Shoooting the messenger

The ugly truth is this: U.S. forces are targeting journalists. What is more, there is a common thread: The journalists killed by U.S. forces have been mostly Arabs who were reporting on places or incidents that the U.S. does not have want the world to see: military vehicles in flames, helicopters shot down, fierce resistance against the U.S. invaders, and civilian deaths.

Of course, the "embedded" U.S. media has scarcely covered this story.

Many of the attacks have been spectacular: launching missiles on a photographer, a tank attack on the Palestine Hotel where more than 100 "non-embed" journalists maintained their offices. Yet the Pentagon has not disciplined a single soldier for the killing of a journalist in Iraq. Most of the incidents have been labeled "self-defense" or "mistakes" and some have been classified as "justified," like the killing of Reuters cameraman Mazen Dana who was shot near Abu Ghraib prison when soldiers said his camera (a shoe-box sized rectangular object) mistaken for a rocket-propelled grenade launcher (a four foot long pole-shaped object).

In some cases the U.S. has admitted targeting journalists. Reuters freelancer Dhia Najim was killed by U.S. fire while filming resistance fighters in November 2004. "We did kill him," an unnamed military official told the New York Times. "He was out with the bad guys. He was there with them, they attacked, and we fired back and hit him."

Meanwhile, here at home, the White House embeds fake journalists across the country and right-wing bloggers drive Eason Jordan, one of the most powerful executives in the cable news business, from his job for merely suggesting that there's a problem in Iraq.

The Nation - Shooting the Messenger

Support our Mercenaries: the disappearing coalition

These days George W. Bush talks about a "multi-national force" doing his bidding in Iraq. That's a far cry from the days when he boasted that "more than fifty nations have joined the United States in Operation Iraqi Freedom." Today, a public listing is nowhere to be found.

"I expect to see the coalition countries begin paring down their forces as they complete their contributions," said Donald Rumsfeld. Besides, the Bush administration wants to avoid identifying countries that don't want to make their contributions known to the world. Pentagon officials say it's up to each country to decide what to say publicly.

Let's see, according to Rumsfeld "coalition countries" are pulling out their troops as they complete their contributions, but the War on Iraq is not over, evidenced by the fact that countries continue to secretly pay to have U.S. soldiers fight and kill Iraqis.

Somehow, it's just fine, in fact it's "expected," that other countries are bringing home their troops, but it's impossible to bring U.S. troops home ... in fact it's "irresponsible," to even discuss U.S. troop withdrawal because merely thinking about the timing would give the Iraqi loyalists a reason to fight on. And, all the while, the Bush administration will eagerly accept secret contributions from other countries to pay U.S. troops to continue kill Iraqi citizens.

So, while Donald Rumsfeld converts the U.S. military into a dangerous gang of paid mercenaries, Red America, without a hint of irony, will continue to slap "support our troops" stickers on their Suburbans.

Associated Press - Bush's Iraq Coalition Shrinking

On becoming a "Good American"

Russian President Vladimir Putin says Russia is convinced that Iran has no intention to produce nuclear weapons. "The latest activities of the Iranian side are convincing Russia that Iran really has no intention of producing nuclear weapons."

So Russia plans to continue working with Iran and its neighbors to arrive at a peaceful solution in the Middle East. "That means we will continue our cooperation with Iran in all spheres, including the nuclear energy sphere," said Putin, announcing that he is preparing to visit Iran, "I received the Iranian leadership's invitation to visit your country and we are preparing for this visit."

Meanwhile, George W. Bush continues his war in the Middle East, threatening any who oppose his regime. Yesterday he dramatically broadened the criteria he will use to decide which sovereign nations to invade and occupy, now reserving the right to attack any nation where he might find "terrorists who target innocent civilians and continue to seek weapons of mass murder."

For a guy who likes to think of himself as plain-spoken and a straight-shooter, he sure raises a lot of questions with ambiguous pronouncements like that.

Was he really talking about Syria or Iran? Perhaps both? Does he mean that you need to both target civilians and seek weapons, or is one or the other enough? How does he reconcile the documented U.S. targeting of Iraqi and Afghani civilian parties using the latest high-tech robot drones? Why is he changing the terminology to "weapons of mass murder" instead of "destruction?" Does he really believe that the world will soon forget that he lied about his reason for invading Iraq when claimed that he had proof that it possessed "weapons of mass destruction?"

In the aftermath of World War II Americans eagerly blamed the German people for the crimes committed in their names by the Nazi regime. It wasn't so much what the individual German citizen had done themselves, rather we held individuals accountable for what they had allowed to be done. Soon the term "Good German" became an epithet used to deride those who turn a blind eye to horrors being committed in their name.

By that same logic, the world must be wondering what it means to be a "Good American."

MOSNEWS (Russia) - Russia Convinced that Iran Will Not Produce Nuclear Weapons

The Governor's Indian Drug Mules

"Let's get the Indians to illegally import drugs and then sell them here."

That's the latest suggestion from Timmy the Boy Governor. You may remember that, in knowing violation of Federal law, Governor Tim Pawlenty set up state sponsored Web sites to help Minnesotans fill their prescriptions in Canada at greatly reduced prices. Indeed, he even fixed it so that state employees don't even have a co-pay if they use the Canadian pharmacies.

But now it looks like the Feds are going to shut down Timmy's bootleg sites.

His answer: Let's get the Indians to run drugs from Canada for us. Some of their reservations straddle the border. They're "sovereign nations" which always slows down the Feds. And they probably know some of their own kind in Canada who would be willing to help.

This from the man who, at the same time, has demanded that unless the Indian casinos pay a confiscatory new state tax he will open a state sponsored Las Vegas run casino in the Twin Cities and bankrupt them.

This from the law and order Republican who insists we are a nation of laws not of men.

This from the moral man, and Evangelical Christian who ... well, come to think of it, in today's American it is all pretty consistent, isn't it?

Star Tribune (MN) - Pawlenty floats drug deal with Indians

It can happen ... no, it is happening ... here

Using secret evidence that has never been shown to either the defendants or their lawyers, a Federal appeals court ruled that two U.S. citizens should be jailed for having witnessed a crime. What is more, no one will ever see the court's full decision because several pages of it have been blanked out for security reasons having to do with George W. Bush's war on terror.

The case involves reporters Judith Miller of The New York Times and Matthew Cooper of Time magazine, who may have witnessed a federal crime. The two were working on the story about Robert Novak, the right-wing columnist, who had just publicly revealed the name of a CIA agent, the wife of Joe Wilson who is a vocal critic of Bush's War on Terror. The disclosure by government officials of the identity of a CIA officer is a crime and the reporters have refused to name their sources.

Cooper, of Time magazine, merely wrote an article reporting on Novak's outing of the CIA agent. Even worse, Miller was just working on the story and never published anything. Yet both are facing jail time while Novak is walking about free.

Say that again! How come Novak is out on the streets when there's no question that he's the one who actually revealed the name of the CIA agent? Novak refuses to say whether or not he's even talked to the Federal grand jury, but one explanation is that he's already revealed his sources.

In any case, we'll never know because the Bush administration has drawn the cloak of national security around the case. As reporter Judith Miller noted, she will go to jail, "for a story I didn't write, for reasons a court won't explain."

Meanwhile Bob Novak, who published the CIA officer's name, will remain free to continue to shill for the right-wing.

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me--
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

-Pastor Martin Niemöller, 1945

New York Times - Jailing of Reporters in C.I.A. Leak Case Is Upheld by Judges

Bush's management team

Talk about a management crisis! The reports were almost laughable, except that lives were being lost. Huge bags of cash "tossed like footballs" out of the back of pick-up trucks to local "contractors." A crony management described as "reminiscent of the Wild West." More than $9 billion just simply gone missing. And yet the lights still don't work at most hours of the day and there's no where near enough clean water.

When faced with such a massive failure of his line managers, how did our first "MBA President" respond?

1) Identify the man most directly responsible for this fiasco, Proconsul L. Paul Bremer.

2) Award him the Presidential the Medal of Freedom.

3) Tell the American people that they need to chip in another $82 billion (which is separate from the $419 billion Defense Department budget, significant portions of which are spent on Iraq and which will push overall U.S. spending for Iraq to well over $300 billion).

4) Remind the American people that the War on Terror must be working because there haven't been any attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11.

5) Change the subject and tell Americans that unless they expand the PARTRIOT Act and approve a dozen neo-fascist judges, you won't be able to guarantee their security much longer

6) Remind them that, in any case, you're not sure they'll be able to count on their Social Security benefits in the future.

And it worked. Everyone seemed to forget about Iran's nuclear program and North Korea's threat to use its nuclear weapons. And no one seemed concerned that Lebanon's army was placed on high alert following an assenting led by Syria (where the U.S. continues to outsource the torture of its prisoners.) We felt safe and sound. Our only worry was why those obstructionists in Congress won't let us put some of our money in the stock market.

BBC (UK) - Iraq agency 'run like Wild West'

Kansas City Star - Bush requests addition $82 billion for military operations

Blowing-up the Bush Brain

There he was, George W. Bush preening as his legal toady Alberto Gonzales was being sworn-in as Attorney General of the United States of America. Then, asked to say a few congratulatory words, Bush seized the opportunity to thank his god and then launch into a monologue about the Patriot Act, forcefully making the case that unless Americans immediately surrender the tatters that remain of their civil liberties terrorists would certainly be at the door.

It was a striking performance on many levels. And it made me wonder how such an obviously morally bankrupt ideology could have so completely taken over my country. The reason, I think, is that we've bent over backwards to try to respectfully honor their point of view instead of calling it what it is: a fascist theocracy that has seized control and is ruling America.

One of the biggest challenges we liberals face is the wildly different way in which we approach the world as compared to the way right-wing conservatives (and the right-wing is quite different from the merely conservative) approach anything new or different.

We liberals are curious by nature, always open to new ideas and willing to explore different ways of looking at things. We're not arrogant enough to assume that we know everything and that our way is the one right way to approach a problem or issue. Every day the liberal wakes up wondering what new things he or she might learn today, and convinced that today will be even better than yesterday.

We're comfortable with the idea that we might just learn something new if we listen to and consider the other side's point of view. And there is our greatest weakness.

By contrast, the right-wing conservative is convinced that there is one right answer and that he or she already knows what that answer is. There is no curiosity about the new or different, only plans to defend the already existing truth against foreign un-truths. The right-wing conservative wakes up already knowing everything he or she cares to know and worrying that today might turn out to be worse than yesterday unless he or she takes action to protect what he or she already knows to be the truth.

What is worse, the right-wing conservative sees the liberals' openness as a weakness (remember the "flip-flopper" label?) and an opportunity to go on the attack.

But we liberals have a powerful tool to up-end the right-wing conservative mind: it's our curiosity. Try this next time: ask them, "Why?" Why do you believe that? Why do you think your taxes are too high? Why do you think that Saddam Hussein was a threat to the U.S.? Why do you think that poor people are lazy? Why do you think George W. Bush is a paragon of morality?

Then, and this is important, whatever their answer, ask them why they believe that. Soon it will be like one of those old sci-fi movies where the malevolent computer melts down when confronted with questions it cannot answer. Because the fact is very few Americans actually believe the right-wing ideology.

Rockridge Institute - Creating a Progressive Values Movement

My country 'tis of thee

International law provides very specific rules for the treatment of those who are citizens of other countries. During a time of war there are sensible differences in how soldiers and civilians are to be treated, but all citizens of the enemy are covered.

The Bush administration's solution? Create a new category of person: the "illegal enemy combatant." They're not covered by international law, heck, they're not even mentioned in international law. So we can lock them up and torture them without violating any international law.

Then there's the matter of "war crimes," which the president might be accused of at some point. But international law covers only war crimes against other "nations."

The Bush administration solution? Create a new category: the "failed nation state." Afghanistan is one, Iraq is another, and since international law doesn't even mention failed nation states, the U can go ahead and invade and occupy these places without fussing over possible war crimes.

And who is the creative genius behind these legal contortions?

Attorney General designee Alberto Gonzales.

The New Yorker - Outsourcing Torture: The secret history of America’s “extraordinary rendition” program.

The Seattle Times: Politics: Treaty doesn't bar cruelty, Gonzales says

American values: The Bush rendition

As he was returning from a family vacation in Tunisia, a young Canadian man was seized by U.S. authorities as he changed planes at Kennedy Airport in New York. Maher Arar was not charged with a crime nor even told what was happening, but instead he was taken from his family, placed in handcuffs and leg irons by plainclothes officials and transferred to an executive jet which flew him to Washington, continued to Portland, Maine, stopped in Rome, Italy, and then landed in Amman, Jordan. Eventually Mr. Arar was moved to Syria, where he was tortured for more than a year before being released.

The Bush administration has said that Mr. Arar's name appeared on "a list" and, since torture is illegal in the U.S., they simply had him kidnapped and moved to a foreign country where a "confession" could more easily be tortured out of him. The problem is, after lending their best efforts, our torturers concluded that we'd nabbed the wrong guy, and so we set Mr. Arar free.

Not surprisingly, Mr. Arar is suing the U.S. government. But the Bush administration has moved to have Arar's case thrown out of court arguing that if our government is forced to testify it would have to reveal details about our on-going program of "rendition" (that's what it's called when we kidnap people and wisk them to countries willing to torture them for us) and thereby undermine the George W. Bush's War on Terror. Besides, our government is arguing, Mr. Arar's name was on the list because of things Canada told us about him ... things which, of course, the Bush administration cannot reveal because to do so would undermine George W. Bush's War on Terror.

The New Yorker - Outsourcing Torture: The secret history of America’s “extraordinary rendition” program.

The Star (Toronto) - U.S. claims Arar suit a risk to national security

New York Times - Torture, American Style

The Bush Budget: Doing America

A neighbor, one of those "compassionate conservatives," says he doesn't know much about the details of George W. Bush's budget proposal, but he "likes that 'ownership society' thing. If the government would just get off people's backs, then more of us could get ahead, own our own, like you, like me. I'm all about personal responsibility, and so's the President. That's what America's all about."

Which means the next phase is unfolding exactly according to plan: get the rubes to buy into a shiny platitude like "ownership society" and they'll never notice as we finish dismantling America and handing off its parts to our cronies.

The Bush budget proposal is the most austere in three decades ... and it still increases the Federal deficit. What is more, Bush does not include either the cost of Iraq or any funding for his proposed assault on the Social Security system.

Consider these two facts:

Federal spending is now going down. As a share of GDP Federal expenditures will be below their 20 year average (and, unlike the President's proposal, that's including the cost of Iraq, without which Federal outlays would be even farther below the average).

Federal revenue is down even further and has been going down longer. Federal taxes on personal income and corporate profits are at the lowest percent of GDP since 1942. And overall Federal revenue is a low as it's been since the 1950s.

How can this be? Simple, the right-wing conservatives who run America are now launching the final phase of their "starve the beast" strategy to destroy the "liberal society" that they believe started with the New Deal.

Most of the plunge in revenue came from a sharp decline in receipts from the personal income tax and the corporate profits tax. It wasn't the "War on Terror" (the cost of which Bush habitually leaves out) nor was it the "Clinton Recession" (which ended three years ago). No, the revenue shortfall is the direct result of the conscious choice to slash the taxes that fall primarily on people with high incomes.

(Doubt that? While Bush was busy cutting taxes on the wealthy the payroll tax, which is the main federal tax paid by middle-class and working-class Americans, has grown to record levels.)

So, given these facts, it would seem reasonable include plans to increase revenue as a part of the budget, right?

Wrong. Instead of rolling back the recent huge tax cuts for the wealthy Bush's budget, in fact, contains new upper-income tax breaks.

Any deficit reduction will come from spending cuts: child care assistance and food stamps for low-income workers (never meant to be part of the "ownership society"), severely reductions to Medicaid for the poor and near-poor (don't vote and therefore politically expendable).

But my neighbor will tell you that his taxes are already high enough. The question is: how does he know that?

Economist (UK) - Holding the line?

Religious Fanatic Directs New Pentagon Black-Ops

Donald Rumsfeld, was everywhere yesterday, but in all those appearances he barely mentioned that, in contrast to his spectacularly unsuccessful occupation of Iraq, he has managed to seize complete control of U.S. intelligence operations and centralize them under his direction in the Pentagon.

He also forgot to mention who he's put in charge: Lt. Gen. William Boykin.

Boykin. Sounds familiar. Is it William Boykin? Let's see. Yes, here it is.

Lt. Gen. William Boykin is the religious fanatic who, during the early months of George W. Bush's War on Terror, in public speeches while dressed in uniform and representing the Pentagon, said that the U.S. Army is "the house of God" that Islamic insurgents are "agents of Satan." In a speech in 2003, Boykin referred to a Muslim fighter in Somalia, and said, "Well, you know, I knew that my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God, and his was an idol." That one caused such a public outcry that Boykin was reprimanded.

And now, a couple of years later he's been promoted and put in charge of the largest black-ops, off budget, secret military operation in the history of the world. The man who says that radical Muslims have been stirred into action against the U.S. by "demonic powers" because it is a "Christian nation" is in charge of all manner of spies and special operations, and all of his activities are beyond public scrutiny because to reveal them would weaken the War on Terror.

So now the U.S. has appointed a notorious religious fanatic to dispatch Christian crusaders to cleanse the world of Satanic Muslims. Of course if he was a Muslim and directing clandestine operations against us, we'd call him a terrorist leader. Good thing he reports to Donald Rumsfeld. Hey, wait a minute...

Toronto Sun - Paranoia grips the U.S. capital

International Relations and Security Network (Zurich) - U.S. Marine general says "wars are a hoot"

The Last Poets

Nearly one-third of all high school students believe that the First Amendment goes too far in the rights that it guarantees. One fifth of high schools in America have no student newspaper at all, and most of those eliminated it in the last five years due to lack of interest.

A report sponsored by the James L. Knight Foundation goes a long way toward explaining why most Americans cannot understand why the rest of the world does not behave like they're supposed to ... and why they trust Fox News as a source.

For a journalism graduate, these are very sad times. Is it merely laziness? Or is this another play in the right-wing's never-ending to effort strike the right balance: citizens who are informed just well enough to be good Walmart consumers, but who don't know enough to question the President.

In the words of the Last Poets:*

When the revolution comes
some of us will catch it on TV
with chicken hanging from our mouths
you'll know it's revolution
because there won't be no commercials
when the revolution comes

John S. and James L. Knight Foundation - Survey Finds First Amendment Is Being Left Behind in U.S. High Schools

* If you've got to ask, you probably won't get it. While never a commercial success, the 1960s band pioneered the rap style using obstreperous and mostly obscene verse to chide a while nation whose inclination was to maintain the yoke of oppression around the neck of the disenfranchised. One Last Poets' song ends with the chant, "Wake up niggers, or we're all through." Most of us thought they were just talking about black folks.