Texas Sheriff barred from interviewing Cheney about shooting incident.

CBS News White House correspondent Peter Maer reports Texas authorities are complaining that the Secret Service barred them from speaking to Cheney after the incident. Kenedy County Texas Sheriffs Lt. Juan Guzman said deputies first learned of the shooting when an ambulance was called.

AmericaBlog has more,  Cheney’s Chappaquiddick

1. The White House now claims Bush was informed on Saturday night (the accident happened on Saturday) that someone in Cheney’s hunting party had been shot, but Bush was not told that the victim was shot by Cheney. How do you leave that detail out, and why would you leave it out? Especially when we now find out that the victim was in critical condition - that means within a few hours it was possible the victim could have died, and THAT would be news if Cheney had killed someone. And you don’t give the president a heads up? This is fishy as hell.

2. The White House seemingly never intended to tell the press that the incident happened at all. The public found out a day later, and only because a reporter got wind of the story. Why was the White House hiding this story, again, if the victim could have possibly died?

3. New questions are being raised as to whether the White House staff contacted the local police immediately after the shooting, as required by law.

My guess: They’d all been drinking heavily and Cheney was in no condition talk to police.

Cheney STILL hasn’t made a public statement. Most of us, if we’d shot a friend in the face and injured him badly, would, at the very least, express regret publicly. But that assumes compassion and conscience, as well as the ability to admit imperfection. As we all know too well, neocons like “shoot ‘em in the face then blame them for it” Cheney never admits error.

(Yes, Cheney IS trying to blame him for it, witness the “he didn’t announce himself” excuse that experienced hunters say is nonsensical.)

No Comments »

A major American attack on Iran’s nuclear sites would kill up to 10,000 people and lead to war in the Middle East, a report says today.

The attack would result in “a protracted military confrontation” involving Israel, Lebanon and some Gulf states.

A ground offensive in Iran would not be feasible, as it would require at least 100,000 troops - and American forces are already over-stretched with 130,000 soldiers in Iraq and 18,000 in Afghanistan.

Iran has not threatened anyone and does not have nukes (and so what if they did, many of their neighbors do.). In other words, the US wants to attack based on something they say Iran *might* do in the future but has not done yet. Such an attack would be unprovoked, in violation on international law, and will lead to momnumental blowback, unrest, and more war in the region.

All the more reason to get in the streets on March 18 to protest the insane wars of the Bushies. The world can not afford more lunatic imperialist wars for empire and oil.

PS

In a similar briefing before the invasion of Iraq in 2003, the Oxford group predicted that Saddam Hussein’s regime could easily be overwhelmed but that the country would become a hotbed of insurgency.

No Comments »

Mohammad cartoon protests aren’t unique to Islam

The violence linked to cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad is not unique to Islam, experts say, and the protests reflect political and cultural passions more than the faith’s core values.

“There are parallel behaviors in every tradition,” he said. “Buddhism has a violent strain despite its pacifism … You think about Hinduism and nonviolence but (Mohandas) Gandhi was assassinated by a Hindu.”

“You can’t say Islam has a gene for violence,” Gaffney said. “It has to do with the dynamics, political and economic, that are at play right now,” especially in Europe where there has been a long history of anti-Islamic prejudice that represents “an underlying kind of powder keg.”

There’s plenty of Christian violence too. Nut cases murdering abortion doctors. Lunatic presidents invading countries because they claim Jesus told them to. And, oh yeah, the blood-drenched Crusades.

5 Comments »

And a friend.

In true neocon fashion Cheney has not issued an explanation or apology because, as we all know, the Bushies never apologize for anything, even when they shoot friends in the face.

Reddheddd at Firedoglake details the absurdities in the official coverup, er, story. She’s an experienced shooter, hunter, and NRA member.

Among her other observations:

(Reports said) Whittington “came up from behind the vice president and the other hunter and didn’t signal them or indicate to them or announce himself,” Armstrong said.

Well, now this is just assinine. Quail are jumpy little birds at the best of times, and you don’t shout out “Hey guys, I’m coming up behind you.” when your hunting buddies are closing in on their quarry. That will get you a smack upside the head.

No Comments »

The British Government is trying to stop Craig Murray from printing his book.

He’s doing it anyway.

Support him.

Murray is the fromer British ambassador to Uzbekistan who resigned in protest of the US/British policy of sending prisoners there to be tortured.

BlairWatch has more

“Book Burning: Craig Murray to defy Foreign Office Threats, and publish ‘Murder in Samarkand’”

No Comments »

If you’re like most Web surfers, chances are that you never think about how you access content online. You run searches with Google, shop at Amazon, and read the news at CNN or MSNBC, no matter if you’re at home, work, or elsewhere.

The universal accessibility of the Internet has made it an essential tool for accomplishing daily tasks and providing information across the globe.

But a regulatory debate is brewing in Congress that may lead to a system where companies provide “preferred access” to some Web content services over others.

Imagine not being able to access Yahoo’s Web portal as quickly from your Internet service provider, because the company that owns the cable lines has cut a deal with Google to provide their services exclusively.

None of this is a problem in other countries. The US is a mere 14th in broadband pentration, with countries like France offering consumers a vastly faster Internet at much lower prices than in the US. That’s because their regulations make it impossible for greedy companies to try to hog the Net for themselves.

If greedhead telcos have their way, they will lock down the Net, allowing only who they want through. This needs to be stopped, and stopped now. Don’t assume the Microsofts, Googles, and Yahoos will somehow prevail. Get involved in the fight now.

No Comments »