Thursday, May 3, 2007
Police State Amerka
By PETER PRENGAMAN
LOS ANGELES (AP) - Police Chief William J. Bratton on Wednesday promised an investigation into the conduct of police who dispersed an immigration rally, after videos captured officers using force with reporters and firing rubber bullets into crowds.
Bratton said officers fired 240 "nonlethal" rounds to clear MacArthur Park late Tuesday. News images showed police hitting a television cameraman to the ground, shoving people who were walking away from officers and injuries from the rubber bullets, including a Hispanic man with welts on his abdomen and back. Lines of officers moved through the park firing the rubber rounds.
"The events of yesterday, with all (the training) that we do, should not have occurred," Bratton said at a tense news conference. "We should not be engaged in attacks on the media."
Rally organizers denounced the police action as brutal.
(AP) This video image provided by KVEA/Telemundo shows shows a Los Angeles Police Department officer,...Full Image
With Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa away in El Salvador, City Council President Eric Garcetti spoke to viewers of the televised news conference in English and Spanish, stressing the duty to protect the people's right to assemble and for "a free and unencumbered news media."
John Mack - president of the five-member Police Commission, which sets policty for the Police Department - said he was "deeply disturbed and very disappointed" by the images.
"This was not a pretty picture. This incident raises serious concern regarding the use of force by some individual officers," said Mack, who is one of Bratton's bosses. The civilian commission has opened its own investigation.
Bratton said the clash occurred over 45 minutes to an hour as the rally wound down. Police were initially trying to deal with 50 to 100 "agitators," he said.
"The individuals were there to provoke police," Bratton said. "Unfortunately, they got what they came for."
(AP) Los Angeles police Chief William J. Bratton, center, and his top brass listen to City Council...Full Image
Rally organizers and reporters said the clashes started around 6 p.m., when police tried to disperse demonstrators who moved into a street. Authorities said several people threw rocks and bottles at officers, who used batons to push the crowd back to the sidewalk and then cleared the park.
Eight adults and a minor were arrested on charges ranging from public alcohol consumption to assault with a deadly weapon for throwing a rock at a police officer, Bratton said.
Seven officers suffered minor injuries, and another was pushed off his motorcycle, he said.
About 10 people were treated for minor injuries, though authorities expected the number to rise.
The 600 officers at the scene included 100 from the elite Metropolitan Division, considered among the department's most highly trained, who cleared the park.
Democratic Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez, who represents the park district, said police deliberately led troublemakers back to the peaceful marchers before beginning their assault.
"The only logical conclusion I can come to is that somebody wanted it to bleed into the march so that they can do some target practice on some of the immigrants that were marching," Nunez said.
The police order to disperse was in English and from a police helicopter, a likely ineffective tactic because of the noise and because many at the protest were Spanish-speakers, Bratton said.
Many caught in the melee were journalists.
KTTV reporter Christina Gonzales suffered a separated shoulder, while camerawoman Patti Ballaz had a broken wrist and possibly a broken hand, said Fox Television Stations spokeswoman Erica Keane.
KPCC radio reporter Patricia Nazario said she was hit in the back and ribs with a baton, then hit her head and twisted her ankle while falling from a blow. She described an interaction with an officer who was hitting her.
KCAL-TV cameraman Carl Stein said that his camera was tossed and that he was thrown to the ground.
"I'm sore, and I'm sore about what happened," Stein told viewers. "It was like open season - take a whack, have at it."
Angela Sanbrano, a rally organizer, said she saw "a few young men with their faces covered" provoking police. But instead of just dealing with them, she said, police began forcing everyone out of the park.
"They were pushing children, elderly, mothers with their babies and beating up on the media," Sanbrano said.
The Los Angeles march was one of many nationwide demanding a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants.
---
Contributing to this report were Associated Press writers Don Thompson in Sacramento and Jeremiah Marquez and Michael R. Blood in Los Angeles.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.
Bush? Apologize? When Pigs Fly
Junior will never apologize for anything he has done; not for the blood on his hands, the deception and fear-mongering, the war crimes and the dismantling of our Constitution...no, not any of it.
He isn't ashamed of anything he has done.
As a matter of fact, he plans on leaving the entire mess for someone else to clean up, just as he has always done.
Bush has a lot of apologizing to do
By Stanley I. Kutler
President Bush has reiterated his oft-repeated assertion that we must support the troops. He must not be allowed to monopolize "patriotism," "the flag," and "the troops." The rest of us can pay our respect to the idea of the nation, in our own mindful way, and as we see fit. On his own grounds, however, the president has a lot to answer for.
He can begin to support our troops by, first, apologizing to the family of Pat Tillman; second, apologizing to Jessica Lynch and her family; and third, apologizing to the soldiers and their families who are going through the enormous burden of three tours of duty.
He can then hold a photo op at Walter Reed Hospital, pledge to rid the hospital of its rat infestation, and then apologize to the wounded veterans and their families for his administration's lack of support.
The president likes to dismiss Congress -- meaning Democrats who are not loyal to his war -- for asserting its constitutional powers.
"Micromanagers," he scoffs, in his best patronizing manner. He insists that we listen to our military leaders, and not Congress/Democrats.
Well, he might remember that he removed Gen. George Casey and Gen. John P. Abizaid precisely because he did not want to listen to them. They did not tell him what he wanted to hear. Unfortunately for Bush, he cannot so simply dismiss Congress.
Stanley I. Kutler is a retired UW-Madison history professor and an expert on President Nixon and the Watergate scandal.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.
He isn't ashamed of anything he has done.
As a matter of fact, he plans on leaving the entire mess for someone else to clean up, just as he has always done.
Bush has a lot of apologizing to do
By Stanley I. Kutler
President Bush has reiterated his oft-repeated assertion that we must support the troops. He must not be allowed to monopolize "patriotism," "the flag," and "the troops." The rest of us can pay our respect to the idea of the nation, in our own mindful way, and as we see fit. On his own grounds, however, the president has a lot to answer for.
He can begin to support our troops by, first, apologizing to the family of Pat Tillman; second, apologizing to Jessica Lynch and her family; and third, apologizing to the soldiers and their families who are going through the enormous burden of three tours of duty.
He can then hold a photo op at Walter Reed Hospital, pledge to rid the hospital of its rat infestation, and then apologize to the wounded veterans and their families for his administration's lack of support.
The president likes to dismiss Congress -- meaning Democrats who are not loyal to his war -- for asserting its constitutional powers.
"Micromanagers," he scoffs, in his best patronizing manner. He insists that we listen to our military leaders, and not Congress/Democrats.
Well, he might remember that he removed Gen. George Casey and Gen. John P. Abizaid precisely because he did not want to listen to them. They did not tell him what he wanted to hear. Unfortunately for Bush, he cannot so simply dismiss Congress.
Stanley I. Kutler is a retired UW-Madison history professor and an expert on President Nixon and the Watergate scandal.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.
Rosie And The Hateful Right
Why do right-wing pundits hate Rosie O'Donnell so much? Because she was the lone ardently progressive voice in corporate news programming.
By Jennifer L. Pozner
Web Exclusive: 05.01.07
"Boy, I'm going to miss attacking her," quipped MSNBC's Tucker Carlson after Rosie O'Donnell announced that she will leave The View in June over a contract dispute with ABC.
Carlson isn't the only journalist who will miss the woman who served as conservative cable news hosts' favorite punching bag for the past year. "I could always count on Rosie O'Donnell saying something completely out of her mind insane every day," Glenn Beck, CNN's resident anti-Rosie ranter, mused, "And for a guy who does three hours of radio every day, do you know how much money I've made off of that?"
Indeed, Beck and his bombastic broadcast buddies have spent the last year bashing the mouthy talk show host all the way to the bank. During her eight-month tenure on The View, a Nexis search shows O'Donnell was berated 186 times by Bill O'Reilly, 91 times by Sean Hannity on Fox News, 41 times by the now-wistful Carlson, and 71 times by MSNBC's Joe Scarborough -- who once called her a "fat, ugly, bully, pimp, loser, ignorant, terrible person, animal. Did I say fat?" If that's not bad enough, a whopping 2,911 local, national network and cable news stories have quoted Donald Trump trash-talking O'Donnell, calling her "disgusting," "crude," "arrogant," "pushy," "self-destructive," "a degenerate," "a stone-cold loser" and so hideous that her wife must be grossed out "having to kiss that every night."
Considering this collective vendetta, it's no surprise that O'Donnell turned down a reported $30 million rather than commit to three more years of this treatment -- nor that the news of her departure was greeted with a rousing chorus of "Ding dong, the witch is dead." But while the rumor mill is buzzing about why she's moving on, the more compelling question is why she aroused such agita in the zeitgeist from the moment she began offering her uncompromising views.
It's tempting to write off the media's ridiculously vehement reaction to O'Donnell as solely the result of good old-fashioned sexism on the part of arrogant boys who aren't accustomed to sharing their celluloid sandbox with a girl -- especially a non-girlie girl who cares more about what comes out of her mouth than what color lip-gloss adorns it. That bias has absolutely been in play -- but there's more beneath the rage of her detractors than simple macho hazing.
The anti-Rosie backlash is indicative of nothing so much as the stiflingly limited range of debate allowed within the corporate media, whose gatekeepers want to erase true leftist dissent in America. Over the past year, O'Donnell has brought a consistently progressive, feminist voice to ABC's kaffeeklatsch and, in doing so, allowed daily television viewers entree into discussions wholly missing from the mainstream media lineup. She burst onto the public stage like a lefty tornado, loud and insistent, using her daytime post like a bullhorn at a peace march. (Who else on network television would have allowed actress Olympia Dukakis to declare that "The world can't wait to drive out the Bush regime" during an interview about her latest romantic comedy?)
O'Donnell has regularly denounced the Iraq war, blasted government-sanctioned torture, and spoken out adamantly against the president not only for the war but for what she considers his racist failure during Hurricane Katrina, his corrupt ties to corporate string-pullers, and his stoking of anti-Americanism abroad. And she says this at a time when opponents of the Bush administration are still being branded "un-American." Indeed, on Scarborough Country last month, guest Danny Bonaduce actually suggested that, "If anybody had a rope thick enough, I think that Rosie should be strung up for treason."
But unlike MSNBC's Keith Olbermann, whose ballyhooed liberal ire is mostly targeted at Bush's war, O'Donnell has also been an outspoken advocate for women's reproductive freedom, gay rights, gun control, mental health care, and a variety of other issues rarely discussed on TV from a feminist perspective. Besides, have you ever heard a prominent media figure declare, "I'm fat and I'm gay" in the same blithe manner as she trades parenting tips or ponders who should be booted off American Idol?
O'Donnell was an instantly controversial figure because she dared to upset the traditional TV balance of fiery conservatives debating centrists and, occasionally, tepid liberals (think The McLaughlin Group, or actually, the pre-Rosie View). In this climate, the talking heads treated O'Donnell's daily ruminations as if she was speaking in some sort of Martian code, rather than recognizing her simply as a passionate progressive woman who advocates her beliefs with the same vociferous zeal as do right-leaning O'Reilly, Scarborough, Hannity, Beck, Carlson, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and many other network news show hosts and pundits every single day.
Despite their dominance over the journalistic landscape, the overwhelmingly male punditocracy were so threatened by intellectual competition that they began gunning for O'Donnell's job shortly after her View debut. Back in September -- her second week on the air -- two Scarborough Country episodes encouraged ABC to censor or even fire her for saying that radical Christianity is as dangerous as radical Islam. Guests like GOP strategist Jack Burkman called O'Donnell's comment "one of the most mindless and terrible things ever said on American television! I think this is so serious, I'm shocked that she's still on the air." MSNBC's faux-liberal media analyst, Steve Adubato, insisted that O'Donnell "cannot be allowed to get away with saying that... she has to be held accountable," while Scarborough echoed: "if she does not back off of her statement, she needs to be forced from The View. That is not free speech. That is lunacy. And it is dangerous and it spreads hatred."
Their overwrought reaction lays bare the hollow yet persistent myth that the media are liberal. Put one actual feminist on TV -- even on a women's chat show -- and all the blustering boob tube boys line up to run off the radical interloper. If O'Donnell had a modicum of political company anywhere in mainstream corporate news programming, the reception to her would never have been so extreme.
Nor would such double standards have abounded. I was a recent guest on Fox's Hannity & Colmes to discuss O'Donnell's right to talk about gun control in the wake of the Virginia Tech shootings. The segment opened with Sean Hannity saying that O'Donnell's "immediate rush to politicize something for an agenda is so offensive to me." What viewers couldn't have known was that I initially declined the appearance, offering to connect producers with gun control experts who could offer insights into reducing violent crime in America, but all they wanted to discuss was Rosie. Who, would you say, was pushing their agenda?
The hypocrisy here is laughable. The name of O'Donnell's show explicitly delineates her views as subjective. She's an entertainer, albeit a politically-minded one, with a very different mandate than the responsibilities of journalists to present the news-viewing public with factual information and well-researched opinion. Yet the same news wonks who have ranted about the "hateful," "irresponsible" and "inaccurate" opinions O'Donnell expressed on The View have been guilty of far worse under the guise of informed journalism.
Bill O'Reilly, of all people, complained that she "does not feel the responsibility to back up her statements with facts, and she feels personal attacks on people are fine" -- this from a guy who misled his viewers about non-existent weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, called Katrina victims "drug-addicted... thugs," and blamed an 18-year-old girl who was raped and murdered for being "moronic" and inciting her killer by wearing a miniskirt.
Joe Scarborough lambasted O'Donnell for being mean-spirited and misrepresentative, yet he devoted an entire segment to the housekeeping skills of Sen. Hillary Clinton and once used his show to allow Arnold Schwarzenegger's gubernatorial campaign to smear a woman who accused him of sexual assault, falsely claiming she had a record for prostitution and narcotics.
And where does Glenn Beck -- who has called Hillary Clinton a "bitch," Katrina survivors "scumbags," and suggested that "good Muslims" should "shoot the bad Muslims in the head" -- get off critiquing anyone's on-air behavior?
Yet Rosie O'Donnell has uttered "the most mindless and terrible things ever said on American television."
I didn't always agree with O'Donnell (all feminists don't all think alike, after all). I was certainly disappointed by her over-the-top 9/11 conspiracy theories, and her indefensible, racist mocking ("ching chong, ching chong") of Asian accents. I was also surprised that she defended Don Imus in the wake his "nappy-headed hos" controversy. Sure, comedians tend to stick together, but Imus hasn't been spewing "humorous" hate speech in some dank basement with a two-drink minimum -- this was a guy who admitted hiring a producer to do "nigger jokes" on a show featuring political and journalistic bigwigs.
But I greatly appreciated O'Donnell's fearlessness. I was often pleasantly surprised to find her far more well-informed than I expected a celebrity comic to be. Though she isn't a journalist or a scholar, she took her platform seriously and turned a fluffy morning show without much information, interest, or disagreement into a real forum for hard-hitting discussion about the pressing issues of the day... at least, as hard-hitting as one can expect in between segments about where to buy the latest product-placement Capri pants. That's why women loved watching her -- because she spoke her mind, and because she treated her female viewers as if they had more than three brain cells to rub together at any given point.
This is all very confusing to the beltway boys. On the night she announced her departure, I appeared on Scarborough Country, the only woman among four men scratching their heads about why O'Donnell was so popular in the first place. How was she able to bring up "very, very heavy issues" on "a women's talk show, a gabfest," Scarborough asked. MSNBC's Steve Adubato, Newsweek's Richard Wolffe, and Los Angeles Times online columnist Tom O'Neil joined him in wondering why O'Donnell had been able to bring "a pretty tough brand of political dogma" about such serious topics to daytime television. They never did come up with an answer.
Scarborough wouldn't let me into that part of the conversation (why ask the woman about what women watch?), but I was dying to expose the elephant in the room: Daytime audiences are predominately female, while cable news commentators are predominately male. If certain media men don't understand O'Donnell's popularity, it's not just because they're out of touch with millions of liberal and progressive Americans -- it's also because they thoroughly underestimate the intelligence of the female viewing public. Underneath their bewilderment is the ugly belief that women who watch daytime television are mostly stupid, concerned only with the latest fashions, celebrity gossip, and sex tips, while men are interested in the "hard news" of politics, economics, labor, science, and world events.
In fact, female daytime viewers are just as concerned about most of the same issues as nighttime (assumed to be male) viewers. More women than men report to pollsters their desire for peace and an end to the Iraq war -- and issues such as gun control, abortion, health care and the environment resonate extremely strongly for women. So it was hardly a surprise that The View's ratings skyrocketed when O'Donnell elevated the discussion with real content. As I told Scarborough, we should seek to foster more debate, not less. O'Donnell's departure will leave a gaping hole, as discussions she initiated during the day often sparked nightly news stories about progressive topics otherwise marginalized on in corporate media. Without her, next year's TV news lineup promises to be extremely boring -- at all times of the day.
Jennifer L. Pozner is founder and executive director of Women In Media & News, a women's media analysis, education and advocacy group, and manages WIMN's Voices, a women's media monitoring group blog. She lectures on women and the media at colleges and communities across the country, and is working on a book about reality TV as cultural backlash against women.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.
By Jennifer L. Pozner
Web Exclusive: 05.01.07
"Boy, I'm going to miss attacking her," quipped MSNBC's Tucker Carlson after Rosie O'Donnell announced that she will leave The View in June over a contract dispute with ABC.
Carlson isn't the only journalist who will miss the woman who served as conservative cable news hosts' favorite punching bag for the past year. "I could always count on Rosie O'Donnell saying something completely out of her mind insane every day," Glenn Beck, CNN's resident anti-Rosie ranter, mused, "And for a guy who does three hours of radio every day, do you know how much money I've made off of that?"
Indeed, Beck and his bombastic broadcast buddies have spent the last year bashing the mouthy talk show host all the way to the bank. During her eight-month tenure on The View, a Nexis search shows O'Donnell was berated 186 times by Bill O'Reilly, 91 times by Sean Hannity on Fox News, 41 times by the now-wistful Carlson, and 71 times by MSNBC's Joe Scarborough -- who once called her a "fat, ugly, bully, pimp, loser, ignorant, terrible person, animal. Did I say fat?" If that's not bad enough, a whopping 2,911 local, national network and cable news stories have quoted Donald Trump trash-talking O'Donnell, calling her "disgusting," "crude," "arrogant," "pushy," "self-destructive," "a degenerate," "a stone-cold loser" and so hideous that her wife must be grossed out "having to kiss that every night."
Considering this collective vendetta, it's no surprise that O'Donnell turned down a reported $30 million rather than commit to three more years of this treatment -- nor that the news of her departure was greeted with a rousing chorus of "Ding dong, the witch is dead." But while the rumor mill is buzzing about why she's moving on, the more compelling question is why she aroused such agita in the zeitgeist from the moment she began offering her uncompromising views.
It's tempting to write off the media's ridiculously vehement reaction to O'Donnell as solely the result of good old-fashioned sexism on the part of arrogant boys who aren't accustomed to sharing their celluloid sandbox with a girl -- especially a non-girlie girl who cares more about what comes out of her mouth than what color lip-gloss adorns it. That bias has absolutely been in play -- but there's more beneath the rage of her detractors than simple macho hazing.
The anti-Rosie backlash is indicative of nothing so much as the stiflingly limited range of debate allowed within the corporate media, whose gatekeepers want to erase true leftist dissent in America. Over the past year, O'Donnell has brought a consistently progressive, feminist voice to ABC's kaffeeklatsch and, in doing so, allowed daily television viewers entree into discussions wholly missing from the mainstream media lineup. She burst onto the public stage like a lefty tornado, loud and insistent, using her daytime post like a bullhorn at a peace march. (Who else on network television would have allowed actress Olympia Dukakis to declare that "The world can't wait to drive out the Bush regime" during an interview about her latest romantic comedy?)
O'Donnell has regularly denounced the Iraq war, blasted government-sanctioned torture, and spoken out adamantly against the president not only for the war but for what she considers his racist failure during Hurricane Katrina, his corrupt ties to corporate string-pullers, and his stoking of anti-Americanism abroad. And she says this at a time when opponents of the Bush administration are still being branded "un-American." Indeed, on Scarborough Country last month, guest Danny Bonaduce actually suggested that, "If anybody had a rope thick enough, I think that Rosie should be strung up for treason."
But unlike MSNBC's Keith Olbermann, whose ballyhooed liberal ire is mostly targeted at Bush's war, O'Donnell has also been an outspoken advocate for women's reproductive freedom, gay rights, gun control, mental health care, and a variety of other issues rarely discussed on TV from a feminist perspective. Besides, have you ever heard a prominent media figure declare, "I'm fat and I'm gay" in the same blithe manner as she trades parenting tips or ponders who should be booted off American Idol?
O'Donnell was an instantly controversial figure because she dared to upset the traditional TV balance of fiery conservatives debating centrists and, occasionally, tepid liberals (think The McLaughlin Group, or actually, the pre-Rosie View). In this climate, the talking heads treated O'Donnell's daily ruminations as if she was speaking in some sort of Martian code, rather than recognizing her simply as a passionate progressive woman who advocates her beliefs with the same vociferous zeal as do right-leaning O'Reilly, Scarborough, Hannity, Beck, Carlson, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and many other network news show hosts and pundits every single day.
Despite their dominance over the journalistic landscape, the overwhelmingly male punditocracy were so threatened by intellectual competition that they began gunning for O'Donnell's job shortly after her View debut. Back in September -- her second week on the air -- two Scarborough Country episodes encouraged ABC to censor or even fire her for saying that radical Christianity is as dangerous as radical Islam. Guests like GOP strategist Jack Burkman called O'Donnell's comment "one of the most mindless and terrible things ever said on American television! I think this is so serious, I'm shocked that she's still on the air." MSNBC's faux-liberal media analyst, Steve Adubato, insisted that O'Donnell "cannot be allowed to get away with saying that... she has to be held accountable," while Scarborough echoed: "if she does not back off of her statement, she needs to be forced from The View. That is not free speech. That is lunacy. And it is dangerous and it spreads hatred."
Their overwrought reaction lays bare the hollow yet persistent myth that the media are liberal. Put one actual feminist on TV -- even on a women's chat show -- and all the blustering boob tube boys line up to run off the radical interloper. If O'Donnell had a modicum of political company anywhere in mainstream corporate news programming, the reception to her would never have been so extreme.
Nor would such double standards have abounded. I was a recent guest on Fox's Hannity & Colmes to discuss O'Donnell's right to talk about gun control in the wake of the Virginia Tech shootings. The segment opened with Sean Hannity saying that O'Donnell's "immediate rush to politicize something for an agenda is so offensive to me." What viewers couldn't have known was that I initially declined the appearance, offering to connect producers with gun control experts who could offer insights into reducing violent crime in America, but all they wanted to discuss was Rosie. Who, would you say, was pushing their agenda?
The hypocrisy here is laughable. The name of O'Donnell's show explicitly delineates her views as subjective. She's an entertainer, albeit a politically-minded one, with a very different mandate than the responsibilities of journalists to present the news-viewing public with factual information and well-researched opinion. Yet the same news wonks who have ranted about the "hateful," "irresponsible" and "inaccurate" opinions O'Donnell expressed on The View have been guilty of far worse under the guise of informed journalism.
Bill O'Reilly, of all people, complained that she "does not feel the responsibility to back up her statements with facts, and she feels personal attacks on people are fine" -- this from a guy who misled his viewers about non-existent weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, called Katrina victims "drug-addicted... thugs," and blamed an 18-year-old girl who was raped and murdered for being "moronic" and inciting her killer by wearing a miniskirt.
Joe Scarborough lambasted O'Donnell for being mean-spirited and misrepresentative, yet he devoted an entire segment to the housekeeping skills of Sen. Hillary Clinton and once used his show to allow Arnold Schwarzenegger's gubernatorial campaign to smear a woman who accused him of sexual assault, falsely claiming she had a record for prostitution and narcotics.
And where does Glenn Beck -- who has called Hillary Clinton a "bitch," Katrina survivors "scumbags," and suggested that "good Muslims" should "shoot the bad Muslims in the head" -- get off critiquing anyone's on-air behavior?
Yet Rosie O'Donnell has uttered "the most mindless and terrible things ever said on American television."
I didn't always agree with O'Donnell (all feminists don't all think alike, after all). I was certainly disappointed by her over-the-top 9/11 conspiracy theories, and her indefensible, racist mocking ("ching chong, ching chong") of Asian accents. I was also surprised that she defended Don Imus in the wake his "nappy-headed hos" controversy. Sure, comedians tend to stick together, but Imus hasn't been spewing "humorous" hate speech in some dank basement with a two-drink minimum -- this was a guy who admitted hiring a producer to do "nigger jokes" on a show featuring political and journalistic bigwigs.
But I greatly appreciated O'Donnell's fearlessness. I was often pleasantly surprised to find her far more well-informed than I expected a celebrity comic to be. Though she isn't a journalist or a scholar, she took her platform seriously and turned a fluffy morning show without much information, interest, or disagreement into a real forum for hard-hitting discussion about the pressing issues of the day... at least, as hard-hitting as one can expect in between segments about where to buy the latest product-placement Capri pants. That's why women loved watching her -- because she spoke her mind, and because she treated her female viewers as if they had more than three brain cells to rub together at any given point.
This is all very confusing to the beltway boys. On the night she announced her departure, I appeared on Scarborough Country, the only woman among four men scratching their heads about why O'Donnell was so popular in the first place. How was she able to bring up "very, very heavy issues" on "a women's talk show, a gabfest," Scarborough asked. MSNBC's Steve Adubato, Newsweek's Richard Wolffe, and Los Angeles Times online columnist Tom O'Neil joined him in wondering why O'Donnell had been able to bring "a pretty tough brand of political dogma" about such serious topics to daytime television. They never did come up with an answer.
Scarborough wouldn't let me into that part of the conversation (why ask the woman about what women watch?), but I was dying to expose the elephant in the room: Daytime audiences are predominately female, while cable news commentators are predominately male. If certain media men don't understand O'Donnell's popularity, it's not just because they're out of touch with millions of liberal and progressive Americans -- it's also because they thoroughly underestimate the intelligence of the female viewing public. Underneath their bewilderment is the ugly belief that women who watch daytime television are mostly stupid, concerned only with the latest fashions, celebrity gossip, and sex tips, while men are interested in the "hard news" of politics, economics, labor, science, and world events.
In fact, female daytime viewers are just as concerned about most of the same issues as nighttime (assumed to be male) viewers. More women than men report to pollsters their desire for peace and an end to the Iraq war -- and issues such as gun control, abortion, health care and the environment resonate extremely strongly for women. So it was hardly a surprise that The View's ratings skyrocketed when O'Donnell elevated the discussion with real content. As I told Scarborough, we should seek to foster more debate, not less. O'Donnell's departure will leave a gaping hole, as discussions she initiated during the day often sparked nightly news stories about progressive topics otherwise marginalized on in corporate media. Without her, next year's TV news lineup promises to be extremely boring -- at all times of the day.
Jennifer L. Pozner is founder and executive director of Women In Media & News, a women's media analysis, education and advocacy group, and manages WIMN's Voices, a women's media monitoring group blog. She lectures on women and the media at colleges and communities across the country, and is working on a book about reality TV as cultural backlash against women.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.
Chuck Hagel Sees Clearly
Getting out of this Iraq mess is going to make Vietnam look like a cakewalk.
Local View: In Iraq, a terrible familiarity brews
BY CHUCK HAGEL
Saturday, Apr 21, 2007 - WASHINGTON — Last weekend, along with Rep. Joe Sestak, D-Pa., I completed my fifth trip to Iraq, and I am frustrated and worried. We are still risking the lives of our troops without giving them a realistic policy worthy of their sacrifices. To me, as a Vietnam veteran, that feels terribly familiar.
If success in Iraq were simply a matter of the determination and ability of the U.S. troops and civil servants, we would have already created a secure and stable Iraq. But unfortunately, the reality in Iraq is that after more than four years, America remains the country’s occupying power.
Iraq’s future will be determined by Iraqis, who, I hope, will reach a political accommodation — but America is still making the major decisions and taking the lead militarily in most critical areas of the country. We can continue to help buy time for the Iraqi government — but that time is running out.
The signs are everywhere. Key Shiite leaders told me that they remain deeply skeptical of Sunni intentions and derided as “appeasement’’ constructive attempts to reintegrate select ex-Baath Party officials into public life and the government. Shiite and Kurdish leaders openly suggested that Iraq simply pursue what’s known as “the 80/20 solution’’ — meaning that the Kurds and Shiites, who make up some 80 percent of the population, would run the country without regard for the minority Sunnis, who had grown accustomed to dominating Iraq. Almost no one in Baghdad was talking about using new provincial elections this year to help bring the Sunnis into the national government. The governor of Anbar province, al-Qaida’s base in Iraq, agreed that security had improved recently but raised concerns that his province still gets almost no assistance from the central government in Baghdad. That has left citizens in his province without jobs, electricity and potable water, even as open sewers spill filth into the streets.
There are important areas of progress in Iraq, and we should recognize them. In Anbar province, for example, U.S. military leaders highlighted the significant success they have had in lowering the number of attacks by al-Qaida. The military has successfully engaged tribal leaders who have provided informal governance there for hundreds of years. The U.S. military has also succeeded in helping double the size of the Iraqi forces in the province. Whether this progress can be sustained or is temporary will be up to the Iraqis.
If the good news is mixed, the bad news is downright troubling. Within the past two weeks, hundreds of Iraqis were slaughtered in Baghdad, the Iraqi Parliament’s cafeteria was hit by a suicide bomber, and a historic Baghdad bridge over the Tigris River was destroyed. Ominously, these increased acts of violence occurred in the area where the United States and Iraq have deployed 80,000 security forces.
So what do we do?
We must start by understanding what’s really happening in Iraq. According to the National Intelligence Estimate released in February, the conflict has become a “self-sustaining inter-sectarian struggle between Shia and Sunnis’’ and also includes “extensive Shia-on-Shia violence.’’
This means that Iraq is being consumed by sectarian warfare, much of it driven by Shiite or Sunni militias — not al-Qaida terrorists. Yes, there are admirers of Osama bin Laden in the country, including a full-blown al-Qaida branch. But terrorists are not the core problem; Sunni-Shiite violence is.
The Bush administration’s rhetoric has not been nearly clear enough on this key point.American occupation cannot stop a civil war in Iraq. Our military, superb as it is, can only do so much. The only lasting answer to Iraq’s anguish will come from a political resolution. There will be no military solution in Iraq.
So how can America influence the Iraqis to reconcile their differences — at least enough to form some kind of responsible government?
First, we must recognize we have few good options in Iraq and that we are dealing with dynamics that lie mostly beyond our control.
Second, we must do all we can to encourage a comprehensive regional security framework, which includes engaging Syria and Iran. The regional security conference next month in Egypt is an opportunity we must not miss. We cannot solve the problems in Iraq by ourselves. We will have to work more closely with our Middle East allies than ever before, and that means addressing the nearly universal perception in the Middle East that we are imposing our will on the region for our own purposes.
To get more help from our regional friends, we must also have Middle Eastern countries and publics see the Iraqi government as credible, not a U.S. puppet. And to get our regional strategy right, we must clearly recognize the depth of the Sunni-Shiite split and factor it into our Middle East policy and relationships. If we do not, the region could explode into ethnic and religious conflict.
Third, and closer to home, the administration and Congress must untangle themselves from the debate over funding our continued involvement in Iraq. The Iraqis must be jolted into understanding that America’s continued commitment of troops and money is not open-ended.
Significantly, American leaders in Iraq told me that they believed the debate on this issue in Congress had actually helped them get Iraqi leaders to grasp this point.
I do not like restricting our war policy with conditions or timelines. They are blunt instruments in an area of policy that requires flexibility. But they are some of the few levers Congress has when the majority of Congress and the American people have lost confidence in the president’s policy.
We are at a crossroads at home. One option is that Congress can pass and the president can sign a war-funding bill that gives our troops the resources they need and places responsible conditions on that funding that will press the Iraqi government to perform and make the tough choices. President Bush should not see this as a threat from Congress but as a reasonable progression of events after four bloody and costly years.
The other option is that the president can veto the funding bill, Congress can overplay its hand, and both sides can get locked into a political standoff — with U.S. troops caught in the middle.
This would not produce constructive pressure on the Iraqi government to reconcile its differences, and it would ensure that the United States would remain trapped in Iraq, doing ever-greater damage to our force structure and military capabilities. The longer we are bogged down in Iraq, the more difficult and painful it will be to get out. And the deeper we are bogged down in Iraq, the fewer resources we have to devote to the many other important challenges facing America, especially in Afghanistan but also elsewhere around the globe and here at home.
If the war continues to lose support from the American people, the limited options we have today will vanish. The president will be left with a bitter few allies in our party, and we will be forced to withdraw from Iraq in a way that greatly damages U.S. interests in the Middle East and leaves the world far more dangerous than it is today. Forging a bipartisan consensus now that places responsible conditions on U.S. war funding could forestall a time when we have no options.
The Baker-Hamilton report could have been the base for that bipartisan consensus.I came home from my fifth trip to Iraq with one enduring impression. The Iraqi government must make the tough choices now to produce political reconciliation. If there is no such reconciliation in Iraq, there will be no progress — no matter how many American lives we lose and how much American money we give. We will have squandered our resources and efforts, undermined our interests in the Middle East and, however unintentionally, produced a more dangerous world.
Sen. Chuck Hagel is serving his second term in the U.S. Senate. This column appeared previously in the Washington Post.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.
Local View: In Iraq, a terrible familiarity brews
BY CHUCK HAGEL
Saturday, Apr 21, 2007 - WASHINGTON — Last weekend, along with Rep. Joe Sestak, D-Pa., I completed my fifth trip to Iraq, and I am frustrated and worried. We are still risking the lives of our troops without giving them a realistic policy worthy of their sacrifices. To me, as a Vietnam veteran, that feels terribly familiar.
If success in Iraq were simply a matter of the determination and ability of the U.S. troops and civil servants, we would have already created a secure and stable Iraq. But unfortunately, the reality in Iraq is that after more than four years, America remains the country’s occupying power.
Iraq’s future will be determined by Iraqis, who, I hope, will reach a political accommodation — but America is still making the major decisions and taking the lead militarily in most critical areas of the country. We can continue to help buy time for the Iraqi government — but that time is running out.
The signs are everywhere. Key Shiite leaders told me that they remain deeply skeptical of Sunni intentions and derided as “appeasement’’ constructive attempts to reintegrate select ex-Baath Party officials into public life and the government. Shiite and Kurdish leaders openly suggested that Iraq simply pursue what’s known as “the 80/20 solution’’ — meaning that the Kurds and Shiites, who make up some 80 percent of the population, would run the country without regard for the minority Sunnis, who had grown accustomed to dominating Iraq. Almost no one in Baghdad was talking about using new provincial elections this year to help bring the Sunnis into the national government. The governor of Anbar province, al-Qaida’s base in Iraq, agreed that security had improved recently but raised concerns that his province still gets almost no assistance from the central government in Baghdad. That has left citizens in his province without jobs, electricity and potable water, even as open sewers spill filth into the streets.
There are important areas of progress in Iraq, and we should recognize them. In Anbar province, for example, U.S. military leaders highlighted the significant success they have had in lowering the number of attacks by al-Qaida. The military has successfully engaged tribal leaders who have provided informal governance there for hundreds of years. The U.S. military has also succeeded in helping double the size of the Iraqi forces in the province. Whether this progress can be sustained or is temporary will be up to the Iraqis.
If the good news is mixed, the bad news is downright troubling. Within the past two weeks, hundreds of Iraqis were slaughtered in Baghdad, the Iraqi Parliament’s cafeteria was hit by a suicide bomber, and a historic Baghdad bridge over the Tigris River was destroyed. Ominously, these increased acts of violence occurred in the area where the United States and Iraq have deployed 80,000 security forces.
So what do we do?
We must start by understanding what’s really happening in Iraq. According to the National Intelligence Estimate released in February, the conflict has become a “self-sustaining inter-sectarian struggle between Shia and Sunnis’’ and also includes “extensive Shia-on-Shia violence.’’
This means that Iraq is being consumed by sectarian warfare, much of it driven by Shiite or Sunni militias — not al-Qaida terrorists. Yes, there are admirers of Osama bin Laden in the country, including a full-blown al-Qaida branch. But terrorists are not the core problem; Sunni-Shiite violence is.
The Bush administration’s rhetoric has not been nearly clear enough on this key point.American occupation cannot stop a civil war in Iraq. Our military, superb as it is, can only do so much. The only lasting answer to Iraq’s anguish will come from a political resolution. There will be no military solution in Iraq.
So how can America influence the Iraqis to reconcile their differences — at least enough to form some kind of responsible government?
First, we must recognize we have few good options in Iraq and that we are dealing with dynamics that lie mostly beyond our control.
Second, we must do all we can to encourage a comprehensive regional security framework, which includes engaging Syria and Iran. The regional security conference next month in Egypt is an opportunity we must not miss. We cannot solve the problems in Iraq by ourselves. We will have to work more closely with our Middle East allies than ever before, and that means addressing the nearly universal perception in the Middle East that we are imposing our will on the region for our own purposes.
To get more help from our regional friends, we must also have Middle Eastern countries and publics see the Iraqi government as credible, not a U.S. puppet. And to get our regional strategy right, we must clearly recognize the depth of the Sunni-Shiite split and factor it into our Middle East policy and relationships. If we do not, the region could explode into ethnic and religious conflict.
Third, and closer to home, the administration and Congress must untangle themselves from the debate over funding our continued involvement in Iraq. The Iraqis must be jolted into understanding that America’s continued commitment of troops and money is not open-ended.
Significantly, American leaders in Iraq told me that they believed the debate on this issue in Congress had actually helped them get Iraqi leaders to grasp this point.
I do not like restricting our war policy with conditions or timelines. They are blunt instruments in an area of policy that requires flexibility. But they are some of the few levers Congress has when the majority of Congress and the American people have lost confidence in the president’s policy.
We are at a crossroads at home. One option is that Congress can pass and the president can sign a war-funding bill that gives our troops the resources they need and places responsible conditions on that funding that will press the Iraqi government to perform and make the tough choices. President Bush should not see this as a threat from Congress but as a reasonable progression of events after four bloody and costly years.
The other option is that the president can veto the funding bill, Congress can overplay its hand, and both sides can get locked into a political standoff — with U.S. troops caught in the middle.
This would not produce constructive pressure on the Iraqi government to reconcile its differences, and it would ensure that the United States would remain trapped in Iraq, doing ever-greater damage to our force structure and military capabilities. The longer we are bogged down in Iraq, the more difficult and painful it will be to get out. And the deeper we are bogged down in Iraq, the fewer resources we have to devote to the many other important challenges facing America, especially in Afghanistan but also elsewhere around the globe and here at home.
If the war continues to lose support from the American people, the limited options we have today will vanish. The president will be left with a bitter few allies in our party, and we will be forced to withdraw from Iraq in a way that greatly damages U.S. interests in the Middle East and leaves the world far more dangerous than it is today. Forging a bipartisan consensus now that places responsible conditions on U.S. war funding could forestall a time when we have no options.
The Baker-Hamilton report could have been the base for that bipartisan consensus.I came home from my fifth trip to Iraq with one enduring impression. The Iraqi government must make the tough choices now to produce political reconciliation. If there is no such reconciliation in Iraq, there will be no progress — no matter how many American lives we lose and how much American money we give. We will have squandered our resources and efforts, undermined our interests in the Middle East and, however unintentionally, produced a more dangerous world.
Sen. Chuck Hagel is serving his second term in the U.S. Senate. This column appeared previously in the Washington Post.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.
Is This What It Has All Come Down To?
Holding On To Power?
Is that what all of Washington, D.C. is about these days?
I can certainly understand why Dems didn't leap up and start demanding all kinds of new gun laws after the V -tech shootings. Why not just sit back and let the Goopers express their unconditional support for the right to bear arms, in the same breath with which they assure the familes of the victims of their prayers.
Let Junior make a beeline to the campus to help heal the University. I didn't know he was a healer. I thought he was a politician. If he has such powers, he should have used them with the Katrina victims, but that's another whole story.
What I cannot understand is why impeachment remains off the table. I can only hope that it is off the table, because something far worse is in the works for the Bushites, because if it isn't, then the Democrats will not hang on to power and neither will the Republicans.
There will be multiple political parties in this country, finally.
We have needed that for a very long time.
Controlling Themselves
By Charlie Cook© National Journal Group Inc.
April 28, 2007
Need proof that Democrats are intent on holding their House and Senate majorities in next year's elections? Then look no further than the refusal of Hill Democratic leaders to respond to the Virginia Tech massacre by calling for sweeping gun control legislation and to respond to the Supreme Court's decision upholding the federal ban on "partial-birth" abortions by calling for the repeal of that law.
In the not-so-distant past, the Democratic Party would have jumped on both issues with hobnailed boots. This time, top Democrats have been very cautious, giving their adversaries little room for attack.
Although portions of the Democratic base consider such caution on hot-button social issues despicable and nothing short of appeasement, most Democrats in Congress seem to realize that their majorities depend on holding seats in districts where the majority of voters are at odds with Democratic doctrine on abortion rights and guns -- not to mention on impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Cheney. Many Democratic lawmakers from the Sun Belt, rural areas, small towns, and certain parts of Indiana and Pennsylvania breathed a sigh of relief when their party did not react last week the way it might have a dozen years ago.
Simply put, Democrats got a taste of winning last year. And that is driving many of them to behave in ways that run counter to every impulse in their bodies.
As of next week, Democrats will have controlled Capitol Hill for four months, one-sixth of the 110th Congress's life span. During that time, little has gone right for President Bush and his Republican Party other than getting Robert Gates and Lt. Gen. David Petraeus to take on the thankless jobs of Defense secretary and military commander in Iraq, respectively.
In fact, the White House and the GOP were on an almost nonstop losing streak long before last November's election: They were rocked by the Jack Abramoff, Randy (Duke) Cunningham, and Mark Foley scandals; and the situation in Iraq, which had gradually been deteriorating, seemed to get much worse in September. Since the election, Bush and his party have been damaged by the scandals involving Walter Reed Army Medical Center and the firing of U.S. attorneys. And just last week, the homes or offices of the wives of two sitting Republican members of Congress were raided by FBI agents on consecutive days -- certainly a first in the history of Congress.
Meanwhile, stories that could have hurt Democrats -- such as those about House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's insistence on access to a long-range jet and her trip to Syria -- have come and gone without inflicting much damage. Democrats even survived Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's declaration that the war in Iraq is "lost." Indeed, the biggest problem encountered by Democrats this year was caused by their passage of a nonbinding resolution calling on Bush to bring the troops home from Iraq. Congress's approval rating took a hit: Apparently voters didn't like the nonbinding part.
Democratic leaders have been forced to run to stay ahead of public opinion on the war. When they took over in January, they probably never dreamed that by April they would be pushing hard-and-fast deadlines for getting all combat troops out of Iraq next year.
These days, Democratic lawmakers are sounding remarkably -- and uncharacteristically -- united. Even though many House committee chairs are chafing at Pelosi's highly centralized command-and-control system, House Democrats are singing largely from the same hymnbook and more or less in the same key.
Freelancing is frowned upon, and many issues have been declared off-limits. Others are being approached carefully and with an enormous level of coordination with, and within, the leadership. And although Pelosi and her key lieutenants -- Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, Majority Whip James Clyburn, and Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel -- may not be the closest of friends, they are working together as a team better than just about anyone would have predicted. Far from being dysfunctional, they are well organized.
In short, Hill Democrats really aren't behaving like Democrats; they're behaving like a party that wants to stay in power.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.
More Calls For Impeachment, While Junoir Smirks On
Democrats MUST Impeach George W. Bush
A. Alexander, May 3rd, 2007
George W. Bush is enjoying his victory. But for him, it isn't a victory that is about forcing Democrats to surrender in their attempt to compel a withdrawal from Iraq. No, the victory Mister Bush is enjoying goes well beyond a president bullying the loyal opposition into political submission - his enjoyment is more akin to that experienced by Caesar when he and his legions crossed the Rubicon and ended the Roman Republic.
Despite a large and growing majority of Americans demanding an end to Emperor Bush's Iraq folly, he and his legion of the ever-shrinking Republican Kool-Aid drinkers are defying the will of the majority and insisting upon establishing a tyranny of the minority. Democrats meanwhile, as always, have been half-stepping and half-hearting their way through the battle for America's democracy; preferring instead to piddle while Rome burns.
If one looks closely enough, it isn't difficult to see the smirk lurking just beneath Mister Bush's thin lips. The smirk is fed, of course, by knowing that he has managed to completely destroy America's Democratic Republic. He knows all that remains of Constitutional America is little more than a ceremonial exoskeleton. A shell of what once was...a little something that he and all future quasi-elected Emperors can point to, while feigning respect and loyalty for the "principles of freedom and liberty."
Mister Bush's victorious smirk, however, is not only in regard to his newfound tyranny of the Republican minority. His latest and, perhaps, most direct scheme is to completely eviscerate the Constitutional Amendments protecting American citizens from illegal search and seizure. At the same time Bush and his radicalized Congressional Republicans were defying the will of the American people regarding the Iraq War, the White House had sent a proposal to Congress that would make it legal for America's Emperor-like president to spy on citizens without ANY warrant whatsoever. A privilege Emperor Bush already considers his right. In other words Mister Bush and his legion of the minority have told Congress, "Rubber-stamp our right to spy on U.S. citizens within America or don't...either way, we claim the authority to do so."
Through it all -- with each step Mister Bush and his legion of the minority take across the Rubicon of tyranny -- Democrats half-heartedly employ half-stepping half-measures. Bush vetoed the war-funding bill, so Democrats surrendered. Mister Bush declares all Constitutional guarantees of American citizens to be free from illegal search and seizure, and Democrats grumble. Democrats will insist that there is only so much they can do.
After all, they just barely have a majority in the Senate. Still, there is something Democrats can do.... Morally speaking, Democrats must end Emperor Bush's tyranny of the minority...they MUST impeach him, now! Failing to impeach is, by omission, the Democratic Party's vote to grant Mister Bush the Emperor-Presidency status that he seems to be seeking. Putting it in the only terms Democrats can understand: Either they impeach Mister Bush or they are a Party unworthy of a single American citizen's vote.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.
Leahy, Fed Up! Issues Subpoena For Rove's Emails
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Senate Judiciary Committee chairman issued a subpoena Wednesday to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in an attempt to get e-mails that President Bush's top political adviser sent regarding last year's firings of eight U.S. attorneys.
Gonzales will have to appear before the committee if the Department of Justice does not respond to the subpoena for Karl Rove's e-mails by May 15.
Justice Department Spokesman Dean Boyd said the department had received the subpoena and was reviewing it. (Read the subpoena, PDF)
"The Justice Department has already turned over more than 6,000 pages of documents and e-mails to House and Senate committees and voluntarily provided Congress with hours of interviews of several senior Justice Department officials," Boyd said. "Furthermore, the attorney general last month provided six hours of testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee."
In a letter to Gonzales, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, said he had asked Gonzales twice for the e-mails -- once at an April 19 hearing where the attorney general testified about the dismissals and again in an April 25 letter to the Cabinet member.
Rove's attorney said publicly that the e-mails -- many of which were reported to be "lost" -- had been turned over to U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, according to Leahy.
Fitzgerald was using them in his investigation into the leak of the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame, Rove's lawyer said. That probe led to the conviction of Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the former chief of staff for Vice President Dick Cheney.
Leahy said when he questioned Gonzales about the location of the e-mails at the hearing, he said he would look into it and get back to the senator.
"You responded at the hearing that you did not know but would check and get back to me. I have not heard back from you since in response to my question or the letter," Leahy said in the letter.
"I also ask for an immediate response to and full compliance with the outstanding requests for information by the committee and its members to avoid further subpoenas," Leahy wrote.
Gonzales has been accused of dismissing seven prosecutors because of concerns that they were either not doing enough to prosecute Democrats on voter fraud charges or were doing too much in pursuing corruption charges against Republicans. The White House has denied the claims.
The Bush administration has acknowledged that the White House counsel's office did approve replacing an eighth prosecutor, as U.S. attorney in Arkansas, with a protege of Rove.
The president can legally replace U.S. attorneys but usually does so at the start of a term of office. The midterm firings sparked accusations that some of the dismissals were politically motivated.
Leahy has insisted Rove and other top aides to Bush must testify publicly and under oath before the committee about the prosecutors. He has rejected suggestions that Rove and other Bush officials be interviewed privately instead.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.
Gonzales will have to appear before the committee if the Department of Justice does not respond to the subpoena for Karl Rove's e-mails by May 15.
Justice Department Spokesman Dean Boyd said the department had received the subpoena and was reviewing it. (Read the subpoena, PDF)
"The Justice Department has already turned over more than 6,000 pages of documents and e-mails to House and Senate committees and voluntarily provided Congress with hours of interviews of several senior Justice Department officials," Boyd said. "Furthermore, the attorney general last month provided six hours of testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee."
In a letter to Gonzales, Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, said he had asked Gonzales twice for the e-mails -- once at an April 19 hearing where the attorney general testified about the dismissals and again in an April 25 letter to the Cabinet member.
Rove's attorney said publicly that the e-mails -- many of which were reported to be "lost" -- had been turned over to U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, according to Leahy.
Fitzgerald was using them in his investigation into the leak of the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame, Rove's lawyer said. That probe led to the conviction of Lewis "Scooter" Libby, the former chief of staff for Vice President Dick Cheney.
Leahy said when he questioned Gonzales about the location of the e-mails at the hearing, he said he would look into it and get back to the senator.
"You responded at the hearing that you did not know but would check and get back to me. I have not heard back from you since in response to my question or the letter," Leahy said in the letter.
"I also ask for an immediate response to and full compliance with the outstanding requests for information by the committee and its members to avoid further subpoenas," Leahy wrote.
Gonzales has been accused of dismissing seven prosecutors because of concerns that they were either not doing enough to prosecute Democrats on voter fraud charges or were doing too much in pursuing corruption charges against Republicans. The White House has denied the claims.
The Bush administration has acknowledged that the White House counsel's office did approve replacing an eighth prosecutor, as U.S. attorney in Arkansas, with a protege of Rove.
The president can legally replace U.S. attorneys but usually does so at the start of a term of office. The midterm firings sparked accusations that some of the dismissals were politically motivated.
Leahy has insisted Rove and other top aides to Bush must testify publicly and under oath before the committee about the prosecutors. He has rejected suggestions that Rove and other Bush officials be interviewed privately instead.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.
There is Something About A Gun Up Your Nose.....
........that would make a human being resist paradise, and Bush doesn't have that to offer.
Jim Webb: "The United States military is not going to change the societal makeup of Iraq"
by GregP
Tue May 01, 2007 at 04:43:28 PM PDT
Sen. Webb continues to tell it like it is:
GregP's diary :: ::
Congress exercised its constitutional responsibility this week by appropriating more than $100 billion to fully support our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. Today, the President chose not to cash that check. It is up to him to explain to the American people why.
We won this war four years ago. The question is when we end the occupation. This bill called for a much-needed shift in our approach to Iraq. The United States military is not going to change the societal makeup of Iraq. And the Malaki government is not going to bring peace among Iraq's competing factions without the strong, overt, diplomatic cooperation of other countries in this region. And this bill called for just an approach.
I have always said that we need to support the troops through leadership that is equal to the sacrifices we are asking them to make. It is time for a new approach in Iraq, one that displays smart diplomatic leadership in the region. We must bring this occupation to a proper conclusion that will increase our ability to focus on international terrorism, increase the stability in the region and allow us to focus on our strategic interests elsewhere in the world.
A large part of what got me interested in Jim Webb, as an early supporter back in early 2006, was his ability to cut though the crap and get to the heart of the issue in Iraq, as he put it today in his response to President Bush's veto of the Iraq supplemental appropriations bill, "The United States military is not going to change the societal makeup of Iraq."
The US military did what is within its core competency during the first three weeks after the invasion -- it defeated the Iraqi military. "Nation building" is not a military core competency. We have very little ability to impose secular liberal values on a traditional and conservative Islamic society. We have little ability to douse the flames of sectarian hatreds. Yet that's the phase we're in now -- what in previous times would have been called "civilizing the natives" -- as futile in the neoconservative fantasy of benign empire as it was in the European version which existed a century ago.
The only way we are going to be able to make any progress is with the cooperation of the states in the region, which share culture and values with the various sects in Iraq. If we don't secure their cooperation, we could easily mess around for another five or ten years in Iraq, and still leave behind a mess.
Thank you, Senator Webb, for standing up on this. We've lost a round today with President Bush's veto, but we won't lose the fight!
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.
Mental Illness and Prison America
Well, 15 cheers for New York!
But I cannot, for the life of me, understand why we are still, in the 21st freakin' century, having this discussion!
Prison is no place for the mentally ill! It is that damn simple!
New Rules for Confining the Mentally Ill
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/25/nyregion/25mental.html
('Mental Health and Disorders, Prisons and Prisoners,
New York State,Legal Aid Society')
By SARAH KERSHAW
Published: April 25, 2007
New York State would more closely scrutinize its use of solitary confinement for mentally ill prison inmates under the proposed terms of a legal agreement scheduled for review by a federal judge on Friday.
New York is one of several states that have faced lawsuits over the means used to punish mentally ill prisoners, and, under a settlement reached last week, it has agreed to consider changes in how it uses solitary confinement as a disciplinary measure with the mentally ill.
Many advocates hail the agreement as a watershed in prison reform because of the effects long sentences in isolation have had on the most vulnerable prisoners, including suicide and self-mutilation.
Some mentally ill inmates serve months to years in punitive segregation, locked up for 23 hours a day and sometimes restricted to a diet of cabbage and a pasty flour loaf three times daily for up to 30 days for misbehaving.
Disability Advocates Inc. and the Legal Aid Society of New York sued the state over the practices five years ago, and the resulting agreement goes before Judge Gerard E. Lynch of the Southern District of New York on Friday for final review.
If the agreement is approved, as expected, the state will not be barred from the use of solitary confinement, or punitive segregation, to discipline mentally ill prisoners, but it would have to provide far more assessment and services for mentally ill inmates in solitary. In addition, the state would be required to review the reasons for and the length of proposed segregation sentences.
Many mental health advocates believe that the New York settlement will create pressure on other states to review their policies of confining mentally ill prisoners.
Others, including state lawmakers and advocates, said the agreement was only a small step toward stopping inhumane treatment of these prisoners. Many of those advocates were particularly disheartened last fall when Gov. George E. Pataki vetoed a bill that would have banned the use of solitary confinement for the mentally ill in New York.
“We see the settlement as a step in the right direction because it provides additional resources and services for treating the mentally ill in prison,” said Robert Gangi, executive director of the Correctional Association of New York, an advocacy group that is now lobbying the new administration in Albany to stop sending mentally ill prisoners into isolation. “But it falls far short of the policy changes that are needed to ensure humane and appropriate treatment for all the mentally ill people in prison.”
In New York, with one of the largest prison populations in the country, mental illness has been diagnosed in about 8,400 of the 63,000 inmates, according to the State Office of Mental Health. The number of inmates has decreased significantly in the last few years, but Mr. Gangi said the number of mentally ill prisoners was rising, possibly because the condition is being more accurately diagnosed.
Under the agreement, mentally ill prisoners sent to solitary confinement would be entitled to leave their cells for therapy and treatment for two to four hours daily. Their placement in solitary confinement would have to be preceded by extensive reviews, all prisoners entering the system would be screened for mental illness, and the state would be required to provide some mentally ill prisoners with alternative residential housing.
State officials said that because of both the agreement and their own budgetary priorities, they had set aside an additional $9 million in the 2007-8 fiscal year for programs within existing prisons and new or renovated facilities to accommodate mentally ill inmates, a total of $57.5 million dedicated to mentally ill inmates.
The agreement also stipulates that New York prisons, which local and national advocates say are unique in using restricted diets to punish prisoners already in segregation, cannot use the cabbage-and-loaf punishment for more than seven days with mentally ill prisoners without “exceptional circumstances.”
Lawyers who brought the suit and national prisoner rights advocates said the New York settlement was unique in covering all mentally ill prisoners, from the time they enter the system until they leave, whereas some states have merely stopped sending prisoners with major mental illnesses to prisons with especially harsh conditions.
“The proof of the pudding is in the eating,” said David C. Fathi, senior staff counsel with the American Civil Liberties Union’s national prison project, who has handled several cases around the country regarding the treatment of mentally ill inmates. “We will have to see how this is implemented. But on paper, it is very significant, a victory and a step forward.”
He added, “Now we can point to New York and say, if New York can do it, why can’t you do it?”
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.
But I cannot, for the life of me, understand why we are still, in the 21st freakin' century, having this discussion!
Prison is no place for the mentally ill! It is that damn simple!
New Rules for Confining the Mentally Ill
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/25/nyregion/25mental.html
('Mental Health and Disorders, Prisons and Prisoners,
New York State,Legal Aid Society')
By SARAH KERSHAW
Published: April 25, 2007
New York State would more closely scrutinize its use of solitary confinement for mentally ill prison inmates under the proposed terms of a legal agreement scheduled for review by a federal judge on Friday.
New York is one of several states that have faced lawsuits over the means used to punish mentally ill prisoners, and, under a settlement reached last week, it has agreed to consider changes in how it uses solitary confinement as a disciplinary measure with the mentally ill.
Many advocates hail the agreement as a watershed in prison reform because of the effects long sentences in isolation have had on the most vulnerable prisoners, including suicide and self-mutilation.
Some mentally ill inmates serve months to years in punitive segregation, locked up for 23 hours a day and sometimes restricted to a diet of cabbage and a pasty flour loaf three times daily for up to 30 days for misbehaving.
Disability Advocates Inc. and the Legal Aid Society of New York sued the state over the practices five years ago, and the resulting agreement goes before Judge Gerard E. Lynch of the Southern District of New York on Friday for final review.
If the agreement is approved, as expected, the state will not be barred from the use of solitary confinement, or punitive segregation, to discipline mentally ill prisoners, but it would have to provide far more assessment and services for mentally ill inmates in solitary. In addition, the state would be required to review the reasons for and the length of proposed segregation sentences.
Many mental health advocates believe that the New York settlement will create pressure on other states to review their policies of confining mentally ill prisoners.
Others, including state lawmakers and advocates, said the agreement was only a small step toward stopping inhumane treatment of these prisoners. Many of those advocates were particularly disheartened last fall when Gov. George E. Pataki vetoed a bill that would have banned the use of solitary confinement for the mentally ill in New York.
“We see the settlement as a step in the right direction because it provides additional resources and services for treating the mentally ill in prison,” said Robert Gangi, executive director of the Correctional Association of New York, an advocacy group that is now lobbying the new administration in Albany to stop sending mentally ill prisoners into isolation. “But it falls far short of the policy changes that are needed to ensure humane and appropriate treatment for all the mentally ill people in prison.”
In New York, with one of the largest prison populations in the country, mental illness has been diagnosed in about 8,400 of the 63,000 inmates, according to the State Office of Mental Health. The number of inmates has decreased significantly in the last few years, but Mr. Gangi said the number of mentally ill prisoners was rising, possibly because the condition is being more accurately diagnosed.
Under the agreement, mentally ill prisoners sent to solitary confinement would be entitled to leave their cells for therapy and treatment for two to four hours daily. Their placement in solitary confinement would have to be preceded by extensive reviews, all prisoners entering the system would be screened for mental illness, and the state would be required to provide some mentally ill prisoners with alternative residential housing.
State officials said that because of both the agreement and their own budgetary priorities, they had set aside an additional $9 million in the 2007-8 fiscal year for programs within existing prisons and new or renovated facilities to accommodate mentally ill inmates, a total of $57.5 million dedicated to mentally ill inmates.
The agreement also stipulates that New York prisons, which local and national advocates say are unique in using restricted diets to punish prisoners already in segregation, cannot use the cabbage-and-loaf punishment for more than seven days with mentally ill prisoners without “exceptional circumstances.”
Lawyers who brought the suit and national prisoner rights advocates said the New York settlement was unique in covering all mentally ill prisoners, from the time they enter the system until they leave, whereas some states have merely stopped sending prisoners with major mental illnesses to prisons with especially harsh conditions.
“The proof of the pudding is in the eating,” said David C. Fathi, senior staff counsel with the American Civil Liberties Union’s national prison project, who has handled several cases around the country regarding the treatment of mentally ill inmates. “We will have to see how this is implemented. But on paper, it is very significant, a victory and a step forward.”
He added, “Now we can point to New York and say, if New York can do it, why can’t you do it?”
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.
Oh, Puleeze! Bloch Is Going After W.H.?
Let's just say we will believe it when we see it.
We could not possibly trust any special prosecutor, appointed by Bush, to investigate Karl Rove!
People like Bloch have done nothing but cover-up for this nitwit administration for the past 6+ years!
We, the people, will probably not find any justice at all, until after the next president is inaugurated, and maybe not then.
Sorry, we do not trust this pile of horse hockey.
A Bush appointee goes after the White House
Prosecutor Scott J. Bloch, a committed conservative, is turning heads with his investigation of the administration's political operation, headed by Karl Rove.
By Tom Hamburger, Times Staff WriterMay 1, 2007
Related Stories
-
About Scott J. Bloch
-
Gonzales allowed aides some hiring power, records show
-
Probe of White House political operations moves ahead
-
Counsel draws criticism before White House probe
-
Critics knock special counsel for administration ties
WASHINGTON — At first glance, Scott J. Bloch seems to fit the profile of the "loyal Bushie," the kind of person the White House salted through the Washington bureaucracy to make sure federal agencies heeded administration priorities.
But Bloch, 48, is a man who defies expectations.The lifelong Republican runs an agency — the Office of Special Counsel — that is turning its investigative spotlight on the White House, in particular the political operation headed by Karl Rove.
His office is investigating whether Bush administration personnel violated civil statutes by inserting GOP electoral politics into Cabinet agency meetings, firing at least one U.S. attorney, and discussing some of the activities in private e-mails that are missing.
When Bloch was recommended for the post by Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), few imagined his tenure would turn controversial among Bush Republicans. Although Bloch is a committed conservative, he says — displaying his Office of Special Counsel badge with a dash of drama — "I am a prosecutor."
Bloch says he felt compelled to initiate the broad investigation after reviewing results from two seemingly separate inquiries.
The first was a preliminary interview with the fired U.S. attorney from New Mexico, David C. Iglesias, who said, among other things, that his termination might have resulted from his failure to swiftly pursue a corruption case against Democrats.
The second involved a PowerPoint presentation highlighting upcoming battleground election races that a Rove aide, J. Scott Jennings, made at the General Services Administration this year."
We are the ones who draw the line at putting the people's business into a political machine," Bloch said in an interview last week. "I consider myself a very tough cop because I consider enforcement of the Hatch Act, which is what we do, an effort to keep government clean and accountable."
Most alarming for the White House is that if the inquiry proceeds as Bloch outlines it, his agency will focus on political strategist Rove's broad effort to harness the federal bureaucracy in service of Republican goals. Even if the investigation does not result in criminal charges, the process of discovery could expose the inner workings of the White House political operation.
Bloch has demonstrated a willingness to go after Rove, at least on the small stuff: The Times has learned that Bloch investigated complaints that Rove's politically related travel had been improperly billed to the government. Bloch's action resulted in a reimbursement to the Treasury Department for what some described as a bookkeeping error.There is some skepticism about whether a Republican appointee can really investigate the White House, and some have called for the inquiry to be taken out of Bloch's purview.
Critics say Bloch has been soft on Republicans in the past, issuing warning letters instead of taking a hard line in some high-profile cases. They also say that Bloch's investigation is compromised because internal complaints about his management of the Office of Special Counsel have led to a probe by the Office of Personnel Management — putting him in the awkward position of investigating an administration that is investigating him.
"This should be viewed in the context of Bloch's past history, which is one filled with allegations of politicization, reprisal and efforts to use the agency to promote pet causes," said Debra Katz, a Washington lawyer. Katz has filed a lawsuit on behalf of former Bloch employees who allege, among other things, that Bloch stifled dissent as he pushed aside longtime employees and hired friends and political allies.
Bloch disputes the complaints, and the Democratic chairmen of congressional oversight committees provided statements last week expressing general support for his agency's investigation.
But there is no denying that since he was appointed by President Bush to run the obscure Office of Special Counsel in early 2004, he has proved controversial, infuriating government-watchdog and gay rights groups and annoying the White House in the process.
A deeply religious conservative, Bloch came to Washington from Kansas in 2001 through connections to then-Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft and worked on the president's faith-based initiatives in the Justice Department.He was born in New York City, the son of a television scriptwriter. The family moved west from Brooklyn when Bloch was 3, and he grew up in Los Angeles while his father penned scripts for hit shows including "The Flintstones," "The Jetsons," "Gilligan's Island," "Gunsmoke" and the "The Mod Squad."
His father was a Republican, and as a boy Bloch worked for Ronald Reagan's his first gubernatorial bid.Bloch surprised his family after graduating from William Howard Taft High School in Woodland Hills by opting for the University of Kansas instead of UCLA or UC Berkeley.
Single page
1 2 3 >>
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.
We could not possibly trust any special prosecutor, appointed by Bush, to investigate Karl Rove!
People like Bloch have done nothing but cover-up for this nitwit administration for the past 6+ years!
We, the people, will probably not find any justice at all, until after the next president is inaugurated, and maybe not then.
Sorry, we do not trust this pile of horse hockey.
A Bush appointee goes after the White House
Prosecutor Scott J. Bloch, a committed conservative, is turning heads with his investigation of the administration's political operation, headed by Karl Rove.
By Tom Hamburger, Times Staff WriterMay 1, 2007
Related Stories
-
About Scott J. Bloch
-
Gonzales allowed aides some hiring power, records show
-
Probe of White House political operations moves ahead
-
Counsel draws criticism before White House probe
-
Critics knock special counsel for administration ties
WASHINGTON — At first glance, Scott J. Bloch seems to fit the profile of the "loyal Bushie," the kind of person the White House salted through the Washington bureaucracy to make sure federal agencies heeded administration priorities.
But Bloch, 48, is a man who defies expectations.The lifelong Republican runs an agency — the Office of Special Counsel — that is turning its investigative spotlight on the White House, in particular the political operation headed by Karl Rove.
His office is investigating whether Bush administration personnel violated civil statutes by inserting GOP electoral politics into Cabinet agency meetings, firing at least one U.S. attorney, and discussing some of the activities in private e-mails that are missing.
When Bloch was recommended for the post by Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), few imagined his tenure would turn controversial among Bush Republicans. Although Bloch is a committed conservative, he says — displaying his Office of Special Counsel badge with a dash of drama — "I am a prosecutor."
Bloch says he felt compelled to initiate the broad investigation after reviewing results from two seemingly separate inquiries.
The first was a preliminary interview with the fired U.S. attorney from New Mexico, David C. Iglesias, who said, among other things, that his termination might have resulted from his failure to swiftly pursue a corruption case against Democrats.
The second involved a PowerPoint presentation highlighting upcoming battleground election races that a Rove aide, J. Scott Jennings, made at the General Services Administration this year."
We are the ones who draw the line at putting the people's business into a political machine," Bloch said in an interview last week. "I consider myself a very tough cop because I consider enforcement of the Hatch Act, which is what we do, an effort to keep government clean and accountable."
Most alarming for the White House is that if the inquiry proceeds as Bloch outlines it, his agency will focus on political strategist Rove's broad effort to harness the federal bureaucracy in service of Republican goals. Even if the investigation does not result in criminal charges, the process of discovery could expose the inner workings of the White House political operation.
Bloch has demonstrated a willingness to go after Rove, at least on the small stuff: The Times has learned that Bloch investigated complaints that Rove's politically related travel had been improperly billed to the government. Bloch's action resulted in a reimbursement to the Treasury Department for what some described as a bookkeeping error.There is some skepticism about whether a Republican appointee can really investigate the White House, and some have called for the inquiry to be taken out of Bloch's purview.
Critics say Bloch has been soft on Republicans in the past, issuing warning letters instead of taking a hard line in some high-profile cases. They also say that Bloch's investigation is compromised because internal complaints about his management of the Office of Special Counsel have led to a probe by the Office of Personnel Management — putting him in the awkward position of investigating an administration that is investigating him.
"This should be viewed in the context of Bloch's past history, which is one filled with allegations of politicization, reprisal and efforts to use the agency to promote pet causes," said Debra Katz, a Washington lawyer. Katz has filed a lawsuit on behalf of former Bloch employees who allege, among other things, that Bloch stifled dissent as he pushed aside longtime employees and hired friends and political allies.
Bloch disputes the complaints, and the Democratic chairmen of congressional oversight committees provided statements last week expressing general support for his agency's investigation.
But there is no denying that since he was appointed by President Bush to run the obscure Office of Special Counsel in early 2004, he has proved controversial, infuriating government-watchdog and gay rights groups and annoying the White House in the process.
A deeply religious conservative, Bloch came to Washington from Kansas in 2001 through connections to then-Atty. Gen. John Ashcroft and worked on the president's faith-based initiatives in the Justice Department.He was born in New York City, the son of a television scriptwriter. The family moved west from Brooklyn when Bloch was 3, and he grew up in Los Angeles while his father penned scripts for hit shows including "The Flintstones," "The Jetsons," "Gilligan's Island," "Gunsmoke" and the "The Mod Squad."
His father was a Republican, and as a boy Bloch worked for Ronald Reagan's his first gubernatorial bid.Bloch surprised his family after graduating from William Howard Taft High School in Woodland Hills by opting for the University of Kansas instead of UCLA or UC Berkeley.
Single page
1 2 3 >>
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.
More Of The Same Bush Lies: Unfreakinbelievable!
This is such complete hogwash...it just kind of leaves one stuttering, at this late date.
Who still believes this garbage?
Whoever it is, needs to be studied!
Bush says al-Qaida is top enemy in Iraq
By BEN FELLER, Associated Press Writer
President Bush on Wednesday declared al-Qaida "public enemy No. 1 in Iraq," placing increasing emphasis on the terror network forever associated with the deadliest attack in U.S. history.
The president also seemed to offer another definition of success in Iraq — not a lack of violence, but a livable level for citizens.
In a speech to construction contractors, Bush put a heavy focus on al-Qaida, which carried out the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people. In doing so, he sought more bluntly to cast the unpopular Iraq war in terms that U.S. citizens could connect to their own lives.
"For America, the decision we face in Iraq is not whether we ought to take sides in a civil war, it's whether we stay in the fight against the same international terrorist network that attacked us on 9/11," Bush said. "I strongly believe it's in our national interest to stay in the fight."
On Capitol Hill and across the nation, support for the war has long eroded as sectarian bloodletting gripped Baghdad. In the eyes of Democratic lawmakers and much of the war-weary public, U.S. forces have been dragged into a civil war between Shiites and Sunnis.
"The recent attacks are not the revenge killings that some have called a civil war," Bush told the Associated General Contractors of America. "They are a systematic assault on the entire nation. Al-Qaida is public enemy No. 1 in Iraq."
The Bush administration dates the unleashing of sectarian violence to the 2006 bombing of a Shiite shrine in the town of Samarra north of Baghdad, which triggered reprisal attacks against Sunni mosques and clerics. But recently, Bush said Wednesday, al-Qaida's brutality has failed to provoke the sectarian reprisals that it wants.
U.S. military leaders say sectarian attacks in Baghdad have declined, but overall violence remains high.
Bush warned that "casualties are likely to stay high."
"Either we'll succeed, or we won't succeed," he said. "And the definition of success as I described is sectarian violence down. Success is not no violence. ... But success is a level of violence where the people feel comfortable about living their daily lives."
Before the November election, Bush insisted to the media that the United States was "absolutely winning" the war. In December, he said the United States was neither winning nor losing, then clarified that he meant the U.S. was not succeeding as fast as he wanted.
The White House has repeatedly characterized success as an Iraq that can govern, sustain and defend itself.
The president was not "stepping back" at all from that goal in his speech, Bush spokesman Tony Snow said later.
Asked if describing al-Qaida as the main enemy is more politically persuasive, Snow said: "The characterizations here are not part of a sales pitch. They're an attempt to try to reflect what's going on the ground."
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.
Everybody Knew!
Envoys 'warned of Iraq invasion nightmare'
By David Blair, Diplomatic Correspondent
Last Updated: 2:04am BST 02/05/2007
Every British ambassador in the Middle East warned the Government that invading Iraq would be a "nightmare" and turn popular opinion against the West, a former envoy has told The Daily Telegraph.
Sir Ivor Roberts: warnings
Sir Ivor Roberts, now the president of Trinity College, Oxford, saw a selection of the telegrams sent by Britain's envoys in the Middle East when he served as ambassador to Ireland before the invasion of Iraq in March 2003.
As Britain and America massed their forces on Iraq's borders, these telegrams to the Foreign Office contained the ambassadors' considered advice on the wisdom and likely consequences of going to war. Some were circulated to every British envoy in the European Union and reached Sir Ivor's desk in Dublin.
To the best of his memory, the assessments offered by Britain's representatives in the Muslim world were unanimous. "Every ambassador in a Middle East post accurately predicted what a nightmare invading Iraq would be," he said.
"The telegrams I saw were full of doom and gloom about the consequences."
Sir Ivor did not "check them off one by one", but believes that every ambassador "from the Arab world or the Muslim world was anticipating how disastrously it would play in their countries at both public and government levels".
Sir Ivor did not see all the secret telegrams emerging from Britain's embassies in the Middle East. But British ambassadors in EU countries were on the Foreign Office circulation list for "quite a large amount of traffic".
Sir Ivor, who retired last year, called for an official inquiry into the war in Iraq. "How we landed up in this mess is going to be the subject of a long inquiry, I hope," he said.
After leaving Dublin in 2003, Sir Ivor served as ambassador to Italy and once described President George W Bush as "al-Qa'eda's best recruiting sergeant". He retired last year with a blistering valedictory telegram, saying the Foreign Office was gripped by "management speak" amounting to "bullshit bingo".
Sir Ivor, 60, stands by his key criticisms of his former employer. He believes the Foreign Office is obsessed by management at the expense of diplomacy and policy-making. This has helped the Prime Minister and his Downing Street advisers to assume much of its former role.
"There are now 34 separate reviews being undertaken at the Foreign Office. There are skills audits, capability reviews, zero-based accounting reviews and so on," said Sir Ivor. "Apart from being deeply demoralising and unsettling for Foreign Office staff, the same staff cannot be expected to focus on crucial policy questions, like how we clear up the mess in Iraq."
He added: "It's rather odd that outside the UK, British diplomacy is highly admired and we seem to be spending our time dismantling it faster than anyone can imitate us."
At the end of his career, Sir Ivor ended one hallowed tradition. Until last year, departing British ambassadors would always send a valedictory telegram to the Foreign Office. Under an equally hallowed tradition, these missives would often be leaked.
After extracts from Sir Ivor's last telegram were published, Sir Peter Ricketts, the permanent secretary at the Foreign Office, ruled that no further valedictory dispatches would be allowed.
Sir Ivor said that his criticisms of the Foreign Office had won praise from "every corner of the organisation".
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.
By David Blair, Diplomatic Correspondent
Last Updated: 2:04am BST 02/05/2007
Every British ambassador in the Middle East warned the Government that invading Iraq would be a "nightmare" and turn popular opinion against the West, a former envoy has told The Daily Telegraph.
Sir Ivor Roberts: warnings
Sir Ivor Roberts, now the president of Trinity College, Oxford, saw a selection of the telegrams sent by Britain's envoys in the Middle East when he served as ambassador to Ireland before the invasion of Iraq in March 2003.
As Britain and America massed their forces on Iraq's borders, these telegrams to the Foreign Office contained the ambassadors' considered advice on the wisdom and likely consequences of going to war. Some were circulated to every British envoy in the European Union and reached Sir Ivor's desk in Dublin.
To the best of his memory, the assessments offered by Britain's representatives in the Muslim world were unanimous. "Every ambassador in a Middle East post accurately predicted what a nightmare invading Iraq would be," he said.
"The telegrams I saw were full of doom and gloom about the consequences."
Sir Ivor did not "check them off one by one", but believes that every ambassador "from the Arab world or the Muslim world was anticipating how disastrously it would play in their countries at both public and government levels".
Sir Ivor did not see all the secret telegrams emerging from Britain's embassies in the Middle East. But British ambassadors in EU countries were on the Foreign Office circulation list for "quite a large amount of traffic".
Sir Ivor, who retired last year, called for an official inquiry into the war in Iraq. "How we landed up in this mess is going to be the subject of a long inquiry, I hope," he said.
After leaving Dublin in 2003, Sir Ivor served as ambassador to Italy and once described President George W Bush as "al-Qa'eda's best recruiting sergeant". He retired last year with a blistering valedictory telegram, saying the Foreign Office was gripped by "management speak" amounting to "bullshit bingo".
Sir Ivor, 60, stands by his key criticisms of his former employer. He believes the Foreign Office is obsessed by management at the expense of diplomacy and policy-making. This has helped the Prime Minister and his Downing Street advisers to assume much of its former role.
"There are now 34 separate reviews being undertaken at the Foreign Office. There are skills audits, capability reviews, zero-based accounting reviews and so on," said Sir Ivor. "Apart from being deeply demoralising and unsettling for Foreign Office staff, the same staff cannot be expected to focus on crucial policy questions, like how we clear up the mess in Iraq."
He added: "It's rather odd that outside the UK, British diplomacy is highly admired and we seem to be spending our time dismantling it faster than anyone can imitate us."
At the end of his career, Sir Ivor ended one hallowed tradition. Until last year, departing British ambassadors would always send a valedictory telegram to the Foreign Office. Under an equally hallowed tradition, these missives would often be leaked.
After extracts from Sir Ivor's last telegram were published, Sir Peter Ricketts, the permanent secretary at the Foreign Office, ruled that no further valedictory dispatches would be allowed.
Sir Ivor said that his criticisms of the Foreign Office had won praise from "every corner of the organisation".
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
