Saturday, July 19, 2003
Here's another article that I found at the Russian Anmti-Iraq War site:
Careful: The FB-eye may be watching
Reading the wrong thing in public can get you in trouble
07/17/03: (Creative Loafing) "The FBI is here, "Mom tells me over the phone. Immediately I can see my mom with her back to a couple of Matrix-like figures in black suits and opaque sunglasses, her hand covering the mouthpiece like Grace Kelly in Dial M for Murder. This must be a joke, I think. But it's not, because Mom isn't that funny.
"The who?" I say.
"Two FBI agents. They say you're not in trouble, they just want to talk. They want to come to the store."
I work in a small, independent bookstore, and since it's a slow Tuesday afternoon, I figure, "Sure." Someone I know must have gotten some government work, I think; hadn't my consultant friend spoken recently of getting rolled onto some government job? Background check, I think, interviewing acquaintances ... No big deal, right? Then, of course, I make a big deal about it in front of my co-workers.
"That was my mom," I tell them. "The FBI's coming for me." They laugh; it's a good joke, especially when the FBI actually shows up. They are not the bogeymen I had been expecting. They're dressed casually, they speak familiarly, but they are big. The one in front stands close to 7 feet, and you can tell his partner is built like a bulldog under his baggy shirt and shorts.
"You Marc Schultz?" asks the tall one. He shows me his badge, introduces himself as Special Agent Clay Trippi. After assuring me that I'm not in trouble, he asks if there is someplace we can sit down and talk. We head back to Reference, where a table and chairs are set up. We sit down, and I'm again informed that I am not in trouble.
Then, Agent Trippi asks, "Do you drive a black Nissan Altima?" And I realize this meeting is not about a friend. Despite their reassurances, and despite the fact that I haven't committed any federal offenses (that I know of), I'm starting to feel a bit like I'm in trouble.
They ask me if I was driving my car on Saturday, and I say, reasonably sure, that I was. They ask me where I went, and I struggle for a moment to remember Saturday. I make a lame joke about how the days run together when you're underemployed. They smile politely. Was I at work on Saturday? I think so.
"Were you at the Caribou Coffee on Powers Ferry?" asks Agent Trippi. That's where I get my coffee before work, and so I tell him yes, probably, just before remembering Saturday: Harry Potter day, opening early, in at 8:30.
So I would have been at Caribou Coffee that Saturday, getting my small coffee, room for cream. This information seems to please the agents.
"Did you notice anything unusual, anyone worth commenting on?" OK, I think. It's the unusual guy they want, not me. I think hard, wondering if it was Saturday I saw the guy in the really cool reclining wheelchair, the guy who struck me as a potential James Bondian supervillain, but no: That was Monday.
Then they ask if I carried anything into the shop -- and we're back to me.
My mind races. I think: a bomb? A knife? A balloon filled with narcotics? But no. I don't own any of those things. "Sunglasses," I say. "Maybe my cell phone?"
Not the right answer. I'm nervous now, wondering how I must look: average, mid-20s, unassuming retail employee. What could I have possibly been carrying?
Trippi's partner speaks up: "Any reading material? Papers?" I don't think so. Then Trippi decides to level with me: "I'll tell you what, Marc. Someone in the shop that day saw you reading something, and thought it looked suspicious enough to call us about. So that's why we're here, just checking it out. Like I said, there's no problem. We'd just like to get to the bottom of this. Now if we can't, then you may have a problem. And you don't want that."
You don't want that? Have I just been threatened by the FBI? Confusion and a light dusting of panic conspire to keep me speechless. Was I reading something that morning? Something that would constitute a problem?
The partner speaks up again: "Maybe a printout of some kind?"
Then it occurs to me: I was reading. It was an article my dad had printed off the Web. I remember carrying it into Caribou with me, reading it in line, and then while stirring cream into my coffee. I remember bringing it with me to the store, finishing it before we opened. I can't remember what the article was about, but I'm sure it was some kind of left-wing editorial, the kind that never fails to incite me to anger and despair over the state of the country.
I tell them all this, but they want specifics: the title of the article, the author, some kind of synopsis, but I can't help them -- I read so much of this stuff.
"Do you still have the article?" Probably not, but I suggest we check behind the counter. When that doesn't pan out, I have the bright idea to call my dad at work, see if he can remember. Of course, he can't put together a coherent sentence after I tell him the FBI are at the store, questioning me.
"The FBI?" he keeps asking. Eventually I get him off the phone, and suggest it may be in my car. They follow me out to the parking lot, where Trippi asks me if there's anything in the car he should know about.
"Weapons, drugs? It's not a problem if you do, but if you don't tell me and then I find something, that's going to be a problem." I assure him there's nothing in my car, coming very close to quoting Rudy Ray Moore in Dolemite: "There's nothin' in my trunk, man."
The excitement of the questioning -- the interrogation -- has made me just a little bit giddy. I almost laugh out loud when they ask me to pop my trunk.
There's nothing in my car, of course. I keep looking anyway, while telling them it was probably some kind of what-did-they-know-and-when-did-they-know-it article about the buildup to Gulf War II. Trippi nods, unsatisfied. I turn up some papers from the University of Georgia, where I'm about to begin as a grad student. He asks me what I'm going to study.
"Journalism," I say. As I duck back into the car, I hear Agent Trippi informing his partner, "He's going to UGA for journalism" in a way that makes me wonder whether that counts against me.
Back in the store, Trippi gives me his card and tells me to call him if I remember anything. After he's gone, I call my dad back to see if he has calmed down, maybe come up with a name. We retrace some steps together, figure out the article was Hal Crowther's "Weapons of Mass Stupidity" from the Weekly Planet, a free independent out of Tampa. It comes back to me then, this scathing screed focusing on the way corporate interests have poisoned the country's media, focusing mostly on Fox News and Rupert Murdoch -- really infuriating, deadly accurate stuff about American journalism post-9-11. So I call the number on the card, leave a message with the name, author and origin of the column, and ask him to call me if he has any more questions.
To tell the truth, I'm kind of anxious to hear back from the FBI, if only for the chance to ask why anyone would find media criticism suspicious, or if maybe the sight of a dark, bearded man reading in public is itself enough to strike fear in the heart of a patriotic citizen.
My co-worker, Craig, says that we should probably be thankful the FBI takes these things seriously; I say it seems like a dark day when an American citizen regards reading as a threat, and downright pitch-black when the federal government agrees.
Special Agent Trippi didn't return calls from CL. But Special Agent Joe Paris, Atlanta field office spokesman, stressed that specific FBI investigations are confidential. He wouldn't confirm or deny the Schultz interview.
"In this post-911 era, it is the absolute responsibility of the FBI to follow through on any tips of potential terrorist activity," Paris says. "Are people going to take exception and be inconvenienced by this at times? Oh, yeah. ... A certain amount of convenience is going to be offset by an increase in security."
----------------------------------------------------------------
Here is the article that caused the FB eye to interview Mr. Schultz:
Weapons Of Mass Stupidity
Fox News hits a new lowest common denominator
BY HAL CROWTHER
It's the inviolable first rule of democracy that all politicians will praise the wisdom of the people -- an effusive flattery that intensifies when they ask "the people" to swallow something exceptionally inedible. What the people never hear from anyone, or from anyone with further ambitions, is the truth. If a public figure wishes to leave the stage forever, a sound strategy is to offer his fellow citizens a candid and disparaging assessment of their intelligence.
In the aftermath of the conquest of Iraq, as we awake to the bewildering possibility of a United States of Asia, the patriotic pageantry and premature gloating call to mind an obsession that once gripped the great French novelist Gustave Flaubert. (In my recklessness I ignore the halfwit embargo on all things French.) Flaubert, according to W.G. Sebald, became convinced that his own work and his own brain had been infected by a national epidemic of stupidity, a relentless tide of gullibility and muddled thinking which made him feel, he said, as if he were sinking into sand.
At his low point, Flaubert convinced himself that everything he had written had been contaminated and "consisted solely of a string of the most abysmal errors and lies." Sometimes he lay on his couch for months, frozen with the dread that anything he wrote would only extend Stupidity's domain. Flaubert became a scholar of moronic utterances, painstakingly collecting hundreds of what he called betises -- stupidities -- and arranging them in his "Dictionary of Received Opinions."
The wondrous blessing God bestowed on Gustave Flaubert -- and on America's own great chroniclers of contagious stupidity, Mark Twain and H.L. Mencken -- is that they lived and died without imagining a thing like Fox News. It's easy to laugh at Rupert Murdoch's outrageous mongrel, the impossible offspring of supermarket tabloids, sitcom news spoofs, police-state propaganda mills and the World Wrestling Federation.
Fox News is an oxymoron and Cheech and Chong would have made a more credible team of war correspondents than Geraldo Rivera and Ollie North. Neither Saturday Night Live nor the 1973 film Network , Paddy Chayefsky's corrosive satire of TV news, could even approach the comic impact of Geraldo embedded, or of Fox's pariah parade, its mothball fleet of experts who always turn out to be disgraced or indicted Republican refugees. If Ed Meese, Newt Gingrich and Elliott Abrams couldn't fill your sails with mirth, you could count on the recently deposed Viceroy of Virtue and High Regent of Rectitude, my old schoolmate Blackjack Bill Bennett.
With its red-faced, hyperventilating reactionaries and slapstick abuse of lame "liberal" foils who serve them as crash dummies, Fox News could easily be taken as pure entertainment, even as inspired burlesque of the rightwing menagerie. But the problem -- in fact, the serious problem - is that Fox isn't kidding, and brownshirts aren't funny.
Harper's reports that Fox commentator Bill O'Reilly became so infuriated by the son of a 9-ll victim who opposed the war -- "I'm against it and my father would have been against it, too" -- that he cursed the man and even threatened him off-camera. A Fox TV anchor, one Neil Cavuto, celebrated the fall of Baghdad by informing all of us who opposed the war in March, "You were sickening then, you are sickening now." If reports are accurate, these troubled men are neither bad journalists nor even bad actors portraying journalists -- they're mentally unbalanced individuals whose partisan belligerence is pressing them to the brink of psychosis.
But the scariest thing about Fox and Rupert Murdoch, the thing that renders them all fear and no fun in a time of national crisis, is that they channel for the Bush administration as faithfully as if they were on the White House payroll. Like no other substantial media outlet in American history, Fox serves -- voluntarily -- as the propaganda arm of a controversial, manipulative, image-obsessed government. To watch its war coverage for even a minute was to grind your teeth convulsively at each Orwellian repetition of the Newspeak mantra, "Operation Iraqi Freedom." I swear I hate to stoop to Nazi analogies; but if Joseph Goebbels had run his own cable channel, it would have been indistinguishable from Fox News.
Fox's truculent patriotism is misleading, of course. Rupert Murdoch is not exactly an American patriot, he's not even exactly an American. Though he became an American citizen in 1985 (solely to qualify, under US law, as the owner of a TV network), the Australian Murdoch was already 54 and his tabloid formula had already polluted the media mainstreams in Australia and Great Britain. Murdoch is an insatiable parasite, a vampirish lamprey who fastens himself to English-speaking nations and grows fat on their cultural lifeblood, leaving permanently degraded media cultures in his wake. Rabid patriotism is a product he sells, along with celebrity gossip, naked women and smirky bedroom humor, in every country he contaminates. And a little "white rage" racism has always gone into his mix for good measure. ("He tried so hard to use race to sell his newspapers that he became known as "Tar Baby' Murdoch," Jimmy Breslin once charged.)
Murdoch's repulsive formula has proven irresistible from Melbourne to Manhattan, and now, by satellite, he's softening up Beijing. His great fortune rests on his wager that a huge unevolved minority is stupid, bigoted, prurient, nasty to the core. In America today, it's hard to say whether Rupert Murdoch is an agent, or merely a beneficiary, of the cultural leprosy that's consuming us. But the conspicuous success of Fox News, lamentable in the best of times, is devastating in a shell-shocked nation that sees itself at war.
It is and has always been true, in Samuel Johnson's famous words, that "patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel" -- by which, of course, Dr. Johnson meant patriotism as a political and rhetorical weapon, not as a private emotion. Belittling other people's patriotism to achieve political leverage is the lowest road a public scoundrel can travel, the road where neo-conservative meets neo-fascist. In flag-frenzied Fox, an unscrupulous administration found a blunt object ready-made to hammer its critics.
Liars With Secret Agendas
Years ago in Moscow, at the dawn of perestroika, a pair of Russian journalists showed me headlines from the New York Post that made Kruschchev's "We will bury you" sound like "Have a nice day." How can there ever be peace, they asked me, if America hates us so much? Handicapped by the yawning gap between our respective press traditions, I tried to explain that the Post had nothing to do with our government or even the American media machine, that it was owned by an Australian whose Red-baiting and saber-rattling was an act designed to sell newspapers to morons. That he was unconnected to our government was something I believed about Murdoch in 1984, though no doubt Ronald Reagan was eager to naturalize a lonely immigrant with billions to invest in right-wing media.
But now? Is it sheer coincidence that the president's stage manager, Greg Jenkins -- responsible for the notorious flight-suit landing on the USS Abraham Lincoln, and for posing George Bush against Mt. Rushmore and the Statue of Liberty -- was recently a producer at Fox News?
If these elaborate tableaus Jenkins choreographs for President Bush seem clumsy, tasteless, condescending and insulting to your intelligence, you must be some kind of liberal. They bear an uncanny family resemblance to the red-white-and-blue show at Fox News, and heavy-handedness has never harmed its ratings, nor the president's either.
How stupid are we, finally, how easy to fool? Fox News is run by the insidious Roger Ailes -- image merchant for Nixon, Reagan and Bush senior, producer for Rush Limbaugh, newsman never -- and Fox is not what it seems to be. It's not a news service, certainly, nor even the sincere voice of low-rent nationalism. It's a calculated fraud, like the president who ducked the draft during Vietnam, and even welshed on his National Guard commitment, but who puts on a flight suit stenciled "Commander-in-chief" and plays Douglas MacArthur on network TV.
"I almost choked," said my mother's friend Doris, who's 90. "I had to lie down." It's possible that even old George Bush, who served with distinction in World War II, had to stifle a groan over that one.
The invasion of Iraq was in no way what it seemed to be, either. Saddam Hussein was never a threat to the United States. His "weapons of mass destruction" remain invisible, his terrorist connections remain unproven, and he had absolutely nothing to do with the destruction of the World Trade Center. Most cynical of all was the "liberation" lie, the administration's sudden concern for the helpless citizens of Iraq. Saddam, as grotesque as he was, wasn't getting any meaner, and "liberators" like Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney were doing brisk business with him when he was in his murderous, citizen-eating prime (and in Cheney's case, as recently as 1999). It would take half a page to list all the US-sanctioned dictators, killers of their people, who will be sharing hell's hottest corner with Saddam Hussein.
Liars with secret agendas are treating Americans like frightened children. If that sounds like a cry from the Left, get a transcript of Sen. Robert Byrd's remarks to the Senate on May 21. Byrd, nobody's liberal by any stretch of the imagination, accuses the White House of constructing "a house of cards, built on deceit," to justify its war on Iraq.
According to polls, at least half of us were so eager to be deceived, we believed the one lie Bush never dared to tell us, except by implication: that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
According to a CNN poll, 51 percent believe this -- "The Moron Majority," declares the headline in The Progressive Populist . And at that point, like poor Flaubert, I feel the sand around my ankles. I want to lie down and give up. On the wall above my bed of pain, two familiar quotations: "The tyranny of the ignoramuses is insurmountable and assured for all time" -- Albert Einstein; and "Perhaps the universe is nothing but an equilibrium of idiocies." -- George Santayana.
It violates democratic etiquette to call your fellow citizens "idiots." (Unless they're liberals -- "We all agree that liberals are stupid," writes Charles Krauthammer.) Fortunately, the PC wordworks has coined a new euphemism to replace the ugly word "retarded." It's "intellectually disabled," and we have it just in time. How else could we describe a majority that accepts the logic of "supporting the troops"? Protest as I might, a local columnist explained to me, once the soldiers are "locked and cocked" I owe them not only my prayers for their safe deliverance but unqualified endorsement of their mission, no matter how immoral and ill-advised it may seem to me.
According to this woeful logic, whoever controls the armed forces in the country where you live owns your conscience and your soul. It mandates unanimous civilian support for King Herod's soldiers smashing Hebrew babies against doorposts. It holds our soldiers hostage to silence our common sense, independent judgment and moral autonomy -- the foundations of each thinking individual's self-respect, not to mention the foundations of every theory of democratic government.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public," said President Theodore Roosevelt.
The Madhouse Choir
They don't make Republicans like they used to. The troop-support doctrine, so universally and smugly conceded, is logic for the intellectually disabled, for people who've been hit in the head repeatedly with a heavy shovel. The stupidity of those who buy it is no more astonishing than the hypocrisy of those who sell it -- Republicans who preach our sacred duty to the army's morale and simultaneously cancel $15 billion in veteran's benefits and 60 percent of federal education subsidies for servicemen's children. If you can't believe that, look it up.
When is it too late to wake the sleeping masses? When a Fox TV show for amateur entertainers turns up more voters than Congressional elections? The marriage of television and propaganda may well have been the funeral of reason. In the meantime, Iraq is a bloody mess and Afghanistan a tragic mess, and most of the earth's one billion Muslims think the US and Israel are trying to conquer their world and destroy their religion. America's economy is suffocating ("A sickly economy with no cure in sight" says this morning's paper), her currency is in free fall and her reputation flies below half mast on every continent. We've been instructed to hate the French, our allies since the days of Lafayette, because they dared to tell us the truth.
What our best friends think of us is epitomized by a new play in Paris titled George W. Bush, or God's Sad Cowboy. Another in London is called The Madness of George Dubya. Our only original enemies, the terrorists of Al-Qaeda, seem to be thriving -- and quite naturally gaining recruits. There's a chilling suspicion that major architects of our current foreign policy are insane. Listen to Bush adviser Richard Perle, known since his Reagan years as the Prince of Darkness: "If we let our vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely, and we don't try to piece together clever diplomacy but just wage total war , (my italics) our children will sing great songs about us years from now."
Is that the children I hear singing, or the madhouse choir? (Calling Dr. Strangelove. . .) But polls tell us that through all the wars and lies and logical meltdowns that followed 9-11, 70 percent of adult America declared itself well satisfied and well served.
"I think it is terrifying," said the late Bishop Paul Moore, a Yale aristocrat who, like most mainstream clergymen, did not support the Bush wars. "I believe it will lead us to a terrible crack in the whole culture as we have come to know it."
I believe it has, and I believe that the split between liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican is inconsequential compared to the real fracture line, between Americans who try to think clearly and those who will not or cannot. What hope, a cynical friend teased me, for a country where 70 percent believe in angels, 60 percent believe in literal, biblical, blazing Armageddon, and more than half reject Charles Darwin? He didn't need to add that creationists, science-annihilating cretins, have now recruited President Bush, who assures fundamentalists he "has doubts" about evolution.
Whether the president is that dumb or merely that dishonest is beside the point. He knows his constituency. New research published by the National Academy of Sciences asserts that human beings and chimpanzees share 99.4 percent of their DNA. Would the polls (or the elections) change if subjects had to submit to DNA tests to prove they possess the qualifying .6 percent? American readers have purchased 50 million copies of Tim LaHaye's gonzo Apocalypse novels, still more evidence that what awaits the United States of America is not a physical but an intellectual Armageddon.
Was it dry, desert sand or quicksand that the despairing Flaubert imagined? When we look down, can we still see our knees? Novelist Michael Malone, a notorious optimist, offered a faint ray of hope when he urged me to ignore all the polls -- if the government has intimidated most of the media, he argued, what makes you think the polls are credible?
When the sand begins to grip us and no lifeline appears, we clutch at straws. Yet there's anecdotal evidence that the polls could be wrong. Brownshirts targeted the Dixie Chicks, and they survived handsomely. At the Merle Watson bluegrass festival in rural Wilkes County, singer Laura Love ridiculed President Bush from the main stage and harvested thousands of cheers to perhaps a hundred catcalls. At a crowded bookstore in Charlottesville last month, I tossed aside the book I hoped to sell and read a white-knuckled antiwar essay I wrote in 1991. One woman walked out, but everyone else applauded and grinned at me. Come to think of it, nearly everyone I know hates these wars and these lies as much as I do.
Are we so few, or are the numbers we see part of the Bush-Fox disinformation campaign -- like Saddam's missing uranium and his 25,000 liters of anthrax? This faint last hope will be tested in the presidential election of 2004. If the polls are right and Malone is wrong, as I fear, it's going to be a long, sandy century for the United States of America, for our children and grandchildren and all those sweet singing children yet unborn.
Careful: The FB-eye may be watching
Reading the wrong thing in public can get you in trouble
07/17/03: (Creative Loafing) "The FBI is here, "Mom tells me over the phone. Immediately I can see my mom with her back to a couple of Matrix-like figures in black suits and opaque sunglasses, her hand covering the mouthpiece like Grace Kelly in Dial M for Murder. This must be a joke, I think. But it's not, because Mom isn't that funny.
"The who?" I say.
"Two FBI agents. They say you're not in trouble, they just want to talk. They want to come to the store."
I work in a small, independent bookstore, and since it's a slow Tuesday afternoon, I figure, "Sure." Someone I know must have gotten some government work, I think; hadn't my consultant friend spoken recently of getting rolled onto some government job? Background check, I think, interviewing acquaintances ... No big deal, right? Then, of course, I make a big deal about it in front of my co-workers.
"That was my mom," I tell them. "The FBI's coming for me." They laugh; it's a good joke, especially when the FBI actually shows up. They are not the bogeymen I had been expecting. They're dressed casually, they speak familiarly, but they are big. The one in front stands close to 7 feet, and you can tell his partner is built like a bulldog under his baggy shirt and shorts.
"You Marc Schultz?" asks the tall one. He shows me his badge, introduces himself as Special Agent Clay Trippi. After assuring me that I'm not in trouble, he asks if there is someplace we can sit down and talk. We head back to Reference, where a table and chairs are set up. We sit down, and I'm again informed that I am not in trouble.
Then, Agent Trippi asks, "Do you drive a black Nissan Altima?" And I realize this meeting is not about a friend. Despite their reassurances, and despite the fact that I haven't committed any federal offenses (that I know of), I'm starting to feel a bit like I'm in trouble.
They ask me if I was driving my car on Saturday, and I say, reasonably sure, that I was. They ask me where I went, and I struggle for a moment to remember Saturday. I make a lame joke about how the days run together when you're underemployed. They smile politely. Was I at work on Saturday? I think so.
"Were you at the Caribou Coffee on Powers Ferry?" asks Agent Trippi. That's where I get my coffee before work, and so I tell him yes, probably, just before remembering Saturday: Harry Potter day, opening early, in at 8:30.
So I would have been at Caribou Coffee that Saturday, getting my small coffee, room for cream. This information seems to please the agents.
"Did you notice anything unusual, anyone worth commenting on?" OK, I think. It's the unusual guy they want, not me. I think hard, wondering if it was Saturday I saw the guy in the really cool reclining wheelchair, the guy who struck me as a potential James Bondian supervillain, but no: That was Monday.
Then they ask if I carried anything into the shop -- and we're back to me.
My mind races. I think: a bomb? A knife? A balloon filled with narcotics? But no. I don't own any of those things. "Sunglasses," I say. "Maybe my cell phone?"
Not the right answer. I'm nervous now, wondering how I must look: average, mid-20s, unassuming retail employee. What could I have possibly been carrying?
Trippi's partner speaks up: "Any reading material? Papers?" I don't think so. Then Trippi decides to level with me: "I'll tell you what, Marc. Someone in the shop that day saw you reading something, and thought it looked suspicious enough to call us about. So that's why we're here, just checking it out. Like I said, there's no problem. We'd just like to get to the bottom of this. Now if we can't, then you may have a problem. And you don't want that."
You don't want that? Have I just been threatened by the FBI? Confusion and a light dusting of panic conspire to keep me speechless. Was I reading something that morning? Something that would constitute a problem?
The partner speaks up again: "Maybe a printout of some kind?"
Then it occurs to me: I was reading. It was an article my dad had printed off the Web. I remember carrying it into Caribou with me, reading it in line, and then while stirring cream into my coffee. I remember bringing it with me to the store, finishing it before we opened. I can't remember what the article was about, but I'm sure it was some kind of left-wing editorial, the kind that never fails to incite me to anger and despair over the state of the country.
I tell them all this, but they want specifics: the title of the article, the author, some kind of synopsis, but I can't help them -- I read so much of this stuff.
"Do you still have the article?" Probably not, but I suggest we check behind the counter. When that doesn't pan out, I have the bright idea to call my dad at work, see if he can remember. Of course, he can't put together a coherent sentence after I tell him the FBI are at the store, questioning me.
"The FBI?" he keeps asking. Eventually I get him off the phone, and suggest it may be in my car. They follow me out to the parking lot, where Trippi asks me if there's anything in the car he should know about.
"Weapons, drugs? It's not a problem if you do, but if you don't tell me and then I find something, that's going to be a problem." I assure him there's nothing in my car, coming very close to quoting Rudy Ray Moore in Dolemite: "There's nothin' in my trunk, man."
The excitement of the questioning -- the interrogation -- has made me just a little bit giddy. I almost laugh out loud when they ask me to pop my trunk.
There's nothing in my car, of course. I keep looking anyway, while telling them it was probably some kind of what-did-they-know-and-when-did-they-know-it article about the buildup to Gulf War II. Trippi nods, unsatisfied. I turn up some papers from the University of Georgia, where I'm about to begin as a grad student. He asks me what I'm going to study.
"Journalism," I say. As I duck back into the car, I hear Agent Trippi informing his partner, "He's going to UGA for journalism" in a way that makes me wonder whether that counts against me.
Back in the store, Trippi gives me his card and tells me to call him if I remember anything. After he's gone, I call my dad back to see if he has calmed down, maybe come up with a name. We retrace some steps together, figure out the article was Hal Crowther's "Weapons of Mass Stupidity" from the Weekly Planet, a free independent out of Tampa. It comes back to me then, this scathing screed focusing on the way corporate interests have poisoned the country's media, focusing mostly on Fox News and Rupert Murdoch -- really infuriating, deadly accurate stuff about American journalism post-9-11. So I call the number on the card, leave a message with the name, author and origin of the column, and ask him to call me if he has any more questions.
To tell the truth, I'm kind of anxious to hear back from the FBI, if only for the chance to ask why anyone would find media criticism suspicious, or if maybe the sight of a dark, bearded man reading in public is itself enough to strike fear in the heart of a patriotic citizen.
My co-worker, Craig, says that we should probably be thankful the FBI takes these things seriously; I say it seems like a dark day when an American citizen regards reading as a threat, and downright pitch-black when the federal government agrees.
Special Agent Trippi didn't return calls from CL. But Special Agent Joe Paris, Atlanta field office spokesman, stressed that specific FBI investigations are confidential. He wouldn't confirm or deny the Schultz interview.
"In this post-911 era, it is the absolute responsibility of the FBI to follow through on any tips of potential terrorist activity," Paris says. "Are people going to take exception and be inconvenienced by this at times? Oh, yeah. ... A certain amount of convenience is going to be offset by an increase in security."
----------------------------------------------------------------
Here is the article that caused the FB eye to interview Mr. Schultz:
Weapons Of Mass Stupidity
Fox News hits a new lowest common denominator
BY HAL CROWTHER
It's the inviolable first rule of democracy that all politicians will praise the wisdom of the people -- an effusive flattery that intensifies when they ask "the people" to swallow something exceptionally inedible. What the people never hear from anyone, or from anyone with further ambitions, is the truth. If a public figure wishes to leave the stage forever, a sound strategy is to offer his fellow citizens a candid and disparaging assessment of their intelligence.
In the aftermath of the conquest of Iraq, as we awake to the bewildering possibility of a United States of Asia, the patriotic pageantry and premature gloating call to mind an obsession that once gripped the great French novelist Gustave Flaubert. (In my recklessness I ignore the halfwit embargo on all things French.) Flaubert, according to W.G. Sebald, became convinced that his own work and his own brain had been infected by a national epidemic of stupidity, a relentless tide of gullibility and muddled thinking which made him feel, he said, as if he were sinking into sand.
At his low point, Flaubert convinced himself that everything he had written had been contaminated and "consisted solely of a string of the most abysmal errors and lies." Sometimes he lay on his couch for months, frozen with the dread that anything he wrote would only extend Stupidity's domain. Flaubert became a scholar of moronic utterances, painstakingly collecting hundreds of what he called betises -- stupidities -- and arranging them in his "Dictionary of Received Opinions."
The wondrous blessing God bestowed on Gustave Flaubert -- and on America's own great chroniclers of contagious stupidity, Mark Twain and H.L. Mencken -- is that they lived and died without imagining a thing like Fox News. It's easy to laugh at Rupert Murdoch's outrageous mongrel, the impossible offspring of supermarket tabloids, sitcom news spoofs, police-state propaganda mills and the World Wrestling Federation.
Fox News is an oxymoron and Cheech and Chong would have made a more credible team of war correspondents than Geraldo Rivera and Ollie North. Neither Saturday Night Live nor the 1973 film Network , Paddy Chayefsky's corrosive satire of TV news, could even approach the comic impact of Geraldo embedded, or of Fox's pariah parade, its mothball fleet of experts who always turn out to be disgraced or indicted Republican refugees. If Ed Meese, Newt Gingrich and Elliott Abrams couldn't fill your sails with mirth, you could count on the recently deposed Viceroy of Virtue and High Regent of Rectitude, my old schoolmate Blackjack Bill Bennett.
With its red-faced, hyperventilating reactionaries and slapstick abuse of lame "liberal" foils who serve them as crash dummies, Fox News could easily be taken as pure entertainment, even as inspired burlesque of the rightwing menagerie. But the problem -- in fact, the serious problem - is that Fox isn't kidding, and brownshirts aren't funny.
Harper's reports that Fox commentator Bill O'Reilly became so infuriated by the son of a 9-ll victim who opposed the war -- "I'm against it and my father would have been against it, too" -- that he cursed the man and even threatened him off-camera. A Fox TV anchor, one Neil Cavuto, celebrated the fall of Baghdad by informing all of us who opposed the war in March, "You were sickening then, you are sickening now." If reports are accurate, these troubled men are neither bad journalists nor even bad actors portraying journalists -- they're mentally unbalanced individuals whose partisan belligerence is pressing them to the brink of psychosis.
But the scariest thing about Fox and Rupert Murdoch, the thing that renders them all fear and no fun in a time of national crisis, is that they channel for the Bush administration as faithfully as if they were on the White House payroll. Like no other substantial media outlet in American history, Fox serves -- voluntarily -- as the propaganda arm of a controversial, manipulative, image-obsessed government. To watch its war coverage for even a minute was to grind your teeth convulsively at each Orwellian repetition of the Newspeak mantra, "Operation Iraqi Freedom." I swear I hate to stoop to Nazi analogies; but if Joseph Goebbels had run his own cable channel, it would have been indistinguishable from Fox News.
Fox's truculent patriotism is misleading, of course. Rupert Murdoch is not exactly an American patriot, he's not even exactly an American. Though he became an American citizen in 1985 (solely to qualify, under US law, as the owner of a TV network), the Australian Murdoch was already 54 and his tabloid formula had already polluted the media mainstreams in Australia and Great Britain. Murdoch is an insatiable parasite, a vampirish lamprey who fastens himself to English-speaking nations and grows fat on their cultural lifeblood, leaving permanently degraded media cultures in his wake. Rabid patriotism is a product he sells, along with celebrity gossip, naked women and smirky bedroom humor, in every country he contaminates. And a little "white rage" racism has always gone into his mix for good measure. ("He tried so hard to use race to sell his newspapers that he became known as "Tar Baby' Murdoch," Jimmy Breslin once charged.)
Murdoch's repulsive formula has proven irresistible from Melbourne to Manhattan, and now, by satellite, he's softening up Beijing. His great fortune rests on his wager that a huge unevolved minority is stupid, bigoted, prurient, nasty to the core. In America today, it's hard to say whether Rupert Murdoch is an agent, or merely a beneficiary, of the cultural leprosy that's consuming us. But the conspicuous success of Fox News, lamentable in the best of times, is devastating in a shell-shocked nation that sees itself at war.
It is and has always been true, in Samuel Johnson's famous words, that "patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel" -- by which, of course, Dr. Johnson meant patriotism as a political and rhetorical weapon, not as a private emotion. Belittling other people's patriotism to achieve political leverage is the lowest road a public scoundrel can travel, the road where neo-conservative meets neo-fascist. In flag-frenzied Fox, an unscrupulous administration found a blunt object ready-made to hammer its critics.
Liars With Secret Agendas
Years ago in Moscow, at the dawn of perestroika, a pair of Russian journalists showed me headlines from the New York Post that made Kruschchev's "We will bury you" sound like "Have a nice day." How can there ever be peace, they asked me, if America hates us so much? Handicapped by the yawning gap between our respective press traditions, I tried to explain that the Post had nothing to do with our government or even the American media machine, that it was owned by an Australian whose Red-baiting and saber-rattling was an act designed to sell newspapers to morons. That he was unconnected to our government was something I believed about Murdoch in 1984, though no doubt Ronald Reagan was eager to naturalize a lonely immigrant with billions to invest in right-wing media.
But now? Is it sheer coincidence that the president's stage manager, Greg Jenkins -- responsible for the notorious flight-suit landing on the USS Abraham Lincoln, and for posing George Bush against Mt. Rushmore and the Statue of Liberty -- was recently a producer at Fox News?
If these elaborate tableaus Jenkins choreographs for President Bush seem clumsy, tasteless, condescending and insulting to your intelligence, you must be some kind of liberal. They bear an uncanny family resemblance to the red-white-and-blue show at Fox News, and heavy-handedness has never harmed its ratings, nor the president's either.
How stupid are we, finally, how easy to fool? Fox News is run by the insidious Roger Ailes -- image merchant for Nixon, Reagan and Bush senior, producer for Rush Limbaugh, newsman never -- and Fox is not what it seems to be. It's not a news service, certainly, nor even the sincere voice of low-rent nationalism. It's a calculated fraud, like the president who ducked the draft during Vietnam, and even welshed on his National Guard commitment, but who puts on a flight suit stenciled "Commander-in-chief" and plays Douglas MacArthur on network TV.
"I almost choked," said my mother's friend Doris, who's 90. "I had to lie down." It's possible that even old George Bush, who served with distinction in World War II, had to stifle a groan over that one.
The invasion of Iraq was in no way what it seemed to be, either. Saddam Hussein was never a threat to the United States. His "weapons of mass destruction" remain invisible, his terrorist connections remain unproven, and he had absolutely nothing to do with the destruction of the World Trade Center. Most cynical of all was the "liberation" lie, the administration's sudden concern for the helpless citizens of Iraq. Saddam, as grotesque as he was, wasn't getting any meaner, and "liberators" like Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney were doing brisk business with him when he was in his murderous, citizen-eating prime (and in Cheney's case, as recently as 1999). It would take half a page to list all the US-sanctioned dictators, killers of their people, who will be sharing hell's hottest corner with Saddam Hussein.
Liars with secret agendas are treating Americans like frightened children. If that sounds like a cry from the Left, get a transcript of Sen. Robert Byrd's remarks to the Senate on May 21. Byrd, nobody's liberal by any stretch of the imagination, accuses the White House of constructing "a house of cards, built on deceit," to justify its war on Iraq.
According to polls, at least half of us were so eager to be deceived, we believed the one lie Bush never dared to tell us, except by implication: that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
According to a CNN poll, 51 percent believe this -- "The Moron Majority," declares the headline in The Progressive Populist . And at that point, like poor Flaubert, I feel the sand around my ankles. I want to lie down and give up. On the wall above my bed of pain, two familiar quotations: "The tyranny of the ignoramuses is insurmountable and assured for all time" -- Albert Einstein; and "Perhaps the universe is nothing but an equilibrium of idiocies." -- George Santayana.
It violates democratic etiquette to call your fellow citizens "idiots." (Unless they're liberals -- "We all agree that liberals are stupid," writes Charles Krauthammer.) Fortunately, the PC wordworks has coined a new euphemism to replace the ugly word "retarded." It's "intellectually disabled," and we have it just in time. How else could we describe a majority that accepts the logic of "supporting the troops"? Protest as I might, a local columnist explained to me, once the soldiers are "locked and cocked" I owe them not only my prayers for their safe deliverance but unqualified endorsement of their mission, no matter how immoral and ill-advised it may seem to me.
According to this woeful logic, whoever controls the armed forces in the country where you live owns your conscience and your soul. It mandates unanimous civilian support for King Herod's soldiers smashing Hebrew babies against doorposts. It holds our soldiers hostage to silence our common sense, independent judgment and moral autonomy -- the foundations of each thinking individual's self-respect, not to mention the foundations of every theory of democratic government.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public," said President Theodore Roosevelt.
The Madhouse Choir
They don't make Republicans like they used to. The troop-support doctrine, so universally and smugly conceded, is logic for the intellectually disabled, for people who've been hit in the head repeatedly with a heavy shovel. The stupidity of those who buy it is no more astonishing than the hypocrisy of those who sell it -- Republicans who preach our sacred duty to the army's morale and simultaneously cancel $15 billion in veteran's benefits and 60 percent of federal education subsidies for servicemen's children. If you can't believe that, look it up.
When is it too late to wake the sleeping masses? When a Fox TV show for amateur entertainers turns up more voters than Congressional elections? The marriage of television and propaganda may well have been the funeral of reason. In the meantime, Iraq is a bloody mess and Afghanistan a tragic mess, and most of the earth's one billion Muslims think the US and Israel are trying to conquer their world and destroy their religion. America's economy is suffocating ("A sickly economy with no cure in sight" says this morning's paper), her currency is in free fall and her reputation flies below half mast on every continent. We've been instructed to hate the French, our allies since the days of Lafayette, because they dared to tell us the truth.
What our best friends think of us is epitomized by a new play in Paris titled George W. Bush, or God's Sad Cowboy. Another in London is called The Madness of George Dubya. Our only original enemies, the terrorists of Al-Qaeda, seem to be thriving -- and quite naturally gaining recruits. There's a chilling suspicion that major architects of our current foreign policy are insane. Listen to Bush adviser Richard Perle, known since his Reagan years as the Prince of Darkness: "If we let our vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely, and we don't try to piece together clever diplomacy but just wage total war , (my italics) our children will sing great songs about us years from now."
Is that the children I hear singing, or the madhouse choir? (Calling Dr. Strangelove. . .) But polls tell us that through all the wars and lies and logical meltdowns that followed 9-11, 70 percent of adult America declared itself well satisfied and well served.
"I think it is terrifying," said the late Bishop Paul Moore, a Yale aristocrat who, like most mainstream clergymen, did not support the Bush wars. "I believe it will lead us to a terrible crack in the whole culture as we have come to know it."
I believe it has, and I believe that the split between liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican is inconsequential compared to the real fracture line, between Americans who try to think clearly and those who will not or cannot. What hope, a cynical friend teased me, for a country where 70 percent believe in angels, 60 percent believe in literal, biblical, blazing Armageddon, and more than half reject Charles Darwin? He didn't need to add that creationists, science-annihilating cretins, have now recruited President Bush, who assures fundamentalists he "has doubts" about evolution.
Whether the president is that dumb or merely that dishonest is beside the point. He knows his constituency. New research published by the National Academy of Sciences asserts that human beings and chimpanzees share 99.4 percent of their DNA. Would the polls (or the elections) change if subjects had to submit to DNA tests to prove they possess the qualifying .6 percent? American readers have purchased 50 million copies of Tim LaHaye's gonzo Apocalypse novels, still more evidence that what awaits the United States of America is not a physical but an intellectual Armageddon.
Was it dry, desert sand or quicksand that the despairing Flaubert imagined? When we look down, can we still see our knees? Novelist Michael Malone, a notorious optimist, offered a faint ray of hope when he urged me to ignore all the polls -- if the government has intimidated most of the media, he argued, what makes you think the polls are credible?
When the sand begins to grip us and no lifeline appears, we clutch at straws. Yet there's anecdotal evidence that the polls could be wrong. Brownshirts targeted the Dixie Chicks, and they survived handsomely. At the Merle Watson bluegrass festival in rural Wilkes County, singer Laura Love ridiculed President Bush from the main stage and harvested thousands of cheers to perhaps a hundred catcalls. At a crowded bookstore in Charlottesville last month, I tossed aside the book I hoped to sell and read a white-knuckled antiwar essay I wrote in 1991. One woman walked out, but everyone else applauded and grinned at me. Come to think of it, nearly everyone I know hates these wars and these lies as much as I do.
Are we so few, or are the numbers we see part of the Bush-Fox disinformation campaign -- like Saddam's missing uranium and his 25,000 liters of anthrax? This faint last hope will be tested in the presidential election of 2004. If the polls are right and Malone is wrong, as I fear, it's going to be a long, sandy century for the United States of America, for our children and grandchildren and all those sweet singing children yet unborn.
Here's an article from the European edition of Stars and Stripes:
Iraq casualties keep Landstuhl full
20.07.2003 [01:11]
LANDSTUHL, Germany — Landstuhl Regional Medical Center is receiving more than twice the number of patients from Operation Iraqi Freedom that it did during the major combat phase of the war.
An average of 48 patients a day were being treated last week, compared with 22 patients a day in March, said Col. David Rubenstein, who relinquished command of the hospital last week for a new post.
Of those patients admitted, about 5 percent were combat-related injuries, “although that’s starting to grow a bit,” Rubenstein said last week, referring to continued attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq. During major combat, which officially ended May 1, 40 percent of Landstuhl’s patients had battle injuries.
Last Thursday, 140 patients arrived at the hospital from Operation Iraqi Freedom, said Air Force Maj. Kenny Fink, director of Landstuhl’s Deployed Warrior Medical Management Center. “As far as I know, that was the largest number of patients arriving from OIF in one day,” he said Monday.
The center processes every patient from OIF and Operation Enduring Freedom, the military campaign in Afghanistan.
The hospital, the largest military medical center outside the United States, remains at its 322-bed capacity, nearly twice the number of pre-war beds.
As of Monday, the hospital was handling 400 OIF and OEF patients, Fink said. The increasing patient load comes with no sign of relief.
Evidence can be found at Naval Station Rota, Spain, where a tent hospital that had 250 beds closed last week; now any patients who would have gone to Spain will be routed to Germany. The temporary hospital treated almost 1,400 patients between February and this month.
Rubenstein said the patient load at Landstuhl is likely to remain high for the foreseeable future. He calls the latest phase of the war — for the hospital — “the grind,” because it just keeps going “day in and day out.”
“We knew the American military would not [simply] go in and come back very quickly,” Rubenstein said.
On Monday, a line of patients waiting to meet with case managers snaked out the warrior management center’s door.
Two busloads of patients, among them at least three servicemembers heading for the intensive-care ward, arrived in a 30-minute period at the emergency room door.
Rubenstein said the number of patients has increased with each new phase of the war.
As troops entered Baghdad, the hospital received an average of 24 patients a day. By the end of May, an average of 27 patients a day arrived.
In June, about 31 patients a day arrived at the hospital and in the first eight days of July, 40 patients a day arrived, Rubenstein said.
“There are still soldiers with some pretty horrendous wounds, as well as a lot of disease and nonbattle injuries,” Rubenstein said.
Fink said roughly 80 percent of the new arrivals are outpatients being treated for chronic problems such as back pain, kidney stones and respiratory ailments. Some others are pregnant.
Among those with battle injuries at Landstuhl on Monday were three Florida National Guard soldiers from Company C, 1st Battalion, 124th Infantry Regiment. The 1st Platoon soldiers shared a three-bed room.
Spc. Jason Recio, 22, of Miami said they had been attacked July 5 while conducting a traffic control point in Ramadi, a city west of Baghdad.
To Recio’s left, Spc. Ramiro Mayorga, 21, of Miami, watched television from bed. Across the room, Sgt. 1st Class Jose Mateo, 33, the platoon sergeant from Port St. Lucie, Fla., was writing a letter.
The men got shrapnel wounds when they were hit either by a rocket-propelled grenade or another explosive device.
Recio, who has serious leg wounds and a large bruise on his left arm, said the three were glad to finally make it to the hospital. They had been in field hospitals in Iraq and Kuwait for a week.
“I’m alive. That’s what counts,” Recio said, adding that the three wounded servicemembers are worried about the rest of their platoon still fighting in Ramadi.
Iraq casualties keep Landstuhl full
20.07.2003 [01:11]
LANDSTUHL, Germany — Landstuhl Regional Medical Center is receiving more than twice the number of patients from Operation Iraqi Freedom that it did during the major combat phase of the war.
An average of 48 patients a day were being treated last week, compared with 22 patients a day in March, said Col. David Rubenstein, who relinquished command of the hospital last week for a new post.
Of those patients admitted, about 5 percent were combat-related injuries, “although that’s starting to grow a bit,” Rubenstein said last week, referring to continued attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq. During major combat, which officially ended May 1, 40 percent of Landstuhl’s patients had battle injuries.
Last Thursday, 140 patients arrived at the hospital from Operation Iraqi Freedom, said Air Force Maj. Kenny Fink, director of Landstuhl’s Deployed Warrior Medical Management Center. “As far as I know, that was the largest number of patients arriving from OIF in one day,” he said Monday.
The center processes every patient from OIF and Operation Enduring Freedom, the military campaign in Afghanistan.
The hospital, the largest military medical center outside the United States, remains at its 322-bed capacity, nearly twice the number of pre-war beds.
As of Monday, the hospital was handling 400 OIF and OEF patients, Fink said. The increasing patient load comes with no sign of relief.
Evidence can be found at Naval Station Rota, Spain, where a tent hospital that had 250 beds closed last week; now any patients who would have gone to Spain will be routed to Germany. The temporary hospital treated almost 1,400 patients between February and this month.
Rubenstein said the patient load at Landstuhl is likely to remain high for the foreseeable future. He calls the latest phase of the war — for the hospital — “the grind,” because it just keeps going “day in and day out.”
“We knew the American military would not [simply] go in and come back very quickly,” Rubenstein said.
On Monday, a line of patients waiting to meet with case managers snaked out the warrior management center’s door.
Two busloads of patients, among them at least three servicemembers heading for the intensive-care ward, arrived in a 30-minute period at the emergency room door.
Rubenstein said the number of patients has increased with each new phase of the war.
As troops entered Baghdad, the hospital received an average of 24 patients a day. By the end of May, an average of 27 patients a day arrived.
In June, about 31 patients a day arrived at the hospital and in the first eight days of July, 40 patients a day arrived, Rubenstein said.
“There are still soldiers with some pretty horrendous wounds, as well as a lot of disease and nonbattle injuries,” Rubenstein said.
Fink said roughly 80 percent of the new arrivals are outpatients being treated for chronic problems such as back pain, kidney stones and respiratory ailments. Some others are pregnant.
Among those with battle injuries at Landstuhl on Monday were three Florida National Guard soldiers from Company C, 1st Battalion, 124th Infantry Regiment. The 1st Platoon soldiers shared a three-bed room.
Spc. Jason Recio, 22, of Miami said they had been attacked July 5 while conducting a traffic control point in Ramadi, a city west of Baghdad.
To Recio’s left, Spc. Ramiro Mayorga, 21, of Miami, watched television from bed. Across the room, Sgt. 1st Class Jose Mateo, 33, the platoon sergeant from Port St. Lucie, Fla., was writing a letter.
The men got shrapnel wounds when they were hit either by a rocket-propelled grenade or another explosive device.
Recio, who has serious leg wounds and a large bruise on his left arm, said the three were glad to finally make it to the hospital. They had been in field hospitals in Iraq and Kuwait for a week.
“I’m alive. That’s what counts,” Recio said, adding that the three wounded servicemembers are worried about the rest of their platoon still fighting in Ramadi.
Watching the collapsing credibitity of Ethelred and his courtiers is too much fun. The jesters at Reuters have joined the fray. The press has finally realized that the uopper class twits have taken over the assylum. Note to Ethelred, just admit you lied and get on with your plans for an early retirement
Here is what Reuters has too say about the released classified documents:
Iraq Nuke Evidence Was Thin, Experts Say
46 minutes ago
By JOHN J. LUMPKIN and DAFNA LINZER, Associated Press Writers
WASHINGTON - Even as the Bush administration concluded Iraq (news - web sites) was reviving its nuclear weapons program, key signs — such as scientific data of weapons work and evidence of research by Iraq's nuclear experts — were missing, according to several former intelligence officials.
The public case that Iraq was pursuing nuclear weapons was built primarily on several suspicious items Iraq reportedly tried to import, such as uranium, aluminum tubes and precision machinery. But the uranium story is now in dispute, and many of the other items had possible uses unrelated to nuclear weapons.
Other information was either lacking, or suggested that no nuclear program was in the works, said the former intelligence officials, who analyzed Iraq's weapons during the run-up to the war. Some spoke on the condition of anonymity.
For example, "There was no solid evidence that indicated Iraq's top nuclear scientists were rejuvenating Iraq's nuclear weapons program," said Greg Thielmann, the former manager of the State Department office that tracked chemical, biological and nuclear weapons issues. Thielmann retired in September 2002.
Other former officials said the scientists weren't performing activities or going to places normally associated with work on a nuclear weapons program.
However, the U.S. National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's weapons program said Iraq was trying to "re-establish and enhance its cadre of weapons personnel." The estimate was published in October.
The section of the classified document released Friday by the White House provided no details.
Before the war, U.N. nuclear inspectors at the International Atomic Energy Agency interviewed Iraq's nuclear scientists and found no indication that they were working on a weapons program.
"The whole thing was antiquated," said IAEA spokeswoman Melissa Fleming. "These guys were aging, they weren't working collectively and the facilities and infrastructure was dilapidated."
In its estimate, the CIA (news - web sites) and military intelligence agencies concluded that Saddam was again trying to realize his long dream of becoming a nuclear power.
"Although we assess that Saddam does not yet have nuclear weapons or sufficient material to make any, he remains intent on acquiring them. Most agencies assess that Baghdad started reconstituting its nuclear program about the time that (U.N. weapons) inspectors departed — December 1998," says the estimate, a summary of intelligence analyses on Iraq's weapons programs that was assembled by the Central Intelligence Agency.
The estimate predicted, with "moderate confidence," that Saddam could build a nuclear weapon between 2007 and 2009.
The State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research dissented: "The activities we have detected do not, however, add up to a compelling case that Iraq is currently pursuing what (the bureau) would consider to be an integrated and comprehensive approach to acquire nuclear weapons."
On Oct. 7, President Bush (news - web sites) framed it this way: "Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof — the smoking gun — that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud." National security adviser Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites) had used similar language Sept. 8, saying, "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."
U.S. officials have announced no discovery in postwar Iraq that would validate that Iraq had revived its nuclear program.
Senior Iraqi nuclear scientists interviewed by The Associated Press in Baghdad said their efforts to build a weapon remained dismantled after the 1991 Gulf War (news - web sites). Shakher Hameed, a physicist who was one of Iraq's top nuclear officials in recent years, said there was no program.
"This whole American story of an Iraqi nuclear program is a lie," said Hameed, a frequent interviewee of both U.N. inspectors and U.S. intelligence officers. "The IAEA knew exactly what was going on here and they made it clear there was no program."
The suspected nuclear program in North Korea (news - web sites) may show more compelling signs of having been revived: The North Koreans, unlike the Iraqis, claim they have a nuclear program. U.S. intelligence has learned of imports of materials useful in nuclear programs, tracked loading and offloading of trucks and other activity at known nuclear sites. U.S. and U.N. officials are now watching for signs that Pyongyang has begun reprocessing plutonium, a process that emits a kind of krypton that U.S. sensors can detect.
Saddam's well-established, pre-1991 pursuit of nuclear weapons led most intelligence analysts to assume he was still after them in recent years, said a defense official familiar with intelligence information. Reports of the Iraqis attempting to import suspicious items reinforced that thinking, the official said, on condition of anonymity.
A report that Iraq tried to import uranium from Africa was primarily based on documents, later determined to be forgeries, that alleged Iraq had sought uranium in Niger. President Bush's repetition of the allegation in his State of the Union address has led to a political firestorm, with critics accusing him of exaggerating intelligence to push for the U.S. invasion.
Other reports suggested Iraq was importing aluminum tubes for use in centrifuges to make weapons-grade uranium. While some CIA analysts believed the tubes were intended for centrifuges, experts with the Department of Energy (news - web sites) and the United Nations (news - web sites) concluded they were probably for conventional artillery rockets.
Other materials Iraq allegedly tried to import included magnets and precision machinery, which the United States said could be used in a nuclear weapons effort. But the IAEA noted that most of those items also have conventional industrial uses.
The U.S. intelligence estimate also notes "activities at several suspect nuclear sites." U.N. nuclear inspectors found no signs of new weapons programs at the scores of sites they checked out and neither did U.S. weapons hunters.
"We investigated every single intelligence claim that was provided alleging Iraq was pursuing nuclear weapons and did not find any evidence of the revival of a nuclear weapons program," the U.N.'s Fleming said.
Some kinds of uranium-enrichment programs require vast amounts of electricity; many need large, secure industrial sites, U.S. government scientists say. The soil around sites that are home to uranium weapons work also has greater traces of the substance than regular soil.
Andrew Wilkie, a senior Australian intelligence analyst who resigned in protest of his government's handling of prewar intelligence, said intelligence services did not pick up on telltale emissions and other signs that would point to a large-scale nuclear program.
"Every stage of the weapons cycle was missing," he said.
Here is what Reuters has too say about the released classified documents:
Iraq Nuke Evidence Was Thin, Experts Say
46 minutes ago
By JOHN J. LUMPKIN and DAFNA LINZER, Associated Press Writers
WASHINGTON - Even as the Bush administration concluded Iraq (news - web sites) was reviving its nuclear weapons program, key signs — such as scientific data of weapons work and evidence of research by Iraq's nuclear experts — were missing, according to several former intelligence officials.
The public case that Iraq was pursuing nuclear weapons was built primarily on several suspicious items Iraq reportedly tried to import, such as uranium, aluminum tubes and precision machinery. But the uranium story is now in dispute, and many of the other items had possible uses unrelated to nuclear weapons.
Other information was either lacking, or suggested that no nuclear program was in the works, said the former intelligence officials, who analyzed Iraq's weapons during the run-up to the war. Some spoke on the condition of anonymity.
For example, "There was no solid evidence that indicated Iraq's top nuclear scientists were rejuvenating Iraq's nuclear weapons program," said Greg Thielmann, the former manager of the State Department office that tracked chemical, biological and nuclear weapons issues. Thielmann retired in September 2002.
Other former officials said the scientists weren't performing activities or going to places normally associated with work on a nuclear weapons program.
However, the U.S. National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's weapons program said Iraq was trying to "re-establish and enhance its cadre of weapons personnel." The estimate was published in October.
The section of the classified document released Friday by the White House provided no details.
Before the war, U.N. nuclear inspectors at the International Atomic Energy Agency interviewed Iraq's nuclear scientists and found no indication that they were working on a weapons program.
"The whole thing was antiquated," said IAEA spokeswoman Melissa Fleming. "These guys were aging, they weren't working collectively and the facilities and infrastructure was dilapidated."
In its estimate, the CIA (news - web sites) and military intelligence agencies concluded that Saddam was again trying to realize his long dream of becoming a nuclear power.
"Although we assess that Saddam does not yet have nuclear weapons or sufficient material to make any, he remains intent on acquiring them. Most agencies assess that Baghdad started reconstituting its nuclear program about the time that (U.N. weapons) inspectors departed — December 1998," says the estimate, a summary of intelligence analyses on Iraq's weapons programs that was assembled by the Central Intelligence Agency.
The estimate predicted, with "moderate confidence," that Saddam could build a nuclear weapon between 2007 and 2009.
The State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research dissented: "The activities we have detected do not, however, add up to a compelling case that Iraq is currently pursuing what (the bureau) would consider to be an integrated and comprehensive approach to acquire nuclear weapons."
On Oct. 7, President Bush (news - web sites) framed it this way: "Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof — the smoking gun — that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud." National security adviser Condoleezza Rice (news - web sites) had used similar language Sept. 8, saying, "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."
U.S. officials have announced no discovery in postwar Iraq that would validate that Iraq had revived its nuclear program.
Senior Iraqi nuclear scientists interviewed by The Associated Press in Baghdad said their efforts to build a weapon remained dismantled after the 1991 Gulf War (news - web sites). Shakher Hameed, a physicist who was one of Iraq's top nuclear officials in recent years, said there was no program.
"This whole American story of an Iraqi nuclear program is a lie," said Hameed, a frequent interviewee of both U.N. inspectors and U.S. intelligence officers. "The IAEA knew exactly what was going on here and they made it clear there was no program."
The suspected nuclear program in North Korea (news - web sites) may show more compelling signs of having been revived: The North Koreans, unlike the Iraqis, claim they have a nuclear program. U.S. intelligence has learned of imports of materials useful in nuclear programs, tracked loading and offloading of trucks and other activity at known nuclear sites. U.S. and U.N. officials are now watching for signs that Pyongyang has begun reprocessing plutonium, a process that emits a kind of krypton that U.S. sensors can detect.
Saddam's well-established, pre-1991 pursuit of nuclear weapons led most intelligence analysts to assume he was still after them in recent years, said a defense official familiar with intelligence information. Reports of the Iraqis attempting to import suspicious items reinforced that thinking, the official said, on condition of anonymity.
A report that Iraq tried to import uranium from Africa was primarily based on documents, later determined to be forgeries, that alleged Iraq had sought uranium in Niger. President Bush's repetition of the allegation in his State of the Union address has led to a political firestorm, with critics accusing him of exaggerating intelligence to push for the U.S. invasion.
Other reports suggested Iraq was importing aluminum tubes for use in centrifuges to make weapons-grade uranium. While some CIA analysts believed the tubes were intended for centrifuges, experts with the Department of Energy (news - web sites) and the United Nations (news - web sites) concluded they were probably for conventional artillery rockets.
Other materials Iraq allegedly tried to import included magnets and precision machinery, which the United States said could be used in a nuclear weapons effort. But the IAEA noted that most of those items also have conventional industrial uses.
The U.S. intelligence estimate also notes "activities at several suspect nuclear sites." U.N. nuclear inspectors found no signs of new weapons programs at the scores of sites they checked out and neither did U.S. weapons hunters.
"We investigated every single intelligence claim that was provided alleging Iraq was pursuing nuclear weapons and did not find any evidence of the revival of a nuclear weapons program," the U.N.'s Fleming said.
Some kinds of uranium-enrichment programs require vast amounts of electricity; many need large, secure industrial sites, U.S. government scientists say. The soil around sites that are home to uranium weapons work also has greater traces of the substance than regular soil.
Andrew Wilkie, a senior Australian intelligence analyst who resigned in protest of his government's handling of prewar intelligence, said intelligence services did not pick up on telltale emissions and other signs that would point to a large-scale nuclear program.
"Every stage of the weapons cycle was missing," he said.
The Spectre of Vincent Foster rises in the countryside around Oxford
The death of defence ministry biologist David Kelly, whose body was found on Friday, has caused a political storm in Britain and raised questions over the government's handling of a dispute over Iraq's weapons that has eroded trust in Blair.
After meeting Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi near Tokyo, an emotional Blair told a news conference that a judicial inquiry had been set up and people should await its conclusions.
''In the meantime, we should show respect and restraint, and let me express once again my deep sorrow for the tragedy that has come about,'' he said.
He tried to turn the focus of the news conference to the North Korean nuclear crisis, which is supposed to be a central issue on his Asian tour in talks with leaders of Japan, South Korea and China.
But British reporters travelling with Blair wouldn't let up on the Kelly story, with one asking if the death was on his conscience.
His voice occasionally cracking, Blair said he would say no more until the inquiry was complete. A question on whether he was considering resigning was left unanswered, so too was one asking if he had blood on his hands.
British ministers had identified Kelly as the probable source of a BBC report that alleged that government officials had ''sexed up'' evidence of Iraq's lethal weapons to justify the war.
DRAMATIC TWIST
The death of Kelly, who led a team of biological weapons inspectors in Iraq after the 1991 Gulf War, marked a dramatic twist in a political crisis over Britain's intelligence before the Iraq conflict.
News of his death, which British police said on Saturday was the result of a slashed wrist, hit sterling on international currency markets as strategists said it further damaged the government's credibility, undermined by the raging weapons row.
The opposition has called for Blair's resignation, saying he exaggerated the case for war.
Kelly's death puts a question mark over the future of a top Blair aide, communications chief Alastair Campbell, and a number of government ministers who had named Kelly as the likely source of the BBC report.
The affair looked set to overshadow Blair's week-long tour of the Far East, but his spokesman insisted on Saturday that the trip would not be cut short, as the opposition had demanded.
Kelly was grilled in parliament on Tuesday after admitting he had met a BBC correspondent who aired the report over the alleged doctoring of intelligence.
Two days after the inquisition, Kelly, visibly uncomfortable in the media spotlight, went missing. British police said on Friday they had found a body matching his description. They were not treating his death as suspicious.
The death of defence ministry biologist David Kelly, whose body was found on Friday, has caused a political storm in Britain and raised questions over the government's handling of a dispute over Iraq's weapons that has eroded trust in Blair.
After meeting Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi near Tokyo, an emotional Blair told a news conference that a judicial inquiry had been set up and people should await its conclusions.
''In the meantime, we should show respect and restraint, and let me express once again my deep sorrow for the tragedy that has come about,'' he said.
He tried to turn the focus of the news conference to the North Korean nuclear crisis, which is supposed to be a central issue on his Asian tour in talks with leaders of Japan, South Korea and China.
But British reporters travelling with Blair wouldn't let up on the Kelly story, with one asking if the death was on his conscience.
His voice occasionally cracking, Blair said he would say no more until the inquiry was complete. A question on whether he was considering resigning was left unanswered, so too was one asking if he had blood on his hands.
British ministers had identified Kelly as the probable source of a BBC report that alleged that government officials had ''sexed up'' evidence of Iraq's lethal weapons to justify the war.
DRAMATIC TWIST
The death of Kelly, who led a team of biological weapons inspectors in Iraq after the 1991 Gulf War, marked a dramatic twist in a political crisis over Britain's intelligence before the Iraq conflict.
News of his death, which British police said on Saturday was the result of a slashed wrist, hit sterling on international currency markets as strategists said it further damaged the government's credibility, undermined by the raging weapons row.
The opposition has called for Blair's resignation, saying he exaggerated the case for war.
Kelly's death puts a question mark over the future of a top Blair aide, communications chief Alastair Campbell, and a number of government ministers who had named Kelly as the likely source of the BBC report.
The affair looked set to overshadow Blair's week-long tour of the Far East, but his spokesman insisted on Saturday that the trip would not be cut short, as the opposition had demanded.
Kelly was grilled in parliament on Tuesday after admitting he had met a BBC correspondent who aired the report over the alleged doctoring of intelligence.
Two days after the inquisition, Kelly, visibly uncomfortable in the media spotlight, went missing. British police said on Friday they had found a body matching his description. They were not treating his death as suspicious.
Just found this at MacAddict, and boy do I feel safer to know that Microsoft and Dell are saving us from terrorists:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Department of Homeland Security said on Tuesday it has awarded a five-year, $90 million enterprise agreement to Microsoft Corp (MSFT.O) to become the department's primary technology provider.
Under the contract, Microsoft will supply desktop and server software to the newly created department, which has merged parts of 22 different agencies into one entity.
The agreement delivers licensing coverage for about 140,000 desktops and will help the department to establish a common computing environment, Homeland Security said in a statement.
Dell Marketing LP. was selected as the reseller, to provide the day-to-day management of the enterprise agreement, it said.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Department of Homeland Security said on Tuesday it has awarded a five-year, $90 million enterprise agreement to Microsoft Corp (MSFT.O) to become the department's primary technology provider.
Under the contract, Microsoft will supply desktop and server software to the newly created department, which has merged parts of 22 different agencies into one entity.
The agreement delivers licensing coverage for about 140,000 desktops and will help the department to establish a common computing environment, Homeland Security said in a statement.
Dell Marketing LP. was selected as the reseller, to provide the day-to-day management of the enterprise agreement, it said.
I cannot be silent any longer, it was me who snuck in those 18 words into the President's State of the Union Address.
Here is the latest report from the incomparable Daily Howler
THE PERFECT STORM! Scribes constructed a Perfect Storm. They used an old tried-and-true method:
FRIDAY, JULY 18, 2003
BUILDING A PERFECT STORM: Here at THE HOWLER, we’re still amazed by that Harold Meyerson piece from yesterday’s Washington Post (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 7/17/03). Amazingly, it only took a couple of days to reach this point—to reach the point where the Post was running a high-profile piece which is almost bizarrely inaccurate. (It will be interesting to see how the Post handles the matter. The statements about Cheney are blatantly false.) But that’s the way the press tends to work when it starts creating a Perfect Storm, as the mainstream press corps has been doing in the case of those “16 words.” Our readers continue to shake their fists, insisting that the coverage is all quite appropriate. But, whatever a real probe of Bush-on-Iraq might show, this particular event has indeed been spun. Let’s start again with Meyerson’s claim that Bush’s 16-word statement was “baseless.”
“Baseless?” It’s a strange word to choose for a short, simple statement which carried an explicit citation. As we all know, the basis for Bush’s statement was noted; the statement was explicitly cited to British intelligence, and British intelligence stands by its assessment, as Tony Blair said again yesterday. That doesn’t mean that the British assessment is accurate; it doesn’t mean the assessment should have been in the speech. But readers, it’s hardly shocking to see an American. president cite an assessment by his country’s top ally. Face it: If that were the worst thing the Bush Admin ever did, this conversation wouldn’t even be happening.
But if you read the Meyerson piece in the Post, you never learned what Bush actually said. Meyerson said that Bush’s statement was “baseless”—then failed to mention the “basis” Bush cited. This was certainly small potatoes compared to the howling misstatements about Cheney. But this small part of Meyerson’s column fits the template for a certain type of spun press event. To consider a roughly similar case, let’s review the memorable way the Buddhist Temple was spun against Gore.
Simply put, the press corps wanted the Buddhist Temple to be a Perfect Storm. They wanted it to be the perfect example of fund-raising misconduct by Gore. Unfortunately, the actual facts of the temple case made it a rather weak parable. In fact, there was no charge to attend the temple luncheon, making it one of the strangest “fund-raisers” in political history. That same night, Gore spoke at a fund-raising dinner in San Jose; attendees paid $5000 per plate. But attendees at the luncheon paid nothing. And why was there no charge for the temple luncheon? Because when the luncheon was switched to the temple venue, the DNC dropped its plan to charge. Those who say “there is no free lunch” have failed to recall this event.
No, it was hard to make this a Perfect Storm—if you included all the facts. But the press simply loved this event. They had video of funny Asian monastics which they could play to their hearts’ content, and they had an inaccurate joke about “vows of poverty” which they all loved to recite. (Many of the temple monastics were actually millionaires.) So, to help make the luncheon a Perfect Storm, they simply decided to dump certain facts. Though they flogged the event again and again, they knew not to say that the luncheon was free, and they knew not to say that the DNC had dropped its charges because of the temple venue. With those facts removed, the story worked! Routinely, those facts were suppressed.
So too with the 16-word statement. To all appearances, the corps had reached a global judgment—Bush hyped the facts on Iraq. That overall view may be perfectly fair. But here’s the problem—even if that’s a valid view, “238-gate” just doesn’t cut it as the Perfect Illustration. Perhaps the statement didn’t belong in the speech. The statement may not even be true. But if you say that Bush was citing British intelligence, the tale becomes an Imperfect Storm. So, just as with the free temple luncheon, scribes began leaving facts out.
Kristof called Bush’s statement a “hoax”—and forgot to mention the British intelligence. Meyerson said Bush’s charge was “baseless”—and he failed to mention the Brit intell, too. Many of you have written in, insisting that this is all deeply moral. Sorry, you’re wrong—and yesterday’s stunning column showed how quickly things devolve when scribes are allowed to dump basic facts. In paragraph one, Meyerson’s column was omitting key facts. By paragraph two, it was making facts up.
Just as with the Buddhist temple, there are reasons why this item appealed to the press corps as a Perfect Storm. The famous forged documents were irresistible, just as the Asian ascetics had been. And the Joe Wilson story provided a plot: Honest ambassador’s passage to Africa. Meanwhile, why does the press corps just luvvv Perfect Storms? Simple. Once you come up with a Perfect Storm, you don’t have to do any real reporting. You repeat the Standard Story again and again. Then you break for a three-margy lunch.
American citizens deserve a full look at how their government handled intelligence on Iraq. But their press corps is lazy; it wants Perfect Storms. We’ve expressed a simple point this week: As a point of fairness and simple honesty, you can’t accuse officials of a “baseless” “hoax” unless you state their basic explanation. But you know that press corps! By Tuesday, they were dumping key facts. By Thursday, they were making facts up.
RICHARD’S LARGER ALMANAC: For our money, Richard Cohen offered a more instructive view with part of his own Thursday column:
COHEN: At the moment, the brouhaha is over Bush’s assertion in his State of the Union address that Iraq had sought to import weapons-grade uranium from Africa. That turns out not to be true—or at least not provable. It is also probably not true that Iraq was importing aluminum tubing for its purported nuclear weapons program. In fact, it may well be that Iraq had no active nuclear weapons program. At least none has been found.
Cohen makes one fleeting error; clearly, no one has shown that Bush’s statement “turns out not to be true.” (Though it clearly hasn’t been proven.) But why is Cohen’s account more significant than Meyerson’s? Cohen looks at the Bush Admin’s larger claim—the general claim that Saddam was trying to kick-start a nuclear program. This claim was frequently made in the run-up to war. But was this serious claim accurate? The tubing claim appears to have been hyped (or worse), and the uranium claim was imperfectly based. Cohen doesn’t offer a Perfect Storm—but he sketches the shape of a larger probe that might suggest that a Big Bush Claim was based on slender, hyped evidence.
Incidentally, accurate information is hard to obtain in all of these murky, security areas. For example, when the New Republic did its lengthy report on Bush-on-Iraq, it included two paragraphs on uranium from Africa. Viewed from the present perspective, the account seems to be riddled with errors:
ACKERMAN AND JUDIS: In his State of the Union address on January 28, 2003, Bush introduced a new piece of evidence to show that Iraq was developing a nuclear arms program: “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa…Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.”
One year earlier, Cheney’s office had received from the British, via the Italians, documents purporting to show Iraq’s purchase of uranium from Niger. Cheney had given the information to the CIA, which in turn asked a prominent diplomat [Joe Wilson], who had served as ambassador to three African countries, to investigate. He returned after a visit to Niger in February 2002 and reported to the State Department and the CIA that the documents were forgeries. The CIA circulated the ambassador’s report to the vice president’s office, the ambassador confirms to TNR. But, after a British dossier was released in September detailing the purported uranium purchase, administration officials began citing it anyway, culminating in its inclusion in the State of the Union. “They knew the Niger story was a flat-out lie,” the former ambassador tells TNR. “They were unpersuasive about aluminum tubes and added this to make their case more persuasive.”
Though it culminates in a serious charge by Wilson (then still unnamed), much of this account is inaccurate or unproven. For example, Wilson did not “report that the documents were forgeries;” he acknowledges that he never saw them. And CIA head George Tenet says that the CIA did not “circulate the ambassador’s report to Cheney’s office.” It’s clear from Wilson’s later appearances that this was his surmise, not something he can “confirm.” Meanwhile, Ackerman and Judis are somewhat unclear when they say that “the purported [Niger] uranium purchase” was included in the State of the Union. If we ever do get that larger probe, each piece will be murky and subject to confusion and error.
THE PERFECT STORM! Scribes constructed a Perfect Storm. They used an old tried-and-true method:
FRIDAY, JULY 18, 2003
BUILDING A PERFECT STORM: Here at THE HOWLER, we’re still amazed by that Harold Meyerson piece from yesterday’s Washington Post (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 7/17/03). Amazingly, it only took a couple of days to reach this point—to reach the point where the Post was running a high-profile piece which is almost bizarrely inaccurate. (It will be interesting to see how the Post handles the matter. The statements about Cheney are blatantly false.) But that’s the way the press tends to work when it starts creating a Perfect Storm, as the mainstream press corps has been doing in the case of those “16 words.” Our readers continue to shake their fists, insisting that the coverage is all quite appropriate. But, whatever a real probe of Bush-on-Iraq might show, this particular event has indeed been spun. Let’s start again with Meyerson’s claim that Bush’s 16-word statement was “baseless.”
“Baseless?” It’s a strange word to choose for a short, simple statement which carried an explicit citation. As we all know, the basis for Bush’s statement was noted; the statement was explicitly cited to British intelligence, and British intelligence stands by its assessment, as Tony Blair said again yesterday. That doesn’t mean that the British assessment is accurate; it doesn’t mean the assessment should have been in the speech. But readers, it’s hardly shocking to see an American. president cite an assessment by his country’s top ally. Face it: If that were the worst thing the Bush Admin ever did, this conversation wouldn’t even be happening.
But if you read the Meyerson piece in the Post, you never learned what Bush actually said. Meyerson said that Bush’s statement was “baseless”—then failed to mention the “basis” Bush cited. This was certainly small potatoes compared to the howling misstatements about Cheney. But this small part of Meyerson’s column fits the template for a certain type of spun press event. To consider a roughly similar case, let’s review the memorable way the Buddhist Temple was spun against Gore.
Simply put, the press corps wanted the Buddhist Temple to be a Perfect Storm. They wanted it to be the perfect example of fund-raising misconduct by Gore. Unfortunately, the actual facts of the temple case made it a rather weak parable. In fact, there was no charge to attend the temple luncheon, making it one of the strangest “fund-raisers” in political history. That same night, Gore spoke at a fund-raising dinner in San Jose; attendees paid $5000 per plate. But attendees at the luncheon paid nothing. And why was there no charge for the temple luncheon? Because when the luncheon was switched to the temple venue, the DNC dropped its plan to charge. Those who say “there is no free lunch” have failed to recall this event.
No, it was hard to make this a Perfect Storm—if you included all the facts. But the press simply loved this event. They had video of funny Asian monastics which they could play to their hearts’ content, and they had an inaccurate joke about “vows of poverty” which they all loved to recite. (Many of the temple monastics were actually millionaires.) So, to help make the luncheon a Perfect Storm, they simply decided to dump certain facts. Though they flogged the event again and again, they knew not to say that the luncheon was free, and they knew not to say that the DNC had dropped its charges because of the temple venue. With those facts removed, the story worked! Routinely, those facts were suppressed.
So too with the 16-word statement. To all appearances, the corps had reached a global judgment—Bush hyped the facts on Iraq. That overall view may be perfectly fair. But here’s the problem—even if that’s a valid view, “238-gate” just doesn’t cut it as the Perfect Illustration. Perhaps the statement didn’t belong in the speech. The statement may not even be true. But if you say that Bush was citing British intelligence, the tale becomes an Imperfect Storm. So, just as with the free temple luncheon, scribes began leaving facts out.
Kristof called Bush’s statement a “hoax”—and forgot to mention the British intelligence. Meyerson said Bush’s charge was “baseless”—and he failed to mention the Brit intell, too. Many of you have written in, insisting that this is all deeply moral. Sorry, you’re wrong—and yesterday’s stunning column showed how quickly things devolve when scribes are allowed to dump basic facts. In paragraph one, Meyerson’s column was omitting key facts. By paragraph two, it was making facts up.
Just as with the Buddhist temple, there are reasons why this item appealed to the press corps as a Perfect Storm. The famous forged documents were irresistible, just as the Asian ascetics had been. And the Joe Wilson story provided a plot: Honest ambassador’s passage to Africa. Meanwhile, why does the press corps just luvvv Perfect Storms? Simple. Once you come up with a Perfect Storm, you don’t have to do any real reporting. You repeat the Standard Story again and again. Then you break for a three-margy lunch.
American citizens deserve a full look at how their government handled intelligence on Iraq. But their press corps is lazy; it wants Perfect Storms. We’ve expressed a simple point this week: As a point of fairness and simple honesty, you can’t accuse officials of a “baseless” “hoax” unless you state their basic explanation. But you know that press corps! By Tuesday, they were dumping key facts. By Thursday, they were making facts up.
RICHARD’S LARGER ALMANAC: For our money, Richard Cohen offered a more instructive view with part of his own Thursday column:
COHEN: At the moment, the brouhaha is over Bush’s assertion in his State of the Union address that Iraq had sought to import weapons-grade uranium from Africa. That turns out not to be true—or at least not provable. It is also probably not true that Iraq was importing aluminum tubing for its purported nuclear weapons program. In fact, it may well be that Iraq had no active nuclear weapons program. At least none has been found.
Cohen makes one fleeting error; clearly, no one has shown that Bush’s statement “turns out not to be true.” (Though it clearly hasn’t been proven.) But why is Cohen’s account more significant than Meyerson’s? Cohen looks at the Bush Admin’s larger claim—the general claim that Saddam was trying to kick-start a nuclear program. This claim was frequently made in the run-up to war. But was this serious claim accurate? The tubing claim appears to have been hyped (or worse), and the uranium claim was imperfectly based. Cohen doesn’t offer a Perfect Storm—but he sketches the shape of a larger probe that might suggest that a Big Bush Claim was based on slender, hyped evidence.
Incidentally, accurate information is hard to obtain in all of these murky, security areas. For example, when the New Republic did its lengthy report on Bush-on-Iraq, it included two paragraphs on uranium from Africa. Viewed from the present perspective, the account seems to be riddled with errors:
ACKERMAN AND JUDIS: In his State of the Union address on January 28, 2003, Bush introduced a new piece of evidence to show that Iraq was developing a nuclear arms program: “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa…Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.”
One year earlier, Cheney’s office had received from the British, via the Italians, documents purporting to show Iraq’s purchase of uranium from Niger. Cheney had given the information to the CIA, which in turn asked a prominent diplomat [Joe Wilson], who had served as ambassador to three African countries, to investigate. He returned after a visit to Niger in February 2002 and reported to the State Department and the CIA that the documents were forgeries. The CIA circulated the ambassador’s report to the vice president’s office, the ambassador confirms to TNR. But, after a British dossier was released in September detailing the purported uranium purchase, administration officials began citing it anyway, culminating in its inclusion in the State of the Union. “They knew the Niger story was a flat-out lie,” the former ambassador tells TNR. “They were unpersuasive about aluminum tubes and added this to make their case more persuasive.”
Though it culminates in a serious charge by Wilson (then still unnamed), much of this account is inaccurate or unproven. For example, Wilson did not “report that the documents were forgeries;” he acknowledges that he never saw them. And CIA head George Tenet says that the CIA did not “circulate the ambassador’s report to Cheney’s office.” It’s clear from Wilson’s later appearances that this was his surmise, not something he can “confirm.” Meanwhile, Ackerman and Judis are somewhat unclear when they say that “the purported [Niger] uranium purchase” was included in the State of the Union. If we ever do get that larger probe, each piece will be murky and subject to confusion and error.
Ok so the jesters are getting downright uppity in King Ethelred's court. For example here is a piece from the Times-Union
Mistakes of arrogance are hard to accept
By JAY BOOKMAN
Some people are born humble. Others have humility thrust upon them.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, for example, was asked in a recent interview whether he still had faith in prewar intelligence claiming a link between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.
"I think that the, the, information we had over a period of time that I cited that the intelligence community gave to me and I read as opposed to ad-libbing was correct. It, it, it was carefully stated ..."
Talk about carefully stated.
It's telling to see the bantam rooster of the Bush administration turn so halting and defensive, insisting that, hey, he had only been reading what somebody else handed him. Then again, there's a lot of that going around these days.
In fact, if Vietnam was the place where America lost her innocence, Iraq may be the place where we lose our arrogance.
The once-triumphant Richard Perle has gone underground. The sublimely smug William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard and stalwart champion of empire, no longer looks as though he just swallowed a canary. Crow is more like it. And we've heard more from Saddam Hussein in recent weeks than from Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz.
Maybe because Saddam, unlike Wolfowitz, has a plan that's actually working.
The humility of Rumsfeld and others, while belated, is well earned. Too many of our soldiers are still dying. Too many others, living every day with the knowledge that an attack could come from anywhere, now find themselves acting with the brutality that has long been required of occupying forces. The transformation is no doubt necessary for their self-defense, but it may haunt their nights for years.
Contrary to previous assurances, our top generals now admit that we will be stuck in Iraq for years at a current cost of a billion dollars a week, not including substantial reconstruction costs. The need to keep at least 150,000 soldiers stationed in Iraq for the foreseeable future also means that our military will be seriously overextended for a long time.
Globally, the credibility of the United States is in tatters. At a time when both North Korea and Iran truly do seem to be moving toward a nuclear capability -- as contrasted with the fictitious nuclear program attributed to Iraq -- we find ourselves in a weak position, both militarily and diplomatically, to challenge them.
We've even been reduced to asking, all but begging, other nations to contribute troops to Iraq, but most are declining. They want no part of a war that they advised against, a war they were ridiculed by U.S. officials for opposing, a war that now seems to be going bad.
Anybody can make mistakes, of course. But mistakes born of arrogance are particularly hard to accept, and our leaders made plenty, right from the beginning.
The United Nations would never dare to withhold its approval for an invasion, yet it did. The Iraqi people would welcome us with parades and confetti, but instead it's been rocket-propelled grenades. Weapons of mass destruction posed a grave threat to our safety of our loved ones, yet so far none has been found. And the notion that we could create a democratic Iraq to serve as a beacon to the rest of the Islamic world is now exposed for the romantic claptrap it had always been.
For a year now, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Vice President Dick Cheney and others have treated U.S. intelligence agencies as little more than public-relations flacks, tasked to produce propaganda that the CEO needed to sell a product. They drew up no Plan B in case they were wrong about Iraq, because the notion that they could be wrong never entered their minds. Any who dared suggest otherwise were dismissed as fools, traitors or appeasers.
Even when smart people, experienced people, such as Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki, tried to tell them that an occupation of Iraq might be expensive and require a lot of manpower, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz publicly scoffed.
And in that willful blindness, they have led us here.
Today, and tomorrow, and for the foreseeable future, our men and women in uniform will be dealing with the consequences of their leaders' misinformed arrogance. But surely, those who made the mistakes should face consequences, too.
"If Donald Rumsfeld was here," Spc. Clinton Deitz of the 3rd Infantry Division told ABC News in Baghdad, "I'd ask him for his resignation."
Mistakes of arrogance are hard to accept
By JAY BOOKMAN
Some people are born humble. Others have humility thrust upon them.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, for example, was asked in a recent interview whether he still had faith in prewar intelligence claiming a link between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.
"I think that the, the, information we had over a period of time that I cited that the intelligence community gave to me and I read as opposed to ad-libbing was correct. It, it, it was carefully stated ..."
Talk about carefully stated.
It's telling to see the bantam rooster of the Bush administration turn so halting and defensive, insisting that, hey, he had only been reading what somebody else handed him. Then again, there's a lot of that going around these days.
In fact, if Vietnam was the place where America lost her innocence, Iraq may be the place where we lose our arrogance.
The once-triumphant Richard Perle has gone underground. The sublimely smug William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard and stalwart champion of empire, no longer looks as though he just swallowed a canary. Crow is more like it. And we've heard more from Saddam Hussein in recent weeks than from Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz.
Maybe because Saddam, unlike Wolfowitz, has a plan that's actually working.
The humility of Rumsfeld and others, while belated, is well earned. Too many of our soldiers are still dying. Too many others, living every day with the knowledge that an attack could come from anywhere, now find themselves acting with the brutality that has long been required of occupying forces. The transformation is no doubt necessary for their self-defense, but it may haunt their nights for years.
Contrary to previous assurances, our top generals now admit that we will be stuck in Iraq for years at a current cost of a billion dollars a week, not including substantial reconstruction costs. The need to keep at least 150,000 soldiers stationed in Iraq for the foreseeable future also means that our military will be seriously overextended for a long time.
Globally, the credibility of the United States is in tatters. At a time when both North Korea and Iran truly do seem to be moving toward a nuclear capability -- as contrasted with the fictitious nuclear program attributed to Iraq -- we find ourselves in a weak position, both militarily and diplomatically, to challenge them.
We've even been reduced to asking, all but begging, other nations to contribute troops to Iraq, but most are declining. They want no part of a war that they advised against, a war they were ridiculed by U.S. officials for opposing, a war that now seems to be going bad.
Anybody can make mistakes, of course. But mistakes born of arrogance are particularly hard to accept, and our leaders made plenty, right from the beginning.
The United Nations would never dare to withhold its approval for an invasion, yet it did. The Iraqi people would welcome us with parades and confetti, but instead it's been rocket-propelled grenades. Weapons of mass destruction posed a grave threat to our safety of our loved ones, yet so far none has been found. And the notion that we could create a democratic Iraq to serve as a beacon to the rest of the Islamic world is now exposed for the romantic claptrap it had always been.
For a year now, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Vice President Dick Cheney and others have treated U.S. intelligence agencies as little more than public-relations flacks, tasked to produce propaganda that the CEO needed to sell a product. They drew up no Plan B in case they were wrong about Iraq, because the notion that they could be wrong never entered their minds. Any who dared suggest otherwise were dismissed as fools, traitors or appeasers.
Even when smart people, experienced people, such as Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki, tried to tell them that an occupation of Iraq might be expensive and require a lot of manpower, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz publicly scoffed.
And in that willful blindness, they have led us here.
Today, and tomorrow, and for the foreseeable future, our men and women in uniform will be dealing with the consequences of their leaders' misinformed arrogance. But surely, those who made the mistakes should face consequences, too.
"If Donald Rumsfeld was here," Spc. Clinton Deitz of the 3rd Infantry Division told ABC News in Baghdad, "I'd ask him for his resignation."
Thursday, July 17, 2003
So Microsoft seem to have finally managed to kill Netscape, and gotten AOL to use Internet Explorer as it's default browser. My only reaction iks who cares. AOL sucks, Microsoft is not as good as Safari and Mozilla has been spun off into it's own non-profit organization. In the long run this will be good for all of us.
James
James
Wednesday, July 16, 2003
House committee votes to block FCC from easing limits on TV station ownership
By ALAN FRAM
The Associated Press
7/16/03 12:56 PM
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A House committee voted Wednesday to block federal regulators from letting companies purchase larger numbers of television stations, ignoring a Bush administration veto threat and handing a setback to the commercial television networks.
By a bipartisan 40-25 vote, the House Appropriations Committee voted to derail a new Federal Communications Commission rule that would let a single company own TV stations reaching 45 percent of American households. That new rule replaced a 35 percent limit, which has been favored by smaller broadcasters and an amalgam of groups ranging from the National Rifle Association to consumer advocates.
The Appropriations Committee's approval of the provision, which was attached to a must-pass spending bill for the Commerce, Justice and State departments, breathed new life into an effort by congressional opponents to undo the June 2 FCC decision. Separate House and Senate bills to thwart the new FCC have bogged down, having run into opposition from pivotal committee chairmen.
Even so, with the White House threatening a veto, House Republican leaders backing the administration and continued opposition from the major commercial broadcast networks, the prospects for the provision approved on Wednesday were unclear.
Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., sponsor of the amendment, cast it as an attempt to keep national corporations from dictating what will be aired on local television stations. He and others complained about prime-time broadcasts of Victoria Secrets models and other programming they said was unsuitable for young children.
"I don't want ownership factors to get in the way of districts like mine from being able to preserve their own cultural attitudes," Obey said.
Supporters of the new FCC rules said they reflected the growing competition that large network broadcasters face from cable and satellite television and the Internet. Blocking those rules won't change the programming, they said.
"It doesn't matter whether they're owned by a guy in that town or a conglomerate," said Rep. Henry Bonilla, R-Texas.
Obey's amendment did not affect other parts of the FCC decision that ended many of the prohibitions against a single company owning newspapers and broadcast stations in the same community.
Prior to approving the amendment, the committee by voice vote killed an effort to broaden it by also blocking the part of the FCC ruling having to do with joint newspaper-broadcast ownership.
The sponsor of that amendment, Rep. Anne Northup, R-Ky., said she wanted to contain the expansion of all media organizations, not just television networks. But Obey said her proposal, if approved, would have spelled the defeat of the entire amendment by increasing the number of groups -- and lawmakers -- opposed to it.
By ALAN FRAM
The Associated Press
7/16/03 12:56 PM
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A House committee voted Wednesday to block federal regulators from letting companies purchase larger numbers of television stations, ignoring a Bush administration veto threat and handing a setback to the commercial television networks.
By a bipartisan 40-25 vote, the House Appropriations Committee voted to derail a new Federal Communications Commission rule that would let a single company own TV stations reaching 45 percent of American households. That new rule replaced a 35 percent limit, which has been favored by smaller broadcasters and an amalgam of groups ranging from the National Rifle Association to consumer advocates.
The Appropriations Committee's approval of the provision, which was attached to a must-pass spending bill for the Commerce, Justice and State departments, breathed new life into an effort by congressional opponents to undo the June 2 FCC decision. Separate House and Senate bills to thwart the new FCC have bogged down, having run into opposition from pivotal committee chairmen.
Even so, with the White House threatening a veto, House Republican leaders backing the administration and continued opposition from the major commercial broadcast networks, the prospects for the provision approved on Wednesday were unclear.
Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., sponsor of the amendment, cast it as an attempt to keep national corporations from dictating what will be aired on local television stations. He and others complained about prime-time broadcasts of Victoria Secrets models and other programming they said was unsuitable for young children.
"I don't want ownership factors to get in the way of districts like mine from being able to preserve their own cultural attitudes," Obey said.
Supporters of the new FCC rules said they reflected the growing competition that large network broadcasters face from cable and satellite television and the Internet. Blocking those rules won't change the programming, they said.
"It doesn't matter whether they're owned by a guy in that town or a conglomerate," said Rep. Henry Bonilla, R-Texas.
Obey's amendment did not affect other parts of the FCC decision that ended many of the prohibitions against a single company owning newspapers and broadcast stations in the same community.
Prior to approving the amendment, the committee by voice vote killed an effort to broaden it by also blocking the part of the FCC ruling having to do with joint newspaper-broadcast ownership.
The sponsor of that amendment, Rep. Anne Northup, R-Ky., said she wanted to contain the expansion of all media organizations, not just television networks. But Obey said her proposal, if approved, would have spelled the defeat of the entire amendment by increasing the number of groups -- and lawmakers -- opposed to it.
According to CNN, there have been 266 confirmed coalition deaths in the war as of July 16, 2003.
There have also been (according to Iraq Body Count website) 7779 Iraqi civilians killed.
I am not sure how many Iraqi soldiers have been killed.
Please take a minute to reflect on the human cost of the war.
There have also been (according to Iraq Body Count website) 7779 Iraqi civilians killed.
I am not sure how many Iraqi soldiers have been killed.
Please take a minute to reflect on the human cost of the war.
This from the Observer proves we might just be completely fucked as a species:
Big Brother is key to winning next election: Politicians must learn from reality TV in battle to get voters off the sofa and into ballot booths
Gaby Hinsliff, chief political correspondent
Sunday June 1, 2003
The Observer
Politicians' never-ending quest for public approval could lead them to seek inspiration from the most unlikely source.
This week MPs will be warned that they should adopt the tricks of the reality TV show Big Brother to re-engage with voters or risk fading into irrelevance.
Just as the housemates nominate each other in confidence for eviction, MPs could vote by secret ballot in the House of Commons, while regular online votes on issues of importance would help to make parliament more interactive, suggests Peter Bazalgette, the TV executive behind the cult programme.
Almost twice as many votes were cast in the last series of Big Brother as in May's local elections, prompting the Hansard Society, the respected constitutional think tank, to produce a report - to be published on Tuesday - on the lessons to be learnt on boosting the turnout at general elections.
In his foreword to the report, Bazalgette - who chairs Endemol UK, the producer of Big Brother - warns that British politics is in decline. 'The relationship between electors and elected is fracturing. Parliament is unresponsive; the government cynically dominates the agenda; backbenchers have become invertebrate lobby fodder.'
The Commons and the Big Brother set are both 'televised houses in which a popularity contest takes place', he adds. But parliament is failing to satisfy the demands of a generation raised on text-messaging and email, instead allowing its electorate to express an opinion on the Westminster housemates only once every few years at the ballot box.
The report, A Tale of Two Houses, compares the views of regular Big Brother viewers uninterested in politics (BBs) with serious-minded, chattering-class Political Junkies (PJs).
Both groups were asked by pollsters YouGov what MPs could learn from Big Brother. While the BBs made constructive suggestions - including adapting the confessional 'diary room' formula to allow MPs to speak directly to voters about issues, and televising the decision-making process on important issues such as the euro - many PJs were so appalled at the idea of learning from a game show that they could not bring themselves to mention Big Brother in their answers, the report notes.
Of those who did, one proposed legislation to ban reality TV and another suggested improving state education so that fewer people watched such low-brow fare. The polling found that PJs considered people who watched Big Brother to be 'voyeuristic' and 'dull'.
Yet BBs - who were overwhelmingly women and more likely to vote Labour, while PJs were mostly male and Conservative - were only slightly less likely to have gone to university than PJs.
Stephen Coleman, professor of e-democracy at Oxford University, said snobbery was stopping Britain's political elite reconnecting with the masses. 'Political junkies detest the BB people; they don't want to understand them, but they do want little BBs in their schools to have citizenship lessons, which will teach them to become more like the PJs. That won't work unless they understand what makes BBs tick.'
Interactive television dissolved the boundaries between programme and viewer and politicians must try to do the same, he added.
'John Prescott punching someone was one of the few moments of interactivity in the last general election campaign - it's a tragedy that it had to involve someone getting punched.'
BBs more often change their minds on politics - they swung from opposing war against Iraq to supporting it once military action began, which explains why Stephan Shakespeare, the YouGov pollster now working for the Conservative Party, has advised Iain Duncan Smith to target the Big Brother-watching classes. Shakespeare also warns against politicians dismissing more gossipy news as 'froth', pointing out that issues such as William Hague drinking 14 pints interest BBs.
Big Brother is key to winning next election: Politicians must learn from reality TV in battle to get voters off the sofa and into ballot booths
Gaby Hinsliff, chief political correspondent
Sunday June 1, 2003
The Observer
Politicians' never-ending quest for public approval could lead them to seek inspiration from the most unlikely source.
This week MPs will be warned that they should adopt the tricks of the reality TV show Big Brother to re-engage with voters or risk fading into irrelevance.
Just as the housemates nominate each other in confidence for eviction, MPs could vote by secret ballot in the House of Commons, while regular online votes on issues of importance would help to make parliament more interactive, suggests Peter Bazalgette, the TV executive behind the cult programme.
Almost twice as many votes were cast in the last series of Big Brother as in May's local elections, prompting the Hansard Society, the respected constitutional think tank, to produce a report - to be published on Tuesday - on the lessons to be learnt on boosting the turnout at general elections.
In his foreword to the report, Bazalgette - who chairs Endemol UK, the producer of Big Brother - warns that British politics is in decline. 'The relationship between electors and elected is fracturing. Parliament is unresponsive; the government cynically dominates the agenda; backbenchers have become invertebrate lobby fodder.'
The Commons and the Big Brother set are both 'televised houses in which a popularity contest takes place', he adds. But parliament is failing to satisfy the demands of a generation raised on text-messaging and email, instead allowing its electorate to express an opinion on the Westminster housemates only once every few years at the ballot box.
The report, A Tale of Two Houses, compares the views of regular Big Brother viewers uninterested in politics (BBs) with serious-minded, chattering-class Political Junkies (PJs).
Both groups were asked by pollsters YouGov what MPs could learn from Big Brother. While the BBs made constructive suggestions - including adapting the confessional 'diary room' formula to allow MPs to speak directly to voters about issues, and televising the decision-making process on important issues such as the euro - many PJs were so appalled at the idea of learning from a game show that they could not bring themselves to mention Big Brother in their answers, the report notes.
Of those who did, one proposed legislation to ban reality TV and another suggested improving state education so that fewer people watched such low-brow fare. The polling found that PJs considered people who watched Big Brother to be 'voyeuristic' and 'dull'.
Yet BBs - who were overwhelmingly women and more likely to vote Labour, while PJs were mostly male and Conservative - were only slightly less likely to have gone to university than PJs.
Stephen Coleman, professor of e-democracy at Oxford University, said snobbery was stopping Britain's political elite reconnecting with the masses. 'Political junkies detest the BB people; they don't want to understand them, but they do want little BBs in their schools to have citizenship lessons, which will teach them to become more like the PJs. That won't work unless they understand what makes BBs tick.'
Interactive television dissolved the boundaries between programme and viewer and politicians must try to do the same, he added.
'John Prescott punching someone was one of the few moments of interactivity in the last general election campaign - it's a tragedy that it had to involve someone getting punched.'
BBs more often change their minds on politics - they swung from opposing war against Iraq to supporting it once military action began, which explains why Stephan Shakespeare, the YouGov pollster now working for the Conservative Party, has advised Iain Duncan Smith to target the Big Brother-watching classes. Shakespeare also warns against politicians dismissing more gossipy news as 'froth', pointing out that issues such as William Hague drinking 14 pints interest BBs.
Poor King Ethelred, his jesters are getting more restless daily:
Bush Faced Dwindling Data on Iraq Nuclear Bid
By Walter Pincus (Washington Post Staff Writer, Wednesday, July 16, 2003; Page A01)
In recent days, as the Bush administration has defended its assertion in the president's State of the Union address that Iraq had tried to buy African uranium, officials have said it was only one bit of intelligence that indicated former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was reconstituting his nuclear weapons program.
But a review of speeches and reports, plus interviews with present and former administration officials and intelligence analysts, suggests that between Oct. 7, when President Bush made a speech laying out the case for military action against Hussein, and Jan. 28, when he gave his State of the Union address, almost all the other evidence had either been undercut or disproved by U.N. inspectors in Iraq.
By Jan. 28, in fact, the intelligence report concerning Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa -- although now almost entirely disproved -- was the only publicly unchallenged element of the administration's case that Iraq had restarted its nuclear program. That may explain why the administration strived to keep the information in the speech and attribute it to the British, even though the CIA had challenged it earlier.
For example, in his Oct. 7 speech, Bush said that "satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at [past nuclear] sites." He also cited Hussein's "numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists" as further evidence that the program was being reconstituted, along with Iraq's attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes "needed" for centrifuges used to enrich uranium.
But on Jan. 27 -- the day before the State of the Union address -- the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported to the U.N. Security Council that two months of inspections in Iraq had found that no prohibited nuclear activities had taken place at former Iraqi nuclear sites. As for Iraqi nuclear scientists, Mohamed ElBaradei told the Security Council, U.N. inspectors had "useful" interviews with some of them, though not in private. And preliminary analysis, he said, suggested that the aluminum tubes, "unless modified, would not be suitable for manufacturing centrifuges."
The next night, Bush delivered his speech, including the now-controversial 16-word sentence, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
Of his October examples, only the aluminum tubes charge remained in January, but that allegation had a subtle caveat -- he described the tubes as merely "suitable" for nuclear weapons production. Without the statement on uranium, the allegation concerning aluminum tubes would have been the only nuclear-related action ascribed to Hussein since the early 1990s.
And the tubes had already been questioned not only by IAEA, but also by analysts in U.S. and British intelligence agencies.
The idea that Iraq was acquiring tubes for a nuclear program became public in September, shortly after the Bush administration began a campaign to marshal public, congressional and U.N. support for authority to attack Iraq if it did not disarm.
On Aug. 26, Vice President Cheney, the official most publicly vocal about Iraq as a nuclear threat, began the campaign when he told a Veterans of Foreign Wars audience: "Many of us are convinced that Saddam will acquire nuclear weapons fairly soon. Just how soon we cannot gauge."
On Sept. 8, the New York Times disclosed that intelligence showed that Iraq had "embarked on a worldwide hunt for materials to make an atomic bomb" by trying to purchase "specially designed aluminum tubes" that unidentified administration sources believed were for centrifuges to enrich uranium.
The story referred to Bush "hardliners" who argued that action should be taken because if they waited for proof that Hussein had a nuclear weapon, "the first sign of a smoking gun may be a mushroom cloud."
That day, Bush national security adviser Condoleezza Rice appeared on CNN's "Late Edition" and confirmed the Times story. She said the tubes "are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs." She also said, "The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons, but we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."
Cheney also confirmed the Times story that day, on NBC's "Meet the Press," saying that "we don't have all the evidence," but enough of a picture "that tells us that he [Hussein] is in fact actively and aggressively seeking to acquire nuclear weapons."
What neither Rice nor Cheney said at the time was that Baghdad's first attempts to purchase the aluminum tubes, more than a year earlier, had by Sept. 8 led to a fairly open disagreement in the U.S. intelligence community on whether the tubes were for centrifuges or for artillery rockets in Iraq's military program.
Analysts from the State and Energy departments said the tubes were too long and too thick for centrifuges; CIA and Pentagon analysts said they could be cut down and reamed out. Their debate was continuing as the agencies were putting together the still-classified national intelligence estimate on Hussein's weapons program.
In July, the United States had intercepted one shipment and obtained a tube; it was coated with a protective chemical that would have had to be removed if it were to be put to a nuclear purpose.
The intelligence estimate, completed in mid-September, reflected the different views, but the final judgment said that "most" analysts leaned toward the view that the tubes had a nuclear purpose. When the British dossier on Iraq's weapons program was published on Sept. 24, it referred to the tubes, but noted that "there is no definitive intelligence that it is destined for a nuclear program."
In his State of the Union address, Bush did not indicate any disagreement over the use of the tubes. Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, however, outlined the arguments involved when he spoke eight days later before the Security Council, where inspectors already had challenged the U.S. position on them.
On March 7, ElBaradei gave his final report to the Security Council before his inspectors were removed from Iraq on March 18. His conclusion was that "the IAEA had found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons program in Iraq." He also said the documents that gave rise to the allegation that Iraq had tried to buy African uranium were forged.
On March 16, Cheney appeared again on "Meet the Press" and reiterated his views of the previous August about Hussein's nuclear program. "We know he's been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons, and we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." The war began three days later
---------------------------------------------------
Bush Faced Dwindling Data on Iraq Nuclear Bid
By Walter Pincus (Washington Post Staff Writer, Wednesday, July 16, 2003; Page A01)
In recent days, as the Bush administration has defended its assertion in the president's State of the Union address that Iraq had tried to buy African uranium, officials have said it was only one bit of intelligence that indicated former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was reconstituting his nuclear weapons program.
But a review of speeches and reports, plus interviews with present and former administration officials and intelligence analysts, suggests that between Oct. 7, when President Bush made a speech laying out the case for military action against Hussein, and Jan. 28, when he gave his State of the Union address, almost all the other evidence had either been undercut or disproved by U.N. inspectors in Iraq.
By Jan. 28, in fact, the intelligence report concerning Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa -- although now almost entirely disproved -- was the only publicly unchallenged element of the administration's case that Iraq had restarted its nuclear program. That may explain why the administration strived to keep the information in the speech and attribute it to the British, even though the CIA had challenged it earlier.
For example, in his Oct. 7 speech, Bush said that "satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at [past nuclear] sites." He also cited Hussein's "numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists" as further evidence that the program was being reconstituted, along with Iraq's attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes "needed" for centrifuges used to enrich uranium.
But on Jan. 27 -- the day before the State of the Union address -- the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported to the U.N. Security Council that two months of inspections in Iraq had found that no prohibited nuclear activities had taken place at former Iraqi nuclear sites. As for Iraqi nuclear scientists, Mohamed ElBaradei told the Security Council, U.N. inspectors had "useful" interviews with some of them, though not in private. And preliminary analysis, he said, suggested that the aluminum tubes, "unless modified, would not be suitable for manufacturing centrifuges."
The next night, Bush delivered his speech, including the now-controversial 16-word sentence, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
Of his October examples, only the aluminum tubes charge remained in January, but that allegation had a subtle caveat -- he described the tubes as merely "suitable" for nuclear weapons production. Without the statement on uranium, the allegation concerning aluminum tubes would have been the only nuclear-related action ascribed to Hussein since the early 1990s.
And the tubes had already been questioned not only by IAEA, but also by analysts in U.S. and British intelligence agencies.
The idea that Iraq was acquiring tubes for a nuclear program became public in September, shortly after the Bush administration began a campaign to marshal public, congressional and U.N. support for authority to attack Iraq if it did not disarm.
On Aug. 26, Vice President Cheney, the official most publicly vocal about Iraq as a nuclear threat, began the campaign when he told a Veterans of Foreign Wars audience: "Many of us are convinced that Saddam will acquire nuclear weapons fairly soon. Just how soon we cannot gauge."
On Sept. 8, the New York Times disclosed that intelligence showed that Iraq had "embarked on a worldwide hunt for materials to make an atomic bomb" by trying to purchase "specially designed aluminum tubes" that unidentified administration sources believed were for centrifuges to enrich uranium.
The story referred to Bush "hardliners" who argued that action should be taken because if they waited for proof that Hussein had a nuclear weapon, "the first sign of a smoking gun may be a mushroom cloud."
That day, Bush national security adviser Condoleezza Rice appeared on CNN's "Late Edition" and confirmed the Times story. She said the tubes "are only really suited for nuclear weapons programs, centrifuge programs." She also said, "The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons, but we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."
Cheney also confirmed the Times story that day, on NBC's "Meet the Press," saying that "we don't have all the evidence," but enough of a picture "that tells us that he [Hussein] is in fact actively and aggressively seeking to acquire nuclear weapons."
What neither Rice nor Cheney said at the time was that Baghdad's first attempts to purchase the aluminum tubes, more than a year earlier, had by Sept. 8 led to a fairly open disagreement in the U.S. intelligence community on whether the tubes were for centrifuges or for artillery rockets in Iraq's military program.
Analysts from the State and Energy departments said the tubes were too long and too thick for centrifuges; CIA and Pentagon analysts said they could be cut down and reamed out. Their debate was continuing as the agencies were putting together the still-classified national intelligence estimate on Hussein's weapons program.
In July, the United States had intercepted one shipment and obtained a tube; it was coated with a protective chemical that would have had to be removed if it were to be put to a nuclear purpose.
The intelligence estimate, completed in mid-September, reflected the different views, but the final judgment said that "most" analysts leaned toward the view that the tubes had a nuclear purpose. When the British dossier on Iraq's weapons program was published on Sept. 24, it referred to the tubes, but noted that "there is no definitive intelligence that it is destined for a nuclear program."
In his State of the Union address, Bush did not indicate any disagreement over the use of the tubes. Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, however, outlined the arguments involved when he spoke eight days later before the Security Council, where inspectors already had challenged the U.S. position on them.
On March 7, ElBaradei gave his final report to the Security Council before his inspectors were removed from Iraq on March 18. His conclusion was that "the IAEA had found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapons program in Iraq." He also said the documents that gave rise to the allegation that Iraq had tried to buy African uranium were forged.
On March 16, Cheney appeared again on "Meet the Press" and reiterated his views of the previous August about Hussein's nuclear program. "We know he's been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons, and we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." The war began three days later
---------------------------------------------------
Tuesday, July 15, 2003
Peaceful Warrior
Chris Strohm is a freelance reporter and volunteer with the DC Independent Media Center. Ingrid Drake is a correspondent for Pacifica Radio's Peacewatch program.
As the U.S. occupation of Iraq extends with no end in sight, and the death toll for both U.S. soldiers and Iraqi civilians continues to mount, more voices of dissent from military personnel and families are surfacing every day.
One of the most poignant so far comes from a young Marine who gave an interview with Pacifica Radio's Peacewatch program the night before he was deployed to Iraq. He discussed his strong commitment to peace, and said the Bush administration was violating constitutional principles and misleading the country into an unjust war.
He was killed in late June, fighting a war he didn’t believe in.
Because the interview was given under the condition of anonymity, and out of respect for the current wishes of his family, the Marine will be identified in this story only as John (not his real name). John’s friends describe him as a passionate, intense person with an insatiable appetite for knowledge and a commitment to peace. He studied philosophy and peace with an emphasis on Middle Eastern affairs, particularly Iraq and Israel.
His friends say he went into the military under the Clinton administration to gain credibility, so that perhaps someday his beliefs on how to build a lasting peace in the Middle East would be taken seriously. In the months before his deployment, he helped organize anti-war campaigns, mainly working behind the scenes.
In his interview with Pacifica, John expressed outrage that a legitimate public debate on the war had not occurred. Many alternatives to combat were available, he explained, such as using money being spent for war to finance a grassroots Iraqi democracy movement that would rival the Baath regime, or promoting democracy throughout the Middle East to show people alternative forms of government.
"It is almost unimaginable to expect that this war is going to create a better peace for anybody with the exception of a very small percentage of people," he said.
He accused the administration of not talking honestly with the American public about potential consequences of a U.S. war on Iraq, such as the potential for urban combat, the psyche of the Iraqi people, the impact on the United Nations and the fate of the Middle East.
"This could have repercussions in terms of the war on terrorism," he said. "It could have repercussions on international diplomacy. It could have repercussions on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. It could have repercussions in terms of our ability to get anything else done in the United Nations. And even if... everything goes the way it's supposed to go, what does that mean for the world order? It says that we basically can do whatever we want to do whenever we want to do it because we are the world's sole superpower."
But even as he expressed doubts about the Bush administration’s decision, he spoke eloquently about his patriotism, and looked to the highest ideals of the country for inspiration:
"I believe in the United States. I believe in the Constitution. I think it's perhaps one of the greatest documents ever written. I believe in the idea that we the people are sovereign and we determine our own destiny. We have a democracy and the Bill of Rights and freedom of expression, freedom of speech, freedom of religion and due process. Until the world is such a place that we can really live without the military, individual Americans have to step up and they have to serve."
The Bush administration, he claimed, had not made a credible case for war with Iraq, and was violating constitutional principles by sending troops into combat. He spoke of the Declaration of Independence, and how its writers vowed to be free of England, where their lives were ruled and determined by one man. "The constant rhetoric of the administration is that there's going to be one person who decides when we go to war," he said, "and that is such a blatant violation of every constitutional principle that our founding fathers came up with."
"But even beyond that, it's ‘we the people’ that this nation is about," he continued. "It isn't about politics or personal agendas or political agendas or economic agendas. And I believe that this war is not the right thing for America because it hasn't yet been proven conclusively that there is a threat to ‘we the people’ -- and I think that is the sole determining factor as to whether or not this nation should ever go to war."
With chilling foresight, John predicted that much could go wrong in a war with Iraq, saying the outcomes outlined by the administration were based on highly optimistic and rosy scenarios. He said it was unlikely that Iraqis would cheer the arrival of a U.S. occupying force, and that long-term urban combat could be a likely outcome.
Yet he went to Iraq, believing it to be his duty. And continued, even in the midst of combat, to exercise his belief in nonviolent resolution. One of his commanders wrote a letter after his death explaining a situation in which John negotiated a peaceful settlement to a potentially deadly situation. A group of Baath Party officials were found inside a house. Because he spoke Arabic, John entered the house and talked with the officials until he negotiated a surrender. His actions potentially saved the lives of both U.S. soldiers and Iraqis.
In letters home, John described the peace movement as "awesome," and said he hoped it would grow larger, never relent against the Bush administration, and help bring an end to the war.
Around June 20, those letters stopped.
As of July 14, 32 American soldiers have died from hostile action since Bush declared an end to major combat operations in Iraq on May 1, according to the Pentagon. Forty-three other service members have died in incidents unrelated to hostilities.
Nancy Lessin, co-founder of Military Families Speak Out, says more people are becoming outraged now that the war against Iraq has turned into a highly risky occupation.
"Too many U.S. military personnel and way too many innocent Iraqis have been killed," she says. "And what we predicted to be true has come true, that there are no weapons of mass destruction. Everything we said was going to happen is coming to pass, and one of the most frightening aspects of this is that the people of this country haven't completely risen up in opposition to what's going on."
Her words are echoed, and answered, by John’s. Before he was deployed, John wrote a final letter as part of his will.
"That I have died means I have failed to achieve the one thing in life I truly longed to give the world -- peace," the letter reads. "The plight of human suffering consumed me and I dedicated much to trying to find the ideas that might lead humankind toward alleviating it for all. It was a quest which was inextricably intertwined with my quest for freedom. If you know anything about me you know that. Understand it and come to understand how the suffering of others tormented my soul. Then seek to honor my memory by trying to achieve what I could not."
Andrew Korfhage provided additional reporting for this article.
Chris Strohm is a freelance reporter and volunteer with the DC Independent Media Center. Ingrid Drake is a correspondent for Pacifica Radio's Peacewatch program.
As the U.S. occupation of Iraq extends with no end in sight, and the death toll for both U.S. soldiers and Iraqi civilians continues to mount, more voices of dissent from military personnel and families are surfacing every day.
One of the most poignant so far comes from a young Marine who gave an interview with Pacifica Radio's Peacewatch program the night before he was deployed to Iraq. He discussed his strong commitment to peace, and said the Bush administration was violating constitutional principles and misleading the country into an unjust war.
He was killed in late June, fighting a war he didn’t believe in.
Because the interview was given under the condition of anonymity, and out of respect for the current wishes of his family, the Marine will be identified in this story only as John (not his real name). John’s friends describe him as a passionate, intense person with an insatiable appetite for knowledge and a commitment to peace. He studied philosophy and peace with an emphasis on Middle Eastern affairs, particularly Iraq and Israel.
His friends say he went into the military under the Clinton administration to gain credibility, so that perhaps someday his beliefs on how to build a lasting peace in the Middle East would be taken seriously. In the months before his deployment, he helped organize anti-war campaigns, mainly working behind the scenes.
In his interview with Pacifica, John expressed outrage that a legitimate public debate on the war had not occurred. Many alternatives to combat were available, he explained, such as using money being spent for war to finance a grassroots Iraqi democracy movement that would rival the Baath regime, or promoting democracy throughout the Middle East to show people alternative forms of government.
"It is almost unimaginable to expect that this war is going to create a better peace for anybody with the exception of a very small percentage of people," he said.
He accused the administration of not talking honestly with the American public about potential consequences of a U.S. war on Iraq, such as the potential for urban combat, the psyche of the Iraqi people, the impact on the United Nations and the fate of the Middle East.
"This could have repercussions in terms of the war on terrorism," he said. "It could have repercussions on international diplomacy. It could have repercussions on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. It could have repercussions in terms of our ability to get anything else done in the United Nations. And even if... everything goes the way it's supposed to go, what does that mean for the world order? It says that we basically can do whatever we want to do whenever we want to do it because we are the world's sole superpower."
But even as he expressed doubts about the Bush administration’s decision, he spoke eloquently about his patriotism, and looked to the highest ideals of the country for inspiration:
"I believe in the United States. I believe in the Constitution. I think it's perhaps one of the greatest documents ever written. I believe in the idea that we the people are sovereign and we determine our own destiny. We have a democracy and the Bill of Rights and freedom of expression, freedom of speech, freedom of religion and due process. Until the world is such a place that we can really live without the military, individual Americans have to step up and they have to serve."
The Bush administration, he claimed, had not made a credible case for war with Iraq, and was violating constitutional principles by sending troops into combat. He spoke of the Declaration of Independence, and how its writers vowed to be free of England, where their lives were ruled and determined by one man. "The constant rhetoric of the administration is that there's going to be one person who decides when we go to war," he said, "and that is such a blatant violation of every constitutional principle that our founding fathers came up with."
"But even beyond that, it's ‘we the people’ that this nation is about," he continued. "It isn't about politics or personal agendas or political agendas or economic agendas. And I believe that this war is not the right thing for America because it hasn't yet been proven conclusively that there is a threat to ‘we the people’ -- and I think that is the sole determining factor as to whether or not this nation should ever go to war."
With chilling foresight, John predicted that much could go wrong in a war with Iraq, saying the outcomes outlined by the administration were based on highly optimistic and rosy scenarios. He said it was unlikely that Iraqis would cheer the arrival of a U.S. occupying force, and that long-term urban combat could be a likely outcome.
Yet he went to Iraq, believing it to be his duty. And continued, even in the midst of combat, to exercise his belief in nonviolent resolution. One of his commanders wrote a letter after his death explaining a situation in which John negotiated a peaceful settlement to a potentially deadly situation. A group of Baath Party officials were found inside a house. Because he spoke Arabic, John entered the house and talked with the officials until he negotiated a surrender. His actions potentially saved the lives of both U.S. soldiers and Iraqis.
In letters home, John described the peace movement as "awesome," and said he hoped it would grow larger, never relent against the Bush administration, and help bring an end to the war.
Around June 20, those letters stopped.
As of July 14, 32 American soldiers have died from hostile action since Bush declared an end to major combat operations in Iraq on May 1, according to the Pentagon. Forty-three other service members have died in incidents unrelated to hostilities.
Nancy Lessin, co-founder of Military Families Speak Out, says more people are becoming outraged now that the war against Iraq has turned into a highly risky occupation.
"Too many U.S. military personnel and way too many innocent Iraqis have been killed," she says. "And what we predicted to be true has come true, that there are no weapons of mass destruction. Everything we said was going to happen is coming to pass, and one of the most frightening aspects of this is that the people of this country haven't completely risen up in opposition to what's going on."
Her words are echoed, and answered, by John’s. Before he was deployed, John wrote a final letter as part of his will.
"That I have died means I have failed to achieve the one thing in life I truly longed to give the world -- peace," the letter reads. "The plight of human suffering consumed me and I dedicated much to trying to find the ideas that might lead humankind toward alleviating it for all. It was a quest which was inextricably intertwined with my quest for freedom. If you know anything about me you know that. Understand it and come to understand how the suffering of others tormented my soul. Then seek to honor my memory by trying to achieve what I could not."
Andrew Korfhage provided additional reporting for this article.
King Ethelred the Unready should clear his comments with a brain before he utters a word. Here he is justifying war with Iraq, because Sadam would not let inspectors in:
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the speech that I gave was cleared by the CIA. And, look, the thing that's important to realize is that we're constantly gathering data. Subsequent to the speech, the CIA had some doubts. But when I gave the -- when they talked about the speech and when they looked at the speech, it was cleared. Otherwise, I wouldn't have put it in the speech. I'm not interested in talking about intelligence unless it's cleared by the CIA. And as Director Tenet said, it was cleared by the CIA.
The larger point is, and the fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power, along with other nations, so as to make sure he was not a threat to the United States and our friends and allies in the region. I firmly believe the decisions we made will make America more secure and the world more peaceful.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the speech that I gave was cleared by the CIA. And, look, the thing that's important to realize is that we're constantly gathering data. Subsequent to the speech, the CIA had some doubts. But when I gave the -- when they talked about the speech and when they looked at the speech, it was cleared. Otherwise, I wouldn't have put it in the speech. I'm not interested in talking about intelligence unless it's cleared by the CIA. And as Director Tenet said, it was cleared by the CIA.
The larger point is, and the fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power, along with other nations, so as to make sure he was not a threat to the United States and our friends and allies in the region. I firmly believe the decisions we made will make America more secure and the world more peaceful.
In the land of the weird only the weird news is worth reporting. Here is a little something found on the BBC's disability sports pages:
-------------------------------------------------------------
England came through a bruising encounter against Greece to win 3-2 and go top of the round-robin group at the European Blind Football Championships in Manchester.
England took a fifth-minute lead against the Greeks with captain Darren Harris slotting home a penalty after the Greek keeper was penalised for coming out of his area.
Greece looked much stronger than in their opening defeat to Spain and five minutes later they levelled when wing-back Ioannis Petsas cut inside two defenders and drove the ball into Jon Pugh's bottom left hand corner.
Greece were denied what seemed to be a clear penalty after 21 minutes and they fell behind again when England's star striker Dave Clarke chipped the keeper after good work by Darren Cooke.
England suffered a blow when Lee Greatbatch had to be permanently substituted 13 minutes into the second half after committing five fouls.
But Clarke made the win safe two minutes from time with a penalty - his sixth goal of the tournament - to put him on top of the scoring charts
The Greeks pulled a goal back late on through an eight-metre penalty by Dimitrios Amatzis but it was not enough to dampen England's spirits.
In the day's other game France beat Italy 3-0 but their victory was overshadowed by the lodging of a formal complaint against wing-back Frederich Villeraux.
Villeraux, who scored against England on Sunday, was accused of lifting up the blindfold which all players are required to wear and using his limited sight to gain an advantage.
The organisers' response was to force France players to wear bigger blindfolds.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ok so maybe I am not politically correct, but I think this is an example of life imitating Python. However, they do not just have blid and blindfolded football, they also have deaf football.
In keeping with this theme of the blind leading the blid, here is another piece from the BBC disability sports pages on blind cricket.
---------------------------------------------------
Blind cricket is heading for the Caribbean with the West Indies about to set up their first team.
The England blind cricket team and former stars Desmond Haynes and Devon Malcolm will help the move which will increase the sport's growing international network.
Also assisting is the London Community Cricket Association, which set up and coached the England team.
England blind cricket team coach Andy Sellins said: "West Indies is one of only two Test playing nations not to have a blind team.
"But the island is mad keen on cricket and I know the idea of the game being played by blind and visually impaired players really grips people's imaginations."
England star Tim Gutteridge agreed: "Such is the enthusiasm out there I'm sure they'll be beating us in a few years.
"But it goes beyond sport as it will help those with a disability and those without the opportunities to develop and maximise their talents."
There are few better equipped to help achieve that goal - Gutteridge was voted Player of the Tournament in last year's Blind Cricket World Cup in India.
Coaching sessions for young and adult players will be held across the island and cricket clothing, equipment and coaching material will also be supplied.
The trip will also feature a match between the England team and a team of past and present West Indian players skippered by Haynes.
The legendary batsman said: "With such a rich history of cricket success in the West Indies, it makes perfect sense for us to finally have our own blind team."
-------------------------------------------------------------
England came through a bruising encounter against Greece to win 3-2 and go top of the round-robin group at the European Blind Football Championships in Manchester.
England took a fifth-minute lead against the Greeks with captain Darren Harris slotting home a penalty after the Greek keeper was penalised for coming out of his area.
Greece looked much stronger than in their opening defeat to Spain and five minutes later they levelled when wing-back Ioannis Petsas cut inside two defenders and drove the ball into Jon Pugh's bottom left hand corner.
Greece were denied what seemed to be a clear penalty after 21 minutes and they fell behind again when England's star striker Dave Clarke chipped the keeper after good work by Darren Cooke.
England suffered a blow when Lee Greatbatch had to be permanently substituted 13 minutes into the second half after committing five fouls.
But Clarke made the win safe two minutes from time with a penalty - his sixth goal of the tournament - to put him on top of the scoring charts
The Greeks pulled a goal back late on through an eight-metre penalty by Dimitrios Amatzis but it was not enough to dampen England's spirits.
In the day's other game France beat Italy 3-0 but their victory was overshadowed by the lodging of a formal complaint against wing-back Frederich Villeraux.
Villeraux, who scored against England on Sunday, was accused of lifting up the blindfold which all players are required to wear and using his limited sight to gain an advantage.
The organisers' response was to force France players to wear bigger blindfolds.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ok so maybe I am not politically correct, but I think this is an example of life imitating Python. However, they do not just have blid and blindfolded football, they also have deaf football.
In keeping with this theme of the blind leading the blid, here is another piece from the BBC disability sports pages on blind cricket.
---------------------------------------------------
Blind cricket is heading for the Caribbean with the West Indies about to set up their first team.
The England blind cricket team and former stars Desmond Haynes and Devon Malcolm will help the move which will increase the sport's growing international network.
Also assisting is the London Community Cricket Association, which set up and coached the England team.
England blind cricket team coach Andy Sellins said: "West Indies is one of only two Test playing nations not to have a blind team.
"But the island is mad keen on cricket and I know the idea of the game being played by blind and visually impaired players really grips people's imaginations."
England star Tim Gutteridge agreed: "Such is the enthusiasm out there I'm sure they'll be beating us in a few years.
"But it goes beyond sport as it will help those with a disability and those without the opportunities to develop and maximise their talents."
There are few better equipped to help achieve that goal - Gutteridge was voted Player of the Tournament in last year's Blind Cricket World Cup in India.
Coaching sessions for young and adult players will be held across the island and cricket clothing, equipment and coaching material will also be supplied.
The trip will also feature a match between the England team and a team of past and present West Indian players skippered by Haynes.
The legendary batsman said: "With such a rich history of cricket success in the West Indies, it makes perfect sense for us to finally have our own blind team."
So Pat Robertson is a caring man, who like all good Christians hope we live long and prosper, except of course for three supreme court justices that he hopes god will strike dead or at least strike with a terminal illness. As is reported in today's Guardian:
Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson urged his nationwide audience Monday to pray for God to remove three justices from the Supreme Court so they could be replaced by conservatives.... Robertson has launched a 21-day ``prayer offensive'' directed at the Supreme Court in the wake of its 6-3 June vote that decriminalized sodomy. Robertson said in a letter on the CBN Web site that the ruling ``has opened the door to homosexual marriage, bigamy, legalized prostitution and even incest.''
I say we all pray for 28 days that Pat will be struck down by lightning, get a bad case of rectal colon cancer or at least get run down by a truck driven by Satan.
Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson urged his nationwide audience Monday to pray for God to remove three justices from the Supreme Court so they could be replaced by conservatives.... Robertson has launched a 21-day ``prayer offensive'' directed at the Supreme Court in the wake of its 6-3 June vote that decriminalized sodomy. Robertson said in a letter on the CBN Web site that the ruling ``has opened the door to homosexual marriage, bigamy, legalized prostitution and even incest.''
I say we all pray for 28 days that Pat will be struck down by lightning, get a bad case of rectal colon cancer or at least get run down by a truck driven by Satan.
OK, so here I am scratching out a living as a web designer, like so many other digital fucking peasants, desperately hoping that the economy may finally turn around and that King Ethelred the Unready will finally fall flat on his ass. It seems that finally the his lackeys and court jesters at CNN and MSNBC are getting restless. I guess the bullshit and lies have gotten too much for them to swallow even more. As Marc Almond proved, twenty years ago, there is only so much jism you can swallow before you need to get your stomach pumped.
So here is the latest, as far as I can tell, the bullshit about Saddam and his yellow cake has clued them into the fact that all the other claims might also be suspect. This can be seen in the fact that Scott Ritter is finally being allowed to speak in public again. On MSNBC yesterday they reported that the aluminum tubes may not have been destined to for a centifuge but instead were parts of rockets allowed under the UN sanctions. Gosh, I thought that had been clarified moths ago.
OH in case anyone noticed the deficit is now projected to be $450,000,000,000 this year. How a government can take in $2,200,000,000,000,000,000 and still come up $450,000,000,000 short beats the living piss out of me.
Anyway, here I am going to the only website about the war that I bother with http://www.iraqwar.ru/?userlang=en and on there is a piece about a blog being written by a GI in Baghdad and it is freakin awesome so I heartily reccomend all who have the time go visit http://turningtables.blogspot.com/ Enough for now
James
So here is the latest, as far as I can tell, the bullshit about Saddam and his yellow cake has clued them into the fact that all the other claims might also be suspect. This can be seen in the fact that Scott Ritter is finally being allowed to speak in public again. On MSNBC yesterday they reported that the aluminum tubes may not have been destined to for a centifuge but instead were parts of rockets allowed under the UN sanctions. Gosh, I thought that had been clarified moths ago.
OH in case anyone noticed the deficit is now projected to be $450,000,000,000 this year. How a government can take in $2,200,000,000,000,000,000 and still come up $450,000,000,000 short beats the living piss out of me.
Anyway, here I am going to the only website about the war that I bother with http://www.iraqwar.ru/?userlang=en and on there is a piece about a blog being written by a GI in Baghdad and it is freakin awesome so I heartily reccomend all who have the time go visit http://turningtables.blogspot.com/ Enough for now
James
