Archive for December 2nd, 2005


U.S. admits to paying Iraqi newspapers

The U.S. military in Iraq today acknowledged paying to place news articles in Iraqi publications, saying the practice was a necessary part of "information operations" to counter extensive "propaganda" by insurgents.

When asked if bribing journalists to publish slanted stories written for them wasn’t also propaganda, a Pentagon spokesperson snarled, ‘you love the terrorists and hate freedom, don’t you?’

Later in the press conference, the military announced an bold new initiative, Operation Slithering Weasel, which will "bring democracy and freedom to Iraq" by blowing all news outlets and replacing them with imbedded reporters from Fox News who will only report Happy News previously ok’ed by the Pentagon.

 

No Comments »

How long can he hold on????

Tony Blair. Keeper of the al-Jazeera memos

No Comments »

The War on Al Jazeera

Just a few days before Bush allegedly proposed bombing the network, Al Jazeera’s correspondent in Falluja, Ahmed Mansour, reported live on the air, "Last night we were targeted by some tanks, twice…but we escaped. The US wants us out of Falluja, but we will stay." On April 9 Washington demanded that Al Jazeera leave the city as a condition for a cease-fire. The network refused. Mansour wrote that the next day "American fighter jets fired around our new location, and they bombed the house where we had spent the night before, causing the death of the house owner Mr. Hussein Samir. Due to the serious threats we had to stop broadcasting for few days because every time we tried to broadcast the fighter jets spotted us we became under their fire."

On April 11 senior military spokesperson Mark Kimmitt declared, "The stations that are showing Americans intentionally killing women and children are not legitimate news sources. That is propaganda, and that is lies."

Say what? If a station broadcasts factual news, and even this US spokesperson is not denying it, why shouldn’t it be aired? That’s what news is. Except of course, to neocons, who view news solely as their propaganda playground and anything that contradicts it as lies. 

On April 15 Donald Rumsfeld echoed those remarks in distinctly undiplomatic terms, calling Al Jazeera’s reporting "vicious, inaccurate and inexcusable…. It’s disgraceful what that station is doing."

Truly, reporting the news can be threatening indeed to a neocon. 

It was the very next day, according to the Daily Mirror, that Bush told Blair of his plan. "He made clear he wanted to bomb al-Jazeera in Qatar and elsewhere," a source told the Mirror. "There’s no doubt what Bush wanted to do–and no doubt Blair didn’t want him to do it."

That Dubya, he wants to blow up newspaper offices in the country of an ally, while his military in Iraq writes articles then bribes newspapers to print them. Truly, the US is giving the world a vision of what true freedom of the press, openness, and democracy is like.

No Comments »

The al-Jazeera leak trial

From ringverse at Blair Watch in comments here, on the Official Secrets Act and trial of the two charged with leaking the al-Jazeera memo. I thought this important enough to make into a full post.

A friend of mine has been doing some digging into the background of the Official Secrets Act. The UK government helpfully lays out the legislation here. The Guardian has an overview of OSA and why this heavy-handed tactic is wrong.

“Mr Keogh, 49, a former communications officer at the Cabinet Office, is charged with making a “damaging disclosure of a document relating to international relations without lawful authority” (section 3). Mr O’Connor, 42, a former researcher for the former Labour MP for Northampton South, Tony Clarke, is charged with having received a document “through its disclosure without lawful authority by a Crown servant” (section 5).

The defendent cannot tell his lawyer anything about the document to assist in his own defense, meaning the strength and veracity of the case can never be truely tested; it’s contents cannot be mentioned in court, unless the room is cleared of public, media and, one assumes, defense lawyers. And if nobody is left in court, nobody can report on the case’s details.

The restrictions are indeed heavy,a logic of total secrecy:
“State prosecutor Rosemary Fernandes said that if information from the memo was likely to be disclosed in open court she would seek reporting restrictions (under Sections 11 and 14 of the Contempt of Court Act). The attorney-general, Lord Goldsmith, has already warned newspapers they could be prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act if they disclose further details about the memo.

Sensitivity surrounding the memo is such that Mr O’Connor’s defence lawyer is not allowed to see it. It also raises the question of whether the attorney-general will ask for the trial to held in camera, with the media and public excluded. “The document may not be damaging,” Mr Clark said, adding that it was “very disappointing” that his client had been charged. Mr O’Connor was “shocked”, he said.

It is extremely rare for anyone to be charged under section 5 of the Official Secrets Act, which covers the receipt of classified documents. It is believed to be the first time an attorney-general has threatened newspapers with prosecution under the act in this way.”

Two points. First, British law is generally stricter than the US about what gets reported during trials. However the US does have some special courts with onerous rules like these. Second, and most important, Blair is going to unprecedented lengths to stop the memo from becoming public. Thus, there must be something in it that is way more damaging to him and Bush than the al-Jazeera bombing threat, which is already public.

Blair Watch is doing a superb job here, and have played a major role in breaking this story. They confirm everything from multiple sources before printing it, back everything with cites and quotes, and provide exhaustive detail. Once again, bloggers are at the forefront, getting important news out, often ahead of major media.

1 Comment »

The two memos - a beginners guide

Also from ringverse, posted on Blair Watch

This explains in chronological order what happened, what the two memos are, how the cover-up happened, concluding with why it’s important

Why Does it Matter?
Because if the governmet took advantage of the powers of the OSA, and did falsely brief the BBC as a face saving exercise and to protect Blair’s bud Dubya, then that shows us how significant the content of the memo is, and how far they are prepared to go to keep us from leaning what that content is.

It also makes a mockery of the fact that Blair has dismissed it as a conspiracy, and Bush as a joke, their public statements.

Was Bush Joking?
The Mirror memo is an official record of the meeting. Now, we’ve all attended meeting where minutes have been taken. Do minutes include jokes or throw away comments? No. Does anyone seriously think that, at the Presidential and Prime Ministirial level, jokes are included in the official minutes? Of course not.

No Comments »

Well, lookee here

It seems that while professional fundie flogger Ralph (Reed) was sucking in $4.2 million in lobbyist fees from Jack Abramoff to whip the gun-rack-and-Gaither-set into a full-on anti-gambling lather that gave John Cornyn cover as Texas AG to shut down the Indian casinos competing with Abramoff’s clients, he failed to register in the state of Texas as a lobbyist.

Oopsie. Must be one of those "bookkeeping errors" we hear so much about. Reed was the first executive director of the Christian Coalition, and is active in ultra-conservative politics. His ties with Abramoff, and and Grover Norquist go back to the early 80’s. Maybe they can share a prison cell together as they continue their friendship?

The triumvirate

In 1981, Reed moved to Washington, D.C. to intern for Jack Abramoff, the newly elected Chairman of the College Republican National Committee and later the central figure in the Indian gaming scandal that would beset Reed’s campaign for Lieutenant Governor. Abramoff promoted Reed in 1983, appointing him to succeed Grover Norquist as Executive Director of the CRNC. Norquist would later serve as President of Americans for Tax Reform, an anti-tax group that would serve as a fundraising conduit in the Indian gaming scandal.

1 Comment »

Blowhards

The White House expressed concern on Thursday about secret military payments to get Iraqi newspapers to print pro-American articles, but the military said it was important to spread the truth while insurgents were "lying to the Iraqi people."

Goodness yes, the US should pay to spread their propaganda to Iraqi newspapers about how freedom of the press is crucial to a democracy, what a marvelous idea.

"We’re very concerned about the reports. We are seeking more information from the Pentagon," said White House spokesman Scott McClellan.

I bet you are concerned, Scott. The whole world sees the lies now.

No Comments »

Arnold’s neighborhood

Meet all his pals!


2 Comments »

The real Lynyrd Skynyrd

Rock and Rap newsletter on Lynyrd Skynyrd’s nomination to the R&R Hall of Fame.

From the introduction to Lynyrd Skynyrd: An Oral History, written by their associate editor Lee Ballinger.

Lynyrd Skynyrd toured with a Confederate flag backdrop, yet wrote songs about solidarity with the ghetto….They worked ceaselessly to perfect their sound, and every note, every word, and every drumbeat was carefully crafted and thought out. Listening to Lynyrd Skynyrd, the inventors and undisputed champions of the three guitar attack, was and is like grabbing a highly charged electric fence….

Perhaps most important is the contradiction between the band’s image as pro-George Wallace Confederate rednecks and the reality that they were anti-handgun, anti-George Wallace, pro-peace, pro-environment, responsible citizens of the South. The band’s redneck image was cast in stone by the massive success of ‘Sweet Home Alabama,’ mistaken by many people (who missed the chorus of ‘Boo! Boo! Boo!’) as an endorsement of racist Alabama governor George Wallace.

No Comments »