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 : Bush Administration's Media Manipulation--MediaGate? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: steve harris who wrote (4771)8/21/2005 9:22:24 PM
From: 10K a day  Respond to of 9838
 
What comes up comes up. It's perfect in the big picture. People can change their mind. Things change. People change. Everything changes. Bush can't win this because he never does anything different.



To: steve harris who wrote (4771)8/22/2005 12:10:41 AM
From: Mighty_Mezz  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 9838
 
Maybe she hadn't yet read the Downing Street Memo at the time she said that.



To: steve harris who wrote (4771)8/22/2005 10:43:03 AM
From: Proud_Infidel  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 9838
 
Thanks to paret for finding this:

Liberals First, Americans Second: San Francisco No Longer Supports the U.S. Military

by Mac Johnson HUMAN EVENTS Aug 22, 2005

Liberals often lamented, during the election of 2004, that the presence of war gave a natural advantage to Republicans. For some unknown reason, most Americans do not trust Liberals to run a war, or treat the military well, or even put America’s international interests above pet social causes.

The anti-war left responded to this belief with a set of standard talking points: Liberals oppose the war, but they support the troops. They hate the President’s policies, but they respect and honor the military and their sacrifice.

Somebody, however, forgot to send the memo to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, which last month stunned veterans groups, local businesses and even Diane Feinstein when it voted 8-3 to banish the USS Iowa from San Francisco Bay.

The historic World War II battleship, namesake of the Iowa class, carried President Roosevelt home from the 1943 Tehran meeting with Stalin and Churchill, fought in the Pacific (including at Truk, the Marshall Islands, and the Battle of the Philippine Sea), was Admiral Halsey’s flagship at the Japanese surrender, and later fought in the Korean War.

It was destined to become a floating museum at Fisherman’s Wharf in San Francisco –a memorial and tribute to the men that served, fought and died on her in World War II, Korea and afterward. California Senator Diane Feinstein, a former mayor of San Francisco, had secured the Iowa to add to the tourism revenue of her hometown and had already spent $3,000,000 in Federal funding to have the grand old ship towed from the mothball fleet in Rhode Island, through the Panama Canal, to California.

But the anti-military Government of San Francisco will not accept the ship, because the Supervisors oppose the Iraq war, do not wish to glorify the military and its “machinery of war,” and the manic gay rights movement is mad about the Clinton “Don’t ask, Don’t tell” policy on homosexuals serving in the military, a policy once hailed as a major gay rights victory. Also, San Francisco wishes to only build “Peace” monuments –you know, like Ho Chi Minh Park.

Because of the radical anti-military politics of eight of San Francisco’s Board Members, the city will be denied an attraction, veterans will be denied their memorial, and the men and women serving our country all over the world have been told that San Francisco no longer wishes to support them or their dreaded machines at all.

Apparently, “anti-war” now includes World War II as well. What’s next? Does the Board plan on officially removing the sailor from the “Village People?” Can San Franciscans still sing "In The Navy" without fear of being labeled fascists?

In case anyone might not get the message that the Board does not like America very much, Supervisor Chris Daly clarified things after the vote: “I am sad to say I am not proud of the history of the United States of America since the 1940s,” he remarked. This statement is, of course, patently dishonest, in that it implies that Daly is proud of America’s History before the 1940’s. And if the 1940’s are so great, why vote down what was, essentially, a monument to WWII sailors?

San Francisco has made it clear that it no longer desires an association with America’s military. Would the Board of Supervisors now like to carry this to the next logical step and announce to terrorists and others that they no longer desire the protection of our military? Can it, in good conscience ask Coast Guard and Navy crews to respond to any potential disaster in the city? Would the city like to ask that the Federal Base Closure and Realignment Commission spare naval bases in places like Portsmouth, NH (where folks actually like our military and are proud of our history both before and since the 1940’s), and instead close bases in Northern California?

And if the Board’s motivation is tolerance for gays, why refuse to honor the men that defeated the Axis in World War II –and don’t play ignorant, Supervisor Duffy, because I know you’ve seen Cabaret. Likewise, in Iraq and Afghanistan, we are fighting against men who, should they achieve their stated goal of an Islamist world state, will not simply question the right of homosexuals to celebrate their sexuality in public, or have gay unions declared as equivalent to traditional marriage by government, they will kill gays… in public, in front of children and explain to all that this is what God has in mind for homosexuals. This is what Al-Qaeda believes. This is what the Taliban did.

One of the anti-Iowa Supervisors, Ross Mirkarimi, himself an Iranian-American, recently introduced a measure condemning the scheduled hanging in Iran of two teenage boys –to be executed by the Islamist state simply for being gay. Well, guess who is keeping such executions from becoming the norm in Iraq and a dozen other countries right now? Could it be the U.S. military? Do you really wish to demoralize it or encourage the Islamists with your petty anti-military grandstanding?

If, God forbid, San Francisco is ever attacked, the men of the military that rush in will not deny to the city the patriotic loyalty and respect that has been denied to them. They will save liberal, moderate and conservative alike. Unlike the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, they will be bigger than their politics. They will be Americans first. How little some people deserve their sacrifice.

After hearing of the vote, liberal Senator Feinstein called it a ''very petty decision.” Adding, ‘‘this isn't the San Francisco that I've known and loved and grew up in and was born in.”

For once Diane Feinstein and I agree. But the question now is: What are you going to do about it, Sen. Feinstein? You have immeasurable power in the Democratic Party of San Francisco and could likely unseat these people in the primaries if you tried. But you won’t. There is a reason why the earnestness of the left’s patriotism is openly questioned: it is because you tolerate and support blatantly anti-American nuts in your midst.

The USS Iowa will likely end up now in the Town of Stockton, California, a small agricultural port that is overjoyed to host her. Veterans and other Americans vacationing in Northern California may wish to leave their hearts in Stockton for a while.

Mr. Johnson is a freelance writer and medical researcher living in Cambridge, MA. His published commentaries can be viewed at www.macjohnson.com.



To: steve harris who wrote (4771)8/24/2005 3:09:56 PM
From: Proud_Infidel  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 9838
 
Memo: Suicide bomber tried to enter U.S.
Wednesday, August 24, 2005; Posted: 1:54 p.m. EDT (17:54 GMT)

cnn.com

WASHINGTON (AP) -- U.S. Customs authorities blocked a Jordanian man from entering the country 20 months before he was accused of carrying out an Iraq suicide bombing, according to an internal Homeland Security memo obtained Wednesday.

The August 22 memo to Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff credited Customs agents with identifying Ra'ed Mansour al-Banna as a suspicious traveler on June 14, 2003, when he flew into Chicago's O'Hare International Airport.

"While it is not clear that al-Banna was a suicidal jihadist, the basis for denying him entry was that CBP (Customs and Border Protection) officers that interviewed him believed his intent for entering ... was inconsistent with the purpose of his visa," wrote Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Robert C. Bonner.

Al-Banna has been accused of carrying out one of Iraq's deadliest suicide bombing -- the February 28 attack in Hillah that killed 125 people.

But the Jordanian government and al-Banna's family said he carried out a different suicide bombing in Iraq in which he was killed. The terrorist group al Qaeda in Iraq claimed responsibility for the Hillah bombing.

The Homeland Security memo, a copy of which was obtained by The Associated Press, said al-Banna was carrying a valid Jordanian passport and valid work visa. But the Customs agents believed the passport was falsified, and ultimately rejected al-Banna's entry after secondary security screening and questioning, said Customs spokeswoman Kristi Clemens.

Al-Banna's denied entry into the United States was briefly mentioned in an April report in Time Magazine.



To: steve harris who wrote (4771)8/24/2005 6:05:18 PM
From: Proud_Infidel  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 9838
 
It is universally acknowledged that public support for the Iraq war is eroding. Some of the polls supporting this claim are faulty because they are based on obviously misleading internal data, but the basic point cannot be denied: many Americans, possibly even a majority, have turned against the war.

This should hardly be a surprise. On the contrary, how could it be otherwise? News reporting on the war consists almost entirely of itemizing casualties. Headlines say: "Two Marines killed by roadside bomb." Rarely do the accompanying stories--let alone the headlines that are all that most people read--explain where the Marines were going, or why; what strategic objective they and their comrades were pursuing, and how successful they were in achieving it; or how many terrorists were also killed. For Americans who do not seek out alternative news sources like this one, the war in Iraq is little but a succession of American casualties. The wonder is that so many Americans do, nevertheless, support it.

The sins of the news media in reporting on Iraq are mainly sins of omission. Not only do news outlets generally fail to report the progress that is being made, and often fail to put military operations into any kind of tactical or strategic perspective, they assiduously avoid talking about the overarching strategic reason for our involvement there: the Bush administration's conviction that the only way to solve the problem of Islamic terrorism, long term, is to help liberate the Arab countries so that their peoples' energies will be channelled into the peaceful pursuits of free enterprise and democracy, rather than into bizarre ideologies and terrorism. Partly this omission is due to laziness or incomprehension, but I think it is mostly attributable to the fact that if the media acknowledged that reforming the Arab world, in order to drain the terrorist swamp, has always been the principal purpose of the Iraq war, it would take the sting out of their "No large stockpiles of WMDs!" theme.

One wonders how past wars could have been fought if news reporting had consisted almost entirely of a recitation of casualties. The D-Day invasion was one of the greatest organizational feats ever achieved by human beings, and one of the most successful. But what if the only news Americans had gotten about the invasion was that 2,500 allied soldiers died that day, with no discussion of whether the invasion was a success or a failure, and no acknowledgement of the huge strategic stakes that were involved? Or what if such news coverage had continued, day by day, through the entire Battle of Normandy, with Americans having no idea whether the battle was being won or lost, but knowing only that 54,000 Allied troops had been killed by the Germans?

How about the Battle of Midway, one of the most one-sided and strategically significant battles of world history? What if there had been no "triumphalism"--that dreaded word--in the American media's reporting on the battle, and Americans had learned only that 307 Americans died--never mind that the Japanese lost more than ten times that many--without being told the decisive significance of the engagement?

Or take Iwo Jima, the iconic Marine Corps battle. If Americans knew only that nearly 7,000 Marines lost their lives there, with no context, no strategy, and only sporadic acknowledgement of the heroism that accompanied those thousands of deaths, would the American people have continued the virtually unanimous support for our country, our soldiers and our government that characterized World War II?

We are conducting an experiment never before seen, as far as I know, in the history of the human race. We are trying to fight a war under the auspices of an establishment that is determined--to put the most charitable face on it--to emphasize American casualties over all other information about the war.

Sometimes it becomes necessary to state the obvious: being a soldier is a dangerous thing. This is why we honor our service members' courage. For a soldier, sailor or Marine, "courage" isn't an easily-abused abstraction--"it took a lot of courage to vote against the farm bill"--it's a requirement of the job.

Even in peacetime. The media's breathless tabulation of casualties in Iraq--now, over 1,800 deaths--is generally devoid of context. Here's some context: between 1983 and 1996, 18,006 American military personnel died accidentally in the service of their country. That death rate of 1,286 per year exceeds the rate of combat deaths in Iraq by a ratio of nearly two to one.

That's right: all through the years when hardly anyone was paying attention, soldiers, sailors and Marines were dying in accidents, training and otherwise, at nearly twice the rate of combat deaths in Iraq from the start of the war in 2003 to the present. Somehow, though, when there was no political hay to be made, I don't recall any great outcry, or gleeful reporting, or erecting of crosses in the President's home town. In fact, I'll offer a free six-pack to the first person who can find evidence that any liberal expressed concern--any concern--about the 18,006 American service members who died accidentally in service of their country from 1983 to 1996.

The point? Being a soldier is not safe, and never will be. Driving in my car this afternoon, I heard a mainstream media reporter say that around 2,000 service men and women have died in Afghanistan and Iraq "on President Bush's watch." As though the job of the Commander in Chief were to make the jobs of our soldiers safe. They're not safe, and they never will be safe, in peacetime, let alone wartime.

What is the President's responsibility? To expend our most precious resources only when necessary, in service of the national interest. We would all prefer that our soldiers never be required to fight. Everyone--most of all, every politician--much prefers peace to war. But when our enemies fly airplanes into our skyscrapers; attack the nerve center of our armed forces; bomb our embassies; scheme to blow up our commercial airliners; try to assassinate our former President; do their best to shoot down our military aircraft; murder our citizens; assassinate our diplomats overseas; and attack our naval vessels--well, then, the time has come to fight. And when the time comes to fight, our military personnel are ready. They don't ask to be preserved from all danger. They know their job is dangerous; they knew that when they signed up. They are prepared to face the risk, on our behalf. All they ask is to be allowed to win.

It is, I think, a reasonable request. It's the least that we--all Americans, including reporters and editors--can do.