Got Kids? We Need Their Help!

Awesome idea... I'll get the chimps on it pronto.

Hey, remember in the Jerry Lewis telethon's how people would challenge other members of their particular vocation to match theoir donations?

Well, I hereby challenge all true patriots with kids to help Karen out! ;-)

IT'S SAVE BIG BIRD SEASON! OPEN FIRE!

LIVE on CSPAN 2
from the Senate
speaking on the Bolton nomination
Sen. Biden & Sen. Boxer already spoke.
Now up, Sen. Dodd

Karen--

Camille just dictated her thoughts to me so that I could e mail them to you. Clifford is the love of her life, after Tippy and Trixie (our dogs) and ANYONE who would take Clifford away from her is a very big not nice jerk!! But, she said that calling people jerks isn't nice, so I should just keep that a secret between her and me.

UK official: WMD claims were bogus

WMD claims were 'totally implausible'

Richard Norton-Taylor
Monday June 20, 2005
The Guardian

A key Foreign Office diplomat responsible for liaising with UN inspectors says today that claims the government made about Iraq's weapons programme were "totally implausible".

He tells the Guardian: "I'd read the intelligence on WMD for four and a half years, and there's no way that it could sustain the case that the government was presenting. All of my colleagues knew that, too".

Carne Ross, who was a member of the British mission to the UN in New York during the run-up to the invasion, resigned from the FO last year, after giving evidence to the Butler inquiry.

He thought about publishing his testimony because he felt so angry. But he was warned that if he did he might be prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act.

"There was a very good alternative to war that was never properly pursued, which was to close down Saddam's sources of illegal revenue", he says.

Read more... http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,1510259,00.html

Classic Bait And Switch Enacted As Downing Street Memos Called Possible Hoax

Prison Planet | June 20 2005

Article: Are Downing Street memos authentic or elaborate hoax?
Blogs question credibility of reporter who typed copies, destroyed originals

This has all the hallmarks of a classic sting operation.

The Murdoch papers release the Downing Street Memo story worldwide. Despite the fact that the British government have already admitted that the information in the documents is true (and many more which essentially say the same thing were later released), this one document was photocopied, allowing the mainstream to raise questions about its authenticity and kill the story.

Forget the fact that Bush told his own biographer that he wanted to invade Iraq and be a war president back in 1999, forget the 1998 and 2000 PNAC documents which called for removing Hussein as a means of getting a foothold in the Middle East, this one memo was a photocopy! That means Bush never planned to invade Iraq all along and never lied about WMD to justify it! He was just an unfortunate victim of 'misguided' intelligence.

Now the intense activist pressure to get the mainstream media to cover the Downing Street Memos is thrown back in their face and alternative research is discredited while the establishment gets another pat on the back.

It's amazing how they keep employing the same tactic and people keep falling for it.

The Pentagon admits multiple cases of abusing the Koran but in this one instance Newsweek's source may have been wrong when he said they flushed it down the toilet, when they only threw it in the toilet and urinated on it. This means that any allegations of Koran abuse are null and void. This means that Guantanamo Bay really is a nice place to stay! A holiday home according to Rush Limbaugh.

The Bush AWOL story was known and admitted for years but these CBS documents relating to one specific time period of Bush's military service may be forgeries, that means the whole story collapses and Bush never went AWOL!?

What's next? An investigation by the History Channel concludes that one of thousands of pieces of evidence Galileo used to prove the world was round is slightly inaccurate. THEREFORE ANY FURTHER CLAIMS AS TO THE WORLD BEING ROUND ARE PURE CONSPIRACY THEORY!

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2005/200605baitandswitch.htm

YEAH!
Senate Cloture vote to limit debate on Bolton nomination DID NOT pass.
60 votes needed to pass.
Tally
Aye 54 Nay 38
Debate on Bolton nomination will continue.

Good news on Bolton!

Thanks, Tutt--Cami's note is a heart breaker. I hope I can read it out loud to some of these j***s!

Larry working on his message...

Waiting on Monkey's little chimps...

Anyone else in?

sweeet! What kind of dim wit dolt is Frist, he never had enough votes, why did he let it go to a vote.

Democrats Block Attempt to Confirm Bolton

By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer
4 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Democrats blocked another attempt Monday by the Senate to confirm John Bolton to become U.N. ambassador, delivering a second-straight setback to President Bush even as he left the door open to temporarily installing Bolton on his own.

The Republican-run chamber fell six votes short of the 60 it needed to end Democratic delays that have prevented a roll call on confirming the tough-talking conservative. The vote was 54-38 in favor of ending the delays.

The tally left Bush facing stark choices — most of which could leave him appearing weak at a time he is facing sagging poll numbers and fighting lame-duck status six months into his final term.

Wielding a seldom-used power, he could install Bolton during the Senate's upcoming July 4 recess without the chamber's approval. Under the Constitution, the so-called recess appointment would only last through the next one-year session of Congress — in Bolton's case until January 2007.

Should Bush decide against that, he could withdraw the nomination or authorize further concessions to Democrats who are demanding access to information, some of it classified, about Bolton before they stop stalling.

Even before the vote, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., predicted the Senate would block the nomination again — leaving Bush in a ticklish situation.

"The president will have to make a decision whether he wants to send this flawed candidate to the United Nations," Reid said.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050620/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/un_ambassador

Now on MSNBC Hardball
David Gregory covering a special report on
Downing Street Memo

Guys,

Turn on Hardball. Tweety is off and David Gregory is hosting and it looks excellent. They are talking about the blocking of Bolton nomination. It's good already, and it's only been on for two inutes, and David Gregory already got George Allen to admit that Frist effed up as the leader for calling a colture vote with three Republicans out of town and not having the votes lined up.

OTV04:

LOL:) Please, God, keep Chris Matthews off and keep David Gregory. People get to finish sentences, and he listens to them and he asks relevant questions...hey, where the hell is that crappy show Hardball? This show has *gasp* content!!

I'm shocked! Absolutely shocked, but on Hardball they are doing a great job of explaining the importance of the Downing street minutes. Explaining that these people in the Brittish cabinet (in the memo) were the equivalent of Bush, Cheney, Condi, etc...and they were more than worried about this "regime change" Bush/Cheney wanted.

And they were concerned about the "illegal war" which is what a regime change is, and therefore THEY DELAYED Bush from his ultimate goal by forcing Bush to go through the U.N. and try to get a U.N. order.

However, all of us are aware, that they were selling the war here, they were increasing bombing runs in Iraq in an attempt to get Saddam to retaliate.

Is fixing the same as "cooking the books?" That's the current discussion on Hardball.

ok, Senate Dems won on principle, they successfully blocked Bolton vote again.
But, bu$h can now use that to accuse Dems of obstruction, since Dems denied up or down vote on Bolton twice. And bu$h can then "justify" his appointing Bolton in a recess appointment, and joe-republican will like that, as bu$h will make his case that he is standing firm against those obstructing Senate Dems.
It doesn't matter HOW bu$h wins, ends justify the means...so what's new about that, no one ever claimed bu$hINC has a shred of integrity.
So Dems stood strong, but in the end, bu$h will go around them to appoint Bolton anyway.
grrrrr..

http://www.recordonline.com/archive/2005/06/20/bethcolj.htm

Military families demand the truth!

Posted by: on.to.victory4Dems at June 20, 2005 07:50 PM

Yes, if he appoints them that may be the case. But don't forget the democrats have made a strong case that Bush filibustered his own nominee by "COVERING UP" evidence of Bolton's inappropriateness. AND I say, let the whole congress who supports Bush, democrats or republicans, pay the price for their support of this corrupt regime!

Frankly, this country is going to be hurting so much, they are going to be more than happy to see Bush's flaws and be angry at Republicans for not standing up to him!

Repost from last thread.... Sorry, but I didn't see the thread had changed... and these stories are important.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/062005L.shtml
82 Iraqi MPs Demand Occupation Pullout
"We have asked in several sessions for occupation troops to withdraw. Our request was ignored," read the latter, made public on Sunday, June 19.
There are currently about 160,000 foreign troops in Iraq, including 138,000 American forces.
There are also 15,000 mercenaries from private military firms operating in Iraq, the second largest force outnumbering even the US biggest ally Britain, according to the estimation of Peter Singer, author of Corporate Warriors: The Rise of the Privatized Military Industry.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/warriors/ Frontline "Private Warriors"
FRONTLINE returns to Iraq, this time to embed with Halliburton/KBR, and to take a hard look at private contractors, including Blackwater, Aegis, Erinys and Custer Battles, who play an increasingly critical role in running U.S. military supply lines, providing armed protection and operating U.S. military bases. These private warriors are targeted by insurgents and in turn have been criticized for their rough treatment of Iraqi civilians. Their dramatic story illuminates the Pentagon's new reliance on corporate outsourcing and raises tough questions about where they fit in the chain of command and the price we are paying for their role in the war.
(Frontline: Private Warriors is scheduled for Tue., June 21, 2005 - check your local listings for time in your area.)

Why George Went To War:
"He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999," said author and Houston Chronicle journalist Mickey Herskowitz. "It was on his mind. He said,
'One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.'
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20050620/why_george_went_to_war.php

British bombing raids were illegal, says Foreign Office Michael Smith - "The Times"
A SHARP increase in British and American bombing raids on Iraq in the run-up to war “to put pressure on the regime” was illegal under
international law, according to leaked Foreign Office legal advice.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article9195.htm

Bush and Hawks Try Pre-Emptive Strike Vs. Iran Vote:
A familiar clutch of hardline U.S. hawks who led the march to war against Iraq have tried to carry out yet another pre-emptive strike. But this time it wasn't military.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article9206.htm

The US war with Iran has already begun
By Scott Ritter
The reality is that the US war with Iran has already begun. As we speak, American over flights of Iranian soil are taking place, using
pilotless drones and other, more sophisticated, capabilities.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article9199.htm

We've seen enough to impeach Bush :
Is America brave enough to confront this reality?
http://www.madison.com/tct/opinion/index.php?ntid=44161&ntpid=0
Excerpt:
"Lying presidents need to be impeached. That's what the Republicans in Congress told us only a few years ago.
So let's get on with it."

Casey, I'll take David Gregory and even David Shuster anyday over tweety :)

To anyone who missed MSNBC Hardball tonight, it was that very rare event=must-see tee vee...try to catch the repeat tonight at 11 pm ET
First 30 minutes on Senate Dems blocking Bolton again...2nd half hour on importance of Downing Street Minutes, with the Brit reporter who broke the story.....I never thought I'd be praising Hardball....of course without Matthews!

Next question on Hardball, "Did Bush plan the war against Iraq before going to Congress?"

Well, the Downing Street Minutes strongly state that exact answer! YES! He did. Still smarting from Europes refusal to go along with him, he relied upon the British and Tony Blair to go to war with him.

The memos clearly stated their skeptism and they understood the question was RESTRUCTURING Iraq after the war.

What is the rationale for the war? The Brits were insisting we get the inspectors in. The Americans needed the Brit's badly so they made a meager effort before kicking the inspectors out. The rationale is "We need to change the dynamic and we can take him out." The brit's got them to delay it until the spring (instead of the winter).

Failure to establish security and orderly government and the injection of terrorist into the region are the current issues and so one person argues the DSM are irrelevant!

Just sent to Hardball. David Gregory had on the reporter who broke the Downing Street Memo:

David,

In my view, the real significance of the Downing Street Memo is this: President Bush had already made the decision to go to war, and was hence LYING TO CONGRESS when he told them that voting for the Senate and House resolutions authorizing force did not mean that war was unavoidable or inevitable, but only that America spoke with one voice. That's exactly what he told Congress, and Senator John Kerry quoted the President's words in his Senate speech during the debate.

The Bush Administration can claim that by going to the UN they were demonstrating that the decision had not been made, but I say FOLLOW THE DEPLOYMENTS. That is, Bush kept building up the troops in the area to levels that dictated that they be used sooner than later, regardless of Saddam's degree of cooperation with the UN weapons inspectors. Bush kept acting like war was inevitable even though the UN inspectors began to conclude that Saddam's cooperation had improved.

David, follow the deployments to grasp Bush's real intentions. Bush was going to war if possible regardless of Saddam's degree of cooperation. As it turns out, Saddam was cooperating fully - since he had no WMDs, and said as much.

Again, follow the deployments to see the Bush Administration's real intentions with regard to Iraq. The Downing Street Memo, and the supporting documents that your guest cited tonight, clearly demonstrate that Bush intended to go to war, and was willing to deceive the United States Congress to do so.

Bush was lying to Congress all along. If lying about oral sex in a civil suit are grounds for impeachment, then lying to the United State Congress on a matter of war and peace is certainly an impeachable offense. Bush deserves to be impeached.

Sincerely yours,

Matthew Carnicelli
for the Democracy Cell Project

matt--I agree with your letter.

good stuff, on the boob-tube today...
in the final segment of Lou Dobbs on CNN tonight, he had the wonderful Bill Moyers, formerly of PBS, as his guest. That also repeats tonight, I think also at 11 pm ET on CNN.
Will try to get that transcript posted, as soon as it is available.
Lou Dobbs & Bill Moyers discussed what's wrong with media in America.

Posted by: on.to.victory4Dems at June 20, 2005 06:51 PM

If Georgie appoints Bolton, we can be sure Bolton will muck up everything....

Bush has said the UN needs reforming. He's never elaborated on why or how he arrived at that conclusion. Does he want the UN to be a puppet of the US to carry out all of his demands to go to war with oil-producing countries??? Bully Bolton will only anger other people who are far more diplomatic in their speech, and far more mature. I think Georgie likes Bolton 'cuz Bolton is as childish as he is.

Posted by: on.to.victory4Dems at June 20, 2005 08:04 PM

yes, we need that transcript and we need the hardball one too.

I wonder...is the tide turning? Has the propraganda networks discovered there's money in impeaching Bush? Are they trying to gain some "respect" back?

Transcript of Bill Moyers, on Lou Dobbs tonight, on CNN: long, but important:

DOBBS: We're pleased to welcome back Bill Moyers, who's been writing and reporting on this great country of ours for decades. But Bill says he has never been more concerned about the state of the American dream than now. He says the very meaning of what it is to be an American is at risk. Bill Moyers' latest book is, "Moyers on America." It has just been published in paperback.

Bill Moyers, it's great to have you here.

BILL MOYERS, AUTHOR AND JOURNALIST: It's good to be back, Lou.
DOBBS: Never more concerned about where this country is, right now -- why?

MOYERS: Hope and opportunity have long been the beacons of American life, and if you travel the country, as I do, listening to people talk about their struggles, reporting on their hopes and their dreams, and then you read, like both of us read, you realize that the American dream is flat on its back.

The inequality in this country is greater than it's been since 1929. The gap between -- when I went to Washington in 1960, the gap between the highest paid and the lowest paid was 20-fold. Now it's 75-fold. "The Wall Street Journal" reported two weeks ago that if you were a child born in poverty in Europe or Canada, you have a better chance at prosperity than a child born in America today. "New York Times," "Wall Street Journal" have also reported that the upward mobility of people at the bottom has stalled. And no Marxist rag, "The Economist," one of the best friends business and capitalism have, reported just the weekend before George W. Bush's second inauguration, that the inequality that is growing in this country means America's on the way to becoming a European style class-based society. I didn't make that up. That's not my term. That's "The Economist."

When hope and opportunity close down, democracy is in trouble. That's why I'm concerned.

DOBBS: And I share many, if not all of those concerns that you express in your book, and here. But I find it mind-boggling the number of people who seem inured to an educational system that is failing, a public education system that is the bedrock to me of what has been the American dream, offering poor boys like Bill Moyers and Lou Dobbs and millions and millions of other folks an opportunity to move from the so-called working class into the middle class and beyond, that -- to lose that is -- to meet such indifference on the part of so many people is mind-boggling to me.

MOYERS: My parents worked hard all their lives and never had much money, but my brother went to school on a GI Bill. I went to a public school, hitchhiked down a public highway, stopped and rested in a public park. I mean, I was the beneficiary of what we used to call the common wealth. And all of us pitched in to make opportunity available to everyone. That's -- the loss of that, a lot of working- class families today cannot afford to send their kids to college. Tuition zooming out of sight. "The Economist" story said corporations are no longer allowing people to rise as much as they did.

DOBBS: Warren Buffett was sitting here one night a few weeks ago. We were talking about class warfare, and he said, and I know we're not supposed to talk about class warfare in this country, but the fact is, that's what's going on politically. And he says, well, I don't know if it's class warfare or not, but I can tell you, my class is winning.

MOYERS: Yeah, I saw that.

DOBBS: And he said it with great -- with anguish, not with any sense of pride in it at all, rather concern and disappointment.
When I was growing up, we wouldn't even think to refer to class, because it's America, where there isn't a class. It's one people, aspiring to -- with one set of ideals and values.

MOYERS: It's in our DNA. We, the people, in order to form a more perfect union -- there was this sense of a social contract. There was this sense that we are in this boat together, and that there wasn't this great gap of people living in isolated communities.

I hope you'll have Jared Diamond on sometime. Jared Diamond's new book -- he's a Pulitzer Prize-winning scholar -- his new book is called "The Collapse: How Societies Create Their Own Downfall." And he says the one sure blueprint for failure is when the elites insulate themselves from the consequences of their action.

That's the problem today. You talk about the lack of outrage and indignation. Washington lives in a cocoon, a bubble, and the rich and the elite, the privileged and the powerful, they live in those cocoons, too, and so there's nobody really reporting on or speaking up for or voting for working people.

DOBBS: What in the world is going on with the national news media in this country? You know, it seems to me that the administration is having its way, whether you're Republican or Democrat. I'm not suggesting one way or the other. But the level of critical judgment being applied against the actions of Congress, of the Bush administration, of this government, this federal government, it's pretty tepid stuff.

MOYERS: There are two things, and I write about it in "Moyers on America." I have three chapters on the media. One is that while there's still world-class journalism being done in this country, mega media corporations that now own more and more of the media have a greater interest in profits than they do in reporting. So that it's expensive to report, to do a documentary, to go out in the field and report on what's happening in Tumacua (ph), Pennsylvania.

DOBBS: So there was a time you could turn to the Democratic Party and expect to see the working men and women of the country represented. You could pretty much expect Republicans to represent business interests. For the life of me, Bill, I can't discern the difference between the two parties. They both, it seems to me, owned lock, stock and barrel by corporate interests.

MOYERS: Democrats knock on the same door, supplicate from the same sources, corporate sources and wealthy, privileged people as do Republicans. Democrats were in power 40 years, lost touch with the American people, no longer had the ability to understand what was happening to people who weren't doing well. And there's no party today that speaks on behalf of the striving middle class, or the struggling working people in this country, people who live paycheck to paycheck.

You look at all the statistics. You know, some wag once said, it's the mark of a truly educated person to be deeply moved by statistics. Well, you don't have to be educated to be deeply moved by the fact that 80 million people in this country live in households that earn less than $25,000 a year. And those are the people who need the Social Security that Bush is trying to phase out. They need public broadcasting as an alternative to commercial. They need help to get their kids into college. They need public libraries, public schools, and yet they're the ones being left behind.

DOBBS: You're concerned. Are you still hopeful?

MOYERS: Oh, I love this country. I mean, like all journalists that I know who are critical, who report bad news, we report it because, as Napoleon said to his secretary, "if the news is good, let me sleep until morning. If the news is bad, wake me up."

And the one thing we have in this country is that First Amendment, which allows us to get up on the deck of the ship, grab the captain by the arm, and say, that's an iceberg out there, better turn this ship before it hits that course. And I'll tell you, growing inequality is the iceberg facing America in the 21st century. We have got to do something about it.

Am I optimistic? Look, who was the Italian philosopher who said, "I believe in pessimism of the intellect and optimism of the will." I believe in looking at the facts -- the truth shall make you free -- and then acting on it. And that's what we have to discover -- rediscover if democracy's going to be revitalized.

DOBBS: Bill Moyers, "Moyers on America" is the book. Bill Moyers, legend, best-selling author.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0506/20/ldt.01.html

sparrow,
CNN, Lou Dobbs transcript with Bill Moyers was available almost immediately, see previous post.
But the MSNBC Hardball transcript will not be available until after 3 PM tomorrow.

Are they trying to gain some "respect" back?

Posted by: sparrow at June 20, 2005 08:11 PM

I think they saw the Five Minutes for Democracy today--and they are seeing the PEOPLE'S media coming after them! Profit loss...it's a sad sad thing, isn't it?

Meanwhile, please DO check out the video and take the survey at http://www.iwtnews.com/watch--it's a very exciting project!

And get those kids to email their pics and messages! karen@democracycellproject.net

Oh yeah,

Ask Bill Moyers to LEAD!

http://www.democracycellproject.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=676

Thanks OTV!

And right on karen!

Hmmm....reading the Moyer's interview, I wonder what he would think of Jesse Jackson's insistance that it's time for a "THIRD RAIL!"

Republican: Democrats Demonize Christians

By ANDREW TAYLOR
The Associated Press
Monday, June 20, 2005; 8:03 PM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/20/AR2005062000993_pf.html

WASHINGTON -- The House passed a mammoth defense spending bill Monday evening, but only after a Republican congressman was forced to take back remarks accusing Democrats of "demonizing Christians."

The rhetorical warfare came as the House considered a proposal by Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., to put Congress on record against "coercive and abusive religious proselytizing" at the U.S. Air Force Academy.

Rep. John Hostettler, R-Ind., criticized Obey and Steve Israel, D-N.Y., who offered a similar condemnation of academy officials earlier this year on another bill.

"Like a moth to a flame, Democrats can't help themselves when it comes to denigrating and demonizing Christians," Hostettler said.

Democrats leapt to their feet and demanded Hostettler be censured for his remarks. After a half-hour's worth of wrangling, Hostettler retracted his comments.

-snip-

At issue is how Congress should respond to allegations of proselytizing and favoritism for Christians at the Air Force Academy.

The Air Force is investigating numerous allegations of inappropriate actions by academy officials, including a professor who required cadets to pray before taking his test and a Protestant chaplain who warned anyone "not born again would burn in the fires of hell."

Obey said a senior chaplain at the academy was transferred to Japan after criticizing what she saw as proselytizing.

Republicans said they did not want to jump to conclusions before the investigation was complete.

"We don't prejudge that there is abusive proselytizing," said Duncan Hunter, R-Calif.

"If you tell Christians they can't tell others about their faith, then they can't exercise their Christian religion," Hostettler said later. He said proselytizing involves a forced conversion to Christianity, something that did not occur at the academy.

Democrats criticized Hostettler's remarks, which began, "The long war on Christianity in America continues today on the floor of the United States House of Representatives."

Obey said Hostettler's "outburst ... is perhaps the perfect example of why we need to pass the language in my amendment."

Hostettler, a Christian and social conservative, made headlines last year when he was caught carrying a loaded handgun in a carry-on bag in the Louisville, Ky., airport. He pleaded guilty to carrying a concealed weapon and received a 60-day sentence, which he will not have to serve unless he has other criminal troubles before August 2006.

I agree that the UN needs to be reformed. But so does the Bush Administration.

The UN didn't launch a gratuitous invasion of a country on the basis of either trumped up or spectacularly erroneous intelligence. The UN didn’t prove utterly incompetent in the occupation of said country.

So, if John Bolton is the right man to reform the UN, why not let him work his special magic on the Bush Administration instead. Bolton talks about UN waste. But the Bush Administration spends the people’s money like a drunken sailor.

Hence, I nominate John Bolton for Bush’s new Chief of Staff. If this guy’s so good, let’s see him reform the utterly incompetent Bush Administration before subjecting the rest of the world to his kiss up-kick down management style.

Dembloggers has all the videos:

Hardball DSM

Hardball Boxer on Bolton

Bill Moyers

and more...

http://www.dembloggers.com/section/Videos/1

Hey NativeTexan:

Well, as of today, I'm a card carrying Texan too. Off topic, I know. Sorry. Hope all is well in Dallas-Fort-Worth. I'm Harris County, near Rice. I spent the whole day today becoming a Texan between the Depatment of Public Safety, the License Plates part of the court annex, and the Social Security Department. I think I put 100 miles on my car today in the paper chase. Don't know which district I'm in yet but I did register with my driver's license -- I guess we don't have to declare party here in Texas. That "we" is tough. I put my Oregon plates on the bookshelf and am contemplating them tonight. Time for some Jimi Hendrix to preserve my Northwestern roots. Sure could use a good cool night too.

All my best to all!

Chuck in Houston (ex-PDX, via Baku)

PS: My Kerry sticker looked much better next to my Oregon plates.

Posted by: Cyrano at June 20, 2005 10:26 PM

I second your nomination...! :-)

Posted by: NonnyO at June 20, 2005 07:58 PM

NonnyO,

Thanks for the great links.

I enjoyed this one http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article9206.htm

It's good to have you back!

Posted by: chuck at June 20, 2005 11:54 PM

Hi Chuck!

Congrats on becoming a Texan. I now officially apologize for our governor, our senators, and Tom DeLay. Oh and bush. Yeah, see, this is why I'm moving to Massachusetts... lol. Well, here's someone every Texas Democrat should be proud of: http://www.answers.com/topic/ralph-yarborough

Hope you're doing well, and btw your Kerry sticker may have looked better with the Oregon plates, but you're going to make some Texas Democrat who thought they were alone very happy when they see it. =)

Leaked emails prove CPB chairman Tomlinson misrepresented prior contact with White House

http://mediamatters.org/items/200506200007

A June 18 New York Times article reported that newly released email messages prove Kenneth Y. Tomlinson, the Republican chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), "extensively consulted a White House official shortly before she joined the corporation about creating an ombudsman's office." This new evidence directly contradicts Tomlinson's repeated denials that he had any contact with White House officials regarding public broadcasting.

On numerous occasions in recent months, Tomlinson has been questioned about his hiring of Mary Catherine Andrews as a "special adviser" to design and oversee CPB's two ombudsman positions with the responsibility to monitor and critique Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) and National Public Radio (NPR) programming. At issue was whether Andrews began work on the project while still employed by the White House, where she served as director of global communications until March.

A May 20 Washington Post article reported that Tomlinson "vigorously denies published reports that the new adviser, Mary Catherine Andrews, helped draft guidelines for the ombudsmen's job while she was working at the White House." According to the June 18 New York Times article, in an April 2005 interview, Tomlinson was asked if he had instructed anyone to send material to Andrews while at the White House, to which he replied, "I don't think so." When asked if Andrews had worked on the ombudsmen project while still employed by the White House, he again answered, "I don't think so."

Beyond denying that Andrews performed work for CPB while on the White House payroll, Tomlinson has repeatedly claimed that he had no contact with White House officials concerning public broadcasting matters. A May 9 Los Angeles Times article quoted Tomlinson: "There has been absolutely no contact from anyone at the White House to me saying we need to do this or that with public broadcasting." On the May 12 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, Tomlinson said it was "true" that he never had any conversations with the Bush administration about PBS.

But a broad inquiry by the CPB inspector general has uncovered a series of emails proving Tomlinson's statements false. A "senior corporation executive who is concerned about its direction under Mr. Tomlinson" leaked the emails to the Times, which reported that they show:

* "Ms. Andrews worked on a variety of ombudsman issues before joining the corporation, while still on the White House payroll."
* Tomlinson instructed then-CPB president Kathleen Cox to send materials to Andrews' White House email address regarding ombudsman issues.
* Tomlinson discussed Andrews with White House officials who insisted the title of her new position at CPB be "senior adviser to the president."

Media Matters for America runs the Hands Off Public Broadcasting campaign, an effort to ensure that public broadcasting remains independent and free from political pressure and to highlight conservative misinformation in and about public broadcasting.

[I realize probably all the regulars likely subscribe to this newsletter and have already seen this, but maybe newbies want to know something about them or sign up for the newsletters....}

NonnyO,
Actually, I didn't even know they had a newsletter!

We have a request for a transcript of the Conyers hearing on DSM from a professor in Eastern Europe. He said his internet hookup isn't fast so the audio streaming isn't practical for him. He wants a transcript to share with his students. I looked for awhile last night but did not find one. Please post here or let me know if you find one.

dwahzon,
I can call Conyers' office in a few minutes and ask them.

This just in:

Remember When Bush's Lies Weren't "Old News"?

By David Swanson, www.AfterDowningStreet.org

The most repeated excuse by U.S. media outlets for not covering the Downing Street
Minutes and related documents is that they tell us nothing new, that they're old
news. This conflicts, of course, with the second most common excuse, which is that
they are false. If they're false, they can't be news at all, much less old news.

So, the question arises, when was this new news? At what point did it become old
news to report that Bush had decided by the summer of 2002 to go to war and to use
false justifications related to weapons of mass destruction and ties to terrorism?
Of course, in one sense anything we discover now about secret goings on three years
ago is old news - but that sense of being old news doesn't seem to spare us details
of, for example, the Michael Jackson trial or the steroids in sports scandals. In
those and many other cases, we're treated to news that's about old events. By that
definition of old news we could have skipped Whitewater altogether.

Perhaps, then, something becomes old news in the relevant sense when a majority of
the public has heard about it. But that can't be right, since so much of the
American public, in the latest polls I know about, believes that Saddam Hussein
actually did have ties to the 9-11 attacks and actually was stockpiling vast
quantities of weapons of mass destruction. That this was all a crock intended to
sell the public a war can't be old news while people still believe it's true, can
it?

Well, then maybe a story becomes old news as soon as it shows up in some back-page
article with a buried lead, even as the front page trumpets the opposite. Or maybe
even showing up in international or independent or web-based media qualifies. But
if that were right, then much of what major US corporate media outlets report would
be old news. Some outlets might need to shut down altogether in order to avoid
running old news, by that definition.

So, let's say that a story becomes old news for a particular media outlet once that
outlet has told the story in at least one hidden misleading little blurb. Let's not
even stipulate that other, more prominent reporting in the same outlet can't
blatantly contradict the story.

Limiting our analysis to one media outlet at a time seems more honest than
discussing "the media." There is something more frank and fair, I think, in the USA
Today's publishing excuses for not covering the Downing Street Minutes (even excuses
that would never have gotten past my fifth grade teacher) than there is in NBC's
asking a guest about "the famous Downing Street Memo" without ever having previously
taken any steps to make it famous - such as reporting on it.

So let's use the example of the Washington Post.

(Full disclosure: I live in the metro area daily desecrated by this publication,
with which I would not line a bird cage. I am one of the co-founders of
AfterDowningStreet.org, and I'm employed by Democrats.com. When Post writer Dana
Milbank reported two weeks ago that the story of the Downing Street Memo was over,
we posted his article [or column; his ombudsman has recently given him license to
call supporters of governmental checks and balances "wing-nuts" because he writes
"columns"] and his Email address.

When Milbank explained that he'd meant that the silence was over, not the story, we
took down his Email address and posted his explanation for readers to try to make
their own sense of. But Milbank forwarded me a nasty anti-Semitic Email someone had
sent him, and which he blamed on us. We tried to explain to him that we don't
actually control all computer users, but he would have none of it. He then produced
on June 17 perhaps the worst piece of journalism I've ever seen:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/16/AR2005061601570.html?nav=hcmodule

Congressman John Conyers' response to it is worth reading:

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Congressman_Conyers_hammers_the_Washington_Posts_D_0617.html

Milbank also pretended that Democrats.com organized the hearing that Congressman
Conyers organized with help from the AfterDowningStreet.org coalition, of which
Democrats.com is one member. Apparently this was because of some weird grudge
Milbank has against Democrats.com, which predates me, but which he describes as
stemming from some nut contacting him years ago - again, allegedly compelled or
encouraged to do so by Democrats.com.)

On June 19, 2005, Post ombudsman Michael Getler defended Milbank and then wrote:
"Much of the mail criticizing Milbank was also directed at op-ed columnist Michael
Kinsley, who, in a June 12 column, said leftist activists' continued focus on the
memo showed an ability to develop 'a paranoid theory.' Later in the week, The Post's
editorial page also weighed in on the Downing Street memos (another has been
leaked), saying: "They add nothing to what was publicly known in July 2002." That
also brought mail.

I have a different view. The July 23 memo is important because it is an official
document produced at the highest level of government of the most important U.S.
ally. Its authenticity has not been disputed. Whatever some people said or wrote
three years ago, there has never been -- except for this memo -- any official,
authoritative claim or confirmation that "the intelligence and facts were being
fixed around the policy."

Well, three cheers for Getler for having a different view. But what interests me is
what the Post's editorial board believes was publicly known in July 2002. The
Downing Street Minutes, if accurate, make clear that in July 2002 the Bush
administration had secretly decided on war and was manipulating evidence related to
WMD and terrorism in order to sell it through false advertising. The documents also
make clear that going to the United Nations would be an attempt to legalize a
predetermined war, not an attempt to avoid the Bush administration's publicly stated
goal of "regime change."

Was this public knowledge in July 2002? Let's read the Post:

Reading all the Washington Post articles, columns, and editorials containing the
word "Iraq" and appearing in the Nexis database in June, July, and August, 2002,
fails to find these facts publicly reported. Of course, I cannot comment on what
Post editors knew and kept to themselves, but it is what they told the kids who were
going to be sent off to kill and die that seems most significant.

We find in this period of reporting no report that two false justifications had been
settled upon. On the contrary, we read numerous pieces of stenography conveying
these false justifications from the mouths of Bush and his top staff to our eyes, as
if they were worthy of consideration. We find reports on various people or groups,
such as European leaders, having concluded that Bush was set on war, but no report
from the Post on whether that was true or not. In fact, we find almost no direct
reporting on the war planning and its justifications, but numerous tangential
articles that slip assumptions in unreported.

On the editorial pages we find very few letters to the editor on Iraq, but numerous
columns and editorials supporting the war, many of which ask the President to hurry
up and make a better case for it. We find no strong anti-war voices, and only a few
voices with hesitations or concerns.

For the record, here's how the Washington Post publicly communicated the contents of
the Downing Street Minutes in July 2002:

Read More...

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/407

NonnyO: New thread upstairs from Victoria Ellen on this issue.

To Karen--From young Mr. B. Morris, age 3.85:

Mommy: So, B., what do you like about PBS kids?

B: I like Caillou.

Mommy: What is it about Caillou that you like so much?

B: It's my favorite.

Mommy: So what makes it your favorite, B.?

B: I don't know, it's just my favorite. Things are like that sometimes.

Mommy: Yup.

And this conversation with young Mr. B. demonstrates the simplicity of this issue.

We need quality children's television programming. Why? Because we do.

Things are like that sometimes.