Two weeks ago, we did a "Tripping Point" issue where we went back in time with various features. Ava and C.I. did a sixties perspective that worked for today as well with their review of Law & Order: Trial by Jury. We did a fairy tale on the blog world. We highlighted recordings from the sixites in "10 CDs, 10 Minutes." We did an essay on the press where we mixed observation and song to attempt to get a feel of some of what we read in the class where we studied the alternative newspapers of the sixties. And even our blog spotlight, C.I.'s Rudith Miller, lent to the sixties "tipping point/tripping point."
We'd started to grade ourselves last week but weren't able to finish the article in time.
How successful were we?
About half and half. We knew it would be a learning experience and it was one.
Anytime we can step outside of our own boxes, it's always good. There are things we've learned that we'll go with next time. For instance, the "tripping point" contained only one overt reference to drugs (the fairy tale had an implied one). That was Ava and C.I.'s TV review. They hit drugs, the generation gap, the slogans, you name it. When those two get together (they're writing the current TV review right now and will object to this when they read it but we'll have posted it by then), they go for it. Which is ironic because they were the two who had to be persuaded on the theme. "How are we going to write a TV review in that frame?" they both asked repeatedly. "Are we going to review The Flying Nun? Room 222? The Mod Squad?"
So it's surprising that they're piece is the one we all agree best carried out the theme. We expected it to be much easier than it was. They expected it to be a pain in the ass and had to be dragged along by the rest of us. It's not just that they're the funniest in the group, they are, it's also that they'll go full out. Whatever they do tonight, you'll be reading a rough draft because glitches and delays prevented us from finishing much earlier.
It may be a case of their TV reviews not being written by committee. It's their voice and their voice alone. We write everything else by committee. Add a line, take out a line, it's a group effort.
But that's a cop out, to use sixties lingo, because we didn't pull a great deal.
What we did do was spend a lot of time debating whether or not to include a drug reference here or use a Lily Tomlin joke (one that was originally censored -- for content, not language -- by CBS) there. And in both cases, as well as others, we may have pulled back to avoid offending our readers. The whole point of theme issue is to execute the theme and we think the point we missed was carrying it far enough, taking it to the limit.
When we read Ava and C.I.'s review it was while we were indexing it, it had already gone up. And we laughed and were also shocked because the two who didn't want to do this theme had ended up executing it the best.
So the biggest lesson was "Go for it." And we think that will work with two upcoming theme issues we have planned.
As a learning experience, we think it was a huge breakthrough.
That's our evaluation.
There were a few readers who disagreed. Some loved the entire thing and while we praise you and say, "What good taste you have," there were others who didn't like it. Some objected to Ava and C.I. beginning their TV review with them in a bedroom getting stoned. "You're promoting drugs!" e-mailed Karen from Idaho. No, we were being funny. And we'll go full out next time.
But the biggest surprise was an e-mail that came in from someone we know who felt the need to rake us over the coals for our alleged homophobia. Jess had the misfortune of opening that e-mail and it really did a number on him.
Did you know that a fairy tale was, in it's very form, homophobic?
That's what we were told. Ruth, Jess' parents and others who lived during that time said, "What the hell is he talking about?" Ruth came up with the idea of a fairy tale setting because they were so popular in the sixties. But in Ron's eyes a fairy tale was, in and of itself, homophobic.
In addition, the fairy tale was homophobic because a man wore women clothes. For the record (to pull a C.I.), no man wore women's clothes in the fairy tale. But, as Rebecca noted, cross dressing doesn't mean someone is gay (or lesbian). There is a difference between cross dressers and transvestites.
Ron also felt the need to bring up Rebecca's joke several issues back of "Don't drop the soap!" In the piece that appeared in, it was a joke about the devotion of one male to another but we don't see it as homophobic. It might have been in poor taste if it was implying rape. If indeed it implied rape. (We saw it as implying that one of the two had strong, romantic feelings for the other who might or might not have been aware of it.) But we fail to see how it was homophobic unless homophobia means noting that two males can have sex and that many do.
Ruth felt the e-mail was loaded with cheap shots and distortions and certainly Ron is miffed at us (to put it mildly). We also felt Ron was overreaching and straining to find something to criticize. (There's much to criticize, but he wanted to play "more left than thou" so he created an issue that didn't exist.)
We don't know why that e-mail came in from someone who hasn't bothered to write us in some time but felt the sudden need to tell us we were homophobic and that Rebecca was basically god awful in everything she posts at her site.
Arriving when it did, at a time when Rebecca was dealing with a wanna be leading Democratic "centrist" who had read her and needed to respond so help him while he also contacted C.I. and the same week that a Times reporter finally had the desire to go on the record at The Common Ills, we wondered if the person wasn't trying to create some waves to get attention?
We are going to say we looked over the pieces very carefully and we don't see any homophobia so we feel you are overreaching.
We will note that your friend XYZ has called C.I. a liar and you aren't overly concerned about that.
We are. (And we'll hear about including this from C.I. when it's read.) In one night, on a day when C.I. had been at the hospital having tests, XYZ writes two e-mails to disagree with comments by members of The Common Ills community. C.I. replies and notes (we've read the e-mails) that this isn't a good time after the poking and prodding of the day so following XYZ's e-mails isn't easy. (It wasn't easy for us to follow either but that has to do with XYZ's writing "style.") XYZ's reply was not to worry about it. Never once, in either e-mail, did XYZ ask to be quoted.
XYZ never contacted C.I. again before slamming the community at his site at which point someone posted something at XYZ's blog and suddenly it had to be Rebecca because it was "lower case." Which led to XYZ trashing the community again and calling C.I. a "liar."
XYZ never asked to be quoted. To say C.I.'s a liar because XYZ wasn't quoted when XYZ never asked to be quoted is a lie. You don't seem to upset about that.
During that time period, you were e-mailing C.I. and you never gave a heads up to that. C.I. had no idea because no one really reads XYZ. You knew that the community was enraged over a post you later deleted that trashed them. You knew that C.I. was avoiding the topic to allow people to cool off before addressing it. But somehow, while the community's being asked to wait two weeks to calm down before it's addressed, you seem to think that XYZ, who is not a member of the community, has some right to have his thoughts posted when he never even asked for that?
When C.I. was made aware of being called a "liar," there were numerous attempts to contact XYZ. Rebecca was on the phone with C.I. both nights and we've all seen the e-mails. XYZ finally started replying. In the early ones, he notes that maybe he'll have something to say. So C.I.'s waiting and waiting on the post that addresses this issue. Then XYZ e-mails that it's not a big deal and he'll come up with something tomorrow. Rebecca told C.I. that XYZ was going to launch a trashing the next day and wasn't being sincere. But C.I. elected to believe XYZ.
And what happened? XYZ posted a post that mocked C.I.'s illness and mocked C.I.
Cancer's not funny. For someone so concerned about what we wrote and what we didn't, we're having a real hard time understanding how you can justify XYZ, who you brought into the circle, making fun of C.I. having cancer.
After that low blow, C.I. could have trashed XYZ but instead found a way to wish XYZ well and let it go. And what was XYZ's reaction?
"Or, to put it another way, Common Ills is a chicken shit. :). I suspect CI is female, or a very feminine guy (You can tell by the catfight style CI has ..."
Who was chicken shit, Ron?
The person who told C.I. not to worry about it and then went on to slam C.I. the next day? To mock C.I. having cancer? And what's with "I suspect CI is female, or a very feminine guy (You can tell by the catfight style CI has . . ."?
For someone so quick to see homophobia, you don't seem able to look at your own circle.
Catfight? C.I. never got into a fight, cat or otherwise, with XYZ.
XYZ called C.I. a liar because C.I. didn't quote him even though the policy is you have to say you want to be quoted. That's in every automated e-mail that goes out. That's always been the policy at The Common Ills. (Unless, as Wally has noted, you lie, then all bets are off.) XYZ never told C.I. in an e-mail, "Hey I called you a liar." And you never did either though you were e-maling C.I. all the time at that point. After calling C.I. a liar, XYZ chooses to attack C.I. by mocking cancer. And then XYZ wants to go on and on with remarks that are both sexist ("catfight") and potentially homophobic.
So let's be clear, Ron, you're the drunk uncle who spoiled Christmas. We don't see you as"on the wagon." You came in and shit on the Christmas tree. You blew your stack over remarks C.I. made that were kind to you. "You never said I apologized!" You attacked the community that C.I. built and still C.I. was able to say something about how it was an issue you were passionate about and in another time, you'd probably handle it differently. "It" being the posted attack on The Common Ills community.
If you've forgotten, here is the discussion that was published here. Here is what you felt the need to scream at C.I. via e-mails for, where C.I., in your mind, was just so awful to you:
Ava: Let's go back to Rebecca's earlier comments about how some feel they can attack. You're talking about playing gatekeeper, right?
Rebecca: Yeah. You don't get your way, so you think you can stomp your feet and scream and yell. Or try to bully. And then when called on it, you can't be honest about what you did. I'm being vague here because I know C.I. doesn't want to discuss this and wants to take the high road. But to slap down C.I. or the Common Ills community because they didn't want to come to your party is just nonsense. And I attempted to respond one on one to that nonsense and got some sort of snide remark posted about me. I haven't read it. But if you're focusing on one aspect of something that is a part of a larger issue, maybe you're the one who needs to look at yourself. And if you're only doing seven entries a week, I get seven in a good week myself, maybe the last thing you need to do is to try to slap down a community that addresses more issues than you ever do.
C.I.: I'm going to jump in here because I do appreciate what Rebecca's saying. At The Common Ills, we didn't comment on this. And just today on the phone, I had a friend telling me, "You need to comment on it!" She works for a magazine and is a private friend, so I won't out her. But her line of reasoning was that we need to defend ourselves. And I get her point. But my issue on this is that a blog fight, from two factions on the left, is the last thing anyone needs. The person wrote their feelings. The community is displeased with that, the e-mails continue to come in on that, but there are real issues to address and turning over limited time and limited space to this means we, at The Common Ills, are going to miss something else that we should be talking about. We're obviously speaking of Ron of Why Are We Back In Iraq? and I'm looking at it as he was very passionate about an issue, had pulled all nighters and would normally choose a different tactic or different wording. It happens when you're passionate about something and I don't feel that it needs to be dwelled on. I did work on a reply that I saved to draft because I wanted to avoid responding in similar terms. And I really think, today, that the whole thing was worthy of a shrug at best. Others can, and many do, feel differently.
Kat: "I guess in times like these, you know who you're friends are." Tori Amos. "Taxi Ride" from Scarlet's Walk. And I do feel that way still. I feel like a wonderful community that is concerned with so many important issues got slapped down and I'm still very upset about it.
C.I.: And this is a perfect example of how we're not playing gatekeeper because everyone here knows my feelings on the subject, how I'd prefer to avoid this entire topic, but here we are addressing it.
Jess: Well Jim's silent.
Jim: Because that made me so furious and I'm still angry over it.
[. . .]
That was one section of a roundtable dealing with a host of issues. C.I. didn't bring up it up. C.I. didn't rush to slam you. Considering your posted attack on the community, I don't know many people who, when they finally commented on it, wouldn't have attacked you back. This was the statement on what went down. C.I. was very kind to you and intended this to be the only statement. But you were enraged and screaming how unfair it was. How you were named, you who always wants to be linked and like everyone reading it wouldn't have know whom C.I. was speaking of? Though none of us knew it at the time, XYZ had already posted that C.I. was a "liar." Trust us, if we'd known that, we would have followed up C.I.'s comments by ripping into both of you.
Don't write us again. Jess doesn't need one of your head trips and that you had the nerve to charge us with homophobia while your buddy XYZ has posted sexist and potentially homophobic remarks and mocked someone with cancer is disgusting.
Rebecca tried to be nice to you last week. C.I. even linked to you twice last week to take the high road and, honestly, out of pity because other bloggers are e-mailing to laugh about you embarrassing yourself with your attacks on Atrios, people think you finally went too far, and e-mailing to laugh about your post requesting money because you lost your job, were unemployed and a month and a half behind in your rent. With all that went down and all the trouble you dropped on everyone's doorstep, C.I. still felt sorry for you and was planning to send you rent money until Rebecca found out from Elaine and told C.I. "Don't you dare after what went down."
No one knew XYZ -- that's us, that's C.I., that's the community. You brought him along, you asked for him to be linked. We think you'll understand why we don't say thank you for introducing XYZ into the circle. Then you attacked the community for not wanting to participate in one of your activities. They didn't have to participate. That was their choice. Yes, they're a huge community and you needed all the people you could get. We understand your disappointment. But it was their choice. And you posted that "How Do You Sleep?" post calling them hypocrites. Yeah, you deleted it but not before most of the community had seen it, via visits to your site or via the copy and paste e-mail that went out to the community on it by one member.
The members wanted to respond loud and immediately. It wouldn't have been pretty for you, Ron. C.I. tried to high road it and asked everyone to wait two weeks to cool off before the issue was addressed. And during that time, unbeknownst to anyone, XYZ is posting that C.I. is a liar.
You brought XYZ into the community so you bear responsibility for that. You vouced for him, that made him your responsibility.
XYZ has tried to ride this into blogger fame. It hasn't worked. Talk to some bloggers, Ron, you'll find out that the mocking of C.I.'s cancer didn't play well.
Now maybe you can be friends with someone like that. That's your choice. But don't ever write us again about how you see homophobia because we see it in XYZ, we see sexism and we see a disgustingly vile human being in someone who would choose to mock someone having cancer.
That's disgusting Ron.
With all the above, we don't really trust your judgement. We don't hate you. But that e-mail destroyed the chance that we could end up forgetting what went down.
So don't write us anymore with what you think we did wrong. Get your own house in order because while you stand with someone who mocks a cancer patient who's on chemo and sick most mornings (still is sick most mornings but getting better, we're sure much to XYZ's disappointment since XYZ probably has a million "jokes" about cancer patients), you've got no right to judge. Post about us, trash us, we don't care.
We were hoping that maybe we could move beyond this with regards to you because we know you get angry and say things you don't mean. But what happened this week with Jess was an exact copy of how you started with C.I. You started griping about things that weren't there and making baseless accusations. It really threw Jess off balance. Ty or Dona or Jim would have e-mailed back, "Fuck off." Jess reads it and thinks, "Ron's seeing this, is it valid?" We would have known better instantly, we would have known you make these baseless attacks all the time.
We're in a better place with our site and with our writing since we stopped having contact with you. Your anger fed our anger. There are things that if we did then that we wouldn't do now or that we'd do differently. But we believed your observations and thought they were straight forward. Ron, in the fairy tale, the bloggers at the looking pool, the angry people who could only look at their own reflections while cursing Kos and Atrios, that was you. That's how it was intended.
We wish you luck and we wish you peace. Rebecca e-mailed you about your anger last week and expressed serious concern over it. She offered that you could let it out with her if you had no one else. She meant that. She saw someone, and we agree, who has only one emotion, anger.
Last week, you finally got your big link but forgive us for not congratulating you on it. Michelle Malkin? Maybe she'll send some of her crowd your way. But considering your mash note to a woman who's justified the internment of the Japanese-Americans during WWII we're not real sure that the mash note was the way to for someone who wants to not only be a left blogger but question our committment to the left was the way to go.
Rebecca told you that your e-mail this week requried an apology. We checked before writing this. If there'd been one, we might have been willing to write it off as another anger episode of your's. There was no apology and you really screwed over Jess with that e-mail. Knowing how you started that with C.I. before things got really ugly, we're cutting you off now. If you write again, we won't read it. We don't have time for it.
And we don't have time for you when you're like this. XYZ wants to trash people behind their back while writing friendly e-mails. You want to get a reaction. Our only reaction is sadness because you're never going to achieve anything while you attack anyone who lets you get close.
You need to do some work on yourself to break the cycle. We wish you luck but we can't be part of your cycles. You can hurt yourself, that's your choice, but we we won't let you hurt us.
Good luck to you.
Sunday, June 19, 2005
Five Books, Five Minutes
In our continued support of reading, we offer yet another "Five Books, Five Minutes." In our continued support of public libraries, we checked these books out at our libraries. If you're unable to find a book you're interested in at your local library, check with a librarian about using an inter or intralibrary loan program to obtain the book.
Participating are Jim, Dona, Jess, Ty and Ava of The Third Estate Sunday Review, Kat of Kat's Korner, Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude, Betty of Thomas Friedman is a Great Man and C.I. of The Common Ills.
All Yesterdays' Parties: The Velvet Underground In Print: 1966-1971, Clinton Heylin editor
Jim selected this book.
Jim: The Velvet Underground is a seminal group.
Betty: I'd honestly never heard of them.
C.I.: I have a best of in my collection and that's honestly enough for me. I'm sure Kat and Jim are both far more knowledgeable than anyone else here on The Velvet Underground.
Kat: They were talented and they did have an impact. Nico, John Cale and, of course, Lou Reed all hailed from the group.
Dona: None of whom hits my CD player. But I enjoyed the book and we should note that it's a collection of writings from that time period. I read a lot of books that make it to the supermarkets and a lot of paperbacks. It's really rare for a book that covers, say The Doors, that comes out today to capture a mood from back then. Forget that the writers, I'm including a book by a former Door, check off events, they just don't seem to capture the spirit of the moment. It's sterile writing. Which we have a lot of today. Reading this collection made me think of Kat.
Ava: I was just going to say that! It was like her writing in her music reviews. It was, for the most part, alive and really put you in the room or concert hall or where ever. It really did remind me of Kat's album reviews. And maybe it's because I don't see anyone writing today, doing reviews, that really gets to Kat's level.
Jess: Because they want to waste two-thirds of the album review on a historical summary that tells you nothing about the album.
C.I.: The piece you hated, Ava, I think I know which one it was. It's labeled a "concert review" but it's actually an calender note. It's from The New York Times.
Ava: That's the one I'm thinking about. It was supposed to be a review of them at Max's Kansas City but there was no review of a concert.
C.I.: I don't think it was a review. I think it was a calender note, a "here's who's in town." There's never been a great deal of good music writing coming out of The Times. Jazz & Pop, a collection from that defunct magazine, would make for a good book. The Times just put out a collection of their Beatles writing. They ran an ad, maybe full page, and for a moment, I thought, "Wow, that might be interesting." Then I remembered it was The Times. They put in some sort of tin, like it's those hard cookies that no one really likes.
Kat: I picked the selection for excerpt and since this is a collection, I want to note who it was and where it was from. This is Judy Altman's "Warhol 'Happening' Hits Like A Noisy Bomb" and it appeared in The Philadelphia Daily News on December 12, 1966.
Excerpt page 37:
THEY CAME IN DROVES -- THE WASHED, THE UNWASHED, THE OVERDRESSED, the underdressed, the beat, the neat, the elite.
They came because this was it, the "Velvet Underground" right here in Philadelphia, with pop-artist-turned-filmmaker Andy Warhold and his "superstar" Nico, and his cohorts and hangers-on. It was a "Happening." Philadelphia's first, and now they could see it, right down at the YMCA at Broad and Pine Sts.
The city's avant and not so avant garde crammed themselves into the auditorium on Saturday and Sunday night and they spilled out into the hall.
The Underground films were brief, erratic and nerve-wracking, but everyone was waiting for the "Happening." Then suddenly it happened. The lights went out and huge spots of green and purple floated across the walls. The screen, split three ways, came to life -- a man wiggled his hips, a girl smoked a cigarette, the cameras panned in and out, up and down in huge seasick motions.
Jim: We all recommend that book. Now we're going with Dona's pick, All In My Head which is Paula Kamen's effort, nonfiction, to track down a cure for her headache.
All In My Head by Paula Kamen
Dona: I don't know what to say other than I'm sorry. I thought it would be interesting.
C.I.: Did anybody like this book? No? Okay, well then I'll comment. Paula Kamen is a strong writer and Feminist Fatale was a great book. It gets overlooked somewhat today but it was part of a series of great books from the same period, Susan Faludi's Backlash, Gloria Steinem's Revolution From Within, Marilyn French's The War Against Women, Naomi Klein's The Beauty Myth, etc. Kamen can write. I didn't care for this book at all and I was really surprised. When I got the e-mail, I thought, "Oh this is the book I'll enjoy." That was based on Kamen's name, I had no idea what the book was about. The focus, for me, was too inward. She's better at providing many voices. Without other voices to highlight, it struck me as not all that important.
Susan Sontag, to name but one, has written of illness with more style, Betty Rollin with more passion. This seemed to me to be an attempt at whimsy. It was far too detached and the humor, for me, missed it's mark. It honestly seemed like a bad attempt of a send up of Shirley MacLaine. Maybe it was my mood. I thought I was going to love it. After it started slow, I kept thinking, she'll hit her stride. I never felt she did. I felt she was outside looking in, making semi-clever, semi-pithy remarks. It's the sort of thing Erma Bombeck could have tossed off in a couple of months and made it much funnier. I'm not sure that a comic memoir works when it's not a send-up.
Jim: I found it a chore to get through but I read every page because Dona picked it and kept saying, "You hate my pick!" Then she started reading it and stops after the fifth chapter.
Dona: I wanted to stop before that. It reminded me of a freshman's attempt to wow a professor with off-beat insight. Ava picked the excerpt.
Excerpt page 190:
Some foibles were purely my own. On the advice of one healer, I put geranium oil on my forehead; it was supposed to lift me to a "happier" vibration, but then I applied too much and it dripped into and stung my eyes, inflaming the pani. One night, I repeatedly woke up to the sounds of munching coming from my closet, which I convinced myself I was neurotically imagining. The next morning, in a pain-addled state, I opened the closet door, got on my knees, and found in the back the now-empty white case of my U-shaped buckwheat pillow. It was supposed to relieve muscle
Ava: Maybe it was just us. We've all been touched by illness, Dona's aunt, C.I.'s, among others. But it didn't make it for us as a book. Which brings us to Jess's pick.
Peace Is the Way by Deepak Chopra
Jess: I loved this book.
Kat: There were some interesting concepts. I don't know that I grasped all of them.
C.I.: I would second that. But I enjoyed it as well.
Ava: There were sections I strongly agreed with and sections I strongly disagreed with, C.I. and I were talking about it when we were watching One Tree Hill. Which sounds kind of absurd!
C.I.: We may have been the only people watching One Tree Hill this week that were using the commercial breaks to address Deepak Chopra's theories on peace. Maybe not.
Jim: There were parts that were way beyond my understanding. I could read the book and I could enjoy what I understood. It never bored me or got on my nerves.
Jess: I think we all thought it had something to say and was worth reading. Ty read it twice.
Ty: Right. I was more like Jim in that there were sections that were new to me and I wasn't sur about them. So after I read it and had finished the other books, I went back and read it again. I picked the excerpt.
Excerpt pp. 49-50:
Do we live in a country that stands for peace? Millions of Americans fervently belive they do, and ugly facts will not change their minds. They turn their backs on the damage America creates, almost thoughtlessly, around the world. American corporations that do not want to tolerate being regulated at home move overseas where they can pile asbestos in huge mounds that Asian children play on, sell potent pharmaceuticals over the counter in Thailand without the need of prescriptions, create a lethal gas leak in Bhopal, India, and generally damage the ecology in any way they choose. Being an American means all of those things. It's just as American to be the largest supplier of arms in the world and to send your troops into battle to be killed by these same arms. It's American to promote free markest whatever the cost, as one native culture after another is despoiled and corrupted by the dollar.
Henry James called it a complex fate to be an American, and it still is. I once heard someone say that we are the one country that everyone hates and the one they all want to move to. Last year I saw a documentary on the free market system, which has basically become the new religion in American economic and conservative politics both. One economist after another praised our efforts to open up every foreign country to the American way of life. Free markets were credited with the end of Communism, the rescue of Chile from the iron grip of General Augusto Pinochet, and the general liberation of the world from stifling monopolies and class privilege.
In the midst of painting this rosy picture, the camera went to a street vendor in Thailand selling sandwiches from a car. We followed this man as he left Bangkok and went north to the lush resort areas favored by Western tourists. He ended up at an eerie, ghostly place. It was a ruined hotel and golf course built on a grand scale. Walking through one half-constructed room after another, each now molding and tattered, the man made clear that he once owned this whole complex. He was a budding entrepreneur who had assembled millions of dollars to construct his dream.
The money came from a boom in Thai currency in the early 1990s, which was entirely created by American investors. A few money managers sitting at computers in New York sent the Thai economy into a dizzying rise. None had ever been to Thailand or knew anybody who lived there. Then just as precipitously they became nervous about the Asian currency market, and almost overnight the boom reversed itself into a catastrophic plunge, and a man who on Monday was building a dream resort found himself on Tuesday selling sandwiches from a street stand. The double face of America as the world's best friend and worst enemy was starkly revealed to me.
Ava: Which brings us to my pick.
A Matter of Opinion by Victor S. Navasky
Jim: I was expecting more of a history of The Nation because Victor S. Navasky is the editor.
C.I.: Katrina vanden Heuvel is the current editor. The baton was passed.
Jim: I stand corrected. And we'll note, if you're reading this early enough, you can catch her later this morning on ABC's This Week. Navasky's book was about the role of the press and I did enjoy that. You liked the book a lot.
C.I.: Me? Yes, I did. It'll make great source material for someone who wants to write a history of The Nation, but no it's not the definative history of The Nation.
Betty: Was Naomi Klein even mentioned?
C.I.: She's mentioned at least once, when Navasky is discussing the Nation writers that go on TV, he mentions her as one of them who does. That's all I'm remembering but I didn't reread it. I ordered that book and read it two weeks ago. I'm not remembering Patricia J. Williamson being mentioned at all. I'm a huge fan of Navasky's Naming Names.
Betty: I liked this book but how would you rank it against Naming Names?
C.I.: Naming Names is one of those lightening strikes once books. To me, it read like he'd pour every bit of time and heart into each page. Naming Names is about the red scare and McCarthyism. I really enjoyed this book, and mention it at The Common Ills, but I don't know that he could have gone as deep with this one. We're excerpting the part on objectivity --
Ty: Which you selected.
C.I.: Which I selected, so let me state that I'm not talking about objectivity missing from the book, I'm just noting the huge section of time that's covered in this book. It's a strong book on journalism and the state of it.
Jess: You had told me to watch for the period on being a college professor and I really enjoyed those parts.
C.I.: Yes and that's being covered as well. So in four hundred pages, it's not going to be able to cover everything. In cinematic terms, there are a lot of wide shots with the occassional close up.
Dona: I also found the parts on The New York Times interesting.
C.I.: And that might have made a better excerpt.
Dona: He had an interesting observation -- if The Times hasn't reported on it, it was hard for him to interest them in it. My summary, if the paper of record hasn't weighed in, it hasn't happened. He notedthat the paper's Week In Review was basically a greatest hits of topics the Times had covered during the week.
Jess: I was looking for some things on Naomi Klein's writings or Christian Parenti's and I didn't find any.
C.I.: Yes, that would be a period that there really wasn't a close up for. Someone who's been reading The Nation for a year or two would have enjoyed a discussion of Parenti's international coverage or of Naomi Klein's two parter on James Baker, for instance. The mainstream press ignored Klein's article and its one of the most important pieces, my opinion, that The Nation's done in the last twelve months. I'm not even remembering Parenti being mentioned, Christian Parenti, not Michael.
Rebecca: As everyone knows I have mad lust crushes on both Christian Parenti and Dahr Jamail, I'm almost postive that neither was mentioned. There were sections on Susan Sontag and Gore Vidal that came alive and I'm assuming that even a new reader of The Nation will know of them but I would have liked to have read about Christian Parenti. I was glad that he noted The New Republic was neoliberal but I'd argue that's been generous. He also noted that about The Washington Monthly which I'd agree with but Wally's e-mailed me asking why The Nation's website provides a link to The Washington Monthly? I have no clue.
Jim: I'm surprised that they're providing a link to Washington Monthly. Hearing the discussion on the book, I'm enjoying it more. I liked it while I was reading it, but I think I really like it now. There was a great deal of ground to cover and it's easy to be reading through it and not realize how much registered. Discussing various sections like this now, I'm remembering parts that didn't honestly stick out at the time. I think it's a good discussion book.
Jess: So C.I. and I were, to put it in the easiest terms, thumbs up on the book. Are you saying that too?
Jim: I think we all are, right?
Ava: Yes. I think the book we were expecting was different from what we found but Navasky's book is well worth reading. Maybe Katrina vanden Heuvel will write the one we were expecting. By the way, thank you C.I. for excerpting your critique of The New York Times panel Katrina vanden Heuvel served on. I saw that Friday and I'd been meaning to ask if you knew when that was because I was on the phone with Jess' Dad this week and we were talking about the editorial on Todd Purdum and what other pieces we had really loved. He'd missed that and I couldn't remember when it went up. He called this morning [Saturday] to say he liked that one a great deal.
Jess: Is there anyone here that my parents aren't talking to or e-mailing? Just wondering?
Rebecca: Come on Jess, share the wealth.
C.I.: That wasn't planned as an excerpt. I ended up going there via a tangent, as is so often the case, and I was in hurry but I remember when I posted thinking that Jim would say, "You should have made that its own entry!"
Jim: I would have said that. That's what I told Dona, in fact.
Excerpt from pages 409-410:
[. . .] But before I go there, I want to say a few words about objectivity, which is often (wrongly, in my view) posed as opinion's foe. As far as I'm concerned, when in 1993 Molly Ivins achieved the ripe middle age of forty-nine, she disposed of the objectivity question for all time: "The fact is that I am a forty-nine-year old white, female, college-educated Texan," she said. "All of that affects the way I see the world. There's no way in hell that I'm going to see anything the same way that a fifteen-year-old black high-school dropout does. We all see the world from where we stand. Anybody's who's ever interviewed five eyewitnesses to an automobile accident knows there's no such thing as objectivity."
Here is what two other alumni of that ostensible paragon of objectivity The New York Times (yes, believe it or not, Molly, too is an alumna of the Times) have to say.
First, the Washington columnist Russell Baker wrote in his memoir: "Objective journalism forbade a reporter to go beyond what the great man said. No matter how dull, stupid, vicious, or mendacious they might be, the utterances of the great were reported deadpan, with nary a hint that the speaker might be a bore, a dunce, a brute, or a habitual liar." And, I might add, as far as balance goes, canceling out the misguided quote of one great man with the misinformed quote of another gets the public no closer to the truth or even the issue.
Now, listen to David Halberstam, one of the best and the brightest practitioners of mainstream journalism: "In truth, despite the fine talk of objectivity the only thing mildly approaching objectivity was the form in which the reporter wrote the news, a technical style which required the journalist to be much dumber and more innocent than in fact he was. So he wrote in a bland uncritical way which gave greater credence to the utterances of public officials, no matter how mindless these utterances."
Ty: Now we're up to Betty's pick.
Al-Jazeera by Hugh Miles
Betty: I loved this book. It was crammed with information and it was great to hear a side we don't hear about since Al-Jazeera is usually demonized in this country.
Kat: I loved it too. It's a wonderful companion piece to that documentary. What's the title?
C.I.: The Control Room.
Kat: Right.
Ty: My favorite part was the exchange with Paula Zahn who doesn't have a clue.
Rebecca: After the excerpt and the section on Charlotte Beers and her marketing failures, the part on Paula Zahn probably stood out the most for me.
Excerpt page 266-267:
European stations' evening news reports paid emotional tributes to their journalist colleagues who had died in the Palestine Hotel, while [Tareq] Ayyoub was reduced to a footnote if he was mentioned at all. When news of the death broke across the Arab world, however, there was outcry. Ayyoub became a 'martyr' and his death a deliberate assassination. The Arab press accused the coaltion of stopping at nothing to muzzle Al-Jazeera so as to cover its atrocities. In the Occupied Territories dozens of Palestinian journalists staged a sit-down protest outside the offices of the International Red Cross and the Committee to Protect Journalists in New York wrote an open letter to the Defense Secretary Rumsfeld to remind him that he had an obligation to protect all journalists, that the attack contravened the Geneva Conventions and that there should be an immediate enquiry.
Tareq Ayyoub's distraught widow made an emotional appearance via telphone on Al-Jazeera. She was both overcome with grief and furious. 'My message to you is that from hatred grows more hatred,' she said. 'My husband died trying to reveal the truth to the world. Please do not try to conceal it, not for the sake of American policy, not for the sake of British policy.'
Ty: So to recap, we strongly recommend A Matter of Time, Al-Jazeera, Peace Is the Way and All Yesterdays' Parties: The Velvet Underground In Print 1966-1971.
Participating are Jim, Dona, Jess, Ty and Ava of The Third Estate Sunday Review, Kat of Kat's Korner, Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude, Betty of Thomas Friedman is a Great Man and C.I. of The Common Ills.
All Yesterdays' Parties: The Velvet Underground In Print: 1966-1971, Clinton Heylin editor
Jim selected this book.
Jim: The Velvet Underground is a seminal group.
Betty: I'd honestly never heard of them.
C.I.: I have a best of in my collection and that's honestly enough for me. I'm sure Kat and Jim are both far more knowledgeable than anyone else here on The Velvet Underground.
Kat: They were talented and they did have an impact. Nico, John Cale and, of course, Lou Reed all hailed from the group.
Dona: None of whom hits my CD player. But I enjoyed the book and we should note that it's a collection of writings from that time period. I read a lot of books that make it to the supermarkets and a lot of paperbacks. It's really rare for a book that covers, say The Doors, that comes out today to capture a mood from back then. Forget that the writers, I'm including a book by a former Door, check off events, they just don't seem to capture the spirit of the moment. It's sterile writing. Which we have a lot of today. Reading this collection made me think of Kat.
Ava: I was just going to say that! It was like her writing in her music reviews. It was, for the most part, alive and really put you in the room or concert hall or where ever. It really did remind me of Kat's album reviews. And maybe it's because I don't see anyone writing today, doing reviews, that really gets to Kat's level.
Jess: Because they want to waste two-thirds of the album review on a historical summary that tells you nothing about the album.
C.I.: The piece you hated, Ava, I think I know which one it was. It's labeled a "concert review" but it's actually an calender note. It's from The New York Times.
Ava: That's the one I'm thinking about. It was supposed to be a review of them at Max's Kansas City but there was no review of a concert.
C.I.: I don't think it was a review. I think it was a calender note, a "here's who's in town." There's never been a great deal of good music writing coming out of The Times. Jazz & Pop, a collection from that defunct magazine, would make for a good book. The Times just put out a collection of their Beatles writing. They ran an ad, maybe full page, and for a moment, I thought, "Wow, that might be interesting." Then I remembered it was The Times. They put in some sort of tin, like it's those hard cookies that no one really likes.
Kat: I picked the selection for excerpt and since this is a collection, I want to note who it was and where it was from. This is Judy Altman's "Warhol 'Happening' Hits Like A Noisy Bomb" and it appeared in The Philadelphia Daily News on December 12, 1966.
Excerpt page 37:
THEY CAME IN DROVES -- THE WASHED, THE UNWASHED, THE OVERDRESSED, the underdressed, the beat, the neat, the elite.
They came because this was it, the "Velvet Underground" right here in Philadelphia, with pop-artist-turned-filmmaker Andy Warhold and his "superstar" Nico, and his cohorts and hangers-on. It was a "Happening." Philadelphia's first, and now they could see it, right down at the YMCA at Broad and Pine Sts.
The city's avant and not so avant garde crammed themselves into the auditorium on Saturday and Sunday night and they spilled out into the hall.
The Underground films were brief, erratic and nerve-wracking, but everyone was waiting for the "Happening." Then suddenly it happened. The lights went out and huge spots of green and purple floated across the walls. The screen, split three ways, came to life -- a man wiggled his hips, a girl smoked a cigarette, the cameras panned in and out, up and down in huge seasick motions.
Jim: We all recommend that book. Now we're going with Dona's pick, All In My Head which is Paula Kamen's effort, nonfiction, to track down a cure for her headache.
All In My Head by Paula Kamen
Dona: I don't know what to say other than I'm sorry. I thought it would be interesting.
C.I.: Did anybody like this book? No? Okay, well then I'll comment. Paula Kamen is a strong writer and Feminist Fatale was a great book. It gets overlooked somewhat today but it was part of a series of great books from the same period, Susan Faludi's Backlash, Gloria Steinem's Revolution From Within, Marilyn French's The War Against Women, Naomi Klein's The Beauty Myth, etc. Kamen can write. I didn't care for this book at all and I was really surprised. When I got the e-mail, I thought, "Oh this is the book I'll enjoy." That was based on Kamen's name, I had no idea what the book was about. The focus, for me, was too inward. She's better at providing many voices. Without other voices to highlight, it struck me as not all that important.
Susan Sontag, to name but one, has written of illness with more style, Betty Rollin with more passion. This seemed to me to be an attempt at whimsy. It was far too detached and the humor, for me, missed it's mark. It honestly seemed like a bad attempt of a send up of Shirley MacLaine. Maybe it was my mood. I thought I was going to love it. After it started slow, I kept thinking, she'll hit her stride. I never felt she did. I felt she was outside looking in, making semi-clever, semi-pithy remarks. It's the sort of thing Erma Bombeck could have tossed off in a couple of months and made it much funnier. I'm not sure that a comic memoir works when it's not a send-up.
Jim: I found it a chore to get through but I read every page because Dona picked it and kept saying, "You hate my pick!" Then she started reading it and stops after the fifth chapter.
Dona: I wanted to stop before that. It reminded me of a freshman's attempt to wow a professor with off-beat insight. Ava picked the excerpt.
Excerpt page 190:
Some foibles were purely my own. On the advice of one healer, I put geranium oil on my forehead; it was supposed to lift me to a "happier" vibration, but then I applied too much and it dripped into and stung my eyes, inflaming the pani. One night, I repeatedly woke up to the sounds of munching coming from my closet, which I convinced myself I was neurotically imagining. The next morning, in a pain-addled state, I opened the closet door, got on my knees, and found in the back the now-empty white case of my U-shaped buckwheat pillow. It was supposed to relieve muscle
Ava: Maybe it was just us. We've all been touched by illness, Dona's aunt, C.I.'s, among others. But it didn't make it for us as a book. Which brings us to Jess's pick.
Peace Is the Way by Deepak Chopra
Jess: I loved this book.
Kat: There were some interesting concepts. I don't know that I grasped all of them.
C.I.: I would second that. But I enjoyed it as well.
Ava: There were sections I strongly agreed with and sections I strongly disagreed with, C.I. and I were talking about it when we were watching One Tree Hill. Which sounds kind of absurd!
C.I.: We may have been the only people watching One Tree Hill this week that were using the commercial breaks to address Deepak Chopra's theories on peace. Maybe not.
Jim: There were parts that were way beyond my understanding. I could read the book and I could enjoy what I understood. It never bored me or got on my nerves.
Jess: I think we all thought it had something to say and was worth reading. Ty read it twice.
Ty: Right. I was more like Jim in that there were sections that were new to me and I wasn't sur about them. So after I read it and had finished the other books, I went back and read it again. I picked the excerpt.
Excerpt pp. 49-50:
Do we live in a country that stands for peace? Millions of Americans fervently belive they do, and ugly facts will not change their minds. They turn their backs on the damage America creates, almost thoughtlessly, around the world. American corporations that do not want to tolerate being regulated at home move overseas where they can pile asbestos in huge mounds that Asian children play on, sell potent pharmaceuticals over the counter in Thailand without the need of prescriptions, create a lethal gas leak in Bhopal, India, and generally damage the ecology in any way they choose. Being an American means all of those things. It's just as American to be the largest supplier of arms in the world and to send your troops into battle to be killed by these same arms. It's American to promote free markest whatever the cost, as one native culture after another is despoiled and corrupted by the dollar.
Henry James called it a complex fate to be an American, and it still is. I once heard someone say that we are the one country that everyone hates and the one they all want to move to. Last year I saw a documentary on the free market system, which has basically become the new religion in American economic and conservative politics both. One economist after another praised our efforts to open up every foreign country to the American way of life. Free markets were credited with the end of Communism, the rescue of Chile from the iron grip of General Augusto Pinochet, and the general liberation of the world from stifling monopolies and class privilege.
In the midst of painting this rosy picture, the camera went to a street vendor in Thailand selling sandwiches from a car. We followed this man as he left Bangkok and went north to the lush resort areas favored by Western tourists. He ended up at an eerie, ghostly place. It was a ruined hotel and golf course built on a grand scale. Walking through one half-constructed room after another, each now molding and tattered, the man made clear that he once owned this whole complex. He was a budding entrepreneur who had assembled millions of dollars to construct his dream.
The money came from a boom in Thai currency in the early 1990s, which was entirely created by American investors. A few money managers sitting at computers in New York sent the Thai economy into a dizzying rise. None had ever been to Thailand or knew anybody who lived there. Then just as precipitously they became nervous about the Asian currency market, and almost overnight the boom reversed itself into a catastrophic plunge, and a man who on Monday was building a dream resort found himself on Tuesday selling sandwiches from a street stand. The double face of America as the world's best friend and worst enemy was starkly revealed to me.
Ava: Which brings us to my pick.
A Matter of Opinion by Victor S. Navasky
Jim: I was expecting more of a history of The Nation because Victor S. Navasky is the editor.
C.I.: Katrina vanden Heuvel is the current editor. The baton was passed.
Jim: I stand corrected. And we'll note, if you're reading this early enough, you can catch her later this morning on ABC's This Week. Navasky's book was about the role of the press and I did enjoy that. You liked the book a lot.
C.I.: Me? Yes, I did. It'll make great source material for someone who wants to write a history of The Nation, but no it's not the definative history of The Nation.
Betty: Was Naomi Klein even mentioned?
C.I.: She's mentioned at least once, when Navasky is discussing the Nation writers that go on TV, he mentions her as one of them who does. That's all I'm remembering but I didn't reread it. I ordered that book and read it two weeks ago. I'm not remembering Patricia J. Williamson being mentioned at all. I'm a huge fan of Navasky's Naming Names.
Betty: I liked this book but how would you rank it against Naming Names?
C.I.: Naming Names is one of those lightening strikes once books. To me, it read like he'd pour every bit of time and heart into each page. Naming Names is about the red scare and McCarthyism. I really enjoyed this book, and mention it at The Common Ills, but I don't know that he could have gone as deep with this one. We're excerpting the part on objectivity --
Ty: Which you selected.
C.I.: Which I selected, so let me state that I'm not talking about objectivity missing from the book, I'm just noting the huge section of time that's covered in this book. It's a strong book on journalism and the state of it.
Jess: You had told me to watch for the period on being a college professor and I really enjoyed those parts.
C.I.: Yes and that's being covered as well. So in four hundred pages, it's not going to be able to cover everything. In cinematic terms, there are a lot of wide shots with the occassional close up.
Dona: I also found the parts on The New York Times interesting.
C.I.: And that might have made a better excerpt.
Dona: He had an interesting observation -- if The Times hasn't reported on it, it was hard for him to interest them in it. My summary, if the paper of record hasn't weighed in, it hasn't happened. He notedthat the paper's Week In Review was basically a greatest hits of topics the Times had covered during the week.
Jess: I was looking for some things on Naomi Klein's writings or Christian Parenti's and I didn't find any.
C.I.: Yes, that would be a period that there really wasn't a close up for. Someone who's been reading The Nation for a year or two would have enjoyed a discussion of Parenti's international coverage or of Naomi Klein's two parter on James Baker, for instance. The mainstream press ignored Klein's article and its one of the most important pieces, my opinion, that The Nation's done in the last twelve months. I'm not even remembering Parenti being mentioned, Christian Parenti, not Michael.
Rebecca: As everyone knows I have mad lust crushes on both Christian Parenti and Dahr Jamail, I'm almost postive that neither was mentioned. There were sections on Susan Sontag and Gore Vidal that came alive and I'm assuming that even a new reader of The Nation will know of them but I would have liked to have read about Christian Parenti. I was glad that he noted The New Republic was neoliberal but I'd argue that's been generous. He also noted that about The Washington Monthly which I'd agree with but Wally's e-mailed me asking why The Nation's website provides a link to The Washington Monthly? I have no clue.
Jim: I'm surprised that they're providing a link to Washington Monthly. Hearing the discussion on the book, I'm enjoying it more. I liked it while I was reading it, but I think I really like it now. There was a great deal of ground to cover and it's easy to be reading through it and not realize how much registered. Discussing various sections like this now, I'm remembering parts that didn't honestly stick out at the time. I think it's a good discussion book.
Jess: So C.I. and I were, to put it in the easiest terms, thumbs up on the book. Are you saying that too?
Jim: I think we all are, right?
Ava: Yes. I think the book we were expecting was different from what we found but Navasky's book is well worth reading. Maybe Katrina vanden Heuvel will write the one we were expecting. By the way, thank you C.I. for excerpting your critique of The New York Times panel Katrina vanden Heuvel served on. I saw that Friday and I'd been meaning to ask if you knew when that was because I was on the phone with Jess' Dad this week and we were talking about the editorial on Todd Purdum and what other pieces we had really loved. He'd missed that and I couldn't remember when it went up. He called this morning [Saturday] to say he liked that one a great deal.
Jess: Is there anyone here that my parents aren't talking to or e-mailing? Just wondering?
Rebecca: Come on Jess, share the wealth.
C.I.: That wasn't planned as an excerpt. I ended up going there via a tangent, as is so often the case, and I was in hurry but I remember when I posted thinking that Jim would say, "You should have made that its own entry!"
Jim: I would have said that. That's what I told Dona, in fact.
Excerpt from pages 409-410:
[. . .] But before I go there, I want to say a few words about objectivity, which is often (wrongly, in my view) posed as opinion's foe. As far as I'm concerned, when in 1993 Molly Ivins achieved the ripe middle age of forty-nine, she disposed of the objectivity question for all time: "The fact is that I am a forty-nine-year old white, female, college-educated Texan," she said. "All of that affects the way I see the world. There's no way in hell that I'm going to see anything the same way that a fifteen-year-old black high-school dropout does. We all see the world from where we stand. Anybody's who's ever interviewed five eyewitnesses to an automobile accident knows there's no such thing as objectivity."
Here is what two other alumni of that ostensible paragon of objectivity The New York Times (yes, believe it or not, Molly, too is an alumna of the Times) have to say.
First, the Washington columnist Russell Baker wrote in his memoir: "Objective journalism forbade a reporter to go beyond what the great man said. No matter how dull, stupid, vicious, or mendacious they might be, the utterances of the great were reported deadpan, with nary a hint that the speaker might be a bore, a dunce, a brute, or a habitual liar." And, I might add, as far as balance goes, canceling out the misguided quote of one great man with the misinformed quote of another gets the public no closer to the truth or even the issue.
Now, listen to David Halberstam, one of the best and the brightest practitioners of mainstream journalism: "In truth, despite the fine talk of objectivity the only thing mildly approaching objectivity was the form in which the reporter wrote the news, a technical style which required the journalist to be much dumber and more innocent than in fact he was. So he wrote in a bland uncritical way which gave greater credence to the utterances of public officials, no matter how mindless these utterances."
Ty: Now we're up to Betty's pick.
Al-Jazeera by Hugh Miles
Betty: I loved this book. It was crammed with information and it was great to hear a side we don't hear about since Al-Jazeera is usually demonized in this country.
Kat: I loved it too. It's a wonderful companion piece to that documentary. What's the title?
C.I.: The Control Room.
Kat: Right.
Ty: My favorite part was the exchange with Paula Zahn who doesn't have a clue.
Rebecca: After the excerpt and the section on Charlotte Beers and her marketing failures, the part on Paula Zahn probably stood out the most for me.
Excerpt page 266-267:
European stations' evening news reports paid emotional tributes to their journalist colleagues who had died in the Palestine Hotel, while [Tareq] Ayyoub was reduced to a footnote if he was mentioned at all. When news of the death broke across the Arab world, however, there was outcry. Ayyoub became a 'martyr' and his death a deliberate assassination. The Arab press accused the coaltion of stopping at nothing to muzzle Al-Jazeera so as to cover its atrocities. In the Occupied Territories dozens of Palestinian journalists staged a sit-down protest outside the offices of the International Red Cross and the Committee to Protect Journalists in New York wrote an open letter to the Defense Secretary Rumsfeld to remind him that he had an obligation to protect all journalists, that the attack contravened the Geneva Conventions and that there should be an immediate enquiry.
Tareq Ayyoub's distraught widow made an emotional appearance via telphone on Al-Jazeera. She was both overcome with grief and furious. 'My message to you is that from hatred grows more hatred,' she said. 'My husband died trying to reveal the truth to the world. Please do not try to conceal it, not for the sake of American policy, not for the sake of British policy.'
Ty: So to recap, we strongly recommend A Matter of Time, Al-Jazeera, Peace Is the Way and All Yesterdays' Parties: The Velvet Underground In Print 1966-1971.
Blog Spotlight: The Common Ills' "Editorial: Still Timid, the Times takes a dive"
This week's blog spotlight required little thought, we were all agreed that the spotlight should be C.I.'s editorial response to Todd S. Purdum's "news analysis" of the Downing Street Memo." We think it's laugh out loud funny and makes strong points.
Editorial: Still Timid, the Times takes a dive
Punch drunk and scared, hiding in its corner and not wanting to come out, the New York Timid less and less resembles a news paper and more and more resembles Mike Tyson. See, it's a sports comparison so the Timid can more easily grasp it.
Who knows why, but apparently writing for the Times means wearing a cup to the office.
Todd S. Purdum's cup is either too tight (maybe he bought a young boy's size?), too loose or maybe just needs a good washing (did the fumes from his smelly jock rot his brain?) because Coach Keller hollered, 'Purdum, you're up!" and Todd couldn't even make a run of the bases in "A Peephole to the War Room: British Documents Shed Light on Bush Team's State of Mind."
It's been labeled a "news analysis" and maybe this passes for that . . . in the little leagues.
Here's Todd trying to get the bat to connect with the ball:
But the memos are not the Dead Sea Scrolls. There has been ample evidence for many months, and even years, that top Bush administration figures saw war as inevitable by the summer of 2002. In the March 31, 2003, issue of The New Yorker, with the invasion just under way, Richard N. Haass, then the State Department's director of policy planning, said that in early July 2002 he asked Condoleezza Rice, then national security adviser, whether it made sense to put Iraq at the center of the agenda, with a global campaign against terrorism already under way. "And she said, essentially, that that decision's been made, don't waste your breath," he said then.
Yes, there has been ample evidence. And Todd is right to cite The New Yorker. I mean, it's not like he can cite the Times, is it?
There's nothing new here, TS tell us. Nothing to see.
That is exactly right. Provided, of course, that you depend on the Times for your coverage. On the Timid only and believe every word they print.
But even if you read the Timid, a few other things may come to mind. Like, gee, I don't know, Judith Miller (who's grudge f**king the U.N. one more time in today's paper). You know, the name that didn't make it into the mea culpa?
If you read the Times, did you know that evidence was being shaped? All along? Did you see what Todd feels was so obvious to everyone? Did you see it in the lead up? Did you see it after?Hmm.
On September 8, 2002, what you knew was that "U.S. Says Hussein Intensifies Quest for A-Bomb Parts." You knew that because the Times printed that. That little "news" (still not "analyzed" by the Times proper) was courtesty of Judith Miller and Michael R. Gordon.What did you know on September 13, 2002?
If you read the Times, you knew "White House Lists Iraq Steps to Build Banned Weapons." Who wrote that? Little Judy Miller. Is she happy at last?
Whether she was fooled, along with the people who trusted her reporting, or whether she just decided she knew where the money/access/fame lay, who knows? But what's the casuality toll right now?
Here's a fact for the New York Timid.
You did a poor job today. You did a god awful job.
Having pushed and sold the war, absolutely you need to count on and cite The New Yorker to point to some real reporting.
Absolutely. As a subscriber to The New Yorker, I say, "Go for it!' As a subscriber to the Times, I understand why you can't cite your own paper.
You certainly can't mention Judith Miller. We're not supposed to talk about her, are we?
Poor Judith facing jail time. Poor Judith, never hurt a fly. A regular Sally Field.
Perhaps if the film's Absence of Malice.
Having come on like gangbusters, now she wants to play the innocent, shy retiring type.
And we're supposed to play along, right?
Let's get back to Coach Keller's designated hitter. He was on strike one, when last we checked.
Possibly, being designated hitter and water boy for the Timid takes up more than Todd can muster. He's got his eye on the ball, but it sails right over the plate before he can swing. Which explains this:
The latest memo published, first in The Washington Post and The Times of London over the weekend, is from July 21, 2002. It warned that "a post-war occupation of Iraq could lead to a protracted and costly nation-building exercise," in which "Washington could look to us to share a disproportionate share of the burden."
Were those catcalls from the parents of the other team?
Regardless, they were embarrassing. And Todd should be embarrassed.
But remember, they don't have fact checkers at the Times. (They farm that out to the editors.)Who "published" the memo? Not the Washington Post which did a story on the memo. (Note to the Times, that would be "reported on." Even "quoted.") As did the Times of London. But only the Times of London published the memo. (Leaving off the last page to protect the source apparently.)
When even chronology and basic facts escape the Times (of New York), pay attention because something's happening. And it's not the beauty of truth.
For the Timid, which can't seem to find its ass with both hands these days, let's note the Washington Post article that Todd is referring to:
That memo and other internal British government documents were originally obtained by Michael Smith, who writes for the London Sunday Times. Excerpts were made available to The Washington Post, and the material was confirmed as authentic by British sources who sought anonymity because they are not authorized to discuss the matter.
Get it? How hard is it to grasp that? Excerpts were made available to The Washington Post. Wash Post wrote a story on it. Wash Post didn't publish the memo. What kind of a "reporter" would insist that they did? It's got the be the fumes from that smelly jock. But does everyone at the Timid have their nose in Todd's jock? How else can you explain that the paper couldn't even get that basic fact correct?
The Timid, like a good lap dog wants to tell you nothing to see here, move along.
It wants you to trust them to analyze a period of time that they didn't get right in real time.And the mea culpa didn't cover the mistakes/errors/lies/whatever.
Why is Judith Miller still at the paper?
They want sympathy for her now.
But they want to continue to distort reality.
I bit my tongue yesterday when David Sanger (who's part of the Elite Fluff Patrol) took a crack at explaining the Downing Street Memo.
MINISTERS were warned in July 2002 that Britain was committed to taking part in an American-led invasion of Iraq and they had no choice but to find a way of making it legal.
The warning, in a leaked Cabinet Office briefing paper, said Tony Blair had already agreed to back military action to get rid of Saddam Hussein at a summit at the Texas ranch of President George W Bush three months earlier.
The briefing paper, for participants at a meeting of Blair’s inner circle on July 23, 2002, said that since regime change was illegal it was "necessary to create the conditions" which would make it legal.
This was required because, even if ministers decided Britain should not take part in an invasion, the American military would be using British bases. This would automatically make Britain complicit in any illegal US action.
The above is left out of Todd's "analysis." (It's from Michael Smith's "Ministers were told of need for Gulf war 'excuse.'" Maybe if we wait a month, the Timid can get around to informing us about this?)
Todd's article tells you that the memos aren't the Dead Sea Scrolls.
What the Times doesn't tell you is why we couldn't offer "regime change" as our reasoning for going to war.
Since the Times won't tell us, let's go over it here. From the Downing Street Memo:
The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.
The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.
What was it sold to us as? You don't need to flip through Judy Miller's bylines to know it was sold as self-defence.
Now obviously, if we were increasing our bombings in 2002 to force Hussein to declare war (Michael Smith's May 29th article which we'll link to below), it wasn't self-defence. And we knew that. Our government did.
If we really thought that, as Miller reported on December 3, 2002, "Iraq obtained a particularly virulent strain of smallpox from a Russian scientist" or the mushroom cloud nonsense, or the drone planes or the chemical or biological nonsense, if we (our government) really thought that was true, then increasing the bombings in 2002 was risking national security.
Isn't that what the word-mangling Bully Boy's supposed to be so famous for, national security?Why won't the Times tell it's readers about that?
Let's go real slow because the Times is either willing to obsure the truth or they're just plain stupid (or think we are). While Cheney and the cheerleaders are doing WMD splits, we're actually increasing our bombing of Iraq. We haven't declared war. (We won't until the following year.) We're increasing our bombing on a supposed madman who holds all these WMDs that could destroy us.
If that was true (the "we all got it wrong" defense/b.s. that our government truly, honestly, deeply belived that Iraq had WMD), then the Bully Boy put your life at risk. He put my life at risk. He put all Americans at risk.
It doesn't work both ways.
You can't say, "He's a madman with WMDs! He could destroy us all!" while at the same time snickering nah-nah-nah while you increase the bombings.
If he's all you said he was (and let's include dear Judith in the "you") and we're in as much danger as you say we were, why the hell are we poking the bear before we're going to war?
So which is it, New York Timid. Did Bully Boy put us all at risk or did he (and Miller) present falsehoods? It's a simple enough question. One easily covered in a "news analysis."
It's odd that Todd has time to crack wise about Dead Sea Scrolls considering all that the Times hasn't noted from any of the Sunday Times of London's reporting.
Let's make it real simple, What did Bully Boy know and when did he know it?
If he knew there was no risk of damage to Americans on our soil, then his increased bombings put no American at risk. (That's not to be read as approval for the bombings on my part.) But to hold that belief, you have to agree that he knew the American people were being lied to.
So did he put us at risk or did he lie to us?
That's something the news analysis doesn't address.
THE RAF and US aircraft doubled the rate at which they were dropping bombs on Iraq in 2002 in an attempt to provoke Saddam Hussein into giving the allies an excuse for war, new evidence has shown.
The attacks were intensified from May, six months before the United Nations resolution that Tony Blair and Lord Goldsmith, the attorney-general, argued gave the coalition the legal basis for war. By the end of August the raids had become a full air offensive.
The details follow the leak to The Sunday Times of minutes of a key meeting in July 2002 at which Blair and his war cabinet discussed how to make "regime change" in Iraq legal.
That's from Michael Smith's "RAF bombing raids tried to goad Saddam into war."
That's only sixteen days ago and we'll assume the Times is made up of slow readers. But at what point does the Timid intend to address this issue?
Not today. Today they selectively pull quote and make jabs about the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Some might wonder where the Timid gets the audacity to make snarky little jokes like that. After all, they never fired Judith Miller. They never ran corrections on her stories.
Even today, Todd has to go to The New Yorker to find establishing proof that things were reported. Reported elsewhere than in the paper.
What's in the paper today is embarrassing. Not for you or me, but for the Timid.
This could have been a turn around for the paper. This could have been where they stood up for the truth. Where they made up the debt they owed America after the Judith Miller stories.
The Timid and Todd strike out. They strike out so badly, that it feels like they're taking a dive. But maybe they've just been overpowered by the fumes from Todd's dirty jock? Who knows?
Editorial: Still Timid, the Times takes a dive
Punch drunk and scared, hiding in its corner and not wanting to come out, the New York Timid less and less resembles a news paper and more and more resembles Mike Tyson. See, it's a sports comparison so the Timid can more easily grasp it.
Who knows why, but apparently writing for the Times means wearing a cup to the office.
Todd S. Purdum's cup is either too tight (maybe he bought a young boy's size?), too loose or maybe just needs a good washing (did the fumes from his smelly jock rot his brain?) because Coach Keller hollered, 'Purdum, you're up!" and Todd couldn't even make a run of the bases in "A Peephole to the War Room: British Documents Shed Light on Bush Team's State of Mind."
It's been labeled a "news analysis" and maybe this passes for that . . . in the little leagues.
Here's Todd trying to get the bat to connect with the ball:
But the memos are not the Dead Sea Scrolls. There has been ample evidence for many months, and even years, that top Bush administration figures saw war as inevitable by the summer of 2002. In the March 31, 2003, issue of The New Yorker, with the invasion just under way, Richard N. Haass, then the State Department's director of policy planning, said that in early July 2002 he asked Condoleezza Rice, then national security adviser, whether it made sense to put Iraq at the center of the agenda, with a global campaign against terrorism already under way. "And she said, essentially, that that decision's been made, don't waste your breath," he said then.
Yes, there has been ample evidence. And Todd is right to cite The New Yorker. I mean, it's not like he can cite the Times, is it?
There's nothing new here, TS tell us. Nothing to see.
That is exactly right. Provided, of course, that you depend on the Times for your coverage. On the Timid only and believe every word they print.
But even if you read the Timid, a few other things may come to mind. Like, gee, I don't know, Judith Miller (who's grudge f**king the U.N. one more time in today's paper). You know, the name that didn't make it into the mea culpa?
If you read the Times, did you know that evidence was being shaped? All along? Did you see what Todd feels was so obvious to everyone? Did you see it in the lead up? Did you see it after?Hmm.
On September 8, 2002, what you knew was that "U.S. Says Hussein Intensifies Quest for A-Bomb Parts." You knew that because the Times printed that. That little "news" (still not "analyzed" by the Times proper) was courtesty of Judith Miller and Michael R. Gordon.What did you know on September 13, 2002?
If you read the Times, you knew "White House Lists Iraq Steps to Build Banned Weapons." Who wrote that? Little Judy Miller. Is she happy at last?
Whether she was fooled, along with the people who trusted her reporting, or whether she just decided she knew where the money/access/fame lay, who knows? But what's the casuality toll right now?
Here's a fact for the New York Timid.
You did a poor job today. You did a god awful job.
Having pushed and sold the war, absolutely you need to count on and cite The New Yorker to point to some real reporting.
Absolutely. As a subscriber to The New Yorker, I say, "Go for it!' As a subscriber to the Times, I understand why you can't cite your own paper.
You certainly can't mention Judith Miller. We're not supposed to talk about her, are we?
Poor Judith facing jail time. Poor Judith, never hurt a fly. A regular Sally Field.
Perhaps if the film's Absence of Malice.
Having come on like gangbusters, now she wants to play the innocent, shy retiring type.
And we're supposed to play along, right?
Let's get back to Coach Keller's designated hitter. He was on strike one, when last we checked.
Possibly, being designated hitter and water boy for the Timid takes up more than Todd can muster. He's got his eye on the ball, but it sails right over the plate before he can swing. Which explains this:
The latest memo published, first in The Washington Post and The Times of London over the weekend, is from July 21, 2002. It warned that "a post-war occupation of Iraq could lead to a protracted and costly nation-building exercise," in which "Washington could look to us to share a disproportionate share of the burden."
Were those catcalls from the parents of the other team?
Regardless, they were embarrassing. And Todd should be embarrassed.
But remember, they don't have fact checkers at the Times. (They farm that out to the editors.)Who "published" the memo? Not the Washington Post which did a story on the memo. (Note to the Times, that would be "reported on." Even "quoted.") As did the Times of London. But only the Times of London published the memo. (Leaving off the last page to protect the source apparently.)
When even chronology and basic facts escape the Times (of New York), pay attention because something's happening. And it's not the beauty of truth.
For the Timid, which can't seem to find its ass with both hands these days, let's note the Washington Post article that Todd is referring to:
That memo and other internal British government documents were originally obtained by Michael Smith, who writes for the London Sunday Times. Excerpts were made available to The Washington Post, and the material was confirmed as authentic by British sources who sought anonymity because they are not authorized to discuss the matter.
Get it? How hard is it to grasp that? Excerpts were made available to The Washington Post. Wash Post wrote a story on it. Wash Post didn't publish the memo. What kind of a "reporter" would insist that they did? It's got the be the fumes from that smelly jock. But does everyone at the Timid have their nose in Todd's jock? How else can you explain that the paper couldn't even get that basic fact correct?
The Timid, like a good lap dog wants to tell you nothing to see here, move along.
It wants you to trust them to analyze a period of time that they didn't get right in real time.And the mea culpa didn't cover the mistakes/errors/lies/whatever.
Why is Judith Miller still at the paper?
They want sympathy for her now.
But they want to continue to distort reality.
I bit my tongue yesterday when David Sanger (who's part of the Elite Fluff Patrol) took a crack at explaining the Downing Street Memo.
MINISTERS were warned in July 2002 that Britain was committed to taking part in an American-led invasion of Iraq and they had no choice but to find a way of making it legal.
The warning, in a leaked Cabinet Office briefing paper, said Tony Blair had already agreed to back military action to get rid of Saddam Hussein at a summit at the Texas ranch of President George W Bush three months earlier.
The briefing paper, for participants at a meeting of Blair’s inner circle on July 23, 2002, said that since regime change was illegal it was "necessary to create the conditions" which would make it legal.
This was required because, even if ministers decided Britain should not take part in an invasion, the American military would be using British bases. This would automatically make Britain complicit in any illegal US action.
The above is left out of Todd's "analysis." (It's from Michael Smith's "Ministers were told of need for Gulf war 'excuse.'" Maybe if we wait a month, the Timid can get around to informing us about this?)
Todd's article tells you that the memos aren't the Dead Sea Scrolls.
What the Times doesn't tell you is why we couldn't offer "regime change" as our reasoning for going to war.
Since the Times won't tell us, let's go over it here. From the Downing Street Memo:
The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.
The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.
What was it sold to us as? You don't need to flip through Judy Miller's bylines to know it was sold as self-defence.
Now obviously, if we were increasing our bombings in 2002 to force Hussein to declare war (Michael Smith's May 29th article which we'll link to below), it wasn't self-defence. And we knew that. Our government did.
If we really thought that, as Miller reported on December 3, 2002, "Iraq obtained a particularly virulent strain of smallpox from a Russian scientist" or the mushroom cloud nonsense, or the drone planes or the chemical or biological nonsense, if we (our government) really thought that was true, then increasing the bombings in 2002 was risking national security.
Isn't that what the word-mangling Bully Boy's supposed to be so famous for, national security?Why won't the Times tell it's readers about that?
Let's go real slow because the Times is either willing to obsure the truth or they're just plain stupid (or think we are). While Cheney and the cheerleaders are doing WMD splits, we're actually increasing our bombing of Iraq. We haven't declared war. (We won't until the following year.) We're increasing our bombing on a supposed madman who holds all these WMDs that could destroy us.
If that was true (the "we all got it wrong" defense/b.s. that our government truly, honestly, deeply belived that Iraq had WMD), then the Bully Boy put your life at risk. He put my life at risk. He put all Americans at risk.
It doesn't work both ways.
You can't say, "He's a madman with WMDs! He could destroy us all!" while at the same time snickering nah-nah-nah while you increase the bombings.
If he's all you said he was (and let's include dear Judith in the "you") and we're in as much danger as you say we were, why the hell are we poking the bear before we're going to war?
So which is it, New York Timid. Did Bully Boy put us all at risk or did he (and Miller) present falsehoods? It's a simple enough question. One easily covered in a "news analysis."
It's odd that Todd has time to crack wise about Dead Sea Scrolls considering all that the Times hasn't noted from any of the Sunday Times of London's reporting.
Let's make it real simple, What did Bully Boy know and when did he know it?
If he knew there was no risk of damage to Americans on our soil, then his increased bombings put no American at risk. (That's not to be read as approval for the bombings on my part.) But to hold that belief, you have to agree that he knew the American people were being lied to.
So did he put us at risk or did he lie to us?
That's something the news analysis doesn't address.
THE RAF and US aircraft doubled the rate at which they were dropping bombs on Iraq in 2002 in an attempt to provoke Saddam Hussein into giving the allies an excuse for war, new evidence has shown.
The attacks were intensified from May, six months before the United Nations resolution that Tony Blair and Lord Goldsmith, the attorney-general, argued gave the coalition the legal basis for war. By the end of August the raids had become a full air offensive.
The details follow the leak to The Sunday Times of minutes of a key meeting in July 2002 at which Blair and his war cabinet discussed how to make "regime change" in Iraq legal.
That's from Michael Smith's "RAF bombing raids tried to goad Saddam into war."
That's only sixteen days ago and we'll assume the Times is made up of slow readers. But at what point does the Timid intend to address this issue?
Not today. Today they selectively pull quote and make jabs about the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Some might wonder where the Timid gets the audacity to make snarky little jokes like that. After all, they never fired Judith Miller. They never ran corrections on her stories.
Even today, Todd has to go to The New Yorker to find establishing proof that things were reported. Reported elsewhere than in the paper.
What's in the paper today is embarrassing. Not for you or me, but for the Timid.
This could have been a turn around for the paper. This could have been where they stood up for the truth. Where they made up the debt they owed America after the Judith Miller stories.
The Timid and Todd strike out. They strike out so badly, that it feels like they're taking a dive. But maybe they've just been overpowered by the fumes from Todd's dirty jock? Who knows?
Democracy Now: Estadounidenses no aprueban politica de Bush en Irak
Last week, we noted Miguel's entry at The Common Ills highlighting Democracy Now! Headlines in Spanish and English. We were happy to do it to help get the word out that Democracy Now! is doing their headlines in English and Spanish (transcripts and audio). This week, Common Ills community member Maria did the run down and since the response to last week's selection was so positive, we're happy to one more time highlight this and help get the word out.
Democracy Now: Estadounidenses no aprueban politica de Bush en Irak
Maria: Hola. De parte de "Democracy Now!" diez cosas que vale hacer notar este fin de semana.
Conyers acude a las audiencias por 'Downing Street'
Volvemos a Estados Unidos, donde el congresista John Conyers asistió a la primera audiencia pública sobre el llamado Memorándum de Downing Street y otros documentos británicos recientemente revelados, que según Conyers, dejan en evidencia “el intento del gobierno de Bush de tergiversar los libros con información anterior a la guerra”. La multitudinaria audiencia tuvo lugar en una pequeña sala de reuniones en el subsuelo del Capitolio, debido a que los Republicanos se rehusaron a permitir que los Demócratas realizaran una audiencia oficial. Luego de la reunión, Conyers presentó a la Casa Blanca una carta firmada por más de medio millón de estadounidenses, solicitando al presidente Bush que respondiera preguntas sobre los documentos. La carta fue firmada además por mas de 120 congresistas. Algunas de las personas que declararon ayer fueron el ex embajador estadounidense en Irak, Joe Wilson; el durante años analista de la CIA, Ray McGovern, y Cindy Sheehan, cuyo hijo falleció en Irak. Escuchamos ahora al abogado constitucionalista John Bonifaz.
Escuchábamos al abogado John Bonifaz, hablando ayer en la audiencia pública del llamado Memorándum de Downing Street.
Estadounidenses no aprueban polÃtica de Bush en Irak
Las audiencias tuvieron lugar mientras en el Congreso crece el interés por solicitar al presidente Bush que presente una estrategia de salida de Irak más clara. Una encuesta del New York Times y CBS publicada hoy, muestra que solo el 37 % de los estadounidenses expresan su acuerdo con el manejo de Bush de la situación en Irak, mientras que en febrero contaba con un apoyo del 45 %. La encuesta señala que un número cada vez mayor de estadounidenses, un 60%, considera que la misión de Estados Unidos en Irak se está desarrollando en forma negativa. Esto sucedió luego de que el gobierno de Bush lanzara una campaña de relaciones públicas sobre Irak que incluirá una serie de discursos radiales y apariciones públicas fuera de Washington. La estrategia incluye además un importante discurso el 28 de junio, al cumplirse el primer aniversario de la llamada transferencia de soberanÃa en Irak. Cuatro dÃas antes, Bush se reunirá en la Casa Blanca con el primer ministro iraquà Ibrahim al-Jaafari. La campaña de relaciones públicas tiene lugar en un momento en que el número de muertes estadounidenses en Irak alcanza las 1.700.
Solicitudes para estrategia de salida de Irak
Mientras tanto, un grupo bipartidista de legisladores presentó esta semana una resolución en la Cámara de Representantes, solicitando a Bush que anuncie su estrategia de salida de Irak. Uno de los promotores de esta resolución es el republicano de Carolina del Norte Walter Jones, responsable de intentar cambiar el nombre de las “papas francesas (fritas)” a “papas de la libertad” en la cafeterÃa del Congreso.
Otros promotores de la resolución son el republicano Ron Paul de Texas y el Demócrata de Ohio, Dennis Kucinich, mientras que el Senador Russ Feingold de Wisconsin presentó una resolución similar en el Senado. La Comisión de Relaciones Internacionales de la Camara de Representantes tuvo una abrumadora votación la semana pasada para solicitar a la Casa Blanca que desarrollara y presentara un plan al Congreso para establecer un gobierno y fuerza militar estables en Irak que “permitieran una menor presencia de Estados Unidos”. La semana próxima, el representante Rahm Emanuel, un Demócrata de Illinois, planifica leer en el Senado los nombres de los más de 1.700 soldados estadounidenses que han muerto en Irak.
Estados Unidos mintió acerca del uso de Napalm en Irak
El Ministro de las Fuerzas Armadas británico Adam Ingram, admitió que el gobierno de Bush le mintió a funcionarios británicos acerca del uso de bombas de napalm en Irak. En una carta confidencial obtenida por el diario The Independent de Londres, Ingram señala que Estados Unidos le habÃa dicho en un principio que no se habÃan utilizado las llamadas MK77 en Irak, pero luego escribió “lamento decir que desde entonces descubrà que eso no es asà y la posición debe ser corregida”. Las bombas MK77 son una versión más evolucionada del napalm utilizado en Vietnam y Corea. Contienen combustible de avión a base de querosén y poliestireno para que el gel se pegue a la estructura y a las vÃctimas. Las bombas no tienen aletas estabilizadoras, lo cual las convierte en muy imprecisas. Ingram afirmó que 30 bombas de fuego MK77 fueron utilizadas por la Fuerza Expedicionaria de la Marina en la invasión de Irak entre el 31 de marzo y el 2 de abril de 2003. The Independent dijo que la revelación genera nuevas dudas sobre las afirmaciones de que las bombas de fuego similares a bombas de napalm fueron utilizadas en el ataque a Fallujah el año pasado, acusaciones que fueron negadas por Estados Unidos.
Documentos del Pentágono demuestran que funcionarios temÃan a la prisión por tácticas de Guantánamo
ABC News informa que las técnicas interrogatorias utilizadas en Guantánamo en 2002 generaron preocupación entre funcionarios de alta jerarquÃa del Pentágono, ante posibles acusaciones penales en virtud de las leyes estadounidenses contra la tortura. ABC accedió notas de una serie de reuniones en el Pentágono, a principios de 2003, que demuestran que Alberto Mora, Consejero Legal General de la Armada, advirtió a sus superiores que podrÃan estar violando normativas legales. Durante una reunión en enero de 2003, que involucra al abogado jefe del Pentágono William Haynes y otros funcionarios, el documento muestra que Mora advirtió que "el uso de técnicas coercitivas...tiene implicancias militares, legales y polÃticas...tiene implicancias internacionales...y nos expone a responsabilidad jurÃdica y acusaciones penales". Si bien se conocÃa la preocupación de Mora sobre los interrogatorios en Guantánamo, no asà su advertencia de que funcionarios de alta jerarquÃa podrÃan ir a prisión. En otra reunión realizada el 8 de marzo de 2003, el grupo de los principales abogados del Pentágono concluyó que "necesitamos una carta del presidente que apruebe la utilización del polémico interrogatorio, para cubrir asà quienes lo utilicen". La carta nunca fue escrita.
Suprema Corte negó revisión del caso de "combatiente enemigo"
También el lunes, la Suprema Corte decidió no dar audiencia a una apelación inmediata presentada por José Padilla. El ciudadano de nacionalidad estadounidense está preso hace tres años en reclusión solitaria en una brigada militar, a pesar de que el gobierno nunca lo haya acusado de ningún delito y de nunca haber comparecido ante un tribunal. El gobierno de Bush acusó a Padilla de conspiración para detonar una bomba radiológica en Estados Unidos.
Oficiales estadounidenses: no hay solución militar en Irak
La agencia de noticias Knight Ridder informó que un número creciente de oficiales militares estadounidenses de alta jerarquÃa que se encuentran en Irak concluyeron que no hay una solución militar a largo plazo en Irak. En cambio, expresaron que la única forma de terminar con la guerra de guerrillas es por intermedio de la polÃtica iraquÃ. La semana pasada el principal portavoz de las fuerzas estadounidenses en Irak, Donald Alston, indicó que "la mejor forma de enfrentar el problema ahora es aceptar que...esta insurgencia no podrá ser solucionada...mediante opciones ni operaciones militares".
Demócratas de Wisconsin solicitan interpelación a Bush
Y en Wisconsin, el Partido Demócrata del estado aprobó una resolución que solicita la interpelación del presidente Bush, del vicepresidente Dick Cheney y el Secretario de Defensa Donald Rumsfeld. La resolución solicitó al Congreso que inicie procedimientos de interpelación contra los tres funcionarios, acusándolos de conducir al paÃs a la guerra de Irak. El año pasado, el Partido Demócrata en Nevada aprobó una resolución similar. Tanto el Partido Verde, como el ex candidato presidencial Ralph Nader, también solicitaron la interpelación de Bush.
Rumsfeld: Irak no es más segura ahora que en 2003
Mientras tanto, el Secretario de Defensa Donald Rumsfeld admitió que la seguridad en Irak no ha mejorado con relación a dos años atrás, cuando el presidente Bush anunció el fin de las mayores operaciones de combate. En una entrevista con la BBC, Rumsfeld fue consultado sobre si la situación de seguridad habÃa mejorado. Rumsfeld contestó que "estadÃsticamente no, aunque es evidente que ha mejorado con el tiempo". Continuó diciendo que "muchas cosas negativas que podrÃan haber sucedido, no sucedieron".
Cámara de Diputados votó para bloquear disposiciones de Ley Patriota
La Cámara de Representantes votó el miércoles para bloquear la utilización del Departamento de Justicia y del FBI de la ley Patriota para obtener registros de bibliotecas y de venta de librerÃas. La votación revirtió el resultado del año pasado, no alcanzado por pocos votos. De todos modos, aún permite que el gobierno mantenga la búsqueda de registros del uso de Internet en las bibliotecas. Treinta y ocho republicanos acompañaron el voto de los demócratas, aunque el presidente Bush amenazó con vetar cualquier proyecto de ley que impida al gobierno revisar los registros de bibliotecas y librerÃas. Muchos bibliotecarios se opusieron al gobierno al deshacerse rápidamente de registros para proteger la privacidad de la gente.
NEW FEATURE: Democracy Now! is now offering the program's daily news summary translated into Spanish. Los Titulares de Hoy
Maria: In English, here are ten stories from Democracy Now!:
Conyers Holds "Downing Street " Hearings
Back in this country, Congressmember John Conyers convened the first public hearing on the so-called Downing Street Memo and other recently released British documents that he says show the Bush administration's "efforts to cook the books on pre-war intelligence." The jam-packed hearing was held in a small basement meeting room in the Capitol because Republicans refused to allow the Democrats to hold an official hearing. After the meeting, Conyers delivered a petition to the White House, signed by more than a half a million Americans calling on President Bush to answer questions on the documents. More than 120 Congressmembers also signed the letter. Later in the program, we are going to play excerpts from that hearing and we'll be joined by Reginald Keyes, the British man who ran against Tony Blair in the recent elections in the UK. His son was killed in Iraq. Among those who testified yesterday was former US ambassador to Iraq, Joe Wilson, longtime CIA analyst Ray McGovern and Cindy Sheehan, whose son was killed last year in Iraq. This is constitutional lawyer John Bonifaz.
John Bonifaz, speaking June 16, 2005.Attorney John Bonifaz, speaking yesterday at the public hearing on the so-called Downing Street Memo. We'll have much more on this later in the program.
Americans Disapprove of Bush Iraq Policy
The hearings come as momentum builds in Congress to formally call on President Bush to present a clear exit strategy on Iraq. A New York Times/CBS poll published today shows that only 37 percent of people in the US now say they approve of Bush's handling of the situation in Iraq. That's down from 45 percent in February. The poll says that a strong and increasing majority of Americans, sixty percent, now believe the US mission in Iraq is going badly. This comes as the Bush administration is launching a major public relations campaign on Iraq that will include a series of radio addresses and appearances outside Washington and a major address on June 28, the one-year anniversary of the so-called transfer of sovereignty in Iraq. Four days before that, he will meet at the White House with Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari. The PR push comes as the U.S. death toll in Iraq has climbed above 1,700.
Calls for Clear Exit Strategy Mount
Meanwhile, a bipartisan group of lawmakers introduced a House resolution this week calling on Bush to announce an exit strategy from Iraq. Among the sponsors of the resolution is North Carolina Republican Walter Jones, the man behind the effort to change the name of "French fries" to "freedom fries" in the Congressional cafeteria. Among the other sponsors are Republican Ron Paul of Texas and Ohio Democrat Dennis Kucinich. Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin has introduced a similar measure in the Senate. Last week the House International Relations Committee voted overwhelmingly to call on the White House to develop and submit a plan to Congress for establishing a stable government and military in Iraq that would "permit a decreased U.S. presence" there. Next week, Representative Rahm Emanuel, an Illinois Democrat, is planning to read on the House floor the names of more than 1,700 US soldiers who have died in Iraq.
U.S. Lied About 'Napalm' Use in Iraq
Britain's Armed Forces Minister Adam Ingram has admitted that the Bush administration lied to British officials about the use of napalm-type firebombs in Iraq. In a private letter obtained by The Independent newspaper of London, Ingram says the US originally told him they had not used so-called MK77s in Iraq at any time but then writes "I regret to say that I have since discovered that this is not the case and must now correct the position." The MK77 bombs are an evolution of the napalm used in Vietnam and Korea. They carry kerosene-based jet fuel and polystyrene so that the gel sticks to structures and to its victims. The bombs lack stabilizing fins, making them far from precise. Ingram said 30 MK77 firebombs were used by the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force in the invasion of Iraq between March 31 and April 2, 2003. The Independent said that the revelation raises new questions about allegations that the napalm-like firebombs were used in the US assault on Fallujah last year, charges denied by the US.
Congress May Intervene on Guantanamo
Amid growing calls for the Guantanamo prison camp to be shut down, the Senate Judiciary Committee recommended yesterday that Congress intervene to resolve the fate of the more than 500 prisoners. In a heated hearing on Wednesday, lawmakers sparred with each other and Justice Department officials who asserted that Washington could hold prisoners for the rest of their lives if it wished. Alabama Republican Senator Jeff Sessions argued that some of the prisoners "need to be executed," while Democrat Patrick Leahy of Vermont called the prison a "international embarrassment."Patrick Leahy"Let's get real. These people have been locked up for three years-- no end in sight and no process to lead us out of there. Guantanamo Bay is causing immeasurable damage to our reputation as a defender of Democracy and a beacon of human rights around the world. I'm proud of what our nation has accomplished. I want us to be that beacon of human rights. But we're not being it with Guantanamo."
Pentagon Docs Show Officials Feared Prison Over Gitmo Tactics
ABC News is reporting that the interrogation techniques used at Guantanamo in 2002 triggered concerns among senior Pentagon officials that they could face criminal prosecution under U.S. anti-torture laws. ABC obtained notes from a series of meetings at the Pentagon in early 2003 showing that Alberto Mora, General Counsel of the Navy, warned his superiors that they might be breaking the law. During a January 2003 meeting involving top Pentagon lawyer William Haynes and other officials, the memo shows that Mora warned that the "use of coercive techniques ... has military, legal, and political implication ... has international implication ... and exposes us to liability and criminal prosecution." Mora's concerns about interrogations at Guantanamo have been known, but not his warning that top officials could go to prison. In another meeting held March 8, 2003, the group of top Pentagon lawyers concluded "we need a presidential letter approving the use of the controversial interrogation to cover those who may be called upon to use them." No such letter was issued.
Court Denies "Enemy Combatant" Immediate Review Of Case
Also on Monday the Supreme Court decided not to hear an immediate appeal from Jose Padilla. The U.S.-born citizen has been jailed for the past three years in solitary confinement on a military brig even though the government has never charged him with a crime and he has never appeared inside a courtroom. The Bush administration originally accused Padilla of plotting to set off a dirty bomb inside the United States.
U.S. Military Officers: There is No Military Solution In Iraq
The Knight Ridder news agency is reporting that a growing number of senior American military officers in Iraq have concluded there is no long-term military solution in Iraq. Instead, officers say, the only way to end the guerrilla war is through Iraqi politics. Last week Donald Alston, the chief U.S. military spokesman in Iraq, said "I think the more accurate way to approach this right now is to concede that... this insurgency is not going to be settled... through military options or military operations."
State Democrats in Wisconsin Call For Impeachment of Bush
And in Wisconsin, the state's Democratic party has passed a resolution calling for the impeachment of President Bush as well as Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. The resolution called on Congress to initiate impeachment proceedings against the three officials accusing them of misleading the country in the lead up to the war in Iraq. Last year the Democratic party in Nevada passed a similar resolution. The national Green Party as well as former presidential candidate Ralph Nader have also called for Bush's impeachment.
Rumsfeld: Iraq No Safer Now Than It Was In 2003
Meanwhile Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has admitted that Iraq is statistically no safer now than it was two years ago when President Bush announced that major combat operations had ended. In an interview with the BBC he was asked whether the security situation had improved at all. Rumsfeld said "Well, statistically no. But clearly it has been getting better as we've gone along." He went on to say "A lot of bad things that could have happened have not happened."
House Votes to Block Provisions of USA PATRIOT Act
The House of Representatives voted Wednesday to block the Justice Department and the FBI from using the USA Patriot Act to obtain library records and bookstore sales slips. The vote reversed a narrow loss last year. It still would allow the government to continue to seek out records of Internet use at libraries. Thirty-eight Republicans joined with Democrats in the vote. President Bush has threatened to veto any bill that bars the government from going after library and bookstore records. Many librarians have defied the government by disposing of records quickly in an effort to protect people's privacy.
Democracy Now: Estadounidenses no aprueban politica de Bush en Irak
Maria: Hola. De parte de "Democracy Now!" diez cosas que vale hacer notar este fin de semana.
Conyers acude a las audiencias por 'Downing Street'
Volvemos a Estados Unidos, donde el congresista John Conyers asistió a la primera audiencia pública sobre el llamado Memorándum de Downing Street y otros documentos británicos recientemente revelados, que según Conyers, dejan en evidencia “el intento del gobierno de Bush de tergiversar los libros con información anterior a la guerra”. La multitudinaria audiencia tuvo lugar en una pequeña sala de reuniones en el subsuelo del Capitolio, debido a que los Republicanos se rehusaron a permitir que los Demócratas realizaran una audiencia oficial. Luego de la reunión, Conyers presentó a la Casa Blanca una carta firmada por más de medio millón de estadounidenses, solicitando al presidente Bush que respondiera preguntas sobre los documentos. La carta fue firmada además por mas de 120 congresistas. Algunas de las personas que declararon ayer fueron el ex embajador estadounidense en Irak, Joe Wilson; el durante años analista de la CIA, Ray McGovern, y Cindy Sheehan, cuyo hijo falleció en Irak. Escuchamos ahora al abogado constitucionalista John Bonifaz.
Escuchábamos al abogado John Bonifaz, hablando ayer en la audiencia pública del llamado Memorándum de Downing Street.
Estadounidenses no aprueban polÃtica de Bush en Irak
Las audiencias tuvieron lugar mientras en el Congreso crece el interés por solicitar al presidente Bush que presente una estrategia de salida de Irak más clara. Una encuesta del New York Times y CBS publicada hoy, muestra que solo el 37 % de los estadounidenses expresan su acuerdo con el manejo de Bush de la situación en Irak, mientras que en febrero contaba con un apoyo del 45 %. La encuesta señala que un número cada vez mayor de estadounidenses, un 60%, considera que la misión de Estados Unidos en Irak se está desarrollando en forma negativa. Esto sucedió luego de que el gobierno de Bush lanzara una campaña de relaciones públicas sobre Irak que incluirá una serie de discursos radiales y apariciones públicas fuera de Washington. La estrategia incluye además un importante discurso el 28 de junio, al cumplirse el primer aniversario de la llamada transferencia de soberanÃa en Irak. Cuatro dÃas antes, Bush se reunirá en la Casa Blanca con el primer ministro iraquà Ibrahim al-Jaafari. La campaña de relaciones públicas tiene lugar en un momento en que el número de muertes estadounidenses en Irak alcanza las 1.700.
Solicitudes para estrategia de salida de Irak
Mientras tanto, un grupo bipartidista de legisladores presentó esta semana una resolución en la Cámara de Representantes, solicitando a Bush que anuncie su estrategia de salida de Irak. Uno de los promotores de esta resolución es el republicano de Carolina del Norte Walter Jones, responsable de intentar cambiar el nombre de las “papas francesas (fritas)” a “papas de la libertad” en la cafeterÃa del Congreso.
Otros promotores de la resolución son el republicano Ron Paul de Texas y el Demócrata de Ohio, Dennis Kucinich, mientras que el Senador Russ Feingold de Wisconsin presentó una resolución similar en el Senado. La Comisión de Relaciones Internacionales de la Camara de Representantes tuvo una abrumadora votación la semana pasada para solicitar a la Casa Blanca que desarrollara y presentara un plan al Congreso para establecer un gobierno y fuerza militar estables en Irak que “permitieran una menor presencia de Estados Unidos”. La semana próxima, el representante Rahm Emanuel, un Demócrata de Illinois, planifica leer en el Senado los nombres de los más de 1.700 soldados estadounidenses que han muerto en Irak.
Estados Unidos mintió acerca del uso de Napalm en Irak
El Ministro de las Fuerzas Armadas británico Adam Ingram, admitió que el gobierno de Bush le mintió a funcionarios británicos acerca del uso de bombas de napalm en Irak. En una carta confidencial obtenida por el diario The Independent de Londres, Ingram señala que Estados Unidos le habÃa dicho en un principio que no se habÃan utilizado las llamadas MK77 en Irak, pero luego escribió “lamento decir que desde entonces descubrà que eso no es asà y la posición debe ser corregida”. Las bombas MK77 son una versión más evolucionada del napalm utilizado en Vietnam y Corea. Contienen combustible de avión a base de querosén y poliestireno para que el gel se pegue a la estructura y a las vÃctimas. Las bombas no tienen aletas estabilizadoras, lo cual las convierte en muy imprecisas. Ingram afirmó que 30 bombas de fuego MK77 fueron utilizadas por la Fuerza Expedicionaria de la Marina en la invasión de Irak entre el 31 de marzo y el 2 de abril de 2003. The Independent dijo que la revelación genera nuevas dudas sobre las afirmaciones de que las bombas de fuego similares a bombas de napalm fueron utilizadas en el ataque a Fallujah el año pasado, acusaciones que fueron negadas por Estados Unidos.
Documentos del Pentágono demuestran que funcionarios temÃan a la prisión por tácticas de Guantánamo
ABC News informa que las técnicas interrogatorias utilizadas en Guantánamo en 2002 generaron preocupación entre funcionarios de alta jerarquÃa del Pentágono, ante posibles acusaciones penales en virtud de las leyes estadounidenses contra la tortura. ABC accedió notas de una serie de reuniones en el Pentágono, a principios de 2003, que demuestran que Alberto Mora, Consejero Legal General de la Armada, advirtió a sus superiores que podrÃan estar violando normativas legales. Durante una reunión en enero de 2003, que involucra al abogado jefe del Pentágono William Haynes y otros funcionarios, el documento muestra que Mora advirtió que "el uso de técnicas coercitivas...tiene implicancias militares, legales y polÃticas...tiene implicancias internacionales...y nos expone a responsabilidad jurÃdica y acusaciones penales". Si bien se conocÃa la preocupación de Mora sobre los interrogatorios en Guantánamo, no asà su advertencia de que funcionarios de alta jerarquÃa podrÃan ir a prisión. En otra reunión realizada el 8 de marzo de 2003, el grupo de los principales abogados del Pentágono concluyó que "necesitamos una carta del presidente que apruebe la utilización del polémico interrogatorio, para cubrir asà quienes lo utilicen". La carta nunca fue escrita.
Suprema Corte negó revisión del caso de "combatiente enemigo"
También el lunes, la Suprema Corte decidió no dar audiencia a una apelación inmediata presentada por José Padilla. El ciudadano de nacionalidad estadounidense está preso hace tres años en reclusión solitaria en una brigada militar, a pesar de que el gobierno nunca lo haya acusado de ningún delito y de nunca haber comparecido ante un tribunal. El gobierno de Bush acusó a Padilla de conspiración para detonar una bomba radiológica en Estados Unidos.
Oficiales estadounidenses: no hay solución militar en Irak
La agencia de noticias Knight Ridder informó que un número creciente de oficiales militares estadounidenses de alta jerarquÃa que se encuentran en Irak concluyeron que no hay una solución militar a largo plazo en Irak. En cambio, expresaron que la única forma de terminar con la guerra de guerrillas es por intermedio de la polÃtica iraquÃ. La semana pasada el principal portavoz de las fuerzas estadounidenses en Irak, Donald Alston, indicó que "la mejor forma de enfrentar el problema ahora es aceptar que...esta insurgencia no podrá ser solucionada...mediante opciones ni operaciones militares".
Demócratas de Wisconsin solicitan interpelación a Bush
Y en Wisconsin, el Partido Demócrata del estado aprobó una resolución que solicita la interpelación del presidente Bush, del vicepresidente Dick Cheney y el Secretario de Defensa Donald Rumsfeld. La resolución solicitó al Congreso que inicie procedimientos de interpelación contra los tres funcionarios, acusándolos de conducir al paÃs a la guerra de Irak. El año pasado, el Partido Demócrata en Nevada aprobó una resolución similar. Tanto el Partido Verde, como el ex candidato presidencial Ralph Nader, también solicitaron la interpelación de Bush.
Rumsfeld: Irak no es más segura ahora que en 2003
Mientras tanto, el Secretario de Defensa Donald Rumsfeld admitió que la seguridad en Irak no ha mejorado con relación a dos años atrás, cuando el presidente Bush anunció el fin de las mayores operaciones de combate. En una entrevista con la BBC, Rumsfeld fue consultado sobre si la situación de seguridad habÃa mejorado. Rumsfeld contestó que "estadÃsticamente no, aunque es evidente que ha mejorado con el tiempo". Continuó diciendo que "muchas cosas negativas que podrÃan haber sucedido, no sucedieron".
Cámara de Diputados votó para bloquear disposiciones de Ley Patriota
La Cámara de Representantes votó el miércoles para bloquear la utilización del Departamento de Justicia y del FBI de la ley Patriota para obtener registros de bibliotecas y de venta de librerÃas. La votación revirtió el resultado del año pasado, no alcanzado por pocos votos. De todos modos, aún permite que el gobierno mantenga la búsqueda de registros del uso de Internet en las bibliotecas. Treinta y ocho republicanos acompañaron el voto de los demócratas, aunque el presidente Bush amenazó con vetar cualquier proyecto de ley que impida al gobierno revisar los registros de bibliotecas y librerÃas. Muchos bibliotecarios se opusieron al gobierno al deshacerse rápidamente de registros para proteger la privacidad de la gente.
NEW FEATURE: Democracy Now! is now offering the program's daily news summary translated into Spanish. Los Titulares de Hoy
Maria: In English, here are ten stories from Democracy Now!:
Conyers Holds "Downing Street " Hearings
Back in this country, Congressmember John Conyers convened the first public hearing on the so-called Downing Street Memo and other recently released British documents that he says show the Bush administration's "efforts to cook the books on pre-war intelligence." The jam-packed hearing was held in a small basement meeting room in the Capitol because Republicans refused to allow the Democrats to hold an official hearing. After the meeting, Conyers delivered a petition to the White House, signed by more than a half a million Americans calling on President Bush to answer questions on the documents. More than 120 Congressmembers also signed the letter. Later in the program, we are going to play excerpts from that hearing and we'll be joined by Reginald Keyes, the British man who ran against Tony Blair in the recent elections in the UK. His son was killed in Iraq. Among those who testified yesterday was former US ambassador to Iraq, Joe Wilson, longtime CIA analyst Ray McGovern and Cindy Sheehan, whose son was killed last year in Iraq. This is constitutional lawyer John Bonifaz.
John Bonifaz, speaking June 16, 2005.Attorney John Bonifaz, speaking yesterday at the public hearing on the so-called Downing Street Memo. We'll have much more on this later in the program.
Americans Disapprove of Bush Iraq Policy
The hearings come as momentum builds in Congress to formally call on President Bush to present a clear exit strategy on Iraq. A New York Times/CBS poll published today shows that only 37 percent of people in the US now say they approve of Bush's handling of the situation in Iraq. That's down from 45 percent in February. The poll says that a strong and increasing majority of Americans, sixty percent, now believe the US mission in Iraq is going badly. This comes as the Bush administration is launching a major public relations campaign on Iraq that will include a series of radio addresses and appearances outside Washington and a major address on June 28, the one-year anniversary of the so-called transfer of sovereignty in Iraq. Four days before that, he will meet at the White House with Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari. The PR push comes as the U.S. death toll in Iraq has climbed above 1,700.
Calls for Clear Exit Strategy Mount
Meanwhile, a bipartisan group of lawmakers introduced a House resolution this week calling on Bush to announce an exit strategy from Iraq. Among the sponsors of the resolution is North Carolina Republican Walter Jones, the man behind the effort to change the name of "French fries" to "freedom fries" in the Congressional cafeteria. Among the other sponsors are Republican Ron Paul of Texas and Ohio Democrat Dennis Kucinich. Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin has introduced a similar measure in the Senate. Last week the House International Relations Committee voted overwhelmingly to call on the White House to develop and submit a plan to Congress for establishing a stable government and military in Iraq that would "permit a decreased U.S. presence" there. Next week, Representative Rahm Emanuel, an Illinois Democrat, is planning to read on the House floor the names of more than 1,700 US soldiers who have died in Iraq.
U.S. Lied About 'Napalm' Use in Iraq
Britain's Armed Forces Minister Adam Ingram has admitted that the Bush administration lied to British officials about the use of napalm-type firebombs in Iraq. In a private letter obtained by The Independent newspaper of London, Ingram says the US originally told him they had not used so-called MK77s in Iraq at any time but then writes "I regret to say that I have since discovered that this is not the case and must now correct the position." The MK77 bombs are an evolution of the napalm used in Vietnam and Korea. They carry kerosene-based jet fuel and polystyrene so that the gel sticks to structures and to its victims. The bombs lack stabilizing fins, making them far from precise. Ingram said 30 MK77 firebombs were used by the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force in the invasion of Iraq between March 31 and April 2, 2003. The Independent said that the revelation raises new questions about allegations that the napalm-like firebombs were used in the US assault on Fallujah last year, charges denied by the US.
Congress May Intervene on Guantanamo
Amid growing calls for the Guantanamo prison camp to be shut down, the Senate Judiciary Committee recommended yesterday that Congress intervene to resolve the fate of the more than 500 prisoners. In a heated hearing on Wednesday, lawmakers sparred with each other and Justice Department officials who asserted that Washington could hold prisoners for the rest of their lives if it wished. Alabama Republican Senator Jeff Sessions argued that some of the prisoners "need to be executed," while Democrat Patrick Leahy of Vermont called the prison a "international embarrassment."Patrick Leahy"Let's get real. These people have been locked up for three years-- no end in sight and no process to lead us out of there. Guantanamo Bay is causing immeasurable damage to our reputation as a defender of Democracy and a beacon of human rights around the world. I'm proud of what our nation has accomplished. I want us to be that beacon of human rights. But we're not being it with Guantanamo."
Pentagon Docs Show Officials Feared Prison Over Gitmo Tactics
ABC News is reporting that the interrogation techniques used at Guantanamo in 2002 triggered concerns among senior Pentagon officials that they could face criminal prosecution under U.S. anti-torture laws. ABC obtained notes from a series of meetings at the Pentagon in early 2003 showing that Alberto Mora, General Counsel of the Navy, warned his superiors that they might be breaking the law. During a January 2003 meeting involving top Pentagon lawyer William Haynes and other officials, the memo shows that Mora warned that the "use of coercive techniques ... has military, legal, and political implication ... has international implication ... and exposes us to liability and criminal prosecution." Mora's concerns about interrogations at Guantanamo have been known, but not his warning that top officials could go to prison. In another meeting held March 8, 2003, the group of top Pentagon lawyers concluded "we need a presidential letter approving the use of the controversial interrogation to cover those who may be called upon to use them." No such letter was issued.
Court Denies "Enemy Combatant" Immediate Review Of Case
Also on Monday the Supreme Court decided not to hear an immediate appeal from Jose Padilla. The U.S.-born citizen has been jailed for the past three years in solitary confinement on a military brig even though the government has never charged him with a crime and he has never appeared inside a courtroom. The Bush administration originally accused Padilla of plotting to set off a dirty bomb inside the United States.
U.S. Military Officers: There is No Military Solution In Iraq
The Knight Ridder news agency is reporting that a growing number of senior American military officers in Iraq have concluded there is no long-term military solution in Iraq. Instead, officers say, the only way to end the guerrilla war is through Iraqi politics. Last week Donald Alston, the chief U.S. military spokesman in Iraq, said "I think the more accurate way to approach this right now is to concede that... this insurgency is not going to be settled... through military options or military operations."
State Democrats in Wisconsin Call For Impeachment of Bush
And in Wisconsin, the state's Democratic party has passed a resolution calling for the impeachment of President Bush as well as Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. The resolution called on Congress to initiate impeachment proceedings against the three officials accusing them of misleading the country in the lead up to the war in Iraq. Last year the Democratic party in Nevada passed a similar resolution. The national Green Party as well as former presidential candidate Ralph Nader have also called for Bush's impeachment.
Rumsfeld: Iraq No Safer Now Than It Was In 2003
Meanwhile Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has admitted that Iraq is statistically no safer now than it was two years ago when President Bush announced that major combat operations had ended. In an interview with the BBC he was asked whether the security situation had improved at all. Rumsfeld said "Well, statistically no. But clearly it has been getting better as we've gone along." He went on to say "A lot of bad things that could have happened have not happened."
House Votes to Block Provisions of USA PATRIOT Act
The House of Representatives voted Wednesday to block the Justice Department and the FBI from using the USA Patriot Act to obtain library records and bookstore sales slips. The vote reversed a narrow loss last year. It still would allow the government to continue to seek out records of Internet use at libraries. Thirty-eight Republicans joined with Democrats in the vote. President Bush has threatened to veto any bill that bars the government from going after library and bookstore records. Many librarians have defied the government by disposing of records quickly in an effort to protect people's privacy.
Sunday, June 12, 2005
A note to our readers
Hey you lazy smart butts, where the heck did you go? Did you forget your note to the readers?
No. But we didn't have a great deal of organization this week. We had an idea but decided to hold it for next week (a theme). Ava and C.I. were going to do their TV review as other people (we can't say more without giving away the theme) and when we dropped the idea, they were stuck having to review a show they hated (CSI Miami) without the joke behind it.
We also had a great deal to talk about. Betty's son got hurt this week. Rebecca had the centrist bothering her. C.I. had the e-mail coming in first to The Common Ills. Then there was the Times reporter, the first to want to be quoted, being quoted. And the uproar that ensued. Midweek, Dona's aunt had surgery and Dona, Ava, Jim, Jess and Ty were all present at the hospital. Add in the week post-Watergate which left the press with no glory days to recount and just fluff to dispense and you know we talked about that!
After we completed our first article ("Dear Third Estate Sunday Review"), Ava and C.I. went off to watch CSI Miami and we were going to do our Blog Spotlight. We ended up debating which of Rebecca's two entries to spotlight. When Ava and C.I. rejoined us an hour later, we were still debating. Which led to Ava and C.I. having some choice words, some very strong choice words.
We went both and we also presented Common Ills community member Miguel's summary of last week's news, via Democracy Now!, in Spanish and in English. Democracy Now! is doing their headlines in Spanish and in English and we wanted to be sure to note that.
"Five Books, Five Minutes" repeatedly turned into personal conversations. We left one part in, at C.I., Rebecca and Ava's insistence. They thought it summed up the process this week.
That 'process' also led to our mini-interview with Rebecca, so we won't knock it. Read Rebecca's feelings on getting out the message, we think she's on the money.
Via BuzzFlash we found the focus for the editorial. Ava and C.I. had already gone to BuzzFlash before they went off to do their TV review. While they did the review, we went ahead and published what we had completed, read The Sunday Times of London article and, honestly, took a nap.
Which didn't please Ava who'd been slaving with C.I. over a review of a show they hated and only agreed to watch to execute the theme that we decided to drop at the last minute. (Like C.I., Ava really doesn't watch TV. When the theme was nixed, there were no shows that they had already watched in the past week that they could substitute for the focus of the review.)
So we said when the editorial was completed and posted, we'd treat Ava to breakfast. (C.I. wasn't with us physically or we would have treated C.I. as well.) As we now all prepare to crash, we got back online to do our thank yous.
As always we thank our readers. Hopefully you'll find something in this edition that makes you laugh or enrages you. We don't try to be detached here.
We thank Folding Star, Rebecca and Betty for their assistance and help. Folding Star participated in the "Five Books, Five Minutes" article as did Betty and Rebecca. Betty and Rebecca also participated in "Dear Third Estate Sunday Review," the blog spotlights, the mini-interview with Rebecca. Betty took her leave after that (we don't blame her). Rebecca stayed on to add her input to the editorial.
C.I., as usual, participated in everything here except this. And of course the TV reviews are done by Ava and C.I. We've claimed C.I., even used the term "honorary member." We asked Ava what she thought would be a better title. She groaned and said, "Type faster, Jim, I'm about to fall out right now!" Then when she realized we were all waiting for an answer, she shrugged and said "special guest star." What?
"You know," she explained, "like on Melrose Place. Heather Locklear was always billed as 'special guest star.' Episode after episode. At least I think she was. I'm tired. I just want to go to sleep."
So that's how we'll leave it. Thanks to special guest star C.I.
-- Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess and Ava
No. But we didn't have a great deal of organization this week. We had an idea but decided to hold it for next week (a theme). Ava and C.I. were going to do their TV review as other people (we can't say more without giving away the theme) and when we dropped the idea, they were stuck having to review a show they hated (CSI Miami) without the joke behind it.
We also had a great deal to talk about. Betty's son got hurt this week. Rebecca had the centrist bothering her. C.I. had the e-mail coming in first to The Common Ills. Then there was the Times reporter, the first to want to be quoted, being quoted. And the uproar that ensued. Midweek, Dona's aunt had surgery and Dona, Ava, Jim, Jess and Ty were all present at the hospital. Add in the week post-Watergate which left the press with no glory days to recount and just fluff to dispense and you know we talked about that!
After we completed our first article ("Dear Third Estate Sunday Review"), Ava and C.I. went off to watch CSI Miami and we were going to do our Blog Spotlight. We ended up debating which of Rebecca's two entries to spotlight. When Ava and C.I. rejoined us an hour later, we were still debating. Which led to Ava and C.I. having some choice words, some very strong choice words.
We went both and we also presented Common Ills community member Miguel's summary of last week's news, via Democracy Now!, in Spanish and in English. Democracy Now! is doing their headlines in Spanish and in English and we wanted to be sure to note that.
"Five Books, Five Minutes" repeatedly turned into personal conversations. We left one part in, at C.I., Rebecca and Ava's insistence. They thought it summed up the process this week.
That 'process' also led to our mini-interview with Rebecca, so we won't knock it. Read Rebecca's feelings on getting out the message, we think she's on the money.
Via BuzzFlash we found the focus for the editorial. Ava and C.I. had already gone to BuzzFlash before they went off to do their TV review. While they did the review, we went ahead and published what we had completed, read The Sunday Times of London article and, honestly, took a nap.
Which didn't please Ava who'd been slaving with C.I. over a review of a show they hated and only agreed to watch to execute the theme that we decided to drop at the last minute. (Like C.I., Ava really doesn't watch TV. When the theme was nixed, there were no shows that they had already watched in the past week that they could substitute for the focus of the review.)
So we said when the editorial was completed and posted, we'd treat Ava to breakfast. (C.I. wasn't with us physically or we would have treated C.I. as well.) As we now all prepare to crash, we got back online to do our thank yous.
As always we thank our readers. Hopefully you'll find something in this edition that makes you laugh or enrages you. We don't try to be detached here.
We thank Folding Star, Rebecca and Betty for their assistance and help. Folding Star participated in the "Five Books, Five Minutes" article as did Betty and Rebecca. Betty and Rebecca also participated in "Dear Third Estate Sunday Review," the blog spotlights, the mini-interview with Rebecca. Betty took her leave after that (we don't blame her). Rebecca stayed on to add her input to the editorial.
C.I., as usual, participated in everything here except this. And of course the TV reviews are done by Ava and C.I. We've claimed C.I., even used the term "honorary member." We asked Ava what she thought would be a better title. She groaned and said, "Type faster, Jim, I'm about to fall out right now!" Then when she realized we were all waiting for an answer, she shrugged and said "special guest star." What?
"You know," she explained, "like on Melrose Place. Heather Locklear was always billed as 'special guest star.' Episode after episode. At least I think she was. I'm tired. I just want to go to sleep."
So that's how we'll leave it. Thanks to special guest star C.I.
-- Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess and Ava
Editorial: Mainstream press, do your damn job
MINISTERS were warned in July 2002 that Britain was committed to taking part in an American-led invasion of Iraq and they had no choice but to find a way of making it legal.
The warning, in a leaked Cabinet Office briefing paper, said Tony Blair had already agreed to back military action to get rid of Saddam Hussein at a summit at the Texas ranch of President George W Bush three months earlier.
The briefing paper, for participants at a meeting of Blair’s inner circle on July 23, 2002, said that since regime change was illegal it was “necessary to create the conditions” which would make it legal.
This was required because, even if ministers decided Britain should not take part in an invasion, the American military would be using British bases. This would automatically make Britain complicit in any illegal US action.
The above is from Michael Smith's article in today's Sunday Times of London ("Ministers were told of need for Gulf war 'excuse.'") Yes, Michael Smith again. Yes, The Sunday Times of London, again. And yes, thanks to BuzzFlash for making it the big story on their website this morning.
Last week, we said it was time to connect the dots. Forget connecting them, there are so many now that it's a pointalism work of art that says "We were lied into war!" That comes as no surprise to many of us who were against the invastion/occupation from the start.
But is the clampdown on these revelations from our media not just deriving from a need to kiss Bully Boy ass, but also from the fact that the mainstream media was complicit by acting like cheerleaders instead of reporters?
We have no idea. But we know that wishing the revelations coming out of England wouldn't reach American eyes and ears is a futile desire.
The people are ahead of the domestic press on this issue. Unless the mainstream press desires to become completely superfluous it better begin to do it's job.
In case anyone's forgotten, the role of the press is to inform the public.
Oh that might not be as fun as fluffing for the Bully Boy. It might not provide the "access" that results in so many false claims (but don't it feel good to have Dick Cheney name-check you on Meet the Press!). It might mean, shudder, that the administration might say some mean things about you.
Well those are the breaks. You're in a profession you elected to go into, a profession that is supposed to demand accountability from those in power.
Want to be trusted, do your damn job.
As it stands, you've become the person who denies your spouses drinking problem while the whole neighborhood's whispering about it. Sure we nod to your face and act like we believe you, but as soon as you walk off, we shake our heads and wonder "Who does s/he think s/he's fooling?"
It's become the elephant in the room.
And the press better start addressing it because it's an important topic and, at least right now, we have internet freedoms that China doesn't. We can read papers from outside the US. We can find out what's being reported away from the clamp down.
There is no excuse for a New York Times D.C. editor to claim that the Downing Street Memo may not be verifiable or any other nonsense. Forget that no verification was ever needed for the witch hunt of the Clintons, any second year journalism student knows you report something you're not sure of as, "Others are saying . . ."
We know you're familiar with that method. You use it all the time when you cite unnamed officials. Here you can cite The Sunday Times of London. "The Sunday Times of London is reporting . . ."
There's no excuse for the clamp down. It's making the press look like something worse than cheerleaders. It's making them look like liars with their heads stuck in the sand (or up the Bully Boy's butt).
William Greider titled a book Who Will Tell the People. We know The New York Times is at least familiar with the title because they used it in an editorial not all that long ago. So we ask the mainstream press, who will tell the people?
This isn't esoteric information. It's not arcane. And obviously, the clampdown hasn't prevented Americans from learning about it. You can fluff it all you want (and you have) but the word is getting out. Word will continue to travel. With or without you (to cite a U2 song). But if it continues to travel inspite of you, despite you, you better find something better than "arm chair media critics" and "circle jerk" to slam the new information sources because it's the "arm chair media critics" and the "circle jerk"ers, Bill Keller, that have been doing the job that mainstream press is supposed to do.
A month later, you can finally kind-of, sort-of address the Downing Street Memo that The Sunday Times published May 1, 2005. When will you address it fully? And when will you inform your readers and viewers of other revelations?
When will you address Michael Smith's "RAF bombing raids tried to goad Saddam into war?" From the opening of that article:
THE RAF and US aircraft doubled the rate at which they were dropping bombs on Iraq in 2002 in an attempt to provoke Saddam Hussein into giving the allies an excuse for war, new evidence has shown.
The attacks were intensified from May, six months before the United Nations resolution that Tony Blair and Lord Goldsmith, the attorney-general, argued gave the coalition the legal basis for war. By the end of August the raids had become a full air offensive.
The details follow the leak to The Sunday Times of minutes of a key meeting in July 2002 at which Blair and his war cabinet discussed how to make "regime change" in Iraq legal.
And do you have plans to explore Charles J. Hanley's Associated Press article entitled
"Bolton Said to Orchestrate Unlawful Firing?" If you missed it, here's an excerpt:
John R. Bolton flew to Europe in 2002 to confront the head of a global arms-control agency and demand he resign, then orchestrated the firing of the unwilling diplomat in a move a U.N. tribunal has since judged unlawful, according to officials involved. A former Bolton deputy says the U.S. undersecretary of state felt Jose Bustani "had to go," particularly because the Brazilian was trying to send chemical weapons inspectors to Baghdad. That might have helped defuse the crisis over alleged Iraqi weapons and undermined a U.S. rationale for war.
Your silence has been embarrassing. Your continued silence will render you useless. With you or without you, the word is getting out. To the print press, we ask what happens when your readers realize that you've been playing clamp down? Don't they pay for your paper because they expect to learn what's happening in the world around them? To the electronic press, we ask what happens when your viewers find out that all the chatter about Michael Jackson and other dubious topics have filled the airwaves while real news, news that matters, has been ignored. Ava and C.I. caught The Chris Matthews Show while they were writing their review.
Chris Matthews had time to address the very important, we're sure, topics of Hugh Grant and John Kerry's college grades. While we're sure there were plenty of chuckles from some viewers, you think they'll be laughing when they realize what you've been sitting on?
We don't think so. We think if the press wants the public's trust, the press needs to do its job.
That's not been happening. You can whine about the mean old bloggers all you want, but you're trashing your own image far worse than any blogging "arm chair media critic" in the midst of a "circle jerk" could. (To use some of Bill Keller's favorite phrases.)
Do your job. Report. Do what you were trained to do.
The warning, in a leaked Cabinet Office briefing paper, said Tony Blair had already agreed to back military action to get rid of Saddam Hussein at a summit at the Texas ranch of President George W Bush three months earlier.
The briefing paper, for participants at a meeting of Blair’s inner circle on July 23, 2002, said that since regime change was illegal it was “necessary to create the conditions” which would make it legal.
This was required because, even if ministers decided Britain should not take part in an invasion, the American military would be using British bases. This would automatically make Britain complicit in any illegal US action.
The above is from Michael Smith's article in today's Sunday Times of London ("Ministers were told of need for Gulf war 'excuse.'") Yes, Michael Smith again. Yes, The Sunday Times of London, again. And yes, thanks to BuzzFlash for making it the big story on their website this morning.
Last week, we said it was time to connect the dots. Forget connecting them, there are so many now that it's a pointalism work of art that says "We were lied into war!" That comes as no surprise to many of us who were against the invastion/occupation from the start.
But is the clampdown on these revelations from our media not just deriving from a need to kiss Bully Boy ass, but also from the fact that the mainstream media was complicit by acting like cheerleaders instead of reporters?
We have no idea. But we know that wishing the revelations coming out of England wouldn't reach American eyes and ears is a futile desire.
The people are ahead of the domestic press on this issue. Unless the mainstream press desires to become completely superfluous it better begin to do it's job.
In case anyone's forgotten, the role of the press is to inform the public.
Oh that might not be as fun as fluffing for the Bully Boy. It might not provide the "access" that results in so many false claims (but don't it feel good to have Dick Cheney name-check you on Meet the Press!). It might mean, shudder, that the administration might say some mean things about you.
Well those are the breaks. You're in a profession you elected to go into, a profession that is supposed to demand accountability from those in power.
Want to be trusted, do your damn job.
As it stands, you've become the person who denies your spouses drinking problem while the whole neighborhood's whispering about it. Sure we nod to your face and act like we believe you, but as soon as you walk off, we shake our heads and wonder "Who does s/he think s/he's fooling?"
It's become the elephant in the room.
And the press better start addressing it because it's an important topic and, at least right now, we have internet freedoms that China doesn't. We can read papers from outside the US. We can find out what's being reported away from the clamp down.
There is no excuse for a New York Times D.C. editor to claim that the Downing Street Memo may not be verifiable or any other nonsense. Forget that no verification was ever needed for the witch hunt of the Clintons, any second year journalism student knows you report something you're not sure of as, "Others are saying . . ."
We know you're familiar with that method. You use it all the time when you cite unnamed officials. Here you can cite The Sunday Times of London. "The Sunday Times of London is reporting . . ."
There's no excuse for the clamp down. It's making the press look like something worse than cheerleaders. It's making them look like liars with their heads stuck in the sand (or up the Bully Boy's butt).
William Greider titled a book Who Will Tell the People. We know The New York Times is at least familiar with the title because they used it in an editorial not all that long ago. So we ask the mainstream press, who will tell the people?
This isn't esoteric information. It's not arcane. And obviously, the clampdown hasn't prevented Americans from learning about it. You can fluff it all you want (and you have) but the word is getting out. Word will continue to travel. With or without you (to cite a U2 song). But if it continues to travel inspite of you, despite you, you better find something better than "arm chair media critics" and "circle jerk" to slam the new information sources because it's the "arm chair media critics" and the "circle jerk"ers, Bill Keller, that have been doing the job that mainstream press is supposed to do.
A month later, you can finally kind-of, sort-of address the Downing Street Memo that The Sunday Times published May 1, 2005. When will you address it fully? And when will you inform your readers and viewers of other revelations?
When will you address Michael Smith's "RAF bombing raids tried to goad Saddam into war?" From the opening of that article:
THE RAF and US aircraft doubled the rate at which they were dropping bombs on Iraq in 2002 in an attempt to provoke Saddam Hussein into giving the allies an excuse for war, new evidence has shown.
The attacks were intensified from May, six months before the United Nations resolution that Tony Blair and Lord Goldsmith, the attorney-general, argued gave the coalition the legal basis for war. By the end of August the raids had become a full air offensive.
The details follow the leak to The Sunday Times of minutes of a key meeting in July 2002 at which Blair and his war cabinet discussed how to make "regime change" in Iraq legal.
And do you have plans to explore Charles J. Hanley's Associated Press article entitled
"Bolton Said to Orchestrate Unlawful Firing?" If you missed it, here's an excerpt:
John R. Bolton flew to Europe in 2002 to confront the head of a global arms-control agency and demand he resign, then orchestrated the firing of the unwilling diplomat in a move a U.N. tribunal has since judged unlawful, according to officials involved. A former Bolton deputy says the U.S. undersecretary of state felt Jose Bustani "had to go," particularly because the Brazilian was trying to send chemical weapons inspectors to Baghdad. That might have helped defuse the crisis over alleged Iraqi weapons and undermined a U.S. rationale for war.
Your silence has been embarrassing. Your continued silence will render you useless. With you or without you, the word is getting out. To the print press, we ask what happens when your readers realize that you've been playing clamp down? Don't they pay for your paper because they expect to learn what's happening in the world around them? To the electronic press, we ask what happens when your viewers find out that all the chatter about Michael Jackson and other dubious topics have filled the airwaves while real news, news that matters, has been ignored. Ava and C.I. caught The Chris Matthews Show while they were writing their review.
Chris Matthews had time to address the very important, we're sure, topics of Hugh Grant and John Kerry's college grades. While we're sure there were plenty of chuckles from some viewers, you think they'll be laughing when they realize what you've been sitting on?
We don't think so. We think if the press wants the public's trust, the press needs to do its job.
That's not been happening. You can whine about the mean old bloggers all you want, but you're trashing your own image far worse than any blogging "arm chair media critic" in the midst of a "circle jerk" could. (To use some of Bill Keller's favorite phrases.)
Do your job. Report. Do what you were trained to do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
