SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Moderate Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Raymond Duray who wrote (17600)6/10/2005 4:52:23 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 20773
 
Message 21406209



To: Raymond Duray who wrote (17600)6/10/2005 5:36:22 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 20773
 
SENSENBRENNER MELTDOWN! UNILATERALLY GAVELS PATRIOT ACT HEARINGS TO A CLOSE! [UPDATED]

bradblog.com

<<...This is the same guy who would have to authorize bi-partisan House Judiciary hearings into the 2004 election. Doesn't look as if he's our man...>>



To: Raymond Duray who wrote (17600)6/12/2005 1:18:52 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 20773
 
The author of this "Mainstream Media" article on the Downing Street Memo fails to acknowledge that we didn't have a credible election last November...The voters tried to throw Bush out of office BUT Rove and his dirty tricksters wouldn't let that happen...Maybe some of us should email Mr. Satullo at the Philadelphia Inquirer (his contact info. is at the end of the post)...He needs some good info. on the DSM and more importantly on the 2004 Election Fraud...fyi...

Why the 'Downing Street memo' hasn't rocked Bush's world
By Chris Satullo
Philadelphia Inquirer
June 12, 2005 Sunday CITY-D EDITION
SECTION: CURRENTS; Pg. C07

To many who oppose the Iraq war, the "Downing Street memo" seemed just the dynamite needed to dislodge from office a man they love to hate, George W. Bush.

Instead, the DSM, as it's become known, has been a dud so far.

Stateside, the response to this leaked July 2002 memo, which detailed British government concerns about the White House's race to war in Iraq, has been mostly ho-hum.

The been-there-done-that response has left W.'s Teflon unnicked - and foes of the war howling. They blame the fizzling of the DSM on the MSM, the mainstream media.

American journalists, the liberal blogosphere contends, are chickens, cowed by the Bush White House, cravenly clinging to the salaries they get from corporate media.

Otherwise, the argument goes, the airwaves and front pages would be full of breathless retellings of the memo, which provides minutes of a July 23, 2002, meeting at 10 Downing Street, the office of Prime Minister Tony Blair. In the memo, among other things, an unnamed British intelligence official is quoted as opining that, in Washington, "military action was seen as inevitable" and "intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

I've read the memo many times now. A few observations:

First, I am surprised it hasn't gotten more coverage. It's interesting stuff, though far less momentous than overheated partisans think. (Irony alert: People hyping the memo overvalue parts of it that fit a preconceived narrative in which they are emotionally invested, while ignoring nuances, caveats and context. Sound like any President you know?)

As for the "craven media," the memo reveals nothing that any attentive citizen who has followed the exhaustive coverage of the war in this paper, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the New Yorker, Newsweek or the Atlantic Monthly did not know long ago. Any claim that the serious American press has ignored any salient point in the memo is just poppycock.

For example, by summer 2002 it was no secret to any attentive American citizens that their leaders were spoiling for war with Iraq. The Inquirer's electronic database for summer 2002 shows 60-plus articles discussing the race toward war.

Here's why antiwar citizens are so desperate for the memo to make a dent: The plain fact is that an amazing percentage of Americans just don't care about the facts on the Iraq war. They don't care that the WMD case collapsed like the house of cards it was, that the dark talk about mushroom clouds and Saddam-Osama links was hoohah.

After Sept. 11, people were angry and they were scared. They wanted a leader who would not dither, who would just go out and kick some butt. Bush was that guy, in spades. If it turns out he kicked the wrong butt, then screwed up the aftermath to a bloody fare-thee-well, well, to many people that matters less than how he made them feel when they were reeling.

That's why he won reelection. And people who hate him hate that. Their anguish demands an outlet. And which is more tempting? Looking in the mirror to figure out why your side couldn't make the sale in 2004, or whining about the working press, which already has a huge "Kick Me" tattoo on its back?

A few more points on the memo:

Its clipped syntax, often using a vague passive voice, does not necessarily say what its more fevered interpreters think it does. It does not say that Bush administration officials confessed to the British that they were "fixing" intelligence to fit a predetermined policy. In context, that statement seems to be a judgment offered by one British intelligence official. And it's not clear which intelligence is being cooked: Chemical weapons? Iraq-al-Qaeda ties? Nuclear weapons?

The memo observes: "The [National Security Council] had no patience with the U.N. route." People seem to miss the point here: Whatever the NSC thought, Bush did go to the United Nations to get a new resolution and to seek a return of weapons inspectors. The memo makes clear why Blair insisted Bush do all that if he wanted Britain as an ally. Remember, Bush's statecraft at the U.N. worked. Faced with a credible threat of invasion, Hussein let inspectors back in. The tragedy was that Bush refused to wait for them to prove the happy, but inconvenient fact that Iraq had no WMD.

Some claim the memo confirms that Bush's "freedom on the march" rhetoric was an ex-post-facto justification, cooked up after the WMD rationale tanked. The reverse is more likely. Post 9/11, WMD and terror became the easiest way to sell the public on a grand strategy that had been on this White House's to-do list all along.

But doesn't the memo prove the President lied? Not really. He clearly sold the war on false pretenses. But he likely believed his own bull. He did what he does in so many realms: Made policy with his gut, then heard only what he wanted to hear. Dangerous incompetence? Yes. Impeachable crimes? Don't see it.

George W. Bush's punishment should have been for voters to fire him last year. Didn't happen. The Downing Street memo, interesting as it is, can't change that.

Chris Satullo (csatullo@phillynews.com)



To: Raymond Duray who wrote (17600)6/13/2005 8:09:25 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 20773
 
War: Realities and Myths
__________________________________________

by Chris Hedges*
www.dissidentvoice.org
June 11, 2005

The vanquished know war. They see through the empty jingoism of those who use the abstract words of glory, honor, and patriotism to mask the cries of the wounded, the senseless killing, war profiteering, and chest-pounding grief. They know the lies the victors often do not acknowledge, the lies covered up in stately war memorials and mythic war narratives, filled with words of courage and comradeship. They know the lies that permeate the thick, self-important memoirs by amoral statesmen who make wars but do not know war.

The vanquished know the essence of war -- death. They grasp that war is necrophilia. They see that war is a state of almost pure sin with its goals of hatred and destruction. They know how war fosters alienation, leads inevitably to nihilism, and is a turning away from the sanctity and preservation of life. All other narratives about war too easily fall prey to the allure and seductiveness of violence, as well as the attraction of the godlike power that comes with the license to kill with impunity.

But the words of the vanquished come later, sometimes long after the war, when grown men and women unpack the suffering they endured as children, what it was like to see their mother or father killed or taken away, or what it was like to lose their homes, their community, their security, and be discarded as human refuse. But by then few listen. The truth about war comes out, but usually too late. We are assured by the war-makers that these stories have no bearing on the glorious violent enterprise the nation is about to inaugurate. And, lapping up the myth of war and its sense of empowerment, we prefer not to look.

We see the war in Iraq only through the distorted lens of the occupiers. The embedded reporters, dependent on the military for food and transportation as well as security, have a natural and understandable tendency, one I have myself felt, to protect those who are protecting them. They are not allowed to report outside of the unit and are, in effect, captives. They have no relationships with the occupied, essential to all balanced reporting of conflicts, but only with the Marines and soldiers who drive through desolate mud-walled towns and pump grenades and machine-gun bullets into houses, leaving scores of nameless dead and wounded in their wake. The reporters admire and laud these fighters for their physical courage. They feel protected as well by the jet fighters and heavy artillery and throaty rattle of machine guns. And the reporting, even among those who struggle to keep some distance, usually descends into a shameful cheerleading.

There is no more candor in Iraq or Afghanistan than there was in Vietnam, but in the age of live satellite feeds the military has perfected the appearance of candor. What we are fed is the myth of war. For the myth of war, the myth of glory and honor sells newspapers and boosts ratings, real war reporting does not. Ask the grieving parents of Pat Tillman. Nearly every embedded war correspondent sees his or her mission as sustaining civilian and army morale. This is what passes for coverage on FOX, MSNBC or CNN. In wartime, as Senator Hiram Johnson reminded us in 1917, "truth is the first casualty."

All our knowledge of the war in Iraq has to be viewed as lacking the sweep and depth that will come one day, perhaps years from now, when a small Iraqi boy or girl reaches adulthood and unfolds for us the sad and tragic story of the invasion and bloody occupation of their nation.

I have spent most of my adult life in war. I began two decades ago covering wars in Central America, where I spent five years, then the Middle East, where I spent seven, and the Balkans where I covered the wars in Bosnia and Kosovo. My life has been marred, let me say deformed, by the organized industrial violence that year after year was an intimate part of my existence. I have watched young men bleed to death on lonely Central American dirt roads and cobblestone squares in Sarajevo. I have looked into the eyes of mothers, kneeing over the lifeless and mutilated bodies of their children. I have stood in warehouses with rows of corpses, including children, and breathed death into my lungs. I carry within me the ghosts of those I worked with, my comrades, now gone.

I have felt the attraction of violence. I know its seductiveness, excitement and the powerful addictive narcotic it can become. The young soldiers, trained well enough to be disciplined but encouraged to maintain their naive adolescent belief in invulnerability, have in wartime more power at their fingertips than they will ever have again. They catapult from being minimum wage employees at places like Burger King, facing a life of dead-end jobs with little hope of health insurance and adequate benefits, to being part of, in the words of the Marines, "the greatest fighting force on the face of the earth." The disparity between what they were and what they have become is breathtaking and intoxicating. This intoxication is only heightened in wartime when all taboos are broken. Murder goes unpunished and often rewarded. The thrill of destruction fills their days with wild adrenaline highs, strange grotesque landscapes that are hallucinogenic, all accompanied by a sense of purpose and comradeship, overpowers the alienation many left behind. They become accustomed to killing, carrying out acts of slaughter with no more forethought than they take to relieve themselves. And the abuses committed against the helpless prisoners in Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo are not aberrations but the real face of war. In wartime all human beings become objects, objects either to gratify or destroy or both. And almost no one is immune. The contagion of the crowd sees to that.

"Force," Simon Weil wrote, "is as pitiless to the man who possess it, or thinks he does, as it is to his victim. The second it crushes; the first it intoxicates."

This myth, the lie, about war, about ourselves, is imploding our democracy. We shun introspection and self-criticism. We ignore truth, to embrace the strange, disquieting certitude and hubris offered by the radical Christian Right. These radical Christians draw almost exclusively from the book of Revelations, the only time in the Gospels where Jesus sanctions violence, peddling a vision of Christ as the head of a great and murderous army of heavenly avengers. They rarely speak about Christ's message of love, forgiveness and compassion. They relish the cataclysmic destruction that will befall unbelievers, including those such as myself, who they dismiss as "nominal Christians." They divide the world between good and evil, between those anointed to act as agents of God and those who act as agents of Satan. The cult of masculinity and esthetic of violence pervades their ideology. Feminism and homosexuality are forces, believers are told, that have rendered the American male physically and spiritually impotent. Jesus, for the Christian Right, is a man of action, casting out demons, battling the Anti-Christ, attacking hypocrites and castigating the corrupt. The language is one not only of exclusion, hatred and fear, but a call for apocalyptic violence, in short the language of war.

As the war grinds forward, as we sink into a morass of our own creation, as our press and political opposition, and yes even our great research universities, remain complacent and passive, as we refuse to confront the forces that have crippled us outside our gates and are working to cripple us within, the ideology of the Christian Right, so intertwined with intolerance and force, will become the way we speak not only to others but among ourselves.

n war, we always deform ourselves, our essence. We give up individual conscience -- maybe even consciousness -- for contagion of the crowd, the rush of patriotism, the belief that we must stand together as nation in moments of extremity. To make a moral choice, to defy war's enticement, to find moral courage, can be self-destructive.

The attacks on the World Trade Center illustrate that those who oppose us, rather than coming from another moral universe, have been schooled well in modern warfare. The dramatic explosions, the fireballs, the victims plummeting to their deaths, the collapse of the towers in Manhattan, were straight out of Hollywood. Where else, but from the industrialized world, did the suicide bombers learn that huge explosions and death above a city skyline are a peculiar and effective form of communication? They have mastered the language we have taught them. They understand that the use of indiscriminate violence against innocents is a way to make a statement. We leave the same calling cards. We delivered such incendiary messages in Vietnam, Serbia, Afghanistan and Iraq. It was Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara who in the summer of 1965 defined the bombing raids that would kill hundreds of thousands of civilians north of Saigon as a means of communication to the Communist regime in Hanoi.

The most powerful anti-war testaments, of war and what war does to us, are those that eschew images of combat. It is the suffering of the veteran whose body and mind are changed forever because he or she served a nation that sacrificed them, the suffering of families and children caught up in the unforgiving maw of war, which begin to tell the story of war. But we are not allowed to see dead bodies, at least of our own soldiers, nor do we see the wounds that forever mark a life, the wounds that leave faces and bodies horribly disfigured by burns or shrapnel. We never watch the agony of the dying. War is made palatable. It is sanitized. We are allowed to taste war's perverse thrill, but spared from seeing war's consequences. The wounded and the dead are swiftly carted offstage. And for this I blame the press, which willingly hides from us the effects of bullets, roadside bombs and rocket-propelled grenades, which sat at the feet of those who lied to make this war possible and dutifully reported these lies and called it journalism.

War is always about this betrayal. It is about the betrayal of the young by the old, idealists by cynics and finally soldiers by politicians. Those who pay the price, those who are maimed forever by war, however, are crumpled up and thrown away. We do not see them. We do not hear them. They are doomed, like wandering spirits, to float around the edges of our consciousness, ignored, even reviled. The message they bring is too painful for us to hear. We prefer the myth of war, the myth of glory, honor, patriotism and heroism, words that in the terror and brutality of combat are empty, meaningless and obscene.

We are losing the war in Iraq. We are an isolated and reviled nation. We are pitiless to others weaker than ourselves. We have lost sight of our democratic ideals. Thucydides wrote of Athens expanding empire and how this empire led it to become a tyrant abroad and then a tyrant at home. The tyranny Athens imposed on others it finally imposed on itself. If we do not confront the lies and hubris told to justify the killing and mask the destruction carried out in our name in Iraq, if we do not grasp the moral corrosiveness of empire and occupation, if we continue to allow force and violence to be our primary form of communication, if we do not remove from power our flag waving, cross bearing versions of the Taliban, we will not so much defeat dictators such as Saddam Hussein as become them.
_________________________________

*Chris Hedges has been a war reporter for 15 years most recently for the New York Times. He is author of What Every person Should Know About War, a book that offers a critical lesson in the dangerous realities of war, and the critically acclaimed War is a Force that Gives Us Meaning.

dissidentvoice.org



To: Raymond Duray who wrote (17600)6/13/2005 2:52:14 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 20773
 
Building a Left Wing CNN

thetyee.ca



To: Raymond Duray who wrote (17600)6/13/2005 2:59:35 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 20773
 
IWTnews Website Launch: June 15, 2005

iwtnews.com

Launch Plan

<<...The network is raising a $7 million start-up budget from individual donors and foundations. MacArthur, Ford and Haas foundations have contributed to a planning study. In its next phase, IWTnews will launch its web site and build the online community necessary for the international mass fundraising campaign launching in early 2006. The campaign will use concerts and media events headlined by socially-conscious celebrities to drive the Internet fundraising. If half a million people in the entire world contribute just $50, IWTnews will secure the $25 million it needs to fund its first year of broadcasting, in 2007...>>

_______________________________

WHY DOESN'T GEORGE SOROS WRITE THESE GUYS A BIG CHECK AND LETS GET THIS NEW NETWORK UP TO SPEED ASAP...;-)



To: Raymond Duray who wrote (17600)6/13/2005 3:35:24 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 20773
 
Over Six months ago I predicted that Ed Schultz would become a BIG progressive talk show host...

Radio vets purchase Ed Schultz; Liberal talk gains business credibility

RAW STORY
By John Byrne
rawstory.com

Two radio executives who made Clear Channel and Rush Limbaugh household are to announce today they have purchased The Ed Schultz show, America’s fastest-growing talk show in the country, RAW STORY has learned.

Veteran radio execs Randy Michaels and Stu Krane purchased the show from Democracy Radio, a non-profit which helps seed progressive talk radio hosts. Michaels’ and Krane’s new company, P1 will now carry the show. The protracted sale has been in the works since March.

The deal puts the North Dakota talker in the driver’s seat of a burgeoning liberal radio revolution, a sign that those who made right wing radio the ubiquitous voice it is today see financial promise in liberal talk.

Michaels, formerly CEO of Clear Channel Radio, has been credited with the firm’s awesome radio growth; his critics say he has homogenized the medium on a national scale. Krane was a partner in the firm that developed Rush Limbaugh, and previously worked as Vice President for ABC and Premiere Radio.

“I am excited to be back on the cutting edge of talk radio,” Krane said in a statement. “Ed Schultz is the ultimate personality to carry that format forward.”

Schultz told RAW STORY he’d never imagined such a partnership could happen.

“It’s unquestionably the biggest professional break that I’ve ever had in 27 years of the business,” he said.

Schultz acknowledges some of his listeners will cry havoc when they hear the man who made Limbaugh a star has bought his show, but says it should be understood as a sign that progressive radio is here to stay.


The 51-year-old talker has seen his fair share of praise and criticism. He draws senators up and down the Democratic aisle as guests, but hasn’t been afraid to call out those he finds issue with, such as MoveOn.org and recently Howard Dean.

“I understand this is going to raise red flags for progressives, especially those out there on the blogosphere that have been comfortable taking shots at me from the very beginning,” Schultz said. “First they said I was owned and paid for by the Democratic Party, now they’re going to say I’m owned and paid for by people who are obviously Republicans.”

“The conspiracy nuts can have their way with this, but what they really need to know is this is still going to be just me, my two Fargo-based producers, my wife and I developing the content for the show every day,” he added. “Hell, I don’t use talking points. You just get my take on what’s happening in the news.”

Schultz’s producer James Holm, who hails from the straight-talking vein, says he’s interested to see how the right will respond.

“This is going to be a hard pill for established right-wing media to swallow,” Holm told RAW STORY. “They’ve championed the talk-down culture and I guarantee you that Drudge is not going to touch this, because there is no way for the right to spin this story to make progressive radio or Ed Schultz look bad. This is a clear victory, and it’s gotta have them shaking in their boots.”

Schultz, too, believes the deal demonstrates progressive talk radio’s profitability and permanence. He says he’s looking forward to being part of the conversation in the midterm 2006 elections and the 2008 presidential race.

“I remember back in January I was on Fox News with Bill O’Reilly, and he pretty much took a shot at me, saying that we weren’t a commercial venture and that we were running our show on political money,” Schultz remarked. “And I told him we were a commercial venture.

“If O’Reilly is fair and balanced,” he added, “he’ll ask me to come back on the air—not to mention that I’m beating him in Denver.”

Terms of the agreement were not disclosed. A recent Newsweek article stated Schultz has the fastest-growing radio show since Limbaugh’s — currently in 95 markets, he’s shooting for 200 by year’s end.


The show will continue to be syndicated by Jones Radio Networks, a Denver-based distributor.



To: Raymond Duray who wrote (17600)6/13/2005 5:45:25 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 20773
 
We Can Win (With or without the NYT)...

cntodd.blogspot.com



To: Raymond Duray who wrote (17600)6/14/2005 4:36:59 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 20773
 
Old Guard Democrats Need to Get Out of the Way

huffingtonpost.com

<<...I ask these Democratic leaders – who have lead us through a string of more heartbreaking losses than the Chicago White Sox – what possible good can come from trying to distance yourself from the chairman of your own party?

I never thought I’d say this but perhaps Rush Limbaugh was right, the Democrats are more afraid of Christians than Al Qaeda.

How hard would it have been for Pelosi, instead of rushing to publicly chastise Dean, to have instead attacked the opposition with, “I’m a Christian, Dr. Dean is too. The real issue is that the Republican party is no longer a big tent. It’s just a tent pole. The reason this President’s approval ratings are at the lowest of his presidency is that all Americans, regardless of religion or race, realize his narrow views are out of step with the pluralistic democratic values that have made this nation such a shining beacon of hope.”

It’s not rocket science, it’s Judo: parry their attack and then use their own momentum to slam them against the mat. That's the only way you win, not cowering in fear and trembling in a corner.

Now is the time to attack and attack hard. Thanks to the Downing Street Memo it is now a proven fact that this President lied us into a war, the most serious breech of trust ever committed by a sitting President against our nation.

Republicans should be on the ropes right now, frantically scrounging to re-secure their slim majority. Instead, they press on as if they had won in a landslide and still enjoy broad support. They attack environmental standards, try to pack the courts and public television with right-wing ideologues, do their damndest to rob from the middle to give to the top.

And what does the Democratic leadership do while the Republicans flex their imaginary muscles? They tattletale, they call each other names.

I’m convinced John Kerry would be President right now if it were not for his whimpy handling of the Swift Boat fracas. As Josh Marshall and others pointed out at the time, Kerry’s laying on the ropes and taking a beating by the Swifties demoralized anyone who was ever even considering voting for him. If he wouldn’t defend himself from a gang of shellshocked nutjobs how could he defend us from Al Qaeda? How could Dems have still not have learned that lesson? It is at least the appearance of strength, of fire, cojones, that excites voters, not mealy-mouthed equivocation.

So the next time a Democratic leader has the urge to eat another one of our own I urge them to stop and ask themselves, “WWKRD.” “What would Karl Rove do?”...>>