Just when you think you've seen and heard it all from the sleazy, low-life and criminal faction of the GOP, another shocking revelation will appear that will suck most, if not all, of the air out of your lungs. This time we learn that the GOP goons hired a firm that specializes in "perception management" or the manipulation of information. Sound familiar? The piece divulges a number of highly disturbing issues: how the Bush Administration hired a PR firm to couch and sell a war to the American people, while employing propaganda in a Hollywood type fashion; how the firm manipulates the press (e.g. Judith Miller types) to pitch their propaganda and third, how the Bush Administration outsources duties normally performed by the CIA to PR firms. The end result is the PR firms are not accountable to Congress as the CIA is. This is what the Bush people do. To fully appreciate the long and complex article you might want to click on the Rolling Stone link, go to the print version and read it carefully. It is yet another brilliant find sent by Ken. LS
First a four paragraph introduction from Think Progress, and then the Rolling Stone story that reveals how Hussein was packaged as the world's greatest villain. Amazing stuff. -K
Today’s Rolling Stone reveals that the administration’s use of al-Haideri’s lies to justify the Iraq war were “the product of a clandestine operation…that had been set up and funded by the CIA and the Pentagon for the express purpose of selling a war.”
At the center of this operation was John Rendon and The Rendon Group, “a controversial, secretive firm that has been criticized as ineffective and too expensive,” paid more than $56 million by the government since the 9/11 attacks. (Taxpayers are paying Rendon himself $311.26/hour.)
The Rendon Group personally set up the Iraqi National Congress and helped install Ahmad Chalabi as leader, whose main goal — “pressure the United States to attack Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein” — Rendon helped facilitate. Pentagon documents show that Rendon has the highest level of government clearance (above Top Secret), which helped it with its INC work — “a worldwide media blitz designed to turn Hussein…into the greatest threat to world peace.”
While the White House continues to insist it did not manipulate intelligence before the Iraq war, it sure seems that it hired John Rendon and his group to do just that.
THINK PROGRESS LINK HERE
The Man Who Sold the War
Meet John Rendon, Bush's general in the propaganda war
By JAMES BAMFORD
Rolling Stone
CLICK HERE OR READ BELOW
The road to war in Iraq led through many unlikely places. One of them was a chic hotel nestled among the strip bars and brothels that cater to foreigners in the town of Pattaya, on the Gulf of Thailand.
On December 17th, 2001, in a small room within the sound of the crashing tide, a CIA officer attached metal electrodes to the ring and index fingers of a man sitting pensively in a padded chair. The officer then stretched a black rubber tube, pleated like an accordion, around the man's chest and another across his abdomen. Finally, he slipped a thick cuff over the man's brachial artery, on the inside of his upper arm.
Strapped to the polygraph machine was Adnan Ihsan Saeed al-Haideri, a forty-three-year-old Iraqi who had fled his homeland in Kurdistan and was now determined to bring down Saddam Hussein. For hours, as thin mechanical styluses traced black lines on rolling graph paper, al-Haideri laid out an explosive tale. Answering yes and no to a series of questions, he insisted repeatedly that he was a civil engineer who had helped Saddam's men to secretly bury tons of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons. The illegal arms, according to al-Haideri, were buried in subterranean wells, hidden in private villas, even stashed beneath the Saddam Hussein Hospital, the largest medical facility in Baghdad.
It was damning stuff -- just the kind of evidence the Bush administration was looking for. If the charges were true, they would offer the White House a compelling reason to invade Iraq and depose Saddam. That's why the Pentagon had flown a CIA polygraph expert to Pattaya: to question al-Haideri and confirm, once and for all, that Saddam was secretly stockpiling weapons of mass destruction.
There was only one problem: It was all a lie. After a review of the sharp peaks and deep valleys on the polygraph chart, the intelligence officer concluded that al-Haideri had made up the entire story, apparently in the hopes of securing a visa.
The fabrication might have ended there, the tale of another political refugee trying to scheme his way to a better life. But just because the story wasn't true didn't mean it couldn't be put to good use. Al-Haideri, in fact, was the product of a clandestine operation -- part espionage, part PR campaign -- that had been set up and funded by the CIA and the Pentagon for the express purpose of selling the world a war. And the man who had long been in charge of the marketing was a secretive and mysterious creature of the Washington establishment named John Rendon.
Rendon is a man who fills a need that few people even know exists. Two months before al-Haideri took the lie-detector test, the Pentagon had secretly awarded him a $16 million contract to target Iraq and other adversaries with propaganda. One of the most powerful people in Washington, Rendon is a leader in the strategic field known as "perception management," manipulating information -- and, by extension, the news media -- to achieve the desired result. His firm, the Rendon Group, has made millions off government contracts since 1991, when it was hired by the CIA to help "create the conditions for the removal of Hussein from power." Working under this extraordinary transfer of secret authority, Rendon assembled a group of anti-Saddam militants, personally gave them their name -- the Iraqi National Congress -- and served as their media guru and "senior adviser" as they set out to engineer an uprising against Saddam. It was as if President John F. Kennedy had outsourced the Bay of Pigs operation to the advertising and public-relations firm of J. Walter Thompson.
"They're very closemouthed about what they do," says Kevin McCauley, an editor of the industry trade publication O'Dwyer's PR Daily. "It's all cloak-and-dagger stuff."
Although Rendon denies any direct involvement with al-Haideri, the defector was the latest salvo in a secret media war set in motion by Rendon. In an operation directed by Ahmad Chalabi -- the man Rendon helped install as leader of the INC -- the defector had been brought to Thailand, where he huddled in a hotel room for days with the group's spokesman, Zaab Sethna. The INC routinely coached defectors on their stories, prepping them for polygraph exams, and Sethna was certainly up to the task -- he got his training in the art of propaganda on the payroll of the Rendon Group. According to Francis Brooke, the INC's man in Washington and himself a former Rendon employee, the goal of the al-Haideri operation was simple: pressure the United States to attack Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein.
As the CIA official flew back to Washington with failed lie-detector charts in his briefcase, Chalabi and Sethna didn't hesitate. They picked up the phone, called two journalists who had a long history of helping the INC promote its cause and offered them an exclusive on Saddam's terrifying cache of WMDs.
For the worldwide broadcast rights, Sethna contacted Paul Moran, an Australian freelancer who frequently worked for the Australian Broadcasting Corp. "I think I've got something that you would be interested in," he told Moran, who was living in Bahrain. Sethna knew he could count on the trim, thirty-eight-year-old journalist: A former INC employee in the Middle East, Moran had also been on Rendon's payroll for years in "information operations," working with Sethna at the company's London office on Catherine Place, near Buckingham Palace.
"We were trying to help the Kurds and the Iraqis opposed to Saddam set up a television station," Sethna recalled in a rare interview broadcast on Australian television. "The Rendon Group came to us and said, 'We have a contract to kind of do anti-Saddam propaganda on behalf of the Iraqi opposition.' What we didn't know -- what the Rendon Group didn't tell us -- was in fact it was the CIA that had hired them to do this work."
The INC's choice for the worldwide print exclusive was equally easy: Chalabi contacted Judith Miller of The New York Times. Miller, who was close to I. Lewis Libby and other neoconservatives in the Bush administration, had been a trusted outlet for the INC's anti-Saddam propaganda for years. Not long after the CIA polygraph expert slipped the straps and electrodes off al-Haideri and declared him a liar, Miller flew to Bangkok to interview him under the watchful supervision of his INC handlers. Miller later made perfunctory calls to the CIA and Defense Intelligence Agency, but despite her vaunted intelligence sources, she claimed not to know about the results of al-Haideri's lie-detector test. Instead, she reported that unnamed "government experts" called his information "reliable and significant" -- thus adding a veneer of truth to the lies.
Her front-page story, which hit the stands on December 20th, 2001, was exactly the kind of exposure Rendon had been hired to provide. AN IRAQI DEFECTOR TELLS OF WORK ON AT LEAST 20 HIDDEN WEAPONS SITES, declared the headline. "An Iraqi defector who described himself as a civil engineer," Miller wrote, "said he personally worked on renovations of secret facilities for biological, chemical and nuclear weapons in underground wells, private villas and under the Saddam Hussein Hospital in Baghdad as recently as a year ago." If verified, she noted, "his allegations would provide ammunition to officials within the Bush administration who have been arguing that Mr. Hussein should be driven from power partly because of his unwillingness to stop making weapons of mass destruction, despite his pledges to do so."
For months, hawks inside and outside the administration had been pressing for a pre-emptive attack on Iraq. Now, thanks to Miller's story, they could point to "proof" of Saddam's "nuclear threat." The story, reinforced by Moran's on-camera interview with al-Haideri on the giant Australian Broadcasting Corp., was soon being trumpeted by the White House and repeated by newspapers and television networks around the world. It was the first in a long line of hyped and fraudulent stories that would eventually propel the U.S. into a war with Iraq -- the first war based almost entirely on a covert propaganda campaign targeting the media.
By law, the Bush administration is expressly prohibited from disseminating government propaganda at home. But in an age of global communications, there is nothing to stop it from planting a phony pro-war story overseas -- knowing with certainty that it will reach American citizens almost instantly. A recent congressional report suggests that the Pentagon may be relying on "covert psychological operations affecting audiences within friendly nations." In a "secret amendment" to Pentagon policy, the report warns, "psyops funds might be used to publish stories favorable to American policies, or hire outside contractors without obvious ties to the Pentagon to organize rallies in support of administration policies." The report also concludes that military planners are shifting away from the Cold War view that power comes from superior weapons systems. Instead, the Pentagon now believes that "combat power can be enhanced by communications networks and technologies that control access to, and directly manipulate, information. As a result, information itself is now both a tool and a target of warfare."
It is a belief John Rendon encapsulated in a speech to cadets at the U.S. Air Force Academy in 1996. "I am not a national-security strategist or a military tactician," he declared. "I am a politician, a person who uses communication to meet public-policy or corporate-policy objectives. In fact, I am an information warrior and a perception manager." To explain his philosophy, Rendon paraphrased a journalist he knew from his days as a staffer on the presidential campaigns of George McGovern and Jimmy Carter: "This is probably best described in the words of Hunter S. Thompson, when he wrote, 'When things turn weird, the weird turn pro.'"
John Walter Rendon Jr. rises at 3 a.m. each morning after six hours of sleep, turns on his Apple computer and begins ingesting information -- overnight news reports, e-mail messages, foreign and domestic newspapers, and an assortment of government documents, many of them available only to those with the highest security clearance. According to Pentagon documents obtained by Rolling Stone, the Rendon Group is authorized "to research and analyze information classified up to Top Secret/SCI/SI/TK/G/HCS" -- an extraordinarily high level of clearance granted to only a handful of defense contractors. "SCI" stands for Sensitive Compartmented Information, data classified higher than Top Secret. "SI" is Special Intelligence, very secret communications intercepted by the National Security Agency. "TK" refers to Talent/Keyhole, code names for imagery from reconnaissance aircraft and spy satellites. "G" stands for Gamma (communications intercepts from extremely sensitive sources) and "HCS" means Humint Control System (information from a very sensitive human source). Taken together, the acronyms indicate that Rendon enjoys access to the most secret information from all three forms of intelligence collection: eavesdropping, imaging satellites and human spies.
Rendon lives in a multimillion-dollar home in Washington's exclusive Kalorama neighborhood. A few doors down from Rendon is the home of former Defense Secretary Robert S. McNamara; just around the corner lives current Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. At fifty-six, Rendon wears owlish glasses and combs his thick mane of silver-gray hair to the side, Kennedy-style. He heads to work each morning clad in a custom-made shirt with his monogram on the right cuff and a sharply tailored blue blazer that hangs loose around his bulky frame. By the time he pulls up to the Rendon Group's headquarters near Dupont Circle, he has already racked up a handsome fee for the morning's work: According to federal records, Rendon charges the CIA and the Pentagon $311.26 an hour for his services.
Rendon is one of the most influential of the private contractors in Washington who are increasingly taking over jobs long reserved for highly trained CIA employees. In recent years, spies-for-hire have begun to replace regional desk officers, who control clandestine operations around the world; watch officers at the agency's twenty-four-hour crisis center; analysts, who sift through reams of intelligence data; and even counterintelligence officers in the field, who oversee meetings between agents and their recruited spies. According to one senior administration official involved in intelligence-budget decisions, half of the CIA's work is now performed by private contractors -- people completely unaccountable to Congress. Another senior budget official acknowledges privately that lawmakers have no idea how many rent-a-spies the CIA currently employs -- or how much unchecked power they enjoy.
Unlike many newcomers to the field, however, Rendon is a battle-tested veteran who has been secretly involved in nearly every American shooting conflict in the past two decades. In the first interview he has granted in decades, Rendon offered a peek through the keyhole of this seldom-seen world of corporate spooks -- a rarefied but growing profession. Over a dinner of lamb chops and a bottle of Chateauneuf du Pape at a private Washington club, Rendon was guarded about the details of his clandestine work -- but he boasted openly of the sweep and importance of his firm's efforts as a for-profit spy. "We've worked in ninety-one countries," he said. "Going all the way back to Panama, we've been involved in every war, with the exception of Somalia."
It is an unusual career twist for someone who entered politics as an opponent of the Vietnam War. The son of a stockbroker, Rendon grew up in New Jersey and stumped for McGovern before graduating from Northeastern University. "I was the youngest state coordinator," he recalls. "I had Maine. They told me that I understood politics -- which was a stretch, being so young." Rendon, who went on to serve as executive director of the Democratic National Committee, quickly mastered the combination of political skulduggery and media manipulation that would become his hallmark. In 1980, as the manager of Jimmy Carter's troops at the national convention in New York, he was sitting alone in the bleachers at Madison Square Garden when a reporter for ABC News approached him. "They actually did a little piece about the man behind the curtain," Rendon says. "A Wizard of Oz thing." It was a role he would end up playing for the rest of his life.
After Carter lost the election and the hard-right Reagan revolutionaries came to power in 1981, Rendon went into business with his younger brother Rick. "Everybody started consulting," he recalls. "We started consulting." They helped elect John Kerry to the Senate in 1984 and worked for the AFL-CIO to mobilize the union vote for Walter Mondale's presidential campaign. Among the items Rendon produced was a training manual for union organizers to operate as political activists on behalf of Mondale. To keep the operation quiet, Rendon stamped CONFIDENTIAL on the cover of each of the blue plastic notebooks. It was a penchant for secrecy that would soon pervade all of his consulting deals.
To a large degree, the Rendon Group is a family affair. Rendon's wife, Sandra Libby, handles the books as chief financial officer and "senior communications strategist." Rendon's brother Rick serves as senior partner and runs the company's Boston office, producing public-service announcements for the Whale Conservation Institute and coordinating Empower Peace, a campaign that brings young people in the Middle East in contact with American kids through video-conferencing technology. But the bulk of the company's business is decidedly less liberal and peace oriented. Rendon's first experience in the intelligence world, in fact, came courtesy of the Republicans. "Panama," he says, "brought us into the national-security environment."
In 1989, shortly after his election, President George H.W. Bush signed a highly secret "finding" authorizing the CIA to funnel $10 million to opposition forces in Panama to overthrow Gen. Manuel Noriega. Reluctant to involve agency personnel directly, the CIA turned to the Rendon Group. Rendon's job was to work behind the scenes, using a variety of campaign and psychological techniques to put the CIA's choice, Guillermo Endara, into the presidential palace. Cash from the agency, laundered through various bank accounts and front organizations, would end up in Endara's hands, who would then pay Rendon.
A heavyset, fifty-three-year-old corporate attorney with little political experience, Endara was running against Noriega's handpicked choice, Carlos Duque. With Rendon's help, Endara beat Duque decisively at the polls -- but Noriega simply named himself "Maximum Leader" and declared the election null and void. The Bush administration then decided to remove Noriega by force -- and Rendon's job shifted from generating local support for a national election to building international support for regime change. Within days he had found the ultimate propaganda tool.
At the end of a rally in support of Endara, a band of Noriega's Dignity Battalion -- nicknamed "Dig Bats" and called "Doberman thugs" by Bush -- attacked the crowd with wooden planks, metal pipes and guns. Gang members grabbed the bodyguard of Guillermo Ford, one of Endara's vice-presidential candidates, pushed him against a car, shoved a gun in his mouth and pulled the trigger. With cameras snapping, the Dig Bats turned on Ford, batting his head with a spike-tipped metal rod and pounding him with heavy clubs, turning his white guayabera bright red with blood -- his own, and that of his dead bodyguard.
Within hours, Rendon made sure the photos reached every newsroom in the world. The next week an image of the violence made the cover of Time magazine with the caption POLITICS PANAMA STYLE: NORIEGA BLUDGEONS HIS OPPOSITION, AND THE U.S. TURNS UP THE HEAT. To further boost international support for Endara, Rendon escorted Ford on a tour of Europe to meet British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, the Italian prime minister and even the pope. In December 1989, when Bush decided to invade Panama, Rendon and several of his employees were on one of the first military jets headed to Panama City.
"I arrived fifteen minutes before it started," Rendon recalls. "My first impression is having the pilot in the plane turn around and say, 'Excuse me, sir, but if you look off to the left you'll see the attack aircraft circling before they land.' Then I remember this major saying, 'Excuse me, sir, but do you know what the air-defense capability of Panama is at the moment?' I leaned into the cockpit and said, 'Look, major, I hope by now that's no longer an issue.'"
Moments later, Rendon's plane landed at Howard Air Force Base in Panama. "I needed to get to Fort Clayton, which was where the president was," he says. "I was choppered over -- and we took some rounds on the way." There, on a U.S. military base surrounded by 24,000 U.S. troops, heavy tanks and Combat Talon AC-130 gunships, Rendon's client, Endara, was at last sworn in as president of Panama.
Rendon's involvement in the campaign to oust Saddam Hussein began seven months later, in July 1990. Rendon had taken time out for a vacation -- a long train ride across Scotland -- when he received an urgent call. "Soldiers are massing at the border outside of Kuwait," he was told. At the airport, he watched the beginning of the Iraqi invasion on television. Winging toward Washington in the first-class cabin of a Pan Am 747, Rendon spent the entire flight scratching an outline of his ideas in longhand on a yellow legal pad.
"I wrote a memo about what the Kuwaitis were going to face, and I based it on our experience in Panama and the experience of the Free French operation in World War II," Rendon says. "This was something that they needed to see and hear, and that was my whole intent. Go over, tell the Kuwaitis, 'Here's what you've got -- here's some observations, here's some recommendations, live long and prosper.'"
Back in Washington, Rendon immediately called Hamilton Jordan, the former chief of staff to President Carter and an old friend from his Democratic Party days. "He put me in touch with the Saudis, the Saudis put me in touch with the Kuwaitis and then I went over and had a meeting with the Kuwaitis," Rendon recalls. "And by the time I landed back in the United States, I got a phone call saying, 'Can you come back? We want you to do what's in the memo.'"
What the Kuwaitis wanted was help in selling a war of liberation to the American government -- and the American public. Rendon proposed a massive "perception management" campaign designed to convince the world of the need to join forces to rescue Kuwait. Working through an organization called Citizens for a Free Kuwait, the Kuwaiti government in exile agreed to pay Rendon $100,000 a month for his assistance.
To coordinate the operation, Rendon opened an office in London. Once the Gulf War began, he remained extremely busy trying to prevent the American press from reporting on the dark side of the Kuwaiti government, an autocratic oil-tocracy ruled by a family of wealthy sheiks. When newspapers began reporting that many Kuwaitis were actually living it up in nightclubs in Cairo as Americans were dying in the Kuwaiti sand, the Rendon Group quickly counterattacked. Almost instantly, a wave of articles began appearing telling the story of grateful Kuwaitis mailing 20,000 personally signed valentines to American troops on the front lines, all arranged by Rendon.
Rendon also set up an elaborate television and radio network, and developed programming that was beamed into Kuwait from Taif, Saudi Arabia. "It was important that the Kuwaitis in occupied Kuwait understood that the rest of the world was doing something," he says. Each night, Rendon's troops in London produced a script and sent it via microwave to Taif, ensuring that the "news" beamed into Kuwait reflected a sufficiently pro-American line.
When it comes to staging a war, few things are left to chance. After Iraq withdrew from Kuwait, it was Rendon's responsibility to make the victory march look like the flag-waving liberation of France after World War II. "Did you ever stop to wonder," he later remarked, "how the people of Kuwait City, after being held hostage for seven long and painful months, were able to get hand-held American -- and, for that matter, the flags of other coalition countries?" After a pause, he added, "Well, you now know the answer. That was one of my jobs then."
Although his work is highly secret, Rendon insists he deals only in "timely, truthful and accurate information." His job, he says, is to counter false perceptions that the news media perpetuate because they consider it "more important to be first than to be right." In modern warfare, he believes, the outcome depends largely on the public's perception of the war -- whether it is winnable, whether it is worth the cost. "We are being haunted and stalked by the difference between perception and reality," he says. "Because the lines are divergent, this difference between perception and reality is one of the greatest strategic communications challenges of war."
By the time the Gulf War came to a close in 1991, the Rendon Group was firmly established as Washington's leading salesman for regime change. But Rendon's new assignment went beyond simply manipulating the media. After the war ended, the Top Secret order signed by President Bush to oust Hussein included a rare "lethal finding" -- meaning deadly action could be taken if necessary. Under contract to the CIA, Rendon was charged with helping to create a dissident force with the avowed purpose of violently overthrowing the entire Iraqi government. It is an undertaking that Rendon still considers too classified to discuss. "That's where we're wandering into places I'm not going to talk about," he says. "If you take an oath, it should mean something."
Thomas Twetten, the CIA's former deputy of operations, credits Rendon with virtually creating the INC. "The INC was clueless," he once observed. "They needed a lot of help and didn't know where to start. That is why Rendon was brought in." Acting as the group's senior adviser and aided by truckloads of CIA dollars, Rendon pulled together a wide spectrum of Iraqi dissidents and sponsored a conference in Vienna to organize them into an umbrella organization, which he dubbed the Iraqi National Congress. Then, as in Panama, his assignment was to help oust a brutal dictator and replace him with someone chosen by the CIA. "The reason they got the contract was because of what they had done in Panama -- so they were known," recalls Whitley Bruner, former chief of the CIA's station in Baghdad. This time the target was Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and the agency's successor of choice was Ahmad Chalabi, a crafty, avuncular Iraqi exile beloved by Washington's neoconservatives.
Chalabi was a curious choice to lead a rebellion. In 1992, he was convicted in Jordan of making false statements and embezzling $230 million from his own bank, for which he was sentenced in absentia to twenty-two years of hard labor. But the only credential that mattered was his politics. "From day one," Rendon says, "Chalabi was very clear that his biggest interest was to rid Iraq of Saddam." Bruner, who dealt with Chalabi and Rendon in London in 1991, puts it even more bluntly. "Chalabi's primary focus," he said later, "was to drag us into a war."
The key element of Rendon's INC operation was a worldwide media blitz designed to turn Hussein, a once dangerous but now contained regional leader, into the greatest threat to world peace. Each month, $326,000 was passed from the CIA to the Rendon Group and the INC via various front organizations. Rendon profited handsomely, receiving a "management fee" of ten percent above what it spent on the project. According to some reports, the company made nearly $100 million on the contract during the five years following the Gulf War.
Rendon made considerable headway with the INC, but following the group's failed coup attempt against Saddam in 1996, the CIA lost confidence in Chalabi and cut off his monthly paycheck. But Chalabi and Rendon simply switched sides, moving over to the Pentagon, and the money continued to flow. "The Rendon Group is not in great odor in Langley these days," notes Bruner. "Their contracts are much more with the Defense Department."
Rendon's influence rose considerably in Washington after the terrorist attacks of September 11th. In a single stroke, Osama bin Laden altered the world's perception of reality -- and in an age of nonstop information, whoever controls perception wins. What Bush needed to fight the War on Terror was a skilled information warrior -- and Rendon was widely acknowledged as the best. "The events of 11 September 2001 changed everything, not least of which was the administration's outlook concerning strategic influence," notes one Army report. "Faced with direct evidence that many people around the world actively hated the United States, Bush began taking action to more effectively explain U.S. policy overseas. Initially the White House and DoD turned to the Rendon Group."
Three weeks after the September 11th attacks, according to documents obtained from defense sources, the Pentagon awarded a large contract to the Rendon Group. Around the same time, Pentagon officials also set up a highly secret organization called the Office of Strategic Influence. Part of the OSI's mission was to conduct covert disinformation and deception operations -- planting false news items in the media and hiding their origins. "It's sometimes valuable from a military standpoint to be able to engage in deception with respect to future anticipated plans," Vice President Dick Cheney said in explaining the operation. Even the military's top brass found the clandestine unit unnerving. "When I get their briefings, it's scary," a senior official said at the time.
In February 2002, The New York Times reported that the Pentagon had hired Rendon "to help the new office," a charge Rendon denies. "We had nothing to do with that," he says. "We were not in their reporting chain. We were reporting directly to the J-3" -- the head of operations at the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Following the leak, Rumsfeld was forced to shut down the organization. But much of the office's operations were apparently shifted to another unit, deeper in the Pentagon's bureaucracy, called the Information Operations Task Force, and Rendon was closely connected to this group. "Greg Newbold was the J-3 at the time, and we reported to him through the IOTF," Rendon says.
According to the Pentagon documents, the Rendon Group played a major role in the IOTF. The company was charged with creating an "Information War Room" to monitor worldwide news reports at lightning speed and respond almost instantly with counterpropaganda. A key weapon, according to the documents, was Rendon's "proprietary state-of-the-art news-wire collection system called 'Livewire,' which takes real-time news-wire reports, as they are filed, before they are on the Internet, before CNN can read them on the air and twenty-four hours before they appear in the morning newspapers, and sorts them by keyword. The system provides the most current real-time access to news and information available to private or public organizations."
The top target that the pentagon assigned to Rendon was the Al-Jazeera television network. The contract called for the Rendon Group to undertake a massive "media mapping" campaign against the news organization, which the Pentagon considered "critical to U.S. objectives in the War on Terrorism." According to the contract, Rendon would provide a "detailed content analysis of the station's daily broadcast . . . [and] identify the biases of specific journalists and potentially obtain an understanding of their allegiances, including the possibility of specific relationships and sponsorships."
The secret targeting of foreign journalists may have had a sinister purpose. Among the missions proposed for the Pentagon's Office of Strategic Influence was one to "coerce" foreign journalists and plant false information overseas. Secret briefing papers also said the office should find ways to "punish" those who convey the "wrong message." One senior officer told CNN that the plan would "formalize government deception, dishonesty and misinformation."
According to the Pentagon documents, Rendon would use his media analysis to conduct a worldwide propaganda campaign, deploying teams of information warriors to allied nations to assist them "in developing and delivering specific messages to the local population, combatants, front-line states, the media and the international community." Among the places Rendon's info-war teams would be sent were Jakarta, Indonesia; Islamabad, Pakistan; Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; Cairo; Ankara, Turkey; and Tashkent, Uzbekistan. The teams would produce and script television news segments "built around themes and story lines supportive of U.S. policy objectives."
Rendon was also charged with engaging in "military deception" online -- an activity once assigned to the OSI. The company was contracted to monitor Internet chat rooms in both English and Arabic -- and "participate in these chat rooms when/if tasked." Rendon would also create a Web site "with regular news summaries and feature articles. Targeted at the global public, in English and at least four (4) additional languages, this activity also will include an extensive e-mail push operation." These techniques are commonly used to plant a variety of propaganda, including false information.
Still another newly formed propaganda operation in which Rendon played a major part was the Office of Global Communications, which operated out of the White House and was charged with spreading the administration's message on the War in Iraq. Every morning at 9:30, Rendon took part in the White House OGC conference call, where officials would discuss the theme of the day and who would deliver it. The office also worked closely with the White House Iraq Group, whose high-level members, including recently indicted Cheney chief of staff Lewis Libby, were responsible for selling the war to the American public.
Never before in history had such an extensive secret network been established to shape the entire world's perception of a war. "It was not just bad intelligence -- it was an orchestrated effort," says Sam Gardner, a retired Air Force colonel who has taught strategy and military operations at the National War College. "It began before the war, was a major effort during the war and continues as post-conflict distortions."
In the first weeks following the September 11th attacks, Rendon operated at a frantic pitch. "In the early stages it was fielding every ground ball that was coming, because nobody was sure if we were ever going to be attacked again," he says. "It was 'What do you know about this, what do you know about that, what else can you get, can you talk to somebody over here?' We functioned twenty-four hours a day. We maintained situational awareness, in military terms, on all things related to terrorism. We were doing 195 newspapers and 43 countries in fourteen or fifteen languages. If you do this correctly, I can tell you what's on the evening news tonight in a country before it happens. I can give you, as a policymaker, a six-hour break on how you can affect what's going to be on the news. They'll take that in a heartbeat."
The Bush administration took everything Rendon had to offer. Between 2000 and 2004, Pentagon documents show, the Rendon Group received at least thirty-five contracts with the Defense Department, worth a total of $50 million to $100 million.
The mourners genuflected, made the sign of the cross and took their seats along the hard, shiny pews of Our Lady of Victories Catholic Church. It was April 2nd, 2003 -- the start of fall in the small Australian town of Glenelg, an aging beach resort of white Victorian homes and soft, blond sand on Holdback Bay. Rendon had flown halfway around the world to join nearly 600 friends and family who were gathered to say farewell to a local son and amateur football champ, Paul Moran. Three days into the invasion of Iraq, the freelance journalist and Rendon employee had become the first member of the media to be killed in the war -- a war he had covertly helped to start.
Moran had lived a double life, filing reports for the Australian Broadcasting Corp. and other news organizations, while at other times operating as a clandestine agent for Rendon, enjoying what his family calls his "James Bond lifestyle." Moran had trained Iraqi opposition forces in photographic espionage, showing them how to covertly document Iraqi military activities, and had produced pro-war announcements for the Pentagon. "He worked for the Rendon Group in London," says his mother, Kathleen. "They just send people all over the world -- where there are wars."
Moran was covering the Iraq invasion for ABC, filming at a Kurdish-controlled checkpoint in the city of Sulaymaniyah, when a car driven by a suicide bomber blew up next to him. "I saw the car in a kind of slow-motion disintegrate," recalls Eric Campbell, a correspondent who was filming with Moran. "A soldier handed me a passport, which was charred. That's when I knew Paul was dead."
As the Mass ended and Moran's Australian-flag-draped coffin passed by the mourners, Rendon lifted his right arm and saluted. He refused to discuss Moran's role in the company, saying only that "Paul worked for us on a number of projects." But on the long flight back to Washington, across more than a dozen time zones, Rendon outlined his feelings in an e-mail: "The day did begin with dark and ominous clouds much befitting the emotions we all felt -- sadness and anger at the senseless violence that claimed our comrade Paul Moran ten short days ago and many decades of emotion ago."
The Rendon Group also organized a memorial service in London, where Moran first went to work for the company in 1990. Held at Home House, a private club in Portman Square where Moran often stayed while visiting the city, the event was set among photographs of Moran in various locations around the Middle East. Zaab Sethna, who organized the al-Haideri media exclusive in Thailand for Moran and Judith Miller, gave a touching tribute to his former colleague. "I think that on both a personal and professional level Paul was deeply admired and loved by the people at the Rendon Group," Sethna later said.
Although Moran was gone, the falsified story about weapons of mass destruction that he and Sethna had broadcast around the world lived on. Seven months earlier, as President Bush was about to argue his case for war before the U.N., the White House had given prominent billing to al-Haideri's fabricated charges. In a report ironically titled "Iraq: Denial and Deception," the administration referred to al-Haideri by name and detailed his allegations -- even though the CIA had already determined them to be lies. The report was placed on the White House Web site on September 12th, 2002, and remains there today. One version of the report even credits Miller's article for the information.
Miller also continued to promote al-Haideri's tale of Saddam's villainy. In January 2003, more than a year after her first article appeared, Miller again reported that Pentagon "intelligence officials" were telling her that "some of the most valuable information has come from Adnan Ihsan Saeed al-Haideri." His interviews with the Defense Intelligence Agency, Miller added, "ultimately resulted in dozens of highly credible reports on Iraqi weapons-related activity and purchases, officials said."
Finally, in early 2004, more than two years after he made the dramatic allegations to Miller and Moran about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, al-Haideri was taken back to Iraq by the CIA's Iraq Survey Group. On a wide-ranging trip through Baghdad and other key locations, al-Haideri was given the opportunity to point out exactly where Saddam's stockpiles were hidden, confirming the charges that had helped to start a war.
In the end, he could not identify a single site where illegal weapons were buried.
As the war in Iraq has spiraled out of control, the Bush administration's covert propaganda campaign has intensified. According to a secret Pentagon report personally approved by Rumsfeld in October 2003 and obtained by Rolling Stone, the Strategic Command is authorized to engage in "military deception" -- defined as "presenting false information, images or statements." The seventy-four-page document, titled "Information Operations Roadmap," also calls for psychological operations to be launched over radio, television, cell phones and "emerging technologies" such as the Internet. In addition to being classified secret, the road map is also stamped noforn, meaning it cannot be shared even with our allies.
As the acknowledged general of such propaganda warfare, Rendon insists that the work he does is for the good of all Americans. "For us, it's a question of patriotism," he says. "It's not a question of politics, and that's an important distinction. I feel very strongly about that personally. If brave men and women are going to be put in harm's way, they deserve support." But in Iraq, American troops and Iraqi civilians were put in harm's way, in large part, by the false information spread by Rendon and the men he trained in information warfare. And given the rapid growth of what is known as the "security-intelligence complex" in Washington, covert perception managers are likely to play an increasingly influential role in the wars of the future.
Indeed, Rendon is already thinking ahead. Last year, he attended a conference on information operations in London, where he offered an assessment on the Pentagon's efforts to manipulate the media. According to those present, Rendon applauded the practice of embedding journalists with American forces. "He said the embedded idea was great," says an Air Force colonel who attended the talk. "It worked as they had found in the test. It was the war version of reality television, and for the most part they did not lose control of the story." But Rendon also cautioned that individual news organizations were often able to "take control of the story," shaping the news before the Pentagon asserted its spin on the day's events.
"We lost control of the context," Rendon warned. "That has to be fixed for the next war."
James Bamford is the best-selling author of "A Pretext for War: 9/11, Iraq, and the Abuse of America's Intelligence Agencies" (2004) and "Body of Secrets: Anatomy of the Ultra-Secret National Security Agency" (2001). This is his first article for Rolling Stone.
Monday, November 21, 2005
Sunday, November 20, 2005
SUPPORT CONGRESSMAN MURTHA
I don't know if any of you saw the debate in Congress on Friday night on CSPAN in which the despicable Jean Schmidt from Ohio viciously and personally attacked Murtha, implying that he was a coward. (Er - I wonder if Ms. Schmidt ever served in the armed forces? I don't think so. ) Jean Schmidt is pure GOP low-life and a disgraceful embarrasment to the Congress of the United States of America. What a tragedy that the female clone of Hitler lost the election to a noble man as Paul Hackett. Good luck southern Ohio. Look at the sorry rubber stamping bottom feeder you sent to Congress. Are you proud?
Below is a site in which you can send a message of support to Congressman Murtha. It is important that he knows his efforts are appreciated by most of us as he endures and fights off the GOP attack dogs. LS
SUPPORT CONGRESSMAN MURTHA SITE HERE
I want to tell you about John Murtha. He's a Democratic Congressman from Pennsylvania. HeÃs also a combat veteran and retired Marine Corps colonel.
Murtha spent 37 years in Marine Corps, earned the Bronze Star, two purple hearts, the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry, and the Navy Distinguished Service Medal. And for the last thirty years heÃs been one of the most respected voices in Congress on military issues -- universally respected by Democrats, Republicans and military brass alike.
Until now.
Republicans have disgraced themselves by viciously attacking John Murtha with such disrespect that not only veterans, but every decent American should be angry.
What did Murtha, a decorated veteran, do to draw fire from a White House led by a president and vice president who evaded service in Vietnam? He questioned their management of the war in Iraq. Here's part of what he had to say:
---
"The war in Iraq is not going as advertised. It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion. The American public is way ahead of us. The United States and coalition troops have done all they can in Iraq, but it is time for a change in direction. Our military is suffering. The future of our country is at risk. We cannot continue on the present course. It is evident that continued military action is not in the best interests of the United States of America, the Iraqi people or the Persian Gulf Region. ...
"For two and a half years, I have been concerned about the U.S. policy and the plan in Iraq. I have addressed my concerns with the Administration and the Pentagon and have spoken out in public about my concerns. The main reason for going to war has been discredited. ..
"I have been visiting our wounded troops at Bethesda and Walter Reed hospitals almost every week since the beginning of the War. And what demoralizes them is going to war with not enough troops and equipment to make the transition to peace; the devastation caused by IEDs; being deployed to Iraq when their homes have been ravaged by hurricanes; being on their second or third deployment and leaving their families behind without a network of support.
---
Shameless Republicans immediately went on the attack. Dick Cheney, who has said that he had "other priorities" and collected 5 deferments while people like Murtha served in Vietnam, called MurthaÃs comments "irresponsible" and regretted that "the president and I cannot prevent certain politicians from losing their memory, or their backbone." The White House spokesman, who has also never worn the uniform, pronounced himself "baffled" that Murtha wanted to "surrender to the terrorists". A Republican Congressman said Murtha and others "basically are giving aid and comfort to the enemy".
Shame on them. Every one of us -- right now -- needs to let Jack Murtha know that we respect his service, respect his leadership, and respect his right to speak the truth. This man has spent his life serving us. The very least each one of us can do is let him know that no matter what dishonorable smear campaign Republicans wage we will be there with him.
Send Congressman Murtha a note telling him that you will not be silent while he is attacked:
Below is a site in which you can send a message of support to Congressman Murtha. It is important that he knows his efforts are appreciated by most of us as he endures and fights off the GOP attack dogs. LS
SUPPORT CONGRESSMAN MURTHA SITE HERE
I want to tell you about John Murtha. He's a Democratic Congressman from Pennsylvania. HeÃs also a combat veteran and retired Marine Corps colonel.
Murtha spent 37 years in Marine Corps, earned the Bronze Star, two purple hearts, the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry, and the Navy Distinguished Service Medal. And for the last thirty years heÃs been one of the most respected voices in Congress on military issues -- universally respected by Democrats, Republicans and military brass alike.
Until now.
Republicans have disgraced themselves by viciously attacking John Murtha with such disrespect that not only veterans, but every decent American should be angry.
What did Murtha, a decorated veteran, do to draw fire from a White House led by a president and vice president who evaded service in Vietnam? He questioned their management of the war in Iraq. Here's part of what he had to say:
---
"The war in Iraq is not going as advertised. It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion. The American public is way ahead of us. The United States and coalition troops have done all they can in Iraq, but it is time for a change in direction. Our military is suffering. The future of our country is at risk. We cannot continue on the present course. It is evident that continued military action is not in the best interests of the United States of America, the Iraqi people or the Persian Gulf Region. ...
"For two and a half years, I have been concerned about the U.S. policy and the plan in Iraq. I have addressed my concerns with the Administration and the Pentagon and have spoken out in public about my concerns. The main reason for going to war has been discredited. ..
"I have been visiting our wounded troops at Bethesda and Walter Reed hospitals almost every week since the beginning of the War. And what demoralizes them is going to war with not enough troops and equipment to make the transition to peace; the devastation caused by IEDs; being deployed to Iraq when their homes have been ravaged by hurricanes; being on their second or third deployment and leaving their families behind without a network of support.
---
Shameless Republicans immediately went on the attack. Dick Cheney, who has said that he had "other priorities" and collected 5 deferments while people like Murtha served in Vietnam, called MurthaÃs comments "irresponsible" and regretted that "the president and I cannot prevent certain politicians from losing their memory, or their backbone." The White House spokesman, who has also never worn the uniform, pronounced himself "baffled" that Murtha wanted to "surrender to the terrorists". A Republican Congressman said Murtha and others "basically are giving aid and comfort to the enemy".
Shame on them. Every one of us -- right now -- needs to let Jack Murtha know that we respect his service, respect his leadership, and respect his right to speak the truth. This man has spent his life serving us. The very least each one of us can do is let him know that no matter what dishonorable smear campaign Republicans wage we will be there with him.
Send Congressman Murtha a note telling him that you will not be silent while he is attacked:
Friday, November 18, 2005
"NORMAL" CHRISTIANS OUTRAGED AT GOP BUDGET CUTS FOR THE POOR
I do not subscribe to or read Sojourners myself, but a very good friend and kindred progressive soul sent this piece to me today.
Quote from Mr. Wallis, founder of Sojourners: "It is a moral disgrace to take food from the mouths of hungry children to increase the luxuries of those feasting at a table overflowing with plenty." My sentiments exactly. LS
Note to readers: Early this morning, the House of Representatives narrowly passed a budget proposal (217-215) that, if enacted, would make severe cuts to our nation's most vital anti-poverty programs like food stamps, Medicaid, and child care. The margin was small because of your prayers, phone calls, e-mails, and letters to the editor. Thank you. In the coming weeks, the budget will face a House-Senate negotiation, followed by separate votes in each chamber. We will continue to raise our voices to demand justice for the poorest among us.
Jim Wallis says "Woe to you legislators of infamous laws....."
in response to the narrow passage of the House Budget Reconciliation Bill.
Washington, D.C. ------(Friday, November 18, 2005) Jim Wallis, founder of Sojourners and Convener of Call to Renewal, made the following statement today on the narrow passage of the House Budget Reconciliation Bill.
STATEMENT BY JIM WALLIS:
The prophet Isaiah said: "Woe to you legislators of infamous laws ... who refuse justice to the unfortunate, who cheat the poor among my people of their rights, who make widows their prey and rob the orphan." Today, I repeat those words. When our legislators put ideology over principle, it is time to sound the trumpets of justice and tell the truth.
It is a moral disgrace to take food from the mouths of hungry children to increase the luxuries of those feasting at a table overflowing with plenty. This is not what America is about, not what the season of Thanksgiving is about, not what loving our neighbor is about, and not what family values are about. There is no moral path our legislators can take to defend a reckless, mean-spirited budget reconciliation bill that diminishes our compassion, as Jesus said, "for the least of these." It is morally unconscionable to hide behind arguments for fiscal responsibility and government efficiency. It is dishonest to stake proud claims to deficit reduction when tax cuts for the wealthy that increase the deficit are the next order of business. It is one more example of an absence of morality in our current political leadership.
Budgets are moral documents that reflect what we care about. Budget and tax bills that increase the deficit put our children's futures in jeopardy - and they hurt the vulnerable right now. The choice to cut supports that help people make it day to day in order to pay for tax cuts for those with plenty goes against everything our religious and moral principles teach us. It says that leaders don't care about people in need. It is a blatant reversal of biblical values - and symbolizes the death of compassionate conservatism.
The faith community is outraged and is drawing a line in the sand against immoral national priorities. It is time to draw that line more forcefully and more visibly.
I applaud those House members who have stood up for better budget priorities and fought hard all year to keep issues of basic fairness at the forefront of this debate. And I thank those on both sides of the aisle who stood up and did the right thing in voting against this bill, despite pressure from the House leadership. These strong voices provide some hope for getting beyond an ideology that disregards the role of government for the common good.
###
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from Mr. Wallis, founder of Sojourners: "It is a moral disgrace to take food from the mouths of hungry children to increase the luxuries of those feasting at a table overflowing with plenty." My sentiments exactly. LS
Note to readers: Early this morning, the House of Representatives narrowly passed a budget proposal (217-215) that, if enacted, would make severe cuts to our nation's most vital anti-poverty programs like food stamps, Medicaid, and child care. The margin was small because of your prayers, phone calls, e-mails, and letters to the editor. Thank you. In the coming weeks, the budget will face a House-Senate negotiation, followed by separate votes in each chamber. We will continue to raise our voices to demand justice for the poorest among us.
Jim Wallis says "Woe to you legislators of infamous laws....."
in response to the narrow passage of the House Budget Reconciliation Bill.
Washington, D.C. ------(Friday, November 18, 2005) Jim Wallis, founder of Sojourners and Convener of Call to Renewal, made the following statement today on the narrow passage of the House Budget Reconciliation Bill.
STATEMENT BY JIM WALLIS:
The prophet Isaiah said: "Woe to you legislators of infamous laws ... who refuse justice to the unfortunate, who cheat the poor among my people of their rights, who make widows their prey and rob the orphan." Today, I repeat those words. When our legislators put ideology over principle, it is time to sound the trumpets of justice and tell the truth.
It is a moral disgrace to take food from the mouths of hungry children to increase the luxuries of those feasting at a table overflowing with plenty. This is not what America is about, not what the season of Thanksgiving is about, not what loving our neighbor is about, and not what family values are about. There is no moral path our legislators can take to defend a reckless, mean-spirited budget reconciliation bill that diminishes our compassion, as Jesus said, "for the least of these." It is morally unconscionable to hide behind arguments for fiscal responsibility and government efficiency. It is dishonest to stake proud claims to deficit reduction when tax cuts for the wealthy that increase the deficit are the next order of business. It is one more example of an absence of morality in our current political leadership.
Budgets are moral documents that reflect what we care about. Budget and tax bills that increase the deficit put our children's futures in jeopardy - and they hurt the vulnerable right now. The choice to cut supports that help people make it day to day in order to pay for tax cuts for those with plenty goes against everything our religious and moral principles teach us. It says that leaders don't care about people in need. It is a blatant reversal of biblical values - and symbolizes the death of compassionate conservatism.
The faith community is outraged and is drawing a line in the sand against immoral national priorities. It is time to draw that line more forcefully and more visibly.
I applaud those House members who have stood up for better budget priorities and fought hard all year to keep issues of basic fairness at the forefront of this debate. And I thank those on both sides of the aisle who stood up and did the right thing in voting against this bill, despite pressure from the House leadership. These strong voices provide some hope for getting beyond an ideology that disregards the role of government for the common good.
###
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FITZGERALD WILL SEEK NEW CIA GRAND JURY
Found on Buzz Flash.com. My goodness, Mr. Fitzgerald may as well sell his home in Chicago. It looks like he'll be in Washington for years to come given the amount of crooks the Bush Administration is cranking out. LS
Fitzgerald sees new grand jury proceedings By Adam Entous
2 hours, 7 minutes ago
CLICK HERE OR READ BELOW
Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald said in court filings that the ongoing CIA leak investigation will involve proceedings before a new grand jury, a possible sign he could seek new charges in the case.
In filings obtained by Reuters on Friday, Fitzgerald said "the investigation is continuing" and that "the investigation will involve proceedings before a different grand jury than the grand jury which returned the indictment" against Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby.
Fitzgerald did not elaborate in the document. For two years he has been investigating the leak of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity. The grand jury that indicted Libby expired after the charges were filed late last month.
President George W. Bush's top political adviser, Karl Rove, was not indicted along with Libby. But lawyers involved in the case said Rove remained under investigation and may still be charged.
Earlier this week Washington Post journalist Bob Woodward disclosed that he testified under oath to Fitzgerald that a senior Bush administration official had casually told him in mid-June 2003 about CIA operative Valerie Plame's position at the agency.
Fitzgerald's comments about bringing proceedings before a different grand jury were contained in court filings in which he backed off seeking a blanket order to keep all documents in the CIA leak case secret.
Copyright © 2005 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters shall not be liable for any errors or delays in the content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon.
Copyright © 2005 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Questions or Comments
Privacy Policy -Terms of Service - Copyright/IP Policy - Ad Feedback
Fitzgerald sees new grand jury proceedings By Adam Entous
2 hours, 7 minutes ago
CLICK HERE OR READ BELOW
Special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald said in court filings that the ongoing CIA leak investigation will involve proceedings before a new grand jury, a possible sign he could seek new charges in the case.
In filings obtained by Reuters on Friday, Fitzgerald said "the investigation is continuing" and that "the investigation will involve proceedings before a different grand jury than the grand jury which returned the indictment" against Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby.
Fitzgerald did not elaborate in the document. For two years he has been investigating the leak of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity. The grand jury that indicted Libby expired after the charges were filed late last month.
President George W. Bush's top political adviser, Karl Rove, was not indicted along with Libby. But lawyers involved in the case said Rove remained under investigation and may still be charged.
Earlier this week Washington Post journalist Bob Woodward disclosed that he testified under oath to Fitzgerald that a senior Bush administration official had casually told him in mid-June 2003 about CIA operative Valerie Plame's position at the agency.
Fitzgerald's comments about bringing proceedings before a different grand jury were contained in court filings in which he backed off seeking a blanket order to keep all documents in the CIA leak case secret.
Copyright © 2005 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters shall not be liable for any errors or delays in the content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon.
Copyright © 2005 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Questions or Comments
Privacy Policy -Terms of Service - Copyright/IP Policy - Ad Feedback
Thursday, November 17, 2005
DATABASE OF GOP LIES ON IRAQ
We are now in the midst of a news feast after five years of a famine. I actually heard a talking head on MSNBC this morning refer to certain journalists as "stenographers" for the White House. They are finally getting it!
On to the lying Bush Administration: This awesome resource was sent by Ken today. Thank you my friend, as always, for keeping us informed! LS
This is just plain fabulous. A few days ago I sent out Rep. Waxman's PDF listing 237 specific misleading statements made by Bush Administration officials about the threat posed by Iraq. This resource is now available as an online database at the address below.
I know some of the people on this list actually endure outraged emails from wingnut friends and relatives. With this resource you can refute whatever talking point they're repeating as fast as you receive it.
The information is presented very, very clearly. See the screenshot below.
Definitely visit this site, it's really cool. From the description:
Iraq on the Record is searchable by the the five Administration officials most responsible for providing public information and shaping public opinion on Iraq:
President George W. Bush
Vice President Dick Cheney
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld
Then-Secretary of State Colin Powell
Then-National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice
It is also searchable by issue area:
Iraq's Nuclear Capabilities
Chemical and Biological Weapons
Iraq and Al-Qaeda
Iraq as an Urgent Threat
It is also searchable by keyword, such as "mushroom cloud", "uranium", or "bin Laden."
http://democrats.reform.house.gov/IraqOnTheRecord/
DATABASE OF GOP LIES ON IRAQ HERE
On to the lying Bush Administration: This awesome resource was sent by Ken today. Thank you my friend, as always, for keeping us informed! LS
This is just plain fabulous. A few days ago I sent out Rep. Waxman's PDF listing 237 specific misleading statements made by Bush Administration officials about the threat posed by Iraq. This resource is now available as an online database at the address below.
I know some of the people on this list actually endure outraged emails from wingnut friends and relatives. With this resource you can refute whatever talking point they're repeating as fast as you receive it.
The information is presented very, very clearly. See the screenshot below.
Definitely visit this site, it's really cool. From the description:
Iraq on the Record is searchable by the the five Administration officials most responsible for providing public information and shaping public opinion on Iraq:
President George W. Bush
Vice President Dick Cheney
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld
Then-Secretary of State Colin Powell
Then-National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice
It is also searchable by issue area:
Iraq's Nuclear Capabilities
Chemical and Biological Weapons
Iraq and Al-Qaeda
Iraq as an Urgent Threat
It is also searchable by keyword, such as "mushroom cloud", "uranium", or "bin Laden."
http://democrats.reform.house.gov/IraqOnTheRecord/
DATABASE OF GOP LIES ON IRAQ HERE
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
GOP SENATOR SLAMS BUSH FOR ATTACKING WAR CRITICS
It is well about time someone in the GOP is outraged at Bush. Found on Raw Story.com LS
GOP senator hits Bush for attacking war critics; Hints Congress endorsing another Vietnam by staying silent
11/15/2005 @ 6:17 pm
Filed by RAW STORY
CLICK HERE FOR STORY OR READ BELOW (You will have to click on the link if you wish to read Senator Hagel's full speech.)
Republican Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE), a Vietnam veteran and critic of Bush policy on Iraq, excoriated the Administration Tuesday in a speech to Council on Foreign Relations Tuesday, RAW STORY has learned.
Advertisement
Hagel blasted the Administration for going after Iraq war critics and turning the war into a political cause.
"The Iraq war should not be debated in the United States on a partisan political platform," the Nebraska senator remarked. "This debases our country, trivializes the seriousness of war and cheapens the service and sacrifices of our men and women in uniform. War is not a Republican or Democrat issue. The casualties of war are from both parties. The Bush Administration must understand that each American has a right to question our policies in Iraq and should not be demonized for disagreeing with them. Suggesting that to challenge or criticize policy is undermining and hurting our troops is not democracy nor what this country has stood for, for over 200 years. The Democrats have an obligation to challenge in a serious and responsible manner, offering solutions and alternatives to the Administration’s policies."
He also suggested the members of Congress who failed to question the war could be responsible for another Vietnam.
"Vietnam was a national tragedy partly because Members of Congress failed their country, remained silent and lacked the courage to challenge the Administrations in power until it was too late," he added. "Some of us who went through that nightmare have an obligation to the 58,000 Americans who died in Vietnam to not let that happen again. To question your government is not unpatriotic – to not question your government is unpatriotic. America owes its men and women in uniform a policy worthy of their sacrifices."
Hagel emphasized the role of international cooperation.
"The international community must now recognize the changed circumstances of a constitutionally-based Iraqi government and join Iraq’s neighbors by investing in Iraq’s future success," he said.
"The role for international institutions will grow in importance as Iraq becomes more self-assured and able to govern. The World Bank, the United Nations and NATO all need to be more actively engaged in Iraq. The Oil-for-Food debacle is a stain on the UN’s reputation in Iraq. But that is not the UN’s role in Iraq today. The United Nations can help provide Iraq both a broader political umbrella, and greater support and expertise to help build and coordinate government institutions, programs and structures. Last weekend’s visit by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan to Iraq – his first visit since the war – should help lead to this expanded role for the UN."
His full speech is available here.
GOP senator hits Bush for attacking war critics; Hints Congress endorsing another Vietnam by staying silent
11/15/2005 @ 6:17 pm
Filed by RAW STORY
CLICK HERE FOR STORY OR READ BELOW (You will have to click on the link if you wish to read Senator Hagel's full speech.)
Republican Senator Chuck Hagel (R-NE), a Vietnam veteran and critic of Bush policy on Iraq, excoriated the Administration Tuesday in a speech to Council on Foreign Relations Tuesday, RAW STORY has learned.
Advertisement
Hagel blasted the Administration for going after Iraq war critics and turning the war into a political cause.
"The Iraq war should not be debated in the United States on a partisan political platform," the Nebraska senator remarked. "This debases our country, trivializes the seriousness of war and cheapens the service and sacrifices of our men and women in uniform. War is not a Republican or Democrat issue. The casualties of war are from both parties. The Bush Administration must understand that each American has a right to question our policies in Iraq and should not be demonized for disagreeing with them. Suggesting that to challenge or criticize policy is undermining and hurting our troops is not democracy nor what this country has stood for, for over 200 years. The Democrats have an obligation to challenge in a serious and responsible manner, offering solutions and alternatives to the Administration’s policies."
He also suggested the members of Congress who failed to question the war could be responsible for another Vietnam.
"Vietnam was a national tragedy partly because Members of Congress failed their country, remained silent and lacked the courage to challenge the Administrations in power until it was too late," he added. "Some of us who went through that nightmare have an obligation to the 58,000 Americans who died in Vietnam to not let that happen again. To question your government is not unpatriotic – to not question your government is unpatriotic. America owes its men and women in uniform a policy worthy of their sacrifices."
Hagel emphasized the role of international cooperation.
"The international community must now recognize the changed circumstances of a constitutionally-based Iraqi government and join Iraq’s neighbors by investing in Iraq’s future success," he said.
"The role for international institutions will grow in importance as Iraq becomes more self-assured and able to govern. The World Bank, the United Nations and NATO all need to be more actively engaged in Iraq. The Oil-for-Food debacle is a stain on the UN’s reputation in Iraq. But that is not the UN’s role in Iraq today. The United Nations can help provide Iraq both a broader political umbrella, and greater support and expertise to help build and coordinate government institutions, programs and structures. Last weekend’s visit by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan to Iraq – his first visit since the war – should help lead to this expanded role for the UN."
His full speech is available here.
YET ANOTHER RIGHT WING GOP CROOK: FORMER PBS CHIEF
This newly revealed crook is the former chief of PBS, Tomlinson. It seems that people who are tied to Bush and Cheney, whether it is on a political, professional or social level share a unique common trait- they are mostly corrupt. This group should get the hell out of our government and get shipped straight to jail, with no pardons possible, thank you very much. LS
Excerpts:
The report said he violated federal law by being heavily involved in getting more than $4 million for a program featuring the conservative editorial writers of the Wall Street Journal. It said he imposed a "political test" to recruit a new president. And it said his decision to hire Republican consultants to defeat legislation violated contracting rules.
The investigators found evidence that "political tests" were a major criteria used by Mr. Tomlinson in recruiting the corporation's new president, Patricia Harrison, a former co-chairwoman of the Republican National Committee and former senior State Department official.
According to the report, she was given the job after being promoted for it by an unidentified official at the White House. Investigators found e-mail messages between Mr. Tomlinson and the White House that, while "cryptic" in nature, "gives the appearance that the former chairman was strongly motivated by political considerations in filling the president/C.E.O. position." The corporation's presidency, its senior staff job, has historically been reserved for a nonpartisan expert in public broadcasting.
November 15, 2005
Report Says Ex-Chief of Public TV Violated Federal Law
By STEPHEN LABATON
NY Times
ARTICLE HERE OR READ BELOW
WASHINGTON, Nov. 15 - Investigators at the Corporation for Public Broadcasting concluded today that its former chairman repeatedly broke federal law and its own regulations in a campaign to combat what he saw as liberal bias.
A scathing report by the corporation's inspector general described a dysfunctional organization that violated the Public Broadcasting Act, which created the corporation and was written to insulate programming decisions from politics.
The corporation received $400 million this year from Congress to finance an array of programs on public television and radio, although its future financing has come under heavy criticism, particularly from conservative lawmakers. Its board is selected by the president and confirmed by the Senate.
The corporation's former chairman, Kenneth Y. Tomlinson, who was ousted from the board two weeks ago when it was presented in a closed session with the details of the report, has said he sought to enforce a provision of the Public Broadcasting Act meant to ensure objectivity and balance in programming.
But the report said that in the process, Mr. Tomlinson repeatedly crossed statutory boundaries that set up the corporation as a "heat shield" to protect public radio and television from political interference.
The report said he violated federal law by being heavily involved in getting more than $4 million for a program featuring the conservative editorial writers of the Wall Street Journal. It said he imposed a "political test" to recruit a new president. And it said his decision to hire Republican consultants to defeat legislation violated contracting rules.
Mr. Tomlinson, in a statement distributed with the report, rejected its conclusions. He said that any suggestion that he violated his duties or the law "is malicious and irresponsible" and that the inspector general had opted "for politics over good judgment."
"Unfortunately, the Inspector General's preconceived and unjustified findings will only help to maintain the status quo and other reformers will be discouraged from seeking change," said Mr. Tomlinson, who has repeatedly defended his decisions as part of an effort to restore balance to programming. "Regrettably, as a result, balance and objectivity will not come soon to elements of public broadcasting."
While some of the details under investigation were disclosed in a news article last May, the inspector general's report is the first official conclusion that Mr. Tomlinson violated both the law and the corporation's own rules. The report is also the first detailed and official inside look at the dynamics of the corporation as some of its career staff have struggled with conservative Republicans appointees seeking to change its direction.
The author of the report, Kenneth A. Konz, was hired by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting in the 1990's to be its inspector general after retiring from the federal government, where he had served as a deputy inspector general at the Environmental Protection Agency.
No sanctions or further action against Mr. Tomlinson will follow from the report's findings, Mr. Konz said. But some broadcasting officials fear it may be used to attack the corporation's budget, which is already in jeopardy as lawmakers look for money to help pay for rebuilding the Gulf Coast and starting an avian flu inoculation program.
The report said that Mr. Tomlinson violated federal law by promoting "The Journal Editorial Report" and said he had "admonished C.P.B. senior executive staff not to interfere with his deal to bring a balancing program" to public broadcasting. The board is prohibited from getting involved in programming decisions, but the investigators found that Mr. Tomlinson had pushed hard for the program, even as some staff officials at the corporation raised concerns over its cost.
An e-mail from around the same time shows that he threatened to withhold some money to public broadcasting "in a New York minute" if public broadcasting did not balance its lineup.
The investigators found evidence that "political tests" were a major criteria used by Mr. Tomlinson in recruiting the corporation's new president, Patricia Harrison, a former co-chairwoman of the Republican National Committee and former senior State Department official.
According to the report, she was given the job after being promoted for it by an unidentified official at the White House. Investigators found e-mail messages between Mr. Tomlinson and the White House that, while "cryptic" in nature, "gives the appearance that the former chairman was strongly motivated by political considerations in filling the president/C.E.O. position." The corporation's presidency, its senior staff job, has historically been reserved for a nonpartisan expert in public broadcasting.
The report said Mr. Tomlinson defended his decision to hire a candidate with strong political ties because of the need to build relationships with Congress for future funding requests.
Ms. Harrison disputed suggestions that she was motivated by politics.
"Only actions will dispel critics who believe I have a political agenda, which I do not have," Ms. Harrison said in an interview today. "I want to define my tenure in as open a way as I can." She said that excellence, creativity and quality are as important in programming as objectivity and balance.
The report said politics might have been involved in other personnel decisions. In one case, a candidate to become the senior vice president for corporate and public affairs was asked by a board member about her political contributions in the last election. Another official was given a particular job title at the corporation at the request of the White House, the report said
The report said Mr. Tomlinson's decision to hire two Republican consultants to help the corporation in its lobbying efforts against public broadcasting legislation last year was "not handled in accordance with C.P.B.'s contracting procedures." The inspector general criticized another contract with a researcher to monitor the "Now" program, when its host was Bill Moyers, because it was signed by Mr. Tomlinson without informing the board and without board authorization.
The report said that a White House official, Mary C. Andrews, worked on a plan by the corporation to create a new office of ombudsmen to promote balance in programming. Ms. Andrews had been hired by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting at the time but was still on the White House payroll.
It said her efforts "appeared to be advisory in nature and she did not provide the ombudsmen with guidelines on how to operate or interfere with their functioning."
But it also found that the decision to sign contracts with two ombudsmen "does not appear to comply with established C.P.B. procurement processes."
Following a board meeting this morning at which the corporation adopted a series of resolutions to impose tighter financial controls, Mr. Tomlinson's successor as chairman, Cheryl Halpern, met with senior lawmakers in hopes of blunting any political fallout.
But the report poses its own problems for Ms. Halpern, a Republican fund-raiser, and the rest of the board, which for many months supported Mr. Tomlinson's broader efforts at objectivity.
"Our review found an organizational environment that allowed the former chairman and other C.P.B. executives to operate without appropriate checks and balances," the report said. It ascribed the problems, in part to the "culture of C.P.B."
Ms. Halpern headed the board's audit committee under Mr. Tomlinson, and she raised concerns among executives at National Public Radio for criticizing its coverage of the Middle East. She was also Mr. Tomlinson's choice to succeed her, in part, he has said, because of her continued commitment to end any programming bias.
The report questioned a severance package for the corporation's former president, Kathleen A. Cox, who was forced to resign abruptly last April after a series of disagreements with Mr. Tomlinson. According to the report, the package was more than three times her annual compensation, and Mr. Tomlinson structured its payouts over a period of years so that the lump sum would not be disclosed on publicly available tax records.
In a statement attached to the report, Ms. Cox named other board members aside from Mr. Tomlinson who she said were involved in some of the decisions criticized by the inspector general. Ms. Cox said she was forced to resign after Mr. Tomlinson told her that she was "not political enough" for the job
The report came in response to requests by two senior Democratic lawmakers, Representative David R. Obey of Wisconsin and John Dingell of Michigan. Their request followed an article in The New York Times last May that described the contract to monitor the "Now" Show, the plan to hire Ms. Harrison, the role played by Mr. Tomlinson in promoting "The Journal Editorial Report," and Ms. Andrews role in the creation of the office of ombudsman.
Mr. Tomlinson remains the head of the Broadcasting Board of Governors, which supervises all American government-broadcasting programs overseas. The inspector general of the State Department is examining accusations there of misuse of federal money and the use of phantom or unqualified employees by Mr. Tomlinson.
In a recent letter, Senator Chris Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut, asked President Bush to consider ordering Mr. Tomlinson to step down from the board of governors until that investigation was completed.
Excerpts:
The report said he violated federal law by being heavily involved in getting more than $4 million for a program featuring the conservative editorial writers of the Wall Street Journal. It said he imposed a "political test" to recruit a new president. And it said his decision to hire Republican consultants to defeat legislation violated contracting rules.
The investigators found evidence that "political tests" were a major criteria used by Mr. Tomlinson in recruiting the corporation's new president, Patricia Harrison, a former co-chairwoman of the Republican National Committee and former senior State Department official.
According to the report, she was given the job after being promoted for it by an unidentified official at the White House. Investigators found e-mail messages between Mr. Tomlinson and the White House that, while "cryptic" in nature, "gives the appearance that the former chairman was strongly motivated by political considerations in filling the president/C.E.O. position." The corporation's presidency, its senior staff job, has historically been reserved for a nonpartisan expert in public broadcasting.
November 15, 2005
Report Says Ex-Chief of Public TV Violated Federal Law
By STEPHEN LABATON
NY Times
ARTICLE HERE OR READ BELOW
WASHINGTON, Nov. 15 - Investigators at the Corporation for Public Broadcasting concluded today that its former chairman repeatedly broke federal law and its own regulations in a campaign to combat what he saw as liberal bias.
A scathing report by the corporation's inspector general described a dysfunctional organization that violated the Public Broadcasting Act, which created the corporation and was written to insulate programming decisions from politics.
The corporation received $400 million this year from Congress to finance an array of programs on public television and radio, although its future financing has come under heavy criticism, particularly from conservative lawmakers. Its board is selected by the president and confirmed by the Senate.
The corporation's former chairman, Kenneth Y. Tomlinson, who was ousted from the board two weeks ago when it was presented in a closed session with the details of the report, has said he sought to enforce a provision of the Public Broadcasting Act meant to ensure objectivity and balance in programming.
But the report said that in the process, Mr. Tomlinson repeatedly crossed statutory boundaries that set up the corporation as a "heat shield" to protect public radio and television from political interference.
The report said he violated federal law by being heavily involved in getting more than $4 million for a program featuring the conservative editorial writers of the Wall Street Journal. It said he imposed a "political test" to recruit a new president. And it said his decision to hire Republican consultants to defeat legislation violated contracting rules.
Mr. Tomlinson, in a statement distributed with the report, rejected its conclusions. He said that any suggestion that he violated his duties or the law "is malicious and irresponsible" and that the inspector general had opted "for politics over good judgment."
"Unfortunately, the Inspector General's preconceived and unjustified findings will only help to maintain the status quo and other reformers will be discouraged from seeking change," said Mr. Tomlinson, who has repeatedly defended his decisions as part of an effort to restore balance to programming. "Regrettably, as a result, balance and objectivity will not come soon to elements of public broadcasting."
While some of the details under investigation were disclosed in a news article last May, the inspector general's report is the first official conclusion that Mr. Tomlinson violated both the law and the corporation's own rules. The report is also the first detailed and official inside look at the dynamics of the corporation as some of its career staff have struggled with conservative Republicans appointees seeking to change its direction.
The author of the report, Kenneth A. Konz, was hired by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting in the 1990's to be its inspector general after retiring from the federal government, where he had served as a deputy inspector general at the Environmental Protection Agency.
No sanctions or further action against Mr. Tomlinson will follow from the report's findings, Mr. Konz said. But some broadcasting officials fear it may be used to attack the corporation's budget, which is already in jeopardy as lawmakers look for money to help pay for rebuilding the Gulf Coast and starting an avian flu inoculation program.
The report said that Mr. Tomlinson violated federal law by promoting "The Journal Editorial Report" and said he had "admonished C.P.B. senior executive staff not to interfere with his deal to bring a balancing program" to public broadcasting. The board is prohibited from getting involved in programming decisions, but the investigators found that Mr. Tomlinson had pushed hard for the program, even as some staff officials at the corporation raised concerns over its cost.
An e-mail from around the same time shows that he threatened to withhold some money to public broadcasting "in a New York minute" if public broadcasting did not balance its lineup.
The investigators found evidence that "political tests" were a major criteria used by Mr. Tomlinson in recruiting the corporation's new president, Patricia Harrison, a former co-chairwoman of the Republican National Committee and former senior State Department official.
According to the report, she was given the job after being promoted for it by an unidentified official at the White House. Investigators found e-mail messages between Mr. Tomlinson and the White House that, while "cryptic" in nature, "gives the appearance that the former chairman was strongly motivated by political considerations in filling the president/C.E.O. position." The corporation's presidency, its senior staff job, has historically been reserved for a nonpartisan expert in public broadcasting.
The report said Mr. Tomlinson defended his decision to hire a candidate with strong political ties because of the need to build relationships with Congress for future funding requests.
Ms. Harrison disputed suggestions that she was motivated by politics.
"Only actions will dispel critics who believe I have a political agenda, which I do not have," Ms. Harrison said in an interview today. "I want to define my tenure in as open a way as I can." She said that excellence, creativity and quality are as important in programming as objectivity and balance.
The report said politics might have been involved in other personnel decisions. In one case, a candidate to become the senior vice president for corporate and public affairs was asked by a board member about her political contributions in the last election. Another official was given a particular job title at the corporation at the request of the White House, the report said
The report said Mr. Tomlinson's decision to hire two Republican consultants to help the corporation in its lobbying efforts against public broadcasting legislation last year was "not handled in accordance with C.P.B.'s contracting procedures." The inspector general criticized another contract with a researcher to monitor the "Now" program, when its host was Bill Moyers, because it was signed by Mr. Tomlinson without informing the board and without board authorization.
The report said that a White House official, Mary C. Andrews, worked on a plan by the corporation to create a new office of ombudsmen to promote balance in programming. Ms. Andrews had been hired by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting at the time but was still on the White House payroll.
It said her efforts "appeared to be advisory in nature and she did not provide the ombudsmen with guidelines on how to operate or interfere with their functioning."
But it also found that the decision to sign contracts with two ombudsmen "does not appear to comply with established C.P.B. procurement processes."
Following a board meeting this morning at which the corporation adopted a series of resolutions to impose tighter financial controls, Mr. Tomlinson's successor as chairman, Cheryl Halpern, met with senior lawmakers in hopes of blunting any political fallout.
But the report poses its own problems for Ms. Halpern, a Republican fund-raiser, and the rest of the board, which for many months supported Mr. Tomlinson's broader efforts at objectivity.
"Our review found an organizational environment that allowed the former chairman and other C.P.B. executives to operate without appropriate checks and balances," the report said. It ascribed the problems, in part to the "culture of C.P.B."
Ms. Halpern headed the board's audit committee under Mr. Tomlinson, and she raised concerns among executives at National Public Radio for criticizing its coverage of the Middle East. She was also Mr. Tomlinson's choice to succeed her, in part, he has said, because of her continued commitment to end any programming bias.
The report questioned a severance package for the corporation's former president, Kathleen A. Cox, who was forced to resign abruptly last April after a series of disagreements with Mr. Tomlinson. According to the report, the package was more than three times her annual compensation, and Mr. Tomlinson structured its payouts over a period of years so that the lump sum would not be disclosed on publicly available tax records.
In a statement attached to the report, Ms. Cox named other board members aside from Mr. Tomlinson who she said were involved in some of the decisions criticized by the inspector general. Ms. Cox said she was forced to resign after Mr. Tomlinson told her that she was "not political enough" for the job
The report came in response to requests by two senior Democratic lawmakers, Representative David R. Obey of Wisconsin and John Dingell of Michigan. Their request followed an article in The New York Times last May that described the contract to monitor the "Now" Show, the plan to hire Ms. Harrison, the role played by Mr. Tomlinson in promoting "The Journal Editorial Report," and Ms. Andrews role in the creation of the office of ombudsman.
Mr. Tomlinson remains the head of the Broadcasting Board of Governors, which supervises all American government-broadcasting programs overseas. The inspector general of the State Department is examining accusations there of misuse of federal money and the use of phantom or unqualified employees by Mr. Tomlinson.
In a recent letter, Senator Chris Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut, asked President Bush to consider ordering Mr. Tomlinson to step down from the board of governors until that investigation was completed.
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
GOP MEMO TOUTS NEW TERROR ATTACK AS WAY TO REVERSE PARTY'S DECLINE
Ken sent me this piece the other day but I have just now had a chance to read it. Is the GOP actually HOPING for a terror attack on the United States to reverse its spiraling decline in approval ratings!??? Surely not! But then, with this group of Bush loyalist nut jobs, one can never be sure. Afterall, this group never makes a mistake and thrives on killing the messenger or any bearer of critical news. Given the last few days of a very intense and enraged White House offensive on Democrats, Bush is even killing his own party. Hard core members of the GOP are beginning to get shaky while the more moderate are scrambling and bailing....It is too late, guys and gals. You hitched your wagon to a plastic pony. LS
By DOUG THOMPSON
Publisher, Capitol Hill Blue
Nov 10, 2005, 06:19
CAPITOL HILL BLUE ARTICLE HERER
A confidential memo circulating among senior Republican leaders suggests that a new attack by terrorists on U.S. soil could reverse the sagging fortunes of President George W. Bush as well as the GOP and "restore his image as a leader of the American people."
The closely-guarded memo lays out a list of scenarios to bring the Republican party back from the political brink, including a devastating attack by terrorists that could „validate‰ the President‚s war on terror and allow Bush to „unite the country‰ in a „time of national shock and sorrow.‰
The memo says such a reversal in the President's fortunes could keep the party from losing control of Congress in the 2006 midterm elections.
GOP insiders who have seen the memo admit it‚s a risky strategy and point out that such scenarios are „blue sky thinking‰ that often occurs in political planning sessions.
„The President‚s popularity was at an all-time high following the 9/11 attacks,‰ admits one aide. „Americans band together at a time of crisis.‰
Other Republicans, however, worry that such a scenario carries high risk, pointing out that an attack might suggest the President has not done enough to protect the country.
„We also have to face the fact that many Americans no longer trust the President,‰ says a longtime GOP strategist. „That makes it harder for him to become a rallying point.‰
The memo outlines other scenarios, including:
--Capture of Osama bin Laden (or proof that he is dead); (Two week boost. -K)
--A drastic turnaround in the economy;
--A "successful resolution" of the Iraq war.
GOP memos no longer talk of „victory‰ in Iraq but use the term „successful resolution.‰
„A successful resolution would be us getting out intact and civil war not breaking out until after the midterm elections,‰ says one insider.
The memo circulates as Tuesday‚s disastrous election defeats have left an already dysfunctional White House in chaos, West Wing insiders say, with shouting matches commonplace and the blame game escalating into open warfare.
„This place is like a high-school football locker room after the team lost the big game,‰ grumbles one Bush administration aide. „Everybody‚s pissed and pointing the finger at blame at everybody else.‰
Republican gubernatorial losses in Virginia and New Jersey deepened rifts between the Bush administration and Republicans who find the President radioactive. Arguments over whether or not the President should make a last-minute appearance in Virginia to try and help the sagging campaign fortunes of GOP candidate Jerry Kilgore raged until the minute Bush arrived at the rally in Richmond Monday night.
„Cooler heads tried to prevail,‰ one aide says. „Most knew an appearance by the President would hurt Kilgore rather than help him but (Karl) Rove rammed it through, convincing Bush that he had enough popularity left to make a difference.‰
Bush didn‚t have any popularity left. Overnight tracking polls showed Kilgore dropped three percentage points after the President‚s appearance and Democrat Tim Kaine won on Tuesday.
Conservative Pennsylvania Republican Senator Rick Santorum told radio talk show host Don Imus Wednesday that he does not want the President's help and will stay away from a Bush rally in his state on Friday.
The losses in Virginia and New Jersey, coupled with a resounding defeat of ballot initiatives backed by GOP governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in California have set off alarm klaxons throughout the demoralized Republican party. Pollsters privately tell GOP leaders that unless they stop the slide they could easily lose control of the House in the 2006 midterm elections and may lose the Senate as well.
„In 30 years of sampling public opinion, I‚ve never seen such a freefall in public support,‰ admits one GOP pollster.
Democratic pollster Geoffrey Garin says the usual tricks tried by Republicans no longer work.
"None of their old tricks worked," he says.
Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.) admits the GOP is a party mired in its rural base in a country that's becoming less and less rural.
"You play to your rural base, you pay a price," he says. "Our issues blew up in our face."
As Republican political strategists scramble to find a message ˆ any message ˆ that will ring true with voters, GOP leaders in Congress admit privately that control of their party by right-wing extremists makes their recovery all but impossible.
„We‚ve made our bed with these people,‰ admits an aide to House Speaker Denny Hastert. „Now it‚s the morning after and the hangover hurts like hell.‰
© Copyright 2005 Capitol Hill Blue
By DOUG THOMPSON
Publisher, Capitol Hill Blue
Nov 10, 2005, 06:19
CAPITOL HILL BLUE ARTICLE HERER
A confidential memo circulating among senior Republican leaders suggests that a new attack by terrorists on U.S. soil could reverse the sagging fortunes of President George W. Bush as well as the GOP and "restore his image as a leader of the American people."
The closely-guarded memo lays out a list of scenarios to bring the Republican party back from the political brink, including a devastating attack by terrorists that could „validate‰ the President‚s war on terror and allow Bush to „unite the country‰ in a „time of national shock and sorrow.‰
The memo says such a reversal in the President's fortunes could keep the party from losing control of Congress in the 2006 midterm elections.
GOP insiders who have seen the memo admit it‚s a risky strategy and point out that such scenarios are „blue sky thinking‰ that often occurs in political planning sessions.
„The President‚s popularity was at an all-time high following the 9/11 attacks,‰ admits one aide. „Americans band together at a time of crisis.‰
Other Republicans, however, worry that such a scenario carries high risk, pointing out that an attack might suggest the President has not done enough to protect the country.
„We also have to face the fact that many Americans no longer trust the President,‰ says a longtime GOP strategist. „That makes it harder for him to become a rallying point.‰
The memo outlines other scenarios, including:
--Capture of Osama bin Laden (or proof that he is dead); (Two week boost. -K)
--A drastic turnaround in the economy;
--A "successful resolution" of the Iraq war.
GOP memos no longer talk of „victory‰ in Iraq but use the term „successful resolution.‰
„A successful resolution would be us getting out intact and civil war not breaking out until after the midterm elections,‰ says one insider.
The memo circulates as Tuesday‚s disastrous election defeats have left an already dysfunctional White House in chaos, West Wing insiders say, with shouting matches commonplace and the blame game escalating into open warfare.
„This place is like a high-school football locker room after the team lost the big game,‰ grumbles one Bush administration aide. „Everybody‚s pissed and pointing the finger at blame at everybody else.‰
Republican gubernatorial losses in Virginia and New Jersey deepened rifts between the Bush administration and Republicans who find the President radioactive. Arguments over whether or not the President should make a last-minute appearance in Virginia to try and help the sagging campaign fortunes of GOP candidate Jerry Kilgore raged until the minute Bush arrived at the rally in Richmond Monday night.
„Cooler heads tried to prevail,‰ one aide says. „Most knew an appearance by the President would hurt Kilgore rather than help him but (Karl) Rove rammed it through, convincing Bush that he had enough popularity left to make a difference.‰
Bush didn‚t have any popularity left. Overnight tracking polls showed Kilgore dropped three percentage points after the President‚s appearance and Democrat Tim Kaine won on Tuesday.
Conservative Pennsylvania Republican Senator Rick Santorum told radio talk show host Don Imus Wednesday that he does not want the President's help and will stay away from a Bush rally in his state on Friday.
The losses in Virginia and New Jersey, coupled with a resounding defeat of ballot initiatives backed by GOP governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in California have set off alarm klaxons throughout the demoralized Republican party. Pollsters privately tell GOP leaders that unless they stop the slide they could easily lose control of the House in the 2006 midterm elections and may lose the Senate as well.
„In 30 years of sampling public opinion, I‚ve never seen such a freefall in public support,‰ admits one GOP pollster.
Democratic pollster Geoffrey Garin says the usual tricks tried by Republicans no longer work.
"None of their old tricks worked," he says.
Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.) admits the GOP is a party mired in its rural base in a country that's becoming less and less rural.
"You play to your rural base, you pay a price," he says. "Our issues blew up in our face."
As Republican political strategists scramble to find a message ˆ any message ˆ that will ring true with voters, GOP leaders in Congress admit privately that control of their party by right-wing extremists makes their recovery all but impossible.
„We‚ve made our bed with these people,‰ admits an aide to House Speaker Denny Hastert. „Now it‚s the morning after and the hangover hurts like hell.‰
© Copyright 2005 Capitol Hill Blue
ROBERT SCHEER FIRED FROM THE L.A. TIMES
Robert Scheer a 30 year veteran progressive writer for the L.A. Times was fired. The publisher, a Bush supporter, hired a known conservative journalist to replace him. The publisher had told a colleague that he hated everything Scheer wrote. A typical Bush nazi loyalist, the publisher has an aversion for truth. Scheer has been an outspoken critic of Bush for years. He has revealed Bush's lies long before the rest of the mainstream media found the courage to do so. It seems that truth cost Scheer his job. Below is an interview with Robert Scheer and Amy Goodman of Democracy Now. If anyone subscribes to the LAT cancel your subscription and boycott the disusting new conservative rag. You won't find a lick of truth contained within its pages, except for maybe the weather forcast and sport scores. LS
LA Times Fires Longtime Progressive Columnist Robert Scheer
Monday, November 14th, 2005
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/11/14/1447244
The Los Angeles Times newspaper last week announced that it was firing longtime columnist Robert Scheer. Scheer has been at the Times for 30 years and was one of the most progressive voices at the paper. In recent years, his columns took on the Bush Administration and its justifications for the invasion of Iraq. [includes rush transcript]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last week, the Los Angeles Times Newspaper announced that it was firing longtime columnist Robert Scheer. Scheer has been at the Times for 30 years and was one of the most progressive voices at the paper. In recent years, his columns took on the Bush Administration and its justifications for the invasion of Iraq. Scheer believes that his firing was because of ideological reasons.
In a posting at the Huffington Post blog, he wrote "The publisher Jeff Johnson, who has offered not a word of explanation to me, has privately told people that he hated every word that I wrote. I assume that mostly refers to my exposing the lies used by President Bush to justify the invasion of Iraq. Fortunately sixty percent of Americans now get the point but only after tens of thousand of Americans and Iraqis have been killed and maimed as the carnage spirals out of control. My only regret is that my pen was not sharper and my words tougher."
The Times also fired Michael Ramirez, a Pulitzer-Prize winning conservative staff cartoonist.
Robert Scheer, former columnist with the Los Angeles Times. He is author of "The Five Biggest Lies Bush Told Us About Iraq" and he is co-host of a weekly syndicated radio show along with with Arianna Huffington, Matt Miller and Tony Blankley.
- Website: www.robertscheer.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RUSH TRANSCRIPT
This transcript is available free of charge. However, donations help us provide closed captioning for the deaf and hard of hearing on our TV broadcast. Thank you for your generous contribution.
Donate - $25, $50, $100, more...
AMY GOODMAN: We are joined on the line by Robert Scheer, author of The Five Biggest Lies Bush Told Us About Iraq. He’s also co-host of the syndicated radio show with Arianna Huffington, Matt Miller and Tony Blankley. Welcome to Democracy Now!
ROBERT SCHEER: Hi.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, Robert, can you talk about what happened?
ROBERT SCHEER: Well, what happened is that I had been the subject of vicious attacks by Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh. Sometimes Bill O'Reilly would sometimes go after me every day, and this went on for the last couple of years, and I’m still standing. I was a punching bag for those guys. I'm still standing, and the people who run the paper collapsed. And the big issue here, I think, is that the publisher took over the editorial pages, a guy named Jeff Johnson. He’s an accountant from Chicago, doesn't know anything about what newspapers are supposed to be about, and he made a decision to get rid of the column. It had run as a column -- I had worked at the paper since 1976, but the column had been running for 13 years, and I think it was a strong column, criticizing the war when the paper was supporting it.
And even as recently as last week, my last column, which I'm quite proud of, was on the Defense Intelligence Agency report that Senator Carl Levin released last week, and I wrote about how in February 2002 they knew there were no ties between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, that the key witness was a phony. This was released. Eight months later George Bush went before -- spoke just before the Senate decided its decision and at that time knew that the key witness for this, really the only witness they had, was a phony, yet went and lied to the country. That column last week broke that news for the readers of the Los Angeles Times that the paper neglected to cover in any serious way. So, you know, it’s very disappointing.
The only other fact here that I would throw in, the paper is concerned about what the Bush administration thinks, because the Tribune Company bought the Times Mirror Corporation and now owns a television station, a very profitable one, in the same market in Los Angeles as the newspaper. And next year they have asked -- they have to get a waiver in order to be able to do that, because that violates the law right now. They expected Congress -- when they bought the property, they thought Congress would pass that law allowing them to have those two major outlets in the same market. It is now illegal, and in 2006 they are coming up for a waiver, and the Bush administration's F.C.C. could easily deny that waiver to them.
AMY GOODMAN: Robert Scheer, I wanted to read you some comments of the people in charge. We did try to get someone on, but they didn't respond. Andres Martinez, the editorial page editor, said, “The opinion pages are our newspaper's town square. Our readers expect us to publish all points of view and the broadest range of opinion, from those of our editorial board and columnists to those of our readers and op-ed contributors. And we intend to do exactly that.” The Los Angeles Times publisher, Jeffrey Johnson, said, “You’ve got a new editorial page editor and a new publisher. We sat down and talked about the pages and decided to make changes.” The Times op-ed editor, the opinion editor Nicholas Goldberg, said, “I think we have put together a smart, original and provocative team of writers who reflect a variety of interesting and thoughtful perspectives on local, national and foreign affairs. A good column involves a relationship developed with readers over time, and I invite our readers to develop their relationships with these engaging minds in the weeks and months to come.” Your response, Robert Scheer?
ROBERT SCHEER: You know, somebody who could say that, when all isn’t said, they can condone anything. We talk about a free press. These people hide, they make a lot of money off the media. They hide behind the slogans of free press, and then they can come out with crap like that. It’s just garbage. It’s insulting to the readers. They know I have a strong -- not only that I have a strong relation to readers, but so did Ramirez, the cartoonist. You know, it’s just gibberish.
The Los Angeles Times is being shroodled by -- its owners are laying off 70 people this week. They’re just gonna -- John Carroll, the distinguished editor of that paper, left because he said they are just going to pillage the paper. He won 13 Pulitzer Prizes in recent years for the Los Angeles Times, and he clearly – it was discussed by Ken Auletta in The New Yorker -- left because he said these people don't care about journalism. These people are just going to suck what they can out of the property. So this guy, Jeff Johnson, who is an accountant who cares nothing at all about a free press and cares nothing about journalism, he’s a right winger who supported the war, you know, who two years ago told people he couldn't stand a word that I wrote. Why? Because I exposed how the whole Jessica Lynch thing was a fraud, when the newspaper hadn’t even covered the news story, or that I attacked the whole W.M.D. from the beginning, I attacked the war from the very beginning? And this is just one column once a week, 720 words on the Op-Ed page, and he couldn't take that.
The decision came from the publisher. It certainly was cleared by Chicago. And then they come out with these fine sounding words about relation to readers and their obligation. It has nothing to do with that. You know, this was the case, you know, with the New York Times with Judy Miller, it’s the case with the L.A. Times and the Wen Ho Lee case, where they are now claiming we have a shield thing, we have to protect our reporters with a free press. What they are interested in at the L.A. Times is profits, and then when it’s convenient to them, they wave the flag of free press.
But you had one voice at that paper on the Op-Ed page consistently opposed to this war. I’ve been with the paper for almost 30 years. I have broken a lot of stories. The paper nominated me 12 or 13 times for the Pulitzer Prize. I was a finalist for the Pulitzer as a reporter. And new people come in, and it doesn't go along with their politics, and they fire me, end the column, silence a voice in Los Angeles. They can't silence it nationally, but they are able to do it there. And what they know now, because they have had the response of, I don't know what -- I hear from people in the building they have had 3,000 or 4,000 people have emailed and written letters. They have gotten thousands of phone calls. They know that the column resonates in the community. They know that people like it, and yet they don't have room for one column once week that consistently got it right.
AMY GOODMAN: Robert Scheer, I wanted to play for you a comment of or part of a speech by President Bush on Friday on Veterans Day.
PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: While it's perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began. Some Democrats and anti-war critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people about why we went to war. These critics are fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments related to Iraq's weapons programs. They also know that intelligence agencies from around the world agreed with our assessment of Saddam Hussein. They know the United Nations passed more than a dozen resolutions citing his development and possession of weapons of mass destruction.
AMY GOODMAN: President Bush in his address on Friday against a backdrop of soldiers and veterans. Robert Scheer, among the things he said was that it is irresponsible, his critics are being irresponsible in expressing dissent at this time. Your response.
ROBERT SCHEER: Well, this is the big lie technique, and it’s really frightening at a time when 60% of the American public know this guy is lying, and they say it. They finally have gotten it. He thinks that by reiterating this lie he can get away with it. And there are two components to it that -- I mean, two such blatant lies. He dares to mention the U.N. in this speech, and yet President Bush knows the issue had nothing at all to do with so-called claims of intelligence. The issue was that the United Nations inspectors were there. The United Nations inspectors had access to everywhere they had to go. They said they were not finding these weapons. As it turns out, the U.N. got the Nobel Prize because they got it right.
And so, let's just begin -- the big lie technique here is to never discuss that. Why did you go to war when the U.N. inspectors there on the ground with access to all of the sites where they were supposed to have these weapons, and they were getting this access; that’s number one. Secondly, the argument for imminent threat, that makes you move in, kick out the U.N. inspectors -- you are going to go to war -- the argument is there's a tie between Saddam Hussein and bin Laden, the guys who blew up the World Trade Center. That’s the big [inaudible]. And for Bush not to address the revelation of only last week that -- certainly if he didn't know it, maybe he's so out to lunch he didn't know it, but certainly the security officials in his administration knew about the Defense Intelligence Agency memorandum very clearly lining out that there was no evidence of a tie between bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, and so there certainly was no imminent justification.
But I would also point out he is lying about that Senate report. The fact is the Senate never made -- because of the Republican leadership, the Senate never did the phase two of the report, and phase one of the report did not go into the administration's distortion of the evidence. That was supposed to be left for phase two, and they haven't gotten around to it, and it’s been two years.
AMY GOODMAN: Robert Scheer is speaking to us from a cruise ship in the Pacific. He is on a Nation cruise which is why you are hearing his voice breaking up. Again, the Los Angeles Times columnist, I should say former columnist, was fired on Friday after almost 30 years. The author Jonah Goldberg will now be an L.A. Times op-ed columnist, the author of Liberal Fascism. Your response, Robert.
ROBERT SCHEER: Yeah, well, that gives the – I think it shows what they’re really all about. The publisher has told – you know, if these editors, Andres Martinez and Nick Goldberg, were the least bit honest about this, they would tell you the publisher has told them he wants the editorial page to be conservative. He has specifically told them that. And so why don't they tell their readers that? Why doesn't the editor of the editorial page tell the readers our publisher, my publisher, my boss, the guy who owns this press -- remember A.J. Liebling’s thing: Freedom of the press belongs to those who own one. The owner of this paper has taken direct control over the editorial page. Jeff Johnson is an accountant. He’s not a journalist. He has said, “I am going to run the editorial page. I'm going to run the columns and the editorials,” very clearly, and he's told both of those individuals very clearly in those meetings he referred to that “I'm in charge and I want this page to be more conservative.”
AMY GOODMAN: Well, Robert Scheer --
ROBERT SCHEER: And here he picks Jonah Goldberg, one of the most conservative columnists, to do his bidding for him.
AMY GOODMAN: I want to thank you very much for being with us. I know there will be a protest tomorrow outside the Los Angeles Times at noon. We will continue to cover the story and hope we can get the Los Angeles Times management on, as well. Thanks for joining us, Robert Scheer, former columnist at the Los Angeles Times for some 30 years.
www.democracynow.org
LA Times Fires Longtime Progressive Columnist Robert Scheer
Monday, November 14th, 2005
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/11/14/1447244
The Los Angeles Times newspaper last week announced that it was firing longtime columnist Robert Scheer. Scheer has been at the Times for 30 years and was one of the most progressive voices at the paper. In recent years, his columns took on the Bush Administration and its justifications for the invasion of Iraq. [includes rush transcript]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last week, the Los Angeles Times Newspaper announced that it was firing longtime columnist Robert Scheer. Scheer has been at the Times for 30 years and was one of the most progressive voices at the paper. In recent years, his columns took on the Bush Administration and its justifications for the invasion of Iraq. Scheer believes that his firing was because of ideological reasons.
In a posting at the Huffington Post blog, he wrote "The publisher Jeff Johnson, who has offered not a word of explanation to me, has privately told people that he hated every word that I wrote. I assume that mostly refers to my exposing the lies used by President Bush to justify the invasion of Iraq. Fortunately sixty percent of Americans now get the point but only after tens of thousand of Americans and Iraqis have been killed and maimed as the carnage spirals out of control. My only regret is that my pen was not sharper and my words tougher."
The Times also fired Michael Ramirez, a Pulitzer-Prize winning conservative staff cartoonist.
Robert Scheer, former columnist with the Los Angeles Times. He is author of "The Five Biggest Lies Bush Told Us About Iraq" and he is co-host of a weekly syndicated radio show along with with Arianna Huffington, Matt Miller and Tony Blankley.
- Website: www.robertscheer.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RUSH TRANSCRIPT
This transcript is available free of charge. However, donations help us provide closed captioning for the deaf and hard of hearing on our TV broadcast. Thank you for your generous contribution.
Donate - $25, $50, $100, more...
AMY GOODMAN: We are joined on the line by Robert Scheer, author of The Five Biggest Lies Bush Told Us About Iraq. He’s also co-host of the syndicated radio show with Arianna Huffington, Matt Miller and Tony Blankley. Welcome to Democracy Now!
ROBERT SCHEER: Hi.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, Robert, can you talk about what happened?
ROBERT SCHEER: Well, what happened is that I had been the subject of vicious attacks by Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh. Sometimes Bill O'Reilly would sometimes go after me every day, and this went on for the last couple of years, and I’m still standing. I was a punching bag for those guys. I'm still standing, and the people who run the paper collapsed. And the big issue here, I think, is that the publisher took over the editorial pages, a guy named Jeff Johnson. He’s an accountant from Chicago, doesn't know anything about what newspapers are supposed to be about, and he made a decision to get rid of the column. It had run as a column -- I had worked at the paper since 1976, but the column had been running for 13 years, and I think it was a strong column, criticizing the war when the paper was supporting it.
And even as recently as last week, my last column, which I'm quite proud of, was on the Defense Intelligence Agency report that Senator Carl Levin released last week, and I wrote about how in February 2002 they knew there were no ties between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, that the key witness was a phony. This was released. Eight months later George Bush went before -- spoke just before the Senate decided its decision and at that time knew that the key witness for this, really the only witness they had, was a phony, yet went and lied to the country. That column last week broke that news for the readers of the Los Angeles Times that the paper neglected to cover in any serious way. So, you know, it’s very disappointing.
The only other fact here that I would throw in, the paper is concerned about what the Bush administration thinks, because the Tribune Company bought the Times Mirror Corporation and now owns a television station, a very profitable one, in the same market in Los Angeles as the newspaper. And next year they have asked -- they have to get a waiver in order to be able to do that, because that violates the law right now. They expected Congress -- when they bought the property, they thought Congress would pass that law allowing them to have those two major outlets in the same market. It is now illegal, and in 2006 they are coming up for a waiver, and the Bush administration's F.C.C. could easily deny that waiver to them.
AMY GOODMAN: Robert Scheer, I wanted to read you some comments of the people in charge. We did try to get someone on, but they didn't respond. Andres Martinez, the editorial page editor, said, “The opinion pages are our newspaper's town square. Our readers expect us to publish all points of view and the broadest range of opinion, from those of our editorial board and columnists to those of our readers and op-ed contributors. And we intend to do exactly that.” The Los Angeles Times publisher, Jeffrey Johnson, said, “You’ve got a new editorial page editor and a new publisher. We sat down and talked about the pages and decided to make changes.” The Times op-ed editor, the opinion editor Nicholas Goldberg, said, “I think we have put together a smart, original and provocative team of writers who reflect a variety of interesting and thoughtful perspectives on local, national and foreign affairs. A good column involves a relationship developed with readers over time, and I invite our readers to develop their relationships with these engaging minds in the weeks and months to come.” Your response, Robert Scheer?
ROBERT SCHEER: You know, somebody who could say that, when all isn’t said, they can condone anything. We talk about a free press. These people hide, they make a lot of money off the media. They hide behind the slogans of free press, and then they can come out with crap like that. It’s just garbage. It’s insulting to the readers. They know I have a strong -- not only that I have a strong relation to readers, but so did Ramirez, the cartoonist. You know, it’s just gibberish.
The Los Angeles Times is being shroodled by -- its owners are laying off 70 people this week. They’re just gonna -- John Carroll, the distinguished editor of that paper, left because he said they are just going to pillage the paper. He won 13 Pulitzer Prizes in recent years for the Los Angeles Times, and he clearly – it was discussed by Ken Auletta in The New Yorker -- left because he said these people don't care about journalism. These people are just going to suck what they can out of the property. So this guy, Jeff Johnson, who is an accountant who cares nothing at all about a free press and cares nothing about journalism, he’s a right winger who supported the war, you know, who two years ago told people he couldn't stand a word that I wrote. Why? Because I exposed how the whole Jessica Lynch thing was a fraud, when the newspaper hadn’t even covered the news story, or that I attacked the whole W.M.D. from the beginning, I attacked the war from the very beginning? And this is just one column once a week, 720 words on the Op-Ed page, and he couldn't take that.
The decision came from the publisher. It certainly was cleared by Chicago. And then they come out with these fine sounding words about relation to readers and their obligation. It has nothing to do with that. You know, this was the case, you know, with the New York Times with Judy Miller, it’s the case with the L.A. Times and the Wen Ho Lee case, where they are now claiming we have a shield thing, we have to protect our reporters with a free press. What they are interested in at the L.A. Times is profits, and then when it’s convenient to them, they wave the flag of free press.
But you had one voice at that paper on the Op-Ed page consistently opposed to this war. I’ve been with the paper for almost 30 years. I have broken a lot of stories. The paper nominated me 12 or 13 times for the Pulitzer Prize. I was a finalist for the Pulitzer as a reporter. And new people come in, and it doesn't go along with their politics, and they fire me, end the column, silence a voice in Los Angeles. They can't silence it nationally, but they are able to do it there. And what they know now, because they have had the response of, I don't know what -- I hear from people in the building they have had 3,000 or 4,000 people have emailed and written letters. They have gotten thousands of phone calls. They know that the column resonates in the community. They know that people like it, and yet they don't have room for one column once week that consistently got it right.
AMY GOODMAN: Robert Scheer, I wanted to play for you a comment of or part of a speech by President Bush on Friday on Veterans Day.
PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: While it's perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began. Some Democrats and anti-war critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people about why we went to war. These critics are fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments related to Iraq's weapons programs. They also know that intelligence agencies from around the world agreed with our assessment of Saddam Hussein. They know the United Nations passed more than a dozen resolutions citing his development and possession of weapons of mass destruction.
AMY GOODMAN: President Bush in his address on Friday against a backdrop of soldiers and veterans. Robert Scheer, among the things he said was that it is irresponsible, his critics are being irresponsible in expressing dissent at this time. Your response.
ROBERT SCHEER: Well, this is the big lie technique, and it’s really frightening at a time when 60% of the American public know this guy is lying, and they say it. They finally have gotten it. He thinks that by reiterating this lie he can get away with it. And there are two components to it that -- I mean, two such blatant lies. He dares to mention the U.N. in this speech, and yet President Bush knows the issue had nothing at all to do with so-called claims of intelligence. The issue was that the United Nations inspectors were there. The United Nations inspectors had access to everywhere they had to go. They said they were not finding these weapons. As it turns out, the U.N. got the Nobel Prize because they got it right.
And so, let's just begin -- the big lie technique here is to never discuss that. Why did you go to war when the U.N. inspectors there on the ground with access to all of the sites where they were supposed to have these weapons, and they were getting this access; that’s number one. Secondly, the argument for imminent threat, that makes you move in, kick out the U.N. inspectors -- you are going to go to war -- the argument is there's a tie between Saddam Hussein and bin Laden, the guys who blew up the World Trade Center. That’s the big [inaudible]. And for Bush not to address the revelation of only last week that -- certainly if he didn't know it, maybe he's so out to lunch he didn't know it, but certainly the security officials in his administration knew about the Defense Intelligence Agency memorandum very clearly lining out that there was no evidence of a tie between bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, and so there certainly was no imminent justification.
But I would also point out he is lying about that Senate report. The fact is the Senate never made -- because of the Republican leadership, the Senate never did the phase two of the report, and phase one of the report did not go into the administration's distortion of the evidence. That was supposed to be left for phase two, and they haven't gotten around to it, and it’s been two years.
AMY GOODMAN: Robert Scheer is speaking to us from a cruise ship in the Pacific. He is on a Nation cruise which is why you are hearing his voice breaking up. Again, the Los Angeles Times columnist, I should say former columnist, was fired on Friday after almost 30 years. The author Jonah Goldberg will now be an L.A. Times op-ed columnist, the author of Liberal Fascism. Your response, Robert.
ROBERT SCHEER: Yeah, well, that gives the – I think it shows what they’re really all about. The publisher has told – you know, if these editors, Andres Martinez and Nick Goldberg, were the least bit honest about this, they would tell you the publisher has told them he wants the editorial page to be conservative. He has specifically told them that. And so why don't they tell their readers that? Why doesn't the editor of the editorial page tell the readers our publisher, my publisher, my boss, the guy who owns this press -- remember A.J. Liebling’s thing: Freedom of the press belongs to those who own one. The owner of this paper has taken direct control over the editorial page. Jeff Johnson is an accountant. He’s not a journalist. He has said, “I am going to run the editorial page. I'm going to run the columns and the editorials,” very clearly, and he's told both of those individuals very clearly in those meetings he referred to that “I'm in charge and I want this page to be more conservative.”
AMY GOODMAN: Well, Robert Scheer --
ROBERT SCHEER: And here he picks Jonah Goldberg, one of the most conservative columnists, to do his bidding for him.
AMY GOODMAN: I want to thank you very much for being with us. I know there will be a protest tomorrow outside the Los Angeles Times at noon. We will continue to cover the story and hope we can get the Los Angeles Times management on, as well. Thanks for joining us, Robert Scheer, former columnist at the Los Angeles Times for some 30 years.
www.democracynow.org
Monday, November 14, 2005
GOOD NEWS FROM BASTROP TEXAS
Charlie sent this priceless piece today. The article is rich in its description of the local culture. You do not have to be a Texan to appreciate it for Bastrop is probably not unlike many small towns the U.S. My apologies in advance for some of the language which may be offensive to some. LS
All:
Well, we Texans are nothing if not optimists :-)
Sure hope this guy is RIGHT ...
You think Texas politics have stopped with the mess in DC? Think again ... to paraphrase "The TEXANS (not just the south) will rise again!"
This came (indirectly) through some progressive forums in TX.
Charlie
====================
Subject: [bushlied] Let me tell you all about Bastrop, Texas
Let me tell you all about Bastrop, Texas
Bastrop is approx. 40 miles east of Austin, in Bastrop county, and is the county seat. There are a lot of both Republicans and Democrats here, maybe more Dems in voter ranks but I'm not sure. Really, people around here go by the farm and ranch land ethos of "good fences make good neighbors". People don't care how you vote as long as you are polite in town, don't come on their land without permission, don't ask favors and don't hunt without permission. The schools are fantastic, the parks are better, and I would probably be shunned for advertising this on the net, because Bastrop county is one of the fastest growing counties in the state because quality of life is so high and cost of living is so relatively low, and people from here don't want anyone else coming.
Bastrop is a small town Texas place caught in the boom time. People move in. People move out. I am not from here, but I am originally from a small town and I understand the uneven and disturbing trends and tendencies of a town on the cusp or just over the cusp of being "Developed". Bastrop is typical Texas. No matter what redistricting happens and no matter what the propaganda tells the rest of the country, Texas is, and places like Bastrop in particular are, inherently Democratic but have lost their way. And I will say this: Texas will swing Democratic with a big, fat, motherfucking vengeance by 2008. Wanna know how I know?
The two big issues in the state Legislature this last session were, Are Cheerleader uniforms too sexy (read: not Christian), and how do we cut more taxes.
Texas can't pay for schools, roads, and the state solution to mental health is bus "retards" and "schitzos" to the Houston Greyhound terminal. The Governor had to call the Legislature back into a special session to pay for education, and they didn't even do it.
I cannot tell you how many white haired, too much makeup wearing, perfume smelling, SUV driving, WalMart shopping, Yellow Ribbon wearing grandma and mommie Texans I have heard FORCEFULLY lecturing that they don't care how many church suppers in support of the troops and how much halfhearted barbershop rhetoric they hear about supporting the
President...: things used to be BETTER in Texas. We are BETTER than all of this.
And for anyone not from Texas or not really in touch with what that kind of predominant sentiment from a place like Bastrop really means, it means people feel taken to the bank and plum fucked over.
I was in a local gun shop (not in Bastrop) and overheard a gallery of ranchers bitching about how the Federal govt. is a threat under Bush. One of the guys laughed and said something like "Remember how we used to complain about Clinton was steady trying to take away our gun rights."
And the other dude said "Yeah, but at least we knew he was our enemy from get. This Bush son of a bitch has played us fools."
The other said to the whole store, "I told you he wasn't from Texas. I TOLD y'all!"
I bought the .45 caliber hollow point 230 grain ammunition for my concealed carry sidearm and walked out a happy man.
Democrats will take back Texas and Republicans will struggle for years and years. It is the epicenter of national GOP corruption and this is only the beginning.
Peace... and don't fuck with Texas.
by bastrop on Fri Nov 04, 2005 at 01:08:36 AM EST
"Repetition does not transform a lie into a truth." - F.D.R.
All:
Well, we Texans are nothing if not optimists :-)
Sure hope this guy is RIGHT ...
You think Texas politics have stopped with the mess in DC? Think again ... to paraphrase "The TEXANS (not just the south) will rise again!"
This came (indirectly) through some progressive forums in TX.
Charlie
====================
Subject: [bushlied] Let me tell you all about Bastrop, Texas
Let me tell you all about Bastrop, Texas
Bastrop is approx. 40 miles east of Austin, in Bastrop county, and is the county seat. There are a lot of both Republicans and Democrats here, maybe more Dems in voter ranks but I'm not sure. Really, people around here go by the farm and ranch land ethos of "good fences make good neighbors". People don't care how you vote as long as you are polite in town, don't come on their land without permission, don't ask favors and don't hunt without permission. The schools are fantastic, the parks are better, and I would probably be shunned for advertising this on the net, because Bastrop county is one of the fastest growing counties in the state because quality of life is so high and cost of living is so relatively low, and people from here don't want anyone else coming.
Bastrop is a small town Texas place caught in the boom time. People move in. People move out. I am not from here, but I am originally from a small town and I understand the uneven and disturbing trends and tendencies of a town on the cusp or just over the cusp of being "Developed". Bastrop is typical Texas. No matter what redistricting happens and no matter what the propaganda tells the rest of the country, Texas is, and places like Bastrop in particular are, inherently Democratic but have lost their way. And I will say this: Texas will swing Democratic with a big, fat, motherfucking vengeance by 2008. Wanna know how I know?
The two big issues in the state Legislature this last session were, Are Cheerleader uniforms too sexy (read: not Christian), and how do we cut more taxes.
Texas can't pay for schools, roads, and the state solution to mental health is bus "retards" and "schitzos" to the Houston Greyhound terminal. The Governor had to call the Legislature back into a special session to pay for education, and they didn't even do it.
I cannot tell you how many white haired, too much makeup wearing, perfume smelling, SUV driving, WalMart shopping, Yellow Ribbon wearing grandma and mommie Texans I have heard FORCEFULLY lecturing that they don't care how many church suppers in support of the troops and how much halfhearted barbershop rhetoric they hear about supporting the
President...: things used to be BETTER in Texas. We are BETTER than all of this.
And for anyone not from Texas or not really in touch with what that kind of predominant sentiment from a place like Bastrop really means, it means people feel taken to the bank and plum fucked over.
I was in a local gun shop (not in Bastrop) and overheard a gallery of ranchers bitching about how the Federal govt. is a threat under Bush. One of the guys laughed and said something like "Remember how we used to complain about Clinton was steady trying to take away our gun rights."
And the other dude said "Yeah, but at least we knew he was our enemy from get. This Bush son of a bitch has played us fools."
The other said to the whole store, "I told you he wasn't from Texas. I TOLD y'all!"
I bought the .45 caliber hollow point 230 grain ammunition for my concealed carry sidearm and walked out a happy man.
Democrats will take back Texas and Republicans will struggle for years and years. It is the epicenter of national GOP corruption and this is only the beginning.
Peace... and don't fuck with Texas.
by bastrop on Fri Nov 04, 2005 at 01:08:36 AM EST
"Repetition does not transform a lie into a truth." - F.D.R.
ON GOP LOSS OF CONTROL, TORTURE AND SELLING INFLUENCE
Seems like tax cuts for the rich aren't working so well right now. Below is a piece found on Truthout.org which features an article in the Washington Post followed by one in the New York Times on the unraveling of the conservative GOP agenda.
GOP LOSING CONTROL OF AGENDA
ON TORTURE
I must admit that it is really difficult for me to come to terms with the fact that the United States of America, of all places, is actually engaging in torture. I've tried to go into denial over this, but it is not possible or responsible to do so. Here is an amazing piece written by Frank Rich of the NYT today.
"WE DO NOT TORTURE AND OTHER FUNNY STORIES"
"WE DO NOT TORTURE AND OTHER FUNNY STORIES
Here is a humdinger of a piece that is still developing from Raw Story. It reveals more evidence that Bush and Co. liberally uses propaganda to sell its agenda and its nominees. This is my last post for the evening. There is a lot more under reported news "out there" but even an amateur blogger can take only so much of the unspeakable in an evening..... LS
MASSIVE GROUP TIED TO BUSH OFFICIALS CHANNEL MONEY TO PROMOTE NOMINEES
BUSH ADMINISTRATION PAYS FIRM TO INFLUENCE OUTCOMES
Massive group tied to Bush officials channels money to promote nominees
11/13/2005 @ 7:48 pm
Filed by RAW STORY
"When President Bush named Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. as his Supreme Court pick, it took Progress for America just 39 minutes to announce a slick Web site and begin lobbying for his confirmation," the New York Times' Glen Justice and Aron Pilhofer are set to report in Monday editions. "And that was slow. The group had taken 11 minutes to do the same for Harriet E. Miers and only 7 minutes for John G. Roberts Jr. before that."
Progress for America functions like an unofficial extension of the White House, advancing the president's policies alongside the Republican National Committee.
The group's political arm, the Progress for America Voter Fund, is one of the so-called 527 committees, which spent tens of millions of dollars on both sides to influence last year's elections. Though the groups can collect unlimited contributions, they were barred from coordinating with campaigns. But in the post-election season, there is no prohibition against coordinating with the White House and the party, and Progress for America has become one of the strongest players to emerge from 2004.
Developing in Monday's Times...
GOP LOSING CONTROL OF AGENDA
ON TORTURE
I must admit that it is really difficult for me to come to terms with the fact that the United States of America, of all places, is actually engaging in torture. I've tried to go into denial over this, but it is not possible or responsible to do so. Here is an amazing piece written by Frank Rich of the NYT today.
"WE DO NOT TORTURE AND OTHER FUNNY STORIES"
"WE DO NOT TORTURE AND OTHER FUNNY STORIES
Here is a humdinger of a piece that is still developing from Raw Story. It reveals more evidence that Bush and Co. liberally uses propaganda to sell its agenda and its nominees. This is my last post for the evening. There is a lot more under reported news "out there" but even an amateur blogger can take only so much of the unspeakable in an evening..... LS
MASSIVE GROUP TIED TO BUSH OFFICIALS CHANNEL MONEY TO PROMOTE NOMINEES
BUSH ADMINISTRATION PAYS FIRM TO INFLUENCE OUTCOMES
Massive group tied to Bush officials channels money to promote nominees
11/13/2005 @ 7:48 pm
Filed by RAW STORY
"When President Bush named Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. as his Supreme Court pick, it took Progress for America just 39 minutes to announce a slick Web site and begin lobbying for his confirmation," the New York Times' Glen Justice and Aron Pilhofer are set to report in Monday editions. "And that was slow. The group had taken 11 minutes to do the same for Harriet E. Miers and only 7 minutes for John G. Roberts Jr. before that."
Progress for America functions like an unofficial extension of the White House, advancing the president's policies alongside the Republican National Committee.
The group's political arm, the Progress for America Voter Fund, is one of the so-called 527 committees, which spent tens of millions of dollars on both sides to influence last year's elections. Though the groups can collect unlimited contributions, they were barred from coordinating with campaigns. But in the post-election season, there is no prohibition against coordinating with the White House and the party, and Progress for America has become one of the strongest players to emerge from 2004.
Developing in Monday's Times...
Sunday, November 13, 2005
TEXAS SENATOR CORNYN LINKED TO ABRAMOFF
Well, my readers, here is proof that America is becoming increasingly dumbed down. Below is a comment posted by a poor soul who has has allowed the GOP to rewire his/her brain and delete his/her rational and critical thinking functions. It followed the post on Stupid America.
"Anti-Bush and Anti-America, can't get more scummy than that."
Moving along to the neocon wing of the GOP and its unquenchable thirst for individual wealth at any cost, coupled with political GOP, a la Tom DeLay, sleaze and slime in Texas, the renowned Senator Cornyn has been linked to Christian hypocrite extraordinaire Reed and the Mafioso wannabe Abramoff. It seems that Cornyn was instrumental in shutting down the Alabama-Coushatta and Tigua casino efforts in Livingston Texas (which is a mere 60-90 minutes from Houston and therefore would have had boatloads of customers) in order to kill any potential competition to Abramoff's Louisiana's Indian casinos. You know, the casinos Abramoff ripped royally. Cornyn and a well-known minister of rather large and well-known Baptist church in Houston played into Abramoff's hand with the help of Reed. I wonder what Cornyn and the minister got out of the deal? It’s not about sin, hellfire and damnation but the money, honey. Hmmmm…. Speaking of compromised GOP Senators, a moderate and not crazed Republican friend told me the other day that Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison is not a leader. Rather, she is one who merely follows orders from leaders in the party. I am quite frankly appalled that anyone would vote for one who is not only a rubber-stamping sheep but one who obviously does not have the interests of her constituency at heart. Oh well, that’s politics in Texas. One has to trace the money trail to figure it out here. LS
TEXAS SENATOR CORNYN LINKED TO ABRAMOFF
In E-mails, Consultant Claims Link to Cornyn
By Suzanne Gamboa
The Associated Press
Saturday 12 November 2005
Christian Coalition leader says he influenced effort to shut casinos.
Washington - Former Christian Coalition director Ralph Reed claimed in a 2001 e-mail to a lobbyist that he choreographed John Cornyn's efforts as Texas attorney general to shut down an East Texas Indian tribe's casino.
The lobbyist was Jack Abramoff, who is under federal investigation, along with his partner Michael Scanlon, on allegations of defrauding six Indian tribes of about $80 million from 2001 to 2004. The e-mail, along with about a dozen others, was released last week as part of the investigation.
In 2001, Abramoff was working as a lobbyist for the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana to prevent rival gaming casinos from siphoning off its Texas customers. He paid Reed as a consultant, and Reed lobbied to get the Alabama-Coushatta and Tigua casinos closed in Texas.
In the Nov. 30, 2001, e-mail, Reed told Abramoff that 50 pastors led by Ed Young, of Second Baptist Church in Houston, would meet with Cornyn to urge him to shut down the Alabama-Coushatta tribe's casino near Livingston. He said Young would back up the request in writing.
"We have also choreographed Cornyn's response. The AG will state that the law is clear, talk about how much he wants to avoid repetition of El Paso (where the Tigua casino was) and pledge to take swift action to enforce the law," Reed wrote. "He will also personally hand Ed Young a letter that commits him to take action in Livingston."
Cornyn, now a Republican U.S. senator, had filed a lawsuit in 1999 to shut down the casino operated by the Tigua tribe in El Paso, saying it violated the state's limited gambling laws. In 2002, federal courts shuttered the Tiguas' casino and Cornyn used that ruling to shut down the Alabama-Coushattas' casino.
Cornyn, who has not been accused of any wrongdoing, has denied knowing Abramoff. He also has said he was unaware of Reed's work with Abramoff.
He said he did not remember receiving a letter from Young or Reed, or providing a letter to Young; he acknowledged meeting with the minister.
"Their efforts were irrelevant to what I was doing," said Cornyn, who was elected to the Senate in 2002. "It's kind of eye-opening to me that apparently people make money claiming credit for something I decided to do under the law."
The Senate Indian Affairs Committee blocked out references to Cornyn in the e-mails it released last week. But in previous Reed e-mails released by the committee, Cornyn's name was not removed.
The previously released e-mails showed that in 2002, Abramoff and Scanlon secretly funneled millions to Reed to help fund the campaign to get the Tigua casino shut down. The lobbyists then persuaded the Tiguas to hire them to reopen it.
A Reed spokeswoman refused to respond directly to questions about whether Reed had copies of or had seen Young's letter, or details about how he "choreographed" a response from Cornyn.
"No one should take credit for state Attorney General John Cornyn's actions and the faith community's support," Reed's spokeswoman Lisa Baron said. "Ralph Reed never has and never will."
She said Reed did not learn the Louisiana Coushattas were Abramoff's clients until 2002, and he was not aware that the tribe contributed to "our efforts" until 2004.
But Reed's e-mails suggest Cornyn's work was instrumental to Abramoff in fending off competition for his client.
Members of the Louisiana Coushatta tribal leadership testified last week that Abramoff used the threat of the Alabama-Coushatta casino in Texas to get more lobbying business.
Young said he met Cornyn for the first time at a pastors' meeting in late November 2001, where Cornyn spoke to about 15 to 20 pastors. Young also said he did not remember any exchange of letters occurring at the meeting as Reed said in the e-mail.
Cornyn "told us the situation. He was filing affidavits. We said we support you" because of the pastors' concerns about gambling, Young said.
Young dismissed Reed's suggestion that Cornyn needed him for support in the 2002 Senate race. He said he stays neutral because his church attracts Democrats and Republicans.
"Anti-Bush and Anti-America, can't get more scummy than that."
Moving along to the neocon wing of the GOP and its unquenchable thirst for individual wealth at any cost, coupled with political GOP, a la Tom DeLay, sleaze and slime in Texas, the renowned Senator Cornyn has been linked to Christian hypocrite extraordinaire Reed and the Mafioso wannabe Abramoff. It seems that Cornyn was instrumental in shutting down the Alabama-Coushatta and Tigua casino efforts in Livingston Texas (which is a mere 60-90 minutes from Houston and therefore would have had boatloads of customers) in order to kill any potential competition to Abramoff's Louisiana's Indian casinos. You know, the casinos Abramoff ripped royally. Cornyn and a well-known minister of rather large and well-known Baptist church in Houston played into Abramoff's hand with the help of Reed. I wonder what Cornyn and the minister got out of the deal? It’s not about sin, hellfire and damnation but the money, honey. Hmmmm…. Speaking of compromised GOP Senators, a moderate and not crazed Republican friend told me the other day that Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison is not a leader. Rather, she is one who merely follows orders from leaders in the party. I am quite frankly appalled that anyone would vote for one who is not only a rubber-stamping sheep but one who obviously does not have the interests of her constituency at heart. Oh well, that’s politics in Texas. One has to trace the money trail to figure it out here. LS
TEXAS SENATOR CORNYN LINKED TO ABRAMOFF
In E-mails, Consultant Claims Link to Cornyn
By Suzanne Gamboa
The Associated Press
Saturday 12 November 2005
Christian Coalition leader says he influenced effort to shut casinos.
Washington - Former Christian Coalition director Ralph Reed claimed in a 2001 e-mail to a lobbyist that he choreographed John Cornyn's efforts as Texas attorney general to shut down an East Texas Indian tribe's casino.
The lobbyist was Jack Abramoff, who is under federal investigation, along with his partner Michael Scanlon, on allegations of defrauding six Indian tribes of about $80 million from 2001 to 2004. The e-mail, along with about a dozen others, was released last week as part of the investigation.
In 2001, Abramoff was working as a lobbyist for the Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana to prevent rival gaming casinos from siphoning off its Texas customers. He paid Reed as a consultant, and Reed lobbied to get the Alabama-Coushatta and Tigua casinos closed in Texas.
In the Nov. 30, 2001, e-mail, Reed told Abramoff that 50 pastors led by Ed Young, of Second Baptist Church in Houston, would meet with Cornyn to urge him to shut down the Alabama-Coushatta tribe's casino near Livingston. He said Young would back up the request in writing.
"We have also choreographed Cornyn's response. The AG will state that the law is clear, talk about how much he wants to avoid repetition of El Paso (where the Tigua casino was) and pledge to take swift action to enforce the law," Reed wrote. "He will also personally hand Ed Young a letter that commits him to take action in Livingston."
Cornyn, now a Republican U.S. senator, had filed a lawsuit in 1999 to shut down the casino operated by the Tigua tribe in El Paso, saying it violated the state's limited gambling laws. In 2002, federal courts shuttered the Tiguas' casino and Cornyn used that ruling to shut down the Alabama-Coushattas' casino.
Cornyn, who has not been accused of any wrongdoing, has denied knowing Abramoff. He also has said he was unaware of Reed's work with Abramoff.
He said he did not remember receiving a letter from Young or Reed, or providing a letter to Young; he acknowledged meeting with the minister.
"Their efforts were irrelevant to what I was doing," said Cornyn, who was elected to the Senate in 2002. "It's kind of eye-opening to me that apparently people make money claiming credit for something I decided to do under the law."
The Senate Indian Affairs Committee blocked out references to Cornyn in the e-mails it released last week. But in previous Reed e-mails released by the committee, Cornyn's name was not removed.
The previously released e-mails showed that in 2002, Abramoff and Scanlon secretly funneled millions to Reed to help fund the campaign to get the Tigua casino shut down. The lobbyists then persuaded the Tiguas to hire them to reopen it.
A Reed spokeswoman refused to respond directly to questions about whether Reed had copies of or had seen Young's letter, or details about how he "choreographed" a response from Cornyn.
"No one should take credit for state Attorney General John Cornyn's actions and the faith community's support," Reed's spokeswoman Lisa Baron said. "Ralph Reed never has and never will."
She said Reed did not learn the Louisiana Coushattas were Abramoff's clients until 2002, and he was not aware that the tribe contributed to "our efforts" until 2004.
But Reed's e-mails suggest Cornyn's work was instrumental to Abramoff in fending off competition for his client.
Members of the Louisiana Coushatta tribal leadership testified last week that Abramoff used the threat of the Alabama-Coushatta casino in Texas to get more lobbying business.
Young said he met Cornyn for the first time at a pastors' meeting in late November 2001, where Cornyn spoke to about 15 to 20 pastors. Young also said he did not remember any exchange of letters occurring at the meeting as Reed said in the e-mail.
Cornyn "told us the situation. He was filing affidavits. We said we support you" because of the pastors' concerns about gambling, Young said.
Young dismissed Reed's suggestion that Cornyn needed him for support in the 2002 Senate race. He said he stays neutral because his church attracts Democrats and Republicans.
Saturday, November 12, 2005
WMD AND DEADLY CHEMICALS SOLD TO IRAQ UNDER GOP REAGAN AND BUSH I
Lest we forget, it was the U.S. and Britain, under the GOP's sacred cow presidency of Reagan and later under Bush I that sold WMD and deadly poisonous chemicals to Iraq. The GOP administration continued to sell WMD and poisonous chemicals to Iraq even after Saddam gassed his own people!!! Naturally Reagan and Bush’s buddies profited greatly from these sales. For me, this is more evidence that the GOP is all about the money, and nothing more. They have no principles whatsoever. We should never forget, despite what spews from their politicans' mouths, the GOP is decidedly anti-American except where the upper 2% of income earners are concerned. Here is a piece sent from a friend of Ken's today. LS
This was sent by a friend, including the comment. -K
Okay, does "WMD" actually include chemical/bio weapons? Not really, and they were long since gone, but if you insist that they are included, then you have to deal with who originally supplied them to Saddam. Bush's "comeback" was bound to go back to WMDs, so let's not forget this:
Excerpt:
Donald Riegle, then chairman of the committee, said: 'UN inspectors had identified many United States manufactured items that had been exported from the United States to Iraq under licenses issued by the Department of Commerce, and [established] that these items were used to further Iraq's chemical and nuclear weapons development and its missile delivery system development programs.'
Riegle added that, between January 1985 and August 1990, the 'executive branch of our government approved 771 different export licenses for sale of dual-use technology to Iraq. I think that is a devastating record'.
Published on Sunday, September 8, 2002 by the Sunday Herald (Scotland)
How Did Iraq Get Its Weapons? We Sold Them
by Neil Mackay and Felicity Arbuthnot
THE US and Britain sold Saddam Hussein the technology and materials Iraq needed to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction.
Reports by the US Senate's committee on banking, housing and urban affairs -- which oversees American exports policy -- reveal that the US, under the successive administrations of Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr, sold materials including anthrax, VX nerve gas, West Nile fever germs and botulism to Iraq right up until March 1992, as well as germs similar to tuberculosis and pneumonia. Other bacteria sold included brucella melitensis, which damages major organs, and clostridium perfringens, which causes gas gangrene.
Classified US Defense Department documents also seen by the Sunday Herald show that Britain sold Iraq the drug pralidoxine, an antidote to nerve gas, in March 1992, after the end of the Gulf war. Pralidoxine can be reverse engineered to create nerve gas.
The Senate committee's reports on 'US Chemical and Biological Warfare-Related Dual-Use Exports to Iraq', undertaken in 1992 in the wake of the Gulf war, give the date and destination of all US exports. The reports show, for example, that on May 2, 1986, two batches of bacillus anthracis -- the micro-organism that causes anthrax -- were shipped to the Iraqi Ministry of Higher Education, along with two batches of the bacterium clostridium botulinum, the agent that causes deadly botulism poisoning.
One batch each of salmonella and E coli were shipped to the Iraqi State Company for Drug Industries on August 31, 1987. Other shipments went from the US to the Iraq Atomic Energy Commission on July 11, 1988; the Department of Biology at the University of Basrah in November 1989; the Department of Microbiology at Baghdad University in June 1985; the Ministry of Health in April 1985 and Officers' City, a military complex in Baghdad, in March and April 1986.
The shipments to Iraq went on even after Saddam Hussein ordered the gassing of the Kurdish town of Halabja, in which at least 5000 men, women and children died. The atrocity, which shocked the world, took place in March 1988, but a month later the components and materials of weapons of mass destruction were continuing to arrive in Baghdad from the US.
The Senate report also makes clear that: 'The United States provided the government of Iraq with 'dual use' licensed materials which assisted in the development of Iraqi chemical, biological and missile-system programs.'
This assistance, according to the report, included 'chemical warfare-agent precursors, chemical warfare-agent production facility plans and technical drawings, chemical warfare filling equipment, biological warfare-related materials, missile fabrication equipment and missile system guidance equipment'.
Donald Riegle, then chairman of the committee, said: 'UN inspectors had identified many United States manufactured items that had been exported from the United States to Iraq under licenses issued by the Department of Commerce, and [established] that these items were used to further Iraq's chemical and nuclear weapons development and its missile delivery system development programs.'
Riegle added that, between January 1985 and August 1990, the 'executive branch of our government approved 771 different export licenses for sale of dual-use technology to Iraq. I think that is a devastating record'.
It is thought the information contained in the Senate committee reports is likely to make up much of the 'evidence of proof' that Bush and Blair will reveal in the coming days to justify the US and Britain going to war with Iraq. It is unlikely, however, that the two leaders will admit it was the Western powers that armed Saddam with these weapons of mass destruction.
However, Bush and Blair will also have to prove that Saddam still has chemical, biological and nuclear capabilities. This looks like a difficult case to clinch in view of the fact that Scott Ritter, the UN's former chief weapons inspector in Iraq, says the United Nations destroyed most of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and doubts that Saddam could have rebuilt his stocks by now.
According to Ritter, between 90% and 95% of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction were des troyed by the UN. He believes the remainder were probably used or destroyed during 'the ravages of the Gulf War'.
Ritter has described himself as a 'card-carrying Republican' who voted for George W Bush. Nevertheless, he has called the president a 'liar' over his claims that Saddam Hussein is a threat to America.
Ritter has also alleged that the manufacture of chemical and biological weapons emits certain gases, which would have been detected by satellite. 'We have seen none of this,' he insists. 'If Iraq was producing weapons today, we would have definitive proof.'
He also dismisses claims that Iraq may have a nuclear weapons capacity or be on the verge of attaining one, saying that gamma-particle atomic radiation from the radioactive materials in the warheads would also have been detected by western surveillance.
The UN's former co-ordinator in Iraq and former UN under-secretary general, Count Hans von Sponeck, has also told the Sunday Herald that he believes the West is lying about Iraq's weapons program.
Von Sponeck visited the Al-Dora and Faluja factories near Baghdad in 1999 after they were 'comprehensively trashed' on the orders of UN inspectors, on the grounds that they were suspected of being chemical weapons plants. He returned to the site late in July this year, with a German TV crew, and said both plants were still wrecked.
'We filmed the evidence of the dishonesty of the claims that they were producing chemical and biological weapons,' von Sponeck has told the Sunday Herald. 'They are indeed in the same destroyed state which we witnessed in 1999. There was no trace of any resumed activity at all.'
This was sent by a friend, including the comment. -K
Okay, does "WMD" actually include chemical/bio weapons? Not really, and they were long since gone, but if you insist that they are included, then you have to deal with who originally supplied them to Saddam. Bush's "comeback" was bound to go back to WMDs, so let's not forget this:
Excerpt:
Donald Riegle, then chairman of the committee, said: 'UN inspectors had identified many United States manufactured items that had been exported from the United States to Iraq under licenses issued by the Department of Commerce, and [established] that these items were used to further Iraq's chemical and nuclear weapons development and its missile delivery system development programs.'
Riegle added that, between January 1985 and August 1990, the 'executive branch of our government approved 771 different export licenses for sale of dual-use technology to Iraq. I think that is a devastating record'.
Published on Sunday, September 8, 2002 by the Sunday Herald (Scotland)
How Did Iraq Get Its Weapons? We Sold Them
by Neil Mackay and Felicity Arbuthnot
THE US and Britain sold Saddam Hussein the technology and materials Iraq needed to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction.
Reports by the US Senate's committee on banking, housing and urban affairs -- which oversees American exports policy -- reveal that the US, under the successive administrations of Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr, sold materials including anthrax, VX nerve gas, West Nile fever germs and botulism to Iraq right up until March 1992, as well as germs similar to tuberculosis and pneumonia. Other bacteria sold included brucella melitensis, which damages major organs, and clostridium perfringens, which causes gas gangrene.
Classified US Defense Department documents also seen by the Sunday Herald show that Britain sold Iraq the drug pralidoxine, an antidote to nerve gas, in March 1992, after the end of the Gulf war. Pralidoxine can be reverse engineered to create nerve gas.
The Senate committee's reports on 'US Chemical and Biological Warfare-Related Dual-Use Exports to Iraq', undertaken in 1992 in the wake of the Gulf war, give the date and destination of all US exports. The reports show, for example, that on May 2, 1986, two batches of bacillus anthracis -- the micro-organism that causes anthrax -- were shipped to the Iraqi Ministry of Higher Education, along with two batches of the bacterium clostridium botulinum, the agent that causes deadly botulism poisoning.
One batch each of salmonella and E coli were shipped to the Iraqi State Company for Drug Industries on August 31, 1987. Other shipments went from the US to the Iraq Atomic Energy Commission on July 11, 1988; the Department of Biology at the University of Basrah in November 1989; the Department of Microbiology at Baghdad University in June 1985; the Ministry of Health in April 1985 and Officers' City, a military complex in Baghdad, in March and April 1986.
The shipments to Iraq went on even after Saddam Hussein ordered the gassing of the Kurdish town of Halabja, in which at least 5000 men, women and children died. The atrocity, which shocked the world, took place in March 1988, but a month later the components and materials of weapons of mass destruction were continuing to arrive in Baghdad from the US.
The Senate report also makes clear that: 'The United States provided the government of Iraq with 'dual use' licensed materials which assisted in the development of Iraqi chemical, biological and missile-system programs.'
This assistance, according to the report, included 'chemical warfare-agent precursors, chemical warfare-agent production facility plans and technical drawings, chemical warfare filling equipment, biological warfare-related materials, missile fabrication equipment and missile system guidance equipment'.
Donald Riegle, then chairman of the committee, said: 'UN inspectors had identified many United States manufactured items that had been exported from the United States to Iraq under licenses issued by the Department of Commerce, and [established] that these items were used to further Iraq's chemical and nuclear weapons development and its missile delivery system development programs.'
Riegle added that, between January 1985 and August 1990, the 'executive branch of our government approved 771 different export licenses for sale of dual-use technology to Iraq. I think that is a devastating record'.
It is thought the information contained in the Senate committee reports is likely to make up much of the 'evidence of proof' that Bush and Blair will reveal in the coming days to justify the US and Britain going to war with Iraq. It is unlikely, however, that the two leaders will admit it was the Western powers that armed Saddam with these weapons of mass destruction.
However, Bush and Blair will also have to prove that Saddam still has chemical, biological and nuclear capabilities. This looks like a difficult case to clinch in view of the fact that Scott Ritter, the UN's former chief weapons inspector in Iraq, says the United Nations destroyed most of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and doubts that Saddam could have rebuilt his stocks by now.
According to Ritter, between 90% and 95% of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction were des troyed by the UN. He believes the remainder were probably used or destroyed during 'the ravages of the Gulf War'.
Ritter has described himself as a 'card-carrying Republican' who voted for George W Bush. Nevertheless, he has called the president a 'liar' over his claims that Saddam Hussein is a threat to America.
Ritter has also alleged that the manufacture of chemical and biological weapons emits certain gases, which would have been detected by satellite. 'We have seen none of this,' he insists. 'If Iraq was producing weapons today, we would have definitive proof.'
He also dismisses claims that Iraq may have a nuclear weapons capacity or be on the verge of attaining one, saying that gamma-particle atomic radiation from the radioactive materials in the warheads would also have been detected by western surveillance.
The UN's former co-ordinator in Iraq and former UN under-secretary general, Count Hans von Sponeck, has also told the Sunday Herald that he believes the West is lying about Iraq's weapons program.
Von Sponeck visited the Al-Dora and Faluja factories near Baghdad in 1999 after they were 'comprehensively trashed' on the orders of UN inspectors, on the grounds that they were suspected of being chemical weapons plants. He returned to the site late in July this year, with a German TV crew, and said both plants were still wrecked.
'We filmed the evidence of the dishonesty of the claims that they were producing chemical and biological weapons,' von Sponeck has told the Sunday Herald. 'They are indeed in the same destroyed state which we witnessed in 1999. There was no trace of any resumed activity at all.'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)