| Me for John Edwards |
[28 Dec 2006|10:18am] |
John Edwards announced his candidacy for the '08 presidency today.
A year or so back I was in the Russ Feingold camp, but he's announced he won't run. I heart Obama as much as the next guy but I think he'll get shellacked on his lack of experience, especially if his opponent is John McCain. Don't know much about Joe Biden, and that's gonna be a liability for him in a field full of so many high-profile candidates with whom voters are already very familiar. And I -- like a lot of liberal Democrats -- was off the Hillary train long ago, though I'd of course vote for her if it came down to it.
So I say let's take a closer look at Edwards.
I know he came off as smarmy and processed in the '04 elections. He could've swung a lot -- a LOT -- harder in his face-off with Dick Cheney in their sole debate. But I still think the guy is the real deal. His stump speech is really stirring -- focusing on eradicating poverty, ending global warming and pulling out of Iraq -- and I just find him generally likable. I also think he'd have a shot in a showdown with almost any candidate the Republicans could field.
If you're so inclined, do check out this speech from a Ned Lamont rally last summer. Skip the opening speeches and go straight to Edwards -- he starts talking about 11 and a half minutes in.
|
|
|
[08 Aug 2006|06:17pm] |
Holy crap. According to the NYTimes, Lamont is beating Lieberman by about 10 points, with 25% of precincts reporting.
If these numbers hold, politics are about to get really interesting. It's fucking AWESOME. Knock on wood.
|
|
| Who Owns What? |
[13 Jun 2006|09:26am] |
A great online tool from the Columbia School of Journalism. Provides an overview of various corporations and their media holdings. Ever wonder just how much of the world's major informaton sources are controlled by Disney, Viacom and GE? Are you sure you'll be able to sleep at night once you know?
http://www.cjr.org/tools/owners/?tr=y&auid=1742649
|
|
| It's not a war movie, it's a war. |
[19 May 2006|09:41am] |
The story of Pvt. Jessica Lynch was a myth.
Pat Tillman turned out to have been slain by friendly fire.
And now we learn Lance Corporal James Blake Miller -- a photo of whom temporarily became (for some) the macho icon of the determined Iraq war soldier -- is suffering from crippling Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. He says the photo documents the moment when his mind snapped. Sometimes he hallucinates dead Iraqis lying on his front lawn.
The L.A. Times' heartbreaking profile of Miller here.
|
|
|
[10 May 2006|01:16am] |
Judd Gregg, Chairman of the congressional Budget Committe, wrote a letter to the NYTimes today. In it he attempts to rebut a recent Times opinion column which took the GOP to task for its failure of a fiscal policy.
Among Gregg's arguments:
"The issue of the deficit is primarily one of spending in entitlement accounts and of course paying the cost of the war and Katrina. You should focus on the looming crisis that will be brought on by the retirement of the baby boom generation."
Here we have a shining example of the workings of the Republican mind. Gregg correctly identifies some of the main causes of the deficit: "entitlements," the War and Katrina (conveniently ignoring the massive Bush tax cuts for the rich, but that's another post). But which of these should we pay attention to? Certainly not the GOP's wasteful war of choice in Iraq, based on the supposed existence of WMD that didn't turn out to exist. Certainly not the billions we must now plough into Katrina repairs, many of which expenditures might have been unnecessary if the GOP Bush Administration hadn't eviscerated FEMA and diverted funding away from necessary national security projects like fortifying New Orleans' levees.
No, we should focus on the liberals, and that damned Social Security of theirs that has led us to the brink of financial disaster! Never mind that if we took the hundreds of billions we've been pouring into Iraq war and stuffed it into Social Security we could keep the program solvent for many years. No, it is unthinkable that we could ever stem funding for the war. The war is a matter "of course."
It's amazing to me that Republicans still think this shit holds water -- and that the party keeps hammering on Social Security "reform" in an election year. Look at the polls, dude. We like our social security. We don't like the endless life-shredding budget-draining war. But hey, dude, by all means, keep talking.
|
|
| Ding Dong the witch is dead... for now |
[03 Apr 2006|09:20pm] |
As reported 32 minutes ago by the NyTimes... according to TIME magazine, ( Tom DeLay Says He Will Give Up His Seat )
But never you mind. He'll be back. These bastards always come back. How many Watergate operatives still work in government? Seems like the GOP always has a place for crooks in its ranks. And not just him. If Santorum loses his Senate seat in Pennsylvania? You wait and see -- he'll have some appointed federal position in a jiffy. John Ashcroft lost his Senate seat to a dead man and a few months later he was the top prosecutor in the USA, thanks to his buddy W.
So enjoy it for now. Enjoy, yes indeedy. Enjoy especially the continuing disarray this is sure to bring down upon the increasingly aimless GOP in the short term. But the DeLays of that party are all just heads on a hydra anyway, and you can't stop hacking away at them for even a second. Vigilance!
|
|
| Music and videos |
[27 Mar 2006|01:45pm] |
Just set up a "Serious Songs" page on YouTube.com. Pop and politics, yo. Two videos up there now, more to come. Check it out if you like. Meanwhile: great lyrics to a great song a friend hepped me to yesterday...
Faithless
"Mass Destruction"
[CHORUS]
Whether long range weapon or suicide bomber
Wicked mind is a weapon of mass destruction
Whether you're Soaraway Sun or BBC 1
Misinformation is a weapon of mass destruct
You coulda Caucasian or a poor Asian
Racism is a weapon of mass destruction
Whether inflation or globalization
Fear is a weapon of mass destruction
Whether Halliburton, Enron or anyone
Greed is a weapon of mass destruction
We need to find courage
Overcome
Inaction is a weapon of mass destruction
Inaction is a weapon of mass destruction
Inaction is a weapon of mass destruction
My dad came into my room holding his hat
I knew he was leaving,
He sat on my bed told me "Thanks son.
Son, I have the duty, calling on me
You and your sister be brave, my little soldier,
And don't forget all I told ya:
You're the mister of the house now remember this
And when you wake up in the morning give ya momma a kiss."
Then I had to say goodbye...
In the morning woke momma with a kiss on each eyelid,
Even though I'm only a kid
Certain things can't be hid
Momma grabbed me
Held me like I was made of gold
But left her inner stories untold
I said, "Momma it will be alright
When daddy comes home...
Tonight."
[CHORUS]
The skin under my chin is exploding again.
I'm getting stress from some other children
I'm holding it in.
We taking sides like a politician
And if i get friction we get to fighting.
I'll defend my dad he's the best of all men
and whatever he's doing he's doing the right thing.
It's frightening, but it makes me mad,
Why do all of these people seem to hate my dad?
And if that ain't enough now i get these spots.
I go to sleep every night with my stomache in knots
And what's more, i can hear momma next door
Explore the radio for reports of war.
And all we ever seem to do is hide the tears.
Seems like daddy been gone for years.
But he was right, now i'm geared up for the fight
And he would be proud of me.
[CHORUS]
My story stops here, lets be clear.
This scenario is happening everywhere.
And you ain't going to nirvana or far-vana,
You're coming right back here to live out your karma.
With even more drama than previously.
Seriously.
Just how many centuries have we been
waiting for someone else to make us free?
And we refuse to see
that people overseas suffer just like we:
Bad leadership and egos unfettered and free
Who feed on the people they're supposed to lead
I don't need good people to pray and wait
For the lord to make it all straight.
There's only now, do it right.
'Cos I don't want your daddy
Leaving home tonight.
[CHORUS]
|
|
| Feingold right; Most other Dems wrong |
[26 Mar 2006|10:18am] |
AP ran an article about Feinstein's surging popularity in the wake of his call for censure of Bush. It points up everything thhat's right with Feingold, and everything that's wrong with a good chunk of the rest of the party.
Relevant excerpts:
"These Democratic pundits are all scared of the Republican base getting energized, but they're willing to pay the price of not energizing the Democratic base," [Feingold] said. "It's an overly defensive and meek approach to politics."
Hell yeah, Russ. Preach it. We're never gonna retake the Presidency on a platform of "We're pussies, but at least we're not evil."
And in any case, this is too important an issue to let political considerations get in the way. This is a time when someone has to take a moral stand, or else allow this Administration to initiate a full-on police state. Ah, but Feingold's fellow Dems beg to differ, according to AP:
Many also see [the Senator's] effort as a distraction at a time when the Bush administration was on the ropes over Iraq and a since-scuttled port deal.
"It just takes us off discussions we ought to be having in this country on issues that really matter in people's lives," said Rep. Sherrod Brown, a liberal Democrat from Ohio who is running for Senate.
Wait, what? The fact that the President is breaking the law in order to spy on his own citizens doesn't matter in people's lives? I'm sorry, I'm far more worried about myself, or my almost uniformly outspokenly liberal friends, or the millions of American activists who dare to criticize our government, getting spied upon by a paranoid Imperial President -- especially this one, the one whose Administration also insists torture is legal -- than I am about a foreign ally owning a port.
|
|
| CNN -- 24 hours and nothing's on. |
[23 Mar 2006|09:28am] |
Every few months I check CNN's website to see what they're covering. I don't watch TV, so it's easy to forget that most people get their news from the box -- not from the papers I'm always quoting in this space. So I feel like it's a good idea to check in from time to time to see what information Middle America's getting, and how it's being spun. With the President's latest attempt at a rhetorical offensive against his critics (on the war, wiretapping, etc) I thought now would be a good time for a peek.
The good news: CNN doesn't seem to be spending much time spinning Bush's talking points one way or the other.
The bad news: they're not spending much time on real news AT ALL.
Here are ALL their frontpage headlines as of this moment:
Fire breaks out on packed cruise ship, 1 dead
Tour bus plummets into canyon, kills 12 Americans
Coalition rescues peace workers in Iraq
Fears mount for missing Milwaukee boys
Bouncer charged in student's death
Report: Aruba has new lead in Natalee Holloway case
Woman missing since 14 was with school guard
360° Blog: This 'folk hero' sheriff could face charges
Behind the Scenes: Meet Jesse Sullivan, real life bionic man
Watch: It's jewelry, it's a pet, it's alive!
Watch: Charlie Sheen shares his 9/11 theory
CNN TV: Former President Bill Clinton, 7 p.m. ET
Except for the Iraq rescue (and, arguably, the Clinton interview), not a single piece of nationally relevant journalism. It's all, ALL, sensationalism and celebrity.
There're also a series of video clips available for viewing, and these include today's White House Press Briefing and the Candian Prime Minister's latest speech, but aside from that -- more of the same. And they certainly are not the top headlines.
I know, I know, "what else is new?" Well, this does seem new. CNN has been sensationalist for a long time, but they always at least clung to the guise of serious journalism. Their headlines generally leaned towards hard news, even if the channel as a whole didn't.
Anyway, this is good. One less news source I have to check in on. 'Cuz it's clearly not a news source anymore.
|
|
| The Times chickens out. |
[17 Mar 2006|02:51pm] |
Here's an editorial from today's New York Times. In it, the editors claim to feel sympathy for Russ Feingold's call for censure of the President. But, they say, censure isn't the way to go.
Let me refute the editorial point by point:
March 17, 2006
Editorial
Time for Facts, Not Resolutions
We understand the frustration that led Senator Russell Feingold to introduce a measure that would censure President Bush for authorizing warrantless spying on Americans. It's galling to watch from the outside as the Republicans and most Democrats refuse time and again to hold Mr. Bush accountable for the lawlessness and incompetence of his administration. Actually sitting among that cowardly crew must be maddening.
Still, the censure proposal is a bad idea. Members of Congress don't need to take extraordinary measures like that now. They need to fulfill their sworn duty to investigate the executive branch's misdeeds and failings. Talk about censure will only distract the public from the failure of their elected representatives to earn their paychecks.
Yes, that's exactly what Congress needs to do now. The problem is, Congress is currently headed up by a Republican majority that has repatedly shown zero interest in holding the President accountable for his actions. The Republicans not only will not allow any investigation of Bush, they have proposed a bill that will codify his wiretapping into law. The only thing that remains is for principled congressfolk like Feingold to at least attempt to call attention, in the strongest possible terms, to the President's wrongdoings. His call for censure has done just that. It's also proving to Democrats that someone in their party is wiling to take the moral stand that has been needed for YEARS in the face of GOP pontificating about "values."
We'd be applauding Mr. Feingold if he'd proposed creating a bipartisan panel [...]
He can propose all he wants. The GOP isn't going to do anything about it. This is wishful thinking. We're past all that now.
[...] to determine whether the domestic spying operation that Mr. Bush has acknowledged violates the 1978 surveillance law, as it certainly seems to do.
Seems to do? DEFINITELY DOES. It definitely violates the law. The only people claiming it doesn't are the President and lackeys like Gonzales. The President broke the law. He ADMITTED it. The Republicans won't investigate. Because this cannot be allowed, that leaves people like Feingold to try other means to hold the President to account. If it doesn't affect things now, it could down the line, when voters impressed by Democrats showing some spine actually bother to vote some Democrats into office.
The Senate should also force the disclosure of any other spying Mr. Bush is conducting outside the law. (Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has strongly hinted that is happening.)
Yep. Too bad they're not doing it, and won't.
The Senate Intelligence and Judiciary Committees should do this, but we can't expect a real effort from Senator Pat Roberts, the Intelligence Committee chairman, or Senator Arlen Specter, chairman of the Judiciary Committee. They're too busy trying to give legal cover to the president's trampling on the law and the Constitution.
Good, then we're agreed. The GOP will not allow sane, standard investigations to proceed. Something else is required.
When the Republicans try to block an investigation, as they surely will, Senator Harry Reid, the minority leader, should not be afraid to highlight that fact by shutting down the Senate's public business, as he did last year. This time, though, Mr. Reid needs to follow up. The first time Mr. Reid forced the Senate into a closed session, Mr. Roberts said he would keep his promise about an investigation into the hyping of intelligence on Iraq. But Mr. Roberts continues to sit on that report.
So, wait. You're urging Feingold to stay mum about censure. Instead, you want Harry Reid to shut down the Senate until he gets assurances that there will be an investigation. Which has happened before, and which you acknowledge accomplished NOTHING. Why do you expect Reid to be any more persuasive now? Why do you expect the GOP to actually follow through on their promises this time? How is this a viable alternative to calling for censure? Neither will earn Bush the punishment he deserves, but at least Feingold is calling attention to the fact that a censurable crime is being allowed to go unpunished.
The nation needs to know a great deal more about the domestic spying. How many people's calls and e-mail were tapped? How were they chosen? Was Mr. Bush planning to do this until the war on terror ended — that is, forever? The public should be asking why members of Congress are afraid to make those important and legitimate queries.
No. We don't need to know anything more about the program. It is patently and obviously a violation of law. It doesn't matter one bit how many people were spied upon, or for how long. It was warrantless wiretapping of citizens, and it was done outside the purview of the special court that was specifically established by Congress to review these sorts of things. The only question people should be asking of their Congressmen is why they are protecting an admitted criminal named George W. Bush. Everything else is obfuscating and wishful thinking.
With so much still unknown about the domestic spying, the censure resolution merely allows the Republicans to change the subject to fairy tales about Democratic leaders' trying to impeach Mr. Bush. They are also painting criticism of Mr. Bush as unpatriotic. That's tedious nonsense, but watching Mr. Feingold's Democratic colleagues run for cover shows how effective it is.
That is utter cowardice, and plays directly into the GOP's hands. The GOP is doing what they do, which is to never defend themselves against attacks, never to admit to wrongdoing even when the wrongdoing is obvious. Instead, they smear the attackers. The Dems must learn this tactic too, starting right now. The GOP wants to smear Feingold and the Democrats? Don't retreat! Come right back at them with a smear. Call us unpatriotic? Fuck you -- who are you to determine who is or isn't patriotic, when your party members are taking money from the Abramoffs of the world to provide special laws that benefit your corporate buddies? Who they hell are you to call us unpatriotic when you sent our soldiers into war without enough body armor to keep their limbs from getting blown off by roadside bombs? How patriotic is the President's stalwart defense of brutal torture? How patriotic is it to spy on your own citizens without a warrant?
Another tactic the Dems could learn form the GOP is to start debate from an extreme position. Republicans have done this throughout Bush's tenure. Start by asking for the world, so that the "compromise" deal finally struck is actually far more extreme than anything you might've hoped to get by starting from a place of moderation. It happened, in fact, in this very instance. The White House said "The hell with the law, we're going to wiretap at will." Then, a couple weeks ago, they struck a supposedly hard-won "compromise" with Senate leaders that in fact gives the President far, far more latitude than what he had before. The Dems should follow the same script. They should all be screaming for censure. Hell, fuck it, why not impeachment? They know they'll get neither, but just to shut them up the Republicans might actually be forced to come back to the table and work out a "compromise" by which Bush's criminal action is finally brought to light.
In any case, NOW is the time to try something different, becuase the stakes are incredibly high. This isn't some fleeting political issue we're talking about. This is the brink of fascism. The line in the sand has to be drawn at a President illegally spying on his own citizens. Now -- especially now, with the GOP hurting, with a majority of Americans now seeing Democrats as stronger than Republicans even on issues of national security -- now is the time to demand fire-and brimstone of Democrats, not cowering fear.
|
|
|
[16 Mar 2006|01:07am] |
I read this:
( Call for Censure Is Rallying Cry to Bush's Base )
Then I wrote this open letter to the NYTimes. Because I think we're already seeing a repeat of '04, in which progressive voices got marginalized by cowardly "mainstream" Dems who were suckered by GOP mind-games. We can't let that happen again.
--
Regarding your frontpage article about how Russ Feingold's call for censure is rallying the conservative base...
Shame on you.
As usual, the media falls for GOP dirty tricks. They are SUCKERING you, Times! Suckering you!
How do I mean?
I mean, firstly, that your report on Feingold's actual call for censure -- an actual event in the actual Senate -- sure didn't get front page coverage in your paper. I believe it was buried in the National section, if I'm not mistaken.
But the GOP's ensuing freakout? Front page news! The politics trumps the event once again! Welcome to the brave new world of GOP spin.
While we're here discussing this, lemme tell you something else: we've seen these tactics from the GOP before.
Remember Dean '04?
Conservatives had a field day as Dean gained momentum in the early campaign season. Rags like the Weekly Standard gleefully published editorials telling all the world how much they'd LOVE Dean to be the Democratic nominee! They'd run roughshod over him! Please give us angry, crazy, leftist peacenik Commie candidate Dean, begged the conservatives!
The media faithfully reported Dean's "unelectability" as fact (which was really what killed his campaign, not the infamous bullshit "scream" which happened after he'd already lost a few state primaries), and Dean was out. Instead, Dems nominated the guy the GOP said would be a "tough candidate to beat."
John Kerry. Who ran a predictably spineless campaign and got steamrollered.
This is reverse psychology of the first order. The GOP never wanted to run against Dean. They knew Dean would mop the floor with Bush on the stump and in debates. Because he actually had charisma, ideas, and a clear message.
This situation is no different, it seems top me. The GOP is trying to kill off Feingold's support early, because Russ Feingold is the only Democrat in the Senate -- just about THE ONLY ONE -- who can actually run as a maverick Man of Conscience against the likely Republican presidential nominee in '08, John McCain, who has successfully cast himself as the GOP's maverick Man of Conscience.
How do they kill Feingold off? Make him seem like a liability to the party, instead of what he is: its best hope.
Meanwhile, Republican leaders claim eagerness to engage the Dems on the subject of censure. Yeah, right. Sure they do, sure they'd be happy if Feingold was actually successful in making Presidential censure stick. Look at the wonders Clinton's impeachment did for Al Gore.
No, what they're eager to do is confront a divided Democratic party on the issue. Or better yet, Russ Feingold alone on the issue. But a concerted, united Democrat call for censure? Even if it ultimately failed? No, no I don't think that does the GOP any good in a time of Libby and Abramoff.
God, and the worst part is, you give this calculated political hackery more visibility than the actual fact that actual members of the Senate have cause to believe the President has done something that actually might be worthy of censure.
I know your paper's editorial stance is vehemently (and justifiably) anti-wiretapping and anti-Bush. So I can only imagine that this kind of coverage is blinkered thoughtlessness, not calculated ass-kissing political sabotage. But for God's sake, wise up and stop doing the GOP's dirty work for them. They've got FOX for that.
|
|
| Petition. |
[15 Mar 2006|09:36am] |
I don't usually forward these things, but I'm starting to get a gnawing feeling in the pit of my gut that this wiretapping thing is the edge of really huge precipice. I can just see the police state that arises if Bush gets away with such a flagrant violation of law and of our privacy. It's really very scary.
So here's a MoveOn petition you can sign, urging Senate Democrats to support Russ Feingold's call for censure of the President. As of now, no Dems have sided with him, and in fact they've kept the proposal from coming to a vote because they're scared of being labelled "pro-terrorist" or something. Fuck them.
http://political.moveon.org/censure/
Even if Dems do support Feingold on this, of course, the motion won't pass in a GOP-dominated Senate.
But especially in an election year, with Presidential candidates testing the waters for a run at the white house, I think it's important that progressives make their voices heard on issues like this, so that our concerns are considered when organizations like the DNC start thinking about who to throw their support behind in 2008.
Me, I'm a Russ Feingold supporter all the way in 2008, should he choose to run. Supporting his maverick stance against Bush and his ilk now makes it more likely that he will choose to run, and that he'll be taken seriously when the time comes.
I hope...
|
|
| My letter to the DNC. |
[14 Mar 2006|08:22am] |
I read this:
( Democrats Beat Quick Retreat on Call to Censure President )
And then I wrote this email to the Democratic National Committee:
--
I'm a lifelong Democrat.
I was appalled to read in the news today that Senate Democrats have blocked Russ Feingold from introducing a motion to censure the President over his eavesdropping program.
The sense I get from the story is that Democrats are unwilling to challenge Mr. Bush on this issue because the public seems slightly in favor of eavesdropping on "suspected terrorists."
Of course, you and I know that if the question is phrased more generally -- along the lines of "would you favor warrantless government eavesdopping on American citizens?" -- Americans are overwhelmingly against such programs.
So what we have here is Democrats unable to frame this debate in its proper context: This has nothing to do with terrorism, and everything to do with the rights of ordinary Americans to privacy. That's an issue that resonates across parties.
This was an opportunity for your party to attack a deeply unpopular president for a program that -- even regardless of public opinion -- is one of the most serious violations of law by a President since Nixon. And if you had any sort of political sense you could have framed the debate so the subject was a winner for you. Instead, you decided to hide in your hole, fearing the Republicans would brand you "pro-terrorist."
Howard Dean, you told us, when you took hold of this party, that the Democrats were going to boldly announce what they stood for. You said they were going to seize the moral high ground.
How is allowing the President to illegally, unilaterally spy on Americans seizing the moral high ground? And if the Democrats don't stand for protecting the most basic rights of its citizens, what the hell does it stand for?
I'm ashamed of this party today, except for Senator Feingold, who the DNC will no doubt actively try to discourage from seeking the Presidency this fall. Well, he's got my vote. And without him my vote will be for Mickey Mouse. Mickey's about as effective an opposition to this weakened GOP as you blind suckers seem to be.
|
|
| Wait. WHAT?! |
[07 Mar 2006|12:18pm] |
Article in today's NYTimes about "mixed orientation" marriages. In other words, marriages in which one of the partners turns out to be gay. Interesting piece... but here's one little factoid the writer just casually mentioned as though it was common knowledge:
"Such marriages are not just artifacts of the closeted 1950's. In the 16th century, Queen Anne of Denmark had eight children with King James I of England, known not only for the King James Bible, but also for his devotion to male favorites, one of whom he called 'my sweet child and wife.'"
What the... I mean... wait... WHA?
Are you telling me, New York Times, that the man behind the most revered Biblical translation in evangelist culture -- a translation which evangelists insist demonstrates conclusively that God Hates Fags -- WAS A HOMOSEXUAL?!
And this unimaginable hypocrisy hasn't been trumpted to the skies by the gay community for what reason???
|
|
| Welcome to the USSA. |
[06 Mar 2006|09:04am] |
The NYTimes editorial page gets it exact;y right with ( their dissection of Congressional toadism in the face of Bush's illegal wiretapping program. )
But, as the piece notes, this is really nothing new. We should expect nothing more than spineless ass-kissing from these GOP "lawmakers." What's amazing is the total lack of outcry from traditionally paranoid, anti-big-government, GOP-aligned interest groups. Hey, NRA and your ilk! Aren't you the ones who say we should all be armed in case the government goes apeshit? Aren't you guys the ones screaming about privacy rights? The government just admitted it's spying on people, and it won't say who or when. This should freak your paranoid asses out. It's what you've always feared, made real and painfully clear. You should be writing poison pen letters to the GOP reps YOU elected, barricading your doors, and shining up the shotguns for the black heliocopters. Instead, you're at home watching "American Idol."
|
|
| It's on TAPE. |
[02 Mar 2006|10:04am] |
Here's some of the video footage AP reported on yesterday.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content//video/2006/03/01/VI2006030101864.html
In it, you see FEMA head Michael Brown and other experts, ON TAPE, warning Bush et al that Katrina was shaping up to be "The Big One" and that there was a real fear the New Orleans levees would be breached.
Bush guarantees these people -- ON TAPE -- that they will get all the federal assistance they need in the wake of the storm.
This is 19 hours before the storm hits.
As we all know, that federal assistance ends up taking days to arrive.
And four days after the storm, Bush excuses the slow federal response by saying "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees."
AP calls that a "contradiction." I call that a LIE. This incompetent Administration left thousands to die, victims of a disaster they had been warned might come. Then they set up Michael Brown -- who actually tried to save some of those lives by alerting the Administration to the seriousness of the storm -- to take a fall.
It's a top headline on the WashPost frontpage, but the NYTimes inexplciably downplays the incident, and leaves it as the second headline of their "Nation" section. I cannot for the life of me understand that.
|
|
| Talk about a smoking gun. |
[01 Mar 2006|02:50pm] |
New info regarding the Katrina debacle.
Brown as the desperate hero-turned fall guy. President as ineffectual idiot.
Video. They have some of this on video.
If this doesn't hit the NYTimes frontpage soon, there is no justice in the world.
--
BC-Katrina-Video, 1st Ld-Writethru,1,300
AP Exclusive: Video shows Bush, Chertoff clearly warned before
Katrina struck
By MARGARET EBRAHIM
and
JOHN SOLOMON
Associated Press Writers
WASHINGTON (AP) - In dramatic and sometimes agonizing terms,
federal disaster officials warned President Bush and his homeland
security chief before Hurricane Katrina struck that the storm could
breach levees, put lives at risk in New Orleans' Superdome and
overwhelm rescuers, according to confidential video footage.
Bush didn't ask a single question during the final briefing
before Katrina struck on Aug. 29, but he assured
soon-to-be-battered state officials: "We are fully prepared."
The footage - along with seven days of transcripts of briefings
obtained by The Associated Press - show in excruciating detail that
while federal officials anticipated the tragedy that unfolded in
New Orleans and elsewhere along the Gulf Coast, they were fatally
slow to realize they had not mustered enough resources to deal with
the unprecedented disaster.
Linked by secure video, Bush's confidence on Aug. 28 starkly
contrasts with the dire warnings his disaster chief and a cacophony
of federal, state and local officials provided during the four days
before the storm.
A top hurricane expert voiced "grave concerns" about the
levees and then-Federal Emergency Management Agency chief Michael
Brown told the president and Homeland Security Secretary Michael
Chertoff that he feared there weren't enough disaster teams to help
evacuees at the Superdome.
"I'm concerned about ... their ability to respond to a
catastrophe within a catastrophe," Brown told his bosses the
afternoon before Katrina made landfall.
Some of the footage and transcripts from briefings Aug. 25-31
conflicts with the defenses that federal, state and local officials
have made in trying to deflect blame and minimize the political
fallout from the failed Katrina response:
-Homeland Security officials have said the "fog of war"
blinded them early on to the magnitude of the disaster. But the
video and transcripts show federal and local officials discussed
threats clearly, reviewed long-made plans and understood Katrina
would wreak devastation of historic proportions. "I'm sure it will
be the top 10 or 15 when all is said and done," National Hurricane
Center's Max Mayfield warned the day Katrina lashed the Gulf Coast.
"I don't buy the `fog of war' defense," Brown told the AP in
an interview Wednesday. "It was a fog of bureaucracy."
-Bush declared four days after the storm, "I don't think
anybody anticipated the breach of the levees" that gushed deadly
flood waters into New Orleans. But the transcripts and video show
there was plenty of talk about that possibility - and Bush was
worried too.
White House deputy chief of staff Joe Hagin, Louisiana Gov.
Kathleen Blanco and Brown discussed fears of a levee breach the day
the storm hit.
"I talked to the president twice today, once in Crawford and
then again on Air Force One," Brown said. "He's obviously
watching the television a lot, and he had some questions about the
Dome, he's asking questions about reports of breaches."
-Louisiana officials angrily blamed the federal government for
not being prepared but the transcripts shows they were still
praising FEMA as the storm roared toward the Gulf Coast and even
two days afterward. "I think a lot of the planning FEMA has done
with us the past year has really paid off," Col. Jeff Smith,
Louisiana's emergency preparedness deputy director, said during the
Aug. 28 briefing.
It wasn't long before Smith and other state officials sounded
overwhelmed.
"We appreciate everything that you all are doing for us, and
all I would ask is that you realize that what's going on and the
sense of urgency needs to be ratcheted up," Smith said Aug. 30.
Mississippi begged for more attention in that same briefing.
"We know that there are tens or hundreds of thousands of people
in Louisiana that need to be rescued, but we would just ask you, we
desperately need to get our share of assets because we'll have
people dying - not because of water coming up, but because we can't
get them medical treatment in our affected counties," said a
Mississippi state official whose name was not mentioned on the
tape.
Video footage of the Aug. 28 briefing, the final one before
Katrina struck, showed an intense Brown voicing concerns from the
government's disaster operation center and imploring colleagues to
do whatever was necessary to help victims.
"We're going to need everything that we can possibly muster,
not only in this state and in the region, but the nation, to
respond to this event," Brown warned. He called the storm "a bad
one, a big one" and implored federal agencies to cut through red
tape to help people, bending rules if necessary.
"Go ahead and do it," Brown said. "I'll figure out some way
to justify it. ... Just let them yell at me."
Bush appeared from a narrow, windowless room at his vacation
ranch in Texas, with his elbows on a table. Hagin was sitting
alongside him. Neither asked questions in the Aug. 28 briefing.
"I want to assure the folks at the state level that we are
fully prepared to not only help you during the storm, but we will
move in whatever resources and assets we have at our disposal after
the storm," the president said.
A relaxed Chertoff, sporting a polo shirt, weighed in from
Washington at Homeland Security's operations center. He would later
fly to Atlanta, outside of Katrina's reach, for a bird flu event.
One snippet captures a missed opportunity on Aug. 28 for the
government to have dispatched active-duty military troops to the
region to augment the National Guard.
Chertoff: "Are there any DOD assets that might be available?
Have we reached out to them?"
Brown: "We have DOD assets over here at EOC (emergency
operations center). They are fully engaged. And we are having those
discussions with them now."
Chertoff: "Good job."
In fact, active duty troops weren't dispatched until days after
the storm. And many states' National Guards had yet to be deployed
to the region despite offers of assistance, and it took days before
the Pentagon deployed active-duty personnel to help overwhelmed
Guardsmen.
The National Hurricane Center's Mayfield told the final briefing
before Katrina struck that storm models predicted minimal flooding
inside New Orleans during the hurricane but he expressed concerns
that counterclockwise winds and storm surges afterward could cause
the levees at Lake Pontchartrain to be overrun.
"I don't think any model can tell you with any confidence right
now whether the levees will be topped or not but that is obviously
a very, very grave concern," Mayfield told the briefing.
Other officials expressed concerns about the large number of New
Orleans residents who had not evacuated.
"They're not taking patients out of hospitals, taking prisoners
out of prisons and they're leaving hotels open in downtown New
Orleans. So I'm very concerned about that," Brown said.
Despite the concerns, it ultimately took days for search and
rescue teams to reach some hospitals and nursing homes.
Brown also told colleagues one of his top concerns was whether
evacuees who went to the New Orleans Superdome - which became a
symbol of the failed Katrina response - would be safe and have
adequate medical care.
"The Superdome is about 12 feet below sea level.... I don't
know whether the roof is designed to stand, withstand a Category
Five hurricane," he said.
Brown also wanted to know whether there were enough federal
medical teams in place to treat evacuees and the dead in the
Superdome.
"Not to be (missing) kind of gross here," Brown interjected,
"but I'm concerned" about the medical and mortuary resources
"and their ability to respond to a catastrophe within a
catastrophe."
---
Associated Press writers Ron Fournier and Lara Jakes Jordan
contributed to this story
(Copyright 2006 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)
|
|
| Hell yeah. |
[15 Feb 2006|10:33am] |
Nice to hear a Republican say something I agree with. From the NY Times:
( House Member Criticizes Internet Companies for Practices in China )
Now if we could just get the GOP to apply the same standards of privacy and free speech to Americans. In the article, GOP rep. Christopher Smith excoriates the comapnies for giving the Chinese government a hand in "decapitating the voice of Chinese dissidents." I hope his party will muster the same condemnation for U.S. gov't snoops who've been caught spying on domestic protest groups, f'rinstance...
|
|
| You have got to be kidding me. |
[02 Feb 2006|03:50pm] |
The U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff have sent a letter to the Washington Post protesting an editorial cartoon by Tom Toles.
Here's the cartoon. The doctor is referencing a recent speech in which Rumsfeld said American troops in Iraq were getting nice and "battle hardened."
The Chiefs say the cartoon "makes light of disabled veterans." I just heard a retired Army general, on CNN, refer to the cartoon as "terrible."
No, motherfucker, here's a terrible cartoon:
You start a war of choice in a powderkeg country, send in nowhere near enough troops to secure the peace or to rebuild the country after you've flattened it, then neglect to outfit the troops with enough body armor to protect them when insurgents blow their fucking limbs off with roadside bombs. That's a sick, twisted awful cartoon. And you've made it a reality.
Now, dear Chiefs of Staff, please shut the fuck up about an editorial cartoon that clearly expresses sympathy for the soldiers' plight... and is obviously making a point about Rumsfeld's lack thereof. Seems to me you should be more preoccupied with somehow pulling our soldiers out of the quagmire you created.
|
|
| Whoa. |
[04 Jan 2006|01:38pm] |
Hi. Yeah, it's been a while. But here's something I thought y'all might not want to wait to hear about until a few minutes from now, when it'll surely be all over the place:
--
BC-APNewsAlert,0026
JERUSALEM (AP) - A hospital official says Israeli Prime Minister
Ariel Sharon has suffered a "significant" stroke.
(Copyright 2006 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)
--
So, um, what happens now?
|
|
| navigation |
| [ |
viewing |
| |
most recent entries |
] |
| [ |
go |
| |
earlier |
] |
|
|
|
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=92.2){kind=small}
serious_songs's journal