http://blogcritics.org/ A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously. en Copyright 2005-2007 by the authors Thu, 23 Feb 2006 16:54:14 EST http://backend.userland.com/rss Blogcritics.org custom software http://blogcritics.org/ Phillip WinnSunday, August 26, 2007, marks the switch of all Blogcritics.org article feeds from full-content to short-content. This is the result of several converging factors, and is unfortunately a permanent decision (as permanent as any decision can be on the web, that is). We are aware of all of the reasons that this is a Bad Idea, and we are aware that some of you will be quite upset about having to click on something to read the free content, and we're sorry. Unfortunately, despite great effort, full-content feeds are not currently economically viable. Two other factors are involved: full-content feeds have resulted in an unprecedented level of content theft, with BC content appearing on many websites, usually spam sites, without attribution or permission. This duplicate content causes a cascading set of problems, not the least of which is that search engines generally aren't favorable to duplicate content, and don't always guess correctly. Finally, our RSS advertising partner is strongly in favor of short-content feeds. We hope that you'll continue to subscribe to BC via RSS, and when an article grabs your eye, it's only a click away, still free on the BC website. Thank you for your understanding. Administration0@blogcritics.org Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:00:00 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/02/23/165414.php AmeriPunditI've written on the importance of listening to George Bush carefully in the past and have been attacked for doubting his "veracity", "truthfulness", and "his way of speaking".O.K.Let's try an experiment. Yesterday, February 21, 2005, he had this to say about the port deal with the United Arab Emirates (or- if one prefers, DP World, a state - owned company):"I can understand why some in Congress have raised questions about whether or not our country will be less secure as a result of this transaction. But they need to know that our government has looked at this issue and looked at it carefully... Again, I repeat, it's - if there is any question as to whether or not this country would be less safe as a result of the transaction, it wouldn't go forward."Reading that should make clear why he referred to his 2004 "victory" as a "mandate" and his reference to millions of protesters against the Iraq war as "some people" and "focus groups".First, he refers to "some in Congress"."Some"?Question, is he:1) blissfully unaware of the Congressional (and State) reactions; 2) delusional; or is he 3) intentionally "misleading" that portion of the public that doesn't follow the news but for the times when he speaks (a surprisingly large group for a people supposedly in love with independence).Second, he refers to the "some" as "raising questions". The line formed to squash this deal on both sides of the aisle is puzzlingly unnerving even to those whose deepest desire is to see bipartisanship return to Washington.Third, when he says, "... they need to know that our government has looked at this issue and looked at it carefully."Really?How, pray tell, would he know that at the time of making that statement. According to today's press reports, he didn't know about it until he heard it from the press. To further cast doubt on "our government" looking at this carefully consider the following response by Scott McClellan:"He became aware of it over the last several days," McClellan said. Asked if Bush did not know about it until it was a done deal, McClellan said, "That's correct."So what part of the "government" is George Bush talking about?He does say, "our government" and, the last time I checked, we still had 3 branches although two have been trimmed to the point of being nubs that may never sprout leaves or bear fruit again.We know that Congress wasn't informed and that his spokespeople claim he didn't know about it until after the "filter" of the press informed him. Maybe Justices Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito were informed. To his credit, he did clarify his statement:"The more people learn about the transaction that has been scrutinized and approved by my government, the more they'll be comforted..."As Marty Kaplan points out on the Huffington Post, "The founding documents of our nation talk about the government, our government, a government, any government. If my,is used, it's said on behalf of the citizens, not their rulers. "P.S. the Katrina Review made by the Administration came out. It calls for direct military control in the event of a "natural disaster". Homeland security adviser, Frances Fragos Townsend, when asked if this would violate the Posse Comitatus law and if it would require new legislation responded that George Bush had been advised by his (presumably) legal staff that he already had the power to do what was recommended in the report.So, in conclusion, FISA doesn't apply to this White House, those pesky quaint Geneva Conventions (or just basic prohibitions against torture) didn't, and don't, apply to this White House, the recently overwhelmingly passed anti- torture legislation doesn't apply to this White House, informing Congress that we're giving the contracts for running our thus- far- still- unsecured ports to a foreign government with a questionable recent history of transferring money to terrorist groups and being the conduit for nuclear information and/or material to members of the "axis of evil" (and others) doesn't apply to this White House, and the general rule on submitting to a police interview after shooting a guy in the face don't apply to this White House, etc., ad infinitum, ad nauseam...It must be nice to have one of 'em "my guv'munt" things. Politics44047@blogcritics.org Thu, 23 Feb 2006 16:54:14 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/02/13/153555.php AmeriPunditIt's been called everything from an accident to something more conspiratorial.Both views and/or positions are wrong. The shooting of 78-year- old Harry Whittington by Dick Cheney on Saturday showed 3 things.First, it unveiled the fallback plan by the Administration in the event that Social Security "privatization" fails again.Take that AARP!In taking the action, Cheney exhibited the "bottom-line" approach he touted in 2000 by referring to his background as CEO of Halliburton (now a subsidiary of U.S. Taxpayer Inc.)During his tenure, the only spot on his record was leaving it teetering on the brink of bankruptcy because, as CEO, he bought Drexel during a hunting trip having done no "due diligence", and leaving Halliburton absorbing Drexel's asbestos litigation which, as Dana Milbank of the Post reported in 2002, "Investors . . . are betting the liability is $8 billion to $9 billion".Note* Watch the progress of the long- stalled, now quickly moving, Asbestos Trust Fund Bill (asbestos "reform" bill) going through Congress. It will become another subsidiary of U.S. Taxpayer Inc. (kind of like the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation and some other fancy names for federal entities that step in when corporation "leaders" raid the... never mind).Second, he showed why it is always important to stay "vigilant". After all, apparently, the 78-year-old was sneaking up on him. He didn't announce himself and was dressed in orange camouflage.Taking into account the facts that:1) Mr. Whittington managed to penetrate the security surrounding Dick;2) He had a weapon; 3) He gave no warning; 4) He must have been sufficiently familiar with Western culture that, just like in cowboy movies (which depict places like Wyoming but were shot in Italy- "Linguini Westerns" or some such thing), he apparently knew enough to approach Dick with the sun at his back; and5) Our security agencies failed to "connect the dots" again as Cheney's phalanx of Secret Service agents, the CIA, the FBI, the DIA, and the Starship Enterprise all failed to note Mr. Whittington's ominous "lurking". All of which proves the point that the NSA should've been inside Mr. Whittington's head - just to be on the safe side.Lastly, the man is (hopefully- not "was") a millionaire attorney. This shows how seriously the Administration takes "tort reform".While there is a confusion as to the gentleman's field of specialty in the law, it is unlikely (or not) that he was an attorney that represented the "average person" (low to middle-class).The fact that he is not dead (allegedly) would seem to indicate that Dick's cat-like reflexes and knowledge of gun safety allowed him to "pull-up" in time to only hit Mr. Whittington in the chest, shoulders, and face indicating that he may, or may not have been a corporate lawyer. However, it should be noted that Bill Frist was seen behind a tree clapping when Whittington was hit which might indicate that he practiced "video medical malpractice" and/or specialized in suing those who engage in insider trading.More likely than not, we'll all be briefed on the matter by Scott McLellan in a week or so. It would be unfair to ask the Administration's Press Secretary to say anything now.That's because it usually takes Andy Card a week to put events into DVD form for George Bush to understand. Politics43567@blogcritics.org Mon, 13 Feb 2006 15:35:55 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/02/05/212651.php AmeriPunditAmerica's #1 problem is not listening to George W. Bush.If one listens to his supporters after a speech, one wonders if there is a common "American-English" language anymore. His supporters tend to make his words sit wherever they want them to fit.Listening to his opponents is difficult because most run out of a room the moment he starts to speak- leaving nothing but expletives in their wake.Sadly, neither side really hears him or understands what he is saying.His Social Security "reform", his attacks on all other aspects of the "safety-net", his lack of response to Katrina, and his NSA eavesdropping were all predictable and available for anyone to anticipate- if they had listened.George W. Bush is a great cheerleader but a hopeless co-conspirator. The man can't help but giggle out his (and his "Rangers"- Whoo-Yahh!!!) intentions prior to their taking place.Had anybody done their homework (like Wall Street did), they would have known the direction the country would take.After all, this is a man who, in business school, said, "People are poor because they are lazy" and that the Federal Trade Commission and the Securities Exchange Commission were "unnecessary hindrances" to "free market competition".He thought that Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal was "socialism". Had it been done (the homework, that is) voters may have found that he opposed Social Security, Medicare, Environmental Protection, Public Schools, and Labor Unions. All while he sat at a cushy chair at Harvard Business School. Even had it not been done (the homework about his early years), he gave ample warning about his intentions on how to manipulate. He was taught early in his career. When asked to run for Governor of Texas by businessmen he said, "You know I could run for governor but I'm basically a media creation..."Aahh yes, the media creation. It gets better though because Boy George couldn't hold back his exuberance both during his run for "President" and subsequent to his being allowed to sit in a place where giants sat.For those amazed at how he could take the country into a fiscal disaster, a military disaster, and a moral disaster, consider what he said to a reporter as he was campaigning for the Oval Office in 1999 and the Texas financial books were found to be cooked: "I hope I'm not here to have to deal with it".FUUUNNNYYY STUFF! A guy you want to have a beer with.Then he got "elected". For those that are still scratching their heads about Katrina and dispense with his talk in business school as the simple words of a young man, the guy sitting in the Oval Office said, "I don't understand how poor people think..." after the 2000 election to the Reverend Jim Wallis, leader of Call to Renewal, a network of churches that fight poverty.The NSA thing is interesting. It is one of the reasons one must listen to the bubbling brook Bush so intently. It is not that he makes his pronouncements officially. They tend to leak out of him because of his boyish excitement.That's why it's important to listen to his "off the cuff" remarks. Worried about your e-mail, browsing, and purchasing records? He was way ahead of you and gave you a "heads up!" warning on April 5, 2001 at the American Society of Newspaper Editors during their annual convention held at the Marriott Hotel in Washington D.C.Boy George told them, "I'll give you one area, though, where I'm very cautious, and that's about e-mailing. I used to be an avid e-mailer, and I e-mailed to my daughters or e-mailed to my father, for example. And I don't want those e-mails to be in public -- in the public domain. So I don't e-mail any more, out of concern for freedom of information laws, but also concern for my privacy."Interesting. Upon hearing that at first one would walk away not thinking much. But digesting it might produce something like: Doesn't the White House have the "best and the brightest" working on secure communications? In light of the question, which had to do with freedom of information laws, why would a note to a daughter or a father not be considered endearing to the public even IF it were to be made public? Or perhaps a bigger question. Why isn't the privacy of the average American (presumably one with absolutely NOTHING... REALLY, REALLY, NOTHING to hide or keep private) worth as much as this obviously exceptional moral man? It's kind of funny, in a way, there are no pictures of average Americans kissing or holding the hand, in a loving way, with one of the leaders of the main financiers (Saudis) of the butchery currently called the GWOT. For those frothing at the mouth over illegal aliens, he also said some interesting things about immigration and jobs in 2001 (you "shoulda" seen it coming).Ask Jeeves, Google, Yahoo (or whatever other search engine is available) to look it up. Ask a simple question: "Anyone who wants a job...?"Then determine the "framing" of his statement and determine where the "average" American hoping to achieve or continue the "American Way Of Life (aka 'Our Way of Life')" fits in when it comes to BushLand. Politics43221@blogcritics.org Sun, 5 Feb 2006 21:26:51 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/02/05/012704.php AmeriPunditI'm scared. I'm scared. So very, very scared. I'm so scared that scare is a word not enough to define my "scaridness"."They're lurking". "They're plotting". "They're patient". "They want to take away my way of life".They want to take away my "scaridness" (not to be mistaken with "truthiness").I can't let them do that. I love my "scaridness". It's a sacred "scaridness". It lets me know that I'm alive. If I didn't have "scaridness", I'd be dead. Being scared makes me feel alive.Thank God that Bush, Rove, Cheney, and Rumsfeld understand the sanctity of my "scaridness". If it wasn't for them, some a**hole would be holding up a Constitution, a Bill of Rights, or quoting FDR's infamous "All we have to fear is fear itself" crap."Scaridness" is something that has served humanity well over the years. It works well.Damn those people who are trying to take my "scaridness" away. Those who say that it's time to take a pause and look at things like the Patriot Act, warrantless surveillance, torture, and water-boarding are fools. Next they'll be coming after my snowboard.They even argue about "renditions". Something defined as: 1) The act of rendering. 2) An interpretation of a musical score or a dramatic piece. 3) A performance of a musical or dramatic work. 4) A translation, often interpretive. 5) A surrender.Only a fool would not understand that a "rendition" is nothing more than a "surrender" to an "interpretive" "musical score" or a "dramatic work". Just like in the movies.I hope these people who are trying to take my "scaridness" away aren't successful.I love my "scaridness".It's all we have. It's "our way of life". Edited: [GH] Politics43178@blogcritics.org Sun, 5 Feb 2006 01:27:04 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2006/01/30/210107.php AmeriPundit2006 already seems to have much in common with 2005.2005, with the endless drumbeat of 'the attack on Christianity', the spin-off 'War On Christmas', 'religious leaders' calling for an assassination of a foreign leader, denouncing the right of an entire city to ask for God's help should they need it, pointing to the 'behavior' of a city's residents (often out-of-town visitors) for the reason it drowned, terror at the thought of gay marriage, and other matters purportedly related to religion picked at the scab of a memory I'd tried to suppress.All I could do was hope for a better year ahead. But 2006, with the kickoff of Pat Robertson's remarks about Sharon and the spectacle of another 'Justice Sunday', seems to be shaping up the same as 2005.Until that day, only my closest friends really knew my secret. I really made a point of not talking about it or giving any hint about it away. They took it in stride. To them, I was just a guy to have a beer with or work out with. But that day I slipped.Maybe it was the whole post-election religious right talk that made me drop my guard.The memory I lived with through much of 2005 is about the day, back in 2001, when I was publicly 'outed' by a complete stranger. I know why she spotted me. It was the way I looked on that day.Not by my physique. After recovering from an illness, I'd returned to my workout regimen and was benching 425 pounds again. My 'California tan' and bleached-blonde hair (from the sun and surf) might have been a hint- but they certainly weren't what gave me away.That whole combination meant what it always has meant- I might be or might not be... well... 'different' from what is expected by some.It broke down to what I was wearing. The problem was that I had on a yellow 'muscle tank-top' that was a gift from my 'better- half'.That's what gave me away on that fateful summer day of 2001 or, rather, that's what assisted in exposing me.On that day, upon returning from the grocery store, my 'better- half' informed me I'd bought the wrong toilet paper. Having spent the first 6 years of my life (when basic lessons are learned and lifelong imprints are made) in a place where outhouses were considered luxuries, I didn't quite seem to be able to grasp the different sensitivities of the rear region- particularly when it came to something called 'soft and scented paper'.I offered to (was gently ordered to) return to the store and, once returning, fell victim to my brain-block on toilet paper again. I drew a blank on the name brand. I blame that on O.S. (Outhouse Syndrome)- the inability to understand the difference between Charmin, Scott's, or any other 'brand'.I thought a trip down the aisle containing household paper products would jog my memory as I was not about to call home to say I couldn't remember something relayed to me just moments before (the pride thing before the fall- akin to the 'asking for directions' thing).I wish I had.My 'outer' was in that aisle. I mistook her for my savior (toilet paper- wise). She was 60 something, dressed nicely, and so 'American grandmotherly' that, from a distance, one could imagine her dabbing 'eau-de apple pie' behind each ear in the morning. I decided to ask for her help.After explaining what I thought my 'better-half' wanted, she smiled understandingly and pointed to the lower shelf behind me and told me which brand was the most desirable.As I leaned over to reach for the rolls, I heard the troubling words. I closed my eyes for a second trying to think of how she knew and immediately realized it was because of my appearance or, rather, my tank- top which exposed the symbol I wore.The words she spoke were, "Excuse me sir, are you a Christian?"I responded, despite the alarm bells going off in my head, "Well, yes I am." But then I added, "I was raised Catholic."The small gold cross I was wearing had slipped out of my tank top. The cross was my mother's which she gave me prior to her passing.She looked at me in a way best described as 'sadly' and offered, "Catholic? Really?" She added, "I'm Christian".Her face was grandmotherly but her eyes said, "J'accuse!"The alarm bells were getting louder. I struggled with whether to make a quick exit or to defend my being raised a Catholic due to circumstance and later reaffirming that accident of birth while taking many of the best things of all religions to heart.She spoke again, "We had some Catholics live near us. They were very nice".'They'?4 letters translated into a verbal punch. I wondered if she realized she had just called me a 'they'.I decided to leave it alone and simply dismiss it by blaming my religion on my ancestry, "Well, I'm of Slavic descent and Catholicism is something I grew up with. I think it's still part of the Christian family- isn't it?"She quickly responded with, "Oh, we had some Slavs- I think they were Polish- that lived next to us before we moved here." She then got a look on her face that one associates with the initial smell of stench and followed up with, "Nice people but you could smell their food all around the neighborhood when they cooked."'They' and 'but smell their food'? Verbal punches number two and three.My ancestry, my studies, and my belief of the sanctity of holding religion private were all being pilloried by this knowing or unknowing conveyance of intolerance.Although I'm not Polish, I share something in common with Poles (and with certain other select groups of people). We were a favorite choice for the 'eugenics' movement (the U.S. and Germany- circa 1930-45 come to mind) by those who spoke as she did.Sensing it was time to disengage, I replied, "Thank you for the help with the toilet paper."She wouldn't let go. She followed me down the aisle.She asked if I'd been to the new church in town that will remain nameless. Suffice it to say that the word 'Crusade' is on the facade. Without waiting for a response, she pulled out a card- a business card. The name on it, she explained, was her son's. He was the 'lay pastor' of the church.I bit my lip as I wanted to sarcastically tell her that we had some 'lay priests' in the Catholic church (as evidenced by news reports) but decided against it. Instead, I thanked her and took the card as I made my way out of the store- discarding the card on the way out.When I got home, I told my girlfriend (my 'better-half') what had happened. She laughed. She knew better than most how seriously I took such things and probably realized how troubled I was by it long before I did.I learned a lot from that experience. I learned that I shouldn't really talk to strangers about toilet paper because that could lead to a discussion about religion, which these days, seems inevitably to lead to politics. And we all know that nobody should discuss the combination of toilet paper, religion, and politics in polite company.A discussion such as that can easily lead to talking about outhouses, forced sterilizations, special furnaces, and war. Culture42957@blogcritics.org Mon, 30 Jan 2006 21:01:07 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/11/30/000550.php AmeriPunditVice President Dick Cheney - November, 2005: "The president and I can not prevent certain politicians from losing their memory, or their backbone -- but we're not going to sit by and let them rewrite history..." Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on whether the invasion would have taken place if there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq:February, 2004: "... there would have been no war."November, 2005: "... probably yes."Clearly, "rewriting history" is part of a usual day's work in the Bush Administration. And its employees are quite good at it - they just don't seem to be doing a very good job of explaining crucial discrepancies when they are discovered.To get a feel for the thinking that gives rise to the false "righteous indignation" exhibited by Dick Cheney and others in the administration, consider the following statements a senior Bush advisor made to Ron Suskind, former Wall Street Journal reporter and author of The Price of Loyalty, as reported in the New York Times Magazine. First, Suskind states that the advisor pointed out that he (Suskind) lives "... in what we [the administration] call the reality-based community." The advisor defined that community as being those who ''believe that solutions emerge from 'your' [presumably the rest of us] judicious study of discernible reality.''The unnamed advisor went on to explain:"That’s not the way the world really works anymore... We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality – judiciously, as you will – we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors … and you, all of you, will be left to study what we do."Perhaps it's worth taking a look at the "empire's own reality" and "history's actors" and their roles in it - if only to explain how we got from:February 2004Q: Mr. Secretary, you said in your opening remarks, sir -- you described it as two paths that nations can take, and you noted that Saddam Hussein, had he opened up his country to the UN resolutions, there would have been no war.Rumsfeld: Was what I said today correct? Yes. There would not have been a war. I mean, that's just a fact.To here:November 2005ABC News' George Stephanopoulos: If you had known that no WMDs would be found, would you still advocate invasion?Donald Rumsfeld: If I... I... the answer is probably yes.The stunning reversal by Rumsfeld is an example of the fast and loose manner with which the administration is playing with its "position" on Iraq. Goalposts are moved constantly. Targets are never defined, and costs in lives and treasury are under- and/or unreported blatantly. The reason the fundamental WMD issue is important is that it prevents an honest debate about how to end this war. The events on the ground have certainly changed and must be dealt with, but without keeping in mind that we entered into this war to prevent a supposedly catastrophic, imminent threat presented as coming in the form of a "mushroom cloud," no reasonable solution can be found to end this war in a satisfactory manner.In 2003, Paul Wolfowitz, then deputy defense secretary, gave an interview to Vanity Fair's Sam Tannenhaus in which Wolfowitz was quoted as saying:"For bureaucratic reasons we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on."A Pentagon transcript (as opposed to the reporter's transcription; this comes from USA Today) shows that Wolfowitz said:"The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the US government bureaucracy, we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on, which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason..."Suspicions about motive began to rise at home and abroad, so the Pentagon attempted to "clarify" the statement. Supporting pundits and periodicals did as well. Should the argument arise that officials have been arguing this since 2003, well, that is an undeniable fact... as undeniable that the arguments began after the war started and was declared "Mission Accomplished." The lead-up to the war is a far different matter.On May 28, 2003, the Pentagon, in an effort to stem criticism of Wolfowitz's statements, allowed an interview between Wolfowitz and Karen DeYoung of the Washington Post to "correct" the record. The following is an excerpt:"DeYoung: OK, let me just... But do you think that you might have oversold the whole WMD thing last fall? With the sort of, not only do they have production facilities, they actually have weapons that are ready to be used?Wolfowitz: I don't think so. I mean, I think we were working from, as I told you, one of the most widely shared intelligence assessments I know of.DeYoung: And even if we end up not finding...?Wolfowitz: We're a long way from...Kevin Kellems, a Pentagon public affairs officer: We can't go there. Karen, come on! [Laughter] That was a trick question.DeYoung: Oh, it was? I'm sorry. I didn't mean it to be.Kellems: I was just kidding.DeYoung: No, I didn't.Wolfowitz: No, there was no oversell… Trick question? Apparently, DeYoung didn't check her "empire's own reality" and "history's actors" handbook of allowed questions.Thereafter, pundits and writers entered the debate to explain what Wolfowitz said. On June 2, 2003, the National Review published "Vanity Unfair" by James S. Robbins. In part, he wrote:"William Kristol's Weekly Standard article has all of the details, so I don't need to repeat them... There is something of a straw man being erected in the debate, namely the suggestion that Saddam's WMD arsenal was the only reason for the war. Certainly, it was the most highly debated issue. But was it the reason? No, and no one in the administration ever said that it was." An interesting point is that Robbins' article (dated and titled online as "June 2, 2003 - Vanity Unfair WMDs controversies") refers to an article found online in the Weekly Standard as, "What Wolfowitz Really Said: The truth behind the Vanity Fair 'scoop'" by William Kristol (dated June 9, 2003) .First, a fundamental question must be asked: Since neither of these publications are blogs, but rather magazines with an online presence purportedly representing conservative thought, how could a writer refer to a competing periodical, say it contains "all the details" (presumptively making his own superfluous), and then provide a link from his employer's site to his competitor's?Major publications often refer to other articles, but generally provide additional "details" or a much more cogent explanation of same. Questions should arise as to timing, coordination, and glaring ommission.Note the dates appended to the two articles: Robbins' (June 2, 2003) and Kristol's (June 9, 2003). An explanation has been offered for the fact that the Robbins article (which refers to Kristol's) is dated seven days prior to Kristol's: In order to avoid turning a debate over a substantive issue (the war and what was said to make a case for war) into a debate over publishing dates, it is left to the reader to treat the dates as he or she would.The following is an excerpt from the Kristol piece (by the way, Kristol also brought us the Project for the New American Century which, in turn, brought us the war in Iraq):"Let's be clear: Though Paul Wolfowitz has friends and admirers at the Weekly Standard, we would be surprised and more than a little distressed had he actually said what he's supposed to have said in this instance... In short, Wolfowitz made the perfectly sensible observation that more than just WMD was of concern, but that among several serious reasons for war, WMD was the issue about which there was widest domestic (and international) agreement." Those unfamiliar with the National Review can see many of its staffers on television as pundits and read their writings in numerous publications. The following is a brief listing of some of its more visible apologists for the war and excusers of a lack of WMD presence in Iraq: Rich Lowry (National Review Editor) David Frum (former speechwriter for President George W. Bush) Jonah Goldberg, National Review Online (Editor-at-Large) Kate O'Beirne (National Review) Washington EditorAll of the above parrot the Bush Administration's talking points continuously, making very minor criticisms of certain actions to cloak themselves in faux "objectivity" while appearing on various television shows and writing op-eds. Similarly, the Weekly Standard's line-up can be found alternatively in their publication, on television, in the White House, the State Department, the Department of Defense, and as targets and/or potential targets of investigations.To get a flavor for the breeding ground that fosters these "journalists" and "opinion writers," an interview given by a Weekly Standard senior writer, Matt Labash, is helpful. It provides some insight into the thinking that drives these currently influential policy makers:JournalismJobs.com: Why have conservative media outlets like the Weekly Standard and Fox News Channel become more popular in the past few years?Matt Labash: Because they feed the rage. We bring the pain to the liberal media. I say that mockingly, but it's true somewhat. We come with a strong point of view and people like point-of-view journalism. While all these hand-wringing Freedom Forum types talk about objectivity, the conservative media likes to rap the liberal media on the knuckles for not being objective. We've created this cottage industry in which it pays to be un-objective. It pays to be subjective as much as possible. It's a great way to have your cake and eat it too. Criticize other people for not being objective. Be as subjective as you want. It's a great little racket. I'm glad we found it, actually.Subjective journalism, feeding the rage, a racket, and having their cake and eating it too. One can not argue with their success.The Robbins and Kristol articles (and others like them) did not address Sam Tannenhaus' explanation of his Vanity Fair interview with Paul Wolfowitz. Tannenhaus gave an interview to CNN about the piece; the raw CNN transcript is dated May 30, 2003, and a relevant excerpt follows:CNN's DARYN KAGAN: ...[Y]our piece kind of goes on and on, but this is the nugget that's getting people talking.SAM TANNENHAUS, VANITY FAIR: Yes, it seems to happen with this sort of story.KAGAN: Let's go ahead. I know we saw all of it. So let's go ahead and put it up on the screen, what we've taken out of -- There we go."For bureaucratic reasons we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on."Now, the Pentagon, you just saw in [CNN senior Pentagon correspondent] Jamie [McIntyre]'s piece, is saying he is taking that out of context. Did he say that? Did he not say that and what was the nuance that you took it as, as you talked to Paul Wolfowitz?TANNENHAUS: Well, what's important to know is that this comment of the deputy secretary's came out of a slightly earlier discussion we had in the same interview. It was a very long interview. In fact, I was told it may have been the longest uninterrupted interview he's given, about 90 minutes, the third of three sessions.And in it the deputy secretary discussed how there were aspects of the war in Iraq that were being overlooked, that its benefits that had come from the war that no one was talking about.One of them was that America could now remove its troops from Saudi Arabia because Saddam Hussein was no longer there as a threat.KAGAN: Well, I want to get to that point in just a second. But to me, it sounds like when you say this came from an earlier part of the interview. Are you saying it was taken out of context?TANNENHAUS: Oh, no. Actually, what I'm about to say is that the secretary's comments are as striking as the way the article presents them, if not more so because what he goes on to say is, after citing that as a very important attribute, a benefit of the war, he then goes on to say, when I asked him if that had been part of the strategic thinking all along, yes, the truth is for these questions of bureaucracy, we agreed on weapons of mass destruction, that was the one issue everyone could agree on, which means they didn't agree on the others.KAGAN: You're standing by what is in Vanity Fair there and in your article?TANNENHAUS: Absolutely.KAGAN: We have that. We also have more. Jamie mentioned in his piece that the Pentagon posted the transcripts.TANNENHAUS: Yes.KAGAN: So we actually have that we can put up, too. This is how the Pentagon says. They say it was like this: "The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with US government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on, which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason" -- I think we have more up there -- "but there have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism and the third is criminal treatment of the Iraqi people.It doesn't show up like that in Vanity Fair.TANNENHAUS: No, although what the piece says is that there are several reasons and the trouble is actually what this transcript says is that there were many reasons when, in fact, what we were told that many thought, particularly in Europe, the countries that signed onto this despite opposition from their own people was that there was compelling evidence of weapons of mass destruction.Now, turn the clock back a few weeks ago, to when I spoke with the deputy secretary. May 10 was when this long interview occurred. What was he trying to do? He was trying to explain how, even though no smoking gun had surfaced, this was a war still worth fighting. Why? Because other benefits accrued.Hence, he says the truth is weapons of mass destruction were not the sole compelling reason.KAGAN: So in your eyes he seemed comfortable with the idea, well, yes, we said that, but really, the greater good has taken place. You've seen the US military moving. They're moving out of Saudi Arabia. The fall of Saddam Hussein. This is all taking place, it's all kind of happening like it was supposed to.TANNENHAUS: Not only in my eyes. If you look also at the Defense Department's link where transcripts are reproduced, you'll see an earlier interview he did with a Washington Post reporter who was picking up on my story. ...There, the Washington Post reporter quoted precisely as I worded it the phrase about bureaucracy and the deputy has not backed down from it at all. It was only after this became a scandal, a concern in Europe, that the Defense Department realized that the deputy secretary had been too candid and that's always a price to pay. This is where Donald Rumsfeld's unequivocal statement about "no war" becomes important. First consider the following timeline:The following headline appeared in USA Today in March, 2003 : "US advises weapons inspectors to leave Iraq":In the clearest sign yet that war with Iraq is imminent, the United States has advised UN weapons inspectors to begin pulling out of Baghdad, the UN nuclear agency chief said Monday... "Late last night ... I was advised by the US government to pull out our inspectors from Baghdad," ElBaradei told the IAEA's board of governors. To further set the tone being created, CNN reported:Saying the "danger was clear" that the Iraqi regime would provide terrorists with biological, chemical or nuclear weapons, President Bush gave Iraqi President Saddam Hussein 48 hours for him and his sons to leave Iraq before military action begins "at a time of our choosing." The CNN article has nine links in it that all go to the fury which was built up just prior to the launch of the war. One of the more notable reads, in part:US officials tell CNN there is "recent" and "fresh" evidence that Iraq is planning to use chemical weapons, perhaps against US forces or Iraqi citizens."They clearly have given some chemical capability to some Iraqi forces," said one US officialOfficials stress they have not yet seen Iraq move any chemical munitions but say they have "information" that Republican Guard units south of Baghdad have been issued chemical munitionsOfficials are reluctant to disclose the specific intelligence, but several sources indicated there is "increased chatter" among Iraqi military officials about the use of chemical weapons. This "chatter" has been heard in the past few days and led to the officials' conclusion. It is not clear where the chemical munitions are that Iraq might be planning to use"Clearly there are current plans for Iraqi forces to use chemical weapons," one senior Pentagon official told CNN. To round out, in the interest of "fair and balanced" reporting, the point that it was US threats that caused the departure of the inspectors, consider the following from FOX:UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan on Monday ordered all UN inspectors and support staff, humanitarian workers and UN observers along the Iraq-Kuwait border to evacuate Iraq after US threats to launch war. Also, in November, 2003, Rumsfeld spoke on troop numbers. This came after questions about the toppling of Hussein, the troop presence, rotations, etc., became louder and the "when the Iraqis are ready to stand up, we will stand down" justifications began:So we've gone from zero to 100,000 Iraqis providing security in that country, and our plan calls for us to go over 200,000 by next year...What's happening is the total number of security forces in that country have been going up steadily. We've come down from 150,- to 130,000 troops. The coalition troops of about 30,000 have stayed about level. And what's changed is the Iraqi troops have come up from zero to 100,000, heading towards over 200,000 next year... I have trouble believing that the security situation in that country will require additional US troops.Then something odd happened to the message. Rumsfeld slipped.The following was not heard because it wasn't reported widely. Compare the transcripts from a 2004 press conference with comments Rumsfeld made on Nov. 20, 2005, when he appeared on ABC's This Week.In 2004, Rumsfeld was asked by a reporter about all of the various reasons that we went to Iraq, about why we continued to stay, and about the acceptance of Saddam staying in power without WMDs:Department of Defense Transcript, excerpt of Sec. Rumsfeld and Gen. Myers on Tuesday, Feb. 10, 2004.Q: Mr. Secretary, you said in your opening remarks, sir -- you described it as two paths that nations can take, and you noted that Saddam Hussein, had he opened up his country to the UN resolutions, there would have been no war.Rumsfeld: Mm-hmm.Q: And it intrigues me because about a year ago you said the same thing, he had the choice between war and peace and he had chosen war. If I follow your thought correctly -- and I'm sure you'll tell me if I'm not -- (Laughter.) -- in his case, if he would have opened up the country, let the UN come in, the United States come in, whoever, to search for the weapons of mass destruction, he would have still been in power today, correct? Okay. And that would be an acceptable position -- or you chose the word of the "position" -- vis-à-vis no war, Saddam Hussein still in power, with a whole year of us hearing about all the other reasons why it was important to remove him.Rumsfeld: Mm-hmm. In my view it is -- the world is fortunate, the Iraqi people are fortunate, and the region is fortunate, that he's not there. And I think anyone who has looked at the mass graves and the torture rooms and heard the stories of what took place in that country has to feel the same way.Was what I said today correct? Yes. There would not have been a war. I mean, that's just a fact, just like -- I mean, what will Libya look like two, four, five years from now… There would have been no war... If Rumsfeld had let the UN come in… (see CNN, FOX, and other reports as to why the weapons inspectors left).Before addressing last Sunday's Donald Rumsfeld-George Stephanopoulos interview, let's look at another set of statements made before the US Senate as reported by UPI on Oct. 3, 2005:The Senate heard testimony last week from some of America's top generals that the war in Iraq is going worse than ever and that only 1 out of 119 Iraqi army and security battalions can operate by itself in combat situations without US military backup.Top US generals admitted in testimony Thursday to the Senate Armed Services Committee that only a single Iraqi battalion was prepared to operate on its own without US military support. This was a stunning decrease from the three battalions that US generals had assured Congress in previous testimony were ready to operate independently. The Iraqi army consists of 119 battalions. But the generals' testimony meant that after two and a half years of US efforts, only 750 men out of 200,000 can be relied upon to operate and obey orders independently in combat situations.Now, we move to the Nov. 20 This Week interview, where Rumsfeld directly repudiates his 2004 statement and contradicts the generals' testimony before the Senate. On troop levels he says, in part: "The Iraqi Security Forces are now up to 212,000... They are engaged in the fight... They've got over 100 battalions that are functioning in one way or another."Rumsfeld was asked by George Stephanopoulos about the number of 700 Iraqi troops being reported as ready with 20,000 that can lead but that need to be heavily supported. His answer: "Most of our forces need support... the comparison you're casting is clearly confusing to the listener... The argument is...is... the US has a plan. They have a strategy. They are implementing that. They have trained over 212,000 Iraqi Security Forces. ... We currently have about 159,000 troops in Iraq. We plan to bring that down to 137,000-138,000 after the election which has been our baseline."Rumsfeld goes on to explain his opinion and position on the war, which directly contradicts his 2004 statement.Stephanopoulos: If you had known that no WMDs would be found, would you still advocate invasion?Rumsfeld: I didn't advocate invasion.Stephanopoulos: You didn't?Rumsfeld: No. I wasn't asked. If you read all the books on the thing...Stephanopoulos: You weren't? But why weren't you asked? That's very puzzling.Rumsfeld: No. I'm sure that the president understood what my views were... but... but... as a technical matter, did he ever look and say, "What should we do - should we do this or not do that" - this is something that the president thought through very carefully.Stephanopoulos: Are you trying to distance yourself on the war with that...Rumsfeld: Of course not. I agreed completely with the decision to go to war. And I've said that 100 times and don't even suggest that...Stephanopoulos: I'm just asking...Rumsfeld: Yeah. Well you know better.... uhhh... Look, the interesting thing to me about the pre-war intelligence is clearly it was wrong. It was wrong (inaudible). But everyone saw the same thing in the Executive branch, in the Legislative branch, in the other countries, it was presented at the UN.. uhhh...Stephanopoulos: But would you have been for an invasion if we had known that?Rumsfeld: If I... I... the answer is probably yes. Our planes were being shot at every day, every week in the no fly zone. Here was a man who was giving $25,000 to the families of suicide killers. Murderers who were doing it. Zarqawi was in that country during that period. He's a person that used chemical weapons against his own people and against his neighbors, had invaded Kuwait...Asked about reasons for how and on what basis the US decided to invade Iraq, Rumsfeld offers another opinion:I think the kind of re-hashing and suggesting that there was anything manipulative about the intelligence is really a disservice to the country.The above is from a rush transcript of the Nov. 20 show. ABC offers a thorough transcript (for a fee) at ABC News and one should also appear at the Defense Department Web site, although one should be cautious, as government deletions from transcripts have taken place - for an illustration, see CNN's "Pentagon deleted key comment from Rumsfeld transcript."As one works toward getting back to the present, hopefully with the timing and words of the pundits, the quotes from officials, and most importantly, Secretary Rumsfeld’s own statements in mind, consider this: On Nov. 11, 2005, the Washington Post published "Bush Aide Fires Back at Critics On Justification for War in Iraq" by National Security Adviser Stephen J. Hadley:Hadley noted that the presidential commission, led by retired judge Laurence H. Silberman and former senator Charles S. Robb (D-Va.), said it found no evidence that administration officials manipulated intelligence. But the panel was not allowed to examine how policymakers used the information. On Nov. 15, 2005. USA Today published an article called, "WMD not only reason" by J.D. Crouch, the deputy national security adviser to the president. In it he states:Some administration critics believe Operation Iraqi Freedom was strictly about weapons of mass destruction. The reality is that Saddam Hussein's WMD programs were only one reason for the liberation of Iraq. We went to war for several reasons… Perhaps the most interesting new twist in the evolution of the "revision" is contained in an article by the National Review's Jonah Goldberg, in which he compares FDR handling of World War II to the current debate. One paragraph opens a new avenue for argument. Goldberg states:The Bush Doctrine is not chiefly about WMD and never was. Like FDR's vision, it balances democracy, security and morality. Still, the media and anti-Bush partisans have been bizarrely unmoved by the revelations of Hussein's killing fields, his torture chambers for tots, and democracy's tangible progress in the Middle East.With a few pixels and strokes of a pen, Goldberg takes the argument away from the reason for going into Iraq and transfers it into the general "Bush Doctrine." He also compares the "Doctrine" to FDR's vision (notwithstanding the fact that George W. Bush had repudiated FDR's "visions" during his days at Harvard Business School). The argument is interesting - as a distraction from the main point. Nonetheless it is there and is sure to be repeated.Anyone still wondering why all of this wasn't tracked and reported more closely by the media should refer to the Seattle Times' "Why media ownership matters":The media organizations in charge of vetting our images of war have become fewer and bigger - and the news more uniform and gung ho. Six huge corporations now control the major US media: [Among them,] Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation (FOX, HarperCollins, the New York Post, the Weekly Standard, TV Guide, DirecTV and 35 television stations)... In the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, there was even less diversity of opinion on the airwaves. During the critical two weeks before and after Colin Powell's speech to the United Nations where he made his case for war, FAIR [Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting] found that just three out of 393 sources - fewer than 1 percent - were affiliated with anti-war activism.Perhaps all of the above helps explain why we’ve gone from a "catastrophic success" to debating a "recipe for disaster” - and why the Bush Administration should look at itself before accusing others of rewriting history._________________________Additional Resources:Sen. Carl Levin - (Newly Declassified Information Indicates Bush Administration’s Use of Pre-War Intelligence Was Misleading (Nov. 6, 2005)Sen. Carl Levin chart comparison - Bush Administration Statements with Intelligence Community Statements on Pre-War Iraq Intelligence (Nov. 18, 2005):The easiest to read and most illuminating chart (if only for the starkness of the difference in statements and truth) is contained at the Carnegie Endowment, which contains numerous documents relating to this issue. The chart specified by the following link is notable because it shows the evaluation placed on the threat by the UN, the NIE, and the subsequent Senate Intelligence Committee report on Iraq- mostly "No", "Maybe" and "Probably Not," while the Administration's given statement on each pre-war concern was a definitive "Yes."For an excellent rundown on all the factors that went into "creating" the war and the subsequent assertions that the Senate and House had the "same access" to intelligence, see: The Facts: The Case for War by Emily Messner of the Washington Post (Nov.21, 2005; registration may be required). Politics40203@blogcritics.org Wed, 30 Nov 2005 00:05:50 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/10/30/165726.php AmeriPunditFor those too engrossed (during the last week) by the latest hit "surreality" show, "Harriet and Scooter", directed by those entertainment wizards, the Compassionate Conservatives, the following is a listing of some other shows that aired (but went largely unnoticed) during the week obtained from C-SPAN's CapitalNews. It's a partial compilation of the work of the main subsidiary of the Compassionate Conservatives- the Congress, which never fails to produce short shows, generally unseen but with a lasting impact, while the audience is tuned to the "sexy" productions. A partial list of "episodes" (Headlines- in bold) produced during the period of 10- 25 and ending with 10- 29 follows: Senate Majority leader Frist Says Senate Won't Probe CIA Leak (See also, "Frist says Frist won't investigate self...)Fmr. FDA Head Held Shares in Regulated Firms as Late as '04 (See Frist...)Rep. DeLay Admits He Failed to Fully Report Contributions ("The Hammer doth protest too much, methinks"- a comedy...)Lawmakers Express Concern Over Civil Liberty Curbs in Hong Kong (A twist on the "Living in Glass Houses" plot-line...") Bush says military action against Syria "last resort" (A sequel to Iraq I, and Iraq II...)WHouse seeks to shield CIA from detainee rules 21 Detainees Killed in U.S. Custody in Iraq, Afghanistan White House List of Disrupted Terror Plots Questioned U.S. Building New Iraq Prisons to Close Abu Ghraib Pres. Bush Says Iraq War Will Require "More Sacrifice" U.S. Might Pull Some Troops From Iraq Within Year U.S. Troops in Iraq at 161,000, Highest Level Since War's Start Military Spokesman Says 2,000 Soldiers Killed "Not a Milestone" Bush Says Progress Is Being Made in Iraq Sunni Leaders Reject Iraq Charter as "Fraudulent" (Strong language, nudity, violent content...)Texas Oilman Pleads Not Guilty in U.N. Oil-for-Food Probe State Dept Says Oil-For-Food Scam Signals Need for U.N. Reform (Hilarious...)Bill Will Punish Lawyers in Frivolous Suit (Lawyer jokes.... this episode, along with the "Cheeseburger" Bill episode earlier this month, the Bill that barred suits against gun manufacturers- also earlier this month, the class action tort reform- earlier this year, and other tort reform laws under current consideration are sure to bring laughs! Since the average person only had a limited key to the courthouse in the past, watching "Joe Average" and his wife and kids run around a courthouse trying to get in with all of these laws in place is "Priceless"...)Sup. Ct. Justice Scalia Turns Away TV Reporters at D.C. Event (A retrospective as one of the stars of "W- the First Four Years" can't find the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment [No State shall...deny to any person...the equal protection of the laws] for detainess [regardless of citizenship] that he and his friends loaned "W" in 2000. Looks to "W" to return it but is talked out of the effort by Cheney during a private hunting trip discussing the Energy Task Force...)House GOP Leaders: Oil Companies Should Build U.S. Refineries (Hilarity abounds as, after forcing through two pieces of legislation with significant [around $14.5 billion in taxpayer funds] benefits for the oil industry this year, House Republican leaders call for oil companies to return the favor by building new refineries and taking other steps to increase fuel supply and lower gas prices. Red Cavaney, president of the American Petroleum Institute [with money already in hand, responds] "What we are trying to say is, tell us what you want, not how to make it happen...")Louisiana's Unemployment Rate Reaches 11.5 Percent Labor Dept. Reports Hurricane-Related Job Losses Top 500,000 Homeland Security Sec. Chertoff Asks for Floridians' Patience Miami-Dade Mayor Says FEMA Supplies Dwindling FEMA to Keep Former Director on Payroll for 30 More Days (Side-splitting comedy as Homeland Security Sec. Chertoff says, "We don't want to sacrifice the real ability to get a full picture of Mike's experiences; we don't want to sacrifice that ability simply in order to make an image point...")Republicans Cut Several Programs in Budget (Comedy that brings tears to the eyes as House Republicans voted to cut student loan subsidies, child support enforcement and aid to firms hurt by unfair trade practices as various committees scrambled to piece together $50 billion in budget cuts. Minority Democrats opposed virtually everything that was done, saying Wednesday's actions are part of a broader GOP budget blueprint that also calls for $106 billion in new tax cuts over the next five years.)House Panel Passes $11-Billion Medicaid Cuts House Committee Cuts $844 Million From Food Stamp Program (Another great comedy as, on a party-line vote, after slashing Medicaid, the Republican-run U.S. House of Representatives committee voted to cut food stamps by $844 million on Friday, just hours after a new government report showed more Americans are struggling to put food on the table.)Senate Panel Approves $10 Billion Cut in Medicare, Medicaid Senate Rejects Bid to Boost School Aid by $5 Billion Senate Votes Against Increased Funding for Home Heating Program (The Senate, getting in on the hijinks, caps off a sterling performance of taking from the poor as it, for the second time this month, voted against putting more money into a program that helps low-income families meet home heating costs. Citing budget restraints, not mentioning the oil company subsidies nor the tax cuts favoring the top 1% of the population, nor the upcoming attempt to repeal the estate tax...) Bush, Party Faithful Gather for Fundraiser (Great "party" scenes as President Bush gathered with his party faithful Tuesday night for a $15,000-a-couple dinner that the Republican National Committee reported raised at least $1 million. The dinner was a 30th anniversary celebration for the Republican Eagles -- donors who raise at least $15,000 a year. For their contributions, the 260 attendees dined on seared mignon of beef, received a commemorative paperweight and heard a speech from the commander in chief...)Oh, and... Rosa Parks died, Lincoln, Roosevelt, Eisenhower, and Kennedy sighed, Martin Luther King and Jesus cried.Ed:LisaM Politics38780@blogcritics.org Sun, 30 Oct 2005 16:57:26 EST http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/10/23/211013.php AmeriPunditThe following e-mails are presented in their original form with the permission of the author, Monica Benderman- wife of Sergeant Kevin Benderman.The decision to publish them was made because no attempt at a narrative was able to capture the matter-of-fact anger of the first e-mail, nor the frustrated anger of the second.BACKGROUND INFORMATIONBriefly, Kevin Benderman had served as an army mechanic for 10 years when he developed moral and religious objections to the war in Iraq and, after serving there in 2003, he refused to deploy there again. He filed an application for conscientious objector status on 28 December 2004.His application was denied and he continued to refuse to serve. Subsequently he was tried and was acquitted of desertion but was convicted of the lesser charge of missing movement, meaning he skipped his Jan. 8 deployment flight. He was sentenced to 15 months' imprisonment, a loss of pay, and dishonorable discharge at the court martial. He is still in prison.It should be pointed out that the wheels had fallen off the WMD argument by the time of his trial and that Sec. Rumsfeld said in a little covered DOD Press Conference that but for WMD's, there would have been no war, much to the astonishment of a reporter who asked about "all the other reasons" for the war.To find out more about Sgt. Benderman, His military record, his writing expressing his reasons for not going back to Iraq after serving there, Sec. Rumsfeld's statement, and/or if the reader wishes to help (with even a simple note of support), sites, links, and an e-mail address are provided below.One should note the discrepancies for violations (note- 45 days for a Captain convicted of selling much needed body armor on E-Bay vs. 15 months for Sgt. Benderman, etc.) as well as the conditions of the prison.The first e-mail was in response to a query as to the status of some submitted questions for Sgt. Benderman and when the answers could be anticipated. The second e-mail was in response to a query as to the first e-mail being published. Subsequent e-mails clarified the second as an affirmative response. ________________Monica Benderman's e-mail on status of Kevin Benderman's responses to submitted questions:To give you some background into the last 2 weeks - because I don't remember if I have already -Kevin still has not been in contact with any attorneys. He requested contact with the Trial Defense Services here at Ft. Stewart, as they are still responsible for his post trial procedures, but the prison said that he could not contact them, that he would have to wait for someone from their office to contact Kevin. He has been at Ft. Lewis for 2 months, now, and still nothing, and put the initial request in during the first week he was there.I was to have received official info from Ft. Lewis during his first week there as well. We waited and waited.. I finally complained about that through Amnesty, and appeals were sent to the installation from Sept. 9 - 12th. Interestingly enough - I received a letter 2 days ago, from the Lt. Col. in charge of the correct. facility. The letter was postdated to Aug. 29th, one month after Kevin arrived there, and it said that the letter was to notify me that Kevin was had "safely arrived at Ft. Lewis." Stupid people, they postmarked the letter Sept. 15th, so clearly, the only reason they even sent it was because of the Amnesty appeals. Many of the inmates were amazed to hear that I had gotten a letter. Some of them have been there for 10 months or more, and still their families have received no official notification.We also had to use Amnesty to appeal for Kevin's right to a civilian chaplain. The warden at the facility called Kevin into his office and told Kevin that he felt that I was pushing for a civilian chaplain, but that he wanted to see if Kevin really wanted one. He told Kevin that he would prefer that Kevin use the prison chaplain. Kevin said he would not. He has been trying since he first got there, to get the prison chaplain to address his concerns over his first CO application and the manner in which it was handled. The prison chaplain told him that he would not help because he didn't agree with Kevin's beliefs -- he said that he believed in war.The prison is an all male facility, but they use female guards. This is a great concern to the inmates. The block guard desk is positioned right in front of the showers. There are no partitions, no shower curtains.. and the toilets are there in the open as well. The female guards watch the inmates taking showers. Big problem, and against Army regs.There is no heat at the facility. There are only 2 crisis counselors for 225 inmates. There are exposed water and sewer pipes, and the raw sewage leaks from the pipes onto the hallway floors in the living areas of the inmates.The DOD regs. require 80 sq. ft of living space per inmate, the inmates at Ft. Lewis are given 40 sq. ft.The DOD regs require 1 shower for every 8 inmates. In Kevin's unit, there are 2 showers for 20 inmates. There is 1 working sink there for 20 inmates, and 2 working toilets.There is supposed to be rehabilitation classes. Kevin, of all people, is required to take a class in "The Impact of Crimes on Victims." AMAZING!!!! There are no rehab classes.. the justification is that the war is expensive and they cannot afford to offer them.Kevin is eligible for parole on Jan. 27th, but first the Convening Authority here must approve his conviction and the sentence. He has not done this to this date. In order to have a parole board hearing, Kevin must have a confirmed place to stay, comfirmed employment, no counseling statements, and I am soliciting letters of reference from as many people as possible, to be mailed to the parole office at Ft. Lewis by the middle of November, with a copy to me as well, so that the prison cannot say that they did not receive them.There is so much more -- this is just the beginning.But - we feel that it is very important that this information find its way to the public from as many directions as possible.Also -- there was a Cpt. here at Ft. Stewart, in Kevin's unit, Cpt. Schenk, S-1, 2-7th infantry. This Cpt. received 45 days confinement for selling Body Armor on EBAY.. each piece was valued at $2000.00. This man was selling it for $4,000 a piece.There's more... much more. ________________Monica Benderman's e-mail responding to request for permission to use her e-mail directly:Would you like to add that the female guards at Ft. Lewis were operating a prostitution ring? They, and a couple of the male guards, at least one of which was discharged for this, arranged for a separate personal bank account, and gave the number to inquiring inmates. These inmates would then transfer funds from their commissary account to the personal bank account. Once the funds transferred.. the final transaction was arranged.Would you also like to mention that not all inmates are lucky enough to have someone to leave their personal property with? Some have to leave it in the property room. Many leave debit and credit cards. One inmate was willing to give me his name. He was incarcerated at Ft. Lewis all last month, and his debit card was in the property room. Still, someone managed to use his debit card to charge $270.00 at the Ft. Lewis PX. Several other soldiers have reported amounts even greater being charged to their card. They are not in the position to be able to do anything about this. _________________To read more about Sgt. Benderman's plight, a brief outline containing the e-mails, his military record (including awards and medals), one of his articles (reflecting his position), and Sec. Rumsfeld's statement are available at Ameripundit.com. More information is available at Kevin Benderman Timeline.Notes of support can be sent to monica@bendermantimeline.com or through the Kevin Benderman Timeline site above. Politics38385@blogcritics.org Sun, 23 Oct 2005 21:10:13 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/09/03/160545.php AmeriPundit"No mother would ever willingly sacrifice her sons for territorial gain, for economic advantage, for ideology." Ronald ReaganOne would think that Reagan's remarks left little room for a mother to tolerate the death of her son in a "war of choice". Furthermore, based upon his words, one would think that he would wholeheartedly support the inquiries and protest of the mother of a soldier who died in a war based on malleable and questionable rationales.One would think so... that is, if one chose to think. For Reagan's alleged "conservative" disciples, the opposite seems to be true. Because Cindy Sheehan has not accepted an illusory WMD threat, Bin Laden links, spreading freedom and an emancipation of women (Islamic fundamentalist style on both), or any of the other multiple reasons given her, and the country, for her son's death in Iraq, they seem to feel that she has forfeited her right to speak and/or protest on the matter. It seems to be a clash of values between the "neo- cons" (new cons) and the old cons [Emphasis added by law enforcement's and the street meaning of the word "con"].In support of their position, today's "conservatives", among other things, have said that she is/has: "... hurting our troops and endangering our troops; an anti-Semite; hateful; in bed with the radical left; aligned herself with people who hate this country, hate this government; shamed her son by her comments; trying to pull a little bit of a swindle and been totally co-opted by the whole Michael Moore leftist mentality; exploiting death; engaging in Stalinist agitprop outside President Bush's Crawford ranch; supported by hysterical paranoid ideologist[s] who have turned the "Camp Casey" protest into "Camp Fruitbat and Nutbag."And, as one of FOX's Sans-A-Belt(way) Boys said, she's "a crackpot".Such are the comments and "keen insight" offered by the most well-known and visible members of modern conservatism who believe in, among other things, "family values", Christianity, Intelligent Design, Pat Robertson, the flag, prayer in schools, privatization of Social Security, Abu Ghraib style "hazing", a $223 million "Bridge to Nowhere" in Alaska funded by the Transportation Bill, Supplemental (offline- therefore not counted in the budget) spending for an ongoing war, and are against, among other things, the obscenity that is a peek at Janet Jackson's breast, the immorality of "Will and Grace", and the "Communism/Socialism/Liberalism" of those that want to implement a living wage and Universal Health Care.It seems, according to the media and highly paid pundits who know a thing or two about war (having successfully evaded it in their youth), that she's the only mother truly questioning the war. Since they insist that her opinion has been proven worthless through the widely accepted methods of demonizing, guilt by association, and rumor, all of which were subsequently verified by relentless repetition, perhaps one should turn to the one mother painted with the "conservative" brush of all that is good about America- Barbara Bush.She has not only raised one son who occupies the Oval Office, she is married to a man who once occupied the Oval Office himself. She also has another son who is Governor of a large state that helped get her son George into the position he currently occupies and from which the Iraq war was started. Just a "typical" mom. As such, surely her opinion on casualties is worth taking note of when discussing the war her son started and Cindy Sheehan's son died in: "But why should we hear about body bags, and deaths, and how many, what day it's gonna happen, and how many this or what do you suppose? Or, I mean, it's, it's not relevant. So why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that?" - Barbara Bush, Good Morning America - March 18, 2003So it's the opinon of a "beautiful mind" that it should not be wasted on thoughts about body bags and deaths against the opinion of a tortured mind that answers are required for the body bags and deaths. "What... me worry?" versus "What is the reason?"Since Cindy Sheehan's voice is in direct competition with a phalanx of paid for professional barkers attempting to drown her out and consign her to irrelevancy, in the interests of fairness, one ahould take a look at what the sons say about the war and its casualties. George Bush's own words on the subject are: "...I think it's also important for me to go on with my life, to keep a balanced life... I think the people want the president to be in a position to make good, crisp decisions and to stay healthy... and part of my being is to be outside exercising." - George Bush, vacationing in Crawford, Texas - August 13, 2005Unfortunately, Casey Sheehan could not be reached for comment.So it's exercise and "getting on with life" against no exercise possible as there is no more life. "What.. me worry?" versus deathly silence.The Bushes. Caring. Compassionate. "Real" Americans. Just "down home folks" (be it in Crawford, Kennebunkport, Camp David, or some Saudi King's or Prince's grand estate). The type of people worth having a beer with - after undergoing a thorough backgound check and subject to Secret Service approval.As to the assault on Cindy Sheenan and her right to voice her opinion in any non-violent manner she chooses, the Administration and its backers seem to be attempting to prevail using their tired WWF-like verbal "smackdowns" in order to silence opposition and/or manufacture consent.It is highly doubtful that either Casey or the "Gipper" would stand for the silencing of anyone's right to voice their opposition to this war. Especially the voice of a mother. Ed:LM Politics35422@blogcritics.org Sat, 3 Sep 2005 16:05:45 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/08/26/003754.php AmeriPunditMedia coverage of the ongoing Bush/Sheehan matter is worth following, not for its substance - that is sorely lacking - but rather, for the audacity the media is showing by giving its favorite child a public spanking."Media" refers to the conglomerates that currently pose as the fourth estate and, in effect, lull the public into thinking it still has someone or something looking out for it by checking government excess and/or abuse of power. In the current Bush vacation/war/Cindy script, the media is attacking its own valuable creation. After all, Bush is pro-business, anti- regulation, and has done wonders for media conglomerates with his version of the FCC. As for being a media creation, even Bush has recognized his true Creator for some time now. This is evidenced by his quote while mulling his first run for Governor of Texas: "You know I could run for governor but I'm basically a media creation. I've never done anything. I've worked for my dad. I worked in the oil business. But that's not the kind of profile you have to have to get elected to public office."He was re-cast as a successful businessman and a brave fighter pilot and the rest is history.Currently, the media is defending the attack on its own valuable asset by grumbling that August is a "slow news" period (a recurring excuse) and the reporter's outside of the ranch in Crawford have nothing else to do. On its face, that statement is untrue as anyone who ventures outside of what the American media defines as news can attest to.The actual answer is simple. The media has proven that it can easily destroy its opponents. The attack on Bush is just a method of keeping its minions in line. Knowing that George Bush is wont to believe the unbelievable, it is reminding him of his quote as he was weighing running for Governor of Texas lest he let his self-described "earned capital" go to his head. It is also a reminder that the "earned capital" is rightfully "media loaned currency" made available to him by his true Creator.In order to avoid real damage to its favorite politician as it flexes its muscles, the media has also set both guns blazing against Cindy Sheehan. That way, should any signs of serious damage to Bush emerge, the healing process can begin by the media pointing to the "source" who, as its pundits are fond of saying, is a "crackpot", a "traitor", and is "betraying her son's sacrifice". Competing moms, scripted appearances, and references to 9-11 can be trotted out and the whole issue of Iraq will, once again, magically disappear.The 2004 election coverage left no such outs for Howard Dean and John Kerry. Dean was left with- "I'm not crazy... really, I'm not." Kerry was left with accusations that he was too slow to respond to the question of, "When did you stop beating your Swift Boat?"Most people are under the impression that Howard Dean's campaign was sunk by the "Dean Scream" in Iowa. That, by itself, ignores the forces behind the altering of a non-event into a monumental meltdown.According to the National Journal's Hotline, cable and network news aired "the scream" 633 times in the 4 days after it was made. This count did not include local news affiliates or talk shows.ABC's Diane Sawyer reported on the ramifications as well as the reactions from some who were behind the scenes at cable and the networks.She stated that it sounded very different in the actual room. The difference was because Dean was holding a handheld microphone that filtered out background noise and isolated his voice. She collected other tapes from that night that had crowd noise on them. She concluded that the "so-called scream couldn't really be heard at all." She also collected some sound bites from top executives at CBS News, ABC News, Fox News and CNN, all of whom acknowledged that the media overplayed the scream.To understand why Dean took this beating (in January, 2004), one should refer to an interview Dean did with Chris Mathews on Hardball in the previous month.The following are Dean quotes from the interview: "What I'm going to do is appoint people to the FCC that believe democracy depends on getting information from all portions of the political spectrum, not just one... Yes, we're going to break up giant media enterprises... You have got to say that there has to be a limit as to how-- if the state has an interest, which it does, in preserving democracy, then there has to be a limitation on how deeply the media companies can penetrate every single community. To the extent of even having two or three or four outlets in a single community, that kind of information control is not compatible with democracy." Lastly, if the 633 replays of a misleading tape proved insufficient to derail the Dean threat to continued consolidation, the Center for Media and Public Affairs reported that only 39 percent of Dean's coverage on the network evening news was positive during the week after Iowa. By contrast, rival John Edwards' coverage was 86 percent positive during the same period, and John Kerry's was 71 percent positive.That is not to say that Dean would have won. It does show that he stood little chance of winning after his comments on Hardball.As the Democratic field winnowed and John Kerry was selected to run against George Bush, cable catapulted the Swift Boat Veterans onto the world stage. It should be kept in mind that immediately after the Democratic convention Kerry had a comfortable 3-5 point lead. So comfortable, in fact, that he signaled that he might take another look at media regulation and the effects of consolidation. At the beginning of August, the infamous "slow news" period, "liberal" TIME (August 3-5) and "conservative" FOX News (August 3-4) conducted polls asking which issues were most important in the 2004 presidential election. The public chose the economy, Iraq, terrorism, health care or Medicare, moral value issues, education, and taxes.Cable news offered viewers, "Kerry and Vietnam- Liar, Traitor, or Both?" Network news, in an apparent effort to hang on to some sense of decorum and perspective, stepped aside preferring to let cable news carry the smear burden. A sampling of programs from August 5th - 26th revealed that CNN, MSNBC, and FOX provided more than 283,593 words and over 34 showings of an otherwise sparsely seen attack ad(s) on the smear for free within the body of "news" stories.Again, these numbers are but a sampling and are not the complete count (in other words the total numbers would be even higher). Furthermore, the FOX word count was limited to 1/3 of the total so that no claim could be made that FOX skewed the results. The results showed very little difference in intensity and type of coverage regardless of outlet. Publishing industry standards place 283,593 words beyond a regular novel and into the realm of a 1,134 page "epic" novel or a trilogy. Anticipating criticism, cable used the "provocatively dressed" defense. Cable pundits stated that by referencing his service in Vietnam, Kerry "opened the door" and "asked for it". "It" being a torrent of - "Kerry has not been honest. He's- lying, lied, no war hero, betrayed, dishonored, lacks the capacity to lead, can't be trusted". 9 repetitions of all 18 prime time Republican Convention speeches skewering Kerry on character, trustworthiness, and strength would be required to approach cable's effort. As for coverage, among many other absurdities, viewers were treated to: A "purple star" discussion (as introduced by Heidi Collins- apparently a 'Barney' fan); After 37,162 words and 17 showings of the first attack ad, Sean Hannity asking, "... why are 'they' trying to silence you? Why won't 'they' let this ad run...?"; A second attack ad (not even aired at the time) eagerly teased by Andrea Mitchell, "Let's take a look at it...the new ad... they have not bought time yet.... Take a look."; andCampaign "advice" from Chris Mathews, "...the only way he (Kerry) is going to change this story is to say he's gay". Some, apparently fed up with the coverage, openly disagreed with the "opened the door" rationale. Jeff Greenfield admitted that fault rested with cable news, which he described as, "...an endless mob that has to be fed...". As for the non-starter story, he said, "...it was given a kind of fuel by this very media".As Kerry's poll numbers dropped, cable began fingerprint removal by relentlessly repeating, "people don't know where he stands", and attributing credit to "Bush's convention bounce".On September 14th, analyst and poll aficionado Bill Schneider finally pointed out the obvious, "...By late August, the number who said Kerry's military record made them more likely to vote for him had dropped by half. Kerry's advantage was neutralized by the controversy". He added, "In early August...Kerry had the edge over Bush as the more honest and trustworthy candidate. In late August just before the Republican convention, the advantage had tilted to Bush". Schneider's "cause and effect" observations were widely... unreported.Party affiliation, "likeability", and a "man of the people" matter little if a candidate shows contempt for media conglomerates (Dean) or even ambivalence towards them (Kerry). They will be defeated. Even if one is aware of their Creator (Bush) and pays the proper homage, that individual will be taken to the woodshed on occasion just as a reminder of where the real power resides.True Republicans and real Democrats alike should be aware that if they play the current media game they will allow our democratic process to be hijacked in a way only imagined by William Randolph Hearst. Politics34816@blogcritics.org Fri, 26 Aug 2005 00:37:54 EDT