Tuesday, November 01, 2005

The reason

Good evening and let's kick things off with Democracy Now!



October Marks Fourth Deadliest Month for U.S. In Iraq
And U.S. losses in Iraq continue to rise. Seven U.S. soldiers were killed on Monday bringing the monthly death toll to 92. This made October the fourth deadliest month of the war for U.S. troops.

Report: 40 Iraqis Die in U.S. Bombings Near Syria
In Iraq, hospital officials in the town of Qaim say up to 40 people were killed Monday in U.S. bombings near the Syrian border. An Iraqi doctor said many of the killed were women and children. Local residents said U.S. aircraft carried out a series of bombing raids beginning shortly after midnight and continuing until dawn. Military officials said they were targeting safehouses used by a local Al Qaeda leader.


Dad passed on this Wolf Blitzer interview with Joe Wilson from CNN:

BLITZER: So you're still looking toward that.
On August 21, 2003, at a forum, you were quoted as saying this -- and I believe you did say this because we've talked about it: "At the end of the day, it's of keen interest to me to see whether or not we can get Karl Rove frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs."
He's still working at the White House. He's the deputy White House chief of staff.
WILSON: And I think that Karl Rove should be fired. I think that this idea that you can, with impunity, call journalists and leak national security information is repugnant.
It is not fitting for a senior White House official. It is below any standard of ethical comportment, even if it is not technically illegal, because of the high standard of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.
But nonetheless, there's now clear evidence that Mr. Rove was leaking classified information. Mr. Fitzgerald made it very clear.
My wife was a covert officer at the time that these people were leaking her name.
I believe it's an abuse of the public trust. And even if he can't be convicted of it, I see no reason why somebody like that, why the president would want to have somebody like that working on his staff.
BLITZER: Well, forget about conviction. He hasn't even been charged with a crime.
WILSON: Again, it's now very clear that he leaked it. Mr. Cooper's sworn testimony indicates that. The e-mails indicate that.

With the death count continuing to sky rocket, do people get how we ended up over there? I know people going online and going to Democracy Now! and stuff like that get it, but I wonder if
most people get it. Like if they're watching CNN and they see Joe Wilson talking about the stuff above, do they get that Bully Boy lied us into war?

I think it's obvious but then you meet somebody who starts saying stuff like, "Iraq attacked us on 9/11." My friend Tony was out last night and he heard that from this old guy who's table was next to Tony and his date's. The old guy was going on about how people are forgetting why we are over there and that we are over there because Iraq attacked us on 9/11.

Tony tells me that today and we're all shaking our heads wondering how someone can still believe that lie? Bully Boy kept trying to link 9/11 and Iraq but you'd think by now common sense would have made most people realize the hijackers weren't from Iraq.

Places like CNN would just show that stuff over and over for years. This summer they kind of woke up but they really set it up for people to believe that nonsense.

And now you got people still believing it. I don't think most people but I think a lot of people who can't face the truth are still holding on to the lies that Bully Boy told and the media broadcast.

Which makes it all really sad because people keep dying. Iraqis, Americans, British, you name it. Why are they dying?

Not because of 9/11. Not because of WMDs. Not because of anything but the lies that came out of Bully Boy's mouth. He wanted this war and he got it and everyone else has to pay the price.
And we'll keep paying it until we wake up to the reality that we need to bring the troops home.


That's my thought for the day. Here's another thought, see Breathless. We watched that last night and it's a really cool movie. I like black & white movies but some people don't. If you have a problem with that or with subtitles, you aren't going to like Breathless. But if you can go with that, this is a pretty incredible movie.

I'm closing with C.I. because I loved "'Labor Dept. Is Rebuked Over Pact With Wal-Mart' (Steven Greenhouse):"

The above is from Steven Greenhouse's "Labor Dept. Is Rebuked Over Pact With Wal-Mart" in this morning's New York Times.
Wal-Mart, the 'family' story, can comply with existing child labor law . . . provided they're given a 15 day notice before an inspection and provided they're found in violation they get one of those Harriet Miers "redo"s and are given ten more days to come into compliance with the law.
Gordon S. Heddell (inspector general) calls it a violation and it is. So why isn't the Times front paging it and why is Wal-Mart seen as a 'family' store? A work camp, sure. But a 'family' store?That the most profitable, most powerful retail store on the globe needs an exception to on the book laws tells you pretty much everything you need to know about the greed involved and the 'family' nature of the store.
It also underscores the lack of interest (some might say "scorn") that this administration has for the public. This isn't something the Times can cluck over and deem "partisan" so instead they bury the findings of this report inside the paper instead of front paging it.
On the front page you can find nonsense by Michael Barbaro ("A New Weapon for Wal-Mart: A War Room") that plays the usual "some say" and "but others say" and never touches on any issue at length with the exception of stock value and the market:
Once a darling of Wall Street, Wal-Mart's stock price has fallen 27 percent since 2000, when H. Lee Scott Jr. became chief executive, a drop that executives have said reflects, in part, investors' anxieties about the company's image. Sales growth at stores open for more than a year has slowed to an average of 3.5 percent a month this year, compared with 6.3 percent at Target. And Wal-Mart is facing growing resistance to new urban stores, with high- profile defeats in Los Angeles, Chicago and New York.
At no point in the article does Barbaro take a moment to discuss the p.r. bait and switch (reported by the Times last week but maybe he was too busy being amused by the "war room" to pick up a paper) of their "insurance" plan ("scam"?). This isn't journalism. This is a p.r. report on . . . public relations and the Times should be embarrassed to front page it. But the paper of record has gotten away with passing off press releases as reporting for so long, they probably aren't capable of being shame faced at this point. Barbaro found the Wal-Mart "war room" amusing. At least he got something out of the article. That's more than can be said for readers of it.

Remember to check Elaine's thoughts at Like Maria Said Paz.











Posted by at