Blog For Free!
Archives
Home
2005 March
2004 July
2004 March
2004 February
2004 January
2003 December
2003 November
2003 October
2003 September
My Links
Monster Limo Weblog
Get Your War On
Howard Dean's official site
Winston Smith's blog
TomPaine.com
Connecticut for Clark
The Daily Howler
Monster Limo and Northern Transplant Weblogs staff retreat to Cape Cod
The Onion
Slate
Eric Alterman
Sulkbrarian
Buzzflash
Village Voice
The Democratic Underground
Ted Rall.com
SamAdams's Blog
AlterNet
New York Times
Joe Vs. Japan
tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images
Sponsored
Blog
|
| MoveOn.org Launches Online Fox Watch Group to Track Fox News’s Partisan Bias |
| 11.26.03 (10:24 am) [edit] |
Here's another great story I got from the Monster Limo Weblog. [blogs.salon.com/0001956] Many thanks to Consider Arms on this one. My schedule has been hectic as of late, so my posts have been less than consistent, and thus, why I've simply just lifted this story. Now, with that in mind, it's a good story.
Home | Newswire | About Us | Donate | Sign-Up | Archives
Wednesday, November 26, 2003
Home Progressive Community NewsWire For Immediate Release
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
NOVEMBER 21, 2003
2:21 PM
CONTACT: MoveOn.org
Simon Aronoff, Jenny Park, 415-901-0111 of Benton Communications
MoveOn.org Launches Online Fox Watch Group to Track Fox News’s Partisan Bias
WASHINGTON - November 21 - The wall between objective journalism and partisan politicking at Fox News fell last week when it became clear that Fox News staff contributed to the orchestration of the Republican-led 39-hour Senate talk-a-thon intended to counter the Democrat filibuster against four of President Bush’s most radically conservative judicial nominees.
“While Howard Dean has claimed the mantle of the ‘Democratic wing of the Democratic Party,’ Fox News has clearly become the public relations wing of the Republican Party,” said Eli Pariser, international campaigns director for MoveOn.org.
The idea for the food-and-cot political spectacle, also known as “Justice for Judges Marathon,” had its origins on the editorial pages of the Rupert Murdoch-owned Weekly Standard. Also owned by Murdoch, Fox News took the idea a step further. Fox News anchors Brit Hume and Tony Snow pitched the idea outright to Senator Majority Leader Bill Frist on the October 26th broadcast of Fox News Sunday. Two weeks after Frist appeared on the show, the two-day marathon was announced.
To chart this alarming disintegration of journalistic standards, MoveOn.org recently created an online “FoxWatch” group made up of thousands of Americans who have signed up to monitor Fox News daily and hold it accountable for specific instances of manipulations or distortions of truth and partisan bias.
In recent weeks, the evidence of partisan bias at Fox News and in other Murdoch-owned media outlets has been rolling in from watchdog sources. Here are some additional highlights:
May 19: The Murdoch-owned Weekly Standard publishes an editorial calling for “marathon, stay-up-all-night sessions like those of yesteryear” in response to Senate Democrats’ efforts to block Bush’s four most radical judicial nominees.
October 26: Fox News anchors Hume and Snow, in an interview with Senator Frist, challenge the Senator’s repeated contention that an all-night protest session would be counterproductive. Snow prods, “Make people stay in all night. Make it the central political event in Washington. Why won’t you do it?”
November 12: According to a leaked email, a producer for Hume’s evening news show, Special Report with Brit Hume, worked directly with a staffer for Senator Frist, in an effort to choreograph the launch of the Republican protest as a “live opening shot” for Hume’s November 12 newscast. As reported in The Hill, the leaked memo read: "It is important to double efforts to get your boss to S-230 on time ... Fox News Channel is really excited about this marathon and Brit Hume at 6 would love to open with all our 51 senators walking onto the floor -- the producer wants to know will we walk in exactly at 6:02 when the show starts so they get it live to open Brit Hume's show? Or if not, can we give them an exact time for the walk-in start?"
9/11 Commission News Blackout: Following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Congress created a 10-person commission over intense White House objections. Thomas Kean, the former New Jersey Republican governor and chair of the commission has called it “the largest investigation of the United States government in U.S. history.” Yet Murdoch-owned media including Fox News, New York Post and Weekly Standard have virtually blacked out all commission-related news. In the case of the Standard, there has not been one single mention of the commission in the nearly 50 issues that have come out since the commission was formed.
November 17 Sun exclusive: President Bush granted a single one-on-one interview to the British press for his visit to England: the Murdoch-owned London tabloid The Sun. No surprise here. This is the same newspaper responsible for a recent story, “Bush Shows Tax Cuts Can Boost Economy.”
The credibility of Fox’s so-called commitment to ‘fair and balanced’ reporting has been completely shattered,” said Eli Pariser, international campaigns director for MoveOn.org. “Brit Hume and others on his staff need to ask themselves if their job is to cover the news or make the news by orchestrating PR coups for Bush Republicans.”
Documentation available at:
www.moveon.org/mediacorps/fairandbal anced_sources.html
|
|
|
| |
| Muslim Groups Demand Apology from Dr. Laura |
| 11.21.03 (11:00 am) [edit] |
This is a story I got from the Monster Limo Weblog [www.blogs.salon.com/0001956], who in turn got it from the New York Post. Big thanks to the Sikh Geek.
Nov. 20--An Islamic group is demanding that radio host Dr. Laura Schlessinger apologize - for calling Muslims "murderers" on her nationally syndicated show.
On Monday, a caller asked Schlessinger whether her teenage daughter should accompany her "moral themes" class on a field trip to a local mosque to learn "how Muslims are treated" in America. "This is a class on morals. What is the point of going to a mosque?" Schlessinger asked. "You're joking of course . . . I think you ought to stand up against this class and this teacher.
"This is despicable," Schlessinger continued. "You tell [the teacher] you are willing to go to the mosque only if it is one that has done its best to route out terrorists in its midst . . . " Schlessinger then said she was "horrified" that the woman would allow her daughter, a Catholic High School student, to visit the mosque. "I am so sick and tired of all the Arab-American groups whining and complaining about some kind of treatment . . . What culture and what religion were all the murderers of 9/11?
"They murdered us," Schlessinger said. "That's the culture you want your daughter to learn about?"
"It's very disturbing," Ibrahim Hooper of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) told The Post. "Basically what she does is paint all American Muslims as potential terrorists or supporters of terrorists. "That's a very disturbing attitude coming from someone who's listened to by millions of people each week."
:evil:
|
|
|
| |
| Despite bombing in Istanbul, the war of awesome shall not miss a gear. |
| 11.20.03 (11:05 am) [edit] |
ISTANBUL, Nov. 20 — Two explosions rocked Istanbul today, one at the British consulate and the other at the British international bank HSBC, killing 26 people and wounding more than 400, the Turkish foreign ministry said.
The foreign minister, Abdulkadir Aksu, said two of those killed were policemen. "In today's attacks, there were again trucks loaded with explosives and it's highly likely that both were suicide attacks," he said.
International news agencies and the Turkish private television station NTV reported that the British Consul General, Roger Short, was among those killed in the attack.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/20/internatio nal/20CND-TURKEY.html?hp" title="http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/20/internatio nal/20CND-TURKEY.html?hp" target="_blank"http://www.nytimes.com/2003/1...
Bush, the same guy who lobbied the Queen to reenforce his sleeping quarters throughout the duration of his stay, said, " that terrorists hoped to intimidate and demoralize free nations, but they are not going to succeed". Also speaking to Iraq, and some poetry governing body, Bush had this to say; "Our response is not to flinch, give way or concede one inch." (sic)
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/internationa l/AP-Bush.html?hp" title="http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/internationa l/AP-Bush.html?hp" target="_blank"http://www.nytimes.com/aponli...
But hold the phone people, not to be outdone on his homefield, oh no, every brits favorite Prime Minister, Tony Blair, despite credible German intelligence that the attacks were deliberately executed during Bush's visit,
and the fact that a London-based Arabic newspaper on Monday said the organization planned to target ``the criminal Bush and his Arab and Western tails -- especially Britain, Italy, Australia and Japan", rebuffed suggestions that his alliance with Bush had provoked the attacks, ``What has caused the terrorist attack today in Turkey is not the president of the United States. It's not the alliance between America and Britain,'' he said.
And furthermore, Blair called these attacks a, "terrorist outrage".
Oh hey, Mr. Blair, call on me!!!!!
Can I have a more definitive explanation as to what a 'terrorist outrage' is?
Have you completely jumped out of your tree?,
your alliance with Bush isn't what caused these attacks?
That'd be like saying curling isn't an exciting olympic event, when clearly there is more than enough evidence to prove to the contrary. And if you're not a fan of the curling, just suppose the thinking that athough Wayne Gretzky played hockey, he never scored a goal, or that Michael Jordan, what a goofball in Space Jam, but he never made a 3-pointer, and etc.....
|
|
|
| |
| I demand peace from you, and bestow death on you. |
| 11.19.03 (11:21 am) [edit] |
President Bush, in a speech in London today said that the United States would not retreat from "a band of thugs" in Iraq, calling on the United Nations to stand behind its resolutions and, in forceful language aimed equally at Israel and the Palestinians, urging Middle East peace.
"It's not enough to meet the dangers of the world with resolutions," said Bush. "We must meet those dangers with resolve". He added that " the credibility of the United Nations depended on its ability to keep its word, and to act when action is required."
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/1...
Oh boy, stop it, you're killing me.
Maybe we should ask the Kurds what they think about our "resolve", or our ability to keep a promise.
The fact that the UN recognizes that Israel has committed serious violations of international law; breached the Geneva Conventions; and refuses to implement Security Council Resolutions, the UN has taken no measures against Israel and the violations continue. Yet despite this, it's time to hold Iraq accountable.
http://www.poptel.org.uk/scgn/articles/0303/pag e2b.htm" title="http://www.poptel.org.uk/scgn/articles/0303/pag e2b.htm" target="_blank"http://www.poptel.org.uk/scgn...
I think Ozzy said it best when he said, " We're(I'm) going off the rails on a crazy train".
And in a related piece of do as I say, not as I do, President Bush's non aggressively named Iron Hammer operation dropped some of the largest weapons in its inventory to attack targets in central Iraq in an escalating crackdown on suspected guerrilla strongholds, the military said Wednesday.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/internationa l/AP-Iraq.html?hp" title="http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/internationa l/AP-Iraq.html?hp" target="_blank"http://www.nytimes.com/aponli...
Don't you just love the word suspected? I wonder how well that would hold up in the real word;
" Well judge, I fondled that nice lady over there, because I suspected she wanted me to". "Sorry officer, I only drove home drunk becuase I suspected I'd prefer to sleep in my bed rather than in my car in the parking lot of the bar".
Despite it's pragmatic lunacy, it's readily used, and whole heartedly accepted. Go Merka, you unilaterally rule at the international bully pulpit.
|
|
|
| |
| The biggest problem the Democrats have is the fags, says man. |
| 11.17.03 (8:52 am) [edit] |
As I've probably stated before, and maybe too often, I've recently moved from Connecticut to South Carolina. And oddly enough, politically, things are a wee bit different.
I picked up the local paper this morning, the Spartanburg-Herald-Journa l, and they were addressing the issue of Southern politics, and possible ways the Democrats could go about winning the south. Also, there's a fantastic quote in here about the gay rights movement. This is my entire letter to the editor, and since my idea's are better than theirs, this is what you get, and even if they're not, I have dictatorial rights on this forum.
I write to address an article entitled, ' Democrats
Struggle to get message out'.
Although I do agree with the crux of the article, i
feel it leaves out an important point.
The most predominant problem the Democrats are
presented with, is their overt passivity in the face
of the Republican power machine. This began in 2000,
reared its face again during the midterm elections of
2002, when the democrats aligned themselves with the
President, and furthermore, it continues today.
But let's give credit where it's due, the Republicans
have done an inimitable job spinning and demonizing
liberal positions. It's not that you're against the
war in Iraq, it's that you're against your country,
it's not that you're against a school voucher system,
it's that you're against schools, it's not that you're
against state sponsored killing, it's that you support
criminals, it's not that you support a woman's right
to choose, it's that you support murdering babies.
And this is how the they've done it, do it, and will
continue on as such, until the Democrats make it their
centrifugal objective to loudly expose these untruths,
and determinedly silence them.
Being a liberal democrat from Connecticut, I'd also
like to address a quote from Mr. (Sam) Hudson, who
feels the Democratic party is preoccupied, " with all
this negative stuff", referring to the gay rights
movement", who furthermore stated, " They don't have
to be out there having parades".
Respectfully sir, this isn't Stalinist Russia. They
have the right, and ought to be, reversing the bigotry
that is rampant in America. I'm personally blithesome
that the women of the 19th century did as they did,
and subsequently brought the 19th Amendment to
fruition, and that Rosa Parks refused to move to the
back of the bus. This sir, is progress, and this is
the Democratic Party.
|
|
|
| |
| Cheering in the streets momentarily replaced by RPG's. |
| 11.15.03 (6:25 pm) [edit] |
The excited, cheerful Iraqi's momentarily took a break from America loving to down two American Black Hawk helicopters today. And all this just hours after a faster timetable for Iraqi self-rule was unveiled.
C'mon Iraq, we're awesome, we're just there to liberate you, that's why we name things as we do, such as Operation Iron Fist. Can't we just get you back to the days when you wore the latest 'America's #1', or 'Liberate the shit out of me' t-shirts?, or when you asked our soldiers to be ushers at your weddings?, or at least show us a little bit of liberating approbation.
A U.S. officer at the scene said one of the helicopters was hit on the tail by a rocket-propelled grenade. Witnesses said it then collided with another Black Hawk, and both crashed in a residential neighborhood in the northern city of Mosul.
http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyI D=3828842&pageNumber=1" title="http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyI D=3828842&pageNumber=1" target="_blank"http://reuters.com/newsArticl...
17 U.S. soldiers were reportedly killed, 5 wounded, and one missing. That brings the total to 5 helicopters taken down over Iraq in the past three weeks, killing 39, and pushing the American KIA number to over 60 this month.
And you said things were going poorly, who's laughing now you stupid liberal?
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/16/internatio nal/middleeast/16COPT.html?ex=1068958800&en=0e0 d783e15fdab48&ei=5059&par tner=AOL" title="http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/16/internatio nal/middleeast/16COPT.html?ex=1068958800&en=0e0 d783e15fdab48&ei=5059&par tner=AOL" target="_blank"http://www.nytimes.com/2003/1...
|
|
|
| |
| Oh, those pesky civil liberties |
| 11.14.03 (9:54 am) [edit] |
The Guardian has reported today that the anti-war group, the 'Stop the War Coalition' is exploring an option to sue police, on the basis of infringing upon their civil liberties. The mass protest, on behalf 'President' Bush's visit to England is expected to exceed 100,000 people.
However, the police, with a little bit of Bush administration prodding, is not allowing the group to take their traditional route which runs over the Waterloo Bridge, along the South Bank, and over Westminster Bridge, passing Parliament, Whitehall, and Downing Street, and on to a final rally at Trafalgar Square.
But this out of sight out of mind parading by the administration is old news by now, and if they're more than willing to supress media attention to out fallen soldiers at Dover, you'd better sure as believe he could give a fuck about protesters rights being trampled on.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0" title="http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0" target="_blank"http://politics.guardian.co.u...,12956,1084876,00.html
'President' Bush said yesterday that his trip would include visits to the families of the Brittish soldiers who have been killed in Iraq, as well as Brittish families of victime of 9/11, even if these families are some of his staunchest critics, but don't worry, he won't be visiting these families. Robert Kelly, whose 18-year-old son Andrew died in Basra in May, told BBC radio he had not been invited to meet the president, and did not want to meet him,"For these people to meet families, it is only for their own gain," he said. "What does George Bush care about our families and my family? He doesn't care."
http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&s toryID=3822594&pageNumber =1" title="http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&s toryID=3822594&pageNumber =1" target="_blank"http://reuters.com/newsArticl...
Bush also intends on bolstering Tony Blair's political standing while he's there. HA. and the hits keep on coming folks. 60% of Brittish voters polled recently disapprove of the way the American despot is handling Iraq, and 40% of people believe that Blair's close ties with Bush is good for Britain. So, moron, you may be the last to come around on this, but YOU'RE the one responsible for Blair's bottom of the toilet bowl political standing. And to think he'd be able to personally bolster Blair's standing, would be like sending David Metzger to appeal to a group of Black Panthers.
Bush also said he was looking forward to the visit, saying it would be, "a really interesting and fun experience". "Obviously, staying at Buckingham Palace is going to be an historic moment. I never dreamt when I was living in Midland, Texas, that I would be staying in Buckingham Palace," he said, joking that he would have to rent a morning suit for the occasion.
Hey asshole, while you're off fulfilling one of your life's wet dreams, people are dying, and all because you sent them there. The least you could do is pretend you care about them, instead of carrying on about how awesome your visit to the Palace is going to be. Although, then again, the conditions for our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are practically Buckingham anyways.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0" title="http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0" target="_blank"http://politics.guardian.co.u...,12956,1084862,00.html
|
|
|
| |
| A 'cooperative' White House reaches a 'deal' on 9/11 papers |
| 11.13.03 (9:40 am) [edit] |
WASHINGTON, Nov. 12 — The commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks said on Wednesday that it had reached agreement with the White House to give the panel access to copies of the daily intelligence briefings sent to President Bush's desk shortly before the attacks.
It appears that the administration, or more specifically, the President, is making way to make good on his promise to, " help the commission in every way possible". That, or maybe he's concerned about the potential political fallout a court fight, by way of subpoena, would bring him.
The panel, known as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, is comprised of 10 members, led by former New Jersey Governor Thomas H. Kean .
Commission officials said that under the accord two members of the 10-member commission would have access to the full library of daily briefings prepared in the Bush and Clinton administrations and that two other members would be allowed to read just the copies of the briefings that the White House deemed relevant to the inquiry.
So after months upon months of stalling the inquiry, they have assembled a bantam commission, and allowed an ever further diminutive contingent to have full access to these reports.
And this whole time I thought the administration was taking me for a walk down bullshit avenue. Boy was I a fool.
A Democrat on the panel, former Representative Timothy J. Roemer, had this to say about the administrations perpetual placing of unacceptable limits on access to the papers;
In paraphrasing Churchill, never have so few commissioners reviewed such important documents with so many restrictions." " I am not happy with this agreement, and I will not support it".
Even the America hating families of the victims of 9/11 don't agree with the lack of cooperation the Administration has put forth;
Our understanding is that this is an unacceptable agreement," said Kristen Breitweiser, whose husband was killed in the attacks and who is now a spokeswoman for the Family Steering Committee, which represents many of the victims' families. "The details haven't been shared with us. But we understand that this access will be highly limited."
|
|
|
| |
| Drug companies/FDA insist on sole ownership of pot at the end of the rainbow. |
| 11.12.03 (10:32 am) [edit] |
The Bush Administration, in true compassionate fashion, has expressed its support for the FDA and major drug companies efforts to curtail the influx of prescription medication from Canada.
A U.S. court on Thursday ordered drug store chain Rx Depot Inc. to stop helping Americans import discounted prescription drugs, saying the company's business breaks the law and the quality of the drugs may be unreliable.
U.S. District Judge Claire Eagan in Oklahoma ruled that Rx Depot had 10 days to send a letter to its customers informing them specifically that the company's "business violates the law and that the safety, purity and efficacy of drug products obtained through (them) cannot be assured."
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyI D=3773465&pageNumber=0" title="http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyI D=3773465&pageNumber=0" target="_blank"http://www.reuters.com/newsAr...
Speaking for the FDA, associate commissioner for planning and policy, William Hubbard, said in an interview, "We think this sends a clear signal to any of these businesses that would put profit ahead of safety that they are not going to be allowed to threaten public health".
Another FdA representative boldly stated, " We're sick of these people trying to make a buck".
Here's the one and only contention I have;
The U.S. companies produce product, ship it to Canada, where they then ship it back to the U.S., yet at a fraction of the cost. So clearly, if the drugs from Canada don't meet the FDA's approval, then it seems only clear that the drugs from here, are just as dangerous, no? Am I missing something along the line?
The Drug companies, in a 3rd grade manner have increased prices to Canadian companies by between 4%-8%.
One drug industry executive in the United States said that the gap in American and Canadian medicine prices might discourage manufacturers from releasing some new drugs in Canada.
"From now on, if the Canadians don't give us a price close to our United States price, I'm not selling it there,"
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/11/business/w orldbusiness/11canada.html" title="http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/11/business/w orldbusiness/11canada.html" target="_blank"http://www.nytimes.com/2003/1...
In a closely related piece, American drug companies have insisted the Canadians meet them at the flagpole at 3.
Hooray for Capitalism.
|
|
|
| |
| Seemingly, Iran is the next contingent of brown people in the American crosshair.. |
| 11.11.03 (11:08 am) [edit] |
Iran, who has been an American antagonist ever since the American backed Shah was removed in the Revolution of 1979, appears to be on deck on our regional checklist of destruction. It has been widely supposed that Iran for years, has been developing secretly, a Nuclear weapons program. Iran was found to have been in possession of levels that approach the level of milligram or gram of plutonium, technically a violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act, of which they are a part of.
"This is a very serious matter...(it) can't just be dismissed in a few lines and forgotten," said a Western diplomat in Vienna.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/11/internatio nal/middleeast/11CND-IRAN .html?hp" title="http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/11/internatio nal/middleeast/11CND-IRAN .html?hp" target="_blank"http://www.nytimes.com/2003/1...
To what mention did this diplomat make to North Korea's bold admission to have separated enough plutonium to make many nuclear weapons you wonder? I'll take nothing for $400 Alex. And you'd be right.
In an effort to make friendships in the region, the Bush administration claims that Iran is using its civilian nuclear program as a cover for its nuclear weapons program. Despite the fact that we're talking about miligrams here, the administration refuses to stop playing god. Iran, say what you want about them, have every right to the scientific benefits that a nuclear program affords a country, which it alone would certainly assist in the brain drain, and the resulting 30% unemployment rate in the Islamic Republic.
Despite the United States prodding, the facts are, Iran just doesn't have the scientific know how to produce these weapons, as to the fact that they are not allowed to have such a program, no documentation can be found to account for progress. In 2000, a report stated that,
" Iran's development of an indigenous nuclear programme, if continued as such, is well beyond ten years from producing its first nuclear weapon".
Now, that being said, I understand Iran's want for such a program that would develop these weapons. Let's look at this with a little bit of pragmatism. The Zionist, expansionist, and imperialistic Israel has a nuclear program, and is not an adherent to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Israel has also had the long range missle ability to to hit Iran since 1986. And if that's not enough for you, Iraq is right next door, a country that eliminated 75% of its 18-25 demographic between the years 1980-1988.
So, in my estimation, the idea of Iran proliferating isn't all that far out of bounds, if at all. How can you allow some countries to do so, and others not, especially when you're the only country to ever, in wartime history, drop a bomb on another that constitutes a weapon of mass destruction?
Right, we're god.
http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&stor yID=3796225&pageNumber=1" title="http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&stor yID=3796225&pageNumber=1" target="_blank"http://reuters.com/newsArticl...
|
|
|
| |
| NBC's biopic of Private Lynch is bullshit, confirms Private Lynch. |
| 11.07.03 (9:56 am) [edit] |
On the heels of raging controversy over the accuracy of CBS's Reagan mini-series, the long awaited made for tv patriotic fluffer flick has met it's own criticism. Not from partisan idealogues either. It comes straight from the Private herself.
Asked by the ABC News anchor Diane Sawyer if the military's portrayal of the rescue bothered her, Ms. Lynch said: "Yeah, it does. It does that they used me as a way to symbolize all this stuff. Yeah, it's wrong," according to a partial transcript of the interview to be broadcast on Tuesday.
Let's not get ahead of ourselves here though;
At first, a military spokesman in Iraq told journalists that American soldiers had exchanged fire with Iraqis during the rescue, without adding that resistance was minimal. Then the military released a dramatic, green-tinted, night-vision video of the mission. Soon news organizations were repeating reports, attributed to anonymous American officials, that Ms. Lynch had heroically resisted her capture, emptying her weapon at her attackers.
But subsequent investigations determined that Ms. Lynch was injured by the crash of her vehicle, her weapon jammed before she could fire, the Iraqi doctors treated her kindly, and the hospital was already in friendly hands when her rescuers arrived.
Asked how she felt about the reports of her heroism, Ms. Lynch told Ms. Sawyer, "It hurt in a way that people would make up stories that they had no truth about. Only I would have been able to know that, because the other four people on my vehicle aren't here to tell the story. So I would have been the only one able to say, yeah, I went down shooting. But I didn't."
And asked about reports that the military exaggerated the danger of the rescue mission, Ms. Lynch said, "Yeah, I don't think it happened quite like that," although she added that in that context anybody would have approached the hospital well-armed. She continued: "I don't know why they filmed it, or why they say the things they, you know, all I know was that I was in that hospital hurting. I needed help."
"From the time I woke up in that hospital, no one beat me, no one slapped me, no one, nothing," Ms. Lynch told Diane Sawyer, adding, "I'm so thankful for those people, because that's why I'm alive today."
Ok, the part that gets me, is when she says, "It hurt in a way that people would make up stories that they had no truth about".
But how do they explain this?
"One of the questions that could arise in the wake of this kind of trauma is that someone could believe they remember everything and their memory could still be incomplete," says Jeff Coplan.
Stand-by for President Bush and the grandiose contingent of the right wing peanut gallery to soon challenge Lynch's patriotism. I can hear Ashcroft now, " Private Lynch, with her statements, is aiding and comforting terrorists". Sounds funny now, doesn't it?
So now we are at an important crossroads. Do all these Republican zealots actually believe all the rhetoric they've been shoveling the past couple weeks, pertinent to the Reagan biopic?, or was that just partisan bullying?
The immediate future should let us in on it, as the show is scheduled to air this Sunday. I suspect this, which is an overtly fabricated tale, will air as planned, and with little discussion.
I have sent my argument along to Hannity, Colmes, and O'reilly, and am sure they will address it, as they pride themselves on being top shelf journalists.
New York Times;
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/07/national/0 7LYNC.html" title="http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/07/national/0 7LYNC.html" target="_blank"http://www.nytimes.com/2003/1...
Or, from Foxnews.com
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0" title="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0" target="_blank"http://www.foxnews.com/story/...,2933,102460,00.html
|
|
|
| |
| White House dismisses charges they were too hasty in war with Iraq. Also, I saw a dragon today. |
| 11.06.03 (2:27 pm) [edit] |
In the face of charges that the administration ignored
a direct offer from Saddam Hussein to do any and everything to avoid war, the administration, ironically, ignored the charges.
"The United States exhausted every legitimate and credible opportunity to resolve this peacefully with Iraq ... Saddam Hussein had ample opportunity to comply," White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters.
Well not for nothing moron, but as reported, it's evident as not to be the case. Every administration, since the use of tv, in regards to briefing, has spun, but this is an unprecedented disregard for the truth. I mean, just flat out lying. Yet en masse, we're riding his coattails to the land of crazy.
"They (the Iraqis) had the opportunity. The president gave a last-chance ultimatum," Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told reporters.
This ultimatum he speaking of, the 48 hour ultimatum, was on the heels of an invasion already underway. And again, if they offered to do whatever it took to avoid war, then they were complying with the ultimatum. Is this just too heavy to grasp? They were even willing to give the U.S. oil concessions, that's how far they were willing to go. Or in administrational eyes, being defiant.
Now here would be a radical idea, how about letting Iraq have the profits of their own oil? Oddly enough they have their own socio economic concerns.
Imperialism dies in the arms of passivity, and it's just me and my bleeding heart talking here, so don't listen to me.
http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml" title="http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml" target="_blank"http://reuters.com/newsArticl...;jsessionid=22SD1XKWA24VS CRBAELCFFA?type=politicsN ews&storyID=3771695
|
|
|
| |
| Womens Rights, President's wrong. |
| 11.05.03 (4:18 pm) [edit] |
Today, in another monumental snatch of personal freedom, Resident Bush singed a bill making partial birth abortion illegal. Despite the demonization of the partial birth abortion by the radical right, essentially what they're saying is, and how they fall soft on their pillows at night, is that they're saving the life of an unborn child. The demonization goes so far as to say that these doctors force the child out of the birthing canal and stab them with a pair of scissors, and then suck their brains out the skull.
What they don't tell you, is that they're willing to do this at the expense of the mother. " Hi Mrs. Smith, your baby is going to be fine, but one hitch, you're off to take a dirt nap". Pragmatically, does this make sense? or am i just off on another liberal, bleeding heart rant again?
Now let's get some facts straight here. Although the procedure that they paint is an unfair representation, it, in and of itself is not a desireable one. However,the argument to allow it is very simple. The Republicans would have you believing that this procedure is done a hundred times over every single day of every single year. The naked truth of the matter here, is that you're more likely to be hit by lightning 10 times over in your life, than for this procedure to come to fruition.
The only allowable situation where this can be performed is to save the mother's life.
Explain to me then, how can you put a worth on human life? is a baby's life more important than a mother's?
Republicans will tell you the baby has no say in the matter, but again, does the mother? she decided to have the child, not to die as a result of it.
But the black and white world known as conservatism will be holding up the victory sign for days to come, all the way to overturning Roe v. Wade. And despite your position on abortion, the fact of the matter is, when and if this happens, the wonderful world of back alley abortions will come back, as they did before the landmark case of 1973.
It's a good thing the Republican Party hates the Government being involved in your personal business. Hi kettle, I'm black.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/05/politics/0 5CND-ABOR.html?hp" title="http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/05/politics/0 5CND-ABOR.html?hp" target="_blank"http://www.nytimes.com/2003/1...
|
|
|
| |
| In a post apocalyptic 9/11 America, everyone's a hero. |
| 11.03.03 (8:17 pm) [edit] |
In the wake of the shooting outside the courthouse of the Robert Blake trial, moron pundit Sean Hannity exalted the cameraman for doing what he did, even going so far as to bestow upon him heroship. And what exactly did he do to earn this dubious distinction folks? He filmed a man brutally attacking a fellow human being.
It was Lenin who said, " the masses are, as a whole, passive, and can be defeated by the determination of a few". Subsequently, Lenin was right, as he went on to overthrow the provisional government.
My point here is this;
If you've seen the tape, which unless you've been under that rock you live in for the past few days, you have, and therefore noticed what I did. In the background, stands en masse, about 20 average rubberneckers, as well as a grandiose contingent of roughly 15-20 cameramen there to cover the Blake trial, and an honorary mention to the girl on the payphone, and what exactly do they do? absolutely nothing. Unless you count the few cameramen who follow the man, film still rolling to secure the top billing on the 10 o' clock news, as something.
Americans, or the undereducated troglodyte masses (Conservatives that just like to see shit blow up) love to carry on with their catchy PR one liners, like " United We Stand", yet sadly, to them it is just something cute that slides off the tongue. However, when the integrity of a people is put to the test, what they're thinking is, " United I stand by myself".
Standing idly by as another human being is being brutally attacked is not heroic, but at it's core, the most blatant show of cowardice.
The word " hero" has been tossed around in such a temerarious fashion as of late, I'm waiting to receive my heroship for properly tying my shoes this morning. :?:
|
|
|
| |
| Bush says we will not run from our vital mission in Vietnam. |
| 11.03.03 (6:24 pm) [edit] |
Speaking in Alabama today, your President staunchly defended the will of the his administration to do whatever it is to win a war for whatever it is we're fighting for. With the death toll in the "post war" Iraq now at 252, and using language such as seeing " the light at the end of the tunnel", things are seeming a little, i don't know, like Vietnam. During his speech, Bush stated;
" The enemy in Iraq believes America will run. That's why they're willing to kill innocent civilians, relief workers, coalition troops. America will never run".
Now read that over if you must, but i'm just as baffled as I'm sure you are as to why they'd be willing to kill coalition troops. Now think for a second. ok, got it?, if not, I'll dumb it down a little for you;
1. Military invades your country.
2. Military fires upon you.
Now, Einstein I am not, but grammar school educated I am, and to analogize, if someone punches you in the face, you punch them back, no?
Maybe his headlong " Bring em on" challenge wasn't so discering after all.
http://reuters.com/newsGalaxyPhotoPresen tation.jhtml?type=topNews&storyI D=3746759&index=0" title="http://reuters.com/newsGalaxyPhotoPresen tation.jhtml?type=topNews&storyI D=3746759&index=0" target="_blank"http://reuters.com/newsGalaxy...
|
|
|
| |
|
Cost of the War in Iraq
(JavaScript Error)
|
