Why Are We Back In Iraq?

Check out Raw Story for an article written by John Byrne - which I also worked on - that contains more details about Senator Bill Frist's (and family's) dealings with HCA: link.

This is the meat of the story:

"Just two days before Sen. Trent Lott (R-MS) stepped down as Majority Leader in 2002, the company Frist's father started quietly settled a massive Medicare fraud lawsuit for $630 million. The eleventh-hour deal -- brokered with Justice Department attorneys after a seven-year court battle -- was made as Frist (R-TN) secured the necessary votes to assume the Senate's top post."

"Those close to the case tell RAW STORY that top HCA executives were scheduled to be deposed the following month. Frist's brother, Thomas Jr., would have been forced to go on the record during the opening days of the senator's tenure as leader."

But John knocked me out with his opening paragraphs:

"Bill Frist, it seems, needs a doctor."

"The Senate's plaintive Southern physician -- envisioned as the Republicans’ antidote to a seemingly racist Trent Lott -- is hemorrhaging political capital. The doctor who so memorably assuaged a terrified nation in the wake of the 2001 anthrax attacks is now dancing to a dangerous duet of swirling stock probes."

Interestingly, on the very same day that HCA made the deal - June 26, 2003 - Senator Frist, the brand spanking new Senate Majority leader may have been showing his appreciation to the Bush Administration when he appeared on NBC's Today Show and spouted some crazy-ass nonsense about Bush's invasion of Iraq (link):

"The Republican leader in the Senate said Thursday that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) was not the main justification for the US-led invasion of Iraq."

""I'm not sure that's the major reason we went to war," Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist told NBC television's Today Show."

"Even without the discovery of alleged chemical and biological weapons, Frist said Americans still welcome the ouster of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein."

""If you talk to most of the American people today, to have Saddam Hussein and his rogue regime out of there is something the American people want, it's something they deserve," the Republican leader said."

""We know he has used weapons of mass destruction to kill thousands and thousands of his own people ... as well as outside of the country," he said."

....

""When you have a terrorist and people who harbour terrorists, and they've had weapons of mass destruction which they're used to kill their own people, invade other nations with those weapons ... to have him removed is something the American people want, they need and they feel much more secure with.""

"Frist added that he was not surprised that weapons of mass destruction have not been found in Iraq."

""The weapons of mass destruction that we're talking about today are new. They're little viruses, they're bacteria, they're chemicals, things you can't see, you can't touch, and you can't smell. So intelligence is tough," he said."

"The administration made decisions based on the very best intelligence that we have available today," Frist insisted."

Hmmm.

"Things you can't see."

Kind of like any wisp of honesty, integrity or competence permeating from the folks who comprise the Bush Administration or the present day GOP leadership.

# posted by Ron Brynaert : 9/29/2005 08:12:00 PM

Before a blogger decides to take on the mainstream media for not getting its facts straight, a blogger should make sure that she (or he) has gotten her (or his) facts straight.

Case in point:

Earlier today, Atrios at Eschaton wrote a blurb of a post entitled Journamalism, so short that I'm reprinting it in full:

"This story about a fake DHS television show is pretty interesting - a really elaborate scam which was helped out by press participation, something left out of the main press acount."

Misspelling "account" wasn't Atrios' only mistake.

Even though Atrios didn't write the article he linked to at Boing Boing, he should have fact-checked it, because it's just plain wrong.

Here's the relevant portion of Xeni Jardin's Boing Boing post, "DHS: The Series, the scandal, the website":

"* Yesterday's LA Times story on DHS: The Scandal called Medawar and co's claims that DHS: The Series was backed by high-ranking Bush administration staff "false." Funny, that's not what the press said six months ago. The "News" section on www.dhstheseries.tv points to earlier press clips which present the administration support claims as fact."

- E! Online News: Bush Backs New Terrorism TV Series by Jeffrey Jolson-Colburn, Feb 26, 2004.

- US News and World Report: "Team Bush Lends a hand to a brand-new TV show." Link.

- Boston Globe: Homeland Security Meets Home Theater. "The [E! Online report] raised eyebrows because the Bush-Cheney campaign intends to make the president's 'war on terrorism' a central prong in his reelection strategy. Pushing a pseudoreality show on that subject as the campaign enters its final stretch would be unprecedented." Feb. 28, 2004.

- WaPo: "War President 'Loves' New TV Show."

"Fact-checking, anyone?..."

Really?

Did the press "present the administration support claims as fact" or fail at rudimentary fact-checking?

According to my fact-checking, the answer is a resounding no.

In order, here are the parts of three of the four articles linked to that - I presume - Boing Boing and Eschaton missed:

E! Online News:

"It is unclear what input or relation if any the President or the real DHS would have with the show in the future."

....

"No spokesperson for the White House who could comment on the show was available at press time; a spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security said he was aware of TV shows related to the department, but said nothing about this particular show."

Boston Globe:

"But spokesmen for the White House and Department of Homeland Security said they had no knowledge of the show, though they noted that the administration has called upon Hollywood to produce homeland security-related shows -- and has worked with the TV show "Threat Matrix" among others."

WaPo:

"But it's not entirely clear whether Bush actually contributed sound bites especially for the show, or whether the show's producers just spliced them in on their own."

"E!Online couldn't get the White House to comment. Could this just be an L.A. publicity stunt? We'll find out."

The Washington Whispers column from US News and World Report is indefensible but since it's more of a gossip column I'm not sure it really fits with the Boing Boing thesis.

But...

Though there might not have been White House involvement, there was Republican Congressman involvement.

Too bad Boing Boing and Atrios didn't focus on this part of the Boston Globe article written by Charlie Savage and published on January 28th, 2004 ("Homeland security meets home theater"):

"Medawar, however, insisted that he has met with both Ridge and Homeland Security Undersecretary Asa Hutchison during recent trips by the officials to California. He also said US Representative Dana Rohrabacher, Republican of California, has been a "great ally" who "started the introduction to President Bush." A spokesman for Rohrabacher confirmed he was helping out as a "friendly adviser," though he said that meant telling them how to get access more than actually making calls himself."

Now, there's a story.

# posted by Ron Brynaert : 9/26/2005 07:03:00 PM

Matt Drudge tries to make an ass out of Barbra Streisand and ends up making an...

Wait a sec.

What exactly does an ass make of itself if it's already an ass?

(...and what the hell does it make of a bogged down blogger whose first original post, in at least a week, is pathetically devoted to a far-from-fucking-main event?)

The top story at Drudge Report: "STREISAND DECLARES 'GLOBAL WARMING EMERGENCY.'

(...and while I 'spectfully disagree with the left-leaning meme that right wing bloggers can't induce laughter - though the ha-has produced are often unintentional or ironic - the best jokes in the world get ruined when they're imprisoned in all caps. I'd sure like to know why in hell wing nuts lean on their Caps Lock button so much.)

Barbra Streisand is mocked for a soundbite she gave in an interview with Diane Sawyer:

"We are in a global warming emergency state, and these storms are going to become more frequent, more intense."

Well, golly gee, that sure is some far-fetched crazy talk from one of those Hollywood do-gooding wackadoos. It sure is good that we got Matt on the case to counter such doggerel. Next thing you know Babs will say she wished the UN got hit with a hurricane or something.

After Barbra's line, Drudge shows off his googling skills, but in doing so, actually ends up supporting Barbra's case.

Here's how he does it:

"But Sawyer did not remind Streisand that a Category 5 hurricane struck the Bahamas with 160 mph winds -- when the singer was five years old, in 1947!"

"And when Streisand was 8 years old, a Cat 5 hurricane -- named "Dog" -- packing 185 mph churned-away in the Atlantic."

"When she was 9, a Cat 5 storm named "Easy" ripped the seas with 160 mph sustained winds."

There's more...you get the picture.

But if you count the intervals between the hurricanes that Drudge lists you find the following time spans between major storms: 3 years; 1 year; 4 years; 3 years; and then two a year two years in a row (notice how the rate progressed in Drudge's examples, too bad Drudge didn't).

But these days major hurricanes seem to occur more often than Law and Order or CSI episodes.

I'm no hurricane expert but, according to National Geographic, The Economist, Forbes.com, CSMonitor, Physorg.com, and Science Daily, to name a few sources, hurricanes have indeed become more powerful and more frequent over the last 30 years.

It's still debatable whether or not global warming has contributed to the increase but that's not the tactic that Drudge decided to take with his snarky hack job.

The glorified gossip blogger could have just copied the conservative cats at Cato and the dude who wrote Jurassic Park by dismissing global warming as some illiberal, tree-hugging scheme to make money off of - uh, I guess - unsuspecting predominately college educated Americans who don't watch FOX.

Or he could have just blamed it on spurts or cycles.

Instead Drudge laid one.

Drudge posted gigantic photos of Barbra Streisand and a hurricane map to highlight his article (but I sometimes prefer subtlety):

(sometimes)

Something tells me the mirror has at least four cheeks when Matt Drudge gazes into it.

(I'm not sure what my last line means, I just like the sound of it).

# posted by Ron Brynaert : 9/25/2005 11:47:00 PM

The earliest photo I can find of the march in Washington, taken from a Democratic Underground thread on DC traffic cams.

# posted by Ron Brynaert : 9/24/2005 12:53:00 PM

Congrats to my buddy, Lukery of Wot Is It Good 4, for his story about Zogby deciding to not poll about impeachment for Bush anymore.

The last Zogby poll on the subject, released on June 30th, showed that "more than two-in-five voters (42%) say they would favor impeachment proceedings if it is found the President misled the nation about his reasons for going to war with Iraq."

Wonder what a new poll would show?

Luke's been pestering Zogby for months to find out when he would be asking the question again, since Zogby left it out in their subsequent polls. So far, Zogby's the only polling company that has even asked such a question.

Find out what happened at Luke's down under blog and at Raw Story, where John Byrne managed to get Zogby, himself, to go on the record about the reasons why they won't be asking the question again.

Dan Froomkin wrote about it for The Washington Post, as well.

So let's hear it for Luke, blogosphere, for making the alternative and the mainstream press with this exclusive story.

# posted by Ron Brynaert : 9/21/2005 08:15:00 PM

(Updated Sept.21, 10 AM)

As RAW STORY reported today:

"David Safavian, who oversees $300 billion of annual federal purchasing as director of the Office of Procurement Policy, has been arrested for three criminal charges relating to obstruction of a federal investigation. He resigned quietly last Friday."

So I'm reposting this post that I wrote from September 1st:

I've spent a lot of time the last month digging up stuff on the disgraced, indicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff and many of his co-horts for Raw Story, and John Byrne posted the first installment earlier today: Beyond Abramoff: Gambling lobbyist joined with anti-gambling congressman, derailed gambling bills."

The article spotlights David Safavian, who worked as a lobbyist with Abramoff at Preston, Gates & Ellis, then formed Janus Merritt with Grover Norquist (Abramoff's college roomie), then left to work as chief of staff to Utah Republican Congressman Chris Cannon, then left to serve for a brief spell as chief of staff of the General Services Administration until he was appointed by President Bush last year as director of the Office of Management and Budget.

Safavian's clients were largely in the gambling industry, and even though Rep. Cannon, a Mormon, has a strong anti-gambling reputation the record seems to suggest that the congressman profitted from the unusual alliance.

As Byrne writes:

"Safavian was an aggressive player online, too, spearheading a campaign called “Log on 4 choice” that allowed visitors to contact Congress and “urge them to preserve the freedom of the Internet, and your rights to gamble online.”"

"Thus, his decision to become chief of staff to a vocally anti-gambling Utah congressman appears something of a career anomaly. But taken in the larger pattern of events to come, the unexpected alliance was a coup for online gambling firms that put a lobbyist on the “inside” of the gambling debate."

"As Cannon’s chief of staff and top legislative aide Safavian set the stage for their ultimate victory: the death of two bills that would have likely cost the industry hundreds of millions of dollars."

While serving as the General Services Administration chief of staff, Safavian took part in a controversial trip to Scotland in 2000 where he golfed with Abramoff, Rep. Robert W. Ney (R-Ohio), and Ralph Reed, the former head of the Christian Coalition, although Safavian's spokesman later told WaPo that he "paid back $3,100 for his expenses" (but did that cover the caddy fees?).

While it's been widely reported that the trip had been "largely underwritten by the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians," one of Abramoff's lobbying clients, Safavian also once lobbied for them.

Coincidentally I unconspiratorially imagine, Chris Cannon, Congressman for Utah, raked in some campaign donations from the Choctaws, even though they are based in Mississippi.

More to come later on Abramoff and his homies.

UPDATE

John Byrne breaks down David Safavian's indictment at Raw Story in "Email from arrested White House official suggests powerful congressman lied about trip" and shows how Ohio Rep. Bob Ney may be affected by this (and Raw Story also has the affadavit online in pdf format).

POGO, the Project On Government Oversight Website has also been on top of the Safavian story.

# posted by Ron Brynaert : 9/19/2005 06:46:00 PM

Once again I apologize for not being able to post much here the last week. As I mentioned the other day I've been working on a big project and have been spending almost all of my time on it.

Last night I worked on two pieces for Raw Story so that's all I got for your reading pleasure (or displeasure) right now.

Rice says she 'listens' to al Qaeda like she read Marx; Says Bin Laden just 'single person':

"In a wide-ranging interview with Newsweek that will hit newsstands Monday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice continued to rattle the Administration saber at Syria, downplaying the importance of capturing Osama bin Laden, while drawing a parallel between al Qaeda and Marxist theory, RAW STORY has learned."

Poll: Dems lead 2006 House races:

"A post-Katrina poll published in last Monday's newstand edition of Newsweek (PRNewswire link) contains heartening news for Democrats, RAW STORY has discovered. Just fourteen months before the Congressional elections, Democrats have opened up a 12 point lead over their GOP rivals."

# posted by Ron Brynaert : 9/18/2005 01:40:00 PM

I decided to remove a link from my blogroll.

It's a link that I've prominently displayed on this blog ever since I started nearly two years ago.

It's a link that I didn't remove five months ago even though the blogger ripped off one of my articles, and, basically, plagiarized me.

Even before that incident I had been reading the blog infrequently. Since the incident I've hardly read it at all.

Hell. The main reason I kept it so high on my link list was because hardly any one on the left dares link to it so I kind of dug wearing it like a tin foil badge.

But since he (or she) decided to post an article yesterday, a very half-assed article, which isn't so very different from one I wrote a few weeks ago (and referred to in the last post), full of links to blogs other than this one, I decided enough's enough.

You've just been x'ed out, dude.

# posted by Ron Brynaert : 9/16/2005 07:37:00 PM

(Sorry for the paucity of posts this week...I've been busy doing research for another project)

At Press Think there was a discussion about the Associated Press story I wrote about a few weeks ago so I left a comment and Jay Rosen left an interesting response (link):

I wrote about the AP story a week ago (link)...heh...A.M. even linked to me.

This line: "The contractors were walking across a bridge on their way to launch barges into Lake Pontchartrain to fix the 17th Street Canal, said John Hall, a spokesman for the Corps."

later became this line: "Fourteen contractors were traveling across the Danziger Bridge under police escort when they came under fire, said John Hall, a spokesman for the Army Corps of Engineers."

How did this happen?

Why was the clause "under police escort" added to a quote? Was this question from a second interview? Or did the A.P. realize they somehow left it out?

Did they speak to Mr. Hall the second time?...did they ever speak to Mr. Hall?

Why did the AP writer (assumingly) mistakenly think that it happened the way it did in the first place? Why isn't it important to find out the answers to these questions?

Posted by: Ron Brynaert at September 14, 2005 12:34 AM | Permalink

It is, Ron, because it might tell us something about the reporters' reflexes. But I think the point Dave and others are trying to make is that this kind of reporting shouldn't be taken as "finished" work, even though it was "published" work. Especially the initial AP account of a breaking news event, which is always going to be revised.

But this episode reveals something important about journalism that I think is poorly understood by its practitioners: Lots of times there aren't really good reasons why a news report presented one way wasn't presented another, why these sources were consulted, while those were not, why this event made the news, but that one, equally event-ful, didn't.

Reporters and editors could try to explain how a decision came to be, but very often their reasons will sound arbitary to the public: "It was coming up on deadline." "We had a big take out scheduled for the next day, so this had to run today." "Our regular reporter on that beat was out on vacation, so it fell through the cracks." "The editor's kid said there were drug sweeeps in his school." "It was a good lighter story to balance all the hard news that day." And many other things that fit under the category of contingency, or happen because of a production system's strange demands, or because of group think, or rituals peculiar to craft culture.

There's nothing surprising about this. If you try to explain why a bureaucracy behaves the way it does, you will discover similar factors at work. But journalism trapped itself into claiming there's a rational reason for everything in the news, when they know that much of what happens cannot withstand scrutiny because "our regular reporter was out on vacation" is just not a good reason if the news is supposed to be entirely prudential as a product.

Journalists will sometimes signal their awareness of this when they talk about the risks in "watching sausage being made" in newsrooms. But I believe the cause of the thin skin often observed in daily journalists is this elusive factor I'm describing.

Many things news organizations do can't be explained very well, or defended persuasively to audiences outside the craft. The public senses this, too. Officially there's supposed to be a good reason for everything in the news. There is sometimes, maybe even most. But a lot of times, no. Each time that's an implicit loss of credibility, which is why transparency is driving trust down. But the real problem is in the claim of system rationality itself.

Posted by: Jay Rosen at September 14, 2005 01:21 AM | Permalink

# posted by Ron Brynaert : 9/16/2005 11:33:00 AM

At a thread at Democratic Underground some readers have found reason to be suspicious of a story that is making the rounds across the World Wide Web.

In the Sunday edition of Britain's The Daily Mail there is an article entitled "We had to kill our patients" written by Caroline Graham and Jo Knowsley that claims that New Orleans doctors euthanized terminally ill patients with morphine "rather than leave them to die in agony as they evacuated hospitals."

While the story doesn't sound unreasonably suspect considering the horrors that have already been reported the last two weeks (though many of the incidents have been unconfirmed), only one source was specifically named by The Daily Mail to back up the story.

That source is named William Forest McQueen, who is referred to in this article as an "emergency official," "a utility manager for the town of Abita Springs," and someone "who worked closely with emergency teams."

Although The Daily Mail includes quotes from an unnamed New Orleans doctor and claims that her story was backed up by "a hospital orderly and by local government officials" the name of the hospital isn't provided and Mr. McQueen is the only source quoted on the record.

The Daily Mail quotes from Mr. McQueen:

"Those who had no chance of making it were given a lot of morphine and lain down in a dark place to die."

"They injected them, but nurses stayed with them until they died."

"They had to make unbearable decisions."

The Daily Mail also claims that the "utility manager for the town of Abita Springs" was the emergency "emergency official" selected to inform relatives that patients had been 'put down.'"

The reason provided by The Daily Mail for the secrecy:

"Euthanasia is illegal in Louisiana, and The Mail on Sunday is protecting the identities of the medical staff concerned to prevent them being made scapegoats for the events of last week."

"Their families believe their confessions are an indictment of the appalling failure of American authorities to help those in desperate need after Hurricane Katrina flooded the city, claiming thousands of lives and making 500,000 homeless."

Stephen White has two very similar articles - which don't even credit The Daily Mail - running on the Websites for the U.K. tabloids, Daily Record and The Mirror. Australia's The Daily Telegraph, a Rupert Murdoch tabloid, published an unbylined article entitled "Patients put down" that also neglected to credit The Daily Mail.

But this isn't the first time that William Forest McQueen's name has appeared in the tabloids.

Last week Suzanne McQueen of Maidstone, England left this frantic message on a "missing people" page at the BBC (link):

"I am looking for my husband who lives in Abita Springs and friends in Covington and Folsom, do you know what has happened in these areas please?"

On September 6th, BBC News published an article that spotlighted Suzanne McQueen's search for her husband along with a picture ("British families fear for US relatives"):

Here are a few highlights from the September 6th article concerning Mr. McQueen:

"Mother-of-two Suzanne McQueen, of Maidstone, Kent, is waiting for news of her American husband (William) Forest McQueen."

"He has been working in his home country since 1997, and lives and works with his brother in the Abita Springs area, north of Lake Pontchartrain, which is north of New Orleans."

"The couple married in the UK in 1991, and Suzanne said she and her daughters - aged 11 and 13 - were planning to move to the US to join her husband as soon as was possible."

"Part of his job there is to maintain the grounds of an old plantation house, she said."

"I phoned the morning the hurricane hit, and his brother said Forest hadn't been home for the last 24 hours because he'd been on shift clearing up trees and lines from all the wind damage that came before the hurricane. I haven't heard anything since."

The following day the BBC published another article about the family and televised an interview with Suzanne and her two daughters, but this time William Forest McQueen was referred to as her "estranged husband" ("Family's hope for hurricane dad").

The article included some new details:

"She said Mr McQueen was living on the North Shore which she thought was safe from flooding - until she saw pictures of Lake Pontchartrain Causeway which connects Abita Springs with New Orleans. "Even on the North Shore houses have been destroyed by the force of the wind rather than the flooding," she said. "Most people I know are in Louisiana. I can't call people in different states and ask them to try to contact him."

That same day The Telegraph picked up the story and added one other detail ("Nearly 100 Britons are still missing"):

"Mr McQueen, 43, had been working for the council in Abita Springs, where he has been living with his brother Stephen."

So to recap.

The only disclosed source for this story about euthanasia in Louisiana is an utility manager or emergency official or groundskeeper that may have been hired by the Abita Springs council who works and lives with his brother over a half-hour away from New Orleans where he is presently making phone calls to inform relatives that patients have been murdered with morphine instead of calling his family to let them know he survived.

As DUer ramblin_dave commented on the thread linked above, this article "may be disinfo."

Red Nova posted a story called "I Looked at Patients and Decided Who Was to Live and Who Was to Die" with quotes from a British nurse named Sharen Carriere who "chose to stay at the Memorial Medical Centre in New Orleans when Hurricane Katrina struck, never imagining the horrors that would unfold before her."

Sharen Carriere was also featured at Britain's Spalding Today and The Sun also wrote her up in a side story with the lurid title: "Nurse Sharen: I fled sex squads."

From Red Nova:

"'I literally had to look at patients and make the choice about who would live and who would die. Some patients were so sick that I knew they would not make it. I had to go against everything I believe in and focus on saving those who could be saved. It was the hardest thing I have ever done in my life.' Although she had to make heartbreaking decisions, she said she never witnessed any incidents of euthanasia that other New Orleans medical staff saw."

Oddly enough, Red Nova credits The Daily Mail for the story but they didn't write anything about Nurse Sharen, just the article about euthanasia in Louisiana according to William Forest McQueen.

# posted by Ron Brynaert : 9/12/2005 02:04:00 PM

We can thank RUMMYisFROSTED, a poster at Democratic Underground, for noticing the picture that was attached to an article at CNN's Website and wondering "what's this crap?"

For a story entitled "Poll: Bush approval at 39 percent" the CNN Webmasters decided this picture would best illustrate the rapidly declining popularity of a President who never admits his mistakes nor fixes them:

Just in case CNN hasn't completely sold out - and this is just a case of a bored Webmaster who's hoping to get a job with Karen Hughes - and ends up removing this picture which evokes 9/11 in the same way that the official spin doctors do every stinking time the news turns sour for President Bush, I've taken a screenshot for the sake of posterity (and the sake of forever rubbing CNN's face in it):

If the photo isn't switched make sure to bring this up the next time a wingnut calls CNN liberally biased and anti-Bush. Not that it will matter, of course. But sometimes it just feels good to know that you're reality-based. CNN isn't really right or left...it just plain sucks.

# posted by Ron Brynaert : 9/12/2005 02:36:00 AM

I received an email from Deb of the Progressive Blogger Union alerting me to the travails of Arthur Silber, who blogs at The Light of Reason.

Arthur's got some health problems, mounting financial debts, and may be facing eviction. And in his latest post - "Indefinite Leave" - appears to be packing it in.

I've only been reading his blog for about a month or two, on a recommendation from my friend, Lukery, from wotisitgood4, but it's definitely one of the better blogs in this buckless biz. Arthur's got a great voice, possesses amazing insight, and is an awesome digger.

From Deb's email:

Any one who wants to help Arthur Silber from The Light of Reason should direct their help through Crooks and Liars:

John Amato (C&L): I will collect the donations for Arthur. Use paypal or AMazon on my site and in the message put in " For Arthur" and I'll get it to him.

Anyway...I think some of my non-elitist-A-list-blog readers will appreciate this part of what might be Arthur's last post...cause it sounds kind of familiar:

"Some of the bloggers who make decent amounts of money through ads write what I will politely call swill. Sometimes it’s even vicious racist filth. And they make a living at it. I’ve offered something different. I won’t even call it “better.” Let’s simply say what I write is “different.”"

# posted by Ron Brynaert : 9/12/2005 12:08:00 AM

...was the original title for the new article that I have up at Raw Story which the mighty editor switched to "Cheney quip adds fuel to Katrina politics."

What can I say.

It's tough for an often over-opinionated blogger to make the jump to more level-headed journalism without giving up the snark.

And, of course, my title was a play on the title of a book written by Bill Cosby, who has been responsible for a couple of doozies himself the last few years.

The article spotlights a series of "insensitive" soundbites delivered by high profile Republicans regarding Hurricane Katrina evacuees, including the latest from Vice President Cheney:

"They're all very thankful where they find themselves right now."

The mighty editor also made a slight change to my last line which - at least I think - is too good to slip into oblivion, though it's definitely more blog-worthy:

If the Republicans keep it up, the next time they take a "step into the swamp" it might be shocking if they're not greeted with the f word.

# posted by Ron Brynaert : 9/11/2005 12:01:00 AM

The Dark Wraith presents a Special Analysis Report: Let Slip the Mercenaries to Our Shores which explores America's history of hiring mercernaries for some of its "dirty little wars" in light of the recent news that "Blackwater USA, a Moyock, N.C., security services firm" has sent about 150 mercs to the New Orleans region (and they're not the only private security company patrolling the post-Katrina wasteland as noted in the linked Washington Times article...though I should add a caveat since this is the Moonie Times).

Dark Wraith makes note of a disturbing theory regarding the use of "soldiers of fortune" by our government in "military zones":

"The importance of such private contractors has varied from war to war, and there is considerable dispute about their criticality in the Pentagon's current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It has been suggested that one important role they play is not in their limited combat configuration, but rather in the lack of transparency in their operations, and most importantly, in their casualty rates. Recognizing that deaths of military personnel in wars can have political consequences on the home front, transferring at least part of the death rate to private resources that do not have to disclose such information relieves the Pentagon of some of the backlash that would otherwise result from American personnel being killed, particularly as a war becomes less popular domestically and opposition to the war zeroes in on such matters as the number of service men and women dying and being severely wounded."

Well, at least now, CNN and company will be able to be there to report if anything happens. But will they?

# posted by Ron Brynaert : 9/10/2005 07:19:00 PM

From today's press briefing with White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan (link):

Q: "Scott, there are a couple of issues that are developing that are of concern to journalists now in Louisiana and Mississippi. One of them is FEMA refusing to take reporters and photographers when they're going to recover the bodies, ostensibly because they don't want pictures of them on the news. But this also is at the same time as reporters are discovering that access is being barred to them to places by the military -- to places where they previously went. Brian Williams' own blog reports an instance of a police officer turning a gun on a reporter."

MR. McCLELLAN: "Sorry, I haven't blogged today, so I haven't seen some of those reports."

Hysterical. Even a major network news anchor can be mocked if he blogs.

But Scotty was just being a smartass, he knew full well how much of the press was "characterizing" the apparent lockdown:

Mr. McCLELLAN: "Your first statement that you made, I think you need to look further into that, because I don't think that's an accurate characterization. I saw some reports to that effect, and my understanding is that it was not an accurate characterization. Certainly, I think we all want to keep in mind the sensitivities that will arise when we begin a more -- or a larger undertaking of recovering bodies that will be found. As I said, it's going to be an ugly situation when those flood waters ultimately recede and we go in and start recovering larger numbers of bodies, of people who have lost their lives. Those are people who had families and friends, and we hope everybody will show the dignity -- proper dignity and respect. But in terms of the characterization that you made, I don't think that's accurate."

Brian Williams' blog has been pretty impressive during the last week.

Here's an excerpt from one of the posts cited in today's press briefing (link):

"At that same fire scene, a police officer from out of town raised the muzzle of her weapon and aimed it at members of the media... obvious members of the media... armed only with notepads. Her actions (apparently because she thought reporters were encroaching on the scene) were over the top and she was told. There are automatic weapons and shotguns everywhere you look. It's a stance that perhaps would have been appropriate during the open lawlessness that has long since ended on most of these streets. Someone else points out on television as I post this: the fact that the National Guard now bars entry (by journalists) to the very places where people last week were barred from LEAVING (The Convention Center and Superdome) is a kind of perverse and perfectly backward postscript to this awful chapter in American history."

Damn.

Many bloggers dream about putting the MSM out of business, but that sharp, yet scary paragraph is better than most of the shrillish attacks that I've seen at the major left-leaning blogs the last 10 days.

My advice would be a little less shouting and cursing, and more digging. Then maybe something written on a blog will actually reach someone outside of the Internet.

# posted by Ron Brynaert : 9/08/2005 09:17:00 PM

(I'm working on a few things so I probably won't get to finish the update to the Associated Press and military press release stories...but here's a few links...and I'll probably add more later on...feel free to leave a link in the comments)

Lukery at wotisitgood4 discovers some weird "parallels" between the corresponding government responses to the flooding of New Orleans and the tragic sinking of the Kursk, the Russian nuclear submarine, in 2000.

Michael Hussey at Last Day of My Life kind of gives the idea that African American voters - for multiple reasons - won't be missing the recently departed Chief Justice Rehnquist.

Mixter at Mixter's Mix has some strong words for Barbara Bush.

TCF at ThatColoredFellasweblog actually agrees with La Shawn Barber for the first time.

The Liberal Avenger found a shirt for sale at eBay that Michael D. Brown probably won't be bidding on.

The Dark Wraith warns bloggers not to ignore the story about the Chinese journalist sent to prison for ten years possibly with the aid of Yahoo.

Jude at Iddybud transcribed the lyrics to George Bush's country song "Guitarin' While NOLA Burns."

# posted by Ron Brynaert : 9/07/2005 11:12:00 PM

(The first part of this post is a slightly different version of an article that I worked on for Raw Story that was published on Monday: "Military releases seep into Katrina news articles.")

Where does our news come from?

An article written by Jim Krane for the Associated Press this past Saturday called "Air Force Sending 300 Home From Iraq, Afghanistan" refers to a "statement."

Also on Saturday, an unbylined article written for United Press International called "Miss. air base struggles to reopen" refers to an Air Force "news release."

At CNN.com an uncredited story appeared on Sunday called "300 troops with kin in Katrina zone sent home" mentions "an Air Force command statement" and "a news release."

A Reuters article published in the L.A. Times - also without a byline - ran as "U.S. Troops Deployed Abroad Returning to Aid Recovery," which closed out the third paragraph with "the Air Force said in a statement released in Qatar."

In this particular instance most of the news contained at the aforementioned mainstream media links came straight from this September 3rd press release posted at the Air Force Website: "Hurricane-affected Airmen to redeploy."

The press release is credited to AFPN which stands for Air Force Print News: "The Air Force news wire service providing Air Force and Department of Defense news and information, with daily updates from around the world."

Back on March 13th, 2005, a lengthy expose about “prepackaged” news was featured on the front page of The New York Times (truthout link of The Times article) that attracted an awful lot of attention from the press and even a number of Congressional Democrats. In "Under Bush, a New Age of Prepackaged Television News, "David Barstow and Robin Stein wrote of ”a world where government-produced reports disappear into a maze of satellite transmissions, Web portals, syndicated news programs and network feeds, only to emerge cleansed on the other side as "independent" journalism."

I can understand why the mainstream media would rely on military news releases for overseas matters (though I still object to it)...but why the hell are they doing it for what's going on in America?

to be continued

# posted by Ron Brynaert : 9/07/2005 02:08:00 AM

The Associated Press experienced some technical difficulties early Sunday evening, which caused problems for the national and international media, who appeared to be playing catch-up to the A.P.

It had to do with a story called "Police Kill Five Contractors on La. Bridge" which can - at this present time - still be read at The Guardian's Website (I'm reprinting it in full just in case it goes poof!):

"NEW ORLEANS (AP) - Police shot eight people carrying guns on a New Orleans bridge Sunday, killing five or six, a deputy chief said. A spokesman for the Army Corps of Engineers said the victims were contractors on their way to repair a canal."

"The contractors were walking across a bridge on their way to launch barges into Lake Pontchartrain to fix the 17th Street Canal, said John Hall, a spokesman for the Corps."

"Earlier Sunday, New Orleans Deputy Police Chief W.J. Riley said police shot at eight people, killing five or six."

"The shootings took place on the Danziger Bridge, which spans a canal connecting Lake Pontchartrain and the Mississippi River."

"No other details were immediately available."

A helluva story if it were true.

And a helluva story if it were false.

But the latter story hardly gets reported, at least in this century. While the media runs more than it's share of false stories, it hardly ever explains the story about what went wrong with the reporting in the first place.

Unless there's an outcry. But will there be an outcry this time? Or will it just be ignored?

The A.P. put the breaks on the story but - so far - there is no news on why.

A warning about the story seems to have been accidentally posted on a Western New York NBC affiliate Website, WSTM, at approximately 6:30 PM eastern. Here's a screen grab (just in case it's replaced):

The warning reads:

"Stations: The latest New Orleans-datelined urgent series Hurricane Katrina-Shootings has been KILLED. The Army Corps of Engineers says the contractors were shot at, then police fatally shot the gunmen who'd fired on the contractors. The contractors were NOT killed."

"A kill is mandatory. Make certain the story is not broadcast."

"A sub will be filed shortly."

"AP Broadcast News Center - Washington."

Shortly after, at Yahoo News, "Police Kill Five Contractors on La. Bridge" transformed into "Gunmen Attack Contractors on La. Bridge."

The newer Associated Press version (once again, I'm reprinting it in full for the sake of posterity):

"NEW ORLEANS - Police shot and killed at least five people Sunday after gunmen opened fire on a group of contractors traveling across a bridge on their way to make repairs, authorities said."

"Deputy Police Chief W.J. Riley said police shot at eight people carrying guns, killing five or six."

"Fourteen contractors were traveling across the Danziger Bridge under police escort when they came under fire, said John Hall, a spokesman for the Army Corps of Engineers."

"They were on their way to launch barges into Lake Pontchartrain to help plug the breech in the 17th Street Canal, Hall said."

"None of the contractors was injured, Mike Rogers, a disaster relief coordinator with the Army Corps of Engineers, told reporters in Baton Rouge."

"The bridge spans a canal connecting Lake Pontchartrain and the Mississippi River."

"No other details were immediately available."

Did the Associated Press have to relisten to their tape or did they get back in touch with Army Corps Spokesman John Hall? How could anyone forget such a key detail - if it were true: "under police escort?"

As I write this, Reuters just posted a new version entitled "New Orleans police kill looters in shoot-out" which only adds to the confusion:

"New Orleans police killed four looters who had opened fire on them on Sunday as rescue teams scoured homes and toxic waters flooding streets to find survivors and recover thousands of bloated corpses."

"A fifth looter was in critical condition but no more details were available about the incident in a city where authorities are slowly regaining control after a wave of looting, murders and rapes in the wake of Hurricane Katrina."

""Five men who were looting exchanged gunfire with police. The officers engaged the looters when they were fired upon," said New Orleans superintendent of police, Steven Nichols."

"U.S. Army Corps of Engineers contractors working on a levee breach were fired on by gunmen but no one was hurt, said the Corps' Mike Rogers. It was not clear if the two incidents were connected."

It's not clear what the hell went on at the bridge at all.

Kurosawa's classic film Rashomon gave the viewer different versions of the same story but they were from the point of view of different characters.

The Associated Press gave their readers different views of the same story but they were told by the same character, an unbylined reporter, no less.

But - regardless of what happened - the ever changing stories that occur so much during times like these should be examined, explained and reported on.

Not scrubbed from the Web forever.

When the Associated Press writes a story, especially during a heightened state of anxiety, that hundreds of thousands of people read - just not necessarily the same version - then that means that the Associated Press has failed miserably at its job.

Is it all about ratings and hits? Or is there some other agenda?

News organizations have a responsibility to stand by what they write. If they screw up they owe their readers a full explanation. Not just a rewrite that still is not definitive, as in this case.

Otherwise why the hell should anyone ever believe them again.

(Welcome Buzzflash readers! Click here to start at my homepage.)

(I had to make a slight correction on September 18th. As Luke pointed out in the Haloscan comments I accidently substituted "gunman" for "gunmen" in the Associated Press warning I transcribed.)

# posted by Ron Brynaert : 9/04/2005 10:58:00 PM

The eyewitness muse blog conjured up this "report":

"A White House already reeling from a “God awful” federal response to Hurricane Katrina, chaos in Iraq, and plummeting poll numbers received another blow today when President Bush was ordered to report to Montgomery, Alabama immediately to resume his incomplete National Guard service."

"The Guard, facing a crisis of its own due to over-deployment and under-enlistment is scouring its records to identify former guardsmen with dubious service histories so they can be pressed back into duty. The move was necessitated when the guard was asked to deploy massive aid to hurricane-stricken regions and discovered that the “cupboard was bare.”"

"Pentagon computer experts identified prospects by doing a Google search on the terms, “National Guard,” “skipped requirements,” “accomplished nothing” and “left early.” The President’s name was said to be the first on the search results."

Well, I can confirm one thing about this "report."

If you Google search “National Guard,” “skipped requirements,” “accomplished nothing” and “left early” Bush's name, indeed, is the first result at a Website called AWOLBUSH.com.

# posted by Ron Brynaert : 9/04/2005 04:56:00 AM

Tas from Loaded Mouth:

"Every blog and their mother is doing a donation drive, and since Loaded Mouth is no stranger to charity, let's give it a go here. This thread will serve as donation encouragement. I ask anyone who donates to post a comment announcing to the world they've done such, thus making themselves feel good. I'm hoping this feel good effect will be infectious enough to encourage more donations."

....

"Now that you all have one less excuse to use, DONATE! And tell us about it! And it isn't just blood that can be donated: Kerry notes that blood is needed, and Mixter gives the address to a charity which needs food for the refugees."

So go to Loaded Mouth and add a comment to make this "feel good effect" become as "infectious" as it can get.

# posted by Ron Brynaert : 9/03/2005 11:10:00 PM

"New Orleans was ripe for collapse. Its dangerous geography, combined with a dangerous culture, made it susceptible to an unfolding catastrophe. Currents of chaos and lawlessness were running through the city long before this week, and they were bound tocome to the surface under the pressure of natural disaster and explode in a scene of looting and mayhem."

So writes George Neumayr, the executive editor of The American Spectator, in "Masques of Death."

# posted by Ron Brynaert : 9/02/2005 03:08:00 AM

I've spent a lot of time the last month digging up stuff on the disgraced, indicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff and many of his co-horts for Raw Story, and John Byrne posted the first installment earlier today: Beyond Abramoff: Gambling lobbyist joined with anti-gambling congressman, derailed gambling bills."

The article spotlights David Safavian, who worked as a lobbyist with Abramoff at Preston, Gates & Ellis, then formed Janus Merritt with Grover Norquist (Abramoff's college roomie), then left to work as chief of staff to Utah Republican Congressman Chris Cannon, then left to serve for a brief spell as chief of staff of the General Services Administration until he was appointed by President Bush last year as director of the Office of Management and Budget.

Safavian's clients were largely in the gambling industry, and even though Rep. Cannon, a Mormon, has a strong anti-gambling reputation the record seems to suggest that the congressman profitted from the unusual alliance.

As Byrne writes:

"Safavian was an aggressive player online, too, spearheading a campaign called “Log on 4 choice” that allowed visitors to contact Congress and “urge them to preserve the freedom of the Internet, and your rights to gamble online.”"

"Thus, his decision to become chief of staff to a vocally anti-gambling Utah congressman appears something of a career anomaly. But taken in the larger pattern of events to come, the unexpected alliance was a coup for online gambling firms that put a lobbyist on the “inside” of the gambling debate."

"As Cannon’s chief of staff and top legislative aide Safavian set the stage for their ultimate victory: the death of two bills that would have likely cost the industry hundreds of millions of dollars."

While serving as the General Services Administration chief of staff, Safavian took part in a controversial trip to Scotland in 2000 where he golfed with Abramoff, Rep. Robert W. Ney (R-Ohio), and Ralph Reed, the former head of the Christian Coalition, although Safavian's spokesman later told WaPo that he "paid back $3,100 for his expenses" (but did that cover the caddy fees?).

While it's been widely reported that the trip had been "largely underwritten by the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians," one of Abramoff's lobbying clients, Safavian also once lobbied for them.

Coincidentally I unconspiratorially imagine, Chris Cannon, Congressman for Utah, raked in some campaign donations from the Choctaws, even though they are based in Mississippi.

More to come later on Abramoff and his homies.

# posted by Ron Brynaert : 9/01/2005 11:06:00 PM

Kevin Fobbs "is President of National Urban Policy Action Council (NuPac), a non-partisan civic and citizen-action organization that focuses on taking the politics out of policy to secure urban America's future one neighborhood, one city, and one person at a time."

NuPac the "non-partisan" organization "promotes fiscally responsible compassionate conservative public policies."

The President of the "non-partisan" organization also happens to be "Outreach Communications Vice Chairman of the Michigan Republican Party...daily host of The Kevin Fobbs Show on conservative News Talk WDTK - 1400 AM in Detroit...National Political Columnist for the RNC...co-founder of the Jackson, MI-based American Conservative Values Television Network station" and writes a weekly column for my Grand Old Plagiarizing friends at GOPUSA.com.

This is from Mr. Fobb's latest column called "Looters Are The Worst of Humanity":

"Some of the police, who feel they don't have the capacity to apprehend, detain and lock up the looters may be able to tag them. That's right... just take a red paint ball gun with permanent red paint balls and tag the thieving perpetrator in the act. The looter is tagged with a scarlet letter of sorts and a reward can be given to anyone supplying information on the looters who are wearing their version of the scarlet letter."

Bobby Eberle's posse is pretty pissed about New Orleans, just not so much about the hurricane. The top story they're carrying is a Cybercast News Service number called "World Watches the Looting of New Orleans."

Weird how there is no mention at GOPUSA.com of the reports about New Orleans police officers who helped themselves to all the free electronics that they could cart away.

But then...that doesn't fit in with the spin, now does it.

# posted by Ron Brynaert : 9/01/2005 03:06:00 AM