Mindful of ABC's disastrous debate two weeks ago, Fox & Friends on Sunday pitched the notion of a Clinton-Obama rematch in the style of the famous Lincoln-Douglas debates. Back in 1858, Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas held a series of seven debates in which they battled eloquently over the wrenching issue of slavery. And they did it without depending on Teleprompters, media handlers, pollsters or focus groups. An interesting suggestion, to be sure.
So what's the problem? Take a look at this clip.
That's obviously not Stephen Douglas, the white pro-slavery southern Democrat. No, that's Frederick Douglass, the abolitionist who was born a slave, escaped from his owner to freedom, and wrote a classic book about his experiences.
It appears that someone at Fox can't tell one Douglas(s) from another. Or maybe they just thought, "Douglass was black, Obama is black - what's the difference?"
Another banner moment for Fox News.
4/30/2008
Don't Blame Me, I Just Work Here
With the American economy straining under the impacts of falling home prices, rising foreclosures, increasing job losses and skyrocketing energy prices, President Bush took to the airwaves yesterday morning to reassure the nation that he is on the job and that he does have a plan to fix everything.
Namely, to say that it's all Congress' fault.
Yes, he put the blame for our dud economy not on the brokers who sold mortgages to people they knew couldn't afford them, nor on the speculators who drove home prices ever higher. He did not mention the corporate executives who kept all the profits for themselves and then started firing workers once things went sour, nor did he mention the oil companies who rake in obscene profits while gorging themselves on tax subsidies. He did not mention his evisceration of the financial regulation systems designed to prevent such problems from occurring in the first place. And he certainly didn't mention his blowing half a trillion dollars in Iraq, nor his gigantic tax cuts for the richest people in America.
Instead of facing his own responsibility for the mess, he blamed Congress for once again rejecting large-scale oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (a move which might affect oil and gas prices years down the road), insisting that nuclear energy actually be safe (what a concept), turning down his mortgage "reform" proposals which would bail out lenders while leaving families stranded, and a whole host of other sins.
It was vintage Bush. Nothing is ever his fault. In his own little world, he is always right and everyone who disagrees with him is always wrong. And if people get hurt in the crossfire - well, it's just too bad.
Namely, to say that it's all Congress' fault.
Yes, he put the blame for our dud economy not on the brokers who sold mortgages to people they knew couldn't afford them, nor on the speculators who drove home prices ever higher. He did not mention the corporate executives who kept all the profits for themselves and then started firing workers once things went sour, nor did he mention the oil companies who rake in obscene profits while gorging themselves on tax subsidies. He did not mention his evisceration of the financial regulation systems designed to prevent such problems from occurring in the first place. And he certainly didn't mention his blowing half a trillion dollars in Iraq, nor his gigantic tax cuts for the richest people in America.
Instead of facing his own responsibility for the mess, he blamed Congress for once again rejecting large-scale oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (a move which might affect oil and gas prices years down the road), insisting that nuclear energy actually be safe (what a concept), turning down his mortgage "reform" proposals which would bail out lenders while leaving families stranded, and a whole host of other sins.
It was vintage Bush. Nothing is ever his fault. In his own little world, he is always right and everyone who disagrees with him is always wrong. And if people get hurt in the crossfire - well, it's just too bad.
Some Nutty Preachers Are More Equal Than Others
In their relentless quest to make Barack Obama into someone whom all Americans should hate and fear, the right-wing media (Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, etc, etc) have pumped up one fake "scandal" after another. There was his supposed Muslim upbringing and his association with a former member of the Weather Underground (who, by the way, was never convicted of anything), but through it all has been Jeremiah Wright, Obama's former pastor from Chicago.
This issue is apparently so important they have pushed aside such trivialities as the Iraq War and the economic slump to indulge in more endless chatter about Wright's latest pronouncements and how Obama is really a white-hating weirdo. God forbid anyone should miss even a moment of All Wright, All the Time.
Now, no one should mistake Wright for a deep political thinker. In his various sermons and statements, he says that AIDS was created as a biological weapon and that the government secretly provides drugs to black Americans. In a April 28 speech at the National Press Club, Wright publicly supported Louis Farrakhan, stood by his "God damn America" statement, and said that any criticism of him was criticism of the black church system and all blacks in general.
This was too much for Obama, who publicly denounced his former pastor yesterday, saying Wright's comments were "a show of disrespect to me" and saying it "directly contradicts everything that I've done during my life." Of course, the conservative media is still harping on it with no signs of slowing down - after all, why let a good wedge issue die out?
Contrast this 24/7 hoopla with the almost-complete silence which has greeted John Hagee, the San Antonio-based megachurch pastor whose endorsement was actively sought by John McCain. Like Wright, Hagee has some rather unorthodox views:
McCain must have known about Hagee's views back when he actively sought his endorsement. If he didn't then, he sure does now, but has made no move to back away aside from an occasional cluck of disapproval. One would think that associating with this man would be a political kiss of death, but the media hasn't made much of a fuss over it. Certainly not as big a fuss as they have made over Wright.
Of course, Hagee is associated with a Republican candidate and Wright is associated (or at least he wants to be) with a Democratic one. And since the right-wing media sees all Democrats as America-hating traitors/subversives/perverts/etc, that means Hagee and McCain get a pass while Wright and Obama get the rack.
Not fair, I know. But who ever said Fox and company were fair?
This issue is apparently so important they have pushed aside such trivialities as the Iraq War and the economic slump to indulge in more endless chatter about Wright's latest pronouncements and how Obama is really a white-hating weirdo. God forbid anyone should miss even a moment of All Wright, All the Time.
Now, no one should mistake Wright for a deep political thinker. In his various sermons and statements, he says that AIDS was created as a biological weapon and that the government secretly provides drugs to black Americans. In a April 28 speech at the National Press Club, Wright publicly supported Louis Farrakhan, stood by his "God damn America" statement, and said that any criticism of him was criticism of the black church system and all blacks in general.
This was too much for Obama, who publicly denounced his former pastor yesterday, saying Wright's comments were "a show of disrespect to me" and saying it "directly contradicts everything that I've done during my life." Of course, the conservative media is still harping on it with no signs of slowing down - after all, why let a good wedge issue die out?
Contrast this 24/7 hoopla with the almost-complete silence which has greeted John Hagee, the San Antonio-based megachurch pastor whose endorsement was actively sought by John McCain. Like Wright, Hagee has some rather unorthodox views:
- On Hurricane Katrina: "All hurricanes are acts of God because God controls the heavens. I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God and they were recipients of the judgment of God for that."
- On blacks: Announcing in his church bulletin a "slave sale" to raise funds for high school seniors, Hagee wrote that "slavery in America is returning to Cornerstone," and asked his followers to "make plans to come and go home with a slave."
- On women: "Do you know the difference between a woman with PMS and a snarling Doberman pinscher? The answer is lipstick. Do you know the difference between a terrorist and a woman with PMS? You can negotiate with a terrorist."
- On Muslims: "Islam in general, those who live by the Koran have a scriptural mandate to kill Christians and Jews."
- On Catholics: The Catholic Church is "the Great Whore," an "apostate church," the "anti-Christ," and a "false cult system."
- On Jews: "How utterly repulsive, insulting, and heartbreaking to God for His chosen people to credit idols with bringing blessings He had showered upon the chosen people. Their own rebellion had birthed the seed of anti-Semitism that would arise and bring destruction to them for centuries to come...it rises from the judgment of God upon his rebellious chosen people."
McCain must have known about Hagee's views back when he actively sought his endorsement. If he didn't then, he sure does now, but has made no move to back away aside from an occasional cluck of disapproval. One would think that associating with this man would be a political kiss of death, but the media hasn't made much of a fuss over it. Certainly not as big a fuss as they have made over Wright.
Of course, Hagee is associated with a Republican candidate and Wright is associated (or at least he wants to be) with a Democratic one. And since the right-wing media sees all Democrats as America-hating traitors/subversives/perverts/etc, that means Hagee and McCain get a pass while Wright and Obama get the rack.
Not fair, I know. But who ever said Fox and company were fair?
4/29/2008
See No Evil
Two blockbuster stories have emerged in the last few weeks:
(crickets)
In fact, pretty much the only person in the press to even try to make a stink over the torture issue is Helen Thomas, who put press secretary Dana Perino on the spot over it last week and elicited the utterly absurd statement that "
Of course, given the efforts the White House has put into defining torture so narrowly to as to exclude almost everything, such a statement is meaningless.
The propaganda story has been similarly ignored ever since the New York Times broke it a week ago. Only PBS has done anything with it, and they somewhat dryly noted that "we invited Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC and NBC to participate, but they declined our offer or did not respond."
Now it just so happens that both stories reflect badly on the media as a whole, highlighting their willingness to swallow the official White House line without question. For years, the mainstream media, particularly the various TV networks and big newspaper chains, have been less and less willing to challenge those in power. Preferring to keep their "access" rather than do their jobs, they let the whoppers go unchallenged, the scandals remain hidden, and generally turn themselves into a bunch of bootlicking stenographers.
And they wonder why readership is falling and their ratings are down.
- Top White House officials, up to and including President Bush, approved and even directed the torture of suspects held in Guantanamo Bay and other War on Terror™ prisons. This began years ago and puts the lie to endless Administration pronouncements that the torture scandals of Abu Ghraib and other locations were caused by "bad apples" who ignored orders.
- The White House, coordinating with the Pentagon, the State Department and the Justice Department, secretly worked with retired military officers to ensure that when they went on TV as "military analysts," they would give the officially approved version of events in Iraq. The result was not independent analysis at all, but rather a deliberate propaganda program to "spin" the Iraq War and prevent the American people from seeing the truth.
(crickets)
In fact, pretty much the only person in the press to even try to make a stink over the torture issue is Helen Thomas, who put press secretary Dana Perino on the spot over it last week and elicited the utterly absurd statement that "
Of course, given the efforts the White House has put into defining torture so narrowly to as to exclude almost everything, such a statement is meaningless.
The propaganda story has been similarly ignored ever since the New York Times broke it a week ago. Only PBS has done anything with it, and they somewhat dryly noted that "we invited Fox News, CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC and NBC to participate, but they declined our offer or did not respond."
Now it just so happens that both stories reflect badly on the media as a whole, highlighting their willingness to swallow the official White House line without question. For years, the mainstream media, particularly the various TV networks and big newspaper chains, have been less and less willing to challenge those in power. Preferring to keep their "access" rather than do their jobs, they let the whoppers go unchallenged, the scandals remain hidden, and generally turn themselves into a bunch of bootlicking stenographers.
And they wonder why readership is falling and their ratings are down.
4/25/2008
Baghdad Disneyland
Baghdad is, to put it politely, a mess. Electricity is spotty at best, clean water is largely nonexistent, hospitals are understaffed and undersupplied - you know, the usual stuff you find in a war zone. It's a real downer.
But take heart, for help is on the way thanks to Llewellyn Werner.
Yes, Werner is working on a theme park for Baghdad. The same company that developed Disneyland is hard at work creating the Baghdad Zoo and Entertainment Experience. The $500 million, 50-acre complex will be located right next to the Green Zone and will contain such diversions as a skateboard park, a concert theater, a museum and kiddie rides, not to mention a hotel and housing.
Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said, "There is a shortage of entertainment in the city. Cinemas can't open. Playgrounds can't open. The fun park is badly needed for Baghdad. Children don't have any opportunities to enjoy their childhood."
Yeah, they keep getting killed.
Al-Dabbagh also said that entry to the park would be strictly controlled, which will theoretically keep out the suicide bombers. He said nothing about how mortar shells will be prevented from flying into the park.
Let's ponder for a moment the insanity of placing a fun park right in the middle of a war zone, not to mention right next to the single biggest target of the Iraqi insurgency. What developer in his right mind would even consider such a thing? And what families in their right minds would send their kids to such a place?
But since it will be built by the same people who gave us Disneyland, allow me to make a few modest suggestions as to which rides should be installed:
Werner is optimistic that the same people who take such gruesome pleasure in blowing up shops, funerals, etc, will refrain from giving the park the same treatment. "I think people will embrace it," he said, evidently smoking the same dope that led Dick Cheney to proclaim that American troops invading Iraq would be "greeted as liberators."
"They'll see it as an opportunity for their children regardless if they're Shia or Sunni," Werner went on. "They'll say their kids deserve a place to play and they'll leave it alone."
Yes, that approach has worked so well in protecting soccer games.
And just to make sure everyone knows what his real motive is, he added, "I wouldn't be doing this if I wasn't making money. I also have this wonderful sense that we're doing the right thing - we're going to employ thousands of Iraqis. But mostly everything here is for profit."
Considering the cash cow Iraq has been for Halliburton, KBR and other war profiteers, it sounds like he's going right along with everyone else.
But take heart, for help is on the way thanks to Llewellyn Werner.
Yes, Werner is working on a theme park for Baghdad. The same company that developed Disneyland is hard at work creating the Baghdad Zoo and Entertainment Experience. The $500 million, 50-acre complex will be located right next to the Green Zone and will contain such diversions as a skateboard park, a concert theater, a museum and kiddie rides, not to mention a hotel and housing.
Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said, "There is a shortage of entertainment in the city. Cinemas can't open. Playgrounds can't open. The fun park is badly needed for Baghdad. Children don't have any opportunities to enjoy their childhood."
Yeah, they keep getting killed.
Al-Dabbagh also said that entry to the park would be strictly controlled, which will theoretically keep out the suicide bombers. He said nothing about how mortar shells will be prevented from flying into the park.
Let's ponder for a moment the insanity of placing a fun park right in the middle of a war zone, not to mention right next to the single biggest target of the Iraqi insurgency. What developer in his right mind would even consider such a thing? And what families in their right minds would send their kids to such a place?
But since it will be built by the same people who gave us Disneyland, allow me to make a few modest suggestions as to which rides should be installed:
- Honey, I Blew Up the Audience
- It's a Violent World
- Mr. Toad's Wild Insurgency
- Pirates of the Tigris
- Ahmed in Wonderland
Werner is optimistic that the same people who take such gruesome pleasure in blowing up shops, funerals, etc, will refrain from giving the park the same treatment. "I think people will embrace it," he said, evidently smoking the same dope that led Dick Cheney to proclaim that American troops invading Iraq would be "greeted as liberators."
"They'll see it as an opportunity for their children regardless if they're Shia or Sunni," Werner went on. "They'll say their kids deserve a place to play and they'll leave it alone."
Yes, that approach has worked so well in protecting soccer games.
And just to make sure everyone knows what his real motive is, he added, "I wouldn't be doing this if I wasn't making money. I also have this wonderful sense that we're doing the right thing - we're going to employ thousands of Iraqis. But mostly everything here is for profit."
Considering the cash cow Iraq has been for Halliburton, KBR and other war profiteers, it sounds like he's going right along with everyone else.
4/23/2008
Going for the Nazi Vote
So far, this election year hasn't given us much opportunity for humor. Hillary Clinton calls Barack Obama a snooty elitist maybe-Muslim, Barack Obama calls Hillary Clinton a gunslinging Annie-Oakley type, and John McCain bumbles from one senior moment to another.
Well, we now have the official Wacko Candidate for 2008, and his name is Tony Zirkle.
Zirkle is an Indiana lawyer running for Congress on a platform of everything from bringing back the guillotine to shredding old copies of girlie magazines. But on Sunday he took a break from his campaign calendar to attend a birthday party and give a stump speech.
Yes, that is a real picture of Adolf Hitler hanging on the wall, and yes, those are real swastika armbands everyone's wearing. The event was the National Socialist Workers Party's annual celebration of der Führer's birthday, and Zirkle was the main speaker.
To quote the great Dave Barry, I am not making this up. This is totally 100% real.
Anyway, you'd think a Republican Congressional candidate attending a Nazi gathering might not be the smartest idea, and you'd be right. The local GOP has run for cover, loudly denouncing Zirkle. "The 'R' next to Tony Zirkle's name does not stand for Republican. It stands for 'repulsive,'" said county party chairman Chris Riley.
The Nazis were, of course, thrilled to get this stamp of approval, saying that "Zirkle spoke on his history as a state's attorney in Indiana, prosecuting Jewish and Zionist criminal gangs involved in trafficking prostitutes and pornography from Russia and the Zionist entity.''
For his part, Zirkle insists he was simply "misunderstood," did nothing wrong, and spoke to the Nazis only of his crusade against porn. The fact that he repeatedly lambasted Jews as supposedly originating the porn industry and now allegedly controlling it is a mere coincidence.
On the bright side, he guaranteed that the Nazi vote will be solidly Republican this year.
Well, we now have the official Wacko Candidate for 2008, and his name is Tony Zirkle.
Zirkle is an Indiana lawyer running for Congress on a platform of everything from bringing back the guillotine to shredding old copies of girlie magazines. But on Sunday he took a break from his campaign calendar to attend a birthday party and give a stump speech.
Yes, that is a real picture of Adolf Hitler hanging on the wall, and yes, those are real swastika armbands everyone's wearing. The event was the National Socialist Workers Party's annual celebration of der Führer's birthday, and Zirkle was the main speaker.
To quote the great Dave Barry, I am not making this up. This is totally 100% real.
Anyway, you'd think a Republican Congressional candidate attending a Nazi gathering might not be the smartest idea, and you'd be right. The local GOP has run for cover, loudly denouncing Zirkle. "The 'R' next to Tony Zirkle's name does not stand for Republican. It stands for 'repulsive,'" said county party chairman Chris Riley.
The Nazis were, of course, thrilled to get this stamp of approval, saying that "Zirkle spoke on his history as a state's attorney in Indiana, prosecuting Jewish and Zionist criminal gangs involved in trafficking prostitutes and pornography from Russia and the Zionist entity.''
For his part, Zirkle insists he was simply "misunderstood," did nothing wrong, and spoke to the Nazis only of his crusade against porn. The fact that he repeatedly lambasted Jews as supposedly originating the porn industry and now allegedly controlling it is a mere coincidence.
On the bright side, he guaranteed that the Nazi vote will be solidly Republican this year.
4/22/2008
The VA's Suicide Squad
While the government is trying mightily to deny it, it's become obvious that veterans returning from the Iraq War are facing a mental-health crisis of staggering proportions. A Rand Corporation study released last week estimated that:
Earlier this year, the VA told CBS that there were only 790 attempted suicides in all of 2007. But only a few days later, the VA's head of mental health E-mailed his media adviser with some very different numbers.
"Our suicide prevention coordinators are identifying about 1000 suicide attempts per month among the veterans we see in our medical facilities," Dr. Ira Katz wrote. "Is this something we should (carefully) address ourselves in some sort of release before someone stumbles on it?"
The VA's reaction to this horrible statistic was not "how can we help them?" or "how can we save them from themselves?" but "should we keep it quiet?"
Once again, we see how the Bush Administration's obsession with secrecy and "message control" infects every nook and cranny of government. With their negligence and incompetence, they are hurting the very same people they claim to be supporting, and no one likes it when veterans who have already given so much are hurt once again.
- 300,000 veterans suffer from everything from depression to full-blown post-traumatic stress disorder
- A further 320,000 veterans suffer from varying degrees of traumatic brain injury
- Only half of veterans who need treatment seek it, with the rest fearing damage to their careers, denial of security clearances, or other consequences
- Only half of veterans who seek treatment get anything more than "suck it up" pep talks, or give up when confronted with a six-month wait time
Earlier this year, the VA told CBS that there were only 790 attempted suicides in all of 2007. But only a few days later, the VA's head of mental health E-mailed his media adviser with some very different numbers.
"Our suicide prevention coordinators are identifying about 1000 suicide attempts per month among the veterans we see in our medical facilities," Dr. Ira Katz wrote. "Is this something we should (carefully) address ourselves in some sort of release before someone stumbles on it?"
The VA's reaction to this horrible statistic was not "how can we help them?" or "how can we save them from themselves?" but "should we keep it quiet?"
Once again, we see how the Bush Administration's obsession with secrecy and "message control" infects every nook and cranny of government. With their negligence and incompetence, they are hurting the very same people they claim to be supporting, and no one likes it when veterans who have already given so much are hurt once again.
4/21/2008
That's a Good Little General
American TV news, especially the 24/7 networks, would be nowhere in its Iraq coverage without its steady supply of retired military generals and other "analysts" to dissect the war and its tactics. What we didn't know until now was that these analysts were being explicitly stage-managed by the White House, turned into just another wave of mindless Bush-bots.
The New York Times exposed this propaganda campaign in a major article yesterday, explaining how retired officers were secretly enlisted to disseminate the White House point of view on TV while masquerading as impartial analysts. These officers were given classified briefings by officials from the White House, State Department and Justice Department, carefully coached on what to say in order to get the approved message across.
Some of them spoke up and said they were being asked to parrot nonsense, only to be told they would lose that all-important "access" unless they fell into line. A few even deviated from the script, told the truth, and were fired for this offense.
But most simply went along with the program, suggesting talking points and chiming in with the Administration's innate distrust of the media. Others secretly sent to the Pentagon copies of E-mail messages with TV networks or warned of stories in the works that could be seen as unfriendly. And others simply shut up and did as they were told, fearing retaliation if they said what they really felt rather what they were told to say.
Some analysts, who went to work for major defense companies after retiring from the military, took advantage of their new inside information to win lucrative contracts. When faced with having to explain away bad news coming out of Iraq, other such retirees were careful to put on a happy face, fearful that the Pentagon could retaliate by taking away their contracts.
Of course, the Pentagon closely monitored their puppets' performance on TV, making sure they were following orders and not letting any inconvenient truths slip out. Any deviation from the script was dealt with immediately and harshly. After fourteen Marines were killed during one day's fighting in 2005, retired Marine colonel William Cowan was given the job of spinning the deaths on Fox's The O'Reilly Factor, but he suffered a spasm of truthfulness and admitted that America was "not on a good glide path right now."
The Pentagon's reaction to this burst of honesty is both telling and infuriating. Not only was Cowan fired from the program, but Joint Chiefs director of operations James Conway held a conference call the next day to keep everyone on message. "The strategic target remains our population," Conway said according to a transcript. "We can lose people day in and day out, but they're never going to beat our military. What they can and will do if they can is strip away our support. And you guys can help us not let that happen."
The callousness with which the Pentagon treated our soldiers as made-for-TV cannon fodder is staggering. And none of these talking heads revealed that they were were simply saying what they were told to say rather than commenting based on their own independent experiences and expertise.
"Internal Pentagon documents," the Times reported, "repeatedly refer to the military analysts as 'message force multipliers' or 'surrogates' who could be counted on to deliver administration 'themes and messages' to millions of Americans 'in the form of their own opinions.'"
And so now we have yet another example of how the Bush Administration schemes to indoctrinate the American people in violation of federal law, morality and common sense. It wasn't enough to pay a pair of columnists under the table to shill for the White House, nor was it enough for the White House to plant a fake reporter in press conferences for lobbing softballs, nor was it enough for fake news videos to be sent to TV stations around the country. No, our very own homegrown Ministry of Truth had to go ahead and add on another layer of official propaganda to try and sell us on the Iraq War, from before it started to long after it went sour.
A prime function of the military is to be above partisan politics. By allowing themselves to be transformed into just more parroting pundits for the pleasure of the White House, the military officers who participated in this scheme have performed a grave disservice, to the nation and to their fellow soldiers.
The New York Times exposed this propaganda campaign in a major article yesterday, explaining how retired officers were secretly enlisted to disseminate the White House point of view on TV while masquerading as impartial analysts. These officers were given classified briefings by officials from the White House, State Department and Justice Department, carefully coached on what to say in order to get the approved message across.
Some of them spoke up and said they were being asked to parrot nonsense, only to be told they would lose that all-important "access" unless they fell into line. A few even deviated from the script, told the truth, and were fired for this offense.
But most simply went along with the program, suggesting talking points and chiming in with the Administration's innate distrust of the media. Others secretly sent to the Pentagon copies of E-mail messages with TV networks or warned of stories in the works that could be seen as unfriendly. And others simply shut up and did as they were told, fearing retaliation if they said what they really felt rather what they were told to say.
Some analysts, who went to work for major defense companies after retiring from the military, took advantage of their new inside information to win lucrative contracts. When faced with having to explain away bad news coming out of Iraq, other such retirees were careful to put on a happy face, fearful that the Pentagon could retaliate by taking away their contracts.
Of course, the Pentagon closely monitored their puppets' performance on TV, making sure they were following orders and not letting any inconvenient truths slip out. Any deviation from the script was dealt with immediately and harshly. After fourteen Marines were killed during one day's fighting in 2005, retired Marine colonel William Cowan was given the job of spinning the deaths on Fox's The O'Reilly Factor, but he suffered a spasm of truthfulness and admitted that America was "not on a good glide path right now."
The Pentagon's reaction to this burst of honesty is both telling and infuriating. Not only was Cowan fired from the program, but Joint Chiefs director of operations James Conway held a conference call the next day to keep everyone on message. "The strategic target remains our population," Conway said according to a transcript. "We can lose people day in and day out, but they're never going to beat our military. What they can and will do if they can is strip away our support. And you guys can help us not let that happen."
The callousness with which the Pentagon treated our soldiers as made-for-TV cannon fodder is staggering. And none of these talking heads revealed that they were were simply saying what they were told to say rather than commenting based on their own independent experiences and expertise.
"Internal Pentagon documents," the Times reported, "repeatedly refer to the military analysts as 'message force multipliers' or 'surrogates' who could be counted on to deliver administration 'themes and messages' to millions of Americans 'in the form of their own opinions.'"
And so now we have yet another example of how the Bush Administration schemes to indoctrinate the American people in violation of federal law, morality and common sense. It wasn't enough to pay a pair of columnists under the table to shill for the White House, nor was it enough for the White House to plant a fake reporter in press conferences for lobbing softballs, nor was it enough for fake news videos to be sent to TV stations around the country. No, our very own homegrown Ministry of Truth had to go ahead and add on another layer of official propaganda to try and sell us on the Iraq War, from before it started to long after it went sour.
A prime function of the military is to be above partisan politics. By allowing themselves to be transformed into just more parroting pundits for the pleasure of the White House, the military officers who participated in this scheme have performed a grave disservice, to the nation and to their fellow soldiers.
4/18/2008
Ben Franklin Goes to Gitmo
"If there's a threat, you have a right to defend society. People will give up all their liberties to avoid that level of threat."
Thus spake Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker, author of the Contracton with America, and the architect of the GOP's impeachment jihad against Bill Clinton a decade ago.
Ever since the Bush Administration began pushing for more and more unchecked power in the wake of 9/11, many in the Republican circle of politicians and pundits claimed that security was more important than freedom. Senator Trent Lott opined in 2005 that "I want my security first. I'll deal with all the details after that." And Senator Pat Roberts memorably said in 2006 that "you have no civil liberties if you are dead."
But Gingrich is different. He has already said that in the name of fighting terrorism some speech should be outlawed, thus eviscerating the First Amendment. (And who decides what sort of statements should be made illegal? Why, Gingrich himself, of course.)
We have already been frightened into allowing the White House free rein to track our phone calls and spy on our reading habits. Gingrich evidently cannot wait for the next attack, the Big One that will successfully frighten us into voluntarily surrendering the rest of our freedoms.
So let's suppose the worst does happen, that a nuke goes off on the National Mall or a "dirty bomb" explodes in Times Square. What happens then? Will we really allow the press to be censored, blogs shut down, dissidents jailed?
Or is that just what Gingrich hopes will happen? With himself as president, of course.
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety," warned Benjamin Franklin in 1759, "deserve neither liberty nor safety." And while he first used the phrase well over two centuries ago, it is still very relevant today.
We must always watch carefully for those who would use our own fears against us, who in their own way are just as terroristic as Osama bin Laden.
For in Gingrich's repressive world, Ben Franklin would almost certainly be sent to Gitmo to ponder the error of his ways. And he'd probably be waterboarded too.
Thus spake Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker, author of the Contract
Ever since the Bush Administration began pushing for more and more unchecked power in the wake of 9/11, many in the Republican circle of politicians and pundits claimed that security was more important than freedom. Senator Trent Lott opined in 2005 that "I want my security first. I'll deal with all the details after that." And Senator Pat Roberts memorably said in 2006 that "you have no civil liberties if you are dead."
But Gingrich is different. He has already said that in the name of fighting terrorism some speech should be outlawed, thus eviscerating the First Amendment. (And who decides what sort of statements should be made illegal? Why, Gingrich himself, of course.)
We have already been frightened into allowing the White House free rein to track our phone calls and spy on our reading habits. Gingrich evidently cannot wait for the next attack, the Big One that will successfully frighten us into voluntarily surrendering the rest of our freedoms.
So let's suppose the worst does happen, that a nuke goes off on the National Mall or a "dirty bomb" explodes in Times Square. What happens then? Will we really allow the press to be censored, blogs shut down, dissidents jailed?
Or is that just what Gingrich hopes will happen? With himself as president, of course.
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety," warned Benjamin Franklin in 1759, "deserve neither liberty nor safety." And while he first used the phrase well over two centuries ago, it is still very relevant today.
We must always watch carefully for those who would use our own fears against us, who in their own way are just as terroristic as Osama bin Laden.
For in Gingrich's repressive world, Ben Franklin would almost certainly be sent to Gitmo to ponder the error of his ways. And he'd probably be waterboarded too.
4/17/2008
A Fair and Balanced Question
"A gentleman named William Ayers, he was part of the Weather Underground in the 1970s. They bombed the Pentagon, the Capitol and other buildings. He's never apologized for that. And in fact, on 9/11 he was quoted in The New York Times saying, 'I don't regret setting bombs; I feel we didn't do enough.' An early organizing meeting for your state senate campaign was held at his house, and your campaign has said you are friendly. Can you explain that relationship for the voters, and explain to Democrats why it won't be a problem?"
4/16/2008
Recipegate
For once, I'm kinda sorta going to come to the defense of a Republican. The flap-let over the revelation that Cindy McCain's supposed "family recipes" were actually cribbed almost verbatim from the Food Network's website is just plain silly. In the words of Shakespeare's Macbeth, it's "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
I mean, who among us hasn't taken recipes from other sources and eventually claimed them as our own, with or without a touch of customization? That is, after all, how most family recipes get started.
On the other hand, if someone else - say, Michelle Obama - were revealed to have copied recipes and passed them off as her own, the media would be filled with pundits all yammering on how this proves Obama to be an elitist who looks down on the common folk.
Rush Limbaugh would call it "Recipegate" and make snide comments about fried chicken and watermelon. Bill O'Reilly would be amazed that no one was shouting "M-Fer, I want more iced tea." And Sean Hannity would just beat the story to death for weeks on end.
The McCain campaign is now blaming the fiasco on an intern, but it sure looks like this was an attempt to make the very wealthy McCains look like just plain folks. That might have worked better had this supposed intern filched some more down-to-earth recipes, such as minestrone soup or ratatouille. Instead, we were told that something called "Farfalle Pasta with Turkey Sausage, Peas and Mushrooms" was Cindy's invention.
Anyway, now that we've all had a good laugh and shaken our heads, can we now get back to real issues?
I mean, who among us hasn't taken recipes from other sources and eventually claimed them as our own, with or without a touch of customization? That is, after all, how most family recipes get started.
On the other hand, if someone else - say, Michelle Obama - were revealed to have copied recipes and passed them off as her own, the media would be filled with pundits all yammering on how this proves Obama to be an elitist who looks down on the common folk.
Rush Limbaugh would call it "Recipegate" and make snide comments about fried chicken and watermelon. Bill O'Reilly would be amazed that no one was shouting "M-Fer, I want more iced tea." And Sean Hannity would just beat the story to death for weeks on end.
The McCain campaign is now blaming the fiasco on an intern, but it sure looks like this was an attempt to make the very wealthy McCains look like just plain folks. That might have worked better had this supposed intern filched some more down-to-earth recipes, such as minestrone soup or ratatouille. Instead, we were told that something called "Farfalle Pasta with Turkey Sausage, Peas and Mushrooms" was Cindy's invention.
Anyway, now that we've all had a good laugh and shaken our heads, can we now get back to real issues?
Shake Your Pom-Poms, Iraq Edition
"Look, you can't have the commander in chief say to a bunch of kids who are sacrificing either, 'It's not worth it,' or, 'You're losing.' I mean, what does that do for morale?"
President Bush, admitting that he knew the Iraq War was a disaster back in 2006 but kept up his "we're winning in Iraq" cheerleading anyway
4/15/2008
Barack's Bitterness, and Ours
With the media largely ignoring last week's revelations that President Bush and his senior staff personally approved and even directed the torture of War on Terror™ prisoners, something has to fill all that airtime on 24-hour cable news. And so the media jumped to the task when Barack Obama said what so many of us are feeling - that many Americans are "bitter" over being left behind in today's economy.
"You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them," he said. "And it's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
For his admittedly badly-phrased trouble in pointing out the bleedin' obvious, Obama has been tarred as an "elitist" by everyone from Hillary Clinton (who made over $100 million in the last eight years) to John McCain (who reportedly owns eight houses) to Fox News. The TV talking heads fill the airwaves with speculation that Obama is a "fake populist" who secretly looks down on the people whose support he's trying to win.
Not to leave well enough alone, others waved the red flag and brought us back to the days of the Cold War. William Kristol compared Obama to Karl Marx in his New York Times column, Joe Lieberman wondered aloud whether the candidate is a full-fledged Marxist, and Karl Rove fell into line with the same theme.
This is, of course, standard operating procedure. The accepted response to anyone who asks why the American economy leaves so many Americans struggling is to attack mercilessly, accusing the questioner of latent Communism and fomenting "class warfare." Naturally, the people attacking Obama for his supposed elitism are hardly the epitome of the working class, making millions and living the high life.
Turning away from the hoopla back to what Obama actually said, why shouldn't we be bitter? In the years of the supposed "Bush boom," the vast majority of us have seen prices for health care, housing, energy and education skyrocket while wages have stagnated at best or fallen at worst. The only people who really flourished during the Bush years have been the ones at the very top.
Once upon a time, Americans who weren't wealthy could work hard and be assured of a comfortable life. We could send our kids to college, afford a nice house and look forward to a happy retirement. My grandparents, who both taught in public schools, were able to send their children to graduate school and afford a second home in Florida.
No more. In the pursuit of ever bigger profits, companies have sent jobs overseas and eviscerated what used to be the economy's manufacturing base. American workers are pitted against each other in a war of all against all for an ever-smaller slice of the pie. And in this latest "recession," it's always the people on the bottom rung of the economic latter who pay the price. We live in constant fear of layoffs, foreclosure and bankruptcy, and the government just doesn't care.
And people wonder why we're bitter.
"You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them," he said. "And it's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
For his admittedly badly-phrased trouble in pointing out the bleedin' obvious, Obama has been tarred as an "elitist" by everyone from Hillary Clinton (who made over $100 million in the last eight years) to John McCain (who reportedly owns eight houses) to Fox News. The TV talking heads fill the airwaves with speculation that Obama is a "fake populist" who secretly looks down on the people whose support he's trying to win.
Not to leave well enough alone, others waved the red flag and brought us back to the days of the Cold War. William Kristol compared Obama to Karl Marx in his New York Times column, Joe Lieberman wondered aloud whether the candidate is a full-fledged Marxist, and Karl Rove fell into line with the same theme.
This is, of course, standard operating procedure. The accepted response to anyone who asks why the American economy leaves so many Americans struggling is to attack mercilessly, accusing the questioner of latent Communism and fomenting "class warfare." Naturally, the people attacking Obama for his supposed elitism are hardly the epitome of the working class, making millions and living the high life.
Turning away from the hoopla back to what Obama actually said, why shouldn't we be bitter? In the years of the supposed "Bush boom," the vast majority of us have seen prices for health care, housing, energy and education skyrocket while wages have stagnated at best or fallen at worst. The only people who really flourished during the Bush years have been the ones at the very top.
Once upon a time, Americans who weren't wealthy could work hard and be assured of a comfortable life. We could send our kids to college, afford a nice house and look forward to a happy retirement. My grandparents, who both taught in public schools, were able to send their children to graduate school and afford a second home in Florida.
No more. In the pursuit of ever bigger profits, companies have sent jobs overseas and eviscerated what used to be the economy's manufacturing base. American workers are pitted against each other in a war of all against all for an ever-smaller slice of the pie. And in this latest "recession," it's always the people on the bottom rung of the economic latter who pay the price. We live in constant fear of layoffs, foreclosure and bankruptcy, and the government just doesn't care.
And people wonder why we're bitter.
4/14/2008
Bush Knew
It's a long-running Washington tradition to release bad news on Friday afternoons in the hope that no one notices, and it happened again last Friday in yet another Bush news dump. So far, it has worked perfectly and the story has garnered far less attention than it deserves.
Ever since last week's revelation that top White House officials ordered and even choreographed prisoner torture in Guantanamo Bay and other locations, there has been rampant speculation on what President Bush knew and when he knew it.
Speculate no more. In an interview by ABC News released on Friday, Bush said he was fully in the loop on Vice President Cheney and others directing this abomination. "Well, we started to connect the dots in order to protect the American people," he said without a care in the world. "And yes, I'm aware our national security team met on this issue. And I approved."
"I approved." He knew that prisoners were being tortured, months and even years after they were originally captured and long after any useful information was extracted.
"I approved." He knew that his senior staff actively conspired to violate federal laws against torture.
"I approved." He knew that what he and his inner circle were doing was wrong, for they did their best to hide it for as long as they could.
"I approved." Right there, you have the words that have now sealed George W. Bush's place in history. He will be remembered as the president who approved the beating and torture of prisoners, of jailing suspects without charges or trial, of indiscriminate spying on the American people, of launching an unprovoked invasion of another country and then bogging our troops down in an endless quagmire, of not even trying to prevent 9/11 from occurring and then rushing to politicize it any way he could.
"I'm not so sure what's so startling about that," Bush said a moment later, depending on the public's "Bush fatigue" to let him get away with it.
Bush may think it's no big deal to torture people he's already declared guilty without a trial, but others disagree. We now have a tailor-made case for impeachment and removal of the president and vice president, but Congress won't move unless we shame them into doing so. Contact your senators and representatives and demand impeachment, for the good of the nation.
Ever since last week's revelation that top White House officials ordered and even choreographed prisoner torture in Guantanamo Bay and other locations, there has been rampant speculation on what President Bush knew and when he knew it.
Speculate no more. In an interview by ABC News released on Friday, Bush said he was fully in the loop on Vice President Cheney and others directing this abomination. "Well, we started to connect the dots in order to protect the American people," he said without a care in the world. "And yes, I'm aware our national security team met on this issue. And I approved."
"I approved." He knew that prisoners were being tortured, months and even years after they were originally captured and long after any useful information was extracted.
"I approved." He knew that his senior staff actively conspired to violate federal laws against torture.
"I approved." He knew that what he and his inner circle were doing was wrong, for they did their best to hide it for as long as they could.
"I approved." Right there, you have the words that have now sealed George W. Bush's place in history. He will be remembered as the president who approved the beating and torture of prisoners, of jailing suspects without charges or trial, of indiscriminate spying on the American people, of launching an unprovoked invasion of another country and then bogging our troops down in an endless quagmire, of not even trying to prevent 9/11 from occurring and then rushing to politicize it any way he could.
"I'm not so sure what's so startling about that," Bush said a moment later, depending on the public's "Bush fatigue" to let him get away with it.
Bush may think it's no big deal to torture people he's already declared guilty without a trial, but others disagree. We now have a tailor-made case for impeachment and removal of the president and vice president, but Congress won't move unless we shame them into doing so. Contact your senators and representatives and demand impeachment, for the good of the nation.
4/11/2008
The Torture Cabal, Continued
The Associated Press has now confirmed ABC News' Wednesday night story on the existence of a secret "torture cabal" in the White House, headed by Vice President Cheney, that approved and even choreographed the torture of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay and other locations.
Not only did the AP confirm the story, they even dredged up a few more revolting details. "Bush administration officials from Vice President Dick Cheney on down signed off on using harsh interrogation techniques against suspected terrorists after asking the Justice Department to endorse their legality," says the AP story.
Note the latter part of that sentence - it clearly says that the cabal first decided to torture the prisoners and only then asked the Justice Department, by then filled with "loyal Bushies," to sign off on it. They didn't ask whether it was legal, they simply decreed that it was and then directed Justice to rubber-stamp their already-made decision.
Torture is, of course, highly illegal under American law, no matter what Cheney et al may claim. A case can therefore be made to press conspiracy charges against everyone who took part in the meetings, including Cheney.
The story also says that the cabal "took care to insulate" President Bush, who likes to call himself the Decider, from having anything to do with the actual decisions to torture prisoners. This sounds a lot like the Iran-Contra scandal of the mid-1980s, when President Ronald Reagan allowed his staffers to run wild and secretly create their own illegal foreign policy apparatus.
Assuming the "insulation" part of the story is true and not just another falsehood to protect Bush, the question now is the same as twenty years ago. Namely, did the president knowingly allow his senior staff to violate the law and keep him in the dark, or was he so befuddled that he genuinely didn't know about it? The second possibility is not as fanciful as it sounds, as Bush all too frequently gives the impression of being merely a figurehead with no actual idea what's going on. Frankly, I don't know which is worse.
Of course, if that part of the story is a lie, that means the President of the United States - a man whose oath of office includes a vow to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution" - was deeply involved in a deliberate criminal conspiracy to violate federal laws against torture. That's an impeachable offense, no matter how you spin it.
Either way, both stories make it very clear that torture was directed from the very top. The White House wanted firm control over the whole process, and they got it.
"No one at the agency wanted to operate under a notion of winks and nods and assumptions that everyone understood what was being talked about," said a CIA source quoted in the AP story. "People wanted to be assured that everything that was conducted was understood and approved by the folks in the chain of command."
Sadly, even with the smoking gun of torture left squarely in the White House, Congress is unlikely to impeach Bush and Cheney for these outrages as there are only nine months left to go in this presidency. Plus, the GOP's disastrous impeachment jihad against Bill Clinton a decade ago essentially gave the next president a "get out of jail free card," since it allows them to claim that any attempt to impeach Bush is merely payback.
But Congress still has oversight power. They just need the guts to use it, to drag this loathsome torture conspiracy into the light and make sure something like this never happens again.
Not only did the AP confirm the story, they even dredged up a few more revolting details. "Bush administration officials from Vice President Dick Cheney on down signed off on using harsh interrogation techniques against suspected terrorists after asking the Justice Department to endorse their legality," says the AP story.
Note the latter part of that sentence - it clearly says that the cabal first decided to torture the prisoners and only then asked the Justice Department, by then filled with "loyal Bushies," to sign off on it. They didn't ask whether it was legal, they simply decreed that it was and then directed Justice to rubber-stamp their already-made decision.
Torture is, of course, highly illegal under American law, no matter what Cheney et al may claim. A case can therefore be made to press conspiracy charges against everyone who took part in the meetings, including Cheney.
The story also says that the cabal "took care to insulate" President Bush, who likes to call himself the Decider, from having anything to do with the actual decisions to torture prisoners. This sounds a lot like the Iran-Contra scandal of the mid-1980s, when President Ronald Reagan allowed his staffers to run wild and secretly create their own illegal foreign policy apparatus.
Assuming the "insulation" part of the story is true and not just another falsehood to protect Bush, the question now is the same as twenty years ago. Namely, did the president knowingly allow his senior staff to violate the law and keep him in the dark, or was he so befuddled that he genuinely didn't know about it? The second possibility is not as fanciful as it sounds, as Bush all too frequently gives the impression of being merely a figurehead with no actual idea what's going on. Frankly, I don't know which is worse.
Of course, if that part of the story is a lie, that means the President of the United States - a man whose oath of office includes a vow to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution" - was deeply involved in a deliberate criminal conspiracy to violate federal laws against torture. That's an impeachable offense, no matter how you spin it.
Either way, both stories make it very clear that torture was directed from the very top. The White House wanted firm control over the whole process, and they got it.
"No one at the agency wanted to operate under a notion of winks and nods and assumptions that everyone understood what was being talked about," said a CIA source quoted in the AP story. "People wanted to be assured that everything that was conducted was understood and approved by the folks in the chain of command."
Sadly, even with the smoking gun of torture left squarely in the White House, Congress is unlikely to impeach Bush and Cheney for these outrages as there are only nine months left to go in this presidency. Plus, the GOP's disastrous impeachment jihad against Bill Clinton a decade ago essentially gave the next president a "get out of jail free card," since it allows them to claim that any attempt to impeach Bush is merely payback.
But Congress still has oversight power. They just need the guts to use it, to drag this loathsome torture conspiracy into the light and make sure something like this never happens again.
4/10/2008
The Torture Cabal
Ever since the Abu Ghraib scandal broke in 2004, the White House has always insisted that any torture or abuse was done by "bad apples" who ignored orders. And in dribs and drabs, evidence has come to light saying just the opposite, that it was and is official policy to torture prisoners in Iraq and elsewhere. Last week, the White House finally released the infamous "torture memo," in which Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo took eighty-one remarkably bloodless pages to detail how the president has unlimited power to order suspects tortured.
And now, ABC News is reporting that an inner circle in the White House was deeply involved in this sordid process. This "torture cabal" consisted of:
Aschroft, who likes to call himself a devout Christian, was reportedly disturbed by the meetings, but not because they concerned torture. Rather, he was dismayed that he had to get his hands dirty. "Why are we talking about this in the White House?" he is said to have exclaimed after one meeting. "History will not judge this kindly."
That's putting it mildly. Torture is illegal under American and international law, and by actively planning the torture of prisoners, it seems the Administration's top leaders have opened themselves up to war-crimes charges.
It remains to be seen whether anything will be done about it.
And now, ABC News is reporting that an inner circle in the White House was deeply involved in this sordid process. This "torture cabal" consisted of:
- Vice President Dick Cheney
- National Security Advisor (now Secretary of State) Condoleezza Rice
- Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld
- Secretary of State Colin Powell
- CIA Director George Tenet
- Attorney General John Ashcroft
Aschroft, who likes to call himself a devout Christian, was reportedly disturbed by the meetings, but not because they concerned torture. Rather, he was dismayed that he had to get his hands dirty. "Why are we talking about this in the White House?" he is said to have exclaimed after one meeting. "History will not judge this kindly."
That's putting it mildly. Torture is illegal under American and international law, and by actively planning the torture of prisoners, it seems the Administration's top leaders have opened themselves up to war-crimes charges.
It remains to be seen whether anything will be done about it.
The Enemies Within
As horrifying as it sounds, it now seems that American women working in Iraq are at greater risk from their fellow Americans than they are from any Iraqis. Over the past few months, numerous women working for former Halliburton subsidiary KBR have come forward to say they were raped by American soldiers and/or their own colleagues.
Their cries for help went unanswered. When they reported the crimes to their supervisors, they were ignored and even threatened with retaliation. When they reported the crimes to the Army, they were told it wasn't their problem. When they reported the crimes to the Justice Department, prosecutors refused to take action.
Yesterday, two rape victims testified before the Senate, telling how they were attacked by the men whom they thought were friends and colleagues, and then victimized again by the people to whom they turned for help.
Mary Beth Kineston said that after she was raped, her KBR supervisors basically blew her off, and the US Army JAG officer told her that civilians were on their own. After a second (unsuccessful) assault, she complained more loudly and was fired on trumped-up charges.
After she was attacked, Dawn Leamon feared for her safety and is now suffering from severe post-traumatic stress disorder.
In December, Jamie Leigh Jones came forward to report that she was gang-raped and severely injured by several KBR colleagues in 2005. When she tried reporting it to KBR management, she was locked up and put under armed guard with no food, water or medicine. She was able to get out only by begging a guard for a cell phone, which she used to call her father in Texas. Her father called his representative in Congress, who in turn contacted the State Department. Agents were then dispatched from the American Embassy in Baghdad to rescue her.
Let me repeat: American agents were sent to rescue an American rape victim from her American abusers.
Jones spent two fruitless years trying to get her attackers prosecuted before she finally went public.
One of the most sickening stories came from a woman who, while she was being raped by an American soldier, pleaded with a fellow KBR staffer to stop him - whereupon the staffer joined in and attacked her himself.
The many and varied rape cases have been met with reactions from KBR and the Pentagon ranging from indifference to hostility. The general consensus has been to make the problem go away.
Linda Lindsey, a former KBR employee in Iraq, said male supervisors routinely preyed on female workers and the company just didn't care. "We filed complaints against one supervisor, and the complaints disappeared," she said. "The impression you got was that they really didn't want to hear it, because the money was coming in."
Other victims or complainants were told, sometimes explicitly, that bad things would happen to them if they kept on protesting.
KBR doesn't care. The Pentagon doesn't care. The Justice Department doesn't care.
Will these women ever get justice?
Their cries for help went unanswered. When they reported the crimes to their supervisors, they were ignored and even threatened with retaliation. When they reported the crimes to the Army, they were told it wasn't their problem. When they reported the crimes to the Justice Department, prosecutors refused to take action.
Yesterday, two rape victims testified before the Senate, telling how they were attacked by the men whom they thought were friends and colleagues, and then victimized again by the people to whom they turned for help.
Mary Beth Kineston said that after she was raped, her KBR supervisors basically blew her off, and the US Army JAG officer told her that civilians were on their own. After a second (unsuccessful) assault, she complained more loudly and was fired on trumped-up charges.
After she was attacked, Dawn Leamon feared for her safety and is now suffering from severe post-traumatic stress disorder.
In December, Jamie Leigh Jones came forward to report that she was gang-raped and severely injured by several KBR colleagues in 2005. When she tried reporting it to KBR management, she was locked up and put under armed guard with no food, water or medicine. She was able to get out only by begging a guard for a cell phone, which she used to call her father in Texas. Her father called his representative in Congress, who in turn contacted the State Department. Agents were then dispatched from the American Embassy in Baghdad to rescue her.
Let me repeat: American agents were sent to rescue an American rape victim from her American abusers.
Jones spent two fruitless years trying to get her attackers prosecuted before she finally went public.
One of the most sickening stories came from a woman who, while she was being raped by an American soldier, pleaded with a fellow KBR staffer to stop him - whereupon the staffer joined in and attacked her himself.
The many and varied rape cases have been met with reactions from KBR and the Pentagon ranging from indifference to hostility. The general consensus has been to make the problem go away.
Linda Lindsey, a former KBR employee in Iraq, said male supervisors routinely preyed on female workers and the company just didn't care. "We filed complaints against one supervisor, and the complaints disappeared," she said. "The impression you got was that they really didn't want to hear it, because the money was coming in."
Other victims or complainants were told, sometimes explicitly, that bad things would happen to them if they kept on protesting.
KBR doesn't care. The Pentagon doesn't care. The Justice Department doesn't care.
Will these women ever get justice?
4/09/2008
Stay the Course, No Matter What
When President Bush ignored the advice of just about every active-duty and retired military officer in America and ordered the Surge™ in January 2007, he tapped General David Petraeus to carry it out. Of course, Petraeus knew what answers to give, as he had already seen what happened to uniformed officers who dared disagree with the Decider.
As the Surge™ took place, the predictions came true. Some reduction in violence in that war-torn country did occur (and then started climbing again) but the stated objective of the Surge™ - giving the largely ineffective Iraqi government breathing room to achieve some form of political consensus - mostly failed. And so now, more than a year after Bush hitched up his six-guns and ordered more Americans into the meat grinder that is Iraq, Petraeus went before Congress to report on the progress of a military maneuver that nobody in the military wanted.
To no one's surprise, their testimony revolved around a number of GOP talking points:
As planned, the war hawks seized on Petraeus' comments to beat the drums for war with Iran, preferably right now. Senator John McCain continued his tradition of being unable to tell Shi'ite Muslim from Sunni Muslim, claiming that the militantly Sunni al Qaeda is supported by the equally militantly Shi'ite Iran. And Petraeus was once again hailed as the Savior of All Things Good and Wonderful.
Of course, the people who proclaimed that Petraeus walks on water studiously ignored his act of once again kicking the Iraq can down the road. Indeed, his claim that the future of Iraq would be decided in the next six months was instantly and widely ridiculed by those who pointed out that the Iraq War has been a continual series of six-month increments. Each time, we were told this latest interval would win the war. And each time, when one "Friedman Unit" ran out another one started in its place without pause.
So the Petraeus testimony, just another redress of "stay the course," can be summed up thusly: no, we're not getting out of Iraq any time soon. In fact, we have no idea when - or even if - we'll leave. There is no real way of telling when we can withdraw, and anyone who says otherwise is a delusional soul who wants Iran to take over.
With Bush still in office and McCain essentially running for Bush's third term, there is simply no way out.
As the Surge™ took place, the predictions came true. Some reduction in violence in that war-torn country did occur (and then started climbing again) but the stated objective of the Surge™ - giving the largely ineffective Iraqi government breathing room to achieve some form of political consensus - mostly failed. And so now, more than a year after Bush hitched up his six-guns and ordered more Americans into the meat grinder that is Iraq, Petraeus went before Congress to report on the progress of a military maneuver that nobody in the military wanted.
To no one's surprise, their testimony revolved around a number of GOP talking points:
- American troops will stay in Iraq indefinitely, fighting and dying with no time-frame for pulling out.
- Whatever the question is, the correct answer is to stay the course.
- The continued American occupation of Iraq is not unconditional, but there are no conditions by which we will withdraw.
- The new Worst Enemy Ever is Iran, which is guilty of "nefarious activities" and "malign...influence" in Iraq.
- Any discussion of withdrawing from Iraq should be put off for another six months or so.
As planned, the war hawks seized on Petraeus' comments to beat the drums for war with Iran, preferably right now. Senator John McCain continued his tradition of being unable to tell Shi'ite Muslim from Sunni Muslim, claiming that the militantly Sunni al Qaeda is supported by the equally militantly Shi'ite Iran. And Petraeus was once again hailed as the Savior of All Things Good and Wonderful.
Of course, the people who proclaimed that Petraeus walks on water studiously ignored his act of once again kicking the Iraq can down the road. Indeed, his claim that the future of Iraq would be decided in the next six months was instantly and widely ridiculed by those who pointed out that the Iraq War has been a continual series of six-month increments. Each time, we were told this latest interval would win the war. And each time, when one "Friedman Unit" ran out another one started in its place without pause.
So the Petraeus testimony, just another redress of "stay the course," can be summed up thusly: no, we're not getting out of Iraq any time soon. In fact, we have no idea when - or even if - we'll leave. There is no real way of telling when we can withdraw, and anyone who says otherwise is a delusional soul who wants Iran to take over.
With Bush still in office and McCain essentially running for Bush's third term, there is simply no way out.
4/08/2008
The Godless Walk Among Us
"[Atheism is] dangerous to the progression of this state. And it's dangerous for our children to even know that your philosophy exists!... I am fed up! Get out of that seat! You have no right to be here! We believe in something. You believe in destroying! You believe in destroying what this state was built upon."
Illinois state representative Monique Davis hysterically attacking atheist activist Rob Sherman for opposing a state grant to preserve a historic church
4/04/2008
Godwin's Law Strikes Again
Mike Godwin mused back in 1990 that "as a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." This has come to be known as Godwin's Law, and is usually invoked whenever someone dredges up such a comparison for purely overheated rhetorical purposes.
Well, it's back - Ann Coulter, that shrieking blonde bomb-thrower, has done it again. Evidently, whenever she needs a little more money for bile injections, she says something guaranteed to cause a ruckus and get her on the boob tube. And so it is with her latest column, tastefully titled "Obama's Dime-Store Mein Kampf," in which she calls Barack Obama (or "B. Hussein Obama," as she calls him in an appeal to mindless prejudice) "a flabbergasting lunatic" and "stark bonkersville."
Was she looking in the mirror when she wrote this?
As it happens, she doesn't actually say much in this latest screed. It's really just a semi-psychotic stream-of-consciousness rant about how Obama is secretly an Angry Black Man who hates all white people, throwing in a wholly gratuitous Hitler reference for good measure. She is evidently mistaking real life for that classic Saturday Night Live sketch from 1976 in which Garrett Morris sings "I'm gonna get me a shotgun and kill all the whities I see."
Morris was making a joke. Coulter is serious - or at least as serious as such a transparently publicity-hungry cartoon character can possibly be.
It's something of a blessing that more and more newspapers have caught on to her self-aggrandizing antics and have dropped her column. She did, however, get her obligatory Fox News appearance out of it, calling Obama "an absolute racialist."
Oliver Wendell Holmes, who sat on the Supreme Court in the early 20th century, memorably said that "if there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other it is the principle of free thought - not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate." Meaning that Coulter is free to spew her bile wherever and whenever she pleases.
Of course, that also means the rest of us are equally free to point out that she's a hateful, bigoted loon.
Well, it's back - Ann Coulter, that shrieking blonde bomb-thrower, has done it again. Evidently, whenever she needs a little more money for bile injections, she says something guaranteed to cause a ruckus and get her on the boob tube. And so it is with her latest column, tastefully titled "Obama's Dime-Store Mein Kampf," in which she calls Barack Obama (or "B. Hussein Obama," as she calls him in an appeal to mindless prejudice) "a flabbergasting lunatic" and "stark bonkersville."
Was she looking in the mirror when she wrote this?
As it happens, she doesn't actually say much in this latest screed. It's really just a semi-psychotic stream-of-consciousness rant about how Obama is secretly an Angry Black Man who hates all white people, throwing in a wholly gratuitous Hitler reference for good measure. She is evidently mistaking real life for that classic Saturday Night Live sketch from 1976 in which Garrett Morris sings "I'm gonna get me a shotgun and kill all the whities I see."
Morris was making a joke. Coulter is serious - or at least as serious as such a transparently publicity-hungry cartoon character can possibly be.
It's something of a blessing that more and more newspapers have caught on to her self-aggrandizing antics and have dropped her column. She did, however, get her obligatory Fox News appearance out of it, calling Obama "an absolute racialist."
Oliver Wendell Holmes, who sat on the Supreme Court in the early 20th century, memorably said that "if there is any principle of the Constitution that more imperatively calls for attachment than any other it is the principle of free thought - not free thought for those who agree with us but freedom for the thought that we hate." Meaning that Coulter is free to spew her bile wherever and whenever she pleases.
Of course, that also means the rest of us are equally free to point out that she's a hateful, bigoted loon.
Go Be Sick Somewhere Else
Even with all the politicization and advantage-taking of 9/11 that has taken place ever since the towers collapsed, you'd think that some things would be beyond the pale. Not according to Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Naturally) of California. On Tuesday, during a Congressional hearing on the health problems faced by rescue workers at the World Trade Center site, he put forth this nugget of wisdom:
"I have to ask, why damages from a fire that had no dirty bomb in it, it had no chemical munitions in it, it simply was an aircraft, residue of two aircraft, and residue from the materials used to build this building, why the firefighters who went there and everybody in the City of New York needs to come to the federal government for the dollars versus this being primarily a state consideration."
In other words, go be sick somewhere else.
Yes, all the firefighters, paramedics and others who rushed to the WTC can beg the state government in Albany for money to fix their health problems. Not my problem. The federal government's claim to 9/11 is limited to political bashing, raw exploitation and using it to launch unrelated wars. People who were actually hurt by the attacks are out of luck.
Issa was promptly hammered by both Democrats and Republicans for his callousness, and rightly so. But he has refused to apologize, instead issuing a rather limp statement claiming he "continues to support federal assistance for the victims of the 9/11 terrorist attacks."
Unless, of course, you're a rescue worker.
Idiot.
"I have to ask, why damages from a fire that had no dirty bomb in it, it had no chemical munitions in it, it simply was an aircraft, residue of two aircraft, and residue from the materials used to build this building, why the firefighters who went there and everybody in the City of New York needs to come to the federal government for the dollars versus this being primarily a state consideration."
In other words, go be sick somewhere else.
Yes, all the firefighters, paramedics and others who rushed to the WTC can beg the state government in Albany for money to fix their health problems. Not my problem. The federal government's claim to 9/11 is limited to political bashing, raw exploitation and using it to launch unrelated wars. People who were actually hurt by the attacks are out of luck.
Issa was promptly hammered by both Democrats and Republicans for his callousness, and rightly so. But he has refused to apologize, instead issuing a rather limp statement claiming he "continues to support federal assistance for the victims of the 9/11 terrorist attacks."
Unless, of course, you're a rescue worker.
Idiot.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)