May 30 — Twenty death certificates for Afghan and Iraqi prisoners who died in American custody were completed in a 10-day rush only after the investigation into the notorious abuses at Abu Ghraib became public last month, even though some of the deaths occurred months — in some cases many months — before.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/31/international/middleeast/31INQU.html?ex=1086580800&en=95582c80d4d50fae&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE
Monday, May 31, 2004
Saudi officials said they captured the ringleader of the gunmen, adding that he was shot and wounded while trying to escape. They did not identify him by name but said he was among the 25 most wanted terrorism suspects in the kingdom.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2174-2004May30.html
A Saudi group allied with al Qaeda asserted responsibility for the attack, posting statements on Islamic Web sites that described in gruesome terms the deaths of an American, a Briton, a Japanese and an Italian.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2174-2004May30.html
A Saudi group allied with al Qaeda asserted responsibility for the attack, posting statements on Islamic Web sites that described in gruesome terms the deaths of an American, a Briton, a Japanese and an Italian.
ok - so if i was dadberg and mumberg, id probably want to be somewhere near my remaining kids, 3 weeks after my eldest son got beheaded. and i would wanna see the footage of my dead son looking good in a suit and talking about trying to save the world, at least to try to get the horrible imagery out of my head. id at least get the kids to fedex me a copy if i did decide to go away for a fortnight - i certainly wouldnt go away without leaving contact details for the other kids, leaving them in the inevitable media maelstrom.
it was only a week ago that the articulate dadberg was speaking at public rallies and writing letters (eg http://www.stopwar.org.uk/article.asp?id=160504 & http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1221644,00.html) saying "bush killed my son" - and now he's gone away for 2 weeks, just as the f911 footage comes out. if i was dadberg, id recognize the media value of the f911/moore connection, and use it to further my goals of 'stop bush.' - its not like there seems to be any 'privacy' goals or concerns or woteva...
if i was mumberg, id prolly wanna release the footage so that there was another side of sunberg that people could remember, apart from being beheaded in a prison suit.
if i were broberg and sisberg, i wouldnt claim to want to keep the tape private, and then go yakking about it everywhere.
and if i was michael moore, lets see... ummmm. well firstly, his website seems to be pretty unstable and hard to get to, and even when we get there, it seems to exist as a single flat page - without any links, last updated may23 ("Mike will have some more words... in the next day or so.") with just the story about winning at cannes. i dont usually hang out at his website, but im sure theres usually a lot more there than just a single page, and i remember him being quite timely putting up speeches and things on the site.
but the best we get from this media hound is the following:
"Moore's office in New York confirmed it has the 20-minute interview but said there were no plans to release it.
"We are not releasing it to the media. It is not in the film. We are dealing privately with the family," a statement from Moore's office said. Moore was not available for comment."
if i was michaelmoore, and for one reason or other wanted to protect the privacy of the family, id be magnanimous in protecting the footage, and then id go on a rant about how the bushwar is killing innocent kids... cos i reckon id get some exposure, which would be good for my political objctives, and good for f911 ticket sales, and would improve my bargaining position when i was negotiating the distribution arrangements in the near future.
and if i was michaelmoore, id know about the conspiracy theories re the video, and id use my media megaphone to demand some answers.
and if i was michaelmoore, id know that dadberg is virulently antibush, and antiwar. nine days ago he wrote:
"My son’s life was put to an end, but his work still goes on. Where there was one peacemaker before I now see and have heard from thousands of peacemakers. And for every one of them there are thousands more who can’t find the words but feel the same way. Nick Berg was a man who acted on his beliefs. We the people of this world now need to act on our beliefs. We need to let the evildoers on both sides of the Atlantic know that we are fed up with war. We are fed up with the killing and bombing and maiming of innocent people. We are fed up with the lies from our government about Nick’s detention and we are fed up with the lies from our government about the reasons for this war. Yes, we are fed up with the suicide bombers, and with the failure of the Israeli’s and Palestinians to find a way to stop killing each other. We are fed up with negotiations and peace conferences that are entered into on both sides with preset conditions that preclude the outcome of peace. We want world peace now!!!
What is it, I have to ask, that our leaders and the leaders of the world are afraid they will lose that is any more valuable than PEACE? Many people have offered to pray for Nick and my family. I appreciate their thoughts, but I ask them to include in their prayers a prayer for peace. I ask them to do more than pray. I ask them to demand PEACE NOW! from the politicians and leaders in the white house and in the state houses across the world and in the mountain camps where they may hide. Let the politicians know that you want PEACE NOW! And let them know that if you don’t get it, they aren’t going to work for you as their leaders any more. DEMAND PEACE NOW! DEMAND PEACE NOW! PEACE NOW! PEACE NOW! PEACE NOW! "
if i was michaelmoore id have to think that my interests and dadberg's interest dovetailed quite nicely - why are they hiding the video, and why are they both silent when they could be cross-fertilising?
if i were me, id be curiouser and crazier...
it was only a week ago that the articulate dadberg was speaking at public rallies and writing letters (eg http://www.stopwar.org.uk/article.asp?id=160504 & http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1221644,00.html) saying "bush killed my son" - and now he's gone away for 2 weeks, just as the f911 footage comes out. if i was dadberg, id recognize the media value of the f911/moore connection, and use it to further my goals of 'stop bush.' - its not like there seems to be any 'privacy' goals or concerns or woteva...
if i was mumberg, id prolly wanna release the footage so that there was another side of sunberg that people could remember, apart from being beheaded in a prison suit.
if i were broberg and sisberg, i wouldnt claim to want to keep the tape private, and then go yakking about it everywhere.
and if i was michael moore, lets see... ummmm. well firstly, his website seems to be pretty unstable and hard to get to, and even when we get there, it seems to exist as a single flat page - without any links, last updated may23 ("Mike will have some more words... in the next day or so.") with just the story about winning at cannes. i dont usually hang out at his website, but im sure theres usually a lot more there than just a single page, and i remember him being quite timely putting up speeches and things on the site.
but the best we get from this media hound is the following:
"Moore's office in New York confirmed it has the 20-minute interview but said there were no plans to release it.
"We are not releasing it to the media. It is not in the film. We are dealing privately with the family," a statement from Moore's office said. Moore was not available for comment."
if i was michaelmoore, and for one reason or other wanted to protect the privacy of the family, id be magnanimous in protecting the footage, and then id go on a rant about how the bushwar is killing innocent kids... cos i reckon id get some exposure, which would be good for my political objctives, and good for f911 ticket sales, and would improve my bargaining position when i was negotiating the distribution arrangements in the near future.
and if i was michaelmoore, id know about the conspiracy theories re the video, and id use my media megaphone to demand some answers.
and if i was michaelmoore, id know that dadberg is virulently antibush, and antiwar. nine days ago he wrote:
"My son’s life was put to an end, but his work still goes on. Where there was one peacemaker before I now see and have heard from thousands of peacemakers. And for every one of them there are thousands more who can’t find the words but feel the same way. Nick Berg was a man who acted on his beliefs. We the people of this world now need to act on our beliefs. We need to let the evildoers on both sides of the Atlantic know that we are fed up with war. We are fed up with the killing and bombing and maiming of innocent people. We are fed up with the lies from our government about Nick’s detention and we are fed up with the lies from our government about the reasons for this war. Yes, we are fed up with the suicide bombers, and with the failure of the Israeli’s and Palestinians to find a way to stop killing each other. We are fed up with negotiations and peace conferences that are entered into on both sides with preset conditions that preclude the outcome of peace. We want world peace now!!!
What is it, I have to ask, that our leaders and the leaders of the world are afraid they will lose that is any more valuable than PEACE? Many people have offered to pray for Nick and my family. I appreciate their thoughts, but I ask them to include in their prayers a prayer for peace. I ask them to do more than pray. I ask them to demand PEACE NOW! from the politicians and leaders in the white house and in the state houses across the world and in the mountain camps where they may hide. Let the politicians know that you want PEACE NOW! And let them know that if you don’t get it, they aren’t going to work for you as their leaders any more. DEMAND PEACE NOW! DEMAND PEACE NOW! PEACE NOW! PEACE NOW! PEACE NOW! "
if i was michaelmoore id have to think that my interests and dadberg's interest dovetailed quite nicely - why are they hiding the video, and why are they both silent when they could be cross-fertilising?
if i were me, id be curiouser and crazier...
Many of those questioning the White House line on Berg were fringe, yes, but they fed on the doubts of a mainstream no longer sure what to believe. Last week, the U.S. either bombed a safe house for terrorists, or an Iraqi wedding. Ahmad Chalabi is either an asset and one of the fathers of the new Iraq, or a spy. And Donald Rumsfeld either authorized the kind of torture meted out at Abu Ghraib, or knew nothing.
http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0421/fahim.php
The morbid fascination with Nicholas Berg suggests that America is either a nation of voyeurs, or a people increasingly uncomfortable with the official story. Or both.
++++
Moore's office in New York confirmed it has the 20-minute interview but said there were no plans to release it.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&ncid=578&e=7&u=/nm/20040528/ts_nm/iraq_usa_berg_dc
"We are not releasing it to the media. It is not in the film. We are dealing privately with the family," a statement from Moore's office said. Moore was not available for comment.
The contents of the interview were unknown, as was the date it was made. Moore's office did not say why it was not used in the film.
Berg's parents would not receive Moore's clip until they return from a trip this weekend, Hauser said.
http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0421/fahim.php
The morbid fascination with Nicholas Berg suggests that America is either a nation of voyeurs, or a people increasingly uncomfortable with the official story. Or both.
++++
Moore's office in New York confirmed it has the 20-minute interview but said there were no plans to release it.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&ncid=578&e=7&u=/nm/20040528/ts_nm/iraq_usa_berg_dc
"We are not releasing it to the media. It is not in the film. We are dealing privately with the family," a statement from Moore's office said. Moore was not available for comment.
The contents of the interview were unknown, as was the date it was made. Moore's office did not say why it was not used in the film.
Berg's parents would not receive Moore's clip until they return from a trip this weekend, Hauser said.
At 7.30 on Saturday morning, they chose the city of Khobar, an important hub of the Saudi oil industry. As many as seven gunmen wearing military-style uniforms opened fire at the Al-Khobar Petroleum Centre building, which houses offices of western oil companies in the Gulf city. They also sprayed with gunfire an oil industry compound housingoffices and apartments of the Arab Petroleum Investment Corporation (Apicorp).
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=526644
Once the gunmen had taken over Oasis, they started to hunt down non-Muslims to kill or take hostage. Abu Hashem, 45, an Iraqi-American engineer, was leaving for work when he heard the sound of gunfire. He went back home and took his wife and two children to a neighbour's house for safety. Abu Hashem noticed that there were blood stains on the floor of his house and went looking for security guards. Instead he found four Saudi men with short beards and whose ages he said were between 18 and 25. A revealing conversation followed. Abu Hashem asked the men: "Are you guards?" They said they were and asked him if he was a Muslim. When he said he was they said: "Give us proof." Abu Hashem knew they could not be regular security guards and took out his identity papers which showed he was a Muslim but also revealed that he was an American of Iraqi origins.
When the gunmen said he was an American, Abu Hashem said this was true but he was an American Muslim. To his relief they said, "we do not kill Muslims" and politely apologised for breaking into his home. They then lectured him on Islam and told him: "We are defending our country and we want to take it from the non-believers" - probably a reference to the royal family of Saudi Arabia.
Another Muslim resident, Salam al-Hakawati, 38, a Lebanese corporate finance official, hid with his wife and two-year-old son upstairs when they heard gunfire. He heard people searching rooms downstairs and saying "this is a Muslim house" when they saw Koranic verses. A man with a machine gun came upstairs and said to him in Arabic: "We only want to hurt Westerners and Americans. Can you tell us where we can find them here?"
Just after sunrise some 40 black-clad Saudi commandos dropped into the compound from three helicopters. There was gunfire and some 50 hostages were freed. Saudi security officials said the gunmen's leader had been arrested, two killed - several escaped.
A manager in the compound said three foreigners, including a Briton and an American, were killed in the rescue.
At about the same time as the high-rise was being stormed, a man who claimed to be Abdul Aziz al-Moqrin, identified as the chief of al-Qa'ida in Saudi Arabia, claimed responsibility for the attack in a tape posted on the internet on a a website noted for militant Islamic comment. He identifies by nationality the foreigners who were killed, although he says it was an American whose body was dragged through the streets. Moqrin denounces the Saudi government for selling out to the US and providing "America with oil at the cheapest prices ... so that their economy does not collapse".
The recording may have been made inside the besieged building because it ends with volleys of shots and men shouting: "Open the door quickly."
having read just 2 articles on this saudi thing, it already stinks to high heaven. if the title doesnt give it away 'We only want to hurt the Westerners. Where can we find them? then you can read the rest of the article for a quick game of catch-the-spookspeak...
ill give $50 to the first person who thinks that these terrorists were making recordings and uploading them to a website whilst being stormed... not cos u deserve the $50, but cos it sounds like you prolly need it...
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=526644
Once the gunmen had taken over Oasis, they started to hunt down non-Muslims to kill or take hostage. Abu Hashem, 45, an Iraqi-American engineer, was leaving for work when he heard the sound of gunfire. He went back home and took his wife and two children to a neighbour's house for safety. Abu Hashem noticed that there were blood stains on the floor of his house and went looking for security guards. Instead he found four Saudi men with short beards and whose ages he said were between 18 and 25. A revealing conversation followed. Abu Hashem asked the men: "Are you guards?" They said they were and asked him if he was a Muslim. When he said he was they said: "Give us proof." Abu Hashem knew they could not be regular security guards and took out his identity papers which showed he was a Muslim but also revealed that he was an American of Iraqi origins.
When the gunmen said he was an American, Abu Hashem said this was true but he was an American Muslim. To his relief they said, "we do not kill Muslims" and politely apologised for breaking into his home. They then lectured him on Islam and told him: "We are defending our country and we want to take it from the non-believers" - probably a reference to the royal family of Saudi Arabia.
Another Muslim resident, Salam al-Hakawati, 38, a Lebanese corporate finance official, hid with his wife and two-year-old son upstairs when they heard gunfire. He heard people searching rooms downstairs and saying "this is a Muslim house" when they saw Koranic verses. A man with a machine gun came upstairs and said to him in Arabic: "We only want to hurt Westerners and Americans. Can you tell us where we can find them here?"
Just after sunrise some 40 black-clad Saudi commandos dropped into the compound from three helicopters. There was gunfire and some 50 hostages were freed. Saudi security officials said the gunmen's leader had been arrested, two killed - several escaped.
A manager in the compound said three foreigners, including a Briton and an American, were killed in the rescue.
At about the same time as the high-rise was being stormed, a man who claimed to be Abdul Aziz al-Moqrin, identified as the chief of al-Qa'ida in Saudi Arabia, claimed responsibility for the attack in a tape posted on the internet on a a website noted for militant Islamic comment. He identifies by nationality the foreigners who were killed, although he says it was an American whose body was dragged through the streets. Moqrin denounces the Saudi government for selling out to the US and providing "America with oil at the cheapest prices ... so that their economy does not collapse".
The recording may have been made inside the besieged building because it ends with volleys of shots and men shouting: "Open the door quickly."
having read just 2 articles on this saudi thing, it already stinks to high heaven. if the title doesnt give it away 'We only want to hurt the Westerners. Where can we find them? then you can read the rest of the article for a quick game of catch-the-spookspeak...
ill give $50 to the first person who thinks that these terrorists were making recordings and uploading them to a website whilst being stormed... not cos u deserve the $50, but cos it sounds like you prolly need it...
Fighting between United States forces and the Shia militia of the cleric Muqtada Sadr broke out again in the holy city of Najaf, threatening to kill a ceasefire deal made last week. The violence came as talks to name a new interim government were deadlocked over the question of who will become president. Iraqis involved in the talks were sayinga dispute with the US over the presidency could delay the planned handover of sovereignty on 30 June.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=526651
The disagreement comes after the unexpected appointment of Iyad Allawi to the more powerful job of Prime Minister. The US-appointed Governing Council wants to name its leader, Ghazi Yawar, to the largely ceremonial role of president.
But the US is leaning on them to choose Adnan Pachachi, 81, a former diplomat. Both are more popular choices than Mr Allawi, who has close links to the CIA and MI6. Mr Pachachi and Mr Yawar, a tribal leader, are widely respected by Iraqis. Both are Sunnis, to balance the fact that Mr Allawi comes from the majority Shia population.
The difference is that Mr Yawar has called for US forces to leave Iraq. Although he eschews the use of violence, he has called on Iraqis to use peaceful means to resist the occupation.
The governing council, scheduled to be dissolved on 30 June, appeared to have staged an inside coup, naming one of its own members as premier. But there are suspicions there may have been US involvement in the move. Mr Allawi is likely to be a more malleable choice than the technocrats Mr Brahimi was known to favour.
The renewed fighting in Najaf yesterday may be more destabilising. It came after Sadr had agreed to withdraw his Army of Mehdi from the holy city if US forces did the same - a deal which was supposed to end weeks of fighting in which Iraq's most sacred Shia shrine had been damaged.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=526651
The disagreement comes after the unexpected appointment of Iyad Allawi to the more powerful job of Prime Minister. The US-appointed Governing Council wants to name its leader, Ghazi Yawar, to the largely ceremonial role of president.
But the US is leaning on them to choose Adnan Pachachi, 81, a former diplomat. Both are more popular choices than Mr Allawi, who has close links to the CIA and MI6. Mr Pachachi and Mr Yawar, a tribal leader, are widely respected by Iraqis. Both are Sunnis, to balance the fact that Mr Allawi comes from the majority Shia population.
The difference is that Mr Yawar has called for US forces to leave Iraq. Although he eschews the use of violence, he has called on Iraqis to use peaceful means to resist the occupation.
The governing council, scheduled to be dissolved on 30 June, appeared to have staged an inside coup, naming one of its own members as premier. But there are suspicions there may have been US involvement in the move. Mr Allawi is likely to be a more malleable choice than the technocrats Mr Brahimi was known to favour.
The renewed fighting in Najaf yesterday may be more destabilising. It came after Sadr had agreed to withdraw his Army of Mehdi from the holy city if US forces did the same - a deal which was supposed to end weeks of fighting in which Iraq's most sacred Shia shrine had been damaged.
sorry to be dribbling this story in so many bits but there are a coupla things ive gotta clean up from the last email - its a fast moving story and im lagging.
on friday sis says "she's dumbfounded by reports that liberal icon Michael Moore had filmed an interview with her late brother" and is expecting to wait two weeks to see the video.
by midday saturday "she saw the video footage as a “gift.”" with no mention of her prior concerns. remember this is an apparently close family with father and son in biz together, and nick was an avid eamiler to family and friends, yet his sister didnt know he'd been interviewed for moore's movie for 16 minutes, 6 months ago in december. (and no sign that any of the others knew either). i know a bloke who got his pic taken with michael moore and couldnt wait to email it to his mates ;-)
"Moore on Thursday confirmed he had footage of Berg — shot for the anti-President Bush film Fahrenheit 9/11 — but said he would share it only with the family. Berg's brother and sister praised Moore for that, and said they would also keep the footage private.
"Sara Berg said her brother seemed enthusiastic in the footage. David Berg said it was “weird seeing Nick talk,” but described the interview as dry. He said the first thing he noticed was that his younger brother — who was most comfortable in casual clothes — wore a suit.
"It's one of the few times I've seen him dressed up, and he looked really good,” David Berg said by phone from his home outside Newark, N.J.
each to their own, but i know some parents who'd be uncomfortable if the final image of their son was having his head hacked off, and would prefer to be reminded of how normal he is and how good he looked in a suit and all that. its not like theres anything personal in the video - it is 'dry' - technical presumably - the "tower guy" showing his competence and talking about how he was trying to help the world and all that.
"The interview, which was not conducted by Moore, centred on the technical work Berg hoped to find repairing radio towers. Berg, 26 when he died, also talks about humanitarian work he did in Uganda and Kenya."
if u were a proud mum, would you prefer to show that footage to try to minimise the impact of the beheading images?
and finally (for the mo!), i cant help but notice the apparent incongruity of them not releasing a dry video, but both the bro and sis separately are kinda happy to be interviewed about it...
im not sure whether we are getting closer to or further from the truth on this lil matter...
on friday sis says "she's dumbfounded by reports that liberal icon Michael Moore had filmed an interview with her late brother" and is expecting to wait two weeks to see the video.
by midday saturday "she saw the video footage as a “gift.”" with no mention of her prior concerns. remember this is an apparently close family with father and son in biz together, and nick was an avid eamiler to family and friends, yet his sister didnt know he'd been interviewed for moore's movie for 16 minutes, 6 months ago in december. (and no sign that any of the others knew either). i know a bloke who got his pic taken with michael moore and couldnt wait to email it to his mates ;-)
"Moore on Thursday confirmed he had footage of Berg — shot for the anti-President Bush film Fahrenheit 9/11 — but said he would share it only with the family. Berg's brother and sister praised Moore for that, and said they would also keep the footage private.
"Sara Berg said her brother seemed enthusiastic in the footage. David Berg said it was “weird seeing Nick talk,” but described the interview as dry. He said the first thing he noticed was that his younger brother — who was most comfortable in casual clothes — wore a suit.
"It's one of the few times I've seen him dressed up, and he looked really good,” David Berg said by phone from his home outside Newark, N.J.
each to their own, but i know some parents who'd be uncomfortable if the final image of their son was having his head hacked off, and would prefer to be reminded of how normal he is and how good he looked in a suit and all that. its not like theres anything personal in the video - it is 'dry' - technical presumably - the "tower guy" showing his competence and talking about how he was trying to help the world and all that.
"The interview, which was not conducted by Moore, centred on the technical work Berg hoped to find repairing radio towers. Berg, 26 when he died, also talks about humanitarian work he did in Uganda and Kenya."
if u were a proud mum, would you prefer to show that footage to try to minimise the impact of the beheading images?
and finally (for the mo!), i cant help but notice the apparent incongruity of them not releasing a dry video, but both the bro and sis separately are kinda happy to be interviewed about it...
im not sure whether we are getting closer to or further from the truth on this lil matter...
Moore confirmed Thursday that he had footage of Berg - shot for his film "Fahrenheit 9/11," which is critical of President Bush - but said he would share it only with the family.
http://www.adn.com/24hour/iraq/story/1403541p-8684644c.html
Moore sent copies of the footage to David Berg in New Jersey and sister Sara Berg in Virginia. Their parents will see the video after returning to their suburban home from vacation, David Berg said.
Sara Berg said her brother told Moore's crew he was nervous about his safety in Iraq.
"He recognized it was a concern, and he kind of pointed out that he'd worked in difficult situations before," Sara Berg said from her home in Virginia. "It's definitely something that he didn't shrug off."
She said her brother seemed enthusiastic in the footage.
David Berg, speaking from his home outside Newark, N.J., said it was "weird seeing Nick talk," but described the interview footage as dry.
Sara Berg said she saw the video footage as a "gift."
http://www.adn.com/24hour/iraq/story/1403541p-8684644c.html
Moore sent copies of the footage to David Berg in New Jersey and sister Sara Berg in Virginia. Their parents will see the video after returning to their suburban home from vacation, David Berg said.
Sara Berg said her brother told Moore's crew he was nervous about his safety in Iraq.
"He recognized it was a concern, and he kind of pointed out that he'd worked in difficult situations before," Sara Berg said from her home in Virginia. "It's definitely something that he didn't shrug off."
She said her brother seemed enthusiastic in the footage.
David Berg, speaking from his home outside Newark, N.J., said it was "weird seeing Nick talk," but described the interview footage as dry.
Sara Berg said she saw the video footage as a "gift."
Moore on Thursday confirmed he had footage of Berg -- shot for the anti-President Bush film "Fahrenheit 9/11" -- but said he would share it only with the family. Nicholas Berg's brother and sister praised Moore for that, and said they would also keep the footage private.
http://www.local6.com/news/3360942/detail.html
David Berg said it was "weird seeing Nick talk," but described the interview footage as dry. He said the first thing he noticed was that his younger brother -- who was most comfortable in casual clothes -- wore a suit.
The interview, which was not conducted by Moore, centered on the technical work Berg hoped to find repairing radio towers on behalf of his company, Prometheus Methods Tower Service. Berg, 26 when he died, also talks about humanitarian work he did in Uganda and Kenya.
"Nick seemed to be fairly conscious of using this thing to promote his business," David Berg said. "(The interviewer) does ask him at one point about the money and he said no one's denying there's money to be made. But it's very clear when you watch it, Nick knew he wasn't going to make a lot of money."
Moore said he had considered using some of the footage in his film but that it got edited out, David Berg said. Aware of the footage they had, some of Moore's staffers cried when they heard about Berg's death, the filmmaker told David Berg.
Moore sent copies of the footage to David Berg in New Jersey and sister Sara Berg in Virginia. Their parents will see the video after returning to their suburban Philadelphia home from vacation, David Berg said.
Given Moore's political leanings, David Berg said he was "really nervous" about what the footage of his brother might show. Nicholas Berg was in favor of bringing democracy to the Middle East, his family has said, but David Berg said his brother wasn't overtly political.
"He went to Iraq because he had certain beliefs about helping people in messed up situations, but it's not like he was trying to help the Bush administration," David Berg said.
David Berg said Moore has handled the situation with "dignity, respect and discipline."
"Michael Moore has really been a total class act with this whole thing," David Berg said. "He could have sold this to the media or stuck it in his movie."
http://www.local6.com/news/3360942/detail.html
David Berg said it was "weird seeing Nick talk," but described the interview footage as dry. He said the first thing he noticed was that his younger brother -- who was most comfortable in casual clothes -- wore a suit.
The interview, which was not conducted by Moore, centered on the technical work Berg hoped to find repairing radio towers on behalf of his company, Prometheus Methods Tower Service. Berg, 26 when he died, also talks about humanitarian work he did in Uganda and Kenya.
"Nick seemed to be fairly conscious of using this thing to promote his business," David Berg said. "(The interviewer) does ask him at one point about the money and he said no one's denying there's money to be made. But it's very clear when you watch it, Nick knew he wasn't going to make a lot of money."
Moore said he had considered using some of the footage in his film but that it got edited out, David Berg said. Aware of the footage they had, some of Moore's staffers cried when they heard about Berg's death, the filmmaker told David Berg.
Moore sent copies of the footage to David Berg in New Jersey and sister Sara Berg in Virginia. Their parents will see the video after returning to their suburban Philadelphia home from vacation, David Berg said.
Given Moore's political leanings, David Berg said he was "really nervous" about what the footage of his brother might show. Nicholas Berg was in favor of bringing democracy to the Middle East, his family has said, but David Berg said his brother wasn't overtly political.
"He went to Iraq because he had certain beliefs about helping people in messed up situations, but it's not like he was trying to help the Bush administration," David Berg said.
David Berg said Moore has handled the situation with "dignity, respect and discipline."
"Michael Moore has really been a total class act with this whole thing," David Berg said. "He could have sold this to the media or stuck it in his movie."
my point re tillman, and all the dead soldiers, is that if theres something noble about dying for your country for a righteuos cause, then it is presumably somewhat less noble if the cause isnt righteous.
On Sun, 30 May 2004 03:03:12 -0400, " " wrote:
>
> Well, Tillman can still be proud. Not his fault his
> own troup fragged
> him...
>
> As for Jessica and Lynddie....they haven't done much
> service to the idea of
> allowing women to serve in the army...first the right
> to vote, now this...
On Sun, 30 May 2004 03:03:12 -0400, " " wrote:
>
> Well, Tillman can still be proud. Not his fault his
> own troup fragged
> him...
>
> As for Jessica and Lynddie....they haven't done much
> service to the idea of
> allowing women to serve in the army...first the right
> to vote, now this...
The captives' ordeal only ended 24 hours later when Saudi forces stormed the building, but three of the gunmen managed to escape.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,9700370%255E1702,00.html
A fourth, their alleged leader, was wounded and captured, officials said. He was identified only as one of the kingdom's "most wanted"
i havent been following the saudi story at all but this is nice...
im not sure if there were more than 4 people - but how the fukk do 3 people escape? i mean, seriously. we saw the same thing in that stupid apartment explosion in madrid (and the hoist at heathrow). do the keystoners need more time? didnt they have a day or two to get prepared, and, i dunno, maybe seal the perimeter? and as always the "but three of the gunmen managed to escape" line is always matter-of-fact, without comment.
if i didnt know better, id be tempted to think it was all part of a plan. and it helps to have someone to blame for the next terrorevent.
alqaeda did it. alqaeda did it. i guess we wont officially know till the cia tests the voiceprint ;-) curiously, my radio just played alqs 'we did it' from an 'islamic website' - and they played it in arabic - lol. are they trying to prove something? from my limited experience, the media tend not to play foreign language thingys - are they trying to prove a point? i bet the tv version of the story has a picture of some spooky arab...
"The Saudi interior ministry has listed the dead from the weekend hostage-taking and earlier shooting attacks in Khobar as eight Indians, three Filipinos, three Saudis, two Sri Lankans, one American, one Briton, an Italian, a Swede, a South African and an Egyptian." 22 dead, 10 different countries. thats some pretty nice impact reach. im surprised there wasnt an ozzie and a spaniard and a japanese. prpas we'll see those countries represented in the 'injured' list...
"Another 25 people from various countries were wounded in the attacks."
im surprised we havent found some 'unexploded bombs' yet - with the 'same detonators that alq uses', and a couple of korans and a terror almanac.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,9700370%255E1702,00.html
A fourth, their alleged leader, was wounded and captured, officials said. He was identified only as one of the kingdom's "most wanted"
i havent been following the saudi story at all but this is nice...
im not sure if there were more than 4 people - but how the fukk do 3 people escape? i mean, seriously. we saw the same thing in that stupid apartment explosion in madrid (and the hoist at heathrow). do the keystoners need more time? didnt they have a day or two to get prepared, and, i dunno, maybe seal the perimeter? and as always the "but three of the gunmen managed to escape" line is always matter-of-fact, without comment.
if i didnt know better, id be tempted to think it was all part of a plan. and it helps to have someone to blame for the next terrorevent.
alqaeda did it. alqaeda did it. i guess we wont officially know till the cia tests the voiceprint ;-) curiously, my radio just played alqs 'we did it' from an 'islamic website' - and they played it in arabic - lol. are they trying to prove something? from my limited experience, the media tend not to play foreign language thingys - are they trying to prove a point? i bet the tv version of the story has a picture of some spooky arab...
"The Saudi interior ministry has listed the dead from the weekend hostage-taking and earlier shooting attacks in Khobar as eight Indians, three Filipinos, three Saudis, two Sri Lankans, one American, one Briton, an Italian, a Swede, a South African and an Egyptian." 22 dead, 10 different countries. thats some pretty nice impact reach. im surprised there wasnt an ozzie and a spaniard and a japanese. prpas we'll see those countries represented in the 'injured' list...
"Another 25 people from various countries were wounded in the attacks."
im surprised we havent found some 'unexploded bombs' yet - with the 'same detonators that alq uses', and a couple of korans and a terror almanac.
Why Spain turned on Aznar
You may attempt to make the argument that Spain rewarded Osama bin Laden by rejecting Aznar, but I do not recommend you attempt to make it on the streets of Madrid. If you did, you would quickly be confronted by the truth. Aznar sealed his own fate by lying to the Spanish people.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/052804A.shtml
Aznar lied on two major counts. First; In committing the Spanish to a war they did not want, taking the position that it was needed to fight terrorism. That is a lie. The minions of bin Laden will never be defeated by armies marching. They can only be defeated meticulous police work and by social and economic conditions that do not drive supporters to them. Second; In the aftermath of the bombings, Aznar attempted gain political advantage by blaming the Basque separatist group ETA. That was an insult to Spain.
The resulting verdict rendered at the polls was not an acceptance of bin Laden's madness, but rather a condemnation of Aznar's betrayal of Spain.
Wednesday's press briefing by John Ashcroft was a puzzlement. The presentation appeared more geared towards public relations than public safety. One had to wonder if Ashcroft was trying to stop terror, or cause it. Where was the information here? What purpose did this serve? For the record Mr. Ashcroft, if you have any real information about attacks on Americans, we would love to hear about them
Ashcroft did take the opportunity to suggest that Madrid might set the stage for similar attacks in the U.S. prior to our November elections, saying, "Al-Qaida may perceive that a large-scale attack in the United States this summer or fall would lead to similar consequences." Al-Qaida may perceive that, but only if they can't read. The last Al-Qaida operation on U.S. soil did little to empower the opposition. On the contrary, it put the opposition on the endangered species list.
The Baghdad trap
If you believe that bin Laden would like to sweep Bush from power, then you would have to wonder if an act of violence on U.S. soil would produce that. However if you are concerned that Baghdad is bin Laden's trap for Bush, then you might wonder if another attack on U.S. soil might better serve bin Laden's interest. It would, in greater likelihood, keep Bush in power and the U.S. Army in Baghdad. If that, in fact, is what bin Laden wants, then this could be a very dangerous summer indeed.
Can bin Laden save Bush?
Bush is in trouble for sure. It would take something big to wash away the memory of the twisted freak-show at Abu Grahib, and the Chalabi betrayal has yet to really see the light of day. So the question hangs a bit. The answer may lie in another question: Will the Americans accept the same lies that the Spanish would not?
You may attempt to make the argument that Spain rewarded Osama bin Laden by rejecting Aznar, but I do not recommend you attempt to make it on the streets of Madrid. If you did, you would quickly be confronted by the truth. Aznar sealed his own fate by lying to the Spanish people.
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/052804A.shtml
Aznar lied on two major counts. First; In committing the Spanish to a war they did not want, taking the position that it was needed to fight terrorism. That is a lie. The minions of bin Laden will never be defeated by armies marching. They can only be defeated meticulous police work and by social and economic conditions that do not drive supporters to them. Second; In the aftermath of the bombings, Aznar attempted gain political advantage by blaming the Basque separatist group ETA. That was an insult to Spain.
The resulting verdict rendered at the polls was not an acceptance of bin Laden's madness, but rather a condemnation of Aznar's betrayal of Spain.
Wednesday's press briefing by John Ashcroft was a puzzlement. The presentation appeared more geared towards public relations than public safety. One had to wonder if Ashcroft was trying to stop terror, or cause it. Where was the information here? What purpose did this serve? For the record Mr. Ashcroft, if you have any real information about attacks on Americans, we would love to hear about them
Ashcroft did take the opportunity to suggest that Madrid might set the stage for similar attacks in the U.S. prior to our November elections, saying, "Al-Qaida may perceive that a large-scale attack in the United States this summer or fall would lead to similar consequences." Al-Qaida may perceive that, but only if they can't read. The last Al-Qaida operation on U.S. soil did little to empower the opposition. On the contrary, it put the opposition on the endangered species list.
The Baghdad trap
If you believe that bin Laden would like to sweep Bush from power, then you would have to wonder if an act of violence on U.S. soil would produce that. However if you are concerned that Baghdad is bin Laden's trap for Bush, then you might wonder if another attack on U.S. soil might better serve bin Laden's interest. It would, in greater likelihood, keep Bush in power and the U.S. Army in Baghdad. If that, in fact, is what bin Laden wants, then this could be a very dangerous summer indeed.
Can bin Laden save Bush?
Bush is in trouble for sure. It would take something big to wash away the memory of the twisted freak-show at Abu Grahib, and the Chalabi betrayal has yet to really see the light of day. So the question hangs a bit. The answer may lie in another question: Will the Americans accept the same lies that the Spanish would not?
The draft of the United Nations resolution that circulated yesterday was disappointingly sketchy on these points. It contains the phrases of international support — like references to a "multinational" military force — without committing the Security Council to do anything in particular. The draft endorses a continued American-led military presence in Iraq for at least a year beyond June 30, but it does not ensure expanded international participation. The resolution envisions that after the United Nations names the interim government leaders, it will proceed cautiously, and only when it deems it safe to do so.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/25/opinion/25TUE1.html?ex=1086062400&en=c4a4dd505f794c82&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE
The president still has a number of speeches left to deliver before June 30. We hope he will use them to come up with a more specific plan, to stop listing the things we already knew needed to be done and to explain to us how he intends to do them. An acknowledgment of past mistakes would be nice.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/25/opinion/25TUE1.html?ex=1086062400&en=c4a4dd505f794c82&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE
The president still has a number of speeches left to deliver before June 30. We hope he will use them to come up with a more specific plan, to stop listing the things we already knew needed to be done and to explain to us how he intends to do them. An acknowledgment of past mistakes would be nice.
WASHINGTON, May 28 - The F.B.I. issued an urgent bulletin to several cities on Friday that warned of the prospect of an imminent terrorist attack but retracted the alert hours later, after the intelligence proved unfounded, officials said.
The alert went to law enforcement officials in two or three cities to warn of intelligence that indicated the prospect of an attack in the next 24 hours, officials said. Officials would not give the names of the cities.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/29/politics/29terror.html
A law enforcement official at another city, who insisted that he and the city not be named, said authorities there had received a call late in the day from the Federal Bureau of Investigation alerting them to the possibility of an "imminent" attack there. Later, however, the FBI called to withdraw the warning.
The official, citing recent questions about the credibility of the terrorist intelligence from the bureau, said, "It's getting harder and harder to defend them."
The alert went to law enforcement officials in two or three cities to warn of intelligence that indicated the prospect of an attack in the next 24 hours, officials said. Officials would not give the names of the cities.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/29/politics/29terror.html
A law enforcement official at another city, who insisted that he and the city not be named, said authorities there had received a call late in the day from the Federal Bureau of Investigation alerting them to the possibility of an "imminent" attack there. Later, however, the FBI called to withdraw the warning.
The official, citing recent questions about the credibility of the terrorist intelligence from the bureau, said, "It's getting harder and harder to defend them."
The most newsworthy story related to the incredible shrinking _resident's speech last night is that the three major networks didn't televise it live. It was billed as a very important speech, it was a prime-time speech, it was being positioned as one that would be carried by the networks -- just as the incredible shrinking _resident's recent embarrassing press conference was broadcast live. So what happened? Were they doing the White House a favor by NOT broadcasting it? Did Rove get second-thoughts? Or has the US electorate distrust, disapproval and disappointment in the incredible shrinking _resident soared so high that the networks are thinking about their own damaged credibility or more like their ratings? It was, afterall, one of the last "sweep" nights. It's the Media, Stupid.
http://www.mindspace.org/liberation-news-service/archives/000868.html
http://www.mindspace.org/liberation-news-service/archives/000868.html
2 additions to the berg story just if you wanna keep on the front foot on this one...
further to the spookiness of the berg/moore thingy - this article says: " The sister of Nick Berg says she's dumbfounded by reports that liberal icon Michael Moore had filmed an interview with her late brother for his new anti-war film. "I'm very skeptical of this," and "she said there was no way to confirm that Moore had sent a tape of the reported 20-minute interview to their parents' home in West Chester, as the filmmaker suggested in a statement Thursday, because the couple has been away."
http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/nation/8788000.htm
(its a KR story)
theres a very odd and apparently unlikely possibility developing - that moore didnt interview berg at all which would open up an entire pandora - box and all. itll be interesting to see if the tape gets released, and if the date can be verified. praps its the footage from the abuG interviews, well edited after 3 weeks?
i think i mentioned the other day that the family said moore was being really good about it - if they were all in contact with each other, why was the tape sent to the house when they are away for two weeks? and why not fedex a copy to the sister. and why dont the grieving parents come home to see the last footage of their dead son?
i mentioned at the start of the beheading story that maybe mr berg is on his own beach somewhere- and i mentioned in passing (with disclaimers) that his dad didnt seem too upset when nick died... i wonder if the beach thing is an increasingly likely scenario.
none of this explains moores role *if* he is making the entire thing up (im not suggesting he is - im just trying to follow the facts). why would they ask him to do it? what are they trying to 'prove'? and why would he do it? im completely guessing/floundering here - speculative hypothesis on speculative hypothesis and all that. dadberg is anti-bush , moore is antibush, kidberg was apparently pro. praps the cia is getting nervous about the fact that the beheading video story is unravelling, and so they need a cover story - "kidberg was a treasonous spy" or some such and was desevedly/accidentally tortured to death. but surely they dont need moore to do that? in this fanciful scenario, it'd be fun to see how they explain the video part of the story tho - blame it on russian jewish oil interests somehow??? dog only knows - the whole story has got my head going loop-de-luke.
why would moore do it? an island in the sun maybe? or did they threaten to kill him? praps theres a side deal re f911 distribution - perhaps he'll get distribution but have to make some minor edits. or praps no distribution and instant retirement and a billion bux or something... praps we'll see him keep quiet for a bit 'out of respect for the family' (out of all the others to whom he doesnt totally extend that same courtesy). again, this is all total speculation, i havent got a clue.
and in case you are wondering what the more extreme conspiracy theorists are saying - heres a very dodgy one - http://www.godlikeproductions.com/bbs/message.php?message=326340&mpage=4&topic=3&showdate=5/26/04&replies=112 which indicts kerry thru skull&bones, and says that berg dropped atta's passport at wtc on 911.
the rant is all very conspira-spooky and i dont make anything of it at all - although it seems kinda clear that any attempt to pull all the facts together is necessarily gonna sound spooky - and one of them has to be correct...
one things for sure - we havent heard the end of this story and there are tentacles everywhere. theres a growing sense that this berg thingy could be the thing that brings down the house of cards. with or without moore, it seemed like a pretty desperate thing to do, from which perhaps we can infer that the times are also desperate - perhaps we'll see some increasing escalation as tends to happen in these matters...
the 64 million squid question of course, is how graceful an exit will we see if someone pulls out a card or two from the bottom? kerplunk. military coup or martial law? both? the election looks a long way away.
lemme know if this berg thing is boring.
further to the spookiness of the berg/moore thingy - this article says: " The sister of Nick Berg says she's dumbfounded by reports that liberal icon Michael Moore had filmed an interview with her late brother for his new anti-war film. "I'm very skeptical of this," and "she said there was no way to confirm that Moore had sent a tape of the reported 20-minute interview to their parents' home in West Chester, as the filmmaker suggested in a statement Thursday, because the couple has been away."
http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/nation/8788000.htm
(its a KR story)
theres a very odd and apparently unlikely possibility developing - that moore didnt interview berg at all which would open up an entire pandora - box and all. itll be interesting to see if the tape gets released, and if the date can be verified. praps its the footage from the abuG interviews, well edited after 3 weeks?
i think i mentioned the other day that the family said moore was being really good about it - if they were all in contact with each other, why was the tape sent to the house when they are away for two weeks? and why not fedex a copy to the sister. and why dont the grieving parents come home to see the last footage of their dead son?
i mentioned at the start of the beheading story that maybe mr berg is on his own beach somewhere- and i mentioned in passing (with disclaimers) that his dad didnt seem too upset when nick died... i wonder if the beach thing is an increasingly likely scenario.
none of this explains moores role *if* he is making the entire thing up (im not suggesting he is - im just trying to follow the facts). why would they ask him to do it? what are they trying to 'prove'? and why would he do it? im completely guessing/floundering here - speculative hypothesis on speculative hypothesis and all that. dadberg is anti-bush , moore is antibush, kidberg was apparently pro. praps the cia is getting nervous about the fact that the beheading video story is unravelling, and so they need a cover story - "kidberg was a treasonous spy" or some such and was desevedly/accidentally tortured to death. but surely they dont need moore to do that? in this fanciful scenario, it'd be fun to see how they explain the video part of the story tho - blame it on russian jewish oil interests somehow??? dog only knows - the whole story has got my head going loop-de-luke.
why would moore do it? an island in the sun maybe? or did they threaten to kill him? praps theres a side deal re f911 distribution - perhaps he'll get distribution but have to make some minor edits. or praps no distribution and instant retirement and a billion bux or something... praps we'll see him keep quiet for a bit 'out of respect for the family' (out of all the others to whom he doesnt totally extend that same courtesy). again, this is all total speculation, i havent got a clue.
and in case you are wondering what the more extreme conspiracy theorists are saying - heres a very dodgy one - http://www.godlikeproductions.com/bbs/message.php?message=326340&mpage=4&topic=3&showdate=5/26/04&replies=112 which indicts kerry thru skull&bones, and says that berg dropped atta's passport at wtc on 911.
the rant is all very conspira-spooky and i dont make anything of it at all - although it seems kinda clear that any attempt to pull all the facts together is necessarily gonna sound spooky - and one of them has to be correct...
one things for sure - we havent heard the end of this story and there are tentacles everywhere. theres a growing sense that this berg thingy could be the thing that brings down the house of cards. with or without moore, it seemed like a pretty desperate thing to do, from which perhaps we can infer that the times are also desperate - perhaps we'll see some increasing escalation as tends to happen in these matters...
the 64 million squid question of course, is how graceful an exit will we see if someone pulls out a card or two from the bottom? kerplunk. military coup or martial law? both? the election looks a long way away.
lemme know if this berg thing is boring.
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Film documentary "Super Size Me," a critical look at the health impact of a fast-food only diet, has been downsized at cable network MTV which has refused to air advertisements for the film, its distributors said on Wednesday.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040526/tv_nm/leisure_supersizeme_dc
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040526/tv_nm/leisure_supersizeme_dc
If a recent report in the Wall Street Journal is anywhere close to accurate, it appears that the Iraqis will not be doing much of anything significant: "As Washington prepares to hand over power, U.S. administrator L. Paul Bremer and other officials are quietly building institutions that will give the U.S. powerful levers for influencing nearly every important decision the interim government will make."
http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=17007
Recent "edicts" handed down by Bremer's Coalition Provisional Authority "created new commissions that effectively take away virtually all the powers once held by several ministries." A newly established "security-advisor position" will take "charge of training and organizing Iraq's new army and paramilitary forces, and put in place a pair of watchdog institutions that will serve as checks on individual ministries and allow for continued U.S. oversight." CPA advisors will also remain active "in virtually all remaining ministries after the handover."
And many of these arrangements are not intended to be temporary. According to the Journal, U.S. and Iraqi "proxies will serve multiyear terms and have significant authority to run criminal investigations, award contracts, direct troops and subpoena citizens."
According to the consortiumnews.com's Nat Parry, "Negroponte also was accused of concealing information about these secret activities from the U.S. Congress, including information about Battalion 316, which was organized, trained and financed by the CIA. The battalion specialized in torture using 'shock and suffocation devices in interrogations,' according to an investigation by the Baltimore Sun in 1995. Prisoners were often 'kept naked and, when no longer useful, killed and buried in unmarked graves,' the newspaper reported."
"Some critics of Bush's Iraq policy have suggested that the choice of Negroponte as ambassador may foreshadow even more aggressive tactics against Iraqi insurgents," Parry recently wrote.
http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=17007
Recent "edicts" handed down by Bremer's Coalition Provisional Authority "created new commissions that effectively take away virtually all the powers once held by several ministries." A newly established "security-advisor position" will take "charge of training and organizing Iraq's new army and paramilitary forces, and put in place a pair of watchdog institutions that will serve as checks on individual ministries and allow for continued U.S. oversight." CPA advisors will also remain active "in virtually all remaining ministries after the handover."
And many of these arrangements are not intended to be temporary. According to the Journal, U.S. and Iraqi "proxies will serve multiyear terms and have significant authority to run criminal investigations, award contracts, direct troops and subpoena citizens."
According to the consortiumnews.com's Nat Parry, "Negroponte also was accused of concealing information about these secret activities from the U.S. Congress, including information about Battalion 316, which was organized, trained and financed by the CIA. The battalion specialized in torture using 'shock and suffocation devices in interrogations,' according to an investigation by the Baltimore Sun in 1995. Prisoners were often 'kept naked and, when no longer useful, killed and buried in unmarked graves,' the newspaper reported."
"Some critics of Bush's Iraq policy have suggested that the choice of Negroponte as ambassador may foreshadow even more aggressive tactics against Iraqi insurgents," Parry recently wrote.
It’s hard to remember how many times Bush has tried and failed to convince the world that the enemy in Iraq is part of the global terrorist plot. But it was clear within hours that he has failed to convince members of his own cabinet on this critical point. Speaking on ABC’s "Good Morning America," Colin Powell strained to avoid the T word. “These former regime elements, these anti-Coalition people, as we call them, these terrorists, are determined to keep Iraq from having self-government, to keep Iraq from electing its own leaders,” the secretary of State said. “They want to go back to the past, and we can’t allow that to happen.”
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5060160/site/newsweek/
But they will care about the president’s warning, buried toward the bottom of his speech, about what is to come: “There's likely to be more violence before the transfer of sovereignty, and after the transfer of sovereignty.”
As General Abizaid explained last week: “The situation will become more violent even after sovereignty because it will remain unclear what's going to happen between the interim government and elections.”
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5060160/site/newsweek/
But they will care about the president’s warning, buried toward the bottom of his speech, about what is to come: “There's likely to be more violence before the transfer of sovereignty, and after the transfer of sovereignty.”
As General Abizaid explained last week: “The situation will become more violent even after sovereignty because it will remain unclear what's going to happen between the interim government and elections.”
Mass riots have erupted across Pakistan's largest city, Karachi, after the assassination of one of the country's top religious leaders.
http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=D9A326FF-5A36-46E4-A27ECACE67BE6B78
"It was premeditated, calculated," he said. "They were all ready, waiting to ambush him, and when he came from his apartment, they were ready to shoot him. So, they shot him."
http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=D9A326FF-5A36-46E4-A27ECACE67BE6B78
"It was premeditated, calculated," he said. "They were all ready, waiting to ambush him, and when he came from his apartment, they were ready to shoot him. So, they shot him."
PHILADELPHIA - (KRT) - The sister of Nick Berg, the contractor from the Philadelphia suburbs who was beheaded earlier this month in Iraq, says she's dumbfounded by reports that liberal icon Michael Moore had filmed an interview with her late brother for his new anti-war film.
http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/nation/8788000.htm
"I'm very skeptical of this," said Sara Berg, a Virginia attorney whose brother's beheading sparked a global uproar.
But she said there was no way to confirm that Moore had sent a tape of the reported 20-minute interview to their parents' home in West Chester, as the filmmaker suggested in a statement Thursday, because the couple has been away.
Moore's acknowledgment that he had interview footage of Berg that had been shot - but not used - for his highly controversial "Fahrenheit 9/11" documentary may be the strangest twist yet in the increasingly weird saga of Berg and his Iraqi travels, which led to his slaying.
So, how would a completely unknown young wannabe contractor like Berg come to the attention of Moore, whose anti-President Bush screed "Dude, Where's My Country?" was the best-selling book in the nation at the time?
Stranger than that: Why would Moore or his crew interview Berg for "Fahrenheit 9/11" for 20 minutes, when Berg's family insists the slain contractor was pro-Bush and supported the American military action in Iraq?
We may never know the answers, because Berg is dead and Moore says he has no plans to release the interview footage to the public.
Since then, some have questioned why Berg had been in Iraq, as well as some of his strange connections.
http://www.kentucky.com/mld/kentucky/news/nation/8788000.htm
"I'm very skeptical of this," said Sara Berg, a Virginia attorney whose brother's beheading sparked a global uproar.
But she said there was no way to confirm that Moore had sent a tape of the reported 20-minute interview to their parents' home in West Chester, as the filmmaker suggested in a statement Thursday, because the couple has been away.
Moore's acknowledgment that he had interview footage of Berg that had been shot - but not used - for his highly controversial "Fahrenheit 9/11" documentary may be the strangest twist yet in the increasingly weird saga of Berg and his Iraqi travels, which led to his slaying.
So, how would a completely unknown young wannabe contractor like Berg come to the attention of Moore, whose anti-President Bush screed "Dude, Where's My Country?" was the best-selling book in the nation at the time?
Stranger than that: Why would Moore or his crew interview Berg for "Fahrenheit 9/11" for 20 minutes, when Berg's family insists the slain contractor was pro-Bush and supported the American military action in Iraq?
We may never know the answers, because Berg is dead and Moore says he has no plans to release the interview footage to the public.
Since then, some have questioned why Berg had been in Iraq, as well as some of his strange connections.
Apparently Moore's people attended a conference on business possibilities in occupied Iraq looking for interviews with those prepared to take advantage of the situation (the two slightly different Associated Press stories are: 1) here or here or here, and 2) here or here). These are the kind of people that Moore likes to feature in his films as they are apt to say telling things about the real state of the world. This was the same conference where Berg met Aziz al-Taee, his eventual business partner in Iraq. Two possibilities come to mind:
Berg was working for somebody who wanted him to watch a certain kind of person, which would include both Aziz al-Taee and Michael Moore (and Moussaoui's friend). It was widely known that Moore was working on an anti-Bush film, and not surprising that somebody would want to keep an eye on what Moore was doing. Berg's real job may have been to introduce himself to people like Moore to spy on them.
Berg managed to have himself hired as a freelance investigator for Moore, saw something he shouldn't have at Abu Ghraib prison, and was detained and eventually killed because of what he saw.
Berg seemed to live quite a life of adventure with very marginal means of support. You have to wonder whether he had a secret sponsor. His propensity for 'running into' certain people is beginning to look like a pattern.
http://xymphora.blogspot.com/2004/05/cutting-room-floor.html
Berg was working for somebody who wanted him to watch a certain kind of person, which would include both Aziz al-Taee and Michael Moore (and Moussaoui's friend). It was widely known that Moore was working on an anti-Bush film, and not surprising that somebody would want to keep an eye on what Moore was doing. Berg's real job may have been to introduce himself to people like Moore to spy on them.
Berg managed to have himself hired as a freelance investigator for Moore, saw something he shouldn't have at Abu Ghraib prison, and was detained and eventually killed because of what he saw.
Berg seemed to live quite a life of adventure with very marginal means of support. You have to wonder whether he had a secret sponsor. His propensity for 'running into' certain people is beginning to look like a pattern.
http://xymphora.blogspot.com/2004/05/cutting-room-floor.html
Sunday, May 30, 2004
Pentagon officials were caught by surprise by President George W. Bush 's announcement on Tuesday that the notorious Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad was to be torn down.
"This office was not aware of any plans to raze Abu Ghraib or build another prison," a Pentagon spokesman told The New York Times, insisting that he remain anonymous lest he was seen as contradicting the president.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1521&e=1&u=/afp/20040527/pl_afp/iraq_us_prison_pentagon_040527133734
A White House official, who also asked not to be identified, told the daily it was Bush's idea to include the announcement in a speech Tuesday, in which he outlined his strategy to hand over power to an interim Iraqi government on June 30.
"This office was not aware of any plans to raze Abu Ghraib or build another prison," a Pentagon spokesman told The New York Times, insisting that he remain anonymous lest he was seen as contradicting the president.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1521&e=1&u=/afp/20040527/pl_afp/iraq_us_prison_pentagon_040527133734
A White House official, who also asked not to be identified, told the daily it was Bush's idea to include the announcement in a speech Tuesday, in which he outlined his strategy to hand over power to an interim Iraqi government on June 30.
quick update re my rant yesterday about the australian
guy pleading guilty toi planning to blow up the israeli
embassy for obl, hambali, saddam, darth vadar et al - i
couldnt believe that the story wasnt in "the
australian" - well - the story got a bit curiouser - i
saw a copy of the physical paper - and the story was
the #1 story - will 1/3 page pic (surprisingly, he
looks respectable - not the way they normally demonise
them with mugshot or woteva). so the story is the
number one story in the paper, and not on the website -
all the other stories have shifted up a rung, so that
the number 2 story in the print version 'election
delay' became the number one story on the website and
so on. yesterday the story was in the 'news updates'
section, but it has now disappeared from there...
iraq my brains but cant find any sense at all in any of
it - the story just disappeared from the website. even
im tempted to think that it was an accident!!! the
article is the same - the same 'asio' headline, and no
mention of the guilty plea till para 8. i cant even
begin to hypothesise
2 other snippets from the wizardofoz:
a) a front page terror arrest 6 weeks ago was
undermined yesterday when the judge laughed at them
all.
b) the pm decided that it would be silly risking the
possibility that activist judges might miscontrue and
allow happy gay people to get married so the
prohibition best be enshrined in law. and for a cherry
on top, they banned gay couples from adopting from
overseas (unfortunately the states have jurisdiction
over internal adoptions - for now). in a comforting
show of solidarity, the hitherto anticonsertvative,
antiwar Labour opposition quickly agreed to deny gay
rights.
and in a stunning display of media synchronicity, the
gay marriage story was immediately preceeded by a
weeklong furor over some parliamentarian who took her
bf on a trip 5 (?) years ago as a 'spouse' - it seems
as though she was cutting the definition pretty fine,
altho apparently she specifically checked twice & got
approval at the time. (and for the sweetest rub, the
now-ex-bf was involved in some police investigation 8
years ago.)
so we got a lovely weeklong debate about the definition
of marriage right b4 the nogaymarriage thingy.
and yesterday there was a story about how some 69 (!)
yo guy who'd been fighting a 12yo thai girls
extradition and was found with some child pornography
on his computer (not of her, they were careful to add,
to show that they are fair). im not big on child
pornography as a rule - but i reckon there'd be lots of
people they could get on this charge if they wanted
to... someone once emailed me some porno pix - the
girls looked mebbe 18 - some mighta been 20yos who
looked like they were 18, but others may have been 16
who looked 18... its hard to tell these days...
gays who wanna adopt o/s kids are perverts ya know.
man-on-man. man-on-foreignkid. man-on-dog. mano-a-mano.
i wonder if lyndie england could adopt? actually, that
rite, she is pregnant to one of those many guys she
groupfucked - somehow the bf is confident its his ;-)
_______________________________________________________
You think Arabs are dumb? Try doing long division with
Roman numerals.
wotisitgood4.blogspot.com
guy pleading guilty toi planning to blow up the israeli
embassy for obl, hambali, saddam, darth vadar et al - i
couldnt believe that the story wasnt in "the
australian" - well - the story got a bit curiouser - i
saw a copy of the physical paper - and the story was
the #1 story - will 1/3 page pic (surprisingly, he
looks respectable - not the way they normally demonise
them with mugshot or woteva). so the story is the
number one story in the paper, and not on the website -
all the other stories have shifted up a rung, so that
the number 2 story in the print version 'election
delay' became the number one story on the website and
so on. yesterday the story was in the 'news updates'
section, but it has now disappeared from there...
iraq my brains but cant find any sense at all in any of
it - the story just disappeared from the website. even
im tempted to think that it was an accident!!! the
article is the same - the same 'asio' headline, and no
mention of the guilty plea till para 8. i cant even
begin to hypothesise
2 other snippets from the wizardofoz:
a) a front page terror arrest 6 weeks ago was
undermined yesterday when the judge laughed at them
all.
b) the pm decided that it would be silly risking the
possibility that activist judges might miscontrue and
allow happy gay people to get married so the
prohibition best be enshrined in law. and for a cherry
on top, they banned gay couples from adopting from
overseas (unfortunately the states have jurisdiction
over internal adoptions - for now). in a comforting
show of solidarity, the hitherto anticonsertvative,
antiwar Labour opposition quickly agreed to deny gay
rights.
and in a stunning display of media synchronicity, the
gay marriage story was immediately preceeded by a
weeklong furor over some parliamentarian who took her
bf on a trip 5 (?) years ago as a 'spouse' - it seems
as though she was cutting the definition pretty fine,
altho apparently she specifically checked twice & got
approval at the time. (and for the sweetest rub, the
now-ex-bf was involved in some police investigation 8
years ago.)
so we got a lovely weeklong debate about the definition
of marriage right b4 the nogaymarriage thingy.
and yesterday there was a story about how some 69 (!)
yo guy who'd been fighting a 12yo thai girls
extradition and was found with some child pornography
on his computer (not of her, they were careful to add,
to show that they are fair). im not big on child
pornography as a rule - but i reckon there'd be lots of
people they could get on this charge if they wanted
to... someone once emailed me some porno pix - the
girls looked mebbe 18 - some mighta been 20yos who
looked like they were 18, but others may have been 16
who looked 18... its hard to tell these days...
gays who wanna adopt o/s kids are perverts ya know.
man-on-man. man-on-foreignkid. man-on-dog. mano-a-mano.
i wonder if lyndie england could adopt? actually, that
rite, she is pregnant to one of those many guys she
groupfucked - somehow the bf is confident its his ;-)
_______________________________________________________
You think Arabs are dumb? Try doing long division with
Roman numerals.
wotisitgood4.blogspot.com
ummmm - i think john travolta plays powell. praps peewee herman. i wonder if itll get any distribution...
re berg, theres really no doubt that the official story is true. the details arent entirely clear, but it seems that he was interviewed (videod) at abug and tortured/murdered, and then they stitched in the bits of the faux speech and the beheading.
none of which explains how he is hooked up with the 20th (sic) hijacker, and laurie mylroile and michael moore and whoever else he knows... (and a separate question thats just come to mind - how come moores name never came up before? nick was constantly emailing his family and friends and all, he must have told them. and all the F911 team must have known... and we are told that we wont see the film, and we are told that moore has been a class act about it with the family... who'd thunk?)
the funny thing of course, is the above horrors is only the beginning of the story.
it seems that we can now reasonably assume with strong comfort that if they are willing and capable and motivated to pretend (the 2nd time) to kill an american and broadcast it on tv to take the heat off their own problems and blame it on ayrabs 'who are much worse than us', then there is probably very little that is beyond them. if i go back to my point yesterday about writing up a list of things they mite do so that we'd be 95% confident that we wouldnt be surprised by anything they did... i cant think of a single thing they'd do except step foot on a battlefield. how bout dem farking apples?
what other lessons can we (re)learn? they make up stuff to demonise people - zarqari in this case. completely, knowingly, specifically made it up. and if they did it this time, then it supports my longstanding contention that all the bullshit about zarq is completely wrong - he (effectively) doesnt exist (and if he effectively doesnt exist, why not the same situation with obl?). and theyve blamed him for something like 25 of the major bombings / suicide attacks killing 700 people - including bombing the UN and the icrc etc etc. all of them looked suspicious individually. imagine for a minute that all of them were caused by someone else... praps the cia et al... no wonder i think they are trying to start ww3.
and lets not forget that the zarq voice print came back an 'extremely likely' (or some such) match (did i rant about that at the time?) - so we must necessarily put every other tape from zarq/obl under renewed (sic) suspicion. does anyone remember that other-worldly moment (which got near-zero attention) before the invasion when powell was giving a speech (congress?) and he asked whether aljazz had yet broadcast the obl tape? he said sumthink like 'they will soon'. and so if every voice analysis is dubious, then everything claimed in them is sus (which includes 911) - and conceivably implemented by the cia (or whoever it is). this berg story kinda ties it all in together - specifically bringing in am officialdom and media and apaprently just about everyone else.
the other thing to remember is that i looked at the berg story in the same way that i look at all the other stories - taking into consideration the way the media play the story, and the broader environment, and triangulating the facts available in the major media. and im as confident with my interpretation of many other stories, and for all the same sort of reasons. no wonder i sound like im pulling my hair out most o' the time...
and while im at it - lets spare a thought for the 4 they arrested... and every other innocent fuck who has been / is being mudered, maimed and arrested by these horrible people and their british and australian friends.
straight white people, you're next!
On Sat, 29 May 2004 12:23:00 -0400, Mict wrote:
>
> Hmm. You may well be proven *right* on this one.
>
> Will make a good movie someday. I wonder if Denzel can
> play Colin Powell?
>
> On 5/29/04 6:41 AM, "luke wrote:
>
> > " Filmmaker Michael Moore filmed an interview with
> > American Nicholas Berg in the course of producing his
> > documentary film "Fahrenheit 9/11" before Berg left
> for
> > Iraq, where he was taken hostage and killed, Moore
> > confirmed to Salon in a statement Thursday. The 20
> > minutes of footage does not appear in the final
> version
> > of "Fahrenheit 911," according to the statement.
> >
> http://www.salon."com/ent/feature/2004/05/27/fahrenheit_911/
> >
> > the story that keepeth on givingeth.
> >
> > and "who killed nick berg?' from the sydney morning
> > herald - it seems the mainstream is askin some
> > questions... (
> >
> http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/05/28/1085641717320.html?from=top5 )
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________________
> > You think Arabs are dumb? Try doing long division with
> > Roman numerals.
> > wotisitgood4.blogspot.com
re berg, theres really no doubt that the official story is true. the details arent entirely clear, but it seems that he was interviewed (videod) at abug and tortured/murdered, and then they stitched in the bits of the faux speech and the beheading.
none of which explains how he is hooked up with the 20th (sic) hijacker, and laurie mylroile and michael moore and whoever else he knows... (and a separate question thats just come to mind - how come moores name never came up before? nick was constantly emailing his family and friends and all, he must have told them. and all the F911 team must have known... and we are told that we wont see the film, and we are told that moore has been a class act about it with the family... who'd thunk?)
the funny thing of course, is the above horrors is only the beginning of the story.
it seems that we can now reasonably assume with strong comfort that if they are willing and capable and motivated to pretend (the 2nd time) to kill an american and broadcast it on tv to take the heat off their own problems and blame it on ayrabs 'who are much worse than us', then there is probably very little that is beyond them. if i go back to my point yesterday about writing up a list of things they mite do so that we'd be 95% confident that we wouldnt be surprised by anything they did... i cant think of a single thing they'd do except step foot on a battlefield. how bout dem farking apples?
what other lessons can we (re)learn? they make up stuff to demonise people - zarqari in this case. completely, knowingly, specifically made it up. and if they did it this time, then it supports my longstanding contention that all the bullshit about zarq is completely wrong - he (effectively) doesnt exist (and if he effectively doesnt exist, why not the same situation with obl?). and theyve blamed him for something like 25 of the major bombings / suicide attacks killing 700 people - including bombing the UN and the icrc etc etc. all of them looked suspicious individually. imagine for a minute that all of them were caused by someone else... praps the cia et al... no wonder i think they are trying to start ww3.
and lets not forget that the zarq voice print came back an 'extremely likely' (or some such) match (did i rant about that at the time?) - so we must necessarily put every other tape from zarq/obl under renewed (sic) suspicion. does anyone remember that other-worldly moment (which got near-zero attention) before the invasion when powell was giving a speech (congress?) and he asked whether aljazz had yet broadcast the obl tape? he said sumthink like 'they will soon'. and so if every voice analysis is dubious, then everything claimed in them is sus (which includes 911) - and conceivably implemented by the cia (or whoever it is). this berg story kinda ties it all in together - specifically bringing in am officialdom and media and apaprently just about everyone else.
the other thing to remember is that i looked at the berg story in the same way that i look at all the other stories - taking into consideration the way the media play the story, and the broader environment, and triangulating the facts available in the major media. and im as confident with my interpretation of many other stories, and for all the same sort of reasons. no wonder i sound like im pulling my hair out most o' the time...
and while im at it - lets spare a thought for the 4 they arrested... and every other innocent fuck who has been / is being mudered, maimed and arrested by these horrible people and their british and australian friends.
straight white people, you're next!
On Sat, 29 May 2004 12:23:00 -0400, Mict wrote:
>
> Hmm. You may well be proven *right* on this one.
>
> Will make a good movie someday. I wonder if Denzel can
> play Colin Powell?
>
> On 5/29/04 6:41 AM, "luke wrote:
>
> > " Filmmaker Michael Moore filmed an interview with
> > American Nicholas Berg in the course of producing his
> > documentary film "Fahrenheit 9/11" before Berg left
> for
> > Iraq, where he was taken hostage and killed, Moore
> > confirmed to Salon in a statement Thursday. The 20
> > minutes of footage does not appear in the final
> version
> > of "Fahrenheit 911," according to the statement.
> >
> http://www.salon."com/ent/feature/2004/05/27/fahrenheit_911/
> >
> > the story that keepeth on givingeth.
> >
> > and "who killed nick berg?' from the sydney morning
> > herald - it seems the mainstream is askin some
> > questions... (
> >
> http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/05/28/1085641717320.html?from=top5 )
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________________
> > You think Arabs are dumb? Try doing long division with
> > Roman numerals.
> > wotisitgood4.blogspot.com
FORT BRAGG, N.C. (AP) - The shots that killed Pat Tillman, the football player who became a patriotic icon by giving up a $3.6 million contract to become an Army Ranger, probably came from his fellow soldiers, military officials said Saturday.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4146930,00.html
this is gold. i wonder if mr tillman will revert to the anonymity. just like he always wanted... stick that up your stupid fukking patriot icon pipe. speaking of icons, i know 3 grunts by name - jessica lynch, pat tillman, lynddie england.
800 dead amsoldiers and counting - and the best their families can say is 'at least s/he died thinking s/he was doing the right thing' - not a one of them can actually be truly proud.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4146930,00.html
this is gold. i wonder if mr tillman will revert to the anonymity. just like he always wanted... stick that up your stupid fukking patriot icon pipe. speaking of icons, i know 3 grunts by name - jessica lynch, pat tillman, lynddie england.
800 dead amsoldiers and counting - and the best their families can say is 'at least s/he died thinking s/he was doing the right thing' - not a one of them can actually be truly proud.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Sales of new U.S. homes sagged well below expectations in April to post their biggest monthly drop in more than ten years as rising mortgage interest rates cooled the busy housing market, a government report showed on Wednesday.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040526/bs_nm/economy_homes_dc_3
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040526/bs_nm/economy_homes_dc_3
Saturday, May 29, 2004
Bush's ignorance of his part in the tragedy infects everything he says. "The swift removal of Saddam Hussein's regime last spring had an unintended effect," he observed tonight. "Instead of being killed or captured on the battlefield, some of Saddam's elite guards shed their uniforms and melted into the civilian population. [They] have reorganized, rearmed and adopted sophisticated terrorist tactics." Note the passive construction. The mistake isn't that Bush failed to prepare for guerrilla tactics commonly adopted against occupiers. It isn't even a mistake; it's an "unintended effect." The cause of that effect is Saddam's "swift removal," not Bush or anyone in his administration who engineered the removal.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2101011/
Is Bush embarrassed that a year of occupation has failed to substantiate his claims about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and links to global terrorism? No. He hasn't even noticed. "I sent American troops to Iraq to defend our security," he repeated tonight, adding, "Iraq is now the central front in the war on terror … This will be a decisive blow to terrorism at the heart of its power and a victory for the security of America and the civilized world."
For a still more airbrushed version of history, consider Bush's account of his relationship with the United Nations. "At every stage, the United States has gone to the United Nations to confront Saddam Hussein, to promise serious consequences for his actions, and to begin Iraqi reconstruction," the president asserted. Forget the part where Bush reneged on his pledge to call a Security Council vote on the use of force. Forget the part where he invaded Iraq against the wishes of a majority of the council.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2101011/
Is Bush embarrassed that a year of occupation has failed to substantiate his claims about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and links to global terrorism? No. He hasn't even noticed. "I sent American troops to Iraq to defend our security," he repeated tonight, adding, "Iraq is now the central front in the war on terror … This will be a decisive blow to terrorism at the heart of its power and a victory for the security of America and the civilized world."
For a still more airbrushed version of history, consider Bush's account of his relationship with the United Nations. "At every stage, the United States has gone to the United Nations to confront Saddam Hussein, to promise serious consequences for his actions, and to begin Iraqi reconstruction," the president asserted. Forget the part where Bush reneged on his pledge to call a Security Council vote on the use of force. Forget the part where he invaded Iraq against the wishes of a majority of the council.
Ahmad Chalabi, the Iraqi leader accused by the CIA of passing US secrets to Tehran, claimed to have close links with Iranian intelligence seven years ago, according to a former UN weapons inspector.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1224916,00.html
Scott Ritter, who before the war insisted that Saddam Hussein did not have significant weapons stocks, made the claim to Andrew Cockburn, a Washington-based journalist and the author of a biography of the ousted Iraqi dictator.
"When I met [Mr Chalabi] in December 1997 he said he had tremendous connections with Iranian intelligence," Mr Ritter said, according to an article by Mr Cockburn published today in the Guardian. "He said that some of his best intelligence came from the Iranians and offered to set up a meeting for me with the head of Iranian intelligence." Mr Ritter told the Guardian he stood by his allegation. He said he never made the trip to Iran because the CIA refused permission.
Meanwhile, both Democratic and Republican senators have called for an investigation into the alleged links between Mr Chalabi and Iranian intelligence.
The Pentagon defends the INC's intelligence input. An official said yesterday: "We should point out that the INC has provided valuable intelligence that has saved coalition lives and has provided great quantities of documents from Saddam's regime that are of great value."
Richard Perle, a former adviser to the Pentagon, and one of the INC's most outspoken backers in the capital, said he did not believe the CIA's allegations against Mr Chalabi.
"I believe they have been hostile to Ahmad Chalabi for a long time and are not to be trusted on this and I think they are seeking to transfer responsibility for their own intelligence failures to others," Mr Perle told BBC Radio 4's Today programme yesterday.
"If it turns out to be true, it was certainly a genius operation. [The Iranians] created an anti-Saddam opposition to get rid of him, and they got us to pay for it."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1224916,00.html
Scott Ritter, who before the war insisted that Saddam Hussein did not have significant weapons stocks, made the claim to Andrew Cockburn, a Washington-based journalist and the author of a biography of the ousted Iraqi dictator.
"When I met [Mr Chalabi] in December 1997 he said he had tremendous connections with Iranian intelligence," Mr Ritter said, according to an article by Mr Cockburn published today in the Guardian. "He said that some of his best intelligence came from the Iranians and offered to set up a meeting for me with the head of Iranian intelligence." Mr Ritter told the Guardian he stood by his allegation. He said he never made the trip to Iran because the CIA refused permission.
Meanwhile, both Democratic and Republican senators have called for an investigation into the alleged links between Mr Chalabi and Iranian intelligence.
The Pentagon defends the INC's intelligence input. An official said yesterday: "We should point out that the INC has provided valuable intelligence that has saved coalition lives and has provided great quantities of documents from Saddam's regime that are of great value."
Richard Perle, a former adviser to the Pentagon, and one of the INC's most outspoken backers in the capital, said he did not believe the CIA's allegations against Mr Chalabi.
"I believe they have been hostile to Ahmad Chalabi for a long time and are not to be trusted on this and I think they are seeking to transfer responsibility for their own intelligence failures to others," Mr Perle told BBC Radio 4's Today programme yesterday.
"If it turns out to be true, it was certainly a genius operation. [The Iranians] created an anti-Saddam opposition to get rid of him, and they got us to pay for it."
There is a tragic flaw in our precious Constitution, and I don’t know what can be done to fix it. This is it: Only nut cases want to be president.
But, when you stop to think about it, only a nut case would want to be a human being, if he or she had a choice. Such treacherous, untrustworthy, lying and greedy animals we are!
And what did the great British historian Edward Gibbon, 1737-1794 A.D., have to say about the human record so far? He said, “History is indeed little more than the register of the crimes, follies and misfortunes of mankind.”
The French-Algerian writer Albert Camus, who won a Nobel Prize for Literature in 1957, wrote, “There is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide.”
So there’s another barrel of laughs from literature. Camus died in an automobile accident. His dates? 1913-1960 A.D.
My government’s got a war on drugs. But get this: The two most widely abused and addictive and destructive of all substances are both perfectly legal.
http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/cold_turkey/
But, when you stop to think about it, only a nut case would want to be a human being, if he or she had a choice. Such treacherous, untrustworthy, lying and greedy animals we are!
And what did the great British historian Edward Gibbon, 1737-1794 A.D., have to say about the human record so far? He said, “History is indeed little more than the register of the crimes, follies and misfortunes of mankind.”
The French-Algerian writer Albert Camus, who won a Nobel Prize for Literature in 1957, wrote, “There is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide.”
So there’s another barrel of laughs from literature. Camus died in an automobile accident. His dates? 1913-1960 A.D.
My government’s got a war on drugs. But get this: The two most widely abused and addictive and destructive of all substances are both perfectly legal.
http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/cold_turkey/
Washington, DC, May. 25 (UPI) -- The Army kept a soldier whistle-blower in a locked psychiatric ward at its top medical center for nearly two weeks despite concern from some medical staff that he be released, according to medical records.
The Army then charged him nearly $6,000 for the stay at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, billing records show.
http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040525-111343-1697r.htm
The Army then charged him nearly $6,000 for the stay at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, billing records show.
http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040525-111343-1697r.htm
JERUSALEM, May 26 (Reuters) - Israeli police arrested on Wednesday a British journalist who in 1986 exposed the Jewish state's most sensitive secrets in an interview with nuclear whistleblower Mordechai Vanunu, an Israeli newspaper said. The Yedioth Aharonoth web site said Peter Hounam was in the custody of the Shin Bet domestic intelligence service and being questioned on suspicion of committing "security offences". A gag order prevented publication of further details.
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L26539519.htm
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L26539519.htm
The White House put government agencies on notice this month that if President Bush is reelected, his budget for 2006 may include spending cuts for virtually all agencies in charge of domestic programs, including education, homeland security and others that the president backed in this campaign year.
http://www.unknownnews.net/040528fourmoreyears.html
http://www.unknownnews.net/040528fourmoreyears.html
AN American Airlines flight attendant who told authorities she found a note saying there was a bomb in an airliner's cargo hold was charged over writing the threatening letter, which caused the plane to be diverted.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,9691435%255E1702,00.html
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,9691435%255E1702,00.html
BATON ROUGE — The House of Representatives refused Tuesday to tell young men and women to pull up their pants.
http://www.acadiananow.com/news/html/39989EA2-EEBB-4F5E-BC11-81052ED18717.shtml
With a 39-53 vote, the House ended Rep. Derrick Shepherd’s effort to make it illegal to wear pants in a manner so a person’s undergarments or posterior cleavage show.
Shepherd said, “The body is a temple of the Lord” and should be respected. “This bill may not change the world, but it’s a start.”
http://www.acadiananow.com/news/html/39989EA2-EEBB-4F5E-BC11-81052ED18717.shtml
With a 39-53 vote, the House ended Rep. Derrick Shepherd’s effort to make it illegal to wear pants in a manner so a person’s undergarments or posterior cleavage show.
Shepherd said, “The body is a temple of the Lord” and should be respected. “This bill may not change the world, but it’s a start.”
To launch a Minuteman in those days, one had to "unlock" the missile by dialing in a code -- the equivalent of a safety catch on a handgun. However, Blair reports, the U.S. Strategic Air Command was worried that a bunch of sissy safety features might slow things down. It ordered all locks set to 00000000 -- and in launch checklists, reminded all launch officers like Blair to keep the codes there. "So the 'secret unlock code' during the height of the nuclear crises of the Cold War," Blair says, "remained constant at 00000000."
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2004/05/27/007.html
Weeks later, on September 26, 1983, at a half-hour past midnight, Petrov was watching horrified as a warning system he had helped create reported five U.S. missiles launched and headed toward Soviet territory.
Blair says this was the closest we've ever come to accidental nuclear war. "By all rights we should have blown ourselves to bits by now, but good luck and good judgment up and down the chain of command have spared us this fate ... so far."
All the data checked out; there was no sign of any glitch or error. Yet Petrov says, "I just couldn't believe that just like that, all of a sudden, someone would hurl five missiles at us." And: "I imagined if I'd assume the responsibility for unleashing the Third World War -- and I said, 'No, I wouldn't.'"
Petrov declared it to be a false alarm -- not because he had any evidence of that, but because he wanted it to be false.
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2004/05/27/007.html
Weeks later, on September 26, 1983, at a half-hour past midnight, Petrov was watching horrified as a warning system he had helped create reported five U.S. missiles launched and headed toward Soviet territory.
Blair says this was the closest we've ever come to accidental nuclear war. "By all rights we should have blown ourselves to bits by now, but good luck and good judgment up and down the chain of command have spared us this fate ... so far."
All the data checked out; there was no sign of any glitch or error. Yet Petrov says, "I just couldn't believe that just like that, all of a sudden, someone would hurl five missiles at us." And: "I imagined if I'd assume the responsibility for unleashing the Third World War -- and I said, 'No, I wouldn't.'"
Petrov declared it to be a false alarm -- not because he had any evidence of that, but because he wanted it to be false.
But being a wily survivor, Chalabi apparently decided that after embarrassing his US backers so badly on the question of Iraq's WMD and realising that he was about as popular as the occupation itself, he had better make some new friends. Now he is playing the role of a populist Moses to President Bush's Pharaoh, chanting in Baghdad last week to "let my people go".
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/05/28/1085641710794.html?from=storylhs
He says his aides are innocent of spying for Iran but won't turn themselves in because "there is no justice in Iraq. There is Abu Ghraib prison."
So, was Uncle Sam played for a sucker by Iran, the fulcrum of what Bush has called the "axis of evil"? Was the US manoeuvred into unseating Iran's hated enemy, Saddam, whom Washington backed in the 1980s against Iran's holy warriors? We'll see as the scandal unfolds.
But even if this outrage proves true, it is unlikely that anyone high up in Washington will be held responsible for coddling Chalabi. After all, nobody of any stature has yet been held accountable for the missing WMD in Iraq, the prison torture scandal or the poor planning for the occupation. Certainly not President Bush, who is touring the US bragging that the obvious disaster in Iraq is actually a great victory for the free world.
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/05/28/1085641710794.html?from=storylhs
He says his aides are innocent of spying for Iran but won't turn themselves in because "there is no justice in Iraq. There is Abu Ghraib prison."
So, was Uncle Sam played for a sucker by Iran, the fulcrum of what Bush has called the "axis of evil"? Was the US manoeuvred into unseating Iran's hated enemy, Saddam, whom Washington backed in the 1980s against Iran's holy warriors? We'll see as the scandal unfolds.
But even if this outrage proves true, it is unlikely that anyone high up in Washington will be held responsible for coddling Chalabi. After all, nobody of any stature has yet been held accountable for the missing WMD in Iraq, the prison torture scandal or the poor planning for the occupation. Certainly not President Bush, who is touring the US bragging that the obvious disaster in Iraq is actually a great victory for the free world.
Senator Hill denied misleading Parliament on May 11 when he said that the first Major O'Kane knew about abuse was when the US publicly revealed the investigation - even though Mr Howard conceded yesterday that the major had responded to "general concerns about conditions and treatment" from October.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/05/28/1085641715054.html?from=top5
The Defence Department also released a statement last night saying its personnel were not aware of "serious mistreatment before the public report of the US investigation in January 2004".
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/05/28/1085641715054.html?from=top5
The Defence Department also released a statement last night saying its personnel were not aware of "serious mistreatment before the public report of the US investigation in January 2004".
Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge and Attorney General John D. Ashcroft issued a joint statement late yesterday indicating that they have settled their tiff after Ashcroft surprised Ridge with some statements about terrorist threats at a news conference on Wednesday.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64374-2004May28.html
Ridge and other Homeland Security officials were miffed that on Wednesday Ashcroft, while asking Americans to look out for seven alleged al Qaeda associates, issued an updated terrorist threat warning. At one point he said al Qaeda is "90 percent" complete in its attack planning.
Under the Homeland Security Act and Bush administration rules, only Ridge is supposed to communicate with the public about such threat warnings -- and he was not using such language.
"We're aware some of this week's press reports could have created confusion in the minds of the public by attempting to highlight perceived differences between the departments of Homeland Security and Justice," a Homeland Security official said, choosing his words carefully. "We wish to put aside any differences and demonstrate we're on the same page and unified in our efforts to prevent acts of terrorism."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64374-2004May28.html
Ridge and other Homeland Security officials were miffed that on Wednesday Ashcroft, while asking Americans to look out for seven alleged al Qaeda associates, issued an updated terrorist threat warning. At one point he said al Qaeda is "90 percent" complete in its attack planning.
Under the Homeland Security Act and Bush administration rules, only Ridge is supposed to communicate with the public about such threat warnings -- and he was not using such language.
"We're aware some of this week's press reports could have created confusion in the minds of the public by attempting to highlight perceived differences between the departments of Homeland Security and Justice," a Homeland Security official said, choosing his words carefully. "We wish to put aside any differences and demonstrate we're on the same page and unified in our efforts to prevent acts of terrorism."
Along the way Roche met people he later recognised on the FBI's Most Wanted list. When he saw the faces of five or six of those he had had dealings with in Afghanistan or on the way there, he told the court, he was shocked.
http://theage.com.au/articles/2004/05/28/1085641710662.html
In Karachi, he was met by a man he believed to be the son of Bashir, who was known in cyberspace as Sniper21. In Kandahar, one of his escorts was the son of Osama bin Laden. He later ate dinner with bin Laden himself.
http://theage.com.au/articles/2004/05/28/1085641710662.html
In Karachi, he was met by a man he believed to be the son of Bashir, who was known in cyberspace as Sniper21. In Kandahar, one of his escorts was the son of Osama bin Laden. He later ate dinner with bin Laden himself.
The issue of custody is significant; in his final moments on screen Berg is wearing an orange jumpsuit of the kind familiar from Guantanamo Bay. The official reasons for Berg's arrest were "lack of documentation" and "suspicious activities". He carried sensitive electronic equipment for which he lacked documents. In custody, he was visited three times by the FBI. Such interviews are bound to have been recorded but no transcripts have been produced.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/05/28/1085641717320.html?from=top5
A US military report last month has claimed al-Zarqawi was killed in the bombing of Falluja.
Dr John Simpson, executive director for surgical affairs at the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons, told Ritt Goldstein of the Asia Times, "I would have thought that all the people in the vicinity would have been covered in blood, in a matter of seconds ... if it [the video] was genuine".
Simpson agrees with other experts who find it highly probable that Berg had died before his decapitation.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/05/28/1085641717320.html?from=top5
A US military report last month has claimed al-Zarqawi was killed in the bombing of Falluja.
Dr John Simpson, executive director for surgical affairs at the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons, told Ritt Goldstein of the Asia Times, "I would have thought that all the people in the vicinity would have been covered in blood, in a matter of seconds ... if it [the video] was genuine".
Simpson agrees with other experts who find it highly probable that Berg had died before his decapitation.
Attorney-General John Ashcroft, the US attorney for New York and the city's police chief were just some of the big shots lined up to celebrate Hamza's London arrest.
http://theage.com.au/articles/2004/05/28/1085641711038.html
Upstaging the men in suits, standing stiffly in a row, was Abu Hamza himself, or rather a huge blow-up photo of him. The former nightclub bouncer could hardly have looked more bloodthirsty if he had tried.
The hook that substitutes for his right fist was raised in anger. What remains of his left eye strayed the other way. It looked like a recruitment poster for the US war against Middle Eastern terrorism. The image was also the ideal backdrop for the description of Hamza's role in allegedly bank-rolling, planning and supporting terrorism on three continents, as documented by officials at Thursday's media conference.
"Think of him as a freelance consultant to terrorist groups worldwide," said New York police chief Raymond Kelly.
Mr Ashcroft: "The United States will use every diplomatic, legal and administrative tool to pursue and prosecute those who facilitate terrorist activity and we will not stop until the war on terror is won," he said.
Hamza recently described US President George Bush as "Genghis Khan".
The US and British governments have now moved against him in spectacular fashion. But he will not go quietly.
The cleric's Britishness may prove a stumbling block to extradition. Britain is bound by its treaty with the US and European laws not to send its citizens to countries where they may face the death penalty. It is not yet clear why US Attorney-General Ashcroft raised that possibility in relation to the hostage-taking allegations Abu Hamza faces.
It is also unclear why British authorities, armed with evidence from the US, Britain and elsewhere, did not pursue him.
The appeal process open to Abu Hamza may mean it will be several months before it is known whether the US is successful. But having labelled him as "the real deal", Washington is clearly confident Abu Hamza will face justice in a country he has long reviled.
http://theage.com.au/articles/2004/05/28/1085641711038.html
Upstaging the men in suits, standing stiffly in a row, was Abu Hamza himself, or rather a huge blow-up photo of him. The former nightclub bouncer could hardly have looked more bloodthirsty if he had tried.
The hook that substitutes for his right fist was raised in anger. What remains of his left eye strayed the other way. It looked like a recruitment poster for the US war against Middle Eastern terrorism. The image was also the ideal backdrop for the description of Hamza's role in allegedly bank-rolling, planning and supporting terrorism on three continents, as documented by officials at Thursday's media conference.
"Think of him as a freelance consultant to terrorist groups worldwide," said New York police chief Raymond Kelly.
Mr Ashcroft: "The United States will use every diplomatic, legal and administrative tool to pursue and prosecute those who facilitate terrorist activity and we will not stop until the war on terror is won," he said.
Hamza recently described US President George Bush as "Genghis Khan".
The US and British governments have now moved against him in spectacular fashion. But he will not go quietly.
The cleric's Britishness may prove a stumbling block to extradition. Britain is bound by its treaty with the US and European laws not to send its citizens to countries where they may face the death penalty. It is not yet clear why US Attorney-General Ashcroft raised that possibility in relation to the hostage-taking allegations Abu Hamza faces.
It is also unclear why British authorities, armed with evidence from the US, Britain and elsewhere, did not pursue him.
The appeal process open to Abu Hamza may mean it will be several months before it is known whether the US is successful. But having labelled him as "the real deal", Washington is clearly confident Abu Hamza will face justice in a country he has long reviled.
as expected, ashcroft/ridge/muellers 'b vscared' message is under a cloud:
"As Ashcroft Warns of Attack, Some Question Threat and Its Timing" http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/27/politics/27terror.html
"Some intelligence officials said they were uncertain that the link between the fresh intelligence and the likelihood of another attack was as apparent as Mr. Ashcroft made it out to be. Officials at the Department of Homeland Security said just a day before Mr. Ashcroft's announcement that they had no new intelligence pointing to the threat of an attack."
altho i might be wrong about ashcroft: "Other officials said they supported Mr. Ashcroft's warnings. "I think he was right on the mark in terms of what Al Qaeda's intent is," said one counterterrorism official who spoke on condition of anonymity" so there.
thankfully, yesterday we got two terror arrests/convictions which ought to make us all a lot safer
hamza is being extradited from london to nyc. apparently he is a 'fiery cleric' - dog knows we've already got too many of them... "the US attorney general John Ashcroft announced the allegations against the cleric." we all know what falls out of johnnyboys mouth when he opens it... from what i can gather, hamza has already been cleared of the charges which date back years, and theres no new information... it seems the main charge is that someone used a cellphone linked to him. hamza is also guilty by association with naughty shoe-bomber richard reid who was a muslim convert (boy, do we hate them!) and Moussaoui, both are from hamzas mosque. every time you have to take your shoes off at an airport, or get stuck in a queue waiting for others to take off their shoes, spare a quick thought for richie reid - who was apparently sufficiently sophisticated to think itd be a good idea to squeeze a bomb into his shoe, and sufficiently dedicated to the cause that he wanted to blow up a plane, but he wasnt quite smart enough to consider that a brave passenger sitting next to him might not like the idea of matches being lit in the main cabin and was able to overpower him, thus saving everyone from certain death. i dunno about you, but if i was a shoe-bomber and for woteva reason i needed to use an analogue match, id have considered that maybe the guy next to me might get a little uncomfortable about me waving a live match around - so rather than risk fukking up the entire enterprise, id prolly go to the bathroom or somewhere a bit more private so that i could complete the plan... praps the bathroom queue was too long...
speaking of muslim converts, some guy who id never heard of before called jack roche ('terror convert') was being tried for some terrorism in perth - the trial has been top o' the news since it began, including last night with the 'dramtic' news that he had plead guilty. yesterday, day10 of the trial, we get this "The Perth man accused of conspiring with Osama bin Laden's top al-Qaeda lieutenants to blow up the Israeli embassy in Canberra, yesterday suddenly changed his plea to guilty." http://theage.com.au/articles/2004/05/28/1085641711976.html
and "The British migrant stunned the West Australian District Court with his decision to change his plea from not guilty. He now faces a maximum sentence of 25 years in jail." http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,9688026%255E661,00.html
i havent been following the story and dont know what to make of it - but apparently this roche character was some low level lackey who was unwittingly trapped into the plot. by the time he realised what was going on, he had already met with obl and hambali (bali bomber) and a bunch of other terrorist kingpins. it seems that once roche worked out what was going on, he wanted to pull out and called ASIO (oz spy agency) twice and tried to tell them, but he couldnt get them interested.
but heres the thing - todays The Age gives the story a low profile on its homepage http://theage.com.au so i went to murderks ostensibly respectable national (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au) broadsheet and the story curiously doesnt get a mention on the homepage - where they are leading with 2 apparent non-stories. no probs - the roche story must be The Nation section (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/sectionindex1/0,5745,National%255E%255ETEXT,00.html ) - the story didnt make the top 14 stories here, but it was included below the fold in the 'updates' section (altho the story made the 6pm teeve news last nite) - the editor chose to give the story the title "Terrorist tried to warn ASIO" which is an odd choice when the obvious title would have been 'terrorist pleads guilty' - altho in the 8th para we are helpfully informed that "In a dramatic twist, Roche's trial ended abruptly yesterday after he changed his plea to guilty of one charge of conspiring with international terrorists to blow up the Israeli embassy."
i havent a clue whats going on - but as an interesting juxtaposition, murderks nypost gave the entire front cover to the news that hamza had been arrested (including this awesome pic (http://nypost.com/news/regionalnews/21837.htm ) "The Brits will undoubtedly be glad to be rid of the monstrous imam. He has been fomenting hate for years, calling the invasion against Iraq "a war against Islam"
fish heads fish heads. roly-poly fish heads.
get thee some duct tape.
"As Ashcroft Warns of Attack, Some Question Threat and Its Timing" http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/27/politics/27terror.html
"Some intelligence officials said they were uncertain that the link between the fresh intelligence and the likelihood of another attack was as apparent as Mr. Ashcroft made it out to be. Officials at the Department of Homeland Security said just a day before Mr. Ashcroft's announcement that they had no new intelligence pointing to the threat of an attack."
altho i might be wrong about ashcroft: "Other officials said they supported Mr. Ashcroft's warnings. "I think he was right on the mark in terms of what Al Qaeda's intent is," said one counterterrorism official who spoke on condition of anonymity" so there.
thankfully, yesterday we got two terror arrests/convictions which ought to make us all a lot safer
hamza is being extradited from london to nyc. apparently he is a 'fiery cleric' - dog knows we've already got too many of them... "the US attorney general John Ashcroft announced the allegations against the cleric." we all know what falls out of johnnyboys mouth when he opens it... from what i can gather, hamza has already been cleared of the charges which date back years, and theres no new information... it seems the main charge is that someone used a cellphone linked to him. hamza is also guilty by association with naughty shoe-bomber richard reid who was a muslim convert (boy, do we hate them!) and Moussaoui, both are from hamzas mosque. every time you have to take your shoes off at an airport, or get stuck in a queue waiting for others to take off their shoes, spare a quick thought for richie reid - who was apparently sufficiently sophisticated to think itd be a good idea to squeeze a bomb into his shoe, and sufficiently dedicated to the cause that he wanted to blow up a plane, but he wasnt quite smart enough to consider that a brave passenger sitting next to him might not like the idea of matches being lit in the main cabin and was able to overpower him, thus saving everyone from certain death. i dunno about you, but if i was a shoe-bomber and for woteva reason i needed to use an analogue match, id have considered that maybe the guy next to me might get a little uncomfortable about me waving a live match around - so rather than risk fukking up the entire enterprise, id prolly go to the bathroom or somewhere a bit more private so that i could complete the plan... praps the bathroom queue was too long...
speaking of muslim converts, some guy who id never heard of before called jack roche ('terror convert') was being tried for some terrorism in perth - the trial has been top o' the news since it began, including last night with the 'dramtic' news that he had plead guilty. yesterday, day10 of the trial, we get this "The Perth man accused of conspiring with Osama bin Laden's top al-Qaeda lieutenants to blow up the Israeli embassy in Canberra, yesterday suddenly changed his plea to guilty." http://theage.com.au/articles/2004/05/28/1085641711976.html
and "The British migrant stunned the West Australian District Court with his decision to change his plea from not guilty. He now faces a maximum sentence of 25 years in jail." http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,9688026%255E661,00.html
i havent been following the story and dont know what to make of it - but apparently this roche character was some low level lackey who was unwittingly trapped into the plot. by the time he realised what was going on, he had already met with obl and hambali (bali bomber) and a bunch of other terrorist kingpins. it seems that once roche worked out what was going on, he wanted to pull out and called ASIO (oz spy agency) twice and tried to tell them, but he couldnt get them interested.
but heres the thing - todays The Age gives the story a low profile on its homepage http://theage.com.au so i went to murderks ostensibly respectable national (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au) broadsheet and the story curiously doesnt get a mention on the homepage - where they are leading with 2 apparent non-stories. no probs - the roche story must be The Nation section (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/sectionindex1/0,5745,National%255E%255ETEXT,00.html ) - the story didnt make the top 14 stories here, but it was included below the fold in the 'updates' section (altho the story made the 6pm teeve news last nite) - the editor chose to give the story the title "Terrorist tried to warn ASIO" which is an odd choice when the obvious title would have been 'terrorist pleads guilty' - altho in the 8th para we are helpfully informed that "In a dramatic twist, Roche's trial ended abruptly yesterday after he changed his plea to guilty of one charge of conspiring with international terrorists to blow up the Israeli embassy."
i havent a clue whats going on - but as an interesting juxtaposition, murderks nypost gave the entire front cover to the news that hamza had been arrested (including this awesome pic (http://nypost.com/news/regionalnews/21837.htm ) "The Brits will undoubtedly be glad to be rid of the monstrous imam. He has been fomenting hate for years, calling the invasion against Iraq "a war against Islam"
fish heads fish heads. roly-poly fish heads.
get thee some duct tape.
hmmm - ive just noticed that judymiller wrote a book in 1990 with neocon goddess Laurie Mylroie
"This "instant" book written in 21 days by Miller ( New York Times ) and Mylroie (Harvard Univ.) attempts to combine historical analysis with timely journalistic reporting to provide the general reader with an informed analysis of the current crisis in the Gulf. The authors describe Saddam Hussein's meteoric rise to power in a lucid and easy-to-follow style."
i recently mentioned laurie cos her name came up in the berg/moussaoui vortex... the thot plickens...
speaking of co-authors - this mite be a nice time for a reminder that condi also wrote a book - with phil zelikow - the execdir of 911comm...
"This "instant" book written in 21 days by Miller ( New York Times ) and Mylroie (Harvard Univ.) attempts to combine historical analysis with timely journalistic reporting to provide the general reader with an informed analysis of the current crisis in the Gulf. The authors describe Saddam Hussein's meteoric rise to power in a lucid and easy-to-follow style."
i recently mentioned laurie cos her name came up in the berg/moussaoui vortex... the thot plickens...
speaking of co-authors - this mite be a nice time for a reminder that condi also wrote a book - with phil zelikow - the execdir of 911comm...
i said recently that the problem with the october alq surprise idea is that the cadmin needs to be careful not to paint itself into a corner wrt the no-appeasement thingy - ie if it seems that an alq attack on amsoil would rally the sheeple into 'staying the course', then alq would be disinclined to attack, and mite keep her fingers crossed that democracy actually works in the us.
now we get this lovely piece on blitzer http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0405/27/wbr.01.html
"KELLI ARENA, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Miles, it's something that we've heard a lot about, a possible al Qaeda plot to influence elections. But there's their hasn't been a lot of discussion about what the objectives might be. So we checked in with some terror experts to find out.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ARENA (voice-over): Terror experts say it's not about who wins the U.S. election, it's about impact.
M.J. GOHEL, ASIA-PACIFIC FOUNDATION: If, for instance, say, George Bush was in the lead in the opinion polls right now and an attack took place and that changes the equation as it did, for instance in Spain, then al Qaeda would feel that it has scored a major success.
ARENA: Al Qaeda affiliates attacked Spain just before its elections in March. Some suggests that cemented an overwhelming win for the socialist party.
ASHCROFT: We believe, for example, the attack in Spain is one that is viewed by al Qaeda as particularly effective in advancing al Qaeda objectives.
ARENA: The attack did result in Spain pulling its troops out of Iraq. Experts say the less Western influence in Iraq, the better for al Qaeda.
GOHEL: Iraq is a key battleground for the terrorists. The terrorists want to turn Iraq into another Taliban Afghanistan. They would like to see the premature withdrawal of the U.S.-led coalition forces.
ARENA: Neither John Kerry nor the president has said troops pulled out of Iraq any time soon. But there is some speculation that al Qaeda believes it has a better chance of winning in Iraq if John Kerry is in the White House.
BEN VENZKE, INTELCENTER: Al Qaeda feels that Bush is, even despite casualties, right or wrong for staying there is going to stay much longer than possibly what they might hope a Democratic administration would.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ARENA: While U.S. officials say they're concerned of an attack as early as this summer, some experts believe if al Qaeda strikes with the election in mind it will do that just before November 2.
And while much attention is focused on the political conventions, experts say al Qaeda usually hits targets that it can hit on any day of the week -- Miles."
so on one hand we've got safire claiming theres no difference between jfk2/gwb2 for the domestic audience http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/opinion/26SAFI.html
and on the other we've got the CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT (are terror and election issues under the auspices of 'justice'?) saying that alq wants kerry cos he'll be easier to beat in iraq, despite kerrys call for more troops et al...
theres a problems with this argument:
despite 43 repeating that iraq is the central front of TWOT, the cool thing about asymetric wars is that u dont have to play by the purported rules... we are 33 months and counting without a terrorist attack in am. if alq had a brain, they wouldnt fight america in iraq. from d&goliath to hannibal to suntzu and everyone in between, the rule and logic has been pretty straightfwd. remember, alq purportedly attacked america at home b4 the iraq thingy - so the grievance was about america herself, not her belligerence in iraq - so the idea that alq primary concern is iraq is presumably wrong. and the idea that alq is trying to defeat america where her military is the strongest is just dumb. thats why they have 'sleeper cells' and are 'decentralised' and all the rest.
check this lovely contribution from kelli:
"ARENA: Al Qaeda affiliates attacked Spain just before its elections in March. Some suggests that cemented an overwhelming win for the socialist party."
lets be clear - the official shorthand re madrid is '1.alq blew up trains, 2. the spaniards appeased and voted for zap 3. pulled outta iraq' - but this is misleading. a fuller version of events would include the fact that after the bombs exploded, aznar personally got on the phone and called all the media outlets and inexplicably told them to blame eta (and, also inexplicably, there was the rush UN resolution the same day) - the spaniards apparently dont like being lied to and voted for zapatero.
despite the fact that most spaniards didnt wanna be in iraq, aznar still had a 10 point margin (or so) before 311 - and it seems to be the case that aznar would have won the election except for the apparently unnecessary lies re eta - it is widely presumed that if aznar had simply said 'this wont do, we'll do what we can to bring these people to justice' then he'd still be in charge today. my hypothesis is that aznar must have been set up somehow (cia?) and was promised support if he went with the blame-eta routine - even in the face of etas denials and the whitevanwithkoran evidence and the alq signature 'simultaneity'. its difficult to imagine that he'd make such an egregious judgement error - especially given the campaigning blackout and all that.
our friend kelli seems to know all this - hence distancing herself from the simplistic interpretation with her '*Some suggest* that cemented an overwhelming win for the socialist party' (this is the same trick 43 used in the niger/sotu fiasco 'british intelligence tells us nigeraniumblahblah') even while she carefully lays out all the presumed implications that alq will therefore attack on us soil to try to get kerry into iraq.
all is not well in paradise...
now we get this lovely piece on blitzer http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0405/27/wbr.01.html
"KELLI ARENA, CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT: Miles, it's something that we've heard a lot about, a possible al Qaeda plot to influence elections. But there's their hasn't been a lot of discussion about what the objectives might be. So we checked in with some terror experts to find out.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
ARENA (voice-over): Terror experts say it's not about who wins the U.S. election, it's about impact.
M.J. GOHEL, ASIA-PACIFIC FOUNDATION: If, for instance, say, George Bush was in the lead in the opinion polls right now and an attack took place and that changes the equation as it did, for instance in Spain, then al Qaeda would feel that it has scored a major success.
ARENA: Al Qaeda affiliates attacked Spain just before its elections in March. Some suggests that cemented an overwhelming win for the socialist party.
ASHCROFT: We believe, for example, the attack in Spain is one that is viewed by al Qaeda as particularly effective in advancing al Qaeda objectives.
ARENA: The attack did result in Spain pulling its troops out of Iraq. Experts say the less Western influence in Iraq, the better for al Qaeda.
GOHEL: Iraq is a key battleground for the terrorists. The terrorists want to turn Iraq into another Taliban Afghanistan. They would like to see the premature withdrawal of the U.S.-led coalition forces.
ARENA: Neither John Kerry nor the president has said troops pulled out of Iraq any time soon. But there is some speculation that al Qaeda believes it has a better chance of winning in Iraq if John Kerry is in the White House.
BEN VENZKE, INTELCENTER: Al Qaeda feels that Bush is, even despite casualties, right or wrong for staying there is going to stay much longer than possibly what they might hope a Democratic administration would.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
ARENA: While U.S. officials say they're concerned of an attack as early as this summer, some experts believe if al Qaeda strikes with the election in mind it will do that just before November 2.
And while much attention is focused on the political conventions, experts say al Qaeda usually hits targets that it can hit on any day of the week -- Miles."
so on one hand we've got safire claiming theres no difference between jfk2/gwb2 for the domestic audience http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/opinion/26SAFI.html
and on the other we've got the CNN JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT (are terror and election issues under the auspices of 'justice'?) saying that alq wants kerry cos he'll be easier to beat in iraq, despite kerrys call for more troops et al...
theres a problems with this argument:
despite 43 repeating that iraq is the central front of TWOT, the cool thing about asymetric wars is that u dont have to play by the purported rules... we are 33 months and counting without a terrorist attack in am. if alq had a brain, they wouldnt fight america in iraq. from d&goliath to hannibal to suntzu and everyone in between, the rule and logic has been pretty straightfwd. remember, alq purportedly attacked america at home b4 the iraq thingy - so the grievance was about america herself, not her belligerence in iraq - so the idea that alq primary concern is iraq is presumably wrong. and the idea that alq is trying to defeat america where her military is the strongest is just dumb. thats why they have 'sleeper cells' and are 'decentralised' and all the rest.
check this lovely contribution from kelli:
"ARENA: Al Qaeda affiliates attacked Spain just before its elections in March. Some suggests that cemented an overwhelming win for the socialist party."
lets be clear - the official shorthand re madrid is '1.alq blew up trains, 2. the spaniards appeased and voted for zap 3. pulled outta iraq' - but this is misleading. a fuller version of events would include the fact that after the bombs exploded, aznar personally got on the phone and called all the media outlets and inexplicably told them to blame eta (and, also inexplicably, there was the rush UN resolution the same day) - the spaniards apparently dont like being lied to and voted for zapatero.
despite the fact that most spaniards didnt wanna be in iraq, aznar still had a 10 point margin (or so) before 311 - and it seems to be the case that aznar would have won the election except for the apparently unnecessary lies re eta - it is widely presumed that if aznar had simply said 'this wont do, we'll do what we can to bring these people to justice' then he'd still be in charge today. my hypothesis is that aznar must have been set up somehow (cia?) and was promised support if he went with the blame-eta routine - even in the face of etas denials and the whitevanwithkoran evidence and the alq signature 'simultaneity'. its difficult to imagine that he'd make such an egregious judgement error - especially given the campaigning blackout and all that.
our friend kelli seems to know all this - hence distancing herself from the simplistic interpretation with her '*Some suggest* that cemented an overwhelming win for the socialist party' (this is the same trick 43 used in the niger/sotu fiasco 'british intelligence tells us nigeraniumblahblah') even while she carefully lays out all the presumed implications that alq will therefore attack on us soil to try to get kerry into iraq.
all is not well in paradise...
brd update: brd, one of the major concerns that i have had is that the cadministration seems to be able to lead everyone by the nose and to dictate the agenda by generating/managing faux controversies and the democrats/left/antiwar crew get all hot under the collar about the issue dujour (cf condis 911comm testimony) - while missing the forest. a corrolary of that problem is that the antibush crowd continues to get all excited whenever the badmin is apparently under pressure and the consensus seems to become 'thats it, theyve done it this time, they cant survive' - but survive they do. again and again. my premise is that everytime we get surprised by the audacity or stupidity or hypocrisy or wotever, then it is a defacto failure on our part to sufficiently comprehend the problem we are facing. its also my standing hypothesis that the the iraqi invasion simply doesnt make sense as an accidental or isolated venture - and presumably there must be a grand plan. we need to remember that all of the reasons were known to be false *in advance*
to that extent, it seemed to me that what was required was a set of forward-looking internally-consistent hypotheses which conceivably made sense. along the same lines, given that i was sick of everyone 'being surprised' i posed the question 'if we wanted to be say 95% confident that we wouldnt be surprised by the sadmininstration in the next 12 months, what sort of mind-expansion is required today? what sort of things would we need to consider so that we wont be surprised?'
one of the few (only?) writers to even have such a framework is a guy who i call weirdojoe. i dont vouch for anything he says, but i occasionally fwd his stuff just becuase he's about the only one who even has a testable hypothesis. he sounds like a total freak - but at least he's trying...
after that long intro/disclaimer - heres his latest http://joevialls.altermedia.info/myahudi/rape.html
on may5 he wrote about pix of amgrunts raping iraqi women and he suggested that the story that the pix came from a porn website was actually a pre-emptive spook plant to discredit any pix that were subsequently released. the fact that it was wnd who broke the story of the iraqibabes porn site puts some doubt on that story (wnd is christocon heaven).
weirdojoe updated his story on may26 (same link, follow the blue text) - it seems some of his original premise about the raping was somewhat accurate - cf http://www.guardian.co.uk/women/story/0,3604,1220673,00.html
"Astonishingly, the secret inquiry launched by the US military in January, headed by Major General Antonio Taguba, has confirmed that the letter smuggled out of Abu Ghraib by a woman known only as "Noor" was entirely and devastatingly accurate."
amazingly, the boston globe apparently showed the pix, and then withdrew them with an apology the next day
"A Boston city councilor distributed graphic photographs yesterday that he said showed US soldiers raping Iraqi women... Turner and Kambon said they don't know where or when the photos they distributed yesterday were taken. But Turner said they came from a "very legitimate person."
somehow the globe was the only paper to fall for it, and despite the recent fake britpix, and despite the *pre-existing* suspicions about the rape pix, they seemed to rush into publication only to withdraw the story the following day.
i havent got a clue whats going on with this story - but it smells fishy and counterfishy...
to that extent, it seemed to me that what was required was a set of forward-looking internally-consistent hypotheses which conceivably made sense. along the same lines, given that i was sick of everyone 'being surprised' i posed the question 'if we wanted to be say 95% confident that we wouldnt be surprised by the sadmininstration in the next 12 months, what sort of mind-expansion is required today? what sort of things would we need to consider so that we wont be surprised?'
one of the few (only?) writers to even have such a framework is a guy who i call weirdojoe. i dont vouch for anything he says, but i occasionally fwd his stuff just becuase he's about the only one who even has a testable hypothesis. he sounds like a total freak - but at least he's trying...
after that long intro/disclaimer - heres his latest http://joevialls.altermedia.info/myahudi/rape.html
on may5 he wrote about pix of amgrunts raping iraqi women and he suggested that the story that the pix came from a porn website was actually a pre-emptive spook plant to discredit any pix that were subsequently released. the fact that it was wnd who broke the story of the iraqibabes porn site puts some doubt on that story (wnd is christocon heaven).
weirdojoe updated his story on may26 (same link, follow the blue text) - it seems some of his original premise about the raping was somewhat accurate - cf http://www.guardian.co.uk/women/story/0,3604,1220673,00.html
"Astonishingly, the secret inquiry launched by the US military in January, headed by Major General Antonio Taguba, has confirmed that the letter smuggled out of Abu Ghraib by a woman known only as "Noor" was entirely and devastatingly accurate."
amazingly, the boston globe apparently showed the pix, and then withdrew them with an apology the next day
"A Boston city councilor distributed graphic photographs yesterday that he said showed US soldiers raping Iraqi women... Turner and Kambon said they don't know where or when the photos they distributed yesterday were taken. But Turner said they came from a "very legitimate person."
somehow the globe was the only paper to fall for it, and despite the recent fake britpix, and despite the *pre-existing* suspicions about the rape pix, they seemed to rush into publication only to withdraw the story the following day.
i havent got a clue whats going on with this story - but it smells fishy and counterfishy...
g - thnx for the feedback - always appreciated.
i know that i undermine my credibility when i rant about something so stupid - even with the "the following is one of those very speculative" disclaimer. i try not to indulge in this sort of thing too much - next time theres a 'mistake' which is pro-kerry i'll point that out too :-)
i will take the opportunity to say/repeat that in a world where 2000 pages of the taguba report went missing 'inadvertently', all inadvertent mistakes are worthy of a 2nd glance. and im pretty comfortable that of all the inadvertent mistakes i see, they nearly all fall the same way - i can guarantee that fauxnews has made an artform of it.
speaking of feedback - i sent an email asking for feedback a few weeks ago (email subject 'opt-in' i think) and g/mlh/pam all sent responses but then my folx turned up and my process got all screwy and i naughtily didnt get around to implementing any changes, and now my computer is packed away - can the 3 of u fwd me your responses again please? (my folx are still here for a few weeks so im still not in full swing)
im also sans cabletv - so im missing the fauxnews ugly mirror and the constant drone of mediamsgs so i prolly wont be as switched in to the brainwash dujour.
maybe thats how 43 got a c @ yale - by having clear handwriting... id love to hear him pronounce 'illegible'
weirdoluke
On Fri, 28 May 2004 09:11:19 -0400, wrote:
>
> Re more opt-in feedback...I'd agree that this would be
> on the more
> speculative side...a funny typo (and good question),
> but nothing more (I
> can't even begin to imagine what the neocon line on
> that one would be,
> "Let's try to subconsciously imply that Bush has good
> handwriting, ergo
> honest, ergo re-elect!")
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> Sent: Friday, May 28, 2004 5:26 AM
> To:
> Subject: skewer
>
>
> brd - i normally try to give some sense of how
> speculative my ideas are - in some examples im talking
> about fact, and other times i get totally speculative.
> the following is one of those very speculative
> occasions where i rant about stuff that looks
> 'accidental' and is prolly meaningless, but it happens
> so often, and if the hypothesis is correct, it points
> to something really sinister... but its one of those
> things where each specific example doesnt point to
> anything but, in aggregate, the body of evidence seems
> to start to pointing in the same direction as all the
> other stuff that i comment on...
>
> this reuters article
> (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=5279943) was
> distributed everywhere and is
> titled "Bush Says He Was Cure for Illegible
> Prescriptions" - presumably thats a mistake cos it
> doesnt make sense as it is, and presumably they meant
> to say "Bush Says He *Has* Cure for Illegible
> Prescriptions" and it can prolly be excused as a typo
> (ie plausibly deniable) - but theres a big difference
> between having a cure, and being the cure. in fact, in
> the transcript
> (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/05/20040527-5.html) he
> doesnt even mention the word 'cure'
>
> if bush is the cure, wtf is the problem?
>
> sir rantalot
>
> _______________________________________________
> the king is alive. short live the king.
> wotisitgood4.blogspot.com
i know that i undermine my credibility when i rant about something so stupid - even with the "the following is one of those very speculative" disclaimer. i try not to indulge in this sort of thing too much - next time theres a 'mistake' which is pro-kerry i'll point that out too :-)
i will take the opportunity to say/repeat that in a world where 2000 pages of the taguba report went missing 'inadvertently', all inadvertent mistakes are worthy of a 2nd glance. and im pretty comfortable that of all the inadvertent mistakes i see, they nearly all fall the same way - i can guarantee that fauxnews has made an artform of it.
speaking of feedback - i sent an email asking for feedback a few weeks ago (email subject 'opt-in' i think) and g/mlh/pam all sent responses but then my folx turned up and my process got all screwy and i naughtily didnt get around to implementing any changes, and now my computer is packed away - can the 3 of u fwd me your responses again please? (my folx are still here for a few weeks so im still not in full swing)
im also sans cabletv - so im missing the fauxnews ugly mirror and the constant drone of mediamsgs so i prolly wont be as switched in to the brainwash dujour.
maybe thats how 43 got a c @ yale - by having clear handwriting... id love to hear him pronounce 'illegible'
weirdoluke
On Fri, 28 May 2004 09:11:19 -0400, wrote:
>
> Re more opt-in feedback...I'd agree that this would be
> on the more
> speculative side...a funny typo (and good question),
> but nothing more (I
> can't even begin to imagine what the neocon line on
> that one would be,
> "Let's try to subconsciously imply that Bush has good
> handwriting, ergo
> honest, ergo re-elect!")
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> Sent: Friday, May 28, 2004 5:26 AM
> To:
> Subject: skewer
>
>
> brd - i normally try to give some sense of how
> speculative my ideas are - in some examples im talking
> about fact, and other times i get totally speculative.
> the following is one of those very speculative
> occasions where i rant about stuff that looks
> 'accidental' and is prolly meaningless, but it happens
> so often, and if the hypothesis is correct, it points
> to something really sinister... but its one of those
> things where each specific example doesnt point to
> anything but, in aggregate, the body of evidence seems
> to start to pointing in the same direction as all the
> other stuff that i comment on...
>
> this reuters article
> (http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=5279943) was
> distributed everywhere and is
> titled "Bush Says He Was Cure for Illegible
> Prescriptions" - presumably thats a mistake cos it
> doesnt make sense as it is, and presumably they meant
> to say "Bush Says He *Has* Cure for Illegible
> Prescriptions" and it can prolly be excused as a typo
> (ie plausibly deniable) - but theres a big difference
> between having a cure, and being the cure. in fact, in
> the transcript
> (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/05/20040527-5.html) he
> doesnt even mention the word 'cure'
>
> if bush is the cure, wtf is the problem?
>
> sir rantalot
>
> _______________________________________________
> the king is alive. short live the king.
> wotisitgood4.blogspot.com
Friday, May 28, 2004
yeah - krugman really is an island of sanity. ive been singing his praises for years... his prev article was called 'the wastrel son'. guess who he was talking about... krug has been similarly scathing for at least a year. comfortingly, his articles usually get to #1 on the nyt's 'most emailed' list - altho most of their op-ed writers tend to get up their on the list... i hope for krugmans sanity that he never has to be in the same room as the rest of the oped team.
btw - heres the Times' weaculpa http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/international/middleeast/26FTE_NOTE.html which says in part "Some critics of our coverage during that time have focused blame on individual reporters. Our examination, however, indicates that the problem was more complicated. Editors at several levels who should have been challenging reporters and pressing for more skepticism were perhaps too intent on rushing scoops into the paper."
i dont really like to beat up on the nyt - but they have categorically been infiltrated by a bunch of sooperfreaks - both journos and opeders. the partial weaculpa shows that they arent serious about the problem - they darent even mention anyone by name, and tried to spread the blame around. its absolutely not true that the problem was 'rushing scoops into the paper' - the most egregious mistakes were judy millers articles - its not true that her stories 'turned out' to be incorrect - they were false from the outset, and she knew it (as evidenced by her absurd disclaimers) and anyone with half a modicum of a clue fell off their chair laughing when reading her stuff - front page, above the fold. judy still has a job after making up a bunch of shit which contributed to dead people, visavis jayson blair who made up details about whether there was a tree in the front yard or if there were sheep in the paddock next, or making up a quote - and he got howled outta town and had a media-wide ban on reviewing his book. lemme repeat, judy is still working for the nyt - as are all the others.
of the non-krugman oped-ers, the others are certifiable freaks who can hardly hold a thought together long enough to write an article. most of the time its as though they write down some thoughts, throw them into a blender, and print the words in the order they come outta the blender - occasionally with a conjunctive to get from one thought to another.
eg heres friedmans latest titled "Shoulda, Woulda, Can" (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/27/opinion/27FRIE.html)
he wants "a bipartisan commission looking forward. I'd call it the National Commission for Doing Things Right"
which would "adopt a 50-cents-a-gallon gasoline tax, the Patriot Tax". its near-impossbile to read an article by friedman without having to pause at least once to try to understand the logic gymnastics that he just seemed to perform... and friedman makes up a quote in just about every article, jaysonblair style, cept friedman protects himself better: 'an iraqi told me last week...'
and safire is the grand dame of agenda creeps - his latest missive is called "The Bush-Kerry Nondebate" which ends helpfully thus: "Should Kerry act water's-edgily on Iraq? Or should he satisfy his angry left now, figuring he can go statesmanlike in October? We'll see tomorrow, in his answer to Bush's concessionary tactics and unwavering purpose."
and this from his previous article "Brahimi had another demand: cut off Chalabi, who had led the Governing Council to hire an accounting firm and lawyers to investigate the U.N.'s complicity in the $5 billion oil-for-food kickback ripoff. On orders, Bremer shut down the Iraqi attempt to recover the stolen money. Accountants were hired who were more amenable to the U.N."
he seems to think that chalabi has more cred than the UN when everyone else is blaming hero-in-error chalabi for everything. eg the weaculpa has this to say about chalabi "The problematic articles varied in authorship and subject matter, but many shared a common feature. They depended at least in part on information from a circle of Iraqi informants, defectors and exiles bent on "regime change" in Iraq, people whose credibility has come under increasing public debate in recent weeks."
you'll remember when the foil4ood thing was coming out, my comment was that it looked very serious, apart from the fact that it was only safire and brooks and fauxnews et al who were trying to give it legs.
and then we have certified neocunt davidbrooks whose recent contributions include "let's face it, we don't know whether all people really do want to live in freedom. We don't know whether Iraqis have any notion of what democratic citizenship really means." and "But despite the killings in Gaza this week, some important good things are happening there. The first good thing is that the Israeli security fence is turning out to be a boon to stability, rather than an irritant." and "Vice Premier Ehud Olmert epitomizes the new realism. When I had coffee with him this week, I expressed frustration with the outer settlements. Olmert defended the settlers warmly, saying they were believers sacrificing for a cause. "They need a hug," he said, waxing Oprah-esque."
and then theres maureen down who is equally likely to say something sensible as to waste an article about the colour of kerry's sweater.
(and then theres herbert who often makes sense in a normal kinda way - including his most recent about gores speech which is #2 on the 'most emailed'
www.nytimes.com/2004/05/28/opinion/28HERB.html )
so despite the weaculpa - the nyt team is broken yet intact and its almost inconceivable that the problems will go away. lemme repeat - jayblair got excoriated and miller has a job. the 'liberal media' myth is one of the gop's greatest successes...
On Fri, 28 May 2004 11:57:48 -0400, "Adam" wrote:
>
> Don't know if you saw this already, but nice article by
> Paul Krugman in the
> NY Times...
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/28/opinion/28KRUG.html
>
> Seems like the 'liberal media' and lukeryland are
> coming closer together...
btw - heres the Times' weaculpa http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/international/middleeast/26FTE_NOTE.html which says in part "Some critics of our coverage during that time have focused blame on individual reporters. Our examination, however, indicates that the problem was more complicated. Editors at several levels who should have been challenging reporters and pressing for more skepticism were perhaps too intent on rushing scoops into the paper."
i dont really like to beat up on the nyt - but they have categorically been infiltrated by a bunch of sooperfreaks - both journos and opeders. the partial weaculpa shows that they arent serious about the problem - they darent even mention anyone by name, and tried to spread the blame around. its absolutely not true that the problem was 'rushing scoops into the paper' - the most egregious mistakes were judy millers articles - its not true that her stories 'turned out' to be incorrect - they were false from the outset, and she knew it (as evidenced by her absurd disclaimers) and anyone with half a modicum of a clue fell off their chair laughing when reading her stuff - front page, above the fold. judy still has a job after making up a bunch of shit which contributed to dead people, visavis jayson blair who made up details about whether there was a tree in the front yard or if there were sheep in the paddock next, or making up a quote - and he got howled outta town and had a media-wide ban on reviewing his book. lemme repeat, judy is still working for the nyt - as are all the others.
of the non-krugman oped-ers, the others are certifiable freaks who can hardly hold a thought together long enough to write an article. most of the time its as though they write down some thoughts, throw them into a blender, and print the words in the order they come outta the blender - occasionally with a conjunctive to get from one thought to another.
eg heres friedmans latest titled "Shoulda, Woulda, Can" (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/27/opinion/27FRIE.html)
he wants "a bipartisan commission looking forward. I'd call it the National Commission for Doing Things Right"
which would "adopt a 50-cents-a-gallon gasoline tax, the Patriot Tax". its near-impossbile to read an article by friedman without having to pause at least once to try to understand the logic gymnastics that he just seemed to perform... and friedman makes up a quote in just about every article, jaysonblair style, cept friedman protects himself better: 'an iraqi told me last week...'
and safire is the grand dame of agenda creeps - his latest missive is called "The Bush-Kerry Nondebate" which ends helpfully thus: "Should Kerry act water's-edgily on Iraq? Or should he satisfy his angry left now, figuring he can go statesmanlike in October? We'll see tomorrow, in his answer to Bush's concessionary tactics and unwavering purpose."
and this from his previous article "Brahimi had another demand: cut off Chalabi, who had led the Governing Council to hire an accounting firm and lawyers to investigate the U.N.'s complicity in the $5 billion oil-for-food kickback ripoff. On orders, Bremer shut down the Iraqi attempt to recover the stolen money. Accountants were hired who were more amenable to the U.N."
he seems to think that chalabi has more cred than the UN when everyone else is blaming hero-in-error chalabi for everything. eg the weaculpa has this to say about chalabi "The problematic articles varied in authorship and subject matter, but many shared a common feature. They depended at least in part on information from a circle of Iraqi informants, defectors and exiles bent on "regime change" in Iraq, people whose credibility has come under increasing public debate in recent weeks."
you'll remember when the foil4ood thing was coming out, my comment was that it looked very serious, apart from the fact that it was only safire and brooks and fauxnews et al who were trying to give it legs.
and then we have certified neocunt davidbrooks whose recent contributions include "let's face it, we don't know whether all people really do want to live in freedom. We don't know whether Iraqis have any notion of what democratic citizenship really means." and "But despite the killings in Gaza this week, some important good things are happening there. The first good thing is that the Israeli security fence is turning out to be a boon to stability, rather than an irritant." and "Vice Premier Ehud Olmert epitomizes the new realism. When I had coffee with him this week, I expressed frustration with the outer settlements. Olmert defended the settlers warmly, saying they were believers sacrificing for a cause. "They need a hug," he said, waxing Oprah-esque."
and then theres maureen down who is equally likely to say something sensible as to waste an article about the colour of kerry's sweater.
(and then theres herbert who often makes sense in a normal kinda way - including his most recent about gores speech which is #2 on the 'most emailed'
www.nytimes.com/2004/05/28/opinion/28HERB.html )
so despite the weaculpa - the nyt team is broken yet intact and its almost inconceivable that the problems will go away. lemme repeat - jayblair got excoriated and miller has a job. the 'liberal media' myth is one of the gop's greatest successes...
On Fri, 28 May 2004 11:57:48 -0400, "Adam" wrote:
>
> Don't know if you saw this already, but nice article by
> Paul Krugman in the
> NY Times...
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/28/opinion/28KRUG.html
>
> Seems like the 'liberal media' and lukeryland are
> coming closer together...
brd - i normally try to give some sense of how
speculative my ideas are - in some examples im talking
about fact, and other times i get totally speculative.
the following is one of those very speculative
occasions where i rant about stuff that looks
'accidental' and is prolly meaningless, but it happens
so often, and if the hypothesis is correct, it points
to something really sinister... but its one of those
things where each specific example doesnt point to
anything but, in aggregate, the body of evidence seems
to start to pointing in the same direction as all the
other stuff that i comment on...
this reuters article
(http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=5279943) was
distributed everywhere and is
titled "Bush Says He Was Cure for Illegible
Prescriptions" - presumably thats a mistake cos it
doesnt make sense as it is, and presumably they meant
to say "Bush Says He *Has* Cure for Illegible
Prescriptions" and it can prolly be excused as a typo
(ie plausibly deniable) - but theres a big difference
between having a cure, and being the cure. in fact, in
the transcript (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/05/20040527-5.html)
he
doesnt even mention the word 'cure'
if bush is the cure, wtf is the problem?
sir rantalot
_______________________________________________
the king is alive. short live the king.
wotisitgood4.blogspot.com
speculative my ideas are - in some examples im talking
about fact, and other times i get totally speculative.
the following is one of those very speculative
occasions where i rant about stuff that looks
'accidental' and is prolly meaningless, but it happens
so often, and if the hypothesis is correct, it points
to something really sinister... but its one of those
things where each specific example doesnt point to
anything but, in aggregate, the body of evidence seems
to start to pointing in the same direction as all the
other stuff that i comment on...
this reuters article
(http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=5279943) was
distributed everywhere and is
titled "Bush Says He Was Cure for Illegible
Prescriptions" - presumably thats a mistake cos it
doesnt make sense as it is, and presumably they meant
to say "Bush Says He *Has* Cure for Illegible
Prescriptions" and it can prolly be excused as a typo
(ie plausibly deniable) - but theres a big difference
between having a cure, and being the cure. in fact, in
the transcript (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/05/20040527-5.html)
he
doesnt even mention the word 'cure'
if bush is the cure, wtf is the problem?
sir rantalot
_______________________________________________
the king is alive. short live the king.
wotisitgood4.blogspot.com
Attorney General John Ashcroft said at a news conference that intelligence reports and public statements by people associated with Al Qaeda suggested that the terrorist group was "almost ready to attack the United States" and harbored a "specific intention to hit the United States hard."
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/27/politics/27terror.html
The administration did not raise the terrorist threat advisory from its current level of elevated, or yellow, and the White House said Mr. Bush would not alter his schedule because of security concerns.
Asked about the timing of his new warnings about the suspects, Mr. Ashcroft said, "We believe the public, like all of us, needs a reminder."
Some intelligence officials said they were uncertain that the link between the fresh intelligence and the likelihood of another attack was as apparent as Mr. Ashcroft made it out to be. Officials at the Department of Homeland Security said just a day before Mr. Ashcroft's announcement that they had no new intelligence pointing to the threat of an attack.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/27/politics/27terror.html
The administration did not raise the terrorist threat advisory from its current level of elevated, or yellow, and the White House said Mr. Bush would not alter his schedule because of security concerns.
Asked about the timing of his new warnings about the suspects, Mr. Ashcroft said, "We believe the public, like all of us, needs a reminder."
Some intelligence officials said they were uncertain that the link between the fresh intelligence and the likelihood of another attack was as apparent as Mr. Ashcroft made it out to be. Officials at the Department of Homeland Security said just a day before Mr. Ashcroft's announcement that they had no new intelligence pointing to the threat of an attack.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Pentagon said Wednesday it inadvertently failed to give the Senate Armed Services Committee a full copy of the 6,000-page Army investigation into the prison abuse scandal.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/05/26/pentagon.abuse.ap/index.html
Committee staff raised concerns last week that they hadn't received 2,000 pages of the report and its annexes.
Di Rita said the committee was provided with a CD-ROM of the report and "there was a disconnect between the CD-ROM and the printed submission."
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/05/26/pentagon.abuse.ap/index.html
Committee staff raised concerns last week that they hadn't received 2,000 pages of the report and its annexes.
Di Rita said the committee was provided with a CD-ROM of the report and "there was a disconnect between the CD-ROM and the printed submission."
brd - welcome to the coalition of the shrilling.
just a bit of background to put you in the picture
in the buildup to the invasion, i couldnt believe what i was seeing and built lukeryland.com in a furious rage. when the invasion started i switched to wotisitgood4.blogspot.com - which is mostly just a scrapbook where i paste snippets of things that i read, with links back to the article, and also some comments from me trying to make sense of things. (anything at the blog that is in all lower case is me being rantorific. normal capitalization means a quote from somewhere)
i kind of stumbled into doing this by accident (mostly cos i was just watching the world go by and none of it made sense) so theres no real purpose or target or woteva - but i guess the essential focus is that it seems that bush et al are trying to take over the world or cause ww3 or woteva, and destroy whats left of democracy and the idea of america - so i guess im trying to understand exactly wot is going on, in the vain hope that understanding the problem is the first step to finding a solution.
there are a gazilion bush-haters - and many of them know way more than me about the world - i wouldnt be able to find iraq on a map, prolly even if it was one of those maps that helpfully have the countries clearly labeled, so the only thing that i can offer really is that i see a *lot* of media and pretend to be able to put it into context somehow, and try to ascertain the purpose, or try to find an internally consistent logic which can encapsulate the observed facts or some such.
the astonishing thing is that as far as i can tell, most of what we hear/see is totally rubbish - to the extent that it seems more reasonable to doubt every media story, or at least ask why we are being told the story. it seems that we really live in a press-release world, and the idea that stories we see in the news are there simply because its news reporting is fundamentally outdated and erroneous. so i guess the premise of news-as-agenda has become my starting point, but then i kinda switch to a detail level and ascertain
(to varying degrees) if the story/stories cant be true and is therefore a bunch of lies (its disconcerting how often i can virtually prove that a story is made-up - simply cos the facts dont make any sense). and so then another lukeryrule kicks in - people dont tell lies for fun, cos the cost of getting caught is really high - and then i triangulate all the bits and attempt to ascertain the purpose of the lies (or omissions or wotever). its a flawed process, but it seems to catch a fair bit of stuff.
i try not to waste too much of anyones time by commenting on obvious stuff - for example by ranting about how disgusting the abuG pictures are - where i dont have anything to add, but i might try to highlight some important questions which seem to be unasked... for example, about the british pix, everyone was outraged that they were fakes, but nobody seemed to even ask why it may have been done, or by whom. or i might question the release strategy of the abuG pix or i mite ask why theres not even a hint of suspicion about the validity of the iconic abuGpix, despite the fact that they were released the same week that the fake iconic britpix and the fake (not yet officially)iconic berg beheading video came out. its often amazing to me that elefant-in-the-living-room questions go unasked - and not just by bigmedia. i dont really have a hypothesis to explain it - the best i can come up with is the completely unsatisfying idea that the agenda-setting is massively comprehensive and effective that no-one can think any more. or praps the much more satisfying concept that im a genius and everyone else is stupid - the only problem with that hypothesis is that theres nothing genius in the questions i ask... the britpix things is a classic example - someone singlehandedly destroyed the credibility of the british media and british army - surely the first 2 questions are who? and why?
another type of story that gets my attention is straight-up, barefaced lies and corruption -
a recent example: www.iht.com/articles/520494.html
"The administration is using pseudoscience to justify its decisions. Randall Tobias, its AIDS coordinator, has said numerous times that condoms are not effective at preventing the spread of AIDS in the general population. He repeated this assertion while testifying in the House of Representatives in March, citing the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. Mr. Tobias is wrong. The dean of the London School wrote to him to say that the school had never produced any such report, and that its research shows that condoms do work."
- the specifics of this paragraph are stupid, and the implications are astonishing. this sort of thing happens all the time - the facts simply dont matter - even while testifying. and oftentimes, this type of story throws up other curiosities - eg newsgoogling "london condom tobias" gives only 3 responses - all the same article - 2*nyt, and 1*iht (ie 3*nyt). praps curiously, the title of the article changed from "Opposition to Condoms" in the nyt to "A big step forward on AIDS, and a step backward" in the iht.
another type of lie that gets my attention is stuff like this "In January 2003, the threat turned real. Police in London arrested six terror suspects and discovered a ricin lab connected to the camp in Iraq."
(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601/) - if the journo wasnt trying to make a point, he'd prolly have mentioned that those 6 people werent charged cos there was no case... again - this sort of thing happens *all* the time as well. speaking of ricin and other assorted terror toys - lets remember that all the terror arrests - from sleeper cells in ny to ammoniumnitrate - have come up empty handed. not a single conviction - anywhere. even if they have 500 policemen involved in the swoops, it doesnt seem to make the arrested any more guilty...
speaking of 'sleeper cells' - there are a bunch of similar spooky-sounding words/phrases that seem like they are written by a bad fiction writer - they are - and the premise of the story needs to be tossed into the garbage can. i always get excited when we get fed a new spook-word - it makes the whole game more fun. i can pick em a mile away, and most of the time when i take a closer look, the story turns out to be bollox. im sure i sound crazy most of the time - but after making apparently outrageous statements for 18 months, theres hardly a statement that im embarrassed by. and thats really bloody scary.
some admin stuff: lemme know when u want to get off the email list. feel free to reply or not to any of the emails. i just rant from the top of the email to the bottom - so i prolly often get off-point, and often dont get back on...
la di da
On Thu, 27 May 2004 20:26:31 +0100, wrote:
>
> Rylo,
>
> Would enjoy getting your thoughts - I very much enjoyed
> listening and chatting and generally catching up with
> you at Christmas so would also enjoy getting your
> thoughts now.
>
> BRD
>
> ________________________________
>
> From:
> Sent: Thu 27/05/2004 15:42
> To:
> Subject: Re: R: R: R: Happy Birthday
>
>
>
> btw - u may have heard that i rantalot to pam/g/hecht
> about the bushcrew and the state of the universe. most
> of it must be rubbish, but ive at least convinced
> myself that some of it mite be true. i assume that u
> have more important things in your world - and i copy
> most of it to my blog if you are interested - but i can
> also add u to the list if u need more emails in your
> day. none of it is fun.
>
> lr x
>
just a bit of background to put you in the picture
in the buildup to the invasion, i couldnt believe what i was seeing and built lukeryland.com in a furious rage. when the invasion started i switched to wotisitgood4.blogspot.com - which is mostly just a scrapbook where i paste snippets of things that i read, with links back to the article, and also some comments from me trying to make sense of things. (anything at the blog that is in all lower case is me being rantorific. normal capitalization means a quote from somewhere)
i kind of stumbled into doing this by accident (mostly cos i was just watching the world go by and none of it made sense) so theres no real purpose or target or woteva - but i guess the essential focus is that it seems that bush et al are trying to take over the world or cause ww3 or woteva, and destroy whats left of democracy and the idea of america - so i guess im trying to understand exactly wot is going on, in the vain hope that understanding the problem is the first step to finding a solution.
there are a gazilion bush-haters - and many of them know way more than me about the world - i wouldnt be able to find iraq on a map, prolly even if it was one of those maps that helpfully have the countries clearly labeled, so the only thing that i can offer really is that i see a *lot* of media and pretend to be able to put it into context somehow, and try to ascertain the purpose, or try to find an internally consistent logic which can encapsulate the observed facts or some such.
the astonishing thing is that as far as i can tell, most of what we hear/see is totally rubbish - to the extent that it seems more reasonable to doubt every media story, or at least ask why we are being told the story. it seems that we really live in a press-release world, and the idea that stories we see in the news are there simply because its news reporting is fundamentally outdated and erroneous. so i guess the premise of news-as-agenda has become my starting point, but then i kinda switch to a detail level and ascertain
(to varying degrees) if the story/stories cant be true and is therefore a bunch of lies (its disconcerting how often i can virtually prove that a story is made-up - simply cos the facts dont make any sense). and so then another lukeryrule kicks in - people dont tell lies for fun, cos the cost of getting caught is really high - and then i triangulate all the bits and attempt to ascertain the purpose of the lies (or omissions or wotever). its a flawed process, but it seems to catch a fair bit of stuff.
i try not to waste too much of anyones time by commenting on obvious stuff - for example by ranting about how disgusting the abuG pictures are - where i dont have anything to add, but i might try to highlight some important questions which seem to be unasked... for example, about the british pix, everyone was outraged that they were fakes, but nobody seemed to even ask why it may have been done, or by whom. or i might question the release strategy of the abuG pix or i mite ask why theres not even a hint of suspicion about the validity of the iconic abuGpix, despite the fact that they were released the same week that the fake iconic britpix and the fake (not yet officially)iconic berg beheading video came out. its often amazing to me that elefant-in-the-living-room questions go unasked - and not just by bigmedia. i dont really have a hypothesis to explain it - the best i can come up with is the completely unsatisfying idea that the agenda-setting is massively comprehensive and effective that no-one can think any more. or praps the much more satisfying concept that im a genius and everyone else is stupid - the only problem with that hypothesis is that theres nothing genius in the questions i ask... the britpix things is a classic example - someone singlehandedly destroyed the credibility of the british media and british army - surely the first 2 questions are who? and why?
another type of story that gets my attention is straight-up, barefaced lies and corruption -
a recent example: www.iht.com/articles/520494.html
"The administration is using pseudoscience to justify its decisions. Randall Tobias, its AIDS coordinator, has said numerous times that condoms are not effective at preventing the spread of AIDS in the general population. He repeated this assertion while testifying in the House of Representatives in March, citing the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. Mr. Tobias is wrong. The dean of the London School wrote to him to say that the school had never produced any such report, and that its research shows that condoms do work."
- the specifics of this paragraph are stupid, and the implications are astonishing. this sort of thing happens all the time - the facts simply dont matter - even while testifying. and oftentimes, this type of story throws up other curiosities - eg newsgoogling "london condom tobias" gives only 3 responses - all the same article - 2*nyt, and 1*iht (ie 3*nyt). praps curiously, the title of the article changed from "Opposition to Condoms" in the nyt to "A big step forward on AIDS, and a step backward" in the iht.
another type of lie that gets my attention is stuff like this "In January 2003, the threat turned real. Police in London arrested six terror suspects and discovered a ricin lab connected to the camp in Iraq."
(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4431601/) - if the journo wasnt trying to make a point, he'd prolly have mentioned that those 6 people werent charged cos there was no case... again - this sort of thing happens *all* the time as well. speaking of ricin and other assorted terror toys - lets remember that all the terror arrests - from sleeper cells in ny to ammoniumnitrate - have come up empty handed. not a single conviction - anywhere. even if they have 500 policemen involved in the swoops, it doesnt seem to make the arrested any more guilty...
speaking of 'sleeper cells' - there are a bunch of similar spooky-sounding words/phrases that seem like they are written by a bad fiction writer - they are - and the premise of the story needs to be tossed into the garbage can. i always get excited when we get fed a new spook-word - it makes the whole game more fun. i can pick em a mile away, and most of the time when i take a closer look, the story turns out to be bollox. im sure i sound crazy most of the time - but after making apparently outrageous statements for 18 months, theres hardly a statement that im embarrassed by. and thats really bloody scary.
some admin stuff: lemme know when u want to get off the email list. feel free to reply or not to any of the emails. i just rant from the top of the email to the bottom - so i prolly often get off-point, and often dont get back on...
la di da
On Thu, 27 May 2004 20:26:31 +0100, wrote:
>
> Rylo,
>
> Would enjoy getting your thoughts - I very much enjoyed
> listening and chatting and generally catching up with
> you at Christmas so would also enjoy getting your
> thoughts now.
>
> BRD
>
> ________________________________
>
> From:
> Sent: Thu 27/05/2004 15:42
> To:
> Subject: Re: R: R: R: Happy Birthday
>
>
>
> btw - u may have heard that i rantalot to pam/g/hecht
> about the bushcrew and the state of the universe. most
> of it must be rubbish, but ive at least convinced
> myself that some of it mite be true. i assume that u
> have more important things in your world - and i copy
> most of it to my blog if you are interested - but i can
> also add u to the list if u need more emails in your
> day. none of it is fun.
>
> lr x
>
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
