JAR2 Archive February 2006

All of the commentary and site information that was in this area has been Archived.

SEE: JAR2.com: As you may have noticed the site has changed quite a bit. I have been consolidating the information being hosted on my server into tighter groups and have eliminated some of the pages altogether. For example the Student's page and the IQ page are now one, the Wallpaper page now contains links to almost all of the photographic content on the JAR2 server, and so on and so forth, if you have any suggestions please send them. I hope that some of you are actually reading my stories in the window above and that you enjoy them. That is all for now, enjoy!

☼``*-,,_♥♪♥ ♥♪♥_,,.-*`☼ ☼``*-,,_♥♪♥ ♥♪♥_,,.-*`☼ ☼``*-,,_♥♪♥ ♥♪♥_,,.-*`☼ ☼``*-,,_♥♪♥ ☼``*-,,_♥♪♥ ♥♪♥_,,.-*`☼ ☼``*-,,_♥♪♥ ♥♪♥_,,.-*`A :-)

The intrepid young man, naïve in his unawareness of the ramifications of his actions, boldly proceeded with his as of yet unsuccessful forays into the black arts. Machiavellian manifestations stemming from previously attempted spells only served to obfuscate the true source of the evil permeating his life in myriad ways. Were he to have believed in ancient Egyptian curses, the source would have been clear, but as with the other victims of the curse of the boy pharaoh enlightenment only came at the moment of death.

Into the darkness he drove, through the mists and the fog which played tricks on his eyes. He had been driving for six hours through the forest and was becoming increasingly nervous as he drove deeper and deeper into what was becoming pure wilderness. The trees had become stranger and stranger as he drove on, at first he had dismissed the moss and the weird limbs as nothing to get excited about but now he was becoming afraid. The trees were twisted and knarled and were beginning to choke in on the road which had become a narrow one lane path through the thickets. The forest here was so dense that he could not see into it at all now and the trees, whose limbs now met above the road were getting closer and lower. In effect making a tunnel through which he tried to maintain a healthy rate of speed, something telling him not to dare to slow down. It had become so narrow that he could not have turned around had he wanted to and want he did.

Follow-up to pictures below: Like they did to my house in Pennsylvania, this is more like what I remember.

Published: February 26, 2006

The administration's tendency to dodge accountability for lawless actions by resorting to secrecy and claims of national security is on sharp display in the case of a Syrian-born Canadian, Maher Arar, who spent months under torture because of United States action. A federal trial judge in Brooklyn has refused to stand up to the executive branch, in a decision that is both chilling and ripe for prompt overturning.

Mr. Arar, a 35-year-old software engineer whose case has been detailed in a pair of columns by Bob Herbert, was detained at Kennedy Airport in 2002 while on his way home from a family vacation. He was held in solitary confinement in a Brooklyn detention center and interrogated without proper access to legal counsel. Finally, he was shipped off to a Syrian prison. There, he was held for 10 months in an underground rat-infested dungeon and brutally tortured because officials suspected that he was a member of Al Qaeda. All this was part of a morally and legally unsupportable United States practice known as "extraordinary rendition," in which the federal government outsources interrogations to regimes known to use torture and lacking fundamental human rights protections.

The maltreatment of Mr. Arar would be reprehensible and illegal under the United States Constitution and applicable treaties even had the suspicions of terrorist involvement proven true. But no link to any terrorist organization or activity emerged, which is why the Syrians eventually released him. Mr. Arar then sued for damages.

The judge in the case, David Trager of Federal District Court in Brooklyn, did not dispute that United States officials had reason to know that Mr. Arar faced a likelihood of torture in Syria. But he took the rare step of blocking the lawsuit entirely, saying that the use of torture in rendition cases is a foreign policy question not appropriate for court review, and that going forward would mean disclosing state secrets.

It is hard to see why resolving Mr. Arar's case would necessitate the revelation of privileged material. Moreover, as the Supreme Court made clear in a pair of 2004 decisions rebuking the government for its policies of holding foreign terrorism suspects in an indefinite legal limbo in Guantánamo and elsewhere, even during the war on terror, the government's actions are subject to court review and must adhere to the rule of law.

With the Bush administration claiming imperial powers to detain, spy on and even torture people, and the Republican Congress stuck largely in enabling mode, the role of judges in checking executive branch excesses becomes all the more crucial. If the courts collapse when confronted with spurious government claims about the needs of national security, so will basic American liberties.

Torture:

Count 1: The Bush administration authorized the use of torture and abuse in violation of international humanitarian and human rights law and domestic constitutional and statutory law.

Rendition:

Count 2: The Bush administration authorized the transfer (rendition) of persons held in U.S. custody to foreign countries where torture is known to be practiced.

Illegal Detention:

Count 3: The Bush administration authorized the indefinite detention of persons seized in foreign combat zones and in other countries far from any combat zone and denied them the protections of the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of prisoners of war and the protections of the U.S. Constitution.

Count 4: The Bush administration authorized the round-up and detention in the United States of tens of thousands of immigrants on pretextual grounds and held them without charge or trial in violation of international human rights law and domestic constitutional and civil rights law.

Count 5: The Bush administration used military forces to seize and detain indefinitely without charges U.S. citizens, denying them the right to challenge their detention in U.S. courts.

Murder:

Count 6: The Bush administration committed murder by authorizing the CIA to kill those that the president designates, either US citizens or non-citizens, anywhere in the world.

Count 1

a. The Defendants responsible for the violations delineated in this count include: George W. Bush, President of the United States, Dick Cheney, Vice President, Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, former Director of Central Intelligence, George Tenet; Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, V Corps, Commanding General and formerly in charge of Combined Joint Task Force 7, Iraq; Colonel Thomas M. Pappas, Brigade Commander, 205th Military Intelligence Brigade; Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller; Alberto Gonzales, formerly White House Counsel and now Attorney General of the United States; Jay S. Bybee, Assistant Attorney General, and David Addington, Vice Presidential Counsel.

b. Defendants actions under this count constitute egregious violations of international and domestic law, including crimes of war and crimes against humanity. The U.S. laws violated include, but are not limited to: the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution; 18 U.S.C. Section 242 (War Crimes); 18 U.S.C. Section 2340 (Convention Against Torture Statute); the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Army Regulation 190-8, Articles 3 and 5 of the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions, and customary international law as reflected, expressed, and defined in multilateral treaties and other international instruments, international and domestic judicial decisions, and other authorities.

c. In commission of Count 1, those named above did engage in the following acts:

1) In or about December, 2001, Bush ordered torture by authorizing Tenet to order the Special Access Program that led to the secret detention of Hiwa Abdul Rahman Rushul, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, Abu Zabaida and dozens of other detainees without any contact with the outside world in secret prisons around the world and ordering them subjected to tortures including water-boarding, severe beatings, subjection to extreme temperatures, suspension in painful positions, denial of pain-killing medicine after gunshot wounds, severe burning by hot metal, asphyxiation and by threat of death and sexual assault against themselves and members of their families. During such torture an unknown number of detainees died, including Manadel al-Jamadi, Abdul Wali and Abid Hamad Mahalwi.
2) On or about August 1, 2002, upon the initiative of Cheney, Addington and Gonzales drafted a memorandum, Re: Standards of conduct under USC 2340-2340 A signed by Bybee, justifying torture and authorizing its use on detainees and detailing possible defenses in the event of prosecution under the Convention Against Torture Act. The memorandum was approved by Bush, Cheney and the National Security Council.
3) In October, 2002, Miller requested authorization of torture techniques for use at Guantanamo.
4) Beginning in November, 2002, Miller, acting with the authorization of the above-cited memorandum, committed grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions by ordering coerced interrogation of hundreds of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, by subjecting them to humiliating and degrading treatment, including the forced removal of clothing, sleep deprivation, sensory deprivation, subjection to loud and prolonged noise, by denying them medical care and by submitting them to torture. Miller ordered the torture of at least dozens of detainees at Guantanamo Bay by ordering them subjected to extremes of heat and cold, shackled in painful positions for many hours, subjected to beatings with batons, all of which caused the detainees severe pain and suffering. In addition he ordered them threatened with dogs, subjecting them to threat of severe pain and suffering by dog-bite. In addition he ordered that detainees be threatened with transfer to countries known for extreme methods of torture.
5) In December, 2002, Rumsfeld, acting under the authorization of the August, 2002 memorandum, committed grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions by ordering the coerced interrogation of detainees at Guantanamo, by subjecting them to humiliating and degrading treatment, including the forced removal of clothing, sensory deprivation, stress positions, and torture ordering that detainees at Guantanamo be threatened with dogs, subjecting them to threat of severe pain and suffering by dog-bite.
6) In August, 2003, Rumsfeld sent Miller to Iraq to institute torture techniques there.
7) In September, 2003, Sanchez committed grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions by ordering coerced interrogation of hundreds of detainees in Iraq, by subjecting them to humiliating and degrading treatment, including the forced removal of clothing, sleep deprivation, sensory deprivation, subjection to loud and prolonged noise, by denying them medical care and by submitting them to torture by ordering them subjected to extremes of heat and cold, shackled in painful positions for many hours, all of which caused the detainees severe pain and suffering. In addition he ordered them threatened with dogs, subjecting them to threat of severe pain and suffering by dog-bite. Furthermore when Sanchez was informed by the ICRC of additional torture and degrading treatment occurring in detention centers throughout Iraq, he did nothing to stop these acts.
8) Beginning in September , 2003 many detainees at Abu Ghraib, and elsewhere in Iraq were tortured pursuant to the directives of Rumsfeld, Miller and Sanchez, authorized by the August, 2002 memorandum. During the commission of the acts of torture that the defendants conspired to commit, at least 28 detainees died.

Count 2

a. The Defendants responsible for the violations delineated in this count include: George W. Bush, President of the United States, John Ashcroft, formerly Attorney General of the United States; Tom Ridge, formerly Secretary of State for Homeland Security; George Tenet, formerly Director of Central Intelligence.

b. Defendants actions under this count constitute egregious violations of international and domestic law. The laws violated include, but are not limited to: the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution; 18 U.S.C. Section 242 (War Crimes); 18 U.S.C. Section 2340 (Convention Against Torture Statute), 28 U.S.C. 1350, note (the Torture Victim Protection Act), 5 U.S.C. 702 (Administrative Procedure Act); the Convention Against Torture and implementing regulations.

c. In commission of Count 2, those named above did engage in the following acts:

1) Since September 11, 2001, the Defendants committed grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and authorized torture by authorizing covert extraordinary renditions, -- the detention and transfer of over 100 detainees including both US citizens, such as Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, and non-citizens, such as Canadian Maher Arar, to countries known for torture, to be tortured at CIA direction. The Defendants who have adopted, ratified, and/or implemented the extraordinary renditions policy know that non-U.S. citizens removed under this policy will be interrogated under torture.

Count 3

a. The Defendants responsible for the violations delineated in this count include: George W. Bush, President of the United States, Dick Cheney, Vice President, Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, Alberto Gonzales, formerly White House Counsel and now Attorney General of the United States; George Tenet, formerly Director of Central Intelligence, Jay S. Bybee, Assistant Attorney General, and David Addington, Vice Presidential Counsel.

b. Defendants actions under this count constitute egregious violations of international and domestic law, including crimes of war and crimes against humanity. The U.S. laws violated include, but are not limited to: Article II of the U.S. Constitution; the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution; the due process requirements embodied in the common law; 5 U.S.C. Section 702 (the Administrative Procedure Act); 18 U.S.C. Section 242 (War Crimes); Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law (18 USC 242); Conspiracy Against Rights (18 USC 241); the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Army Regulation 190-8, Articles 3 and 5 of the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions, and customary international law as reflected, expressed, and defined in multilateral treaties and other international instruments, international and domestic judicial decisions, and other authorities.

c. In commission of Count 3, those named above did engage in the following acts:

1) In October, 2001 Cheney and Addington committed grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions by directing that a Presidential order be drafted authorizing the indefinite detention without charge of detainees and their subjection to military tribunals.
2) On November 16, 2001, Bush did under color of law willfully subject thousands of detainees outside the United States to the deprivation of their rights to due process under the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the Constitution by on Nov. 16, 2001 issuing a Military Order authorizing unconstitutional detention without charge of non-citizens, also thereby committing a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions.
3) In November, 2001, pursuant to the above-cited Military order, thousands of individual were detained in camps in Afghanistan and at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba without charge or trial. The detainees have been imprisoned at the Guantánamo since January 2002. They have been held incommunicado without access to their families or counsel or to the courts.
4) In or about December, 2001, Bush committed authorized Tenet to order the Special Access Program that led to the secret detention of Hiwa Abdul Rahman Rushul, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, Abu Zabaida and dozens of other detainees without any contact with the outside world in secret prisons around the world.
5) In January, 2002, Gonzales committed grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions by advising Bush in written memos to suspend the application of the Geneva conventions to detainees.
6) On February 7, 2002, Bush committed grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions by issuing in February 7, 2002 a Memorandum stating that Geneva Convention does not apply to detainees, unlawful combatants.
7) Beginning in March, 2003, tens of thousands of individuals are detained in Iraq without charge or trial, in violation of the Geneva Conventions.

Count 4

a. The Defendants responsible for the violations delineated in this count include: John Ashcroft, formerly Attorney General of the United States; Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General of the United States; Tom Ridge, formerly Secretary of Homeland Security, Michael Chernoff Secretary of Homeland Security

b. Defendants actions under this count constitute egregious violations of international and domestic law. The laws violated include, but are not limited to: the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments to the Constitution, Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law (18 USC 242); Conspiracy Against Rights (18 USC 241); the Alien Tort Statute (28 U.S.C. 1350) ,customary international law, and treaty law as incorporated into federal common law and statutory law.

c. In commission of Count 4, those named above did engage in the following acts:

1) Thousands of male non-citizens from the Middle East, South Asia, and elsewhere who are Arab or Muslim or have been perceived by Defendants to be Arab or Muslim, were detained on minor immigration violations following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States (post-9/11 detainees), and were treated as of interest to the governments terrorism investigation and subjected to a blanket hold until cleared policy pursuant to which the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) denied them bond without regard to evidence of dangerousness or flight risk, and detained them until the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) cleared them of terrorist ties. All were in fact cleared of any connection to terrorism.

2) Subsequently, in the period from January, 2002 to the present, tens of thousands of non-citizens from many countries, primarily from the Caribbean, and Africa but also from the Middle East, South Asia, Latin America and Eastern Europe, were detained without criminal charge for months and in some cases years as administrative detainees, a practice in violation of the basic provisions of the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments.

3) The victims were subjected to one or more of the following unconstitutional policies and practices: they were held without an indictment by a Grand jury, they were denied the right to counsel, the right to a trial by jury and denied any form of judicial review. They were held without any criminal charge being brought against them. They were denied bond. Some were classified as being of high interest to the governments terrorism investigation, Witness Security and/or Management Interest Group 155 detainees in the absence of adequate standards or procedures for making such a determination or evidence that they were involved in terrorism. They were subjected to a communications blackout and other actions that interfered with their access to counsel and their ability to seek redress in the courts. After receiving final removal orders or grants of voluntary departure, some were held in immigration custody far beyond the period necessary to secure their removal or voluntary departure from the United States, again without regard to whether they posed a danger or flight risk.

4) While in detention, the detainees have been subjected to unreasonable and excessively harsh conditions. Some have been held in overcrowded and unsanitary county jail facilities and housed with potentially dangerous criminal pretrial detainees, even though they themselves have never been charged with a crime. Others have been kept in federal and county facilities where they have been placed in tiny cells for over 23 hours a day and strip-searched, manacled, and shackled when taken out of their cells. Many have suffered physical and verbal abuse by their guards. These abuses include being badly beaten and being attacked by dogs. Many have been denied the ability to practice their faith during their detention.

5) During their confinement, Defendants or their agents subjected some detainees to coercive and involuntary custodial interrogation designed to overcome their will and coerce involuntary and incriminating statements from them.

6) By adopting, promulgating, and implementing these policies and practices, Defendants Ashcroft, Gonzales, Ridge, and Chernoff, and others have intentionally or recklessly violated rights guaranteed to the detainees by the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the United States Constitution, customary international law, and treaty law. In doing so they have also violated the Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law Act (18 USC 242) which prescribes punishment for Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens. They have also engaged in a Conspiracy Against Rights (18 USC 241) by conspiring to injure, oppress, threaten, and intimidate the detainees in the free exercise or enjoyment of the rights and privileges secured to them by the Constitution of the United States, including the right to personal liberty and to due process.

Count 5

a. The Defendants responsible for the violations delineated in this count include: George W. Bush, President of the United States, Dick Cheney, Vice President, Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, Alberto Gonzales, formerly White House Counsel and now Attorney General of the United States;. Jay S. Bybee, Assistant Attorney General, and Dick Addington, Vice Presidential Counsel.

b. Defendants actions under this count constitute egregious violations of international and domestic law. The laws violated include, but are not limited to: Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments to the Constitution, Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law (18 USC 242); Conspiracy Against Rights (18 USC 241); customary international law, and treaty law as incorporated into federal common law and statutory law.

c. In commission of Count 5, those named above did engage in the following acts:

1) On June 9, Bush ordered Rumsfeld to detain Jose Padilla, a U.S. citizen as an enemy combatant. Rumsfeld ordered that military personnel carry out this Presidential directive, which had no basis in any law. Padilla was not charged with any criminal offense, was not indicted by a grand jury, was not convicted or even tried by a jury, was given no access to counsel and has been imprisoned for over three years. Padillas rights under the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the Constitution were thereby violated in violation of 18 USC 242 and 18 USC 241.

2) On the initiative of Cheney and Addington, Gonzales inserted into an Aug.1, 2002 memorandum from Bybee wording justifying the President unlimited power to detain as enemy combatants anyone, without any judicial process. This memorandum, approved by Bush and Cheney is part of a conspiracy against the rights of all US citizens and residents.

3) In court papers in the case of Padilla, and in the case of Hamdi as well as elsewhere, Bush and his agents have claimed that the President has the power to designate any one, citizen or immigrant, as a enemy combatant and to jail them indefinitely without charge or trial. Such assertions by those acting under color of law constitute a conspiracy against the rights of all US citizens and residents.

Count 6

a. The Defendants responsible for the violations delineated in this count include: George W. Bush, President of the United States, George Tenet, formerly Director of Central Intelligence

b. Defendants actions under this count constitute egregious violations of international and domestic law. The laws violated include, but are not limited to: the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments to the Constitution, Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law (18 USC 242); and Murder (18 USC 1111)

c. In commission of Count 6, those named above did engage in the following acts:

1) In October 2001 Bush issued a secret finding authorizing the CIA to kill those he designated, either US citizens or non-citizens, anywhere in the world.

2) Under the authority of this secret finding, Bush and Tenet ordered the killing by Predator drone of US citizen Kamal Derwish.

ALABAMA paper publishes some pretty tame pictures from the civil rights era. I wonder what happened to all the pictures of blacks and minorities being hung, shot, beaten, and killed that I remember seeing when I was a boy. They claim to have opened up some great archive but frankly it's all pretty tame stuff. Nonetheless worth a look. Perhaps even though the real violence and injustice is not glaring one in the face, a taste of what that time was like is at least to be had. The blood of many innocent people flowed for the rights that have been lost in the last 15 years.

Mike Smith, an alleged Russian spy imprisoned by the U.K. and released after serving his sentence, contacted JAR2 and asked me to publicize information regarding his case on the site. If any one has information regarding any aspect of his case please feel free to send it, anonymity guaranteed. You can read more about his case by clicking on the links below.

Many thanks for putting the information from my blog onto your website, and also for giving a link to my blog.

I have put a link to your site on my blog and mentioned that you have put the information on JAR2.com. See here:

You know the Olympics are back. You know their ancient ancestors were Greek. You may even know that their birthplace--the religious sanctuary of Olympia--was home to the gargantuan Statue of Zeus, one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World. But do you know what the ancient games were really like?

We don't mean the shoe company. We mean the ancient Greek goddess of victory. According to legend, the first Olympics began in 776 BC, with a dusty, barefoot race held during Olympia's Zeus festival. After that, when Greeks flocked to Olympia's rural sanctuary every four years to praise Zeus, they stayed for the thrill of Nike and the agony of defeat. Similar games were held at ancient Delphi and other sanctuaries, but Olympia's games reigned supreme.

Like their modern equivalents, these competitions were intended to reveal the most skilled athletes. But a lack of protective clothing, random pairings that failed to account for size or skill, and few rules made the ancient Olympics a most dangerous game. Ancient fans were as forgiving as a Russian figure skating coach, and competitors could die trying to please the crowd.

The fleet of foot enjoyed prominent status even among champion athletes, as most Greeks had grown up listening to legends of the half mortal, half divine Hercules, who ran great distances as a test of strength. Olympic athletes proudly ran their distances barefoot and naked, but legend suggests that wasn't always so. An ancient story circulated that the tradition of nudity began in 720 BC when an eager sprinter simply lost his shorts.

Competitors had four races to choose from, all measured by the length of the 192-meter stadium. The first was called the stadion, a sprint exactly one stadium long. The next race was double that length, while the third was long distance--between 7 and 24 stades.

The other race was the hoplitodromos, an exhausting two- to four-stade sprint by runners encumbered with 60 pounds of hoplite armor. Eventually, nakedness won out there, too, and racers grabbed just helmets and shields. A starting rope ensured few jumped the gun; those who did were beaten.

Greek jockeys also competed sans pants. No saddles or stirrups either. And they never got much credit for being real athletes. As in modern times, it was expensive to buy, stable, and train a horse. Jockeys were considered mere employees. When a race was won, the owner, and not the rider, was crowned with the olive wreath.

The real glamour lay in the chariot races, easily the equivalent of today's NASCAR. Spectators held their breath waiting for a good chariot crash. The four-horse chariot race, called the tethrippon, was the real crowd pleaser--thrilling to watch, easy to bet on, and terribly expensive for owners. According to some accounts, Greek women could vie for the olive wreath in this category as horse owners, though under practically every other circumstance, married women were expressly forbidden to watch the games.

Complaints that the horse races were rigged cropped up frequently. In AD 67, the extravagant and eccentric Roman emperor Nero staged a unique ten-horse chariot race. Judges declared him the winner despite the fact that he fell from his chariot and failed to complete the course. Later historians duly struck Nero's name from the list of champions.

There was the pentathlon--"pent" for five events: sprinting, long jumping, javelin hurling, discus throwing, and wrestling. The philosopher Aristotle called pentathlon competitors the most beautiful athletes of all, since their bodies were "capable of enduring all efforts."

Discus and javelin hurling required balance, agility, and strength. The saucer-shaped discus was more or less a lead or stone frisbee that varied in size, while the wood javelin was a six-foot pole with a leather thong near the center that let the hurler keep a firm hold. Long jumpers used barbell-shaped weights called halteres to increase their distance, in a swinging motion that physicists say really does work.

The games concluded as they began: with a sacrifice to the gods. Winners returned home to be feted with banquets, parades, and money.. Some were even granted free meals for the rest of their lives. The defeated went home in disgrace.

"This deal wouldn't go forward if we were concerned about the security of the United States of America."
-- President Bush on the UAE port deal

But he treatens to veto any measure against it.

"I think it's a bit of a joke if we were serious about scrutinizing foreign ownership and foreign control, particularly since 9/11."
-- Richard Perle, discussing the panel that approved the UAE port deal and on which he once sat

"Pretty outrageous."
-- Tom DeLay on the UAE port deal

A new report released this week from Democrats on the House Rules Committee, led by Rep. Louise Slaughter, hits the nail on the head. Entitled "America for Sale: The Cost of Republican Corruption," examines the real world implications of the Republican scandals unfolding every day.

The report documents the ways in which Republican corruption has infiltrated a multitude of political arenas ranging from healthcare to education to national security. Republican members of Congress are reaping the benefits that their special-interest friends have to offer while simultaneously putting the American people at a loss. Rather than representing their constituents, they are instead representing the "highest bidder."

Despite billions of dollars that have thus far been spent on Homeland Security, the 9/11 Commission repeatedly questions the utility of these funds. Airport security is deemed insufficient, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction has not been stymied, and the United States government has been given a failing grade for its overall security by the Commission. As the report documents, the Republicans seem to have been cherry picking national defense contractors with one standard - will this contractor support the Republican Party?

The Government Accountability Office has questioned whether the 250 billion dollars for the Iraq war has been put to its best use. Despite this astronomical amount, there is a lack of sufficient, safe supplies. Among other problems, military Humvees do not offer adequate means of transportation, and the drinking water delivered to the soldiers is grossly contaminated

Another pressing issue is America's source of energy. The rising energy costs are putting a great amount of stress on American families across the nation, but energy companies have racked up excessive profits. And we're to believe that the millions of dollars in campaign contributions given to Republicans are a mere coincidence.

There are other salient issues that are affecting Americans on a day-to-day basis. Millions of Americans have essentially been left to fend for themselves after the passage of Medicare Part D. By intertwining private insurance companies with red tape, the federal government has once again chosen its own best interest - political support from large private insurance companies - over the basic needs of its citizens.

Lastly, the circumstance surrounding America's higher education is dismal. It too is entangled with the Republican's special interests. The Republicans are vehemently fighting against direct loans because it eliminates the need for financial institutions that offer a great amount of political support from this organization.

Overall, if the Republicans are able to continue their pay-to-play gambit, the constituents' interests will be represented less and less. More and more, only lobbyists and wealthy special interest groups are being represented in what is supposed to be "the People's House." As long as the Republican culture of corruption continues, the remedies to the problems facing American families.

The American Chronicle published the key specific findings of the report...

We've been needling arch-anti-environmentalist Richard Pombo of California for a couple weeks now, but this week he got the full court press. The DCCC launched an entire new Web site dedicated to his environmental and ethical missteps, and we're inviting you to take part in a contest to design the billboard advertising the website in his district.

Check it out.

Meanwhile, the stories continued to ripple out showing just why he deserves the treatment we're giving him.

Bob Irvin: Pombo's 'all-out assault'
Sacramento Bee - February 22, 2006

Of course the story that got the ball rolling on all of this was the little tale about Pombo's taxpayer-funded RV vacation. He's twisted and turned, flip-flopped and flailed, but this letter to the editor of his local paper shows that his constituents are seeing through it...

And while Pombo has made a name for himself with some rather unique forms of scandal and pay-for-play, let no one think he's exempt from the type of general Republican corruption discussed in our first story...

A not-so-sweet Valentine (No Love Lost)
Tracy Press - February 15, 2006

That response captures about the same level of respect for America's seniors that Pombo and the Republicans displayed when they let big drug companies write the Medicare bill. Points for consistency, perhaps.

And what is about these California Republicans anyhow? Pombo may have enough problems to fill up an entire website, but he's got stiff competition for most scandal-plagued Golden State GOPer. There's Jerry Lewis in CA-41, who earned a massive USA Today expose for the appearance of pay-for-play with a massive hedge fund, there's John Doolittle in CA-04 and Dana Rohrabacher, whose connections with Jack Abramoff run deep and lengthy, there's Bill Thomas in CA-22, who shut down the inquiry into potentially illegal Bush Administration actions regarding the Medicare bill, David Dreier in CA-26, who introduced the gutted ethics rules last year, and Duncan Hunter in CA-41 who held the profoundly controversial Titan Corp. as his biggest donor in the 2004 cycle. But Hunter is only tangentially connected to the corrupt California Republican who, in the end, set a new bar for betrayal of the public trust...

Prosecutors recommend 10-year maximum sentence for ex-Rep. Cunningham
Associated Press - February 17, 2006

You've probably had a tough time missing the coverage of the fact that control over six major American ports has been sold to the United Arab Emirates, one of three countries to have recognized the Taliban government. But the information has been pouring out faster than most of us can keep track of, so here's a digest of the key stories on the matter...

Dubai company set to run U.S. ports has ties to administration
New York Daily News - February 21, 2006

Bennie Thompson, ranking Democrat on the Homeland Security Committee, has written to the Government Accountability Office requesting an investigation into the deal, and in particular the following questions:

Meanwhile, President Bush issues a veto threat and scoffs at concerns about security, even as he and others concede they were caught off guard...

Bush Would Veto Any Bill Halting Dubai Port Deal
New York Times - February 21, 2006

Donald Rumsfeld, one of those on the board that supposedly approved the deal, gave little more in the way of reassurance at a press conference this week...

And finally, the White House put out word that even President Bush was not aware of the deal, despite his vigorous denunciations of his critics...

Bush not aware of port deal approval
Lexington Herald-Leader - February 23, 2006

That fact became all the more bizarre when it was paired with the revelation that the deal was not, in fact, routine, but rather included several unique provisions negotiated in secret...

Arab Co., White House Had Secret Agreement
Associated Press - February 23, 2006

The White House has attempted to spin these negotiations as an indication that they were careful, contradictions with previous statements not withstanding. But does making a special exception to allow a company to hold on to documents where they cannot be subpoenaed in any investigation sound careful?

And while Republicans are racing to use this as an opportunity to distance themselves from an unpopular president for whom they've been a rubber stamp up to now, their voting records reek of hypocrisy. While Democrats have a history of making port security a priority, Republicans have bottled up serious efforts to address it and voted down attempts to adequately fund port security. The DCCC release catalogued their votes...

Finally, in a late breaking development, the port deal is being delayed. But Democrats and a few Republicans in the Senate immediately made clear that would not suffice. From the subscription-only Congressional Quarterly...

Delay of Ports Deal Does Not Satisfy Critics in Congress
Congressional Quarterly - February 24, 2006

The weekly update from Media Matters for America

This Week:

Media coverage of port deal ignores Democratic port security efforts ...

... and spins issue for Bush

Media increasingly out of touch with reality and public opinion

Fool the NY Times once, shame on you. Fool the paper a few dozen times ...

Media coverage of port deal ignores Democratic port security efforts ...

In covering the Bush administration's controversial decision to allow a company owned by the government of Dubai, a member state of the United Arab Emirates (UAE), to run terminals at six U.S. ports, many news outlets have ignored long-standing demands by leading Democrats that more be done to secure U.S. ports.

NBC's Tim Russert even suggested that Democrats are talking about the port deal in order to exploit it for political gain and ignored the other possibility: that Democrats are talking about port security because they've been talking about port security for years.

Russert told Today viewers that Democrats "say they have learned" a "lesson" from Bush: "That is, there is a post-September 11th mentality," adding "Here's the situation: Democrats believe they can look tough on national security."

In fact, leading Democrats have long argued and fought to strengthen U.S. border security, only to be thwarted by Republicans -- something it is almost impossible to believe Russert does not know. During a December 1, 2002, appearance on Russert's Meet the Press, Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) pointed to port security as a way in which "there are enormous gaps and deficits in the preparedness level of our country." And on October 17, 2004, Russert hosted a Meet the Press debate between South Carolina's Democratic and Republican Senate candidates. During that debate, Democratic candidate Inez Tenenbaum, now South Carolina's state superintendent of education, accused then-Republican candidate, Sen. James DeMint of having "voted against port security for South Carolina."

Even if Russert doesn't remember these examples of Democrats talking -- on the television show he hosts -- about the importance of improving port security, he should still be aware of their focus on the issue. During the 2004 Democratic convention, several of the highest-profile Democrats in the country used the opportunity to speak directly to tens of millions of Americans about ... port security.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) talked about the need to "secure our ports." Vice presidential nominee John Edwards promised that he and Kerry would "listen to the wisdom of the September 11th commission. ... We will strengthen our homeland security and protect our ports." Kerry argued that "the frontlines of this battle are not just far away. They're right here on our shores. ... We shouldn't be letting 95 percent of our container ships come into our ports without ever being physically inspected." And former President Bill Clinton used his speech to point out that Democrats in congress fought for improved port security -- but were opposed by the Bush administration and congressional Republicans:

On homeland security, Democrats tried to double the number of containers at ports and airports checked for weapons of mass destruction. It cost $1 billion. It would have been paid for under our bill by asking the 200,000 millionaires in America to cut their tax cut by $5,000. Almost all 200,000 of us would like to have done that, to spend $5,000 to make all 300 million Americans safer.

The measure failed. Why? Because the White House and the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives opposed it. They thought our $5,000 was more important than doubling the container checks at our ports and airports.

If you agree with that, by all means, re-elect them. If not, John Kerry and John Edwards are your team for the future.

During the first presidential debate between Kerry and President Bush on September 30, 2004, Kerry criticized Bush's record on port security:

The president -- 95 percent of the containers that come into the ports, right here in Florida, are not inspected. Civilians get onto aircraft, and their luggage is X-rayed, but the cargo hold is not X- rayed. Does that make you feel safer in America?

During the third debate on October 13, 2004, Kerry returned to the issue:

I believe that this president, regrettably, rushed us into a war, made decisions about foreign policy, pushed alliances away. And, as a result, America is now bearing this extraordinary burden where we are not as safe as we ought to be.

The measurement is not: Are we safer? The measurement is: Are we as safe as we ought to be? And there are a host of options that this president had available to him, like making sure that at all our ports in America containers are inspected. Only 95 percent of them -- 95 percent come in today uninspected. That's not good enough.

The most prominent Democrats in the country have used the most important forums they had access to, with the largest audiences, to talk about the importance of securing U.S. ports. They did so at the Democratic National Convention, during presidential debates, and have done so on Russert's own television show. Yet Russert suggested that Democrats are just now discovering the issue and cynically exploiting it for partisan gain.

Media Matters for America recently explained that not only have prominent Democrats spoken of the need for increased port security, they have worked to make it a reality:

Indeed, many of the most outspoken Democratic critics of the Bush administration's current port deal have also sponsored legislation designed to better secure the nation's ports. Democratic Sens. Bill Nelson (FL), Patty Murray (WA), with co-sponsor Hillary Rodham Clinton (NY), Chuck Schumer (NY), and Rep. Jane Harman (CA) have all introduced legislation to enhance the nation's port security.

Furthermore, most Republicans in Congress have resisted Democrats' efforts to secure U.S. ports. As the Senate Democratic Policy Committee has documented, since 9-11, Senate Republicans have voted to defeat Democratic measures to increase funding for port security. For example, Schumer's amendment to the 2004 Department of Homeland Security Appropriations bill to provide $70 million for research and development to stop nuclear materials from entering U.S. ports was defeated by a 51-45 near-party-line vote. Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) introduced an amendment to the same bill that would have provided $100 million in port and maritime security grants. The Republican Senate rejected Byrd's measure by a near party-line vote of 51-45. Republicans also defeated former Sen. Ernest Hollings's (D-SC) amendment to the 2004 Homeland Security Appropriations bill, which would have provided $300 million in maritime security grants, by a 50-48 largely party-line vote. In addition, for the 2003 War Supplemental Appropriations bill, Hollings's amendment to increase port security funding by $1 billion was defeated by a 52-47 vote largely along party lines.

And as the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee has noted, many of the Senate Republicans now calling for the Bush administration to revoke the DPW port deal have continually voted against Democratic attempts to strengthen port security in the United States.

If port security is not a topic that was on most Americans' minds until the current controversy, it isn't because Democrats haven't been pressing the issue. It's because Russert and his colleagues haven't been covering it. It's a pattern we see time and time again: First, the media ignore Democrats' ideas and proposals; then reporters accuse Democrats of not having any ideas -- or of discovering an issue only when they see the potential for political gain. CNN's Paula Zahn told State of the Union viewers that there is a "perception" that Democrats "have no agenda of their own ... basically the only thing they're good at is blasting the president." As we said at the time:

Which is, of course, utter nonsense. The public thinks Democrats are good at plenty of other things. Polling finds that the American people have more confidence in the Democratic Party than the Republican Party when it comes to Social Security, Medicare, reducing the deficit, Iraq, finding terrorists without violating the average American's rights, standing up to lobbyists and special interests, dealing with the issue of corruption in government, ability to manage the federal government, abortion, and end-of-life decisions.

[...]

To the extent that there are people who think the Democrats lack ideas or an agenda, Zahn and her colleagues might want to examine why they think that. It certainly isn't because Democrats actually lack ideas or an agenda. HouseDemocrats.gov offers plenty of detail about the House Democrats' ideas and agenda; as do the websites of many progressive organizations, like the Center for American Progress.

If people think Democrats lack ideas, it is largely because news organizations ignore the Democrats' ideas. It's because Paula Zahn devotes an hour every night not to assessing the political parties' policy proposals, but to urgent topics like "Breast Milk Black Market"; "Oprah Flip-Flops on Controversial Book" and "New Clues in Missing Honeymooner Case?" -- and those are all from a single edition of Paula Zahn Now. Other recent editions have focused on "A Life Changed By Cosmetic Surgery," the always-popular "Googling For Pornography," and the pressing question: "Can voodoo make a comeback?"

... and spins issue for Bush

A common problem with coverage of the UAE port deal has been a failure to distinguish between companies that are located in a foreign country and companies that are controlled by a foreign government. Much of the controversy surrounding the port deal stems from the fact that Dubai Ports World, the company seeking to buy the British conglomerate that used to manage the ports, thus gaining control of the terminals, is not merely located in the United Arab Emirates, it is actually owned by the UAE government.

The Bush administration has sought to blur that distinction and suggested that critics of the deal are unfairly discriminating against Arabs. Bush told reporters on February 21:

BUSH: I really don't understand why it's okay for a British company to operate our ports, but not a company from the Middle East ... I want those who are questioning it to step up and explain why all of a sudden a Middle Eastern company is held to a different standard than a Great British [sic] company. I'm trying to conduct foreign policy now by saying to people of the world, we'll treat you fairly.

Presumably, news organizations pointed out Bush's dishonesty in blurring the distinction in referring to a "company from the Middle East" rather than a "company owned by a foreign government?"

Well, no.

NBC chief White House correspondent David Gregory told viewers that Bush administration "officials suggested critics were unfairly discriminating against a Middle Eastern country given the ports were previously run by a British company." Gregory's colleague, NBC's Nightly News anchor Brian Williams, referred to Dubai Ports World as "a company from the United Arab Emirates." Neither mentioned the fact that the Bush administration officials' "suggestions" were based on a false comparison between a private "Great British" company and a company actually controlled by a foreign government.

On CNN, anchors and reporters repeatedly referred to Dubai Ports World as "Dubai-based," "a company based out of the United Arab Emirates," and "an Arab controlled company."

The Washington Post editorial board strongly defended the administration's decision to hand control of U.S. port terminals to a company owned by the government of the United Arab Emirates -- and, in doing so, joined Bush in offering misleading descriptions of Dubai Ports World. A February 24 Post editorial argued:

[T]he president's job description does not include taking a personal interest in decisions about whether foreign companies based in countries that are America's allies should be allowed to purchase other foreign companies that are based in countries that are America's allies. This is particularly the case when such purchases do not have any discernible impact on American security whatsoever.

In other words, the White House's "admission" that President Bush was unaware that Dubai Ports World, a company based in the United Arab Emirates, had purchased Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., a company based in Britain -- and thereby obtained management control of the business operations of six U.S. ports -- strikes us as completely unnecessary. Why should the president know? Twelve government departments and agencies, including the departments of Treasury, State, Defense and Homeland Security, had examined the deal over a three-month period and found it acceptable. Perhaps the White House should have anticipated this week's political storm and prepared for it. But because the objections are irrational, even that complaint is questionable.

[...]

As Mr. [Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon] England said yesterday, the war on terrorism demands that the United States "strengthen the bonds of friendship and security ... especially with our friends and allies in the Arab world." That means allies should be treated "equally and fairly around the world and without discrimination," he said.

The Post thus joined Bush in pretending that there is no difference between a company based in a foreign country and one owned by a foreign government -- then, having falsely equated the two different situations, used that falsehood to justify its endorsement of the administration's baseless allegation that critics of the deal are guilty of "discrimination"

If objections to the deal are as "irrational" as the Post asserted, one would think the Post could construct an argument for the deal that rests on truth and logic rather than misleading comparisons and insults.

The distinction between foreign-based companies and companies controlled by foreign governments is doubly important: not only does it debunk the baseless Bush/Washington Post claim that critics of the deal are discriminatory, it also suggests that the Bush administration may have violated a law that requires more thorough investigations of sales to companies that are owned by foreign government. As Media Matters explained:

The fact that a foreign government owns the acquiring company is crucial because U.S. law mandates additional investigation in such cases if the acquisition might affect national security. Prior to the administration's approval, the DPW transaction was examined by the Treasury Department's 12-member Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS). CFIUS reportedly conducted a 23-day review before signing off on the deal. A bipartisan group of lawmakers, however, has claimed that an additional review should have been undertaken. In a February 16 letter to Treasury Secretary John W. Snow, these seven members of Congress cited a 1993 amendment known as the Exon-Florio provision, which requires an additional 45-day investigation if "the acquirer is controlled by or acting on behalf of a foreign government" and the acquisition "could result in control of a person engaged in interstate commerce in the U.S. that could affect the national security of the U.S." These lawmakers have requested that the administration conduct this additional 45-day review before completing the transfer. Others have specifically criticized CFIUS for not carrying out the full investigation before approving the transaction. In a February 22 letter to Snow, Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) accused CFIUS of having apparently approved the sale "as expeditiously as possible, without even using the additional 45 day investigation process that was clearly warranted under the circumstances."

Further, in an October 2005 report examining the implementation of Exon-Florio, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) criticized CFIUS' narrow interpretation of what constitutes a national security threat and warned that this standard "may be limiting the Committee's analyses of proposed and completed foreign acquisitions." According to the GAO, the CFIUS has reviewed 470 pending acquisitions since 1997, but has executed a full investigation in only eight cases.

Media increasingly out of touch with reality and public opinion

Though the port deal has blown up in Bush's face, with reliable allies like House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL), Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN), and former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) criticizing the transfer of control of port terminals to Dubai Ports World, CNN's Wolf Blitzer appears nearly ready to declare Bush the winner in the matter:

BLITZER: You say there's no way he's going to win this debate, but a lot of times, Democrats and some Republicans, they've underestimated this president. When he puts his mind to something, he usually gets his way, at least over these past five years.

But if Bush "usually gets his way," it's because Blitzer and others in the media usually give it to him. And if he "gets his way" on the port deal, it very well may be because Blitzer and others overestimate this president.

As Media Matters extensively documented, Bush has a clear history of losing high profile fights, declaring victory anyway, and continuing to benefit from media coverage that either ignores his failures or joins him in portraying them as victories. Among the examples:

Creation of cabinet-level Department of Homeland Security

After Sens. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-CT) and Arlen Specter (R-PA) proposed the creation of a cabinet-level Department of Homeland Security in October 2001, the Bush administration came out against the idea, with then-press secretary Ari Fleisher telling reporters during a press briefing that Bush was advising members of Congress that there "does not need to be a cabinet-level" Office of Homeland Security.

On May 30, 2002, then-director of Homeland Security Tom Ridge stated that he would "probably recommend" that Bush veto a bill that created a cabinet-level DHS. Congress continued to press ahead with proposed legislation, and in a televised address on July 6, 2002, Bush reversed his administration's previous position, urging "Congress to join me in creating a single, permanent department with an overriding and urgent mission: securing the homeland of America and protecting the American people." Bush signed H.R.5005 into law, creating the cabinet-level office, on November 25, 2002.

McCain's anti-torture amendment, Patriot Act extension

Bush threatened to veto a 2005 military spending bill because of a provision inserted by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) that banned torture and inhumane treatment of detainees in U.S. custody. [...] On December 30, 2005, Bush signed the spending bill into law; at the same time, Bush also signed into law a one-month extension to the USA Patriot Act, despite having declared earlier that anything short of a full reauthorization of the bill would be unacceptable. Some members of Congress had balked at a full reauthorization, saying the act compromised the civil liberties of innocent Americans.

Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002

During the 2000 presidential campaign, then-Texas Gov. Bush was asked whether he would veto the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, better known as the McCain-Feingold bill. He answered, "Yes, I would. ... I think it does restrict free speech for individuals." Nevertheless, after the House approved the bill in February 2002 and the Senate adopted the House version in March, Bush signed it into law on March 27, saying "I believe that this legislation, although far from perfect, will improve the current financing system for federal campaigns."

Media Matters detailed several more examples; click here to read more.

Despite repeated failures and high profile losses -- defeats that are even more remarkable considering that several of them came when Bush's fellow Republicans controlled both houses of Congress -- reporters like Blitzer seem to take Bush's strength and political skills (and those of White House senior adviser Karl Rove) as a matter of faith. How else to explain the media's unshakable belief, in the face of all available evidence, that a Bush approval-ratings rebound is just around the corner? Or The New York Times' recent lipstick-on-a-pig assertion that Bush has "stabilized his political standing" -- perhaps the first time a president's consistently awful poll numbers have been portrayed as a positive.

As we recently noted:

The simple reality is that polls consistently show the following: The American people don't like President Bush. They don't approve of the way he's done his job. They don't trust him to handle key issues. They don't trust him, period. They think he deliberately misled the nation into war. They think history will judge him poorly. They think Congress should consider impeachment. They don't like his political party. They like Democrats better. They trust Democrats more on more important issues.

Any journalist or pundit who makes reference to public opinion in a way that contradicts these basic facts, without offering specific data, is simply misleading the American people.

Add that to the fact that the Iraq war is currently nearly as unpopular as Vietnam ever was, and that, as the New York Daily News has reported, even Bush allies are grumbling about his administration's "absolutely inept" political decisions.

Only two questions remain: What, exactly, will it take for Blitzer and his colleagues to finally understand that a wildly unpopular president, who lost the popular vote the first time he ran and likely would have lost it the second time had the media not so poorly covered the war he bungled and misled us into, is not the invincible political genius they imagine him to be? And how poor would Bush's standing be if he didn't benefit from the media constantly propping him up like this?

Fool the NY Times once, shame on you. Fool the paper a few dozen times ...

In a February 24 editorial about the port deal, The New York Times argued:

If the administration is in trouble with Congress, it's long overdue. For years now, the White House has stonewalled Congressional committees attempting to carry out their oversight duties. Administration officials appearing before Senate and House committees have given testimony that was, to put it generously, knowingly misleading. Requests for information have been simply waved away with an invocation of national security. Just recently, the Senate Intelligence Committee attempted to get information on the administration's extralegal wiretapping, but was told that it would compromise national security to tell the senators how the program works, how it is reviewed, how much information is collected and how that information is used.

Regular readers know where we're going with this: why in the world does The New York Times' editorial board continue to place its hope and faith in the ability and inclination of a Republican Congress to investigate a Republican president?

It knows the administration has "stonewalled Congressional committees" for "years." It knows Republicans in charge of carrying out congressional oversight duties are instead "willing to excuse and help to cover up" Bush's "miserable record on intelligence." Yet the Times stubbornly continues to trust Congress to investigate possible administration law-breaking in connection with Bush's warrantless domestic spying operation. Like Charlie Brown clinging to the blind faith that this time Lucy won't pull the football away, the Times continues to put its trust in people who have repeatedly made a mockery of it.

The US has decided to ignore the Geneva conventions just as Americans have ignored the fact that a usurper has been illegally spying on them and taken away their civil liberties while committing thousands of high crimes and trampling on the constitution, and all in the name of flexibility against an enemy created by they themselves. Terror terror terror terror terror terror terror terror terror terror terror terror terror...Had enough? More to come. And now the son-of-a-bitch Bush wants to allow Arabs to control all sea port operations on the East-Coast?

All par for the course for an administration whose vile-president shoots some old guy in the face and then has the poor old guy apologize in the national press for getting in the way of the royal buck-shot. I don't condone swearing and am not one to do so but I have had enough! Just who the FUCK do they think they are? And where the fuck is the fucking outrage?!?! Jesus help you all. You sold out.. You fucking pathetic sheep!!!! I can imagine Putin telling the Russian people that border security will now be handled by fucking Chechens.... FUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Our second offering just tells us what we knew all along and of course nothing will become of it, as usual...

Just a few months ago, Mora [former general counsel of the US Navy] attended a meeting in Rumsfelds private conference room at the Pentagon, called by Gordon England, the Deputy Defense Secretary, to discuss a proposed new directive defining the militarys detention policy. The civilian Secretaries of the Army, the Air Force, and the Navy were present, along with the highest-ranking officers of each service, and some half-dozen military lawyers. Matthew Waxman, the deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee affairs, had proposed making it official Pentagon policy to treat detainees in accordance with Common Article Three of the Geneva conventions, which bars cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment, as well as outrages against human dignity.Going around the huge wooden conference table, where the officials sat in double rows, England asked for a consensus on whether the Pentagon should support Waxmans proposal.

This standard had been in effect for fifty years, and all members of the U.S. armed services were trained to follow it. One by one, the military officers argued for returning the U.S. to what they called the high ground. But two people opposed it. One was Stephen Cambone, the under-secretary of defense for intelligence; the other was [DoD general counsel] Haynes. They argued that the articulated standard would limit Americas flexibility. It also might expose Administration officials to charges of war crimes: if Common Article Three became the standard for treatment, then it might become a crime to violate it. Their opposition was enough to scuttle the proposal.

In exasperation, according to another participant, Mora said that whether the Pentagon enshrined it as official policy or not, the Geneva conventions were already written into both U.S. and international law. Any grave breach of them, at home or abroad, was classified as a war crime. To emphasize his position, he took out a copy of the text of U.S. Code 18.2441, the War Crimes Act, which forbids the violation of Common Article Three, and read from it. The point, Mora told me, was that its a statute. It existswere not free to disregard it. Were bound by it. Its been adopted by the Congress. And were not the only interpreters of it. Other nations could have U.S. officials arrested.

Not long afterward, Waxman was summoned to a meeting at the White House with David Addington. Waxman declined to comment on the exchange, but, according to the Times, Addington berated him for arguing that the Geneva conventions should set the standard for detainee treatment. The U.S. needed maximum flexibility, Addington said. Since then, efforts to clarify U.S. detention policy have languished. In December, Waxman left the Pentagon for the State Department.

To date, no charges have been brought against U.S. personnel in Guantánamo. The senior Defense Department official I spoke to affirmed that, in the Pentagons view, Qahtanis interrogation was within the bounds. Elsewhere in the world, as Mora predicted, the controversy is growing. Last week, the United Nations Human Rights Commission called for the U.S. to shut down the detention center at Guantánamo, where,it said, some practices must be assessed as amounting to torture. The U.N. report, which the White House dismissed, described the confusion with regard to authorized and unauthorized interrogation techniques as particularly alarming.

Mora recently started a new job, as the general counsel for Wal-Marts international operations. A few days after his going-away party, he reflected on his tenure at the Pentagon. He felt that he had witnessed both a moral and a legal tragedy.

In Moras view, the Administrations legal response to September 11th was flawed from the start, triggering a series of subsequent errors that were all but impossible to correct. The determination that Geneva didnt apply was a legal and policy mistake, he told me. But very few lawyers could argue to the contrary once the decision had been made.

Mora went on, It seemed odd to me that the actors werent more troubled by what they were doing. Many Administration lawyers, he said, appeared to be unaware of history. I wondered if they were even familiar with the Nuremberg trialsor with the laws of war, or with the Geneva conventions. They cut many of the experts on those areas out. The State Department wasnt just on the back of the busit was left off the bus. Mora understood that people were afraid that more 9/11s would happen, so getting the information became the overriding objective. But there was a failure to look more broadly at the ramifications.

These were enormously hardworking, patriotic individuals, he said. When you put together the pieces, its all so sad. To preserve flexibility, they were willing to throw away our values.

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. - An examination of Palm Beach County's electronic voting machine records from the 2004 election found possible tampering and tens of thousands of malfunctions and errors, a watchdog group said Thursday.

Bev Harris, founder of BlackBoxVoting.org, said the findings call into question the outcome of the presidential race. But county officials and the maker of the electronic voting machines strongly disputed that and took issue with the findings.

Voting problems would have had to have been widespread across the state to make a difference. President Bush won Florida and its 27 electoral votes by 381,000 votes in 2004. Overall, he defeated John Kerry by 286 to 252 electoral votes, with 270 needed for victory.

BlackBoxVoting.org, which describes itself as a nonpartisan, nonprofit citizens group, said it found 70,000 instances in Palm Beach County of cards getting stuck in the paperless ATM-like machines and that the computers logged about 100,000 errors, including memory failures.

Also, the hard drives crashed on some of the machines made by Oakland, Calif.-based Sequoia Voting Systems, some machines apparently had to be rebooted over and over, and 1,475 re-calibrations were performed on Election Day on more than 4,300 units, Harris said. Re-calibrations are done when a machine is malfunctioning, she said.

"I actually think there's enough votes in play in Florida that it's anybody's guess who actually won the presidential race," Harris added. "But with that said, there's no way to tell who the votes should have gone to."

Palm Beach County and other parts of the country switched to electronic equipment after the turbulent 2000 presidential election, when the county's butterfly ballot confused some voters and led them to cast their votes for third-party candidate Pat Buchanan instead of Al Gore. The Supreme Court halted a recount after 36 days and handed a 537-vote victory to Bush.

Palm Beach County election officials said the BlackBoxVoting.com findings are flawed, and they blamed most of the errors on voters not following proper procedures.

"Their results are noteworthy for consideration, but in a majority of instances they can be explained," said Arthur Anderson, the county's elections supervisor. "All of these circumstances are valid reasons for concern, but they do not on face value substantiate that the machines are not reliable."

Sequoia spokeswoman Michelle Shafer disputed the findings, saying the company's machines worked properly. Sequoia's machines are used in five Florida counties and in 21 states.

"There was a fine election in November 2004," Shafer said.

She said many of the errors in the computer logs could have resulted from voters improperly inserting their user cards into the machines. The remaining errors would not affect the vote results because each unit has a backup system, she said.

Jenny Nash, a spokeswoman for the Florida Department of State, which oversees elections, said she was not aware of the report and had no comment.

Harris said one machine showed that 112 votes were cast on Oct. 16, two days before the start of early voting, a possible sign of tampering. She said the group found evidence of tampering on more than 30 machines in the county.

However, Harris said it was impossible to determine what information was altered or if votes were shifted among candidates.

The weekly update from Media Matters for America

This Week:

Media Matters study finds Sunday show guest lists favor conservatives

If the vice president shoots a man in the forest and nobody is there to hear it, should the media make a sound?

Media bury video of Bush's domestic spying lie

NY Times knows it shouldn't trust Republican Congress to investigate Republican president ... but does anyway

Media Matters study finds Sunday show guest lists favor conservatives

This week, Media Matters released the results of an exhaustive study of the guests who have appeared on the three major Sunday morning political shows since 1997. The study, covering former President Clinton's second term, President Bush's first term, and 2005, shows classified nearly 7,000 guests by political party and ideology and found that Republicans and conservatives have far outnumbered Democrats and progressives on the Sunday shows.

The study, "If It's Sunday, It's Conservative: An Analysis of the Sunday Talk Show Guests on ABC, CBS, and NBC, 1997-2005," was supervised by Media Matters Senior Fellow Paul Waldman, who holds a Ph.D. from the University of Pennsylvania and the author of, among other books, The Press Effect: Politicians, Journalists, and the Stories that Shape the Political World (Oxford University Press, 2002), which he co-wrote with media researcher Kathleen Hall Jamieson. Among the key findings:

The balance between Democrats/progressives and Republicans/conservatives was roughly equal during Clinton's second term, with a slight edge toward Republicans/conservatives: 52 percent of the ideologically identifiable guests were from the right, and 48 percent were from the left. But in Bush's first term, Republicans/ conservatives held a dramatic advantage, outnumbering Democrats/progressives by 58 percent to 42 percent. In 2005, the figures were an identical 58 percent to 42 percent.

Counting only elected officials and administration representatives, Democrats had a small advantage during Clinton's second term: 53 percent to 45 percent. In Bush's first term, however, the Republican advantage was 61 percent to 39 percent -- nearly three times as large.

In both the Clinton and Bush administrations, conservative journalists were far more likely to appear on the Sunday shows than were progressive journalists. In Clinton's second term, 61 percent of the ideologically identifiable journalists were conservative; in Bush's first term, that figure rose to 69 percent.

The study also provides new evidence of the unprecedented positive media coverage from which Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) benefits. Media Matters found that McCain has been by far the most frequent Sunday show guest over the past nine years, making 124 appearances -- 50 percent more appearances than the runner-up, Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-DE). McCain has been granted 86 solo interviews -- more than Biden's total appearances, and nearly twice as many solo interviews as anyone else during the past nine years.

Media Matters' report drew an immediate response from NBC and CBS.

NBC responded by challenging our methodology and calling the study "intellectually dishonest," suggesting that we cherry-picked the time frame included in the study (nine consecutive years) in order to skew the results. Setting aside the question of why one would consider Meet the Press' guest list "balanced" if you have to go back more than nine years to find data supporting that conclusion, it's worth noting that NBC's own data confirms our findings.

NBC's claim that we cherry-picked data is simply amusing in light of the fact that, as Media Matters explained, it pulled a bait-and-switch in its response to our report:

In addition, you write of your figure of 56 percent Democrats to 44 percent Republicans during Clinton's first term: "How different is that from the first term of President Bush? Well, it's basically the same -- according to Media Matters' own findings -- Republicans accounted for 58 percent of all guests on Sunday shows in President Bush's first term and Democrats accounted for 42% of appearances." But here you are comparing not just apples to oranges, but Granny Smiths to Clementines. Those figures -- 58 percent Republicans/conservatives to 42 percent Democrats/progressives during Bush's first term -- represent all guests on all shows, not simply Democrats and Republicans on Meet the Press. The figure for Republicans and Democrats on Meet the Press during Bush's first term, to repeat, was 62 percent Republicans to 38 percent Democrats, a difference of 24 percentage points, twice as large as the figure you offered for Meet the Press during Clinton's first term.

So, NBC argued that Meet the Press' guest list during the first Clinton term was tilted towards Democrats to the same degree that it tilted towards Republicans during Bush's first term. But in so arguing, NBC used data for all Sunday show guests during Bush's first term, not for Meet the Press guests, thus minimizing the actual disparity.

The response by CBS News Public Eye weblog editor Vaughn Ververs was even more curious. Ververs took issue with the entire premise of Media Matters' study, arguing that "the most obvious and troubling" problem with the study is the "intra-party dynamic." Ververs explained:

For example, while Media Matters says it classified former Democratic Senator Zell Miller as a "conservative" for his role as an outspoken critic of his own party, the study also makes much of the fact that Republican Senator John McCain has appeared 174 times in the period covered. There's no doubt whatsoever that Miller supported President Bush's re-election and appeared on these programs as an advocate of his policies, particularly on the war. There's also no doubt that John McCain has built his career largely on being a "maverick" within his own party and someone the media traditionally turns to for Republican-on-Republican criticism.

In other words, in challenging Media Matters' conclusion that the Sunday show guest lists skew to the right, Ververs points to the frequency with which McCain appears on the programs.

The notion of McCain as "independent" and a "maverick" is so deeply ingrained in the minds of many reporters, they actually point to his frequent appearances on the Sunday shows as evidence there is not a rightward tilt to those programs. Never mind that McCain has run for president as a Republican, that he campaigned for George Bush, that he supports the Iraq war. Never mind that NARAL-Pro Choice America has given him a zero rating for the last decade. Never mind that he hasn't received a rating higher than 50 percent from the National Education Association in this century. Never mind that the right-wing John Birch Society gave him a rating of 90 in 2004, or that the Christian Coalition gave him an 83. Never mind his support for diverting taxpayer funds to religious schools, or his support for Social Security privatization. To Ververs, none of that seems to matter; John McCain is the Republican equivalent of Zell Miller.

Ververs went on:

And when it comes to categorizing journalists on the panels, I'm not sure how that works. I'll certainly buy columnist Bob Novak as a conservative, but I think you'd get some real arguments from Republicans by classifying David Broder as a "centrist."

We have no doubt some Republicans would really argue that Broder is a progressive rather than a "centrist" -- but those arguments could hardly be described as "real."

Media Matters' full response to Ververs can be found here; Ververs' response to our response is available here.

Media critic Eric Alterman had a more favorable reaction to Media Matters' study -- and effectively, though indirectly, refuted Ververs' complaints about our classifications:

What's more, despite its having been produced by a liberal think thank, the study's grading of the guests--where the rubber hits the road -- is extremely generous to the right-wing side, and therefore precludes any credible complaints that it's a product of liberal bias. For instance, liberal-hater Joe Klein, together with war-supporters Peter Beinart and George Packer, are coded "progressive," and Cokie Roberts and David Broder, who openly detest both Clinton and Gore while frequently apologizing for Bush--together with former GE chairman Jack Welch and Mrs. Alan Greenspan, Andrea Mitchell--were classified as "neutral." (Remember how quick Mitchell was during the 2004 debates to accuse Kerry of "demagoguery" for daring to criticize her husband?)

Indeed, as far as critical commentary goes, with the occasional exception of E.J. Dionne, there's not a single unapologetic liberal on any of these shows, save perhaps an annual appearance as a kind of anthropological curiosity. Tune in to every show every week for a year, and you are unlikely to see Frank Rich, Paul Krugman, Rick Hertzberg, Harold Meyerson or anyone associated with The Nation, The American Prospect, The Washington Monthly, The New York Review of Books, Salon, In These Times, Mother Jones or even the liberal remnant inside The New Republic.

When you think about it, it is a tribute to the American people that they remain as receptive to liberal arguments as they do, given how infrequently they hear them.

Media Matters' Sunday show study also drew the attention of conservative attack organizations. Desperate to maintain the imbalance in Sunday show guests that serves them so well, RightMarch.com -- a conservative activist organization with ties to Randall Terry and Lou Sheldon -- and other groups have lashed out at the Media Matters study. The well-funded RightMarch.com, which reportedly sent millions of emails to its list during the Terri Schiavo debate, has sent an email to its subscribers urging them to write letters to newspapers complaining about "how liberally biased the mainstream media is." The RightMarch.com email denounced Media Matters' study as "totally skewed" and "obviously WRONG" -- though not only did it offer no specific criticism of the study or its methodology, another study it touted as "a SERIOUS study on media bias" has been discredited.

Click here to counter this desperate and baseless attempt by RightMarch.com to undermine our study.

If the vice president shoots a man in the forest and nobody is there to hear it, should the media make a sound?

Last weekend, Vice President Dick Cheney shot a man in the face after consuming alcohol earlier in the day, then refused to comment publicly about the shooting for several days.

And L. Brent Bozell III, president of the right-wing Media Research Center, led a chorus of conservatives denouncing the media for covering the story.

Remember: Bill and Hillary Clinton didn't shoot Vince Foster, and the media spent years covering the "story," at the prodding of Republican activists. Rush Limbaugh still brings up Foster's death a decade later. As recently as 2000, Bozell himself wrote of Hillary Clinton's then-planned memoirs, "Personally, I want to hear about Vince Foster."

But now, Bozell and many others don't think the media should have covered the fact that the vice president of the United States shot a man in the face. They thought Hillary Clinton not shooting Vince Foster was newsworthy, but they now think Cheney shooting a man is not.

Perhaps the oddest assessment of what is newsworthy and what is not came from Fox News. After days of silence, Cheney agreed to an exclusive interview with Fox anchor Brit Hume on Wednesday. After the interview, Hume dismissed the suggestion that Cheney chose Fox News knowing it would be a friendly venue: "If they want to say that, that's fine. Let people look at the transcript of the interview."

We did.

Without question, one of the most significant new revelations to come out of the interview was Cheney's acknowledgement that he had consumed alcohol at lunch before accidentally shooting his friend in the face.

Yet Fox News chose not to broadcast that acknowledgement, as Media Matters explained. Instead, Hume paraphrased Cheney's comments, thus sparing the Vice President the potential embarrassment of repeated television airing of a video clip of his acknowledgment that he was drinking before he shot his friend. Worse, the decision not to broadcast Cheney's acknowledgement that he had "a beer" but that "nobody was under the influence" deprived viewers of the opportunity to assess Cheney's demeanor and credibility as made the comments.

Fox even omitted that portion of the interview from the video it posted on its web page -- video it touted as the "full interview," even though it wasn't.

Hume also failed to ask Cheney some of the most obvious -- and important -- questions raised by the shooting incident and Cheney's handling of it. During the interview with Hume, Cheney took responsibility for the shooting, and absolved his victim of blame. Given Cheney's comments, an obvious -- perhaps the most obvious -- question would have been "If the shooting was your fault, why did you allow your designated spokespeople to spend three days saying it wasn't your fault and blaming your victim?" Perhaps followed by "Have you apologized to Mr. Whittington for allowing your surrogates to smear him?" Or "Did you surrogates blame Mr. Whittington on their own, or did you instruct them to?" Or "Have they apologized to Mr. Whittington?"

Hume asked none of these questions; asked nothing like them. He made no attempt to address the disconnect between Cheney's statement that he, and not Mr. Whittington, were at fault and the three-day blame-the-victim smear campaign launched on Cheney's behalf.

He did, however, ask Cheney if he hit the quail he was aiming for when he shot his friend in the face.

Good thing we got that cleared up.

Media bury video of Bush's domestic spying lie

Fox's strange decision not to broadcast Cheney's drinking admission isn't the only recent example of a television news organization deciding not to broadcast video that could be embarrassing for the Bush administration.

A Media Matters review found that television news outlets, cable and broadcast alike, have virtually ignored video of Bush lying about domestic spying.

In April 2004, Bush said, "any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires ... a court order." That statement, as we now know, is demonstrably false: Bush himself has now admitted that he has ordered domestic wiretaps without court orders. Yet in the 66 days between the time White House press secretary Scott McClellan was first asked to explain Bush's 2004 remarks in light of current evidence that he was lying and February 13, CNN, Fox News, ABC, NBC, and CBS aired video of Bush's 2004 statement only 16 times.

By comparison, those same news outlets aired video of President Clinton's January 1998 statement denying a relationship with Monica Lewinsky 73 times in the 66 days after his August 1998 acknowledgement that, in fact, such a relationship had occurred.

Video of Clinton's lie about sex was broadcast nearly five times as often as video of Bush's lie about warrantless domestic spying.

NY Times knows it shouldn't trust Republican Congress to investigate Republican president ... but does anyway

In recent weeks, we've twice explored The New York Times' editorial board's decision to call for congressional oversight of the Bush administration rather than calling for a special counsel.

First, we explained that the Times called for special counsels to investigate Democratic president Bill Clinton rather than trusting his Justice Department or the Democratic congress to investigate him -- but now trusts the Republican congress to investigate the Bush administration's secret warrantless domestic spying operation:

Yet the Times does not call for a special counsel. Instead, it declares "Mr. Bush should retract and renounce his secret directive and halt any illegal spying, or Congress should find a way to force him to do it."

But what gives the Times reason to believe that Congress would do so even if it could? Five days later, another Times editorial described the relationship between the Bush administration and Congress: "Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney are tenacious. They still control both houses of Congress and are determined to pack the judiciary with like-minded ideologues."

Why on earth would the Times dare to hope that a Congress under the "control" of Bush and Cheney would "find a way to force" Bush to do anything? Just this week, the Times reported that the Bush Administration "declines" to provide the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee documents it has requested as part of its investigation of the administration's handing of Hurricane Katrina, and refused to make administration officials available for sworn testimony. What makes the Times think the Republican-controlled Congress will want to "find a way to force" Bush to do anything? Or that it would be able to even if it wanted to?

What explains the Times' refusal to call for a special counsel in the case when it believes the Bush administration, led by the president himself, is acting illegally? Why was a special counsel more justified in 1994 than now?

Then, last week, we noted the increasing evidence that the Times' faith in the willingness and ability of a Republican-controlled Congress to exercise their oversight responsibilities is unfounded.

A series of news reports this week would seem to stamp out any remaining hope on the part of the Times editorial board that Congress can be trusted to do its job.

On February 14, The Washington Post reported:

Congress appeared ready to launch an investigation into the Bush administration's warrantless domestic surveillance program last week, but an all-out White House lobbying campaign has dramatically slowed the effort and may kill it, key Republican and Democratic sources said yesterday. [...] Sources close to [Senate Intelligence Committee ranking member Jay] Rockefeller [D-WV] say he is frustrated by what he sees as heavy-handed White House efforts to dissuade Republicans from supporting his measure. They noted that Cheney conducted a Republicans-only meeting on intelligence matters in the Capitol yesterday.

And yet, The New York Times still does not call for a special counsel.

On February 15, the Times itself reported:

Four cabinet secretaries, including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, an Army general and the secretary of the Army were supposed to testify Tuesday morning at hearings on matters including Hurricane Katrina and the Bush administration's proposed budget for foreign affairs.

But their invitations were rescinded and the hearings canceled when the Senate majority leader, Bill Frist of Tennessee, scheduled a marathon series of 16 votes on amendments to a pending tax bill -- all of them, both parties agree, intended more to score political points than to make policy.

Ultimately, most of those votes were canceled.

They could have been held Monday night, but that did not work for Mr. Frist. He was holding a fund-raiser at his Washington home, with President Bush as the featured guest and some of his Republican colleagues on the guest list, including the Senate whip, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. The event raised $3.5 million for Republican Senate candidates.

And yet, The New York Times editorial board still refuses to abandon the hope that the Republican Congress will exercise its oversight responsibilities.

On February 17, the Times reported:

Leaders of the House Intelligence Committee said Thursday that they had agreed to open a Congressional inquiry prompted by the Bush administration's domestic surveillance program. But a dispute immediately broke out among committee Republicans over the scope of the inquiry.

Representative Heather A. Wilson, the New Mexico Republican and committee member who called last week for the investigation, said the review "will have multiple avenues, because we want to completely understand the program and move forward."

But an aide to Representative Peter Hoekstra, the Michigan Republican who leads the committee, said the inquiry would be much more limited in scope, focusing on whether federal surveillance laws needed to be changed and not on the eavesdropping program itself.

The same day, the Times editorial board weighed in:

Is there any aspect of President Bush's miserable record on intelligence that Senator Pat Roberts, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, is not willing to excuse and help to cover up?

For more than a year, Mr. Roberts has been dragging out an investigation into why Mr. Bush presented old, dubious and just plain wrong intelligence on Iraq as solid new proof that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and was in league with Al Qaeda. It was supposed to start after the 2004 election, but Mr. Roberts was letting it die of neglect until the Democrats protested by forcing the Senate into an unusual closed session last November.

Now Mr. Roberts is trying to stop an investigation into Mr. Bush's decision to allow the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans without getting the warrants required by a 27-year-old federal law enacted to stop that sort of abuse.

[...]

Stifling his own committee without even bothering to get the facts is outrageous. As the vice chairman of the panel, Senator John Rockefeller IV, pointed out, supervising intelligence gathering is in fact the purpose of the intelligence committee.

A scathing indictment of congressional complicity in President Bush's "miserable" handling of intelligence matters, to be sure. But while denouncing Roberts' refusal to conduct meaningful hearings and investigations into the not insignificant matters of why President Bush used "just plain wrong intelligence" to take the country to war and whether the President broke the law in ordering warrantless domestic spying, The Times inexplicably stopped short of the obvious conclusion.

The Senate Intelligence committee, the Times noted, simply isn't doing its job. It isn't doing its job because its chairman is "willing to excuse and help to cover up" -- the Times' words, not ours -- the actions of the head of his political party.  What possible reason could The Times have for continuing to hope that congress will conduct meaningful oversight?  What possible reason could they have for not calling for a special counsel?

To be clear, this bizarre behavior isn't limited to the Times. As we've noted, The Washington Post was quick to call for special counsels when Clinton was president. The Post even ran one editorial in January 1994 that pointed out that "there has been no credible charge in this case that either the president or Mrs. Clinton did anything wrong" -- then, incredibly, a few sentences later, called for the appointment of an independent counsel anyway.

Now, the Post denounces Bush for "ignor[ing] a clearly worded criminal law" and for "show[ing] a profound disregard for Congress and the laws it passes." The administration "must be forced to explain itself comprehensively," the Post argued. Yet the administration is not being forced to do so -- and the Post's own reporting suggests that Congress can't be trusted to do anything to change that fact. Yet the Post -- the paper that once argued that, even absent credible charges of wrongdoing, an independent counsel was necessary to investigate Clinton -- does not call for an independent investigation.

Now this comes out, and lo and behold Cheney orchestrates his own media diversion. No Michael Jackson this time, no Bin Laden message, no terror plot uncovered, just some 78 year old man shot by Cheney himself. Is Cheney upset, well apparently the White House thinks its something to laugh about. Why not? It takes the focus off the real news again. Which in my humble opinion should be the recently released information that Valerie Plame Wilson was working on assessing Iranian nuclear WMD capabilities.

Why is that important? Well for one, as her husband, who was responsible for assessing the same area of proliferation by Iraq and returned information which did not support the pre-arranged invasion scenarios of the Bushies, she had to have been assumed to be as ethical, incorruptible and morally upstanding as her husband. Meaning she too would show the integrity that he did when making the facts known. As operatives they kept their oaths and fulfilled their obligations to their office and their country. Unlike the dirty politicians who are only interested in making themselves and their cronies even richer these two were true to the higher ideals which led them to serve in the outstanding way they did. Unfortunately nothing is sacred, not even the blood of their fellow countrymen, when someone gets in the way of the soulless sharks occupying the White House and ruling the country.

It is standard knowledge that Rumsfeld and the first Bush drew up plans for an Iranian invasion and this Bush has been placed in office to carry those plans through. What people are having a hard time dealing with is how far they would go to actually push their agenda trough. 9-11 anyone?

Why out Plame? If the effects were even slightly as detrimental to the ability of the CIA to monitor Iranian proliferation as it has been claimed, and classically damage estimates are under-stated by said agency, then there is no way to accurately come up with a threat assessment on Iran at present. This is just what the Bushies need in order pull the wool over the eyes of the world and claim that Iran is attempting to develop nuclear weapons. Which is what they are doing. Remember this is not an administration that is interested in the truth. They are interested in their own self-serving truth and if yours doesn't jive with theirs, they will destroy you. As they did Plame and her teams.

So while the press is having a field day on Cheney shooting a 78 year old lawyer, keep your eye on the ball, and the nuclear button. The drums of war are beating at BushCo and Iran is the next target.

Watch the propaganda building up and fueling the hysteria. For example USA Today is running a story this very minute that says the American people are fearful that Iran will develop a nuclear weapon and use it against the U.S.. They are starting the media blitz. We know Iran is no more of a threat than Iraq was. Can we stop them from invading another country? Sadly I am afraid without more people out there like you we will all have to sit sadly by and watch as the country is pulled into another long and drawn out conflict, killing our young men and destroying the economy.

Several intelligence officials described the damage in terms of how long it would take for the agency to recover. According to their own assessment, the CIA would be impaired for up to "ten years" in its capacity to adequately monitor nuclear proliferation on the level of efficiency and accuracy it had prior to the White House leak of Plame Wilson's identity.

I recently received information regarding the case below and am requesting any parties with information related to the case to contact me. Thank you in advance, anonymity guaranteed.

Spy indictment: Official Secrets Act

It may not be known to the readers of my blog what was actually involved in my case and trial, and exactly what I had been accused of doing that led to my conviction for espionage. The Indictment was worded as follows:

The Crown Court at Central Criminal Court
The Queen -v- Michael John Smith

Michael John Smith is charged as follows:

COUNT 1
Statement of Offence
Communicating material to another for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State, contrary to Section 1(1)(c) of the Official Secrets Act 1911.

Particulars of Offence
Michael John Smith on a day between the 1st day of January 1990 and the 1st day of January 1991, for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State, communicated to another a sketch, plan, model, article, or note, or other document or information which was calculated to be or might have been or was intended to be directly or indirectly useful to an enemy.

COUNT 2
Statement of Offence
Communicating material to another for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State, contrary to Section 1(1)(c) of the Official Secrets Act 1911.

Particulars of Offence
Michael John Smith on a day between the 1st day of January 1991 and the 1st day of May 1992, for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State, communicated to another a sketch, plan, model, article, or note, or other document or information which was calculated to be or might have been or was intended to be directly or indirectly useful to an enemy.

COUNT 3
Statement of Offence
Making a sketch or note for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State, contrary to Section 1(1)(b) of the Official Secrets Act 1911.

Particulars of Offence
Michael John Smith between the 30th day of April 1992 and the 8th day of August 1992, for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State made sketches or notes which were calculated to be or might be or were intended to be directly or indirectly useful to an enemy.

COUNT 4
Statement of Offence
Obtaining or collecting material for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State, contrary to Section 1(1)(c) of the Official Secrets Act 1911.

Particulars of Offence
Michael John Smith between the 30th day of April 1992 and the 8th day of August 1992, for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the State obtained or collected sketches, plans, models, articles, or notes, or other documents or information which were calculated to be or might have been or were intended to be directly or indirectly useful to an enemy.

There was no evidence at all about what scientific material was involved in Counts 1 and 2. I volunteered information that it related only to obsolete and unclassified commercial documentation, concerning silicon-on-sapphire and gallium arsenide technology. HRC (Hirst Research Centre) abandoned these technologies at Wembley in the late 1980s, and it would not be useful to an enemy. However, the Prosecution claimed, without any evidence, that the material must have been militarily sensitive - it is difficult to see how they arrived at such a conclusion.

Count 3 related to my handwritten notes:
JS/16 Rugate Filter Project (pp. 176-178)
JS/17 Micro-Machining Project (pp. 179-181)
JS/18 Quasi-Optical Car Radar Project (pp. 182-185)
JS/19 Micron-Valve Project (p. 186)
JS/20 Olfactory Research Project (p. 187)

I could go into great detail about the type of material found in Count 3, and the long prosecution and defence arguments about whether the Russians would have found it useful or not, or whether it was prejudicial to the UK. In the end these projects were potentially capable of dual commercial or military use (as is almost anything if you think about it), but there was insufficient evidence that I had either intended to hand this information to a Russian, or it was of real technical value to an enemy. After deliberation the jury used their common sense, and they rejected the prosecution claims.

Although all the scientific exhibits were in the same bag in the boot of my car, I was found not guilty of Count 3, but guilty of Count 4.

Count 4 related to GEC components and printed documents:
JS/14 Old surface acoustic wave, silicon-on-sapphire and gallium arsenide components (p. 1)

JS/15 Surface acoustic wave documents (pp. 2-175), including a RESTRICTED ALARM document (pp. 51-59)

JS/21-38 Bulk acoustic wave documents (pp. 188-269J), including an UNCLASSIFIED Rapier document (pp. 190-196)

SR/4 Infra-Red Imager documents (pp. 269/1-269/9)

SR/4 Silicon-on-sapphire documents (pp. 269/10-269/69)

SR/4 Gallium arsenide documents (pp. 269/70-269/87)

The components of JS/14 were old and obsolete examples (some labeled as non-working rejects) that had been lying around in my office. Since they would probably have been thrown away in any case, when the company moved site a few months later, I took them as souvenirs of my time at the company. The prosecution made the case that these components would have been useful to the Russians (for reverse engineering). However, as my expert Dr Eamonn Maher quite correctly pointed out, far more advanced and current examples of these devices were on open sale commercially - so why would a Russian be interested in obsolete material?

The documents in JS/15 was a collection of information from an approval exercise to qualify Hirst Research Centre to commercially produce similar surface acoustic wave devices, and to earn the company a certificate to meet a British Standard for this manufacturing capability (BS9450 Capability Approval Exercises in 1984). There was nothing apparently of significant military interest in this collection of documents, or so the defence was led to believe by the lack of any evidence from the prosecution, until the moment Dr Meirion Francis Lewis stepped into the witness box on 7 October 1993 and delivered his radically different view using undisclosed evidence. The issue revolved around whether one 9 page document related to the ALARM missile project. Readers of this blog will be aware that more than 12 years later the Ministry of Defence has yet to officially confirm the document was used on ALARM (Mr Andrew Mackinlay, my MP, asked a question in the House of Commons recently, but failed to get an answer). As I have stated previously, the conclusions of the Security Commissions report were that 'at the time the document was created it was not specifically linked to a particular weapons system (HMSO Cm 2930, Annex A.5, July 1995). Apart from the link to ALARM there were many errors and inconsistencies in Dr Lewiss testimony about that document, and this is also awaiting resolution.

Documents in JS/21-38 related to a small bulk acoustic wave delay line, and some of that information referred to a component from a piece of test equipment used to test the Rapier system - a sort of go/no-go test. However, this documentation was also part of a BS9450 Capability Approval application in 1984. The documents gave details of the frequency band used by Rapier, but did not reveal the actual spot frequencies of any installation, as each Rapier system has a different operating frequency. The sensitivity of this information can be judged from the fact that it was openly published in Janes Land Based Air Defence Review, which printed how a version of Rapier, called Possum, uses the frequency band 3.1 to 3.3 GHz and that Rapier works in the F-Band frequency range. Many other technical points were published about Rapier in this Janes book, which can be purchased or read in a public library by any Russian who cares to look for it.

The 5 page UNCLASSIFIED Rapier document, dated 11 January 1984, was a procurement specification for a BAW (bulk acoustic wave) delay line. BAW delay line technology is well known, and at the trial it was stated that the component was to become obsolete. It is interesting that delay line specifications were openly published by GEC Marconi in a Techbrief, a glossy hand-out for customers, which states that typical delay lines can be manufactured with a 3.1 to 3.4 GHz frequency band. Any potential customer could request this leaflet, or buy a similar component.

It is also significant that the main expert called to give evidence about the technical aspects of Rapier, ex-Squadron Leader Colin Bagley, was not himself particularly well-qualified to give that evidence. My own expert Dr Eamonn Maher made a comment that the prosecution expert whose qualifications least impressed him was Colin Bagley. It is a strange and inexplicable fact that, despite ALARM and Rapier being the two specific weapons referred to at my trial, there were no witnesses called who were authoritatively expert on the design and performance of those weapons. Perhaps the prosecution was afraid of asking experts who might actually know the true significance of the documents used as exhibits at my trial?

If we are to believe the hawk-like vision of experts like Dr D.I. Weatherley, ex-Squadron Leader Colin Bagley and Dr M.F. Lewis, then Rapier and ALARM can be jammed by using some pretty basic information from Janes Land Based Air Defence Review (in the case of Rapier), and the specification of one commercially available component (in the case of ALARM). It seems incredible, if true, that Rapier and ALARM are so easy to jam, and that the UK has wasted hundreds of millions of pounds on such vulnerable systems. From my technical viewpoint I believe more than a little exaggeration was going on here, but unfortunately I am prevented from telling you more due to the gagging orders governing the in camera nonsense used at my trial.

The SR/4 Infra-Red Imager documents involved an overview of the assembly of the T.I.C.M. (Thermal Imager Common Module) using SPRITE Infra-Red detector devices. So much information is already published about Infra-Red Detectors (10,000 papers), that my own expert (Dr Eamonn Maher) said the Russians would be far more interested in the information already available in the public domain, than the simple and limited information in the few pages in my possession. Dr Maher should know what he was talking about, because he was a specialist in this area himself, but the Crown insisted on going into every tiny detail, as they did in everything else. The prosecution tried to make insignificant details look highly damaging to the Nation, even though Britain allows the U.S. and Japan (a former enemy) to manufacture these detectors under licence. Most of the information only concerned the detectors assembly into its cooling jacket and could not be sensitive.

The remaining parts of SR/4, concerning silicon-on-sapphire and gallium arsenide documents, was shown by Dr Eamonn Maher to be of commercial interest and already available in the public domain.

So, in my opinion, the prosecution case boiled down to one 10 year-old RESTRICTED document (claimed to be from the ALARM project), and one 8 year-old UNCLASSIFIED document for a component used on a piece of Rapier test gear. To a person educated in electronic engineering, such as myself, it was quite shocking to hear allegedly well-qualified experts making claims that material already in the public domain was sensitive. There were some extraordinary things said in court.

At the end of my trial the sentences passed were as follows:

Charge 1: Passing information 1st January 1990 to 1st January 1991 - 8 years
Charge 2: Passing information 1st January 1991 to 1st May 1992 - 8 years
Charge 3: Making Notes and sketches 30th April 1992 to 8th August 1992 - Not Guilty
Charge 4: Obtaining material 30th April 1992 to 8th August 1992 - 9 years

Rather than, as is usually the case, making the sentences run concurrently, the judge made them consecutive. It was clear that it was only possible to find me guilty of counts 1 and 2 because of the material involved in Count 4, but that material was mostly in the public domain or of low scientific value.

There was no evidence of what material I passed on charges 1 and 2 and so it is impossible to prove that it was useful to an enemy and prejudicial to the interests of the State. However, the learned judge sentenced me on the basis that he was bound to assume that, having regard to the payments received for the documentation passed over, that the material passed over was sensitive. At my appeal these sentences were both reduced to 5½ years each.

The sentences can be seen to be excessive when it is considered that I only had security clearance to CONFIDENTIAL level, although there is no evidence I had access to anything above RESTRICTED status. The sentences are more appropriate to the Cold War period for a high level member of the armed forces or government services who had disclosed SECRET or TOP SECRET material to a hostile and active enemy. At the time of my trial, due to the recent political changes, Russia was no longer considered a potential enemy (according to Margaret Thatcher).

A few weeks ago, we noted that The New York Times editorial board -- once so quick to demand special counsels to investigate the Clinton administration -- has been strangely willing to trust the Republican-controlled Congress to investigate the Republican-controlled executive branch in connection with the Bush administration's secret warrantless domestic spying operation:

The Times hasn't answered these questions; nor has it called for a special counsel. Presumably, the paper continues to put its faith in the Republican Congress to investigate the Republican president -- even as evidence of the naïveté of that position mounts. This week, the Associated Press reported:

Once again: Why would any news organization that thinks the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping operation should be investigated trust Bush's allies in Congress to do the investigating?

Media politicize Coretta Scott King's funeral; baselessly lecture mourners about funeral decorum

After two speakers at Coretta Scott King's funeral, longtime civil rights activist Rev. Joseph Lowery and former President Jimmy Carter, made comments that some have interpreted as critical of President George W. Bush, a chorus of journalists and pundits have denounced the supposed politicization of the funeral, as Media Matters detailed:

It isn't hard to understand comments made by Limbaugh, O'Beirne, and the like. They were simply doing what they do -- mindlessly attacking progressives using any means necessary.

CNN's Jeff Greenfield and Miles O'Brien, however, have no such excuse (we hope). But they weren't bashful about scolding the funeral speakers:

As we said: Greenfield and O'Brien aren't Rush Limbaugh and Kate O'Bierne. They presumably aren't just cynically using any available reason to bash progressives and defend the president.

Which leaves one question: Just who do they think they are? How dare they tell Coretta Scott King's friends and colleagues -- people who stood by her side as they literally risked their lives fighting for what they believed in -- how to remember their friend, their compatriot, their inspiration? Why do Greenfield and O'Brien think it is their role to tell anyone the proper way to memorialize a loved one?

Greenfield's audacity didn't stop at simply presuming to tell others how to grieve the loss and celebrate the life of Coretta Scott King. So sure was he in his self-appointed role as arbiter of appropriateness that he didn't even bother to offer a reason to back up his assertions:

Notice that Greenfield didn't bother to explain what was wrong with a specific quote from a specific speaker at Mrs. King's funeral. Presumably, he is referring to Lowery's comments about weapons of mass destruction. But what was wrong with those comments? Mrs. King opposed the Iraq war, which is among the central issues of our time. If Greenfield is going to scold Mrs. King's close friend for stating a fact about one of the central issues of our time - a fact that is consistent with her own opposition to the war -- shouldn't Greenfield at least offer a reason for doing so? And no, asserting that the comments lacked "appropriateness" isn't a reason -- it's a characterization.

"Non-support"? King opposed the war. O'Brien's Orwellian newspeak downplays the strength of King's position -- and, thus, obscures just how appropriate Lowery's comments were.

Even some reliable conservatives have noted that the purported outrage about Lowery's comments is overblown. The Wall Street Journal's James Taranto wrote:

Taranto went on to describe Carter's mention of the fact that the Kings were the targets of secret government wiretaps as a "moment of true malice" because it was "clearly a swipe against President Bush's terrorist surveillance program." Taranto is arguing that previous questionable government activities should not be mentioned because they may remind us of similar current questionable government activities. This is a strange argument at best, but, as Taranto says, "Hey, nobody's perfect."

Even Wall Street Journal contributing editor and former Reagan speechwriter Peggy Noonan understands what Greenfield and O'Brien apparently do not: The funeral of a woman who risked her life to help give millions of Americans a political voice is no time to criticize her friends and colleagues for using theirs. Noonan wrote:

Her gratuitous swipe of Franken and the Wellstone memorial notwithstanding, Noonan also grasps something many of her colleagues don't -- or don't want to: The supposedly inappropriate comments were about four sentences out of a nearly six-hour funeral.

Focusing on a few sentences -- sentences we have yet to see disputed on factual grounds by anybody -- out of a six-hour funeral for the purpose of attacking "liberals" and "the Democratic Party" -- now that's the real politicization that has taken place here.

It's also worth noting that Greenfield, O'Brien, Limbaugh, and company didn't object to the "politicization" of Ronald Reagan's funeral, despite the fact that Democrats were excluded from speaking at the funeral, those who did speak made reference to Reagan's political positions, and Republicans and conservatives used Reagan's death for political and electoral purposes.

Has any political figure ever been the beneficiary of the kind of relentlessly positive, often-sycophantic media coverage Republican Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) has enjoyed for as long as we can remember?

McCain's favorable treatment is particularly glaring whenever ethics and government reform come up. While other politicians face regular media second-guessing and cynicism about their motives and consistency, McCain is presented as a paragon of virtue, tirelessly and selflessly toiling away to make America a better place. His "years of work" for lobbying reform are mentioned; his refusal to investigate Jack Abramoff's ties to lawmakers is not. Lobbying reform is described as a "very personal issue" to him; his own reliance on campaign cash generously provided by lobbyists with business before his committee and his frequent use of corporate jets is ignored. And when his involvement in the infamous Keating Five scandal is mentioned, it tends to be by way of explaining why he is so passionate about reform - the fact that the Senate Ethics Committee found that he had "exercised poor judgment" in the scandal is less often mentioned.

Nor is McCain as consistent on campaign finance reform as his publicists in the news media would have you believe. Think Progress explains that McCain has now flip-flopped (don't hold your breath waiting for the media to use that phrase to describe McCain) on public financing of elections:

But McCain's uniformly positive press extends beyond mere questions of policy. Media figures like MSNBC's Chris Matthews genuinely appear to swoon whenever he walks in the room; news organizations make editorial decisions that amount to an in-kind contribution to his prospective 2008 presidential campaign.

During a McCain interview with Matt Lauer, NBC plastered McCain's 2000 presidential campaign slogan across the screen, declaring: "Straight Talk from John McCain." Try to imagine an NBC interview with Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) that included an onscreen graphic blaring "John Kerry: A Stronger America." Yet when it comes to McCain, this sort of media treatment -- which would be inconceivable in the case of nearly any other candidate, Democrat or Republican -- is the norm. On his Daily Howler website, Bob Somerby described a February 6, 2005, McCain appearance on ABC's This Week, during which McCain was interviewed by host George Stephanopoulos:

And on February 7, Matthews interviewed McCain about the senator's public exchange of letters with fellow Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL); Matthews promoted the segment by announcing, "We'll get the straight talk from Senator McCain himself in just a moment," then went on to ask McCain a series of fawning, leading questions, leaving little doubt whose side he took. And, sure enough, McCain picked up Matthews' cue and twice described his own comments as "straight talk."

Associated Press omitted key information in attempting to tie Reid to Abramoff

In an article about supposed ties between Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and former Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff, the Associated Press omitted several details that undermine the premise of the article. And the AP apparently didn't bother to contact a former Abramoff colleague for comment, despite writing extensively about his contact with Reid's office.

The AP article suggested that Reid and Abramoff coordinated about legislation that would have applied the minimum wage to the Northern Mariana Islands, an Abramoff client that opposed the legislation. But the AP left out one rather significant detail: while Abramoff opposed the legislation, Reid supported it. In fact, Reid was a co-sponsor of the legislation and argued for its passage in a speech delivered on the floor of the United States Senate, as Media Matters detailed. Including that information would have painted a far different picture of the contact between Abramoff's associates and Reid's office -- one in which Abramoff may have wanted to influence Reid, but was unable to do so.

The AP article also reported that Reid "went to the Senate floor" to oppose a bill that would have harmed an Indian tribe represented by Abramoff, saying the legislation was "fundamentally flawed." But the AP failed to mention several important facts. Coincidentally, each of these omitted facts undermines the suggestion that Reid took his position at Abramoff's behest.

In quoting Reid describing the legislation as "fundamentally flawed," the AP bizarrely clipped Reid's comments to omit his reason for thinking it was flawed. Here's what Reid actually said:

The AP devoted more than 1,700 words to this article, but didn't include among them Reid's full sentence opposing the bill. At absolute best, this is stunning sloppiness.

Reid's opposition to the bill was entirely consistent with his longstanding opposition to off-reservation Indian gaming. As early as 1988, as Media Matters noted, Reid supported the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, which generally prohibited Indian gaming on non-tribal lands. One reason for Reid's position on this should be more than obvious: Reid represents Nevada, the gambling capitol of the United States. Of course he would oppose off-reservation Indian gaming, which constitutes competition for the casinos that employ so many of his constituents.

Most amazingly, the AP article made much of contacts between former Abramoff deputy Ronald Platt and Reid's office -- but the AP didn't bother to contact Platt for comment.

New disclosures implicate Cheney in leaks of classified information ... maybe now media will report on missing White House emails?

Yet, despite increasing indications that Fitzgerald's Plamegate investigation may touch on inappropriate handling of classified information leading all the way up to the Vice President, many major media outlets remain silent about Fitzgerald's recent revelation that numerous White House emails from 2003 are missing from White House computer archives -- emails that could be classified as evidence in a criminal investigation.

As Media Matters has explained, at least three Time magazine reporters involved in an October 2003 article knew at the time that the article was misleading and contained a false assertion by White House spokesman Scott McClellan -- yet they omitted from the article any indication that McClellan's comment was untrue.

Now, one of the reporters -- John Dickerson, who currently writes for Slate.com -- has answered questions raised by Media Matters' item. As Media Matters wrote:

There seems to be a general consensus that columnist Robert Novak did something wrong in connection with the outing of Valerie Plame. A question for Time and for the nation's media ethicists: Where is the criticism for what Cooper, Duffy, and Dickerson did, participating in the publication of an article that they knew contained false statements without challenging those statements in any way? We understand why Novak is the subject of widespread criticism. But we don't understand why Cooper, Duffy, and Dickerson are not.

White House Approved Leaks/Continues to Spread Lies-Misinformation-Propaganda/

02-09-06 After publishing the Muhammed cartoons the server has been under constant attack and it is getting difficult to keep it on-line. Please excuse the inconvenience. It's cyber-war...

Yesterday, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee about the administration's warrantless domestic surveillance program. In reporting on his testimony and other aspects of the controversy, various media outlets have put out falsehoods and misleading statements.

For example, an Associated Press backgrounder purporting to address some of the issues regarding the domestic surveillance program contained misleading and incomplete answers. Other networks and publications -- including CNN, Fox News, and The Washington Post -- have also aired false or misleading information on this issue. America deserves to hear the truth, especially on an issue of such importance.

Please review the examples of misinformation below and urge the responsible media outlet to provide more honest and accurate commentary on this important issue:

After publishing the cartoons of Mohammed an action for which I am having second thoughts because I think it may be a provocative operation in order to muster support in Europe for an Iranian invasion, our connectivity went south, this could have been due to denial of service attacks which went on all day, or just the massive quantity of hits. Anyway, I am back up and all is running well.

It is sad that Muslims have responded to something which I felt was so benign with such maniacal fervor. I think if their God was real he would have struck me down on the spot himself. Anyway check out the news sites for continuing reports of torchings and riots. If you think the cartoons should be removed please e-mail me. Any request will be considered. My intention is not to offend but rather to share so that others may better understand. As an agnostic I don't get it. See ya later.

Like President Bush's State of the Union address itself, the media's repetition of false claims and adoption of misleading rhetoric in covering the event were more disappointing than surprising.

CNN's Jeff Greenfield kicked things off by complaining that a Democratic member of Congress, apparently Rep. Robert Wexler (D-FL), "put out a scathing attack on the speech" before Bush delivered it, concluding that "there wasn't a chance in the world that this congressperson had seen the speech."

But as Greenfield surely must know, it is standard practice for the White House to release the text of major speeches before they are delivered. As Media Matters for America noted, The Washington Post posted excerpts from the speech on its website at 5:15 p.m. ET -- long before Bush's speech, and before Wexler's press release was issued.

And, before Greenfield's comments, his CNN colleague Dana Bash read viewers a direct quote from the speech. Does Greenfield think there "wasn't a chance in the world" that Bash "had seen the speech?" Has Jeff Greenfield somehow managed to spend 40 years of his life working in politics and the media without once learning of the concept of an advance copy of a speech? And if he's so out of the loop that he didn't see at least excerpts from the speech before it was given, why on earth should CNN continue to employ him as a "senior analyst"? Or was Greenfield deliberately misleading CNN viewers for the purposes of trashing a Democratic member of Congress?

If this seems like an insignificant throwaway line, think again. Comments like Greenfield's create an impression among the public, and among his fellow journalists, that critics of the president are reckless and irresponsible, interested only in tearing him down, regardless of the facts. The next thing you know, you're watching CNN's Paula Zahn tell viewers there is a "perception" that Democrats "have no agenda of their own ... basically the only thing they're good at is blasting the president."

Given his abysmal approval ratings, Zahn would have been far more accurate if she had said there is a perception that President Bush is only good at blasting Democrats.

Nor did Zahn address the obvious implication of her claim: if the public really does think the "only thing" Democrats are good at is "blasting the president," that must mean the American people like to see Democrats blast the president. They must like it a lot.

After all, a CBS/New York Times poll just found that 53 percent of Americans have a favorable view of the Democratic Party, while 40 percent have an unfavorable view -- compared to 44 percent favorable/51 percent unfavorable for the Republicans and 37 percent favorable/48 percent unfavorable for President Bush.

But to Zahn and many of her colleagues, somehow, it is the Democrats who are poorly received by the American people.

Any journalist or pundit who makes reference to public opinion in a way that contradicts these basic facts, without offering specific data, is simply misleading the American people.

To the extent that there are people who think the Democrats lack ideas or an agenda, Zahn and her colleagues might want to examine why they think that. It certainly isn't because Democrats actually lack ideas or an agenda. HouseDemocrats.gov offers plenty of detail about the House Democrats' ideas and agenda; as do the websites of many progressive organizations, like the Center for American Progress.

If people think Democrats lack ideas, it is largely because news organizations ignore the Democrats' ideas. It's because Paula Zahn devotes an hour every night not to assessing the political parties' policy proposals, but to urgent topics like "Breast Milk Black Market"; "Oprah Flip-Flops on Controversial Book" and "New Clues in Missing Honeymooner Case?" -- and those are all from a single edition of Paula Zahn Now. Other recent editions have focused on "A Life Changed By Cosmetic Surgery," the always-popular "Googling For Pornography," and the pressing question: "Can voodoo make a comeback?"

Bush promised in his State of the Union address that his plan to increase ethanol production will "help us reach another great goal: to replace more than 75 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025."

One day after President Bush vowed to reduce America's dependence on Middle East oil by cutting imports from there 75 percent by 2025, his energy secretary and national economic advisor said Wednesday that the president didn't mean it literally.

What the president meant, they said in a conference call with reporters, was that alternative fuels could displace an amount of oil imports equivalent to most of what America is expected to import from the Middle East in 2025.

But America still would import oil from the Middle East, because that's where the greatest oil supplies are.

He pledged to "move beyond a petroleum-based economy and make our dependence on Middle Eastern oil a thing of the past."

Asked why the president used the words ''the Middle East'' when he didn't really mean them, one administration official said Bush wanted to dramatize the issue in a way that ''every American sitting out there listening to the speech understands.'' The official spoke only on condition of anonymity because he feared that his remarks might get him in trouble.

Got that? When the president told the American people he had a plan to "replace more than 75 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025," he didn't mean that literally. His specific promise to accomplish specific reductions in oil imports from a specific region by a specific date was "purely an example." He said it not because it was true, but because viewers could "understand" it. Bush apparently valued clarity over truthfulness.

So, how did the media cover Bush's comments about America's "addiction" to foreign oil? Let's take ABC as an example.

On Good Morning America the morning after Bush's speech, host Charles Gibson told viewers:

"[I]f there was anything new in the speech, it was his [Bush's] call for an end to America's addiction with foreign oil, a calling for a reduction on America's dependence on Middle Eastern oil of 75 percent in 20 years."

But Bush's "call for an end to America's addiction with foreign oil" wasn't new at all, as Media Matters noted:

However, in every prior State of the Union address since 2002, Bush called on Congress to pass his energy proposal, saying the United States needed to reduce its dependence on foreign sources of energy. Bush signed that plan into law in August 2005.

And, as Knight Ridder explained later that day, that whole "75 percent in 20 years" part was a lie. So, surely, ABC followed up with another report, telling viewers that, in fact, the president hadn't told the truth?

No, it didn't. To be clear: ABC did run several more segments later in the week about Bush's energy comments; it just didn't bother to mention that the line in Bush's speech ABC found so compelling that they quoted it the next morning turned out to be a lie.

The February 2 broadcast of Good Morning America featured a segment about Bush's energy proposals, introduced by Diane Sawyer's mention of "President Bush's statement that he's now going to try to end what he calls America's addiction to foreign oil." No mention was made of the Knight Ridder article.

Later that day, ABC's News Now reported: "President Bush heads to Minnesota today, where he'll continue to push the agenda he introduced at Tuesday's State of the Union address. When, while he reminds Americans of the need to reduce dependency on foreign oil, Mister Bush says he has no beef with the oil industry." Again, no mention of the fact that the "agenda he introduced at Tuesdays' State of the Union address" turned out to be fictitious.

Nor was ABC alone in touting Bush's promise, then failing to point out that it wasn't sincere. NBC's David Gregory reported on February 1:

GREGORY: Last night's address was modest, a reflection of the president's political weakness at home. His priorities? Reducing America's "addiction" to Middle Eastern oil by 75 percent by 2025 through alternative fuel sources, confronting competition abroad by training 70,000 new advanced placement teachers.

On February 2, after the Knight Ridder article had appeared, NBC's Ann Thompson told viewers: "President Bush wants to reduce oil from the Middle East where we get about one-fifth of our imports." But she didn't mention that the Bush administration had already backed away from its promise to reduce oil imports from the Middle East. Nor did that fact come up in host Matt Lauer's ensuing discussion of oil consumption with New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman.

White House may have destroyed evidence in Plame investigation; media look the other way

The New York Daily News reported this week that special counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald wrote in a letter to lawyers for former vice presidential chief of staff I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby that numerous emails from 2003 are missing from White House computer archives.

This seemingly explosive news was promptly ignored by most other news organizations, as Media Matters explained:

Media Matters examined cable and network news coverage on February 1 (from 4 p.m. to midnight ET) and February 2 (from 6 a.m. to 10 a.m.) and also looked at newspaper and wire coverage on February 1 and 2 for mentions of the letter, following the publication of Meek's article. This survey found that only CNN, the Associated Press, and The New York Sun have devoted any substantial coverage to Fitzgerald's revelation.

While most news outlets have entirely ignored Fitzgerald's letter, several did so despite devoting substantial coverage to related developments in the Libby case. For example, on the February 1 edition of MSNBC's The Abrams Report, host Dan Abrams discussed a recent court filing by Libby's defense team with two former government lawyers. But during the seven-minute segment, Abrams made no mention of Fitzgerald's letter, which was attached to that same filing.

We've spent a lot of space the last two weeks comparing media coverage of Bush administration scandals to coverage of Whitewater and the Lewinsky investigation. We won't belabor the point this week; we'll just note the following 1,600-word, front-page article that appeared in the December 19, 1995, edition of The New York Times: "Senate Committee Says Files On Whitewater Are Missing."

As Gonzales testimony on warrantless wiretapping approaches, media continue to downplay scandal

Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales is scheduled to appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee next week to discuss the Bush administration's warrantless domestic spying operation.

A January 31 Washington Post report suggested that Gonzales may have previously lied to the committee when he testified -- under oath -- during his confirmation hearing that a question about warrantless wiretapping was a "hypothetical" and that he would, as the Post put it, "hope to alert Congress if the president ever chose to authorize warrantless surveillance." (Think Progress had been drawing attention to the Gonzales testimony for more than a month before the Post article.)

Among the news organizations that have ignored the Post report: The New York Times, USA Today, the Associated Press, ABC, CBS, and NBC.

But perhaps most inexplicable is CNN's handling of the story. On Tuesday, CNN's Kelli Arena reported:

ARENA (voice-over): Senator Russ Feingold is accusing the attorney general of misleading Congress during his confirmation hearings last year, when he was asked about warrantless wiretaps.

SEN. RUSSELL FEINGOLD (D-WI): Does the president in your opinion, have the authority, acting as commander-in-chief, to authorize warrantless searches of Americans homes and wiretaps of their conversations, in violation of the criminal and foreign intelligence surveillance statutes of this country?

ARENA: In fact, the NSA program had been in place for more than three years. When pressed, Gonzales had this to say.

GONZALES: It's not the policy or the agenda of this president to authorize actions that would be in contravention of our criminal statutes.

FEINGOLD: Finally, will you commit to notify Congress if the president makes this type of decision and not wait two years until a memo is leaked about it?

GONZALES: I will commit to advise the Congress as soon as I reasonably can, yes, sir.

ARENA: Feingold, who wasn't briefed about the program, says he wants an explanation.

FEINGOLD: The chief law enforcement officer of this country apparently told the committee under oath that something was merely hypothetical, when in fact he knew very well and was involved in it, actually being an ongoing practice.

Two days later, Arena interviewed Gonzales -- but apparently didn't bother to ask him about his 2005 testimony or about Feingold's allegation that the testimony was misleading.

To sum up: the attorney general of the United States is scheduled to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee next week about a secret warrantless domestic spying operation that has been widely described as an illegal and unconstitutional assertion of presidential power. A member of the Judiciary Committee has essentially accused the attorney general of having previously lied to the committee, under oath, about such spying. And Arena -- who two days before reported that a member of the Judiciary Committee has essentially accused the attorney general of having previously lied to the committee -- didn't bother to ask the attorney general about it?

Even more amazing, some journalists view all of this as in insignificant matter. They praise Bush's "strong" and "vigorous" defense of the warrantless domestic spying -- without noting that the defense may have been "vigorous," but it was also riddled with inaccuracies. They repeat Bush's false claim that Congress was briefed about the program; they repeat his false explanations of his previous false claims.

To be clear: these are not the usual suspects from Fox News or The Wall Street Journal editorial page who are carrying Bush's water. They are the most prominent and powerful journalists in the country: NBC's Tim Russert, The Washington Post's Dana Milbank, CBS' Gloria Borger, and CNN's Jeff Greenfield, among others.

Most incredibly of all, a Time magazine editor asserts that Bush has "won it. ... [H]e's put the NSA story to bed."

An ever-growing number of scholars and experts -- left, right, and center -- think the warrantless domestic spying operation is illegal; by a 19-point margin, the American people want a special prosecutor to be appointed to investigate; and it appears that the nation's chief law enforcement officer may have lied under oath to the United States Senate in order to keep the program secret.

And Michael Duffy, Time's assistant managing editor, declares that the story is over. Nothing to see here. Move along.

knowing who Bono is and having ever met him? Was Bono operating under duress? The hand in the background seems to be prodding him. A sign? Are all my old heroes now neo-con tools?

I don't want to live in a country that prohibits any person, whether he/she has paid the ulitmate price for that country, from wearing, saying, writing, or telephoning any negative statements about the government. That's why I am going to take my freedoms and liberties back. That's why I am not going to let Bushco take anything else away from me...or you.

SEE: Woolsey Statement Regarding Cindy Sheehan
February 1, 2006

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- U.S. Representative Lynn Woolsey (D-Petaluma) today issued the following statement regarding Cindy Sheehans arrest in the gallery of the House of Representatives before the State of the Union address. Mrs. Sheehan was Rep. Lynn Woolseys guest to the Presidents State of the Union address.

Since when is free speech conditional on whether you agree with the President? Cindy Sheehan, who gave her own flesh and blood for this disastrous war, did not violate any rules of the House of Representatives. She merely wore a shirt that highlighted the human cost of the Iraq war and expressed a view different than that of the President. Free speech and the First Amendment exist to protect dissenting statements like Ms. Sheehans last night.

Stifling the truth will not blind Americans to the immorality of sending young Americans to die in an unnecessary war, against a nation that posed no threat to our security. The President's speech last night was yet another attempt to distort history, as he suggested -- once again -- that the 9/11 terrorists came from Iraq. Everyone knows this is not true. We must not be afraid to say that the emperor has no clothes. It's time to bring our troops home.

The big scandal of the day seems to be some stupid comics of Mohammed which some poor editor lost his job over. Frankly I don't see what the big deal is but then again as an agnostic I guess I wouldn't. I guess you would have to be a fanatical Muslim to be offended. You all know how I feel about the mindless slaughter that is going on in Iraq and you know that second only to George Bush it is what gets me the most but that doesn't mean I support Islam or the psychopathic killers who run around killing innocents in the name of Islam. So I say, "Hey, lighten up already".

Anyway here are the comics that got the poor Dane fired. The one about the virgins had me do a yahoo search for answers and I found 72 more questions that I thought were pretty funny. I just don't get it, if you are Muslim and go to heaven does that mean that shagging in mass quantities forever is allowed? Isn't that kind of Satanic sounding? No offense but it doesn't sound kosher (kidding) to me. Not that the references to murdering deviants in the Old Testament are any better but hey, like let's get real for Christ's sake.

Question 73....Do they have viagra in Muslim heaven? If they do, do you get a discount if you buy in bulk?

Perhaps if George W. Bush had taken it seriously when he was handed a daily briefing on August 6th 2001 titled "Bin Laden determined to strike in U.S.," the world would be a different place right now. But he didn't.

Still, Bush started to take bin Laden seriously after September 11th, right? For example, here's what he had to say on March 13, 2002:

Q: But don't you believe that the threat that bin Laden posed won't truly be eliminated until he is found either dead or alive?

THE RESIDENT: Well, as I say, we haven't heard much from him. And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I - I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him.

Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders, that is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country.
Hermann Goering
(Nazi planner)

King George the Stupid. This article sums things up so well that I decided to publish it in its entirity rather than just a snippet. For those nearby.

Russian Special Services Personnel Report Discovery of British Secret Service's Financing of Several Non-Governmental Foreign Entities in the Russian Federation

Russian special services personnel have uncovered espionage activities against Russia involving personnel from the British Embassy in Moscow. The TV station "Russia", on January 22 on the program "Special Reports", broadcast operational images as well as commentary by FSB personnel which prove the espionage activities against Russia.

- , , " " , - , 2002 , - , 2004 .

Of interest to Russian Special Services are four British diplomats; assistant to the official representative of the British secret service(s) in Russia, (Third Secretary for Political Affairs) Paul Crompton, Second Secretary for Political Affairs Marc Doe who were responsible for co-ordinating the activities of the "Global Possibilties Fund under the British Ministry of Foreign Affairs" and worked as couriers for several Russian NGOs (Non-Governmental Organizations). As well; Christopher Pirt, who has worked in Russia since 2002 and Andre Fleming, who has been working in Russia since 2004.

, . , , "". ., .

The program backed up claims that through Doe money was transferred to several NGOs, most frequently to The Moscow Helsinki Group and the Eurasia Fund. Copies of financial transfer documents signed by M Doe were broadcast on the program which point to large money transfers to the NGOs in question.

As was reported on the broadcast, FSB Press Secretary Diana Shemyakina stated that most NGOs in Russia were created, are financed, and exist under the patronage of governmental and public organizations in the US and by its NATO allies.

, , . 2005 . , . , , , , . , , . , .

During the program it was also noted that counter espionage agents discovered an unusual device used by the British for the first time. In the fall of 2005, Mr. Pirt placed a "rock", which housed electronic equipment capable of receiving and sending data, in one of the squares on the outskirts of Moscow. FSB operational personnel reported on the program that at pre-arranged times a Russian citizen recruited by British espionage, showed up on the square and transmitted data from a portable computer to the receiver in the "rock". A short while later his British controller would pass by the "rock" and upload the information onto a pocket PC. Russian counter-espionage agents were able to apprehend the Russian citizen, who has already provided incriminating information.

Long time Bush family friend, ex-CIA agent Tim Ossman, AKA Ossaaaama Bin-Ladle makes an appearance, promises to kill more innocents, gloats, proves he is still delusional, states crap we already know, and spews more crap diguised as Islam, defiling Islam once more and proving to the world at large that George Bush is a disaster and he (Bin-Boy) has gotten what he wants....I don't know who is worse anymore...I think they deserve each other... If his offer of peace is genuine then he, for one, has learned something... But hey, peace sells but the Bush administration will surely not buy it... I mean what would happen to all those Halliburton bucks? Wish he'd choke.

I have come to the conclusion after analyzing all of my open-source information that the Bush Administration is once again testing the waters for implementing scenarios that will build up to an invasion of Iran.

This has long been the goal of Bush, Rumsfeld, and Cheney. Unfortunately for them earlier attempts to get their plan under-way have been hampered by the fiasco they have created in Iraq.

The world and the American people, already suspicious and untrusting, will not allow the administration the carte-blanche they had after 9-11 when dealing with Iran, so it would be hard at this point to bolster support for an Iranian invasion on the grounds that Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons and possesses WMDs. It would take an act of open agression or a declaration of war by the Iranians to allow the Bush Administration to put forth their planned invasion.