I have put together a chart comparing Bush approval numbers to the timeline of terror alerts. (Thanks to Stuart Eugene Thiel for the amazing daily graphics that he prepares, comparing the approval ratings from different polls and media sources.) You can see it by clicking in the graphic below:



There are few things that are quite evident from the chart:

- Whenever his ratings dip, there's a new terror alert.

- Every terror alert is followed by a slight uptick of Bush approval ratings.

- Whenever there are many unfavorable headlines, there's another alert or announcement (distraction effect).

- As we approach the 2004 elections, the number and frequency of terror alerts keeps growing, to the point that they collapse in the graphic. At the same time, Bush ratings are lower than ever.

Update: for the record, we are not claiming that all these alerts are politically motivated. We are sure a considerable amount of these alerts were legit and caused by real and immediate information of potential threats. What is important to note is that many of these "immediate" terror alerts were later on discredited (in some cases they used old data, in other cases the announcements were less immediate and less urgent that we were lead to believe, as the press reported.) Those are the cases that could be interpreted as politically motivated, especially when they seemed to coincide with political news and events unfavorable to the administration.

|

Biltud, from Salon.com's TableTalk, posted a few days ago a series of correlations between past terror alerts and political events unfavorable to the Bush administration. I compiled all these correlations and organized them chronologically into a timeline. I also added additional news items and other instances that I found out, detailing the terror alerts over the last few years, and located the original sources for many of these news articles. Soon, Biltud and I started to research together all these occurrences, and more interesting "coincidences" started to appear. We finally built this timeline of terror alerts and how they relate to the news headlines of the days immediately prior to that very alert. I think it's very easy to see a pattern recurring (Text in blue marks the original notes by Biltud. Text and sources in black are my additions):

---

January 10, 2002 - George W. Bush, answering reporters' questions in the Oval Office regarding his close relationship with Ken Lay, head of the controversial Enron, claims that he barely knew him: "I got to know Ken Lay when he was the head of the—what they call the Governor's Business Council in Texas. He was a supporter of Ann Richards in my run in 1994 [italics Chatterbox's]. And she had named him the head of the Governor's Business Council. And I decided to leave him in place, just for the sake of continuity. And that's when I first got to know Ken. …" Source

Many see Bush's answer as less than sincere. Source - Source

February 5, 2002 - Angry lawmakers to subpoena Ken Lay over Enron scandal. Journalists inquire about Lay's close connections to the Bush administration Source

February 12, 2002 - Attorney General John Ashcroft on Tuesday called on "all Americans to be on the highest state of alert" after an FBI warning of a possible imminent terrorist attack. Source

---

May 22, 2002 -- Bush goes on the record as opposing the formation of an independent commission to look into why 9/11 happened.

Mr. Bush's comments come after a two-day hearing on Capitol Hill with FBI director Robert Mueller and the agent who wrote the so-called "Phoenix memo" last summer warning about that Arab students training at U.S. aviation schools were linked to a militant Muslim group. Source - Source

Same day:

The Senate Governmental Affairs Committee votes to issue subpoenas to the Bush administration for information on its contacts with bankrupt energy trader Enron Corp. Source

May 24, 2002 - Railroad and other transit systems across the country received a Transportation Department warning based on "an unconfirmed, uncorroborated report", and were told to "remain in a heightened state of alert". Earlier this week, the government issued warnings about the Statue of Liberty and the Brooklyn Bridge, leading to tightened security at an around those New York City locations. Source

---

June 9, 2002 -- FBI Whistleblower Talks To Congress
Coleen Rowley testifies she had tried to notify her superiors about the suspicious flight students before 9/11. She compared the agency's bureaucracy to the "Little Shop Of Horrors," telling Congress the FBI could have done more to prevent the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Source

June 10, 2002 - Attorney General John Ashcroft conducts an unusual and urgent press conference from Russia. He announces that they had arrested Jose Padilla, the "dirty bomb" suspect had been captured, and transferred to the custody of the DOD from the Justice Department. Source

In the same press conference Ashcroft revealed that the "dirty bomb" suspect had been captured on May 8th and held incognito before the announcement on June 10.

---

September 20, 2002 -- In the wake of damaging Congressional 9/11 inquiry revelations, President Bush reverses course and backs efforts by many lawmakers to form an independent commission to conduct a broader investigation than the current Congressional inquiry.

The White House also refuses to turn over documents showing what Bush knew before 9/11.

September 20, 2002 -- Relatives of 9/11 victims grill the Bush Administration over their reluctance to get to the bottom of it. Source

September 21, 2002 -- The Pentagon completes and delivers to President Bush a highly detailed set of military options for attacking Iraq, said the New York Times, quoting Pentagon and White House officials on Saturday.

The president has options now, and he has not made any decisions," states Ari Fleischer. Source

September 23, 2002 -- Former Vice President Al Gore warns that President Bush's doctrine allowing for a "pre-emptive" strike against Iraq could create a global "reign of fear." Source

September 23, 2002 -- Victory for German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder and his ruling coalition came after a campaign in which he emphasized his strong opposition to a US war with Iraq. Source

September 10-24, 2002 - The attorney general elevates the terror alert. Later on, b Based on a review of intelligence and an assessment of threats by the intelligence community, as well as the passing of the anniversary of the September 11 terrorist attacks and the disruption of potential terrorist operations in the United States and abroad, the Attorney General in consultation with the Homeland Security Council has made the decision to return the threat level to an elevated risk of terrorist attack, or "yellow" level. Source

---

February 6, 2003 -- Powell pleads with the UN Security Council for a first strike against Iraq. Source

February 9, 2003 - Citing credible threats that al Qaeda might be planning attacks on American targets, the U.S. government raised the national color-coded threat level Friday to orange, indicating a "high" risk of a terrorist attack. Source

Note: In what has become since an object of jokes and derision, the Department of Homeland Security urged citizens to stock up on plastic sheets and duct tape "in case of a chemical attack." Source

Note 2: Also keep in mind that they raised the alert level quickly after numerous anti-war organizations declared their intention to march against the plans to invade Iraq. In New York city, where nearly one million citizens voiced their opposition to the war plans, the level was placed in heightened orange alert just on time for the massive demonstrations of February 15, 2003. Source - Source -

Later news reveal that some of the previous terror alerts may have been based in false information. Source

---

May 12, 2003 -- Jay Garner, the retired lieutenant general who was the top civil administrator in Iraq, left his post and other senior officials were also replaced. Source

May 20, 2003 - The United States raises the nation's terror threat level Tuesday, saying the U.S. intelligence community believes al Qaeda has entered an "operational period worldwide" and might attack within the US. Source

---

July 25, 2003 -- After the Bush administration delayed its publication for months, Congress releases its 9/11 findings. The government also deletes 28 pages of the report believed to detail Saudi funding of members of Al Qaeda in the Untied States prior to Sept. 11. Source - Source

July 28, 2003 -- US troops charged with beating Iraqi POWs. Source

Same day - 15 US soldiers die over 8 days in Iraq. Source

July 29 - Department of Homeland Security issues a warning about the possibility of suicide attacks on airplanes. Source

---

August 18, 2003 -- President Bush admits that major combat operations are continuing in Iraq. On May 1, Bush went on national TV to proclaim the end "major combat operations." Source

September 4, 2003 -- Both The New York Times and Vanity Fair start investigating the very damaging allegations that Top White House officials personally approved the evacuation of dozens of influential Saudis, including relatives of Osama bin Laden, from the United States in the days after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks when most flights were still grounded, a former White House adviser said today. Source

September 5, 2003 - A Department of Homeland Security advisory warns that al Qaeda is working on plans to hijack airliners flying between international points that pass near or over the continental United States. Source

---

December 18, 2003 -- 9/11 Chair Thomas Kean says the attacks were preventable. Source

Dec. 19 2003 -- A federal appeals court ruled the government can not detain U.S. citizen Jose Padilla indefinitely without pressing charges against him or allowing him access to the courts. Source

Same day -- The Wall Street Journal reports that auditors at the Pentagon are accusing Halliburton of refusing to hand over internal documents related to allegations that the oil service company overcharged the U.S. government in Iraq. Source

Same day -- David Kay quits, having found no WMDs. Source

Dec. 21, 2003 - Ridge raises the terror threat level just in time for the holidays. Source

---

March 15, 2004 -- Military families organize together to oppose the war. Source

March 16, 2004 -- Dems call for probe on Medicare cost cover-up. Source

March 17, 2004 -- Condoleeza opts of 9/11 Commission hearings. She repeats her refusal several times during the week, and later on appears on "60 Minutes" to explain her position. Source

March 18, 2004 - News report that a "high target" Al Qaeda leader has been "sorrouded" in the border with Pakistan. Cnn suggests it may be Bin Laden or al-Zawahri. Source Reports of fierce fighting continue. Source After the fighting ends, it is reported that it wasn't any "high value" target in the battle after all. Source

March 21, 2004 The State Department issues a terror alert. Source

---

March 21, 2004 -- Richard Clarke gives an exclusive to 60 Minutes about his book “Against All Enemies” just days before he is due to testify before the 9/11 Commission.

"In the aftermath of Sept. 11, President Bush ordered his then top anti-terrorism adviser to look for a link between Iraq and the attacks, despite being told there didn't seem to be one. The charge comes from the adviser, Richard Clarke, in an exclusive interview on 60 Minutes." Source

March 30, 2004 -- Rice continues to refuse to testify publicly in front of 9/11 Commission. Source

April 1, 2004 -- US contractors killed and mutilated in Iraq. Source

Same Day – The Pentagon issues a report that medical evacuations in Iraq hit 18,000. Source

Same day. Bush refuses to release Clinton papers to 9/11 Commission. Source

Also same day, Richard Clarke is all over the news. Source

April 2, 2004 - A bulletin sent from the FBI & Homeland Security warn of terrorists that may try to bomb buses and rail lines in major U.S. cities this summer. Source

---

May 10, 2004 -- Bush approval rating hits lowest point (46%) - Source

May 18, 2004 -- Colin Powell tells Meet the Press that he was deliberately mislead about WMD information. Powell's aide tries to cut him off mid-air. Source

May 18, 2004 – Former Abu Ghraib Intel Staffer Says Army Concealed Involvement in Abu Ghraib Abuse Scandal. Source

May 19, 2004 -- Newsweek reports that President Bush's top lawyer warned two years ago that Bush could be prosecuted for war crimes as a result of how his administration was fighting the war on terror. Source

Same day – White House stonewalls UN on papers about Halliburton’s contracts in Iraq. Source

Same day – Tom Ridge testifies before 9/11 Commission on this second day of hearings in NYC. Source

Same day - The 9/11 Commission begins another round of hearings in NYC. Source

May 19, 2004 -- Nothing but bad news about prisoner abuse in Iraq, including breaking news that the Pentagon was told about the abuses back in November. Source

Senate Armed Forces Committee holds hearings on Abu Ghraib abuses. Source

May 25, 2004 - Homeland Security issues a terror alert: Major terror attack possible this summer. Source

---

June 7, 2004 -- The Wall Street Journal publishes exclusive report demonstrating that the Pentagon provided legal rationales and loopholes in 2003 to use torture and methods of near-torture, and how to avoid various international treaties and US laws. Furthermore, the leaked memos suggest that they circumvent US and international laws, the US president should change the rules as they may see fit. All media outlets pick up on this explosive report. Source - Source

June 14, 2004 - VP Dick Cheney is caught lying about the alleged ties of Saddam Hussein to al Qaeda. Cheney is unable to provide any evidence to his assertions after journalists inquire. On June 15 Bush Bush defends Cheney's unsourced assertions but does not provide any evidence either that there was a "link" between Iraq and al Qaeda or the 9/11 attacks. Source

June 15, 2004 - The Justice Department announces to the press they have thwarted an imminent terror plot to bomb malls in Ohio. Somali immigrant arrested and charged on the case.Source

Later on it is revealed that the Somali immigrant had been arrested one year earlier for his connections to terrorism, but there was nothing "imminent" in that case. The suspect was arrested in Nov. 28, 2003, and the Court papers filed by the government allege that a plot dated to March 2000. His indictment wasn't announced until June 15, 2004. Source - Source

---

July 6, 2004 -- Kerry names Edwards as his running mate. Source

July 8, 2004 - Tom Ridge holds a press conference on terror alerts over the summer and during the conventions. Source

July 11, 2004 -- Senior White House officials discuss the possibility of delaying the elections in case of a terrorist attack. Source

---

July 22, 2004 -- The 9/11 Commission releases their findings. While many criticize the commission for not going far enough, their report includes many examples of inaction and lack of leadership from the Bush administration. Source

July 26-29 -- Democratic Convention shows party unity and strong leadership. Kerry/Edwards provide electrifying acceptance speeches. John Kerry's acceptance speech is praised even by some conservative analysts. Campaign appearances immediately following the convention draw larger-than-expected crowds.

August 1, 2004 -- White House Projects Highest Deficit Ever. Source

August 2, 2004 - The Department of Homeland Security raises the terror alert at several large financial institutions in the New York City and Washington areas. Source

Later it is revealed that much of the information that led the authorities to raise the terror alert was three or four years old. Source


Same day - Bush's daughters, Jenna and Barbara, visit the Citicorp Building in New York City. This is one of the buildings that Tom Ridge implied was under a dire and imminent threat from terrorists. It seems odd that the President's daughters would be allowed to visit a building supposedly about to be attacked by terrorists. Source

Can you connect the dots?

UPDATE (8/05/04 - 11:30am): Over the last 24 hours, Biltud and I have been working like crazy locating resources, adding new instances, and researching additional "coincidences" related to the use of "terror alerts." It's been quite a collaborative effort. Some readers have sent us news articles that we have missed. Please send us additional items that we may have overlooked. Thanks.

|

Yesterday they brought Tom Ridge to raise the alert color system, scare the bejeesus out of all New Yorkers:

The quality of this intelligence, based on multiple reporting streams in multiple locations, is rarely seen, and it is alarming in both the amount and specificity of the information. Now, while we are providing you with this immediate information, we will also continue to update you as the situation unfolds.

As of now, this is what we know: Reports indicate that al-Qaida is targeting several specific buildings, including the International Monetary Fund and World Bank in the District of Columbia, Prudential Financial in northern New Jersey, and Citigroup buildings and the New York Stock Exchange in New York.

Today the NY Times and the Washington Post report the following:

Much of the information that led the authorities to raise the terror alert at several large financial institutions in the New York City and Washington areas was three or four years old, intelligence and law enforcement officials said on Monday. They reported that they had not yet found concrete evidence that a terrorist plot or preparatory surveillance operations were still under way.

So the whole thing was a political ploy. This sentence in Ridge's press conference should have given it away:

But we must understand that the kind of information available to us today is the result of the president's leadership in the war against terror, the reports that have led to this alert are the result of offensive intelligence and military operations overseas, as well as strong partnerships with our allies around the world, such as Pakistan.

Shameless!

|

I saw the documentary "Orwell Rolls in His Grave" this weekend. There are a few things that the movie reveals that should be prioritary issues for all progressives.

Of all the documentaries I've seen of "the great 2004 lefty documentary avalanche^TM", "Orwell Rolls in His Grave" is probably the weakest of the bunch. Technically it's quite poor (I say this as a multimedia producer with over 10 years of experience in the field). At times the movie comes across as an amateurish PowerPoint presentation. The sound mix was simply awful. Technically it could have used some help.

The format of the movie is tiresome and grandstanding, but it manages to get the point across. The movie really starts to pick up half way through, when it points a handful of very specific TRUTHS that close the circle in understanding why the American media have become so awful over the last few decades:

1. The big media group is the #1 lobbyist in Washington. They OWN the FCC and have a quite symbiotic relationship with Washington: quid-pro-quos can be seen everywhere.
   
   
2. As the American media have been concentrated into fewer and fewer hands (5 people own all of the American media now), the conflict of interests of reporters and editors has increased geometrically. This can be seen in the topics the media cover: real news and insight have been replaced by trivia. Real politics have been replaced with propaganda and stenography for conservative politicians.
   
   Reporters can no longer report on business scandals (they are about their owners), on corporate abuses (since they are about their owners), or political scandals on the right-wing (they are about their owners), so they are allowed to only cover TRIVIA, celebrity scandals, meaningless sex-laden trials, and gossip. This "dumbing down" of the news is only bound to get worse. The coverage of the Democratic Convention is a great example of this trend: they covered image, trivia, timing, and even what the speakers were wearing... nothing about the substance. The substance of the Democratic speeches conflicts with the interests of their owners, therefore it's not covered. It's very simple. Wolfie, Judy, Rather, Tweety, Brokaw, they all like their jobs and would like to keep them. They sure made a good example of Donahue and what happens when you stray from the interests of your network (even when you make great ratings).
   
   
3. The FCC has basically given the big media everything they have paid for through lobbying, and then some. Michael Powell is a sinister tool of big media interests. He’s been quoted as being extremely dismissive and sarcastic about the “public interests.” Powell is currently working to give the big media more of their Santa’s wish list.
   
   
4. The interests of the GOP and the big media are so assimilated they are indistinguishable, which explains how big media almost exclusively gives air to right-wing politics and uses the “liberal media” canard to justify it.

When you understand those 4 points, you start to understand the current state of mass communications in our country. It should be a PRIORITY to Democrats and progressives alike to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, reform the FCC as to avoid their whoring, and severely limit the concentration of media in fewer hands. If anything, the movie does a good job at closing the circle, explaining the why's and how's of the big-media power and the debacle of broadcast journalism.


|

John Kerry closes the Democratic Convention reminding us that America can do better, setting the guidelines for his presidency, and promising that help is on the way.

Please contribute to the Kerry/Edwards campaign!!!

|

Pakistan Says It Seizes Top Qaeda Suspect-Arabiya TV

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (Reuters) - Pakistan has arrested a top al Qaeda suspect wanted by the United States, Al Arabiya satellite news channel quoted Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf as saying. (...)

Just as predicted by TNR. What I find mind-bending is how the story reveals they apprehended the guy days ago, but Pakistan waited to release this info until TODAY, as requested by Rove months ago (according to the revealing article by TNR, the Bush administration negotiated in advance with Pakistan the capture of a "high level" al Qaeda member to coincide with the Democratic Convention). They sure waited until hours before the key speech by Kerry at the Democratic convention, exactly as they asked the Pakistanis to do.

Even after a major magazine blew the lid on these people they are adamant enough to go ahead with the plan. Tony Soprano would be proud of Karl Rove.

|

On with the second day. The highlight of the night were the speeches of Dean, Barack Obama and Teresa Heinz Kerry.

Howard Dean, the man who energize our party and made it ok to criticize the GOP policies in difficult times, focused his speech on party unity and the need for accountability. His call for accountability was not just referred to a Bush administration out of control, but accountability from Democrats that did not stand up to the most ominous transgressions of our freedoms and rights by the Bush/Cheney gang.

Click here to read a transcript of Howard Dean's address

Click here to listen Howard Dean's address in Windows Media audio

Click here to view Howard Dean's address in RM streaming video

Barack Obama delivered the keynote speech of the convention and proved to everyone his strength, conviction, and potential. Barack Obama has definitely arrived, and he will be a force within the Democratic Party. Obama focused on the promise of America, on the beauty of the American dream and the hopes for a better future that it offered to millions. He used the story of his father's humble beginnings as an example. Obama also appealed to the media to change the tune regarding a "divided America," exhorting us all to look past our differences and believe on those things that unite us and make us stronger as a nation. Powerful and moving speech masterfully delivered.

Click here to read a transcript of Barack Obama's address

Click here to listen Barack Obama's address in Windows Media audio

Click here to view Barack Obama's address in RM streaming video

Teresa Heinz Kerry delivered a very inspiring speech about hope. She demonstrated to be a strong woman with principles and deep convictions. She brushed the recent attacks by right-wing critics by pointing that men do not get the same media treatment in similar situations. She introduced her husband to us with class and the deep believe that John Kerry represents the hope for a better tomorrow.

Click here to read a transcript of Teresa Heinz Kerry's address

Click here to listen Teresa Heinz Kerry's address in Windows Media audio

Click here to view Teresa Heinz Kerry's address in RM streaming video

Now on to day three!!!

# Posted by Julius Civitatus @ 10:30 PM

|

Joe Conason has a great article today about the incident between Teresa Heinz Kerry and the right-wing reporter that harassed her all day on Sunday. As the media have reported ad nauseam, Teresa told him to "shove it" after he kept chasing her around asking her the very same questions over and over again.

What they are not reporting is that the reporter is from a Scaife-funded newspaper (Pittsburgh Tribune-Review) that has been dogging her and her husband for years, peddling all sorts of dirt and innuendo in their pages.

If it was me, I would have probably said a few stronger words to that guy.

Here's a song I think it expresses what Teresa should have told that guy (make sure you listen until the very end):

Download: Martha Wainwright - "BMFA" (song offered courtesy of Salon.com)

(Note: the explicit content of that song may not be appropriate for children)

|

I have to confess I have a bad habit: every morning I watch a bit of CNN with my wakey, wakey coffee. I swear it's not good for my health (watching CNN, not the coffee).

I have noticed that in the morning shows they get away with a lot, probably more than they do in prime-time, but since CNN decided to "outfox Fox", I think their whole programming schedule is one atrocity after another.

One things that truly bothers me about the CNN morning show is its utter brainlessness and lack of insight that all their anchors, reporters, and analysts display. They could replace them all with carton cutouts, mannequins or Lego figurines, and I'm not sure many people would notice. Once thing is for sure: these people take the RNC faxes like they are their personal schedule for the day. Case in point: Bill Hemmer found the pictures of Kerry with the astronaut suit very funny, so he spent the entire morning peddling these pictures to anyone he interviewed. He would end up every interview at the Convention asking about these funny pictures and how damaging hey are, and how much the Repugs will use them against Kerry, and if there's a way to recover from this.... and so and so on...

I switched channels and saw Katie Couric interviewing Jon Stewart. She was all over him, giggling, like a Japanese schoolgirl, touching his leg, holding his hand, making cute voices, and cutely berating Jon for making fun of the big media. Enough to give you a sugar coma, I swear. Jon looked a bit surprised by Katie's advances.

Later on the NBC show, Katie had to introduce a piece about Michael Moore inviting Bush to see F9/11 in Crawford. Her face turned sour and her voice adopted a disgusted tone. She looked as if she could have been talking about roaches or sewage systems. Little Katie is pissed off that Moore made fun of her in F9/11. You can't criticize big media, apparently. It all turns personal with these people.

Of course, they all had little to say about the Democratic Convention, despite broadcasting from the very Fleet Center in Boston.

|

Unlike many of our fellow bloggers who were invited to share their views at the convention (lucky devils), I was resigned to view the speeches on CSPAN and type my commentary from home. Still, it was a pretty good experience, and all the speakers delivered powerful and inspiring calls to unity, confidence and victory.

The first of the top speeches was delivered by the man who was supposed to be president, Al Gore. His speech, while strong and determined, was peppered with a terrific sense of humor and the capability of making fun of himself comfortably. He highlighted the importance of voting, the responsibility of all citizens by exercising their right to vote.

Click here to read a transcript of Al Gore's address

Click here to listen Al Gore's address in Windows Media audio

Click here to view Al Gore's address in RM streaming video

Jimmy Carter delivered an outstanding speech which focused, almost exclusively, on the disastrous Bush presidency, and criticized the damage done to American standing in world affairs by the Bush administration. Jimmy Carter did all this without mentioning Bush by name, not even once! Quite a class act, if you ask me. His tone was grave and concerned, and emphasized the abysmal differences in character between Bush and Kerry, reminding the audience of the heroic service of John Kerry in Vietnam. His money quote: "In the world at large we cannot lead if our leaders mislead." Ouch!

Click here to read a transcript of Jimmy Carter's address

Click here to listen Jimmy Carter's address in Windows Media audio

Click here to view Jimmy Carter's address in RM streaming video

Bill Clinton was introduced by his wife Hilary, and delivered THE SPEECH. The man is the Michael Jordan of oratory, the Lance Armstrong of public speaking. It truly was an enjoyable speech, strong and convincing without reservations. He focused most of it on drawing the serious differences between the Bush team and Kerry on the economy, foreign affairs, and defense. Over and over again he ripped apart the policies of the Bush administration using logic, empathy and common sense. Clinton roused the audience with a call to “send him [Kerry] in" and to remind Americans that unlike Republicans, Democrats do not need a divided nation to triumph.

Click here to read a transcript of Bill Clinton's address

Click here to listen Bill Clinton's address in Windows Media audio

Click here to view Bill Clinton's address in RM streaming video

Now on to day two!!!

# Posted by Julius Civitatus @ 4:44 PM

|

Yesterday the much awaited report of the 9/11 Commission was released, and as many have suggested, I feel it is disappointing as it doesn't point at any officials in particular, or specifies who's to blame for the serious lapses in security, intelligence and law enforcement that allowed the tragedy to take place. It's "typical D.C." in the sense that it claims "mistakes were made" and "nobody's to blame". You can picture them holding hands singing "Cumbaya."

It is interesting, though, how in chapter 8 of the massive report they stop short of actually saying "Condi Rice and Dubya really dropped the ball on this one." I think that very chapter is key to understand the state of the administration before the tragedy and the missteps that led to the security failures.  Still, in the 'spirit of bipartisanship,' the report does not outright say what needed to be done. It's an election year after all.

To read more about the report, I recommend you the following articles:

Reading Between the Lines
What's covered in the 9-11 report? What's covered up?
by James Ridgeway, The Village Voice

'The 9/11 report: Bad news for Bush'
by David Corn, The Nation.

|

By now you probably have heard the outrageous stories being blasted all over the media about Sandy Berger. This is a prime example of how the RNC has a stronghold on American media, setting the agenda, and manipulating the facts with no checks and balances. Let's try to recap:

- Sandy Berger, in preparation for his deposition to the 9/11 commission, requests access to classified documents. In late 2003 he is given access to copies of some of these documents. He forgets to return a couple of these copies. Following procedure for these types of things, there's an investigation.

- Two days before the release of the report by the 9/11 commission, the "news" of the investigation of Sandy Berger's handling of those classified documents is leaked to the media. Our "so called unbiased media" makes a huge scandal of this, in many cases acknowledging that they are getting their primary source of information from RNC's faxes (CNN).

- As the day progresses, every shady medium starts spinning the story in convoluted ways. By mid-day, they were claiming Berger stuffed top-secret documents in his socks. By the evening, Berger smuggled the documents in his underwear. The usual suspects were trying to tie this to Kerry. By the next day, some were speculating Berger was going to sell those "top secret al-qaeda documents" in the black market. It was beyond ridiculous.

- Sane heads prevailed, and people like David Gergen made sure to set the record straight, and point at the convenient timing of the leak. It seemed like it could serve as a nice distraction from the potentially devastating findings of the 9/11 commission.

- DNC chairman Terry McCauliff requested the release of any documents pertinent to communications between the Justice Department and the White House regarding the Sandy Berger leak. There's a strong suspicions that the leak came from the Justice Dept.

In all this, a nasty campaign orchestrated by the RNC, the media has played the role of the Republican attack dog, unable to even question the motives or even the veracity of these so-called "revelations." CNN played a disgustingly servile role, with all its anchors (Paula Zahn, Wolf Blitzer) spewing RNC propaganda without even blinking.


|

This is just unbelievable! They are about to reach new deficit records:

Deficit balloons to $326.6 billion

The government's deficit ballooned to $326.6 billion in the first nine months of the 2004 budget year, according to a snapshot of U.S. balance sheets released Tuesday.

That's more than 20 percent larger than the $269.7 billion shortfall for the corresponding period last year. For the current budget year which began Oct. 1, this spending has totaled $1.73 trillion, 6.4 percent more than the same period a year ago. Revenues came to $1.40 trillion, 3.5 percent more than the previous year. (...)

The government produced a record $374 billion deficit last year.

The Congressional Budget Office has said this year's budget deficit is expected to be less than the $477 billion shortfall the office projected in March. The White House is expected to lower its forecast from the current $521 billion deficit projected for this year whenever it releases updated figures.

So it's July and the deficit for the year is already $326.6 billion, that's only $50 billion short of the entire deficit for 2003. They are definitely on their way to beat any possible records. The deficit for 2004 will most likely surpass the unbelievable number of half a trillion bucks. Ponder on that!

Our grandchildren will thank us for this one day, I'm sure...

|

In another amazing "coincidence" that once again saves the reputation of Dear Leader, the military records of Bush have been "so conveniently" destroyed. These are the specific records could have established for good the whereabouts of Bush during his "missing year" in service.

New York Times

Pentagon Says Bush Records of Service Were Destroyed

Military records that could help establish President Bush's whereabouts during his disputed service in the Texas Air National Guard more than 30 years ago have been inadvertently destroyed, according to the Pentagon.
It said the payroll records of "numerous service members," including former First Lt. Bush, had been ruined in 1996 and 1997 by the Defense Finance and Accounting Service during a project to salvage deteriorating microfilm. No back-up paper copies could be found, it added in notices dated June 25.

The destroyed records cover three months of a period in 1972 and 1973 when Mr. Bush's claims of service in Alabama are in question. (...)

How freakin' convenient!

|

Here's the revealing article previously announced by Joshua Micah Marshall:

PAKISTAN FOR BUSH.
July Surprise?

by John B. Judis, Spencer Ackerman & Massoud Ansari

ate last month, President Bush lost his greatest advantage in his bid for reelection. A poll conducted by ABC News and The Washington Post discovered that challenger John Kerry was running even with the president on the critical question of whom voters trust to handle the war on terrorism. Largely as a result of the deteriorating occupation of Iraq, Bush lost what was, in April, a seemingly prohibitive 21-point advantage on his signature issue. But, even as the president's poll numbers were sliding, his administration was implementing a plan to insure the public's confidence in his hunt for Al Qaeda.

This spring, the administration significantly increased its pressure on Pakistan to kill or capture Osama bin Laden, his deputy, Ayman Al Zawahiri, or the Taliban's Mullah Mohammed Omar, all of whom are believed to be hiding in the lawless tribal areas of Pakistan.(...)

Read the whole thing here:

The New Republic


|

This is the story that Josh M. Marshall was referring recently. This is HUUUUUGE!!!

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com

A couple months ago, in passing, I noted that the Bush administration had been leaning heavily on the Pakistanis to produce some high-value al Qaida bad-guys -- bin Laden? Mullah Omar? Zawahiri? -- at the end of July, nicely timed to knock the Democratic convention seriously off-stride, and certainly, if at all possible, before the November election.

Well, tomorrow The New Republic is going to release a story -- written by recent TPM guest bloggers John Judis and Spencer Ackerman and another colleague -- which provides considerably more evidence and detail about what they've been up to.

I'm told Judis and Ackerman have mulitple Pakistani intelligence sources confirming key details.

If only baggin OBL had been such a priority for them in early '02. But, alas, Iraq called. And priorities are priorities.

More shady behavior from this very shady administration.

|

More wit and wisdom from the loonie bin: right-wing fundamentalist X-tians just started a campaign to boycott the cartoon "Shrek 2" because, get a hold of this, it promotes "the homosexual agenda."

Traditional Values Coalition to boycott Shrek

The [Traditional Values Coalition‘s] advisory says, "Parents who are thinking about taking their children to see 'Shrek 2,' may wish to consider the following: The movie features a male-to-female transgender (in transition) as an evil bartender. The character has five o'clock shadow, wears a dress and has female breasts. It is clear that he is a she-male. His voice is that of talk show host Larry King."

The bartender is only the beginning. The warning continues: "During a dance scene at the end of the movie, this transgendered man expresses sexual desire for Prince Charming, jumps on him, and both tumble to the floor." ... And then, the warning says, "In another scene in the movie, Shrek and Donkey need to be rescued from a dungeon where they are chained against the wall."

The warning continues: "The rescue is conducted by Pinocchio who is asked to lie so his nose will grow long enough for one of the smaller cartoon characters to use it as a bridge to reach Shrek and Donkey. Donkey encourages him to lie about something and suggests he lie about wearing women's underwear. When he denies wearing women's underwear, his nose begins to grow."

I called Frank York, the editorial director for the Traditional Values Coalition, and asked him: "Are you serious?"

"Yes," he said. "Yes, I am." He said, "What they showed in the film was supposed to be humorous, but if you look at the transgender agenda ... there are more serious things going on here." ... Anyway, he talked about the whole transsexual agenda and how it wants to take over the world and stuff like that. He clearly spends a lot of time thinking about transsexuals, not that there's anything wrong with that.(...)

Unbelievable. Our own "Taliban" keeps their crusade against fuzzy, funny-looking animated creatures. Fictional creatures. Now the Teletubbies have good companionship with the likeable fellows from Shrek... and their "eeeevil homosexual ways."

Hey guys: don't forget Bugs Bunny! He used to smooch Elmer Fudd all the time! I hear they've been sharing an apartment in Chelsea for years... Roommates! Yeah, that's the ticket...



;-)

|

the SCLM didn't wait around to start trashing Edwards.

On CNN this morning they had their congressional reporter Joe Johns saying that Edwards is a problem for the Dems because, being a trial lawyer he is considered (and I quote) "an enemy of corporate America." Just like that, CNN declares a candidate an "enemy" of capitalism.

This was followed by that nasty ideologue, Bill Schneider, CNN's Republican operative on staff. Schneider looked smug and talked about Edwards in very condescending terms. Schneider had the temerity to say that the VP debates will be a win for Cheney, because Edwards "will look like his grandson" and also Cheney brings (and I quote) lots of "gravitas" and "war experience, Like Gulf War I, Afghanistan, Iraq..." I almost lose my breakfast right there.

Every day CNN is not telling its viewers that Bill Schneider is a Republican strategist and an AEI scholar, it's committing FRAUD. Schneider, Lundz, and others should not be allowed to wear two hats without a major disclaimer.

On a positive note, Kerry's choice upset the laughable NY Post. This is absolutely hilarious, and another indication of how little credibility the Murdoch media really have. Apparently the rabidly right-wing rag printed today in the cover that Kerry had picked Gephardt for VP. Archive your copy of today's NY Post with that famous cover headline: "Dewey Defeat's Truman." Here's the cover, for your enjoyment:



Not only did the Kerry pick upset the stupid NY Post's predictions: it also trashed Chris "Tweety" Matthews' own!

Last night i caught a bit of Matthews discussing on NBC the choices for VP, and although he thought it was really up for grabs and believe it could be either Edwards, Gephardt or Vilsack, Matthews predicted that Kerry's VP choice could be a complete surprise, like.... Hillary Clinton!

Yes, Chris Matthews said that. We know that he suffers from an acute case of Clintonitis, but it's no excuse. For Matthews, it's all Hillary, all the time. He's developing a Quixotic obsession with the Clintons that can only lead to more distress and mental instability. If I were a relative of Chris Matthews, I would be organizing an intervention pronto!

|

Kerry just announced his choice for VP: John Edwards. This is a wise and safe decision that brings a lot of appeal and energy to the Democratic ticket. Congratulations!



|

(5/5)

We went to see Fahrenheit 9/11 this weekend, and I have to say the movie is as good as they say it is. Controversial? Of course! Partisan? You betcha!

Moore's new film is his most mature and professional to date. Michael Moore has definitely grown from an activist with a camera and a sense of humor, to a world class filmmaker. Without the intention to sound grandiose, I have to say that Moore has created one of the most powerful, effective and poignant documentaries of all time. Before I move to describing my views on this work of art, allow me first to describe the viewing experience, since the public response has been a remarkable aspect of the release of movie.

Just about every showing of F911 was sold out in NYC, and only could make reservations for Saturday. There were huge lines outside the theater in Downtown Manhattan to see the flick. The theater was full, and there were even people sitting all over the aisles. Let me repeat that again: every single seat was taken, and so were the side stairs of the theater.

There were all sorts of people, young old, all races, and all walks of life. Lots of people that don't often go to the movies were there. I go to the movies a lot, and I can tell there were folks there that you don't usually see in theaters, yet you notice: they talk through the movie a lot, as if they were in their living room. Still, most people behaved wonderfully, and reacted properly to the film.

The movie is extraordinary, the best film work of Michael Moore to date. For us political junkies, the movie barely reveals anything about the Bush administration that we didn't know already, but puts it all in the right context. For those people that have not been paying attention, the movie must be devastating. No wonder right-wingers are going apoplectic, since F911 must be producing massive amount of synaptic lapses in their neurons: it doesn't compute, it doesn't compute. Same reaction they had to the Abu Grahib torture: denial and excuses.

The movie has enough material to fill three or four movies, and I wished he had trashed the media even more. I know it's my pet issue, but I still thought he could have gone much further in his trashing of our self-serving media. Despite this minor complaint, the movie, propaganda or not, it's extraordinary. A must-see indeed.
People reacted with gasps, cries, and the eventual yell of "fascists!" to the events on the screen. Huge applause during the confession of the soldier that claims was Republican but now will volunteer for the Democrats. Huge ovation at the end. People were moved and angry.

The movie itself could be described as two different movies in one. First you have a movie about the Bush family and their shady deals with the Saudi royals. The second part of the movie is a very raw, very incriminating documentary about the Iraqi war, unlike anything we have seen here in the States. What makes this second part the more poignant is the tremendous contrast that it poses to the sanitized, pro-war, official version of events that we have been fed by the likes of CNN and Fox News. Over the last four years most American media have sunk to embarrassing levels of pro-government fawning, practicing self-censorship daily, promoting the White House talking-points, and ignoring opposing views. The Left, anti-war positions, and critics of the president have been completely ostracized by the media. This movie provides a serious balance and great relief to all those that have been shut out of the mainstream media.

Funny enough, Moore presents widely researched facts and news that, although explosive and highly incriminating, the mainstream media decided to bury. Not surprisingly, all these stories the press decided to ignore were very incriminating for the Bush administration. It's been quite evident that the American media have failed the American people, and I seriously doubt the situation will change anytime soon.

Moore starts the movie with a quick flash of the awful circumstances of the 2000 Elections, the brave response of the Black Caucus in their fruitless efforts to stop the voting certification, and the first few months of the Bush presidency, from vacation to vacation, golf course to golf course.

All the antics of that "lame duck" presidency are interrupted by the violent sound of the 9/11 attacks. Moore does this in a masterful way, distancing himself from showing the planes crashing into the buildings. The blast of the planes against the buildings is unlike anything I've heard before, and the digital surround system at the theater made it the more overwhelming.

This leads Moore to show the uncensored reaction of Bush to the news of the attacks: he kept reading "My Pet Goat" in the Florida schoolroom, since --as Moore points-- he didn't have anyone around to tell him what to do. Then we proceed to see a fascinating and very well documented hour-long report on the uncomfortably close relationship between the Bushes and the Saudi Royals. As I mentioned earlier, for informed people these so-called "revelations" are nothing new, as they have been widely covered by the foreign press and some brave souls at a national level. It was refreshing to see all these issues put together a once in an audiovisual format.

This first hour of the movie is typical Michael Moore, following his very personal style as seen in 'Bowling for Columbine' and 'Roger and Me'. I have the feeling he spent a good amount of time working on this first part of the movie over the last few years. It has been reported that Moore has used several fact-checkers to make sure every revelation in his movie was verified and accurately documented. To further emphasize this point, Moore even shows the newspaper articles he uses as the basis for his assertions, just in case.

Then he moves to describe the Iraqi mess. The second hour of the movie pretty much focuses on the Iraqi war from a perspective missed by most Americans. Believe me, this part of the movie hurts. It feels as if somebody is punching you in the stomach, as we see that Iraqis are people too. Our lazy and self-serving media never cared to present the Iraqis as anything else than "the enemy", some obscure and faceless "other" that deserved to be bombed for the mendacious reasons given to us by the Bush administration. But regular Iraqis were people too: women shopping, couples dining out, families enjoying weddings, and kids flying kites. While the invasion was able to remove the dictator Saddam Hussein, it killed and estimated 10,000 Iraqi civilians. Our media never cared much to show us that, as they were in full patriotic fervor, unable to provide a balanced service to the citizens.

Well, Michael Moore shows us this, and many other things about the Iraqi war that we never got to see in CNN. The movie shows confused, discontent and frustrated soldiers wondering what the heck they are doing there. The movie shows the pretty much forgotten wounded soldiers and the physical and emotional scars they will carry for life. The movie shows the anger and frustration of Iraqi civilians at the bombardments of their cities. We also get to see some of our soldiers telling us about their favorite heavy-metal or gangster-rap tunes when going into battle. That reminded of a scene from Kubrick's "Full Metal Jacket", where a journalist interviews several soldiers in Vietnam and they provide him with some shocking answers. At least the ones in Kubrick's movie were fictional!

In what could be the most gripping moments of the documentary, Moore contrasts the anger of an Iraqi woman who lost her family, to the sorrow of Lila Lipscomb, a mother from Flint, Michigan, who loses her son in this war. Every neocon, chicken-hawk and pro-war individual in this country should see those images. If they were so willing to root for the war, and so willing to send other people's sons to Iraq, at the very least they should see what it is that they bought.

Moore's film wraps its message reminding us of the tremendous responsibility of sending our troops to fight foreign wars. He makes a special point in reminding us how those less favored in society are the first one to sacrify their lives for our lifestyle. It's our moral duty to only send them to war if we really, really have to. Powerful message that wasn't lost in the audience.

This was a masterful and powerful documentary that people should see independently of their political persuasion. I really hope this is sign of hope, and an opportunity for the people to take back our media and our capability to call things by their rightful name. It takes courageous filmmakers like Moore to remind us all that we have to fight and reclaim our freedom of speech. My only minor complaint about the movie is that it didn't go far enough in criticing the media and their submissive attitude before, during and after the Iraqi invasion. I think our news networks have provided enough embarrassing material to fill another movie.

"Fahrenheit 9/11" is a must-see, and Michael Moore an accomplished filmmaker.

---------------------------------

On edit:

I wanted to point that one of the best elements in the movie is the clever use of music. The opening sequence with the members of Bush's cabinet getting their earpieces and make up on, getting ready for the daily farce they are delivering was incredible. It was particularly accentuated by a very sad and simple guitar melody, which at the same carried a sense of impending doom, of bad things to come. That combination of visuals and music was telling you "this is more than a farce, this is more than an operetta -- bad things are about to unfold."

Then the lyrics of the songs Michael Moore used were excellent to drive the point home. Some that I could recognize in the movie were the following:

• Saudi-Bush connections : REM's "Shinny Happy People"
  
• Bush's National Guard AWOL records: JJ Cale/ Eric Clapton's "Cocaine."
  
• Mission Accomplished stunt: "Believe it or Not", the theme from the show "The greatest American Hero." (This one brought the house down at the showing).
  
• US Soldiers bombing Baghdad: The Bloodhound Gang's "Fire Water Burn"
  
• US soldiers on night raids in Baghdad: Santa Claus is coming to town.
  
• Closing titles: Neil Young's "Rockin' in the Free World"

Funny, ironic, explicit and driving the point home.

|

The "pros" definitely know who forms their client base:

With thousands of Republicans set to invade the city this summer, high-priced escorts and strippers are preparing for one grand old party. Agencies are flying in extra call girls from around the globe to meet the expected demand during the Aug. 30-Sept. 2 gathering at Madison Square Garden.

"We have girls from London, Seattle, California, all coming in for that week," said a madam at a Manhattan escort service. "It's the week everyone wants to work."

"It's going to be big," agreed one operator at a midtown escort service.(...)

New York Daily News

Never forget these are the people that brought you the Lewinsky scandal, and brought a presidential impeachment over a sexual act.

|

(4/5)

I saw “The Hunting of the President” last night, and I have to say it was a very powerful experience. Before I comment on the movie, I would like to divide my commentaries in two different aspects, first the technical elements of the film, and then the subject it covers.

Technically, The Hunting of the President (THOTP) is a low budget documentary shot and edited on Digital Video (DV). These days we are witnessing a “democratization” of the means of production in film. As the quality of the DV technology improves to incredible levels, the prices are becoming dramatically more and more affordable. These days a good DV camcorder (even any product aimed to the home market) has better video quality than many broadcast-quality systems used only ten years ago. This quality improvement is quite obvious in certain scenes that juxtapose video from broadcast news from the mid 90s, with recently shot interviews in DV format of journalists and other personalities involved in the story. I’m sure when the movie comes out on video this contrast would be less accentuated in your average TV. On a large screen, it was a bit annoying at once, same with the usage of stock footage when certain scenes lacked actual videos from the story.

THOTP immerses you in the thick plot of shady characters right from the start. I did read the Conason/Lyons book years ago, so I had no problem following the wild collection of wacky individuals involved in the story. I thought that maybe the movie could have benefited from a brief introduction (10 or 15 minutes) to put these people in the right context. To my taste, THOTP just dives directly into the plot.

From the point of view of the content, the movie tries to explain, chapter by chapter, how the fake Whitewater “scandal” came to be, who was behind it, and how it snowballed into a taxpayer-funded $60 million investigation that led to a failed impeachment over a minor sexual affair. The movie certainly drives the point across, and it’s at its best when showing the rapacious methods of Ken Starr and the injustice done to Susan McDougal. Let me list briefly my highlights of the film:

• THOTP makes it very clear how the right wing fights in this country. This is what we are up against, folks! While people on progressive movements fight through grass-roots organizations, demonstrations, and social awareness, the right wing will stop at nothing to reach their goals, and they use without hesitation massive amounts of cash, lawyers and legalese to get their way. These are people who sent millions of dollars and armies of lawyers to find something, anything, they could pin on Clinton, steamrolling scores of innocent people in their way.
  
  
• Susan McDougal is a national hero, and what the Starr people did to her has no name. For those unaware of this, Ken Starr basically “twisted her arm” so she would lie and accuse Bill Clinton of a fabricated sexual affair. In order to force her to lie for him, Starr used all sorts of legal treachery and extortion to force her to lie: she could only confess to the non-existing sexual affair, or Ken Starr would send her to jail.
  
  Faced with that dilemma, Susan McDougal stuck to her principles and decided not to lie. Ken Starr sent her to jail for two years on contempt of court. Even if you were familiar with this part of the plot, you will probably be surprised with some of the horrible details of her incarceration. (SPOILER ALERT) To make sure that McDougal’s two years in prison were spent in the most horrendous of circumstances, they made sure they put her in the section where the child murderers and molesters were located, and made her wear the red jumpsuit reserved for those types of criminals. As you can imagine, this made the rest of inmates believe immediately that she was one of them. The Ken Starr team made sure that the amount of abuse she received in prison was overwhelming. There are no words to describe what the special prosecutor did to people in order to get the Clintons.
  
  
• The movie indicts the lazy, corrupted, scandal-mongering media for their complicity in this travesty of justice. I was actually surprised to see so many media people acknowledging their part on this affair. It made me sick to se that the loathsome Howard Kurtz makes a cameo in the movie criticizing the lack of journalistic ethics during Whitewater and the Lewinsky affair, when Kurtz himself was one of the worst offenders! Heck! To this day he still enjoys a nasty swipe at the Clintons on a regular basis.
  
  
• The movie also mentions some of the wealthy right-wing partisans that financed this travesty, including Richard Mellon-Scaife, but I felt that it didn’t go far enough. The original book by Lyons/Conason focuses more attention of these shady billionaires and their part in bankrolling the efforts to get their bete noir Bill Clinton by any means necessary. I wish teh movie had devoted more time to these central figures in teh whole plot.

In short, THOTP is a very powerful movie that clearly shows the whole picture of the injustice that was done not that long ago to the Clintons and to the nation. The movie places the blame equally on the Republican partisans driven by hate for the Clintons, and the sleazy, complacent media always ready to print a scandal and to take right-wing propaganda and lies at face value.

I wish we had learned something from that decade, but by the way it looks, I believe we have learned nothing.


|

As the big opening of "Fahrenheit 9/11" approaches (it opens tomorrow nationwide, although it's been playing in New York since Wednesday), the right-wing media heads are going insane in their efforts to slander Michael Moore and criticize the movie on purely partisan grounds.

The biggest clowning around has to be that of the fake grass-roots organizations Move America Forward and David Bossie's Citizens United.

These guys have been looking for legal ways to censor, shut down or even ban the movie on baseless campaign finance laws.

http://www.thehill.com/news/062404/moore.aspx

What's more, these nice Republican organizations are doing all they can to censor not just F911, but also every single movie coming out this summer that doesn't show Bush in a glorious light. They may actually succeed. They will apply the same legalese to muzzle "The Hunting of the President," "Uncovered: The Whole Truth About the Iraq War," which opens in August, "The Corporation," about democratic institutions being subsumed by the corporate agenda, and "Silver City," a slam at the Bush administration.

Every right-wing leaning pundit, media whore, or news bobble-head is going apoplectic, foaming at the mouth at the horror, oh the horror, of displaying Emperor Junior as he really is, without the glossy media filter they have provided for the last four years.

Nevertheless, if we had an award for media clowning, I think it should go to Christopher Hitchens. Chris has been throwing tantrums all over the media about this movie and its author, and by large all he has done is to slander at will without base and fundament. In his ethylic displays of outrage at F911, Hitchens has called Moore a liar, a propagandist, akin to Nazis and Communists, and a pro-Al Qaeda traitor. Seriously. Earlier this week Hitchens wrote a lengthy attack on the movie at Slate.com, based mostly on distortions, libel and already disqualified denials. Blogger Chris Parry wrote a nice reply to Hitchens' hit piece, parsing sentence by sentence, unmasking all his lies.

Last night they allowed Hitchens to substitute Chris Matthews in MSNBC's "Hardball." Hitchens used the show as an opportunity to slander Michael Moore, and accuse Moore of saying things he never did. Hitchens accused Moore of claiming that Osama Bin Laden was innocent --a complete bald-faced lie. Hitchens trashed the movie on nitpicking matters and, for good measure, he also attacked the producers of The Hunting of the President. They even questioned whether Moore had "a right to make this movie." Seriously.

We strongly suggest Hitchens that it's time to consider a twelve-step program. For real.

The transformation of Hitchens from one of Britain's more respected progressive writers to an American neo-conservative laughingstock will always be puzzling. This is a guy that has gone from building a career investigating the Vietnam war crimes of Kissinger, to turning around and embracing Bush preemptive war and neo-conservative thesis with open arms. What really surprised me was the foaming-at-the-mouth nastiness of his attacks on fellow writer Michael Moore.

What could possibly fuel the raging hatred this man feels for Michael Moore? Well, a sentence at the end of his long diatribe at Slate sheds some light on this issue:

"Some people soothingly say that one should relax about all this. It's only a movie. No biggie. It's no worse than the tomfoolery of Oliver Stone. It's kick-ass entertainment. It might even help get out "the youth vote." Yeah, well, I have myself written and presented about a dozen low-budget made-for-TV documentaries, on subjects as various as Mother Teresa and Bill Clinton and the Cyprus crisis, and I also helped produce a slightly more polished one on Henry Kissinger that was shown in movie theaters. So I know, thanks, before you tell me, that a documentary must have a "POV" or point of view and that it must also impose a narrative line.(…)

So that's what it is, Chris? Is it pure and unadulterated ENVY? How much does it burn you inside that none of your shitty documentaries have made it anywhere, yet Michael Moore has become a star of the genre? Are you playing Salieri to Moore's Amadeus?

|

We got back from a wonderful weekend in Boston. Thanks so much to Michelle and Tim for letting us stay at their place, and for being such gracious hosts.

|

I witnessed a very, very interesting media atrocity on CNN this morning, at around 8.30 am:

They had Harry Thomason, the director of “The Hunting of the President” and Susan McDougal in the show to present the movie and discuss the controversial topic. An obviously uneasy Bill Hemmer conducted the interview.

It wasn’t even a minute within the interview that Bill Hemmer asks why the director of “The Hunting of the President” places the blame of the scandal on the media. Bill Hemmer looked and behaved peeved and defensive, trying to shift the blame of the scandal from the media to Bill Clinton (“he lied, anyway”). Hemmer constantly referred to the movie as a product of "conspiracy theories."

At that point Harry Thomason started explaining why the mega-media corporations and all the new ”McNews” channels were to blame for this feeding frenzy. Bill Hemmer looked terrorized. Mind you: it wasn't a rant at all. This man started explaining very politely why the media were so susceptible to buy right-wing propaganda without double-checks.

In the middle of this explanation we could hear a lot of commotion in the background. Some people are yelling in the studio, off camera. Bill Hemmer looks confused for a second, looking back and forth to his guests and off-camera. Then they shift to Soledad O’Brian in a rushed manner.

Soledad O’Brian, looking a bit puzzled and distressed, announces that they need to interrupt the interview because they have some very important breaking news coming.

Then they switch to the 9/11 Commission, (which had already been running for nearly 30 minutes), and a guy explaining the routes the hijacked planes took. There was nothing that remotely called for a panicky “breaking news” interruption.

It was such an obvious freak-out and censorship moment on CNN that I wish I had taped it. Monumentally embarrassing, to say the least.

|

Still, after all the evidence debunking the idea that Iraq and al Qaeda had any ties, Bush still backs Cheney's assertion that such link existed. Cheney is still touring around using this lie as a central part of his speech.

Bush and Cheney yesterday:

WASHINGTON -- President Bush yesterday defended Vice President Dick Cheney's assertion this week that Saddam Hussein had longstanding ties with Al Qaeda, even as critics charged that the White House had no new proof of a connection.

The 9/11 Commission today:

WASHINGTON -- The commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks reported Wednesday that Osama bin Laden met with a top Iraqi official in 1994 but found "no credible evidence" of a link between Iraq and al-Qaida in attacks against the United States.

Do you think they'll stop advancing their disinformation now? Don't bet on it. It's not like fact and investigative research has ever stopped them from advancing their lies.

|

The chutzpah of the neocons is just unbelievable. Today is the turn of George W. Bush:

In 2003 we decide to invade Iraq without solid evidence and without the support (or approval) of most of our allies. We tell them to take a hike, and then piss on the UN.

The Iraqi adventure turns sour, then into a mess. It leads to squandering the American moral standing and nearly 900 American soldiers killed (and thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians). The most remembered moments of this war will forever be captured in the photos of torture at Abu Ghraib.

The mess gets so big that Bush has to go around begging the UN and our European allies to bail him out of this awful Iraqi mess. He does the rounds and have to visit each one of these countries begging for help on a UN resolution, which was reluctantly passed today.

So what does Bush have to say after the UN resolution is passed? According to CNN:

"There were some who said we'd never get one," President Bush said of the resolution earlier Tuesday during a photo opportunity at the G-8 economic summit in the southern U.S. state of Georgia.

Right, George. And you singlehandedly got one done, right? No begging to our allies or anything. He says that as if telling the rest of the world "see, I was right all along!"

He continues:

Bush said a unanimous vote would signal "to the world that members of the Security Council are interested in working together to make sure that Iraq is free and peaceful and democratic. I think this is a very important moment."

See, this is good not for the US, but for the UN, cause it makes them "look good," like they are actually interested in the security and well being of Iraq. You see, the disapproval of Bush's Iraqi invasion only meant that the UN "wasn't interested" in a peaceful and democratic Iraq.

The gall!

Of course, the article mentions that France, Germany and Spain voted for the resolution QUITE RELUCTANTLY, and just in the spirit of cooperation:

French Foreign Minister Michel Barnier said in a radio interview that France, which has veto power on the council and staunchly opposed the war in Iraq, was still not fully satisfied with the resolution but would vote for it.

German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer said: "Germany is going to vote for the resolution. It is important now to stick to the schedule that is to lead to free and fair elections by January 2005 at the latest."

In Madrid, Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Moratinos told a news conference, "Spain will vote in favor in a spirit of cooperation."

Some progress indeed.

|

Ronald Reagan passed away, and the media are going on a rampage of praise and platitudes about his accomplishments. In many cases they are even rewriting history, or simply lying about his presidential record. Atrios has been on top of this multitude of lies.

While I feel for the family of Ronald Reagan and give my condolences to those who loved him, let me please list some of the achievements of his presidency, as a way of memorializing his legacy and giving a bit of balance to the love-fest of the mainstream media over his presidency:

• Astronomical, record-breaking debt
  
• "Voodoo Economics"
  
• ketchup-is-a-vegetable
  
• the original "October surprise"
  
• the Beirut bombings
  
• Granada invasion
  
• demonization of "liberals"
  
• demonization of "welfare mothers"
  
• IRAN-CONTRA
  
• death squads in El Salvador
  
• death squads in Honduras
  
• death squads in Guatemala
  
• death squads in Nicaragua
  
• Pershing missiles all over Europe
  
• The infamous School of the Americas, a school of torture
  
• Tax cuts for the rich
  
• Budget cuts for education, the arts, welfare
  
• US selling WMD to Iraq
  
• US selling WMD to Iran
  
• Propping up and financing Saddam Hussein
  
• Propping up and financing the Afghan Mujahadeen, which later evolved into the Taliban and Al Qaeda
  
• Support to the apartheid in S.Africa
  
• allowing AIDS to become an epidemic by completely avoiding the issue
  
• Three words: War on drugs
  
• Saving & Loans scandals...
  
• Squashing unions, and completely busting the air controllers union
  
• Elliott Abrams perjury
  
• Highest number of officials charged of crimes of any administration in the history of the US.
  (By the end of his term, 138 Reagan administration officials had been convicted, had been indicted, or had been the subject of official investigations for official misconduct and/or criminal violations. In terms of number of officials involved, the record of his administration was the worst ever.)

David Corn had a longer list of at The Nation.

Also, there's a little bit of trivia that all the right-wing and X-tian fundie pundits are either ignoring or simply distorting. Sherrie Gogerty reminds us of the following in Pundit Pap:

Something about Ronald Reagan that women should be aware of is that as Governor he signed the bill legalizing abortion in the state of California BEFORE the Supreme Court ruled on Roe v. Wade. You won't hear the Republicans talking about that little factoid, but it's something I won't forget.

Nor should it be overlooked that Nancy Reagan for some time has been vigorously supporting stem cell research, to the great dismay of the right wing whackoes.(sic)

Interesting how our "so called liberal media" and right-wing pundits do not mention this in their highly emotional bios of Reagan.

|

The Wall Street Journal has an incredible exclusive report in today's edition. Apparently the Pentagon provided legal rationales and loopholes in 2003 by which the use of torture and methods of near-torture could be use avoiding various international treaties and US laws. So it wasn't just "a few bad apples" behind the Abu Ghraib scandal: actually the rationalization of torture goes all the way up to the Pentagon, and at least as early as 2003.

But if that wasn't bad enough, here's the kicker: the legal recommendations of the document include suggestions to help US personal avoid prosecution for torturing or killing people subjected to torture. How can they circumvent US and international laws in such a blatant way?

To protect subordinates should they be charged with torture, the memo advised that Mr. Bush issue a "presidential directive or other writing" that could serve as evidence, since authority to set aside the laws is "inherent in the president."

We are no longer a "nation of laws." Now the president, according to this legal document, is above the law, and can change the rules of the game as he pleases. And the practice of torture is protected by the president, who's above the law.

Are we a monarchy now? Or rather a dictatorship? What is it?

Who wrote these heinous, undemocratic legal guidelines, you may ask? None others than John Yoo and White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales.

Many in the blogosphere are dissecting this very troubling document. Here you have a few recommendations of some of the best:

- Intel Dump

- Billmon

- Talking Points Memo

This thing is developing, and fast...

|

Taking a page straight out of the German Kristallnacht, some psychopaths in California attack an art gallery owner for displaying a painting that depicts the torture in Abu Ghraib.

Attacked for art, S.F. gallery closes

The furor began on May 16 when Colwell, an East Bay artist, made an addition to his monthlong showing at Haigh's gallery on Powell Street. Angered by the pictures he saw of Iraqi prisoners being abused, he created a black and white painting depicting three hooded and naked men undergoing electric shock torture by American soldiers. Colwell, who took down his paintings Saturday, declined to comment.

Two days after the painting went up, Haigh arrived at her gallery to find broken glass, eggs and trash strewn outside her storefront. Haigh also began receiving the first of about 200 angry voicemails, e-mails and death threats.

A week ago, a man walked into the gallery and spit in Haigh's face. On Tuesday, Haigh decided to temporarily close the gallery and began to consider giving up on her dream of owning an art gallery. Just two days later, another man knocked on the door of the gallery and then punched Haigh in the face, knocking her out, breaking her nose and causing a concussion.

It's more than Haigh ever imagined. She opened the studio 1 1/2 years ago, hoping to display the works of important and possibly controversial modern artists. (...)

Pictures courtesy of The San Francisco Gate:

Lori Haigh, a North Beach district gallery owner, bears a painful reminder of the nation's unresolved anguish over the incidents at Abu Ghraib -- a black eye delivered by an unknown assailant who apparently objected to the painting that depicts U.S. soldiers torturing Iraqi prisoners. Associated Press photo by Jeff Chiu



Guy Colwell removes his controversial painting from the Capobianco Gallery on Saturday morning. The gallery, in North Beach, closed its doors after its owner, Lori Haigh, was assaulted and received several threatening phone calls after displaying Colwell's painting depicting American soldiers humiliating Iraqi prisoners. Chronicle photo by Mike Kepka



|

The always predictable "Inside Politics" by Judy Woodruff in CNN does it again. In a day of remembrance of those fallen for the country, the show avoids criticism of Bush and his handling of the war in Iraq, but turns around and attacks Kerry out in the open. While CNN doesn't have any transcripts of this string of atrocities, let me list some of the most notorious:

• First we had a report by blonde mannequin Kelly Wallace to tell us how off-putting and boring all this stuff about Kerry's Vietnam record really is. Wallace mentions that Kerry goes out of his way to mention his war record at every opportunity. She shows footage of a ceremony that took place today, in which Kerry honored some of the fallen in Vietnam. Apparently, some wingnut yelled obscenities and lies to Kerry from a distance. You couldn't see it or hear it on the video. So Kelly Wallace makes sure we get a full on-screen transcript of what this lonesome heckler was saying and we couldn't catch. Then she proceeds to mention how many (allegedly) veteran associations hate Kerry and support Bush. It was an obscenely slanted attack on Kerry that distorted the truth and slandered the image of the presidential hopeful.
  
  The bimbette Wallace ended up her report suggesting that Kerry shouldn't run on his heroic war record because, in addition to 'off-putting', presidential candidates that happen to be war veterans usually don't win, anyway.



• The previous atrocity was followed by Judy Woodruff interviewing an incredibly partisan and pro-Bush apologist Ronald Brownstein, from the LA Times. Brownstein, against all logic and reality, said that in order for Kerry to even attempt to win Bush voters "he needs to demonstrate that he can keep America as safe and secure as Bush is doing." Yes he said that. My nausea was so intense I couldn't pay attention to any other pro-Bush propaganda that Brownstein spewed.



• Then we had a caper by the loathsome Bill Schneider, a political analyst that CNN always avoids presenting with his real title: senior scholar of the right-wing AEI think-tank (American Enterprise Institute).
  
  Schneider, in his faux-naive style compared all the wars in American history and the opposition they created. He mentioned that even the most righteous of wars had their "naysayers." Then he goes to say that our current war has unified the country because "we were attacked first."

  OK, CNN, what does it take to understand that IRAQ DID NOT ATTACK US FIRST!!!!!!

So here you have it, CNN is using today's holiday, a day of respect and remembrance of those fallen to defend our country, as just another opportunity to trash Kerry. Look out for CNN's transcript tomorrow.

|

Well, this one is for real:

Weinsteins Buy 'Fahrenheit 9/11' from Disney

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Miramax film studio founders Harvey and Bob Weinstein have personally acquired rights to Michael Moore's documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11" from Walt Disney Co., after Disney, which owns Miramax, declined to distribute it, Disney said on Friday.

Miramax had funded the film but Disney said it was too politically charged for the family-friendly company.

After more than a week of talks, the Weinsteins have bought rights to the film, estimated to have cost about $6 million, and will arrange for its theatrical and home video distribution. (...)

So now you know: "Farenheit 911" WILL be distributed in the USA by a major Hollywood distributor. It will probably be one of the biggest moneymakers of the year. Keep in mind the Weinsteins only paid $6 million for the movie, when they are used to producing very expensive Hollywood blockbusters. Given the tremendous controversy the movie has created, and the fact that it won the Cannes Palm D'Or, this is a true bargain that will produce a tremendous amount of revenue.

I also hope Disney's investors and shareholders become very aware of the truckload of money they will not be making, thanks to Mr. Eisner.

|

That awful noise you hear is Christopher Hitchens, tripping all over himself and dropping his bottle of scotch while jumping the shark in the most ungracious of fashions.

While all the neocons in DC are running around denying they ever met Chalabi, or simply having panic attacks while shredding all evidence of their dirty dealings with the Iraqi con-man, Christopher Hitchens goes ahead and publishes this excrement:

Defending Chalabi
by Christopher Hitchens

Sad, sad, sad.

You can actually see the alcohol talking all through that article. The guy sets up countless straw-man arguments, only to conclude that this is all Clinton's fault! Hitchens falls as low as to even claim that Chalabi's conviction for fraud and racketeering in Jordan may be the product of some conspiracy by Saddam Hussein's agents in Jordan. If Hitchens would put the bottle down enough to remain sober up for a couple of hours, he may have found out that Chalabi was tried and convicted of fleecing his clients from Petra Bank (up to $60 million in personal savings) and running away with the cash. Chalabi was convicted in absentia to 23 years in prison for fraud. If he didn't flee Jordan, Chalabi would have done 23 years in the big house. This is widely known, but in his ethylic blindness, Hitchens decides to fabricate some laughable conspiracy theory with "secret agents" and other risible B-movie crap. The rest of the article continues the free-fall into embarrassing contradictions and excuses.

It must be awful to be aware that you once were a potentially great writer, then threw it all away by joining the neocon/anti-Clinton brigade.

No wonder he drinks so much!

|

This from The New York Times:

(snip) Mr. Kerry also asserted, in response to a question from a high school student about the possibility of another military draft, "If you elect me president of the United States, I will give us a foreign policy that absolutely makes it unnecessary to have a draft in this nation."

He accused the Bush administration of "running a kind of clandestine draft" that "turned the National Guard and the Reserve into almost active duty." (...)

So if you are a male under 34 and still wondering who you will vote come November 2004, keep this in mind:

Kerry '04 = NO DRAFT

Bush '04 = Your ass will be in the Iraqi desert in '05

It's your call...

|

As seen in the streets of New York:





Caption reads, "10,000 Volts in your pocket, guilty or innocent."

(Photos courtesy of Copper Greene and blogger Gizmodo)


|

Chilling window into what goes on in Guantanamo (article found by No More Mister Nice Blog):

Former Soldier Claims He Was Beaten During Training Exercise In Cuba

In an exclusive interview with LEX 18's Leigh Searcy, a central Kentucky soldier says he was told to pose as the enemy for a training exercise at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba in January 2003 - and it nearly cost him his life.

Sean Baker was a member of the Kentucky National Guard from 1989 to 1997. During that time, he served in the Gulf War. In the late 90's, he got out of the Guard, but re-enlisted after September 11th.

In January 2003, Baker was a member of the 438th Military Police company in Operation Enduring Freedom at Guantanamo Bay, where he says he was "given a direct order by an officer in the U.S. Army" to play the role of a detainee for a training exercise. (...)

Baker says what took place next happened at the hands of four U.S. soldiers - soldiers he believes didn't know he was one of them - has changed his life forever.

"They grabbed my arms, my legs, twisted me up and unfortunately one of the individuals got up on my back from behind and put pressure down on me while I was face down," said Baker. "Then he - the same individual - reached around and began to choke me and press my head down against the steel floor. After several seconds, 20 to 30 seconds, it seemed like an eternity because I couldn't breath. When I couldn't breath, I began to panic and I gave the code word I was supposed to give to stop the exercise, which was 'red.'"

But, Baker says, the beating didn't stop. "That individual slammed my head against the floor and continued to choke me," he said. "Somehow I got enough air, I muttered out, 'I'm a U.S. soldier, I'm a U.S. soldier.'"

Baker says it wasn't until one of the soldiers noticed what Baker was wearing did the exercise stop. "He saw that I had BDU's and boots on."

Nearly 15 months after that day, and countless medical treatments at Walter Reed Hospital, Baker is now medically retired from the military, but still suffers.

"I sustained an injury to my brain a traumatic brain injury which has caused me to have a seizure disorder I deal with daily," said Baker.

Baker's traumatic brain injury is outlined in a military document in his possession, which says the injury "was due to soldier playing role as a detainee who was uncooperative." (...)

Lemme guess... Rush will say they were "releasing some steam", "playing around," like a "fraternity prank"...

|

My friend gina johansen, from the excellent Salon TableTalk forum told me that Freepers are questioning the existence of photos of dead children from the wedding party bombed in Iraq.

Independently of the reasons and circumstances that led to this tragedy, I find it strange the outburst of stubborn denials, considering there is photographic evidence of that bombing. As far as I know, the European press has printed some horrible pictures of massacred children in the attack of that wedding party. Most of these pictures come from Agence France Presse. Here's one:

Warning: Not for the faint of heart:
Daily El Mundo, Spain - May 20, 2004

They also show screenshots of the people from the wedding video, then pictures of the same people laying dead, like the musicians of the wedding:

Daily El Mundo, Spain - May 24, 2004

For your info, El Mundo is a partner of The Guardian in Spain, also a partner of Liberation. These dailies collaborate and share articles, columnists and resources.

On edit:

For (terrible) electronic translations of those articles, use these links:

El Mundo 1 - automatic software translation

El Mundo 2 - automatic software translation

|

Take that, Mr. Eisner!



'Fahrenheit 9/11' Wins Palme D'Or Award at Cannes

CANNES, France (Reuters) - U.S. director Michael Moore's controversial anti-Bush documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11" won the Palme d'Or best film award at the Cannes film festival on Saturday in an evening otherwise dominated by Asian films.

"What have you done? I'm completely overwhelmed by this," an emotional Moore said in his acceptance speech.

"The last time I was on an award stage in Hollywood, all hell broke loose," he added with a laugh.

Moore won a special award in Cannes two years ago for his anti-gun documentary "Bowling for Columbine," which went on to win an Oscar. Moore drew criticism for his extended acceptance speech in which he spoke out against President Bush.

"Fahrenheit 9/11" attracted acres of publicity before the festival when Disney, the parent company of Miramax which produced the film, said it did not want to distribute the picture in an election year. (...)

|