Adam Mordecai on Iraq and VP Speculation
Adam Mordecai has some really good commentary at his Change For America blog today.
The first is "Why Rumsfeld Must Go (Reason 4593 )" which is related to the Army's recent calling forth of 5600 soldiers in the Individual Ready Reserve. Adam considers the topic of unilateralism in Iraq and discusses why he believes (as I believe) it never has and is never going to work.
In another post, Adam tosses around and rips apart the Drudge headline-du-jour (a la CAPS) about 'Hillary-as-VP' speculation.
I was amused the title of Adam's post about the failure of the fine folks of Missouri to wholeheartedly support Dick Gephardt as VP candidate ("Mommy Doesn't Love Me").
Internet muse.
Daring, bold, never sold.
My daily weblog of politics, humor, philosophy...and a constant and nagging reminder of the existence of universal love....
Wednesday, June 30, 2004
"OUTFOXED"-New Documentary Takes on FOX Distortions
OUTFOXED: New Documentary Takes On FOX Distortions
I've been waiting for a documentary like this to be made...and here it is!
Sign up to host or attend a MoveOn.org house party on July 18th to see this new documentary.
For years, Fox News has been distorting the facts, covering for President Bush, and bashing groups like MoveOn. Now "Uncovered" director Robert Greenwald -- working with a group of Fox-monitoring MoveOn members -- has put together a documentary film that exposes Fox for what it is: partisan spin, not news.
We're using this movie to launch an organizing campaign with Common Cause and other great groups to "out" Fox News -- making sure everyone in the country knows the network is stumping for the Republican agenda.
Be among the first to see this new movie, help others see it, and take on Fox by hosting an Outfoxed house party on Sunday evening, July 18th. Sign up at:
http://action.moveon.org/outfoxed/newmeeting.html
On Sunday, July 18th, we'll get together to see the compelling evidence of Fox's partisanship presented in the Outfoxed film. Then we'll all join an interactive coast-to-coast conference call with Al Franken and director Robert Greenwald, to plan out how we'll take on Fox and take back our media.
I've been waiting for a documentary like this to be made...and here it is!
Sign up to host or attend a MoveOn.org house party on July 18th to see this new documentary.
For years, Fox News has been distorting the facts, covering for President Bush, and bashing groups like MoveOn. Now "Uncovered" director Robert Greenwald -- working with a group of Fox-monitoring MoveOn members -- has put together a documentary film that exposes Fox for what it is: partisan spin, not news.
We're using this movie to launch an organizing campaign with Common Cause and other great groups to "out" Fox News -- making sure everyone in the country knows the network is stumping for the Republican agenda.
Be among the first to see this new movie, help others see it, and take on Fox by hosting an Outfoxed house party on Sunday evening, July 18th. Sign up at:
http://action.moveon.org/outfoxed/newmeeting.html
On Sunday, July 18th, we'll get together to see the compelling evidence of Fox's partisanship presented in the Outfoxed film. Then we'll all join an interactive coast-to-coast conference call with Al Franken and director Robert Greenwald, to plan out how we'll take on Fox and take back our media.
No excuse for deer-in-headlights Bush 9/11
No excuse for deer-in-the-headlights Bush on 9/11
Fahrenheit 9/11 shows us what all the misleading advertising in the world couldn't cover up: When faced with a real emergency, George W. Bush, with nobody to tell him what to say or how to act, simply froze. For almost seven minutes on September 11, America was paying a $400,000 yearly salary to an ice sculpture. I dare any pundit, any handler, anybody who supports this loser to explain this away.
The Angry Liberal has written an outstanding piece comparing and contrasting Bush's seven stunned minutes of dazed inaction and confused indecisiveness on the morning of 9/11 with "the Stillson moment" from the movie (and book) The Dead Zone.
Fahrenheit 9/11 shows us what all the misleading advertising in the world couldn't cover up: When faced with a real emergency, George W. Bush, with nobody to tell him what to say or how to act, simply froze. For almost seven minutes on September 11, America was paying a $400,000 yearly salary to an ice sculpture. I dare any pundit, any handler, anybody who supports this loser to explain this away.
The Angry Liberal has written an outstanding piece comparing and contrasting Bush's seven stunned minutes of dazed inaction and confused indecisiveness on the morning of 9/11 with "the Stillson moment" from the movie (and book) The Dead Zone.
Social Science, the Media, and 9/11
Social Science, Reuters, and 9/11
The identification of persistent patterns in the semantic structures of different sources, which are typically beyond the scope of individual observation, opens the way for a new understanding of the manner in which we are affected by institutions that surround us in our daily lives.
This particular study was conducted by a panel of social scientists utilizing CRA (a bundle of techniques which transforms the structure of natural occurring text into a semantic). The patterns used stemmed from actual Reuters news tickers from the period between 9/11 and November 15, 2001. I found it to be fascinating.
The study claims:
Many factors affect how news is produced and which of these reach a final audience; governments have to present themselves in favorable ways to maintain trust and confidence in their effectiveness. This is especially true in times of crisis (such as 9/11). Timing and coordinated presentation are one of the ways to achieve this, and non-disclosure and classification of certain information are another. News companies are intermediaries that collect and disseminate information to clients and customers. These organizations are by no means completely objective and do not just simply provide the facts. Maintaining successful customer relationships also means the need for news organizations to adapt to customer preferences; certain news stories might be less desirable than others while yet other slants may be more preferred or easier to communicate. Mass communication cannot be expected to be independent of what people like to hear and what editors (or owners) want to present.
Especially in times of significant events like September 11, news reports can be expected to reflect a complicated mixture of many influences. Until now empirical social science has had difficulty coping with the complexities of mass communication. The sheer amount of information transmitted in today?s system of mass communications has until very recently been completely out of reach of the analytical abilities of most social scientists. Modern computers, powerful analytical tools, advances in network analysis and recent developments in visualization techniques together with advances in applications of natural language computing technology, like CRA, promise to change all this.
I found it interesting that, given the foreign policy implications of 9/11, the data suggested that Colin Powell has played less of a role then might be expected given his formal status as the President's chief foreign policy advisor and that Rumsfeld played more of a role than might be expected given his formal status as Secretary of Defense, at least as depicted in Reuters news tickers over the period analyzed. What that means in terms of the workings of the White House inner circle is still open to interpretation. However, this does stand in stark contrast to earlier administrations and U.S. military interventions where, for example, Secretary of State Albright in the former Clinton Administration spearheaded the war in Kosovo.
Given the fact that Colin Powell does not plan to return as Bush's Secretary of State (should Bush be re-elected), I believe this scientific information may lead us to a further understanding of some of his reasons and help us to interpret the White House role.
The identification of persistent patterns in the semantic structures of different sources, which are typically beyond the scope of individual observation, opens the way for a new understanding of the manner in which we are affected by institutions that surround us in our daily lives.
This particular study was conducted by a panel of social scientists utilizing CRA (a bundle of techniques which transforms the structure of natural occurring text into a semantic). The patterns used stemmed from actual Reuters news tickers from the period between 9/11 and November 15, 2001. I found it to be fascinating.
The study claims:
Many factors affect how news is produced and which of these reach a final audience; governments have to present themselves in favorable ways to maintain trust and confidence in their effectiveness. This is especially true in times of crisis (such as 9/11). Timing and coordinated presentation are one of the ways to achieve this, and non-disclosure and classification of certain information are another. News companies are intermediaries that collect and disseminate information to clients and customers. These organizations are by no means completely objective and do not just simply provide the facts. Maintaining successful customer relationships also means the need for news organizations to adapt to customer preferences; certain news stories might be less desirable than others while yet other slants may be more preferred or easier to communicate. Mass communication cannot be expected to be independent of what people like to hear and what editors (or owners) want to present.
Especially in times of significant events like September 11, news reports can be expected to reflect a complicated mixture of many influences. Until now empirical social science has had difficulty coping with the complexities of mass communication. The sheer amount of information transmitted in today?s system of mass communications has until very recently been completely out of reach of the analytical abilities of most social scientists. Modern computers, powerful analytical tools, advances in network analysis and recent developments in visualization techniques together with advances in applications of natural language computing technology, like CRA, promise to change all this.
I found it interesting that, given the foreign policy implications of 9/11, the data suggested that Colin Powell has played less of a role then might be expected given his formal status as the President's chief foreign policy advisor and that Rumsfeld played more of a role than might be expected given his formal status as Secretary of Defense, at least as depicted in Reuters news tickers over the period analyzed. What that means in terms of the workings of the White House inner circle is still open to interpretation. However, this does stand in stark contrast to earlier administrations and U.S. military interventions where, for example, Secretary of State Albright in the former Clinton Administration spearheaded the war in Kosovo.
Given the fact that Colin Powell does not plan to return as Bush's Secretary of State (should Bush be re-elected), I believe this scientific information may lead us to a further understanding of some of his reasons and help us to interpret the White House role.
Why I think Dems Will Win in November
Why I think Dems Will Win in November
I read this on today's ABC News Political Note and I wanted to repeat it because I think it's an all-important weight to be considered (to the Democrat's benefit) in predicting November's presidential election outcome:
Nearly every political reporter in America is having the same experience — they keep finding Republicans who say they will never vote again for President Bush (over the war and the deficit, usually) but they have a heck of a time finding anyone who voted for Gore in 2000 who are now certain that they will vote for Bush (and Gore apparently won the popular vote).
I read this on today's ABC News Political Note and I wanted to repeat it because I think it's an all-important weight to be considered (to the Democrat's benefit) in predicting November's presidential election outcome:
Nearly every political reporter in America is having the same experience — they keep finding Republicans who say they will never vote again for President Bush (over the war and the deficit, usually) but they have a heck of a time finding anyone who voted for Gore in 2000 who are now certain that they will vote for Bush (and Gore apparently won the popular vote).
Is it a gift if it creates more terror? Are we safer?
Is it a gift if it creates terror? Are we safer?
"Insurgents are blowing up pipelines and police stations, geysers of sewage are erupting from the streets, and the electricity is off most of the time — but we've given Iraq the gift of supply-side economics."
Paul Krugman, in his latest N.Y. Times column, explains how auditing of the Coaltition Provision Authority's use of Iraqi oil revenues never quite got up to speed before the CPA dissolved. When you combine that with the obvious fact that the U.S. made Iraq a "playground for right-wing economic theorists, an employment agency for friends and family, and a source of lucrative contracts for corporate donors", you can't wonder why good will was never forged with the already-distrusting Iraqi people.
NeoCon Michael Ledeen has publically and proudly said "the level of casualties [in Iraq] is secondary" because "we are a warlike people" and "we love war."
Who are we...or the Iraqi people..to doubt him?
Are we Americans safer for giving the gift of right-wing politics via cronyism and blood to Iraq?
"Insurgents are blowing up pipelines and police stations, geysers of sewage are erupting from the streets, and the electricity is off most of the time — but we've given Iraq the gift of supply-side economics."
Paul Krugman, in his latest N.Y. Times column, explains how auditing of the Coaltition Provision Authority's use of Iraqi oil revenues never quite got up to speed before the CPA dissolved. When you combine that with the obvious fact that the U.S. made Iraq a "playground for right-wing economic theorists, an employment agency for friends and family, and a source of lucrative contracts for corporate donors", you can't wonder why good will was never forged with the already-distrusting Iraqi people.
NeoCon Michael Ledeen has publically and proudly said "the level of casualties [in Iraq] is secondary" because "we are a warlike people" and "we love war."
Who are we...or the Iraqi people..to doubt him?
Are we Americans safer for giving the gift of right-wing politics via cronyism and blood to Iraq?
Tuesday, June 29, 2004
Charlotte NC MoveOn.org-Fahrenheit 9/11 party
Charlotte NC MoveOn.org-Fahrenheit 9/11 party
The fine people of Charlotte, NC were very welcoming to this Central New Yorker last night at one of the 3000+ MoveOn.org-Fahrenheit 9/11 house parties across the nation. It was very well-attended (I took some photos which will I'll post when available).
UPDATE: Photo here:
The party was held at the Evening Muse in the lovely NODA section of Charlotte. It was hosted by manager Lea Pritchard and her fiancee, who was a spirited emcee. I was happy to have had the opportunity to meet Jane Whitley, secretary of the Mecklenburg County Democratic Party and to spend time with the talented blogger Anonymoses.
There were some memorable moments, such as the first hour of the event, where the people in the interesting crowd were given free time to make any comments and suggestions they desired. At about 8pm, the teleconference began. Michael Moore seemed very animated..thrilled to see that his movie was being appreciated by people from many segments of the political spectrum...not just preaching to the "choir". He recalled one woman in a Florida theater in tears after the movie ended. She's witnessed some things she hadn't before seen in the major media. Mr. Moore felt that the mainstream media was culpable for their failure to fully investigate and/or tell the whole story during the lead-up to the Iraq war. Mr. Moore also conjured up the image of a theater crowd in Greensboro NC giving an extended standing ovation to a blank screen long after the final credits had rolled.
By the way, the food at the Charlotte event was outstanding! Thanks to all who contributed their culinary talents.
I am thoroughly enjoying the Anais Mitchell CD I won (for having come the farthest-from Syracuse,NY-to attend the party).
You can hear the audio of Michael Moore's teleconference HERE.
The fine people of Charlotte, NC were very welcoming to this Central New Yorker last night at one of the 3000+ MoveOn.org-Fahrenheit 9/11 house parties across the nation. It was very well-attended (I took some photos which will I'll post when available).
UPDATE: Photo here:
The party was held at the Evening Muse in the lovely NODA section of Charlotte. It was hosted by manager Lea Pritchard and her fiancee, who was a spirited emcee. I was happy to have had the opportunity to meet Jane Whitley, secretary of the Mecklenburg County Democratic Party and to spend time with the talented blogger Anonymoses.
There were some memorable moments, such as the first hour of the event, where the people in the interesting crowd were given free time to make any comments and suggestions they desired. At about 8pm, the teleconference began. Michael Moore seemed very animated..thrilled to see that his movie was being appreciated by people from many segments of the political spectrum...not just preaching to the "choir". He recalled one woman in a Florida theater in tears after the movie ended. She's witnessed some things she hadn't before seen in the major media. Mr. Moore felt that the mainstream media was culpable for their failure to fully investigate and/or tell the whole story during the lead-up to the Iraq war. Mr. Moore also conjured up the image of a theater crowd in Greensboro NC giving an extended standing ovation to a blank screen long after the final credits had rolled.
By the way, the food at the Charlotte event was outstanding! Thanks to all who contributed their culinary talents.
I am thoroughly enjoying the Anais Mitchell CD I won (for having come the farthest-from Syracuse,NY-to attend the party).
You can hear the audio of Michael Moore's teleconference HERE.
Monday, June 28, 2004
Impulsive Bush oversteps diplomatic boundaries
Impulsive Bush oversteps diplomatic boundaries
Jacques Chirac has called Bush out on his bold ignorance, which I believe is par for the course for our overly impulsive President these days. He can't seem to hold his childish tongue for the good sake of necessary diplomacy.
Speaking in Ireland (where he was heartily protested), Bush claimed Turkey "successfully blends a European identity with the Islamic traditions" and should be admitted to the EU.
Everyone knows Bush needs Turkey's assistance with the Iraq problem and will do anything to get it...even if it means opening his mouth in matters where he should keep it shut for the sake of productive diplomacy.
Yesterday, it's said nearly one-hundred thousand people in Turkey spilled into the streets to tell us what they think of our war on Iraq (and what they think of Bush).
Turkey is becoming a terribly troubled democracy because of our decision to enter this unnecessary war.
In the New York Times, the headline reads: "As Bush Confers With NATO, U.S. Is Seen Losing Its Edge".
Bush makes diplomatic gaffe after diplomatic gaffe. Does anyone wonder why there has been resistance from normally friendly allies like Germany, France and Japan and from international organizations long dominated by the U.S.?
Evertime this boob of a President opens his mouth we lose more support and respect from our former trusting (and needed) allies.
We need a leader who can reason intelligently, who can think on his feet, and communicate exactly what he's thinking.
We don't have a leader like that right now.
Heaven help us, we don't.
Jacques Chirac has called Bush out on his bold ignorance, which I believe is par for the course for our overly impulsive President these days. He can't seem to hold his childish tongue for the good sake of necessary diplomacy.
Speaking in Ireland (where he was heartily protested), Bush claimed Turkey "successfully blends a European identity with the Islamic traditions" and should be admitted to the EU.
Everyone knows Bush needs Turkey's assistance with the Iraq problem and will do anything to get it...even if it means opening his mouth in matters where he should keep it shut for the sake of productive diplomacy.
Yesterday, it's said nearly one-hundred thousand people in Turkey spilled into the streets to tell us what they think of our war on Iraq (and what they think of Bush).
Turkey is becoming a terribly troubled democracy because of our decision to enter this unnecessary war.
In the New York Times, the headline reads: "As Bush Confers With NATO, U.S. Is Seen Losing Its Edge".
Bush makes diplomatic gaffe after diplomatic gaffe. Does anyone wonder why there has been resistance from normally friendly allies like Germany, France and Japan and from international organizations long dominated by the U.S.?
Evertime this boob of a President opens his mouth we lose more support and respect from our former trusting (and needed) allies.
We need a leader who can reason intelligently, who can think on his feet, and communicate exactly what he's thinking.
We don't have a leader like that right now.
Heaven help us, we don't.
Bremer Takes Hike-Military Left Behind to Clean Mess
Bremer Takes Hike-Military Left Behind to Clean Mess
..which serves to make today's Iraq news less than joyous..."
What Bush said:
"..the Iraqi people have their country back."
What Bush didn't say:
"At this time, I have no clue what will become of our American troops."
..which serves to make today's Iraq news less than joyous..."
What Bush said:
"..the Iraqi people have their country back."
What Bush didn't say:
"At this time, I have no clue what will become of our American troops."
Crybaby whines after baiting Moore moviegoers
Crybaby whines after baiting Moore moviegoers
'Fahrenheit 9/11' is bound to raise plenty of spirited discussion. One fellow decided to confront a crowd who'd just seen one of the most (if not THE most) controversial documentaries in history and forgot that there are consequences and risks whenever you decide to act in this manner. (Perhaps he could have been more smart and effective in going home and writing a letter to his local news editor?) I believe Newsmax is wanting desperately to broadcast anything negative they possibly can about a movie that, despite their own efforts to stop its momentum, has already broken box-office records. I imagine that is why Newsmax chose to place the sordid little story about this crybaby (and the impulsive soul who decked him) as one of their major headlines today.
Sour grapes make bad, bad whine.
'Fahrenheit 9/11' is bound to raise plenty of spirited discussion. One fellow decided to confront a crowd who'd just seen one of the most (if not THE most) controversial documentaries in history and forgot that there are consequences and risks whenever you decide to act in this manner. (Perhaps he could have been more smart and effective in going home and writing a letter to his local news editor?) I believe Newsmax is wanting desperately to broadcast anything negative they possibly can about a movie that, despite their own efforts to stop its momentum, has already broken box-office records. I imagine that is why Newsmax chose to place the sordid little story about this crybaby (and the impulsive soul who decked him) as one of their major headlines today.
Sour grapes make bad, bad whine.
Saturday, June 26, 2004
God Captured on Cell-Technology Camera!
God Captured on Cell-Technology Camera!
See the miracle HERE (thanks to BeatWayDown)
I saw "Fahrenheit 9/11" yesterday. It's well worth the eight bucks. I'll review it soon.
I'll also be reviewing the Justin Frank book "Bush on the Couch" soon.
I'll be off a couple days.
Have a great weekend.
Jude
See the miracle HERE (thanks to BeatWayDown)
I saw "Fahrenheit 9/11" yesterday. It's well worth the eight bucks. I'll review it soon.
I'll also be reviewing the Justin Frank book "Bush on the Couch" soon.
I'll be off a couple days.
Have a great weekend.
Jude
Friday, June 25, 2004
Wolfowitz should talk!
Wolfowitz should talk!
"Frankly, part of our problem is a lot of the press are afraid to travel very much, so they sit in Baghdad and they publish rumors..And rumors are plentiful."
Paul Wolfowitz
Paul Wolfowitz is a fine one to talk about cowards who avoid dangers while allowing rumor to run rampant. He is the chickenhawk who sat behind a desk (along with men like Douglas Feith) and created the best rumor-scenarios to make the American public ready to accept an unnecessary pre-emptive invasion.
"Frankly, part of our problem is a lot of the press are afraid to travel very much, so they sit in Baghdad and they publish rumors..And rumors are plentiful."
Paul Wolfowitz
Paul Wolfowitz is a fine one to talk about cowards who avoid dangers while allowing rumor to run rampant. He is the chickenhawk who sat behind a desk (along with men like Douglas Feith) and created the best rumor-scenarios to make the American public ready to accept an unnecessary pre-emptive invasion.
Thursday, June 24, 2004
Cheney to Leahy-"F*** off!"
Cheney to Leahy-
"F*** off!"
Who did it, you ask?
No-it wasn't Col. M...
Dick Cheney did it----on the Senate Floor---with the potty mouth.
[LINK]
~~~~~~
See David Corn's commentary--"Why is Cheney So F***in’ Uptight?"
~~~~~~
Are some people shocked?
*My opinion- For all his talk about the need for civility, I was never fooled by Cheney. I've often perceived a sense of defensive hostility while watching his facial expressions and body language during press interviews.*
"We are SURE we will hear that Leahy started it first, and all kinds of rationalizations like that, from the folks who so bitterly went after Kerry for his language. That's because there are few principles in politics anymore --"
The Moderate Voice
"F*** off!"
Who did it, you ask?
No-it wasn't Col. M...
Dick Cheney did it----on the Senate Floor---with the potty mouth.
[LINK]
~~~~~~
See David Corn's commentary--"Why is Cheney So F***in’ Uptight?"
~~~~~~
Are some people shocked?
*My opinion- For all his talk about the need for civility, I was never fooled by Cheney. I've often perceived a sense of defensive hostility while watching his facial expressions and body language during press interviews.*
"We are SURE we will hear that Leahy started it first, and all kinds of rationalizations like that, from the folks who so bitterly went after Kerry for his language. That's because there are few principles in politics anymore --"
The Moderate Voice
Bill Clinton on Charlie Rose Show (listen)
Bill Clinton on Charlie Rose Show (listen)
Go here to listen to Bill Clinton on Charlie Rose June 23
Go here to listen to Bill Clinton on Charlie Rose June 23
Wednesday, June 23, 2004
Stephen Hayes on Jon Stewart
Stephen Hayes on Jon Stewart
I saw Jon Stewart tear Stephen Hayes' credibility to shreds during his interview with Hayes on the Daily Show the other night. I wish I'd recorded it so I could give you the details. I found this at Protestant Polyglot (I hope he won't mind me posting it in its entirety):
Jon Stewart has Stephen Hayes on the Daily Show right now, interviewing him about his apology for the war on Iraq, The Connection: How al Qaeda’s Collaboration with Saddam Hussein Has Endangered America. Hayes was going on about how reasonable the Bush doctrine is, because Iraq was a serious threat to America. Jon Stewart came out with one of the most cutting remarks I’ve ever heard him make:
That’s not the point. Here’s the point. I’ll name you four things. Developing weapons of mass destruction, inflamatory rhetoric against the United States, harboring terrorists, and uh…uh…oppressing their own people. You can’t name that country. You have no idea what country I just described.
Who needs network news when there’s the Daily Show?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
See my past comments about Stephen Hayes and Douglas Feith HERE.
See the discussion of the show at Daily Kos.
I saw Jon Stewart tear Stephen Hayes' credibility to shreds during his interview with Hayes on the Daily Show the other night. I wish I'd recorded it so I could give you the details. I found this at Protestant Polyglot (I hope he won't mind me posting it in its entirety):
Jon Stewart has Stephen Hayes on the Daily Show right now, interviewing him about his apology for the war on Iraq, The Connection: How al Qaeda’s Collaboration with Saddam Hussein Has Endangered America. Hayes was going on about how reasonable the Bush doctrine is, because Iraq was a serious threat to America. Jon Stewart came out with one of the most cutting remarks I’ve ever heard him make:
That’s not the point. Here’s the point. I’ll name you four things. Developing weapons of mass destruction, inflamatory rhetoric against the United States, harboring terrorists, and uh…uh…oppressing their own people. You can’t name that country. You have no idea what country I just described.
Who needs network news when there’s the Daily Show?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
See my past comments about Stephen Hayes and Douglas Feith HERE.
See the discussion of the show at Daily Kos.
Kos Quote on Beheading
Kos Quote on Beheading
"Bush's failures on terrorism make me physically sick, literally. Now, when I think of "Bush's War on Terror", I associate it with "beheading". And I really, really wish it hadn't come down to that."
Read the entire thread:
[LINK]
"Bush's failures on terrorism make me physically sick, literally. Now, when I think of "Bush's War on Terror", I associate it with "beheading". And I really, really wish it hadn't come down to that."
Read the entire thread:
[LINK]
Tuesday, June 22, 2004
Headlines at Iddybud June 22
Headlines at Iddybud June 22
David Brooks: The Importance of Religion in Politics
Bush and Rumsfeld Torture Involvement Questioned
Here's Bill O'Reilly's Final Solution
Kim Sun-il
The New Republic: The New Rationalizations to Support Iraq War
..because the old ones didn't pan out.
Hitchens tries too hard to call Moore a liar
"Fahrenheit 9/11" MPAA Rating Appeal- Mario Cuomo A No-Go
My Condolences go out to Jimmy Breslin for the loss of his daughter Rosemary
David Brooks: The Importance of Religion in Politics
Bush and Rumsfeld Torture Involvement Questioned
Here's Bill O'Reilly's Final Solution
Kim Sun-il
The New Republic: The New Rationalizations to Support Iraq War
..because the old ones didn't pan out.
Hitchens tries too hard to call Moore a liar
"Fahrenheit 9/11" MPAA Rating Appeal- Mario Cuomo A No-Go
My Condolences go out to Jimmy Breslin for the loss of his daughter Rosemary
Bush and Rumsfeld Torture Involvement Questioned
Bush and Rumsfeld Torture Involvement Questioned
President Bush claimed the right to waive anti-torture laws and treaties covering prisoners of war after the invasion of Afghanistan, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld authorized guards to strip detainees and threaten them with dogs, according to documents released Tuesday.
Among the techniques that Rumsfeld approved on Dec. 2, 2002, in addition to grabbing, yelling and 'stress positions':
- Use of 20-hour interrogations.
- Removal of all comfort items, including religious items.
- Removal of clothing.
- Using detainees' "individual phobias such as fear of dogs to induce stress."
In a Jan. 15, 2003, note, Rumsfeld rescinded his approval of some of these recommendations and said a review would be conducted to consider legal, policy and operational issues relating to interrogations of detainees held by the U.S. military in the war on terrorism. Rumsfeld's decision was prompted at least in part by objections raised by some military lawyers who felt that the techniques might go too far, officials said earlier this year.
In Bush's case, Justice Department senior officials said that the 50-page "torture" memo issued to the White House on Aug. 1, 2002,(the one that appeared to justify the use of torture in the war on terror and argued that the president's wartime powers superseded anti-torture laws and treaties) would be repudiated and replaced.
See my headline from Saturday regarding Bush's highly questionable power-grab in regard to the torture memo.
The memo, signed by former Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee, included lengthy sections that appeared to justify use of torture in the war on terrorism and it contended that U.S. personnel could be immune from prosecution for torture. The memo also argued that the president's powers as commander in chief allow him to override U.S. laws and international treaties banning torture.
Thanks to Yahoo News/AP for use of parts of this article to relay this information to you.
President Bush claimed the right to waive anti-torture laws and treaties covering prisoners of war after the invasion of Afghanistan, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld authorized guards to strip detainees and threaten them with dogs, according to documents released Tuesday.
Among the techniques that Rumsfeld approved on Dec. 2, 2002, in addition to grabbing, yelling and 'stress positions':
- Use of 20-hour interrogations.
- Removal of all comfort items, including religious items.
- Removal of clothing.
- Using detainees' "individual phobias such as fear of dogs to induce stress."
In a Jan. 15, 2003, note, Rumsfeld rescinded his approval of some of these recommendations and said a review would be conducted to consider legal, policy and operational issues relating to interrogations of detainees held by the U.S. military in the war on terrorism. Rumsfeld's decision was prompted at least in part by objections raised by some military lawyers who felt that the techniques might go too far, officials said earlier this year.
In Bush's case, Justice Department senior officials said that the 50-page "torture" memo issued to the White House on Aug. 1, 2002,(the one that appeared to justify the use of torture in the war on terror and argued that the president's wartime powers superseded anti-torture laws and treaties) would be repudiated and replaced.
See my headline from Saturday regarding Bush's highly questionable power-grab in regard to the torture memo.
The memo, signed by former Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee, included lengthy sections that appeared to justify use of torture in the war on terrorism and it contended that U.S. personnel could be immune from prosecution for torture. The memo also argued that the president's powers as commander in chief allow him to override U.S. laws and international treaties banning torture.
Thanks to Yahoo News/AP for use of parts of this article to relay this information to you.
"Fahrenheit 9/11"Appeal-Mario Cuomo A No-Go
"Fahrenheit 9/11" Appeal-Mario Cuomo A No-Go
Lions Gate Films president Tom Ortenberg (whose company is distributing "Fahrenheit 9/11" with IFC Films and Miramax co-chairmen Bob and Harvey Weinstein's Fellowship Adventure Group) will appeal for a PG-13 rating instead of the R that the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) has awarded "Fahrenheit 9/11" for its "violent and disturbing images and for language"......but he'll have to appear without Mario Cuomo. The MPAA has made a decision to prevent Mr. Cuomo from arguing the appeal in person.
Why are they getting an "R' rating? Because an American soldier says the word motherf*****(more than once) and several graphic images of victims of war and abusive behavior by some of our troops appear in the film.
If you think about it, with Bush's raging war in Iraq and its images that cross our paths on cable news and the internet (human cold-blood slaughter and people begging for their lives), real life these days should be rated "XXXX", anyhow. (Even without Howard Stern on Clear Channel stations).
~~~~~~~~~~
UPDATE: Moore lost the appeal. Moore urged younger teenagers to go see the film anyway. "I encourage all teenagers to come see my movie, by any means necessary. If you need me to sneak you in, let me know," he said.
Lions Gate Films president Tom Ortenberg (whose company is distributing "Fahrenheit 9/11" with IFC Films and Miramax co-chairmen Bob and Harvey Weinstein's Fellowship Adventure Group) will appeal for a PG-13 rating instead of the R that the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) has awarded "Fahrenheit 9/11" for its "violent and disturbing images and for language"......but he'll have to appear without Mario Cuomo. The MPAA has made a decision to prevent Mr. Cuomo from arguing the appeal in person.
Why are they getting an "R' rating? Because an American soldier says the word motherf*****(more than once) and several graphic images of victims of war and abusive behavior by some of our troops appear in the film.
If you think about it, with Bush's raging war in Iraq and its images that cross our paths on cable news and the internet (human cold-blood slaughter and people begging for their lives), real life these days should be rated "XXXX", anyhow. (Even without Howard Stern on Clear Channel stations).
~~~~~~~~~~
UPDATE: Moore lost the appeal. Moore urged younger teenagers to go see the film anyway. "I encourage all teenagers to come see my movie, by any means necessary. If you need me to sneak you in, let me know," he said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)