Saturday, February 22, 2003

Here is an amicus brief, filed by John Ashcroft's "Justice" Department in the case over whether or not New Yorkers would be allowed to march to the U.N. Building. Of course, they were DENIED the permit to march. But how many people know that the DoJ got involved? Ironically, the argument they used in this brief was that we have to PROTECT the U.N.! Ha! After months of America's Rightwingnut Brigade denouncing and belittling the U.N., that's rich!

CNN: Where's your coverage on that? Huh?
This letter writer certainly "gets it".

Regarding "The great trans-Atlantic media divide" (Views, Feb. 19) by Paul Krugman: The media divide runs not only between the United States and Europe, it also goes right down the middle of one of the biggest English-language media institutions, CNN.
CNN America and CNN International often seem to have little in common. While the former seems almost exclusively geared to the American point of view, the latter brings many different national perspectives - both for and against - discussions and interviews with different people, from different countries and often with widely differing opinions. Unfortunately, as far as I know, viewers in America don't get to see these.
Jacqueline Giere, Wiesbaden, Germany

The US mass media are simply echoing the war cryof the Bush administration

It had to be heard to be believed! Jonathan Carl, a CNN correspondent who was standing in for a regular programme anchor, was commenting on American reaction to North Korea since Pyongyang embarked on a course of outright confrontation with the United States of America on the nuclear issue.

He named the North Korean leader as King Jong the second! How could it be? North Korea was so much in the news and how could a CNN correspondent who handled important beats in Washington get it wrong? But once again, Carl said it in his report: Kim Jong II.

Then it dawned on the more discriminating viewers. This CNN correspondent who was authoritatively commenting on the developing crisis between the US and North Korea did not have a clue to the name of the man who rules the world’s only remaining Stalinist state. Perhaps, he had heard that North Korea is a communist dynasty? That Koreans, for a good part, are all Kims? That the founder of the North Korean state was a Kim too? Then surely, in the Marxist dynasty, his son and successor must be King Jong the second?

One of the more dangerous aspects of the current countdown to war with Iraq is the role of the US media.

With rare exceptions, American television has taken upon itself the task of selling president George W Bush’s war against Saddam Hussein.

In this propaganda effort for the White House, it does not offer readers any adequate choice of views or news. It openly dismisses those who speak up against the coming conflict even on the few occasions when they are called to appear on television screens. It long ago gave up the pretence that as a free media, it was offering viewers enough balance and variety so that they could independently make up their minds on the question of overthrowing Saddam Hussein through an invasion.

The rest of the world sees it. They know we Americans are being lied to.

Friday, February 21, 2003


For the past six years, the American Gulf War Veterans Association have received numerous reports from veterans stating that US forces were responsible for the setting of the oil well fires at the end of the Gulf War.Ê These testimonies are now being taken very seriously in light of recent revelations of the events that occurred during the first Gulf War.
Joyce Riley, spokesperson for The American Gulf War Veterans Association is quoted as saying: ÒThere was intentional misinformation given to the American people to generate support for Desert Storm often created by advertising agencies such as Hill and Knowlton.Ó


One veteran has now stepped forward and given a detailed account of how he and others in special teams, moved forward of the front, (behind enemy lines ahead of US forces) and then set charges on the well heads. ÒWe were mustered into the briefing tent at which point a gentleman whom I first had thought to be an American began to brief us on the operation. I was concerned because he was not wearing a US uniform and insignias.Ó
The information provided over a series of meetings with this veteran corroborates reports from other veterans who are totally unconnected with this individual. This testimony brings into serious question the integrity of the US government, as it provided information to the American public and military during the last Gulf War.

Maybe Aaron Brown will book this Gulf War Veteran on his show. (Yeah, right.)

Thursday, February 20, 2003

Disturbing Questions

On a recent CNN International broadcast, I watched Tom Ridge being interviewed by Wolf Blitzer. Blitzer lobbed softball questions, picked up the slack and explained the White House position when Ridge was at a loss for words, and then framed several questions about partisan Democrats being at the root of security problems and war resistance.

Blitzer never asked: "Why did you guys run a focus group on your terrorism alert? Doesn't that smack of political manipulation rather than true patriotic concern for America's safety? Did the White House really file a supporting motion in court to block the peace rallies in NY? What scientific studies did Homeland Security use to determine duct tape and plastic were effective against chemical and biological bombs? And how is it that neither the FBI nor CIA gave the "informant" a lie detector test prior to issuing the Orange Alert? Doesn't that show incompetence of two agencies charged with protecting America?"

Blitzer never asked one of those questions. Although, cutting to commercial he did say, "CNN the most trusted name in news." Umm - Okay.

I would like to say that I was flabbergasted by this lackluster GOP-apologist performance, but the truth is, this is all we can expect from the lickspittle smarmy microphone that passes for today's media. How many "journalists" does it take to change a light bulb? None. They get well paid to work in the dark.


Everyone talks around the subject but no one makes the White House answer the question: Why, if Saddam has chemical and biological weapons, are you willing to risk thousands of lives by invading Iraq? Don't you think they will use them in defense of their country? Or is that what you are hoping for? Is that why the nuclear option is not only on the table but also in the news?

And therein lies the chilling question. What is going on here?

This White House is obsessed with elections and the installation of the GOP as the ruling party of America. Why would they be willing to risk a war that could run amok and generate thousands of horrible casualties of our military men and women? Their own credibility and coming presidential election is on the line here. What would be the benefit for them? And make no mistake; no calculation has gone unexamined by this cabal of conservative ideologists. So what exactly do they know that the rest of us are not allowed to know?

This MUST READ article ends with this chilling observation: "Something evil this way comes - but no one wants to ask. No one wants to know."

CNN (and the rest of the Presstitutes) are willing accomplices in this terrible unfolding tragedy. They will have blood on their hands for sitting silently by and letting this horror come to pass. They must ALWAYS be held accountable for this; they must NEVER be allowed to forget or downplay their role. They must NEVER be forgiven.
Janeane Garofalo kicked some Presstitute butt on Crossfire. This woman ROCKS! More please!!!

GAROFALO: I would respond to that, Tucker. After 1996 and the deregulation, the FCC deregulation which enabled fewer and fewer corporate owners of more and more media outlets have homogenize the news. I think the news has a big stake in war, because it means ratings and it means viewers and it's I guess, to them, exciting stories. I do think that there's corporate entities that own the news and that's why the news is sort of reflective of establishment views. And like Fox, basically the White House.

Fox News is a mouthpiece for the White House. And I would say that it's not like you're getting really exciting, diverse news from all these news outlets, I think they're basically establishment voice with a bit of variation here and there, but -- and if I can move on further to the fact that I also know that it's not ideal that people have chosen entertainment for a career or talking about the anti-war movement. Unfortunately, the anti-war movement which is huge seems to get more attention when a handful of actors have access to the camera.

Janeane gets it. And she beats the Media Whores at their own game, you gotta love it.

Tuesday, February 18, 2003

Bush's 'sacrifice' can't be matched

As we head for war with Iraq, Americans should reflect and be grateful for combat sacrifices made by our veterans, such as Sen. Daniel Inouye (lost an arm), Sen. John McCain (lost six years of his life in a POW camp), former Sen. Bob Kerrey (lost a leg) and former Sen. Max Cleland (lost both legs and an arm).

However, we veterans are most impressed by the sacrifices of Vietnam-era veteran George W. Bush, who lost his memory for nearly a whole year concerning where he was and what he was doing from mid-1972 to mid-1973 when he was supposed to be serving in the Texas Air National Guard.

Loss of limbs in combat and POW camps pale in comparison with our president's unique personal sacrifice. We are fortunate to have such a selfless and patriotic man leading us to war.


Riser, of Atlanta, is a veteran of Desert Storm.

I always love it when I see a reference to AWOL BUSH in a major newspaper. Of course, it's ALWAYS a reader, never an Editor. And the chance of CNN telling America the truth about our AWOL-during-wartime (p)Resident is nil. But word is spreading, nonetheless.

In any country with a FREE PRESS, every citizen would know this simple (and proven) fact. We would have been told BEFORE that sham "election" --- you know, the one AWOL BUSH lost?
Behind the Great Divide By PAUL KRUGMAN

There has been much speculation why Europe and the U.S. are suddenly at such odds. Is it about culture? About history? But I haven't seen much discussion of an obvious point: We have different views partly because we see different news.


So why don't other countries see the world the way we do? News coverage is a large part of the answer. Eric Alterman's new book, "What Liberal Media?" doesn't stress international comparisons, but the difference between the news reports Americans and Europeans see is a stark demonstration of his point. At least compared with their foreign counterparts, the "liberal" U.S. media are strikingly conservative — and in this case hawkish.

I'm not mainly talking about the print media. There are differences, but the major national newspapers in the U.S. and the U.K. at least seem to be describing the same reality.

Most people, though, get their news from TV — and there the difference is immense. The coverage of Saturday's antiwar rallies was a reminder of the extent to which U.S. cable news, in particular, seems to be reporting about a different planet than the one covered by foreign media.

What would someone watching cable news have seen? On Saturday, news anchors on Fox described the demonstrators in New York as "the usual protesters" or "serial protesters." CNN wasn't quite so dismissive, but on Sunday morning the headline on the network's Web site read "Antiwar rallies delight Iraq," and the accompanying picture showed marchers in Baghdad, not London or New York.

Krugman nails it, as usual. Our "Liberal" media are nothing of the sort. The "mainstream" tilts WAY to the right, and the final and utter destruction of that ridiculous myth is mandatory before there can even be an honest discussion of the issues in America.
Here's an excellent observation from a friend of mine:

Perverse outcome potential. When a million people march, and they hear CNN call it tens of thousands, then they will conclude that CNN falsifies news. They are personally involved. These venal corrupt fucks don't realize that it is credibility that they are selling. Without that they are nothing. They are nothing. Now the million people who marched realize it.

If they can't report the marches accurately, anything they have to say about the war is suspect, too. They just qualified for a Darwin Award.

That is exactly right. The Presstitutes at CNN can't seem to mouth the word "MILLIONS", instead, when they bother to mention them at all, referring to "thousands of protesters". This is clearly a lie, one intended to downplay the truly MASSIVE and historic events of last weekend. The trouble is, all those MILLIONS of people who went to the gatherings now KNOW for a FACT that CNN is lying to them.

Keep digging, CNN.
Thanks to everyone on your CNN Boycott suggestions! Here are a few excerpts:

If all the anti-war factions (all of whom have been given short shrift by cnn) were to be mobilized we could at least create a story damning to cnn and perhaps even keep their ratings down, which after all is their lifes'-blood. If move-on and notinourname got in on this and we were able to put out some full page ads in some of the larger papers (assuming any of them would run these) we could create a huge groundswell. After the war begins most of the anti-war crowd will feel helpless and hopeless and this will be a pro-active way to continue the fight against what many see as a conduit for the current administrations rhetoric and propoganda. -- J.T.

I suggest you list all the sponsers you note on CNN. Then set up a sample letter with the address set up so people can download it and send it. -- Clark

You asked for suggestions for organizing a boycott of CNN: Get BartCop interested in promoting your site! He is almost ready to go on air, and would probably like a 'signature' item or two. We both know he's going to have so many issues to plug - but I think he's going to focus on the media whores, at least at first. If people know there are a number of people out there who are actively organizing protests and boycotts at a number of different areas of the same problem, they might get the picture that the whole deal is crooked, and if we want to make things honest again, we're going to have to do some heavy lifting for a while. Cleaning the whole lot out would be a good start. -- Tom

I have written CNN several times in the past few weeks asking why they are not reporting particualr stories, etc. I have yet to get a response. I am fed up -I would like to write all their advertisers to let them know I am boycotting them and why. -- A.P.

I would boycott CNN AND Fox and promote MSNBC. They are the lowest in the ratings and have cancelled liberal Donahue but Chris Matthews is against the war and they often have Buchanan on -- he's against the war too. It's not perfect but by promoting one against the other -- using the same tactics as take back the media complaining that CNN and FOX represent one point of view and distort in favor of pro war factions maybe you can get some advertisers to pull off CNN and Fox and advertise on the networks or on MSNBC. -- J.D.

Sunday, February 16, 2003

Here is the ONLY other online reference that I have so far been able to find about the Bushies getting involved in the New York protest court case...

NYC Peace Activists Vow to Face Down Bush's War


The New York event was supposed to include a walk past the UN. But pressed by the U.S. Justice Department, which filed a friend of the court brief, a federal judge ruled the city could deny the necessary permit because a march of such scale would pose an unacceptable security risk.

Hemming in thousands of frustrated people presents its own dangers. While they plan to appeal the court decision, organizers say the city's refusal may only boost the turnout. "People are outraged," says UFPJ co-chair Leslie Cagan. "At this point, we're not just protesting over this war but over the right to assert our basic civil rights."

This is outrageous.
Free Speech Trampled in Standstill

February 15, 2003

There's a peace march scheduled in New York City today. But it will be more like a peace standstill. Unlike the 602 cities around the globe where protesters plan to march together to protest a war on Iraq, New York authorities won't allow it.

The Bloomberg administration made the decision well before last week's heightened security alert. A federal three-judge panel affirmed it - even though The New York Times reported a police commander told a federal judge that he had no reason to expect violence.


But there's more to it than that. The Bush administration - which is in the midst of trying to sell the war to the public - filed a brief urging the judges to uphold denial of the permit. And the Bloomberg administration has no intention of forcing a St. Patrick's Day standstill instead of a parade - even though it's bigger and likely more raucous.

Say what???? Why isn't this FRONT PAGE NEWS??? I've heard or seen not one peep about this staggering bit of information on CNN (or elsewhere) in the "Mainstream" Media.

We have a "Pravda Press", people. Until that changes, we are screwed.
Main speaker at yesterday's anti-war rally in Toronto:

"The protests are so widespread and so big that even CNN has had to notice!"

Witness to crowd reaction to the above statement:

I was also highly amused that everybody at the Toronto rally knew exactly what the guy meant when he talked about CNN. It would seem they're a joke to anybody who actually pays attention, whatever country they're in.

Today's CNN website headline:


'Nuff said.

New York City



Los Angeles