored by Bob Edwards, Renee never challenged any assertions or Colin Powell's infamous United Nations speech.
So since this is not her normal style and since she was not a brave voice standing alone on the coverage of Iraq, the only conclusion I can draw is she wanted to score some points. She did so.
She presented herself as belligerant and combative. If NPR wants to be that way, I have no problem with it provided that "style" is carried out with everyone.
Judith Miller is now disgraced publicly. Due to that, Renee apparently feels she can alter the tone of NPR and go into attack mode to score a few points.
I doubt the ombudsman will take a look at the issue and I doubt even more that he would issue a "finding" against Renee. It is open season on Ms. Miller.
While Ms. Miller has herself to blame for that, the fact remains that Renee's attention seeking interview "style," which I would term a "tantrum," did not meet the standards of NPR. If Renee wants to cut off administration officials and snap at them, by all means do so. But unless she is willing to provide that "style" across the board, the conclusions many listeners will draw is that Renee thought she could get away with dropping what NPR terms "professionalism" and go into attack mode since Ms. Miller is an easy target.
How bad was the interview? Ms. Miller said at one point, "Renee, I'm not going to argue with you about this." At one point, Ms. Miller asserted that "chest beating" was not the answer but that the answer was "going out and doing more journalism." While Ms. Miller's name is in tatters, a real interviewer might have asked the obvious question, "How would that be done? What would be pursued?"
Renee was not interested in pursuing that topic which is too bad because, now that Ms. Miller can admit her reporting is wrong, she might also be able to admit how the truth could be discovered. She might not be able to but we will never know that since Renee did not follow up on it. Instead, Renee show boated in a manner that goes against anything I have ever heard on NPR.
I have no respect for, nor good thoughts of, Judith Miller. But it bears noting that standards are apparently relaxed when Ms. Miller is a guest. The reason for that is a question NPR needs to explore.
Whether Ms. Miller's statements were sincere or not, she is correct that more reporting is needed. It is needed to rectify the reporting on record which was not reporting but stenography and which carries not just Ms. Miller's name but the names of many other "reporters."
If the conclusion from all of this is that Ms. Miller was a bad reporter I have no idea why people have spent so many hours addressing this. Ms. Miller was a bad reporter and that is not "news" or even fresh gossip at this point.
The news value is in exploring how a compliant press abdicated their duties and responsibilities to the public not in the usual manner of pursuing some titilating story but in one sided, unquestioning coverage of an issue as serious as war. That is the story. Ms. Miller is a character in that story. She, however, is not the only character.
It is very interesting that the press is so willing to examine Ms. Miller's motives but not the motives of people at their own organizations or, for that matter, the motives of the administration. Perhaps if they were Bully Boy's speech Friday would have been greeted with the laughter and ridicule it deserved.
counterspin
robert parry
cass elliot
mama cass
katrina vanden heuvel
the nation
david+crosby
andrea lewis
eddie+fiegel
kpfa
the morning show
wbai
law and disorder
judith miller
morning edition
steve inskeep
renee+montagne
joan mellen
jfk
chalabi
janine jackson
michael ratner
consortium news
center for constitutional rights
adoption
the mamas and the papas
Where are the entries?
Where are the entries?
Ruth asked if she could do a "polish" on her Ruth's Morning Edition Report. I've been holding things as I waited for it to arrive because I'd like the Laura Flanders' post (Gloria Steinem on the broadcast today) to be the last one. It arrived an hour ago and it's long. I've been attempting to catch the spacing (copying from an e-mail into a Blogger window results in everything running together) and have also had to enlist Dallas' help (thank you, Dallas) on hunting down links. He's also helping with the tags for Ruth's entry. It will go up within ten minutes. Then give time for things to index (repeatedly or they won't be read by Techonorati -- blame Rebecca, if you want to blame someone for that, she's the one advocating we tag posts, it's time consuming and I don't care for it).
But after you see Ruth's entry, you will slowly see Maria's and then the one on Flanders.
As for my entry? I don't think there's time (truly, you have to index, or at this site I do, over and over to get it read by Technorati and that's with "manually pinging" them). If it's not up here, I'm carrying it over to The Third Estate Sunday Review and we'll all rework it there.
No tags, no links in this entry. It's just an FYI because e-mails are pouring in asking where are the entries today.
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com. (The community will be thrilled with Ruth's Morning Edition Report.)
Ruth asked if she could do a "polish" on her Ruth's Morning Edition Report. I've been holding things as I waited for it to arrive because I'd like the Laura Flanders' post (Gloria Steinem on the broadcast today) to be the last one. It arrived an hour ago and it's long. I've been attempting to catch the spacing (copying from an e-mail into a Blogger window results in everything running together) and have also had to enlist Dallas' help (thank you, Dallas) on hunting down links. He's also helping with the tags for Ruth's entry. It will go up within ten minutes. Then give time for things to index (repeatedly or they won't be read by Techonorati -- blame Rebecca, if you want to blame someone for that, she's the one advocating we tag posts, it's time consuming and I don't care for it).
But after you see Ruth's entry, you will slowly see Maria's and then the one on Flanders.
As for my entry? I don't think there's time (truly, you have to index, or at this site I do, over and over to get it read by Technorati and that's with "manually pinging" them). If it's not up here, I'm carrying it over to The Third Estate Sunday Review and we'll all rework it there.
No tags, no links in this entry. It's just an FYI because e-mails are pouring in asking where are the entries today.
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com. (The community will be thrilled with Ruth's Morning Edition Report.)
NYT: Veterans Day means long weekend for the paper (little news for the readers)
The Elite Fluff Patrol continues to fly missions as Richard W. Stevenson demonstrates in "Bush Contends Partisan Critics Hurt War Effort" front paged on this morning's New York Times. We're not going to deal with his nonsense fluffing.
Last night, my intent was to write something on that speech. Reality intruded with the arrival of a friend bearing tapes of aired and unaired episodes of a show Ava and I have avoided reviewing. (No, not Earl!) To say I don't like the lead in that show is to put it mildly. Hacktress is another mild term for her. The set's a nightmare which wouldn't be a problem (many are) if they created anything out of the chaos. They don't. At least not anything of praise. But damned if it isn't getting praise.
I've avoided watching that trash because Hacktress can't act, never could act, never will be able to act. (Once, as a result of a hugely talented co-star, a director who pushes like crazy and a man who pushed her buttons -- and messed with her mind -- onscreen and off, Hacktress turned in a passble performance. Even then it was only passable.) The tapes were sent on to Ava but I doubt we'll be able to write a review of it this weekend.
I've taken a pass despite repeated requests from friends as well as e-mails on "When are you two going to review this show?" Readers of The Third Estate Sunday Review want a review. I don't like the Hacktress. I never have. Last spring, at a gathering, when the Hacktress started lumbering over to the table I was at, I said "Oh God" (that's the cleaned up version), and immediately got up and walked off to avoid even speaking to the Hacktress.
So I really didn't think it was fair for me to review the Hacktress' new show. (I also wasn't keen on staring at the abnormal face onscreen.) But having set through several episodes of the show last night if, after she gets a chance to watch the episodes, Ava wants to review it, we will.
I say all the above to say, it was well after midnight when I was finally done watching chubby cheeks. At which point, I attempted to deal with the Bully Boy's speech but didn't feel it was getting at what I wanted to say. I saved it to draft and it will go up this morning. I'll give it a once over to see if there's anyway to improve it but I doubt there is, so it will probably go up as is.
Lydia Polgreen shares the front page with Stevenson. Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf has become the first woman in Africa to become president. This is apparently another "good thing." I'm not sure why we're supposed to care that "In First for Africa, Woman Wins Election as President of Liberia" since the article is sketchy on details about Johnson-Sirleaf and what is in print is certainly enough to raise eyebrows on the left. "Harvard-educated economist and former World Bank official" hardly speaks of feminism. (They may indicate that she's a crony of a West.) The cry of "First woman president!" seems to be something we're expected to rally around as a "good thing." That depends, whether it's a "good thing" or not, on what type of a woman she is.
But that's a factor that seems lost (in the article and in this country today).
GLORIA STEINEM WILL BE ON SATURDAY'S THE LAURA FLANDERS SHOW.
We'll note that in an entry on The Laura Flanders Show today but I want to be sure we note it several times today.
We'll note Eric Schmitt's "Democrats Provided Edge on Detainee Vote" which deals with The Disgusting Five who broke ranks and rushed to provide the Bully Boy with cover as a court show down looms over whether or not Bully Boy's powers should be unchecked.
Before we go further into the article, we have members in Oregon. I hope you're contacting Ron Wyden's office to register your disappointment with his vote.
Let's boil it down because Joey Lieberman is mudding the waters again today. "Enemy combantants" are held at Guantanamo Bay. Which we lease and have for ever.
The argument is that it's not on US soil. Therefore, the torture enablers argue, the Constitution shouldn't apply. Now we hold them at a permanent base, a permant US base.
But here's the other issue that's not really addressed by comments from spokespersons. Does the Bully Boy have the right to hold someone for as long as he feels like with no charges, no trial and no contact with anyone?
Torture Cheerleader Lieberman offers that statement that "A foreign national who is captured and determined to be an enemy combatant in the world . . ." I know we're all yawning already. Joe Lieberman has that effect on people. (Well not on kids. Remember the ice cream social where Lieberman was too huffy and too good to eat a cone? Poor kids. They worked really hard on that. Guess Joey was watching that trim waistline.)
What Torture Cheerleader doesn't tell you is that there was a profit motive (gotta' love that free enterprise system!) at work in Afghanistan. Turning in farmers and others while calling them "terrorists" got you some cash. In addition, the US government whisks people off of streets -- kidnapping is the term, we're calling it "extraordinary rendition" but it's kidnapping.
So Joe, who's determining this?
(Sidebar, do Joey's 2003 and 2004 supporters at a certain neoliberal, British newspaper still feel so fondly about him? Including the reporter who got into a nasty argument with someone who raised the issue that in the recounts of 2000, Lieberman elected to walk on Sabbath instead of taking the car that the Secret Service was recommending to avoid the risks they feared as a result of the very vocal crowd?) (The argument was, if in that case, Lieberman wouldn't get in a car, due to observing religious beliefs, what would happen if he were president and 9/11 occurred on the Sabbath. It was quite a lively exchange.)
The Bully Boy who's seized powers out of thin air.
Joe Lieberman who helped hand Bully Boy the oval office with a Meet the Press appearence during the recounts is still carrying water for the Bully Boy. And as usual, doesn't have a clue as to what he's speaking of.
Here are the excuses from three others. Kent Conrad says he was told on Veterans Day, a day after the vote, by "retired Army soldiers . . . that they . . . opposed giving detainees at Guantanamo Bay broader leeway to United States courts." Oh well, if the apparent legal experts have spoken, Kent, then by all means.
Still looking for his spine, Conrad offers that he doesn't think we should "set" the "precednt" of giving "enemy combatants access to the federal courts." "And justice for all" is a notion that apparently no one expressed to Conrad. Mary Landrieu and Ben Nelson (Nebraska) issue similar statements through spokespersons.
Ron Wyden's the weakest vote. He can be swayed. He has presidential ambitions. (And now, truly, the money to run for that office.) That's part of the reason he's popping up everywhere lately. (Flanders, Democracy Now!, last night's NOW on PBS, etc.) His wife's reportedly okay with a testing of the waters. So Oregon members, that's who you need to be contacting to express your outrage over the fact that the Constitution's being subverted and that Wyden's backing Bully Boy's belief that his seized powers are uncheckable. (Federal courts and the Supreme Court have already stated otherwise. Possibly Kent Conrad should speak to some judges when attempting to determine a legal question?)
There will be posts here throughout the day. That includes Ruth's report. I'll be in and out this morning so there will be long breaks between posts. (As soon as this goes up, I've got to run a few errands.) Our last post for the day will be on The Laura Flanders Show (Gloria Steinem is a guest on Saturday's show).
Not much in the paper this morning -- it's a Saturday paper and apparently a lot of people wanted a long weekend.
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
the laura flanders show
laura flanders
radio
elections
the new york times
eric schmitt
gloria steinem
Last night, my intent was to write something on that speech. Reality intruded with the arrival of a friend bearing tapes of aired and unaired episodes of a show Ava and I have avoided reviewing. (No, not Earl!) To say I don't like the lead in that show is to put it mildly. Hacktress is another mild term for her. The set's a nightmare which wouldn't be a problem (many are) if they created anything out of the chaos. They don't. At least not anything of praise. But damned if it isn't getting praise.
I've avoided watching that trash because Hacktress can't act, never could act, never will be able to act. (Once, as a result of a hugely talented co-star, a director who pushes like crazy and a man who pushed her buttons -- and messed with her mind -- onscreen and off, Hacktress turned in a passble performance. Even then it was only passable.) The tapes were sent on to Ava but I doubt we'll be able to write a review of it this weekend.
I've taken a pass despite repeated requests from friends as well as e-mails on "When are you two going to review this show?" Readers of The Third Estate Sunday Review want a review. I don't like the Hacktress. I never have. Last spring, at a gathering, when the Hacktress started lumbering over to the table I was at, I said "Oh God" (that's the cleaned up version), and immediately got up and walked off to avoid even speaking to the Hacktress.
So I really didn't think it was fair for me to review the Hacktress' new show. (I also wasn't keen on staring at the abnormal face onscreen.) But having set through several episodes of the show last night if, after she gets a chance to watch the episodes, Ava wants to review it, we will.
I say all the above to say, it was well after midnight when I was finally done watching chubby cheeks. At which point, I attempted to deal with the Bully Boy's speech but didn't feel it was getting at what I wanted to say. I saved it to draft and it will go up this morning. I'll give it a once over to see if there's anyway to improve it but I doubt there is, so it will probably go up as is.
Lydia Polgreen shares the front page with Stevenson. Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf has become the first woman in Africa to become president. This is apparently another "good thing." I'm not sure why we're supposed to care that "In First for Africa, Woman Wins Election as President of Liberia" since the article is sketchy on details about Johnson-Sirleaf and what is in print is certainly enough to raise eyebrows on the left. "Harvard-educated economist and former World Bank official" hardly speaks of feminism. (They may indicate that she's a crony of a West.) The cry of "First woman president!" seems to be something we're expected to rally around as a "good thing." That depends, whether it's a "good thing" or not, on what type of a woman she is.
But that's a factor that seems lost (in the article and in this country today).
GLORIA STEINEM WILL BE ON SATURDAY'S THE LAURA FLANDERS SHOW.
We'll note that in an entry on The Laura Flanders Show today but I want to be sure we note it several times today.
We'll note Eric Schmitt's "Democrats Provided Edge on Detainee Vote" which deals with The Disgusting Five who broke ranks and rushed to provide the Bully Boy with cover as a court show down looms over whether or not Bully Boy's powers should be unchecked.
Before we go further into the article, we have members in Oregon. I hope you're contacting Ron Wyden's office to register your disappointment with his vote.
Let's boil it down because Joey Lieberman is mudding the waters again today. "Enemy combantants" are held at Guantanamo Bay. Which we lease and have for ever.
The argument is that it's not on US soil. Therefore, the torture enablers argue, the Constitution shouldn't apply. Now we hold them at a permanent base, a permant US base.
But here's the other issue that's not really addressed by comments from spokespersons. Does the Bully Boy have the right to hold someone for as long as he feels like with no charges, no trial and no contact with anyone?
Torture Cheerleader Lieberman offers that statement that "A foreign national who is captured and determined to be an enemy combatant in the world . . ." I know we're all yawning already. Joe Lieberman has that effect on people. (Well not on kids. Remember the ice cream social where Lieberman was too huffy and too good to eat a cone? Poor kids. They worked really hard on that. Guess Joey was watching that trim waistline.)
What Torture Cheerleader doesn't tell you is that there was a profit motive (gotta' love that free enterprise system!) at work in Afghanistan. Turning in farmers and others while calling them "terrorists" got you some cash. In addition, the US government whisks people off of streets -- kidnapping is the term, we're calling it "extraordinary rendition" but it's kidnapping.
So Joe, who's determining this?
(Sidebar, do Joey's 2003 and 2004 supporters at a certain neoliberal, British newspaper still feel so fondly about him? Including the reporter who got into a nasty argument with someone who raised the issue that in the recounts of 2000, Lieberman elected to walk on Sabbath instead of taking the car that the Secret Service was recommending to avoid the risks they feared as a result of the very vocal crowd?) (The argument was, if in that case, Lieberman wouldn't get in a car, due to observing religious beliefs, what would happen if he were president and 9/11 occurred on the Sabbath. It was quite a lively exchange.)
The Bully Boy who's seized powers out of thin air.
Joe Lieberman who helped hand Bully Boy the oval office with a Meet the Press appearence during the recounts is still carrying water for the Bully Boy. And as usual, doesn't have a clue as to what he's speaking of.
Here are the excuses from three others. Kent Conrad says he was told on Veterans Day, a day after the vote, by "retired Army soldiers . . . that they . . . opposed giving detainees at Guantanamo Bay broader leeway to United States courts." Oh well, if the apparent legal experts have spoken, Kent, then by all means.
Still looking for his spine, Conrad offers that he doesn't think we should "set" the "precednt" of giving "enemy combatants access to the federal courts." "And justice for all" is a notion that apparently no one expressed to Conrad. Mary Landrieu and Ben Nelson (Nebraska) issue similar statements through spokespersons.
Ron Wyden's the weakest vote. He can be swayed. He has presidential ambitions. (And now, truly, the money to run for that office.) That's part of the reason he's popping up everywhere lately. (Flanders, Democracy Now!, last night's NOW on PBS, etc.) His wife's reportedly okay with a testing of the waters. So Oregon members, that's who you need to be contacting to express your outrage over the fact that the Constitution's being subverted and that Wyden's backing Bully Boy's belief that his seized powers are uncheckable. (Federal courts and the Supreme Court have already stated otherwise. Possibly Kent Conrad should speak to some judges when attempting to determine a legal question?)
There will be posts here throughout the day. That includes Ruth's report. I'll be in and out this morning so there will be long breaks between posts. (As soon as this goes up, I've got to run a few errands.) Our last post for the day will be on The Laura Flanders Show (Gloria Steinem is a guest on Saturday's show).
Not much in the paper this morning -- it's a Saturday paper and apparently a lot of people wanted a long weekend.
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
the laura flanders show
laura flanders
radio
elections
the new york times
eric schmitt
gloria steinem
Friday, November 11, 2005
Democracy Now: Jane Mayer, Arianna Huffington, Octavia Butler; Elizabeth de la Vega, Alexander Cockburn, Kim Gandy ...
Senate Votes To Remove Prisoners' Right to Challenge Detentions
On Capital Hill Thursday, the Senate voted to take away Guantanamo Bay prisoners' right to challenge their detentions in United States courts. The measure, put forward by Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, would override a Supreme Court decision last year. The New York Times reports the amendment would nullify legal challenges currently filed by nearly 200 of the 500 detainees currently held at Guantanamo. Five Democrats joined 44 Republicans to pass the measure by a vote of 49 to 42. However the New York Times reports the victory may be short-lived as nine senators were absent, and are pushing for a second vote as early as Monday.
Palestinians Mark One-Year Anniversary of Death of Yassir Arafat
Meanwhile, Palestinians are commemorating the one-year anniversary of the death of Yassir Arafat. In Ramallah, Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas led a ceremony attended by Palestinian and foreign leaders at Arafat’s old compound. Arafat died one year ago today at the age of 75.
Senate Orders Rumsfeld to Disclose Secret Prisons
Also Thursday, the Senate passed an amendment to a defense bill that mandates Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to inform Congress on US-run secret prison facilities in foreign countries
The above three items are from today's Democracy Now! Headlines and were selected by Wally, Kara and Julia. Democracy Now! ("always worth watching," as Marcia says):
Headlines for November 11, 2005
- Senate Votes To Remove Prisoners' Right to Challenge Detentions
- Johnson-Sirleaf Claims Victory in Liberia Elections
- Thousands Rally in Amman to Protest Hotel Bombings
- Union Leader Upsets Peres to Win Labour Party Leadership
- Palestinians Mark One-Year Anniversary of Death of Yassir Arafat
- Senate Orders Rumsfeld to Disclose Secret Prisons
- Events Held For 10-Year Anniversary of Ken Saro-Wiwa Slaying
Arianna Huffington on the Retirement of Judith Miller and Schwarzenegger's Ballot Defeat
We speak with columnist and author Arianna Huffington about the resignation of New York Times reporter Judith Miller and California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's ballot defeat. Huffington says of Miller: "How can you be so cavalier as a journalist about reporting that is so fundamentally wrong, not about any matter, but matters of life and death, war and peace?"
A Deadly Interrogation: Can The CIA Legally Kill a Prisoner?
We speak with journalist Jane Mayer of The New Yorker as the Senate rejects demands for an independent commission on torture and the US military. We look at whether CIA agents are being allowed to kill detainees in their custody.
Science Fiction Writer Octavia Butler on Race, Global Warming and Religion
We speak with Octavia Butler, one of the few well-known African-American women science fiction writers. For the past thirty years, her work has tackled subjects not normally seen in that genre such as race, the environment and religion.
Eli e-mails to note an editorial -- "Democrats and the War" (The Nation):
Zach also wants to note something from CounterPunch, Alexander Cockburn's "First the Lying, Then the Pardons:"
As Cockburn notes above (and elsewhere in the column) the problems at the Times go beyond Judith Miller.
Erika e-mails to note Kim Gandy's "We're On a Roll!" (Below the Belt, NOW):
Vic e-mails wondering why PBS' The Charlie Rose Show, sponsored by a number of corporations and recipient of tax dollas while airing on public television, charges the public to listen online?
Good question. Bill Moyers' NOW didn't charge for their online services. (I have no idea if the current NOW does or not.) Considering that the program's been paid for by the public and by corporations, my feelings are the shows archives should be free to the public to watch, listen or read online. We're not talking about huge production values. I haven't watched the snore inducing show in some time but I'm not remembering, for instance, The Charlie Rose Show Dancers! or anything other than the bare set. How greedy are the people involved? (The Times has an editorial on the end of free TV today. Members know my feelings on that topic.)
NOW is a show with expenses. It does investigative reporting. A chat and chew has very little overhead (other than paying the gasbag host). I don't think there's any excuse for The Charlie Rose Show to not make some form of an archive (transcript, audio or video) available online for free to the public.
We'll note this:
This week on NOW:
I stopped watching as Bill Moyers departure approached. That's not an insult to the current version of NOW, I just don't have time for TV watching and Moyers departure depressed me. Ava and I watch at least one show a week andd that can be a struggle to find time for. (And, in fact, we intended to watch two shows in case there was nothing to say about the first one but I didn't have time and I doubt I will find it. We'll be going with the Tuesday night show on CBS starring Mark Harmon.) But NOW was a great show and hopefully still is. If anyone's looking for a news program to watch this weekend, skip the Chat & Chews and watch NOW. (And because I don't believe in making a suggestion that I won't consider myself, I'll record NOW but I doubt I'll have time to watch.)
Lastly, Michael found this in a Harper's e-mail and wanted to highlight it because he agrees with Wally that not enough attention is being paid to Florida:
I am shocked to say the least that the only information offered on the category 3 hurricane that slammed into the southeastern coast of Florida was a quick blurb 2 updates ago stating that "hurricane Wilma struck Florida and left millions without power".
As a 20 year resident of South Florida, I am not exaggerating when I say that Hurricane Wilma was the worst hurricane to hit our vast area (with extensive damage and power outages in 3 of the state's largest counties -- Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach). There is, in fact, more damage caused by this storm than by the category 5 Hurricane Andrew 13 years ago. Over 3 million people were left out of power immediately following the storm and a week later, over 700,000 are still powerless. Residents have waited in lines as long as 5 1/2 hours to get as little as 5 gallons of gas. Grocery stores were left empty for over a week. Neighborhoods were left looking as if bombs had been dropped there with all trees having been twisted in half and uprooted, aluminum screening enclosures having been ripped off of houses and wrapped around cars and thrust through roofs and windows, and major roof damage being incurred to most homes. Children in Miami-Dade and Broward County are now entering a second week out of school. Small businesses are still shut down,with financial losses still to be seen. Several major department stores will be closed for the rest of the year due to damage, costing hundreds of people their jobs just prior to the holiday season.
All of this, and I am not even mentioning the massive financial losses that the tourist industry (our most profitable industry in this area) is suffering and will continue to suffer for months to come. I get the feeling that because the aftermath and images (or lack thereof) from this storm pale in comparison to that of Katrina (a truly horrific storm) that the plight of South Florida is not being deemed newsworthy. I assure you that it has had a major effect on the residents of South Florida. More news has been generated concerning Wilma's affect in Mexico than the affect it had on our own US residents.
I hope that in the future, regardless of the proximity to other major disasters, that a reasonable amount of reporting time will be granted to those found in similar plights.
Michael adds that if anyone wants to sign up for Harper's weekly e-mails, the address is
join-harpers-weekly@pluto.sparklist.com
And the e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
the daily jot
iraq
octavia butler
arianna huffington
jane mayer
democracy now
florida
hurricane wilma
judith miller
the new york times
kim gandy
now
the third estate sunday review
alexander cockburn
plamegate
Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.
On Capital Hill Thursday, the Senate voted to take away Guantanamo Bay prisoners' right to challenge their detentions in United States courts. The measure, put forward by Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, would override a Supreme Court decision last year. The New York Times reports the amendment would nullify legal challenges currently filed by nearly 200 of the 500 detainees currently held at Guantanamo. Five Democrats joined 44 Republicans to pass the measure by a vote of 49 to 42. However the New York Times reports the victory may be short-lived as nine senators were absent, and are pushing for a second vote as early as Monday.
Palestinians Mark One-Year Anniversary of Death of Yassir Arafat
Meanwhile, Palestinians are commemorating the one-year anniversary of the death of Yassir Arafat. In Ramallah, Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas led a ceremony attended by Palestinian and foreign leaders at Arafat’s old compound. Arafat died one year ago today at the age of 75.
Senate Orders Rumsfeld to Disclose Secret Prisons
Also Thursday, the Senate passed an amendment to a defense bill that mandates Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to inform Congress on US-run secret prison facilities in foreign countries
The above three items are from today's Democracy Now! Headlines and were selected by Wally, Kara and Julia. Democracy Now! ("always worth watching," as Marcia says):
Headlines for November 11, 2005
- Senate Votes To Remove Prisoners' Right to Challenge Detentions
- Johnson-Sirleaf Claims Victory in Liberia Elections
- Thousands Rally in Amman to Protest Hotel Bombings
- Union Leader Upsets Peres to Win Labour Party Leadership
- Palestinians Mark One-Year Anniversary of Death of Yassir Arafat
- Senate Orders Rumsfeld to Disclose Secret Prisons
- Events Held For 10-Year Anniversary of Ken Saro-Wiwa Slaying
Arianna Huffington on the Retirement of Judith Miller and Schwarzenegger's Ballot Defeat
We speak with columnist and author Arianna Huffington about the resignation of New York Times reporter Judith Miller and California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's ballot defeat. Huffington says of Miller: "How can you be so cavalier as a journalist about reporting that is so fundamentally wrong, not about any matter, but matters of life and death, war and peace?"
A Deadly Interrogation: Can The CIA Legally Kill a Prisoner?
We speak with journalist Jane Mayer of The New Yorker as the Senate rejects demands for an independent commission on torture and the US military. We look at whether CIA agents are being allowed to kill detainees in their custody.
Science Fiction Writer Octavia Butler on Race, Global Warming and Religion
We speak with Octavia Butler, one of the few well-known African-American women science fiction writers. For the past thirty years, her work has tackled subjects not normally seen in that genre such as race, the environment and religion.
Eli e-mails to note an editorial -- "Democrats and the War" (The Nation):
Everything that needs to be known is now known: The reasons the Bush Administration gave for the American war in Iraq were all falsehoods or deceptions, and every day the US occupation continues deepens the very problems it was supposed to solve. Therefore there can no longer be any doubt: The war--an unprovoked, unnecessary and unlawful invasion that has turned into a colonial-style occupation--is a moral and political catastrophe. As such it is a growing stain on the honor of every American who acquiesces, actively or passively, in its conduct and continuation.
The war has also become the single greatest threat to our national security. Its human and economic costs are spiraling out of control, with no end in sight. It has driven America's reputation in the world to a historic low point. In the meantime, real threats suffer terrible neglect. These include more terrorist attacks, jeopardized oil supplies, rising tension with China, the spread of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction and even natural disasters like Hurricane Katrina. All are pushed aside as this Administration pours the country's blood, treasure and political energy into a futile war. In short, ending the Iraq War is the most pressing issue facing America today. Until it is ended, a constructive national security policy cannot be forged.
Americans are well on their way to a full appreciation of the dimensions of this debacle. In an October CBS news poll, 59 percent of citizens surveyed and 73 percent of Democrats now want an end to US military involvement in Iraq. But this growing majority has made its judgment with virtually no help from our nation's leaders. Most shameful has been the Democratic Party's failure to oppose the war. Indeed, support for it has been bipartisan: A Republican President and Congress made the policy, and almost all of the leading Democrats--most of the honorable exceptions are members of the House of Representatives--supported it from the outset and continue to do so. [. . .]
Somewhere the bitterly pro-war George Packer whines with fine tuners and other war hawks, "Why can't The Nation get the war lust on like us? Why? Why?" (The answer to his question would be "integrity.")
Eli notes that The Nation is leading and laying down a marker and hopes everyone will recognize and note that.
On noting, Lynda has e-mailed an item but I'm going to hold it until Monday. It's an op-ed and will give us (me) and excuse to note something that airs on Monday.
Cindy asked if we could note one more time Elizabeth de la Vega's "The White House Criminal Conspiracy" (The Nation):
The fifteen-month PR blitz conducted by the White House was a massive fraud designed to trick the public into accepting a goal that Bush's advisers had held even before the election. A strategy document Dick Cheney commissioned from the Project for a New American Century, written in September 2000, for example, asserts that "the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein." But, as the document reflects, the Administration hawks knew the public would not agree to an attack against Iraq unless there were a "catastrophic and catalyzing event--like a new Pearl Harbor."
Not surprisingly, the Bush/Cheney campaign did not trumpet this strategy. Instead, like corporate officials keeping two sets of books, they presented a nearly opposite public stance, decrying nation-building and acting as if "we were an imperialist power," in Cheney's words. Perhaps the public accepts deceitful campaign oratory, but nevertheless such duplicity is the stuff of fraud. And Bush and Cheney carried on with it seamlessly after the election.
By now it's no secret that the Bush Administration used the 9/11 attacks as a pretext to promote its war. They began talking privately about invading Iraq immediately after 9/11 but did not argue their case honestly to the American people. Instead, they began looking for evidence to make a case the public would accept--that Iraq posed an imminent threat. Unfortunately for them, there wasn't much.
In fact, the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) in effect as of December 2001 said that Iraq did not have nuclear weapons; was not trying to get them; and did not appear to have reconstituted its nuclear weapons program since the UN and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors departed in December 1998. This assessment had been unchanged for three years.
As has been widely reported, the NIE is a classified assessment prepared under the CIA's direction, but only after input from the entire intelligence community, or IC. If there is disagreement, the dissenting views are also included. The December 2001 NIE contained no dissents about Iraq. In other words, the assessment privately available to Bush Administration officials from the time they began their tattoo for war until October 2002, when a new NIE was produced, was unanimous: Iraq did not have nuclear weapons or nuclear weapons programs. But publicly, the Bush team presented a starkly different picture.
In his January 2002 State of the Union address, for example, Bush declared that Iraq presented a "grave and growing danger," a direct contradiction of the prevailing NIE. Cheney continued the warnings in the ensuing months, claiming that Iraq was allied with Al Qaeda, possessed biological and chemical weapons and would soon have nuclear weapons. These false alarms were accompanied by the message that in the "post-9/11 world," normal rules of governmental procedure should not apply.
From the lies that got us into war, Elizabeth e-mails to note Lawrence R. Velvel's "Why Did Libby Lie?" (CounterPunch) which takes the topic and offers some possiblities worth considering:
And then there is also the matter of the 2004 election, a point made by the columnist Tom Oliphant (an unabashed Democratic partisan who nonetheless seems to have hit upon something here). Fitzgerald said -- one did not take him literally, but the point probably is broadly true -- that were it not for Libby's lies, he would have brought a case not in October 2005, but in October 2004. But a prosecution in September or October 2004 would have been based on the substantive criminal act of outing Valerie Plame Wilson. Remember, we are assuming that Libby -- and nobody else either, I would add -- did not lie, so the prosecution would not have been one for perjury and false statements, but one for the substantive crime of outing a CIA officer. This does not exactly comport with Fitzgerald's failure to charge a substantive crime against Libby , but it was what Libby would have had to fear had he not lied (and it could still happen, a point to which we return below).
A prosecution against members of this administration for outing Plame Wilson -- a prosecution that possibly could have been against Cheney too, not just against Libby, and possibly against Rove also, and maybe even against Bush as well -- would have been disastrous for Bush's reelection campaign. It likely would have spelled defeat for Bush and victory for Kerry. This result, Libby would have figured, had to be avoided at all costs. So he stonewalled by lying to the FBI and to the grand jury. By stonewalling through lying, he would defeat even the possibility of a prosecutorial action, or at least would delay any such possible action until long after the election, as occurred. The election, and the return to office of Bush, Cheney and company, was indeed a stake worth falling on one's sword for. Moreover, even if Libby were convicted long after the election, if Bush won there was always a possibility of a subsequent corrupt pardon (ala Bill Clinton and ala Reagan's pardon of Casper Weinberger, who covered up for that Administration, including the first George Bush). The possibility of such a pardon was hardly diminished when Bush spoke glowingly of Libby after the indictment.
So, when one asks why Libby lied, what motivated him to make up his cock and bull story, the likely answers do not seem so hard to fathom. Libby was covering up for Cheney, may well have been covering up for Bush too (whose small inner circle he was a part of), and very likely was saving the election for Bush, Cheney and company. These were stakes worth the candle. One should note, moreover, that if Libby lied in order to ward off a Kerry victory, this would mean that Bush was elected the first time by the Supreme Court and the second time because of lies and perjury. This would not speak well for our system, would it?
Zach also wants to note something from CounterPunch, Alexander Cockburn's "First the Lying, Then the Pardons:"
All governments lie, but Reagan and his crew truly raised the bar. From about 1978 on, when the drive to put Reagan in the White House gathered speed, lying was the standard mode for Reagan, his handlers and a press quite happy to retail all the bilge, from the Soviet Union's supposed military superiority to the millionaire welfare queens on the South Side of Chicago.
The press went along with it. Year after year, on the campaign trail and then in the White House, the press corps reported Reagan's news conferences without remarking that the commander in chief dwelt mostly in a twilit world of comic-book fables and old movie clips. They were still maintaining this fiction even when Reagan's staff was discussing whether to invoke the 25th amendment and have the old dotard hauled off to the nursing home.
Lying about Reagan's frail grip on reality was only part of the journalistic surrender. For those who see Judith Miller's complicity in the lying sprees of the Neocons as a signal of the decline of the New York Times from some previous plateau of objectivity and competence I suggest a review of its sometime defense correspondent Richard Burt in the late Carter years, as Al Haig's agent in place. Burt relayed truckloads of threat-inflating nonsense about the military balance in the Cold War, particularly in the European theater, most of them on a level of fantasy matching the lies Miller got from Chalabi's disinformers and trundled in print.
When the Reaganites seized power in 1981, Burt promptly threw down his press badge and went to work in the State Department as Director of Politico-Military Affairs a post previously held by another former Times man, Leslie Gelb, no garden rose but not a two-timer on the order of Burt. At least Miller didn't go and officially work for Cheney.
As Cockburn notes above (and elsewhere in the column) the problems at the Times go beyond Judith Miller.
Erika e-mails to note Kim Gandy's "We're On a Roll!" (Below the Belt, NOW):
We're on a roll! The last two weeks have been full of good news, from winning ballot measures in California and Maine and defeating ultra-conservative gubernatorial candidates in New Jersey and Virginia, to forcing the Republican leadership to repeatedly delay the vote on their slash-and-burn budget because they can't get enough votes to pass it. NOW activists had a role in all of those victories, and I'm grateful for your tireless activism. Today, even as I write this, NOW leaders from nearly a dozen states are on Capitol Hill meeting with their senators and staff about why we oppose the nomination of Sam Alito. So if you haven't met with your own senators to urge them to oppose Alito, NOW is the time -- and we'll help!
But there's also disturbing news about our country's international behavior. Talk about hitting "below the belt," W is on the defensive these days after a news leak that the CIA has secret "black spot" prisons all across the world, which are violating human rights left and right. The resulting Bush rhetoric on the use of torture has really been beyond the pale. His speeches have amounted to an unsettling paradox: the U.S. does not torture, and therefore the Senate should not pass a ban on our use of torture. Excuse me?
It sounds straight out of "Catch-22," classic Vietnam-era "waging war to create peace" rhetoric, and it is just as backwards and wrong now as it was then. Maybe it's time to bring back some anti-Vietnam-war-style graffiti -- Molly Ivins offers a good one: "Is fighting for peace like having sex for chastity?"
Vic e-mails wondering why PBS' The Charlie Rose Show, sponsored by a number of corporations and recipient of tax dollas while airing on public television, charges the public to listen online?
Good question. Bill Moyers' NOW didn't charge for their online services. (I have no idea if the current NOW does or not.) Considering that the program's been paid for by the public and by corporations, my feelings are the shows archives should be free to the public to watch, listen or read online. We're not talking about huge production values. I haven't watched the snore inducing show in some time but I'm not remembering, for instance, The Charlie Rose Show Dancers! or anything other than the bare set. How greedy are the people involved? (The Times has an editorial on the end of free TV today. Members know my feelings on that topic.)
NOW is a show with expenses. It does investigative reporting. A chat and chew has very little overhead (other than paying the gasbag host). I don't think there's any excuse for The Charlie Rose Show to not make some form of an archive (transcript, audio or video) available online for free to the public.
We'll note this:
This week on NOW:
The costs of gas and home heating oil are near record highs, and so are profits for the major players in the oil industry. Do hurricanes and the cost of crude oil account for sharp price increases, or is Big Oil making big money by driving prices up? NOW's Maria Hinojosa investigates the real reasons behind skyrocketing oil prices and asks if a concerted industry strategy has rigged the system.
Plus, Secret justice. A David Brancaccio essay on the secret prisons of the war on terror.
I stopped watching as Bill Moyers departure approached. That's not an insult to the current version of NOW, I just don't have time for TV watching and Moyers departure depressed me. Ava and I watch at least one show a week andd that can be a struggle to find time for. (And, in fact, we intended to watch two shows in case there was nothing to say about the first one but I didn't have time and I doubt I will find it. We'll be going with the Tuesday night show on CBS starring Mark Harmon.) But NOW was a great show and hopefully still is. If anyone's looking for a news program to watch this weekend, skip the Chat & Chews and watch NOW. (And because I don't believe in making a suggestion that I won't consider myself, I'll record NOW but I doubt I'll have time to watch.)
Lastly, Michael found this in a Harper's e-mail and wanted to highlight it because he agrees with Wally that not enough attention is being paid to Florida:
I am shocked to say the least that the only information offered on the category 3 hurricane that slammed into the southeastern coast of Florida was a quick blurb 2 updates ago stating that "hurricane Wilma struck Florida and left millions without power".
As a 20 year resident of South Florida, I am not exaggerating when I say that Hurricane Wilma was the worst hurricane to hit our vast area (with extensive damage and power outages in 3 of the state's largest counties -- Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach). There is, in fact, more damage caused by this storm than by the category 5 Hurricane Andrew 13 years ago. Over 3 million people were left out of power immediately following the storm and a week later, over 700,000 are still powerless. Residents have waited in lines as long as 5 1/2 hours to get as little as 5 gallons of gas. Grocery stores were left empty for over a week. Neighborhoods were left looking as if bombs had been dropped there with all trees having been twisted in half and uprooted, aluminum screening enclosures having been ripped off of houses and wrapped around cars and thrust through roofs and windows, and major roof damage being incurred to most homes. Children in Miami-Dade and Broward County are now entering a second week out of school. Small businesses are still shut down,with financial losses still to be seen. Several major department stores will be closed for the rest of the year due to damage, costing hundreds of people their jobs just prior to the holiday season.
All of this, and I am not even mentioning the massive financial losses that the tourist industry (our most profitable industry in this area) is suffering and will continue to suffer for months to come. I get the feeling that because the aftermath and images (or lack thereof) from this storm pale in comparison to that of Katrina (a truly horrific storm) that the plight of South Florida is not being deemed newsworthy. I assure you that it has had a major effect on the residents of South Florida. More news has been generated concerning Wilma's affect in Mexico than the affect it had on our own US residents.
I hope that in the future, regardless of the proximity to other major disasters, that a reasonable amount of reporting time will be granted to those found in similar plights.
Michael adds that if anyone wants to sign up for Harper's weekly e-mails, the address is
join-harpers-weekly@pluto.sparklist.com
And the e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
the daily jot
iraq
octavia butler
arianna huffington
jane mayer
democracy now
florida
hurricane wilma
judith miller
the new york times
kim gandy
now
the third estate sunday review
alexander cockburn
plamegate
Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.
Other Items
Wally will be glad to know that the Times has finally stopped reporting on fishing laws in Florida and actually discovered that, oh my goodness, things aren't back to normal in south Florida. Took them long enough. (Visitors can check The Daily Jot as well as The Third Estate Sunday Review where Wally has been quite vocal about the conditions in his grandfather's neighborhood as well as the national press' lack of interest.)
From Abby Goodnough's "South Florida Scrambling to Find Emergency Housing:"
From mobile home parks in rural Palm Beach County to condominium complexes near Fort Lauderdale and apartment buildings in Miami, roofs were battered or torn off. Heavy rains last week worsened the damage, collapsing hundreds of ceilings that had barely survived the hurricane and forcing many more people into emergency shelters.
Many of those people awoke to emergency officials' pounding on their doors and announcing that they had 15 minutes to gather what possessions they could and leave because their building was unsafe. Some were elderly. Many were struggling financially even before the hurricane hit on Oct. 24.
On Thursday, the Red Cross was still housing 1,253 people in 10 shelters around the region. Broward County, where the storm inflicted the worst damage, had the highest shelter population: 551 people, all at the county's last open shelter, in Hollywood. Miami-Dade County had 217 people at a single shelter, while Palm Beach County had 307 and Monroe County, home to the Keys, had 40 people at two shelters.
But elected officials said the homelessness problem was much larger than those numbers implied. Many hurricane victims are staying with relatives, they said, but may soon need subsidized housing. Some are sleeping in cars, because the few shelters are far from their workplaces or their children's schools.
Why does "far" matter? Because they've had problems with some stations not having gas, some stations that did have gas weren't able to pump it and long lines (Wally's waited up to three hours to get gas to fuel the generator) have been everywhere. Wally spent yesterday helping more of his grandfather's elderly neighbors pack up to move in with relatives (outside of Florida). I'm ignoring Goodnough's assertion that most have had their power restored. I'm not sure what qualifies for "most" but since over a million were being told that they'd have to wait until November 22nd for power to be restored, I'm not sure we define "most" the same way?
Krista nominates Michiko Kakutani for "the dumb ass of the day." Reviewing a new book (Craig Crawford's Attack the Messenger), Kakutani stumbles upon, apparently for the first time, Poppy Bush's remark to Dan Rather was scripted (by Roger Ailes). It's news to Kakutani because she's a nonreading sort of book reviewer. Others have covered this before. We'll note Robert Parry because he's done so online and in book form (Secrecy & Privilege).
From the review:
"It's not fair to judge my whole career by a rehash on Iran," Mr. Bush asserted. "How would you like it if I judged your career by those seven minutes when you walked off the set in New York?"
Kakutani is a curious sort of "informed" reviewer since this is apparently new to her. She's also a curious one in that she's only stunned that it was on a cue card. How about being stunned by equating a personal tantrum (Rather's) with subverting the Constitution, the Congress and and an indepedent investigation? All Kakutani can see is a cue card held by *Ailes*.
Let's also note that she got a lot of mileage out of Norman Mailer's attack on her. "Feminist" Kakutani reels off a list of media critics. It's all male. She got "a big loan from the girl zone" (Tori Amos, "Caught a Lite Sneeze, off Boys for Pele) and her repayment is to stick to her usual crap.
I haven't read the book (chances are neither has Kakutani -- based on the Times poor history of book reviews and refusal to correct even blatant errors and false claims put out by reviewers that are contradicted by a reading of the books in question -- members all note the hatchet job on David Brock's last book which chided him for not knowing something that, in fact, he not only knew, but he also wrote about in the book that was supposedly being reviewed). Kakutani's not too impressed with it. Translation, read the book. When the Times isn't impressed, consider it an endorsement.
As always with Kakutani's reviews, it's hard to know when she's covering the book and when she's putting her own spin on it. But her greatest fault as a reviewer is that she finds the most scandalous moment (to her) and then fails to analyze it. Today she takes a very serious moment in the press history, when the Howie Kurtzes could have noted that breaking the law and a tantrum weren't the same thing. The press applauded Poppy in real time praising the "strategy" involved. (That's the way they deal with serious issues, tossing off their reporters' caps to become horserace handicappers.) No one forced Kakutani to pick that incident to lead her review with (or to provide the longest quote from). It was her choice. Having elected to highlight it, a good reviewer then examines it. That's why Kakutani is not a good reviewer.
Like everyone else at the Times, she wants to give a book report (a summary of the plot) and doesn't want to actually review a book which would require critical thought.
Kakutani identifies with the notion of a poor put upon press (as opposed to a lazy one that often acts out of its own personal interests) which brings us to Zach's e-mailed highlight. CounterPunch has been covering Ron Brown (the embedded reporter who thought he was serving in the military, check out this entry) attempts to trash Jimmy Massey. CounterPunch has Massey's response to Brown's questionable critique -- "Is Ron Harris Telling The Truth?:"
Quantico Marine Base Public Affairs Officer Lt. Col. Richard Long, former director of Public Affairs and the embedded reporter program in Iraq, began circulating an article Monday published in the St. Louis Post Dispatch, Saturday, November 5, by former embedded reporter Ron Harris, accusing me of lying. Harris not only was not assigned to my Weapon's Company, (he was with Lima), and was not present for any of the incidents he disputes, but before last week, had not spoken with me once since my return.
On Monday, Harris appeared on CNN's "American Morning," in an unrebutted interview stating, "not only did I not see any protesters, nobody saw any protesters," and "nobody ever interviewed the marines, which I did all of. Nobody ever checked his story. They don't even have another source that says on background or another source who didn't want to be quoted." Apparently, it is more important to Ron Harris to promote fiction than tell the truth. When he finally did call me and my co author two week's ago to prepare his article, I told him I didn't know how he could live with himself by concealing the truth, and told him "he would have to answer to a higher power."
Harris' apparent contempt for me seems to stem from the fact that one and a half years ago, I exposed him for having greatly embellished an incident at Rasheed Military complex in his April 9, 2003, article in the St. Louis Post Dispatch. (Note the caption confirming Harris' assignment to Lima Company). In the article, Harris described a dramatic, daylong battle glorifying heroic deeds and describing guerillas "hiding behind civilians." Speaking at the Boston Veterans for Peace Convention in 2004, I said Harris had greatly exaggerated the combat in what was subsequently hailed as an example of American military prowess. I confessed publicly that"contact that day was thin and sporadic," and that "as my unit entered Iraq it came upon empty Iraqi military bases with weapons lying on the road." I noted that We shot it up with everything we had, and we were laughing and having a good time. The Iraqis let us in the country; we didn't take it.'
It is ironic that Ron Harris should accuse others of bad reporting. It was Ron Harris himself that misquoted me as having mentioned a 4 year old with a bullet in her head, and then conveniently used his own misquote to accuse me of lying. Simply doing a web search for "Jimmy Massey" and "4 year old," you will find that the only source even suggesting that I knew of an incident when Marines had killed the child is Harris' own story. My only related quote had been "Lima Company was involved in a shooting at a checkpoint. My platoon was ordered to another area before the victims were removed from the car. The other Marines told me that a 4-year-old girl had been killed."
Most importantly, this incident is not even mentioned by me and my co-author in "Kill, Kill, Kill" because it relied on a second hand account. Harris would know this if he had read the book that he denounced so virulently on CNN and in his article, but he has not and cannot read it because it is only out in French, a language he openly admits he cannot speak. After nearly 2 years of remaining silent despite knowledge of my confessions, why has Harris saved his charade for the publication of a book of which he has absolutely no knowledge?
Fumbling for incriminating evidence, Harris reports that "while touring with Sheehan in Montgomery, Ala., [I] told of seeing the girl's body." Cindy Sheehan and I were never together in Montgomery. In a similar confusion, Harris goes on to claim that I have said I personally killed a 6-year-old.Before numerous interviews and reports frayed its edges, my original statement had been "I brought these series of events up through the chain of command. Each time I was told they were terrorists, or they were insurgents. My question to the marine corps at that point became, how was a 6 year old child with a bullet hole in its head a terrorist or insurgent?"
In the aforementioned April 9, 2003, article, Harris refers to a makeshift morgue and quotes Lt. Col. Belcher, Commander of 3rd Battalion, 7tth Marines without deeming it relevant to make further investigation, "These are apparently Iraqi soldiers that were killed in the attacks. Some people had leg wounds, chest wounds, tears, cuts, shrapnel holes." Why did Ron Harris swallow the command's stories?
Apparently, Harris didn't read any more of the articles in USA Today or Vanity Fair that he cites in his article than he did of "Kill, Kill, Kill." USA Today and Vanity Fair never published my accounts of mounting civilian casualties in Iraq. Both of their stories were about military recruiting practices, and not concerned with Iraq.
For critical thought, Lloyd e-mails Matthew Rothschild's "ExxonMobil Under the Lights" (This Just In, The Progressive):
Republicans didn't even have the integrity to swear in the oil executives testifying before them.
Why make your contributors libel for perjury charges? (Oil companies give $52 million in campaign contributions, "with 80 percent of that going to Republicans," according to Sept. 22 Senate testimony by Tyson Slocum, research director of Public Citizen’s Critical Mass Energy and Environment Program.)
But it was a sight, anyway, to see the head of ExxonMobil on November 9 trying to explain away the $10 billion profit his company made in the last quarter.
Lee Raymond, chairman of ExxonMobil, tried to fob it off by saying that oil profits and commodity prices "go up and down" from year to year.
But that excuse didn’t wash.
Even before Katrina, as Slocum noted, oil prices had been jumping, in part because of the consolidation in the oil refinery industry over the last decade. "Recent mergers in the domestic oil refining industry have consolidated control over gasoline, making it easier for a handful of companies to price-gouge consumers," he testified in September. "In 1993, the five largest U.S. oil refining companies controlled 34.5 percent of domestic oil refinery capacity. . . . By 2004, the top five--ConocoPhillips, Valero, ExxonMobil, Shell, and BP--controlled 56.3 percent."
And after Katrina, price hikes at the pumps did not seem to come from the invisible hand of the market but from the headquarters of ExxonMobil.
Today's scheduled topics for Democracy Now!, via Rod:
* New Yorker reporter Jane Mayer on whether the C.I.A. can legally kill prisoners.
* Arianna Huffington on the resignation of New York Times reporter JudyMiller.
* And famed writer Octavia Butler joins us in our Firehouse studios.
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
the new york times
matthew rothschild
jane mayer
democracy now
iraq
the third estate sunday review
the daily jot
florida
hurricane wilma
jimmy massey
octavia butler
arianna huffington
abby goodnough
[Note: "*Ailes*" indicates a correction. I'd had "Rove" in the sentence where "*Ailies*" is now. It should be Ailes. My apologies.]
From Abby Goodnough's "South Florida Scrambling to Find Emergency Housing:"
From mobile home parks in rural Palm Beach County to condominium complexes near Fort Lauderdale and apartment buildings in Miami, roofs were battered or torn off. Heavy rains last week worsened the damage, collapsing hundreds of ceilings that had barely survived the hurricane and forcing many more people into emergency shelters.
Many of those people awoke to emergency officials' pounding on their doors and announcing that they had 15 minutes to gather what possessions they could and leave because their building was unsafe. Some were elderly. Many were struggling financially even before the hurricane hit on Oct. 24.
On Thursday, the Red Cross was still housing 1,253 people in 10 shelters around the region. Broward County, where the storm inflicted the worst damage, had the highest shelter population: 551 people, all at the county's last open shelter, in Hollywood. Miami-Dade County had 217 people at a single shelter, while Palm Beach County had 307 and Monroe County, home to the Keys, had 40 people at two shelters.
But elected officials said the homelessness problem was much larger than those numbers implied. Many hurricane victims are staying with relatives, they said, but may soon need subsidized housing. Some are sleeping in cars, because the few shelters are far from their workplaces or their children's schools.
Why does "far" matter? Because they've had problems with some stations not having gas, some stations that did have gas weren't able to pump it and long lines (Wally's waited up to three hours to get gas to fuel the generator) have been everywhere. Wally spent yesterday helping more of his grandfather's elderly neighbors pack up to move in with relatives (outside of Florida). I'm ignoring Goodnough's assertion that most have had their power restored. I'm not sure what qualifies for "most" but since over a million were being told that they'd have to wait until November 22nd for power to be restored, I'm not sure we define "most" the same way?
Krista nominates Michiko Kakutani for "the dumb ass of the day." Reviewing a new book (Craig Crawford's Attack the Messenger), Kakutani stumbles upon, apparently for the first time, Poppy Bush's remark to Dan Rather was scripted (by Roger Ailes). It's news to Kakutani because she's a nonreading sort of book reviewer. Others have covered this before. We'll note Robert Parry because he's done so online and in book form (Secrecy & Privilege).
From the review:
"It's not fair to judge my whole career by a rehash on Iran," Mr. Bush asserted. "How would you like it if I judged your career by those seven minutes when you walked off the set in New York?"
Kakutani is a curious sort of "informed" reviewer since this is apparently new to her. She's also a curious one in that she's only stunned that it was on a cue card. How about being stunned by equating a personal tantrum (Rather's) with subverting the Constitution, the Congress and and an indepedent investigation? All Kakutani can see is a cue card held by *Ailes*.
Let's also note that she got a lot of mileage out of Norman Mailer's attack on her. "Feminist" Kakutani reels off a list of media critics. It's all male. She got "a big loan from the girl zone" (Tori Amos, "Caught a Lite Sneeze, off Boys for Pele) and her repayment is to stick to her usual crap.
I haven't read the book (chances are neither has Kakutani -- based on the Times poor history of book reviews and refusal to correct even blatant errors and false claims put out by reviewers that are contradicted by a reading of the books in question -- members all note the hatchet job on David Brock's last book which chided him for not knowing something that, in fact, he not only knew, but he also wrote about in the book that was supposedly being reviewed). Kakutani's not too impressed with it. Translation, read the book. When the Times isn't impressed, consider it an endorsement.
As always with Kakutani's reviews, it's hard to know when she's covering the book and when she's putting her own spin on it. But her greatest fault as a reviewer is that she finds the most scandalous moment (to her) and then fails to analyze it. Today she takes a very serious moment in the press history, when the Howie Kurtzes could have noted that breaking the law and a tantrum weren't the same thing. The press applauded Poppy in real time praising the "strategy" involved. (That's the way they deal with serious issues, tossing off their reporters' caps to become horserace handicappers.) No one forced Kakutani to pick that incident to lead her review with (or to provide the longest quote from). It was her choice. Having elected to highlight it, a good reviewer then examines it. That's why Kakutani is not a good reviewer.
Like everyone else at the Times, she wants to give a book report (a summary of the plot) and doesn't want to actually review a book which would require critical thought.
Kakutani identifies with the notion of a poor put upon press (as opposed to a lazy one that often acts out of its own personal interests) which brings us to Zach's e-mailed highlight. CounterPunch has been covering Ron Brown (the embedded reporter who thought he was serving in the military, check out this entry) attempts to trash Jimmy Massey. CounterPunch has Massey's response to Brown's questionable critique -- "Is Ron Harris Telling The Truth?:"
Quantico Marine Base Public Affairs Officer Lt. Col. Richard Long, former director of Public Affairs and the embedded reporter program in Iraq, began circulating an article Monday published in the St. Louis Post Dispatch, Saturday, November 5, by former embedded reporter Ron Harris, accusing me of lying. Harris not only was not assigned to my Weapon's Company, (he was with Lima), and was not present for any of the incidents he disputes, but before last week, had not spoken with me once since my return.
On Monday, Harris appeared on CNN's "American Morning," in an unrebutted interview stating, "not only did I not see any protesters, nobody saw any protesters," and "nobody ever interviewed the marines, which I did all of. Nobody ever checked his story. They don't even have another source that says on background or another source who didn't want to be quoted." Apparently, it is more important to Ron Harris to promote fiction than tell the truth. When he finally did call me and my co author two week's ago to prepare his article, I told him I didn't know how he could live with himself by concealing the truth, and told him "he would have to answer to a higher power."
Harris' apparent contempt for me seems to stem from the fact that one and a half years ago, I exposed him for having greatly embellished an incident at Rasheed Military complex in his April 9, 2003, article in the St. Louis Post Dispatch. (Note the caption confirming Harris' assignment to Lima Company). In the article, Harris described a dramatic, daylong battle glorifying heroic deeds and describing guerillas "hiding behind civilians." Speaking at the Boston Veterans for Peace Convention in 2004, I said Harris had greatly exaggerated the combat in what was subsequently hailed as an example of American military prowess. I confessed publicly that"contact that day was thin and sporadic," and that "as my unit entered Iraq it came upon empty Iraqi military bases with weapons lying on the road." I noted that We shot it up with everything we had, and we were laughing and having a good time. The Iraqis let us in the country; we didn't take it.'
It is ironic that Ron Harris should accuse others of bad reporting. It was Ron Harris himself that misquoted me as having mentioned a 4 year old with a bullet in her head, and then conveniently used his own misquote to accuse me of lying. Simply doing a web search for "Jimmy Massey" and "4 year old," you will find that the only source even suggesting that I knew of an incident when Marines had killed the child is Harris' own story. My only related quote had been "Lima Company was involved in a shooting at a checkpoint. My platoon was ordered to another area before the victims were removed from the car. The other Marines told me that a 4-year-old girl had been killed."
Most importantly, this incident is not even mentioned by me and my co-author in "Kill, Kill, Kill" because it relied on a second hand account. Harris would know this if he had read the book that he denounced so virulently on CNN and in his article, but he has not and cannot read it because it is only out in French, a language he openly admits he cannot speak. After nearly 2 years of remaining silent despite knowledge of my confessions, why has Harris saved his charade for the publication of a book of which he has absolutely no knowledge?
Fumbling for incriminating evidence, Harris reports that "while touring with Sheehan in Montgomery, Ala., [I] told of seeing the girl's body." Cindy Sheehan and I were never together in Montgomery. In a similar confusion, Harris goes on to claim that I have said I personally killed a 6-year-old.Before numerous interviews and reports frayed its edges, my original statement had been "I brought these series of events up through the chain of command. Each time I was told they were terrorists, or they were insurgents. My question to the marine corps at that point became, how was a 6 year old child with a bullet hole in its head a terrorist or insurgent?"
In the aforementioned April 9, 2003, article, Harris refers to a makeshift morgue and quotes Lt. Col. Belcher, Commander of 3rd Battalion, 7tth Marines without deeming it relevant to make further investigation, "These are apparently Iraqi soldiers that were killed in the attacks. Some people had leg wounds, chest wounds, tears, cuts, shrapnel holes." Why did Ron Harris swallow the command's stories?
Apparently, Harris didn't read any more of the articles in USA Today or Vanity Fair that he cites in his article than he did of "Kill, Kill, Kill." USA Today and Vanity Fair never published my accounts of mounting civilian casualties in Iraq. Both of their stories were about military recruiting practices, and not concerned with Iraq.
For critical thought, Lloyd e-mails Matthew Rothschild's "ExxonMobil Under the Lights" (This Just In, The Progressive):
Republicans didn't even have the integrity to swear in the oil executives testifying before them.
Why make your contributors libel for perjury charges? (Oil companies give $52 million in campaign contributions, "with 80 percent of that going to Republicans," according to Sept. 22 Senate testimony by Tyson Slocum, research director of Public Citizen’s Critical Mass Energy and Environment Program.)
But it was a sight, anyway, to see the head of ExxonMobil on November 9 trying to explain away the $10 billion profit his company made in the last quarter.
Lee Raymond, chairman of ExxonMobil, tried to fob it off by saying that oil profits and commodity prices "go up and down" from year to year.
But that excuse didn’t wash.
Even before Katrina, as Slocum noted, oil prices had been jumping, in part because of the consolidation in the oil refinery industry over the last decade. "Recent mergers in the domestic oil refining industry have consolidated control over gasoline, making it easier for a handful of companies to price-gouge consumers," he testified in September. "In 1993, the five largest U.S. oil refining companies controlled 34.5 percent of domestic oil refinery capacity. . . . By 2004, the top five--ConocoPhillips, Valero, ExxonMobil, Shell, and BP--controlled 56.3 percent."
And after Katrina, price hikes at the pumps did not seem to come from the invisible hand of the market but from the headquarters of ExxonMobil.
Today's scheduled topics for Democracy Now!, via Rod:
* New Yorker reporter Jane Mayer on whether the C.I.A. can legally kill prisoners.
* Arianna Huffington on the resignation of New York Times reporter JudyMiller.
* And famed writer Octavia Butler joins us in our Firehouse studios.
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
the new york times
matthew rothschild
jane mayer
democracy now
iraq
the third estate sunday review
the daily jot
florida
hurricane wilma
jimmy massey
octavia butler
arianna huffington
abby goodnough
[Note: "*Ailes*" indicates a correction. I'd had "Rove" in the sentence where "*Ailies*" is now. It should be Ailes. My apologies.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)