| |
 |
Thursday, June 21, 2007 |
The Right Wing Domination of Talk Radio and How to End It. The Center for American Progress and Free Press today released the first-ever statistical analysis of the political make-up of talk radio in the United States. It confirms that talk radio, one of the most widely used media formats in America, is dominated almost exclusively by conservatives. [t r u t h o u t]
8:00:39 AM 
|
|
Peter Mehlman: At least they didn't mean well.....
Boy, America has had a lot of shitty presidents. Just take a stroll down repressed memory land and look at that police line-up from November 22, 1963 through January 1992. Ford may come out looking the best of the bunch and he was widely acknowledged to be unable to walk and chew gum. (Wisely, his advisors encouraged him to sit while chewing).
And really, Clinton could have been a lot better too.
So now we're six and a half years into Bush and everyone from Helen Thomas on down is declaring him the worst president ever. What no one is saying is the one overarching reason he's the worst: the Bush administration is the first that doesn't even mean well.
With the possible exception of immigration reform - and who knows what grotesque financial incentive underlies that -- try to pinpoint even one policy motivated by the desire to lessen human suffering, to improve the life of citizens. Nothing. There is nothing.
As much as Democrats loathed Nixon, there was no denying he had some noble goals. He tried for universal health care and... I'm pretty sure there were other things.
As much as Republicans loathed Clinton, they had to know he cared about people. Amazing how his "I feel your pain" quality became such a disdainful joke. That sounds like a good quality in a president.
Even with the low poll numbers, liberals still feel stymied in conveying just how bad this administration is. It's been the ultimate frustration to consider the people who don't see Bush's malevolence: In 2004, rural America cited national security as their number one reason for voting for Bush. But people in the major cities, where there's actually a chance of being victimized by terrorism, people voted against Bush. Frustrating. In the cities, where most people are utterly at two with nature, people cited Bush's raping of the environment as a major reason to vote against him. In rural America, where people fish and hunt and generally do things outside, they voted for Bush. Sooooo frustrating. On Sutton Place and in Harvard-Westlake, , where kids go to college after high school, they vote against Bush. In rural America, from where the majority of tragically killed kids in Iraq soldiers come, they vote for Bush.
You could argue that even the world's worst fascist dictators at least meant well. They honestly thought were doing good things for their countries by suppressing blacks/eliminating Jews/eradicating free enterprise/repressing individual thought/killing off rivals/invading neighbors, etc. Only the Saudi royal family is driven by the same motives as Bush, but they were already entrenched. Bush set a new precedent. He came into office with the attitude of "I'm so tired of the public good. What about my good? What about my rich friends' good?"
How can anyone not see it? It's not that their policies have been misguided or haven't played out right. They. Don't. Even. Mean. Well.
 [The Huffington Post Full Blog Feed]
7:49:17 AM
|
|
Larisa Alexandrovna: FBI gives a helping hand to Osama....
According to newly obtained documents - through FOIA - by the Conservative watchdog, Judicial Watch, eight days after September 11, 2001, "A 727 PLANE LEFT LAX, RYAN FLT #441 TO ORLANDO, FL W/ETA (estimated time of arrival) OF 4-5PM. THE PLANE WAS CHARTERED EITHER BY THE SAUDI ARABIAN ROYAL FAMILY OR OSAMA BIN LADEN...THE LA FBI SEARCHED THE PLANE [REDACTED] LUGGAGE, OF WHICH NOTHING UNUSUAL WAS FOUND."
Furthermore, from the Judicial Watch Web site:
"According to the FBI documents, incredibly not a single Saudi national nor any of the bin Laden family members possessed any information of investigative value.
Moreover, the documents contain numerous errors and inconsistencies which call to question the thoroughness of the FBI's investigation of the Saudi flights. For example, on one document, the FBI claims to have interviewed 20 of 23 passengers on the Ryan International Airlines flight (commonly referred to as the "Bin Laden Family Flight"). On another document, the FBI claims to have interviewed 15 of 22 passengers on the same flight.
"Eight days after the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history, Osama bin Laden possibly charters a flight to whisk his family out of the country, and it's not worth more than a luggage search and a few brief interviews?" asked Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "Clearly these documents prove the FBI conducted a slapdash investigation of these Saudi flights. We'll never know how many investigative leads were lost due to the FBI's lack of diligence."
But my favorite part of this whole FBI OBL farce is as follows: "Incredibly, the FBI had previously redacted Osama bin Laden's name from the records in order "to protect privacy interests.""
Can you say fuck you very much?
At least this might finally explain a nagging problem I have had with the FBI's most wanted poster of OBL, which makes no mention of September 11, 2001 among the crimes OBL is wanted for:
"Usama Bin Laden is wanted in connection with the August 7, 1998, bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. These attacks killed over 200 people. In addition, Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the world."
Who has been fired for these oversights and likely criminal negligence, at best? Anyone? Apparently no one needs to be, seeing as how the US media is busy chasing Paris Hilton in and out of jail. Perhaps the Senate should ask Alberto Gonzales on his next visit to Congress if he may have asked the FBI to back off looking into who authorized these flights, the OBL redaction in the FOIA document, and why the FBI's OBL wanted poster does not appear to be up to date? Did I mention that Judicial Watch is a Conservative watchdog?
While you are holding your breath, you can see the full FOIA files HERE.
 [The Huffington Post Full Blog Feed]
7:21:52 AM
|
|
Linda Milazzo: Democrats Stop Coddling The Children -- Stop Being So Damn Freaking Weak.
Democrats in Congress, this message is for you. There's a reason Republicans call Democrats weak. It's because you damn freaking are.
When Democrats took the majorities of the Senate and the House in November of 2006, your promise to America, your priority (although not why you were elected), was to make Washington a more civil place. You pledged to take the high road and not do to the Republicans what the Republicans did to you. Your goal was to show America just how freaking nice you were, and to change the tone in Washington from bellicose to genteel. What you failed to realize is that America doesn't need you to be nice. America needs you to be strong. You've succeeded at being nice. But not at being strong.
'Nice' to Republicans translates as weak, which is not the perception you need to cultivate. The fact is, when the Republicans were the majority, their absolute dominance over you made you appear weak and them appear strong. And since your governance hasn't altered that dynamic, you still appear weak and they still appear strong.
You have set the wrong priorities. It's not about being civil to Republicans. It's about salvaging the nation and the world that they have destroyed. You won't save the world by being nice to Republicans. They need to be overruled. They need to be constrained. From the uppermost realms of our government, right on down.
To put your 'kindly' memories into their proper perspective, let us reflect on some key events over the last dozen years of your persecution by the Republicans.
* There was that lovely day in May 2003 during Hammer-time, when Majority Leader Delay sent a Homeland Security aircraft to chase down Democrats from the Texas House of Representatives.
* There was that lovely day in July 2003 when Republican Ways and Means Committee Chairman Bill Thomas of California called the Capitol Police to evict Democrats from a committee room.
* There was that lovely day of June 10, 2005 when Republican James Sensenbrenner abruptly shut off the microphones and gaveled to a close the Judiciary Committee Hearing on Patriot Act abuses - in the middle of Democratic testimony.
* There were those lovely times when Democrats held meetings in the basement because Republicans refused to give them space.
* There were the many occasions when Republicans passed legislation at untenable times, in underhanded ways.
For a dozen years the treatment of the Democrats by the Republicans was virulent, suppressive and undemocratic, yet the Republicans were always re-elected. Not being nice cost them nothing. To their fellow Republicans, their petulance was strength.
Leading up to the November '06 election, the Democrats seemed assured of victory. If not in the Senate, at least in the House. Democratic voters hoped the new Democratic majority would give the Republicans a taste of their own medicine. But Speaker Pelosi decided that "Democrats don't get even." Democratic voters wished they did.
The Democrats did win their majority in 2006, but the dynamic in both Houses hasn't changed. The Republicans still act like the majority, and the Democrats continue take it. There are some Democrats who do fight back. Senator Leahy, for one. But there are way too many who do not.
The issue of Impeachment is a perfect example of the Democrats' continued submission and acquiescence to Republican propaganda. "Nothing will get done." "It's just an angry act." This is what Independent Senator Bernie Sanders said of the Republican response to an attempt at Impeachment. He said this in a panel discussion at Monday's Take Back American Conference. Senator Sanders is a wonderful progressive, but he still parrots the Republican platform. They've peddled their deceptions well!
Consider the reverse alternative. Understanding how passionate Republican voters are about strength, and the millions who despise Bush and Cheney, what if Democrats assume a position of strength and brazenly push forward toward Impeachment? In this case, the Democrat and Republican voters can both follow suit, bringing their elected officials along. This is just as likely a scenario.
For all intents and purposes, thanks in good part to the dictates of the Democratic leadership, the Democratic majority still appears weak. Pelosi's mandate for civility, her cowardly "Impeachment is off the table" pronouncement, and the Democrat's natural gentility (not all, but most) make them coddle Republicans rather than lead them. They won't control them. They just indulge them.
A perfect example of this coddling occurs time and again in Congressman Henry Waxman's critically important House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Waxman, in his capacity as Committee Chair, holds frequent hearings to investigate the misdeeds of the Bush Administration and fulfill the House's oversight requirements. The blatant disrespect Waxman receives from Republicans on his Committee is embarrassing. Even more embarrassing is the fact that Waxman allows it to occur.
In every hearing I've seen, Waxman's indulgence of these angry, self-important children makes him seem timid and ineffectual. Behind the scenes and beyond the range of CSpan's cameras, Congressman Waxman's effective researchers are building their cases against government impropriety. But in the lens of the camera, Waxman's failure to control his Committee, presents him to the public as weak.
He must crack his whip publicly and strike back at the buffoons who abuse him!
To we progressives, the Republican babies on Waxman's Committee, and on other Congressional Committees, come off as asses. Their behavior is abhorrently juvenile. To Republicans, who judge from a different perspective, they continue to look strong.
Tom Davis, ranking member of Waxman's Committee, is particularly egregious. His crimson rants of 'what are we doing here?' and 'why are we doing this?' mimic a spoiled child. I have never seen a hearing of the Oversight Committee where Davis didn't impede the process. His red-faced quibbling is pathetic. He'd serve the Committee better if he wiled away in a bar, took a laxative, and resigned!
Like ranking members Specter in the Senate and Sensenbrenner in the House, Davis still sulks over the loss of his Chair. As does every ranking member in Washington.
Point of fact, if the Democrats want to hold on to both Houses and win the presidency in 2008, they had better stop being so fragile. Take the freaking gloves off. Control the children in the chambers. Stop being so damn freaking weak.
 [The Huffington Post Full Blog Feed]
7:15:11 AM
|
|
Source: The Independent
http://comment.independent.co.uk/columnists_a_l/johann_hari/article2611720.ece
Iraq's mercenaries - with a licence to kill
* Johann Hari*
'These private contractors can get away with murder... They aren't
subject to any laws at all'
Published: 04 June 2007
Iraq is rapidly vanishing into the mists of uncollectable, unknowable
news, with information travelling only as far as an Iraqi scream can be
heard. But sometimes, if you peer closely, you can glimpse reality. Last
week, Shia militiamen seized four "security contractors" working for the
Canadian company Gardaworld. Buried in the story of this small horror is
the bigger tale of a vast shift in how Western wars will be fought in
the 21st century if the American right has its way - and one of the
great lost scandals of this war.
These men are not "security contractors", nor are they "civilian
operatives", nor "reconstruction workers". There are now more of them in
Iraq than there are professional soldiers: Britain alone has 21,000 in
the country, raking in $1.6bn a year.
As he scurried out the door in 2004, Paul Bremer - the first US viceroy
to Iraq - issued Order 17, which exempted all mercenaries operating in
the country from having to obey the law. He in effect gave these men a
licence to kill - and they are using it, every day.
Yas Ali Mohammed Yassiri was a peaceful 19-year-old Iraqi trying to get
on with an ordinary life in a deeply unordinary Baghdad when he boarded
a taxi on his street in the Masbah neighbourhood. The mercenaries
guarding the US embassy spokesman in Baghdad drove around the corner, so
Ali's taxi slowed down - but the convoy opened fire anyway, to clear
their path. Ali was hit in the throat and died immediately. Although the
US embassy now admits the convoy "opened fire prematurely", the
mercenaries were merely sent home; they are free, happy men.
This is not a one-off freak. It is virtually an everyday occurrence.
Colonel Thomas Hammed, who was placed in charge of rebuilding the Iraqi
military by Bush, explains, "They [the mercenaries] made enemies
everywhere. I would ride around with Iraqis in beat-up Iraqi trucks,
they were running me off the road. We were threatened and intimidated."
In April 2004, mercenaries working for a private militia named
Blackwater were guarding US occupation headquarters in Najaf when a
protest by Shia Iraqi civilians began to stir outside. According to the
Washington Post and eyewitnesses, Blackwater opened fire on the
protesters, unleashing so many rounds so rapidly they had to pause every
15 minutes to allow their gun barrels to cool down. A video of this
attack made it on to the Web, where a mercenary can be seen describing
the Iraqis they are gunning down as "fuckin' niggers".
The distinguished reporter Jeremy Scahill claims in his new book,
Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army, that
mercenary troops in Iraq are even using "experimental ammunition" that
US forces are forbidden from firing. These bullets, made of "blended
metal", are designed to shatter on impact, creating "untreatable
wounds". One mercenary recently bragged about the ammo's impact when he
shot an Iraqi with it: "It entered his butt and completely destroyed
everything in the lower-left section of his stomach... everything was
torn apart."
Last year, Representative Dennis Kucinich asked Pentagon officials at a
Senate hearing if the US Department of Defence would prosecute a private
contractor who murdered Iraqi civilians. After being told repeatedly,
"Sir, I can't answer that question," Kucinich said: "Wow. Think about
what that means. These private contractors can get away with murder...
They aren't subject to any laws at all."
How did this happen? How did Iraq become flooded with private militia
making a killing? The story begins back in the early 1990s, when Dick
Cheney was secretary of state for defence. He believed Pentagon
"bureaucracy" was mere Big Government and had to be smashed into a
thousand corporate pieces to be made "efficient". Cheney's proposals
continued at a slow pace during the presidency of Bill Clinton, who
brought mercenaries into the Balkans - then went into over-drive when he
was Vice President.
The US right has a slew of reasons to privatise the US military so
rapidly. The most obvious is simple corruption. It funnels money to
companies in which they have a huge stake, and who in turn donate a
fortune to the Republican Party. This is justified in public by a market
fundamentalist conviction that governments can never run anything
properly, so their functions must always be sold off.
But this is a secondary motive. The main limit on an aggressive US
foreign policy today is the limited number of US citizens who are
prepared to kill and die for it. Mercenaries solve the problem: just buy
troops in. The public is far less likely to protest against a war if the
victims are hardened Colombians in it for the cash, rather than their
cousin from Wisconsin who signed up out of patriotism. In mercenary
wars, all citizens are asked to give is money, not blood. The Cheney
model of mercenary warfare being tried out in Iraq is, in fact, a way of
making possible his vision of a 21st century in which wars for resources
will be "necessary" on a "regular basis".
We have been here before. In his Discourses, Niccolo Machiavelli
describes how, in its dying days, the Roman Empire was no longer able to
inspire a large citizen-militia, and increasingly bought armies of
willing foreigners. The result was dissolution, decadence and imperial
collapse. What would the world look like if Cheney's vision of
privatised armies prevailed in this century? There would be far more
wars, far less checked by the rules of war built up after the nightmare
of the 1940s: in other words, more Iraqs.
History also points towards a longer-term danger. Where governments
depend on private armies, they become increasingly their servants,
physically incapable of standing up to them. In the 14th century,
corporations determined the fate of the Hundred Years War, and in lulls
in the fighting would burn down towns that refused to pay for their
protection. The French sovereign was powerless to stop them, because his
own forces were too feeble.
Little more than a century ago, the East India Company ignored the
explicit orders of the British government and attacked Portuguese
garrisons in India, solely to boost its own profit margins. The Empire
relied on private militias, until they slipped off the leash. Phillip
Bobbit, a former advisor to presidents Nixon and Reagan, warns in his
book The Shield of Achilles that as we dissolve back into private
armies, we are setting ourselves up for a repeat of this corporate
dominance over government.
Dick Cheney effectively believes in rule by corporations, rather than
rule by the state, so for him, this is a comforting vision. For the rest
of us, the seizure of British mercenaries in Baghdad provides us with a
glimpse of a future where we are stumbling unwittingly on to corporate
battlefield with no end. The Iraqis are living - and dying - in this
dystopia today.
j.hari@ independent.co.uk
7:12:39 AM
|
|
© Copyright 2007 Patricia Thurston.
|
|
|
|
|
