Did I mention September 11?

It's hard work using dead people for political gain. Read the rest of this post...

Associated Press caught deleting line in news story, makes story more biased against Senator Reid

UPDATE: It gets worse.

This is rather serious. The Associated Press ran a story yesterday (byline John Solomon) attacking Senator Harry Reid for accepting tickets to a boxing match in Nevada as the guest of the Nevada state government (something that appears totally fine under Senate ethics rules).

AP then comes under some rather severe criticism from bloggers, this blog included, because the article notes in its second paragraph that rather than doing the bidding of the Nevada boxing folks, Reid was in fact pushing legislation they didn't like - i.e., Reid was not in the pocket of the Nevada boxing folks.

Today, Josh Marshall discovered that AP appears to have edited its story and deleted the sentence that makes clear that Harry Reid was pushing legislation the Nevada boxing folks didn't like. I.e., AP just happened to delete the key line of their story that proves that Harry Reid isn't dishonest. And AP happens to delete this line from their story right after we all criticize them, using the line as proof that AP's story doesn't hold water.

This is what AP was saying yesterday about Harry Reid in the second paragraph of their story. Note that this version mentions that the legislation Reid was pushing was not favored by the boxing commission:



And here is what the AP story NOW says after someone edited it. Note that there's no longer any mention that Reid was at odds with the boxing commission over the legislation - i.e., he was his own man:



What you will find in the "edited" story is a mention of this "usurping" of state authority in the 30th paragraph. It was initially in the 2nd paragraph of the story. It comes as no surprise that in some versions of the "new" story, the 30th paragraph was cut out entirely by local papers trying to conserve space.

It is very difficult to believe that this was anything other than intentional on the part of the Associated Press. They appear to have changed a story - taken the most significant piece of information out of a story - in order to better smear a sitting US Senator. And before the AP says it was a simple mistaken edit, a number of the top blogs wrote about that very sentence yesterday, showing how that sentence proved the AP story was a hatchet job. Would AP now have us believe that they never heard of the criticism, and the sentence simply disappeared by accident?

The Associated Press and its reporter John Solomon need to issue an immediate correction along with a statement explaining why this key line of the story was deleted, and apologizing to Senator Reid. And if you don't think this is important, CNN and MSNBC already got the story wrong, and it appears they may have relied on the "new" AP story.

The Associated Press, under the byline of John Solomon, has an ever-growing history of smears against Democrats, including Ambassador Joe Wilson, Senator Dorgan, and Senator Reid. One of the adults at the AP needs to step in now and find out what the heck is going on. Read the rest of this post...

Nice to meet you. You killed my cousin.

It was live on CNN, I saw it. Fresh from meeting President Bush at the White House, the new Iraqi ambassador went on CNN today and accused US troops of intentionally killing his cousin in Iraq without cause.

Let me try to explain how big a deal this is. This is the new Iraqi ambassador. Our stooge. He just met with Bush (our other stooge, but more in a Three Stooges kind of way). You just don't SAY things like this on CNN when you're the ambassador of a friendly country (especially a puppet country) and especially after you've just met the US president.

This is, as we say on AMERICAblog, rather huge. I think the Iraqi ambassador just Sister Souljah'd the US president to buttress the Iraqi government at home.

Here's the transcript from CNN.

BLITZER: But even months before the incident in November, you lost a cousin at Haditha in a separate battle involving United States Marines.

SUMAIDAIE: Well, that was not a battle at all. Marines were doing house-to-house searches, and they went into the house of my cousin. He opened the door for them.

His mother, his siblings were there. He led them into the bedroom of his father. And there he was shot.

BLITZER: Who shot him?

SUMAIDAIE: A member of the Marines.

BLITZER: Why did they shoot him?

SUMAIDAIE: Well, they said that they shot him in self-defense. I find that hard to believe because, A, he is not at all a violent -- I mean, I know the boy. He was [in] a second-year engineering course in the university. Nothing to do with violence. All his life has been studies and intellectual work.

Totally unbelievable. And, in fact, they had no weapon in the house. They had one weapon which belonged to the school where his father was a headmaster. And it had no ammunition in it. And he led them into the room to show it to them.

BLITZER: So what you're suggesting, your cousin was killed in cold blood, is that what you're saying, by United States Marines?

SUMAIDAIE: I believe he was killed intentionally. I believe that he was killed unnecessarily. And unfortunately, the investigations that took place after that sort of took a different course and concluded that there was no unlawful killing.

I would like further investigation. I have, in fact, asked for the report of the last investigation, which was a criminal investigation, by the way.

[Gen. George Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq] is aware of all the details, because he's kept on top of it. And it was he who rejected the conclusions of the first investigation. I have since asked formally for the report, but it's been nearly two months, and I have not received it.

(Hat tip to The Dan Report.) Read the rest of this post...

1,500 more US troops on their way to Iraq, Kabul is in anarchy, so what does Bush do? Calls a press conference about gay marriage.

At some point, will someone please tell the Republicans the rest of us are dying out here. Read the rest of this post...

"Ashamed to be American"

This is a comment that one of our readers wrote and posted earlier today. For all of you folks who don't understand blogs (msm, ahem) I did not write this, one of our readers wrote this and posted it in the comments earlier today:

I had a friend die on 9/11 in Tower One, and the son of another friend in the Pentagon (I live in Maryland). I was heartbroken and angry as hell at Osama. I felt more patriotic than usual -- and I am usually very patriotic (even if what we did to Native Americans always pissed me off). But now, unfortunately, Bush has ruined my feelings for this country. I'm ashamed. 9/11 has become a sort of bastardized event where the sadness I feel now is directed at how 9/11 has been used and abused. Osama wanted to destroy our infrastructure and Bush played right into his hands. I'm so angry. And why this man is not impeached just kills me. I believe America has been lost. It started under Reagan, and now it is complete. I have no more hope. I think 9/11 actually destroyed us. The problem is it really wasn't Osama that did it -- it was Bush, the media, and the scores of ignorant Americans that have forgotten what we stand for. I actually hate the America that now exists. Thanks, George.

Read the rest of this post...

Surprise! Officers reportedly not subjects of investigation of Iraqi civilian massacre, only enlisted men being investigated

Yes, the Bush administration is again making the enlisted men the fall guys.

Pentagon investigations into the shooting deaths of Iraqi civilians are focused on about a dozen enlisted Marines and do not target their commanding officers, the lawyer for one of the officers said Tuesday.

Forget about the fact that Rep. Murtha said this past weekend that there was definitely a cover up of this seeming war crime, a cover up that goes far beyond the men involved:

"This investigation should have been over two or three weeks after the incident."...

Murtha, a Marine veteran who six months ago called for the complete withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, added, "There's has to have been a cover-up. ... There's no question about it..."

"There's no question about what happened. ... The problem is: Who covered it up, why did they cover it up and why did it take so long?"

But funny, the DOD apparently isn't interested in investigating anybody above the grade of staff sargeant. After all, in the Bush administration, we don't hold bosses responsible for their mistakes, we simply blame their employees. And preferably the lowest employees on the totem pole.

Ah yes, one step closer to creating that banana republic military that Bush and Rummy and General Pace seem so fond of. Speaking of General Pace, how did he suddenly get out of this investigation? According to Murtha, the cover-up could go as high as Pace, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. So why aren't any officers at all being investigated, let alone Pace himself? Again, per Murtha quoted by ABC, a network that didn't censor the Murtha quote to protect Pace:

"It goes right up the chain of command right up to General Pace. ... Did he know about it? Did he cover it up? I'm sure he didn't, but we need to find out."

Yes we do need to find out, but we won't. Because General Pace and all of his officer flunkies won't be touched by this investigation - it's all the enlisted men's fault, per Bush and Pace, it always is. Bush and Pace would have us believe that if it weren't for those bad-apple enlisted men who supposedly also came up with Abu Ghraib all by themselves (even though the same practices were being done at other US military prisons around the world - coincidence, I'm sure) we wouldn't have all of these human rights abuses going on.

And in any case, we can't have an honest investigation of whether General Pace and any officers were involved. That simply is not the way the military works in a banana republic. If our military leaders were actually accountable to international law, we'd be a democracy and a shining beacon around the world. And we just couldn't have that.

What's a war crime between friends, eh General Pace? Read the rest of this post...

House holds hearing on how to keep FBI out of their offices

The House Judiciary Committee had a hearing this morning about the raid on Jefferson's office:

Back on Capitol Hill, Sensenbrenner signaled that he would not be joining those who had softened their criticism of the raid and in fact planned two more hearings on the subject. He also suggested he might introduce legislation codifying any guidelines for such searches.

One hearing, Sensenbrenner said, would include Gonzales and Mueller.

"They didn't get it right this time," Sensenbrenner said during the first session, titled "Reckless Justice: Did the Saturday Night Raid of Congress Trample the Constitution?"

For the GOP, trampling the Constitution is only an issue when it directly affects them.

And, given all the corruption in the GOP, it's no wonder their leaders are worried about the FBI doing raids on Congressional offices. AMERICAblog put together this handy list for investigators of the sleaziest GOP members and their offices:

Roy Blunt: 217 Cannon or go right to the Majority Leader's Office right in the Capitol

Ken Calvert: 2201 Rayburn

Tom DeLay: 242 Cannon (Note to FBI:you only have until June 9th, he's resigning)

John Dolittle: 2410 Rayburn

Tom Feeney: 323 Cannon

Jerry Lewis: 2112 Rayburn and check out 2359 Rayburn which is the Appropriations Committee office, too. (He's the Chair.)

Gary Miller: 1037 Longworth

Bob Ney: 2438 Rayburn (get to him fast, everyone wants a piece of Ney these days)

Richard Pombo: 2411 Rayburn

Charles Taylor: 339 Cannon

Is it any wonder that the GOP leadership is apoplectic that the FBI may be cracking down on Congressional corruption.

UPDATE: Based on testimony in the Safavian corruption trial (by an aide of Bob Ney's who went to work for Abramoff), here are a couple more GOP members of Congress for the FBI to keep an eye on:

The aide, Neil Volz, who was a partner of Abramoff's at the time, also outlined how the Abramoff team received assistance from several Republican congressmen including, Rep. Bob Ney, R-Ohio, Rep. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va., Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, and Rep. Steven LaTourette, R-Ohio.

Read the rest of this post...

On the anniversary of "last throes," Bush sends more troops to quell Iraq. This is a VERY bad sign. Here's why...

NOTE FROM JOHN: AJ is an ex military intelligence officer now writing on AMERICAblog about security issues. He has extensive experience on Iraq policy both here and in country.
---------

CNN reports that 1,500 troops are being moved from Kuwait into Iraq's Anbar province, the Sunni stronghold in the west. WaPo and NYT put it at either 3,500, or a full brigade. (The discrepancy, I think, is that CNN is reporting the troops that have already moved; NYT and WaPo are reporting the total number in Kuwait that will eventually be deployed.)

This is a tremendously bad sign, and indicates that Anbar province, and likely the city of Ramadi in particular, are beyond out of control.

There is no indication that the move is in response to any particular increase in numbers of fighters from other parts of Iraq or neighboring countries, meaning that the surge in violence is home-grown. Although the insurgent learning curve has thus far been surprisingly gradual, they're getting better at their deadly craft and we don't appear to have an answer.

The articles also indicate a disturbing trend of Al Qa'ida recruitment successes among the indigenous Sunni population. As that occurs, huge swaths of western Iraq will become terrorist havens, camps, training areas, etc. If we can't control the cities, we're certainly not controlling the countryside.

In a particularly awful irony, exactly a year ago our Vice President declared that the insurgency was in its last throes. Unreal. Of course, when a government (or occupier) fails to provide any kind of security or basic services for the people, it shouldn't be surprising when they get pissed, lash out, and turn to anyone that can protect and serve them. Call it the Hamas model.

Most importantly, though, if the strategy being implemented with 130,000 troops isn't working, why would it work with 3,500 more? Deficient strategy. Deficient Secretary of Defense. Deficient presidency. Read the rest of this post...

Open thread

Go for it Read the rest of this post...

Republican tax bill raises taxes on Americans living abroad

Now they don't just hate France, they hate Americans living in France.

So much for no new taxes.

I think I smell a campaign issue - the GOP voted to raise taxes, and Bush agreed.

Ah, like father like son. Read the rest of this post...

I'm all for the War on Terror. When does it start?

Seems the folks at Firedoglake have stirred up a hornet's nest of freepers by suggesting there is no war on terror, nor should there be. I think they're both right and wrong, kind of.

First, there is no war on terror - anymore. There was a war on terror, for a few months or so in late 2001, and it went quite well, for the short while it lasted. As you'll recall, America got hit and we retaliated, smartly, by going after the folks enabling Al Qaeda, the Taliban. Things went well in Afghanistan (for a while), then things went horribly wrong.

Since that time, whether by intent or neglect, the actual war on terror has been missing in action. We invaded Iraq for all the wrong reasons - Iraq had nothing to do with the war on terror. Lots of us knew that before Bush invaded. All of us know it now.

And at home, Bush has been systematically dismantling the very freedoms he keeps telling us that Osama hates and our soldiers are defending. Watering down the Bill of Rights, tearing up the Constitution, and ignoring the rule of law have nothing to do with the war on terror, unless you count Osama's very goals in that war.

Bush has been trying to sell our ports to countries that enabled the attacks on September 11. Containers coming in to our country still go unchecked (oops, there goes a nuke). And how about mail packages that travels on domestic airlines - last time I checked, lots of mail on planes wasn't being checked for bombs either, has that changed? FEMA still remains totally unpreprepared for another national disaster. We're not prepared for smallpox. Airline passengers still aren't screened against all the name on the terrorist watch list. Homeland Security money is doled out as pork. And on and on.

And after all that, Bush still hasn't learned his lesson. He talks tough against Iran, preparing the nation for another war, while Iran has nothing to do with the attacks on September 11 or Osama. Where is Osama bin Laden? Have we taken care of Al Qaeda? Have we taken care of ourselves?

Not a word from Bush.

There was a war on terror. But now, there is no war on terror. Bush's foreign and domestic policy, when he has a coherent one, is geared towards helping his corporate allies profit at the expense of regular Americans - not geared towards protecting the nation against terrorism or fighting any supposed war on terror. Iraq was about oil and avenging Bush's father. Iran is about oil and the neo-conservative fixation with rewriting the world. North Korea (a massive threat to the US, though not in the "terror" sense, rather in the "they can nuke us and they're crazy" sense) is... forgotten. And the depressing rollback of civil liberties and the rule of law at home are about establishing an imperial presidency in order to entrench conservativism in American government for decades.

What happened to the war on terror?

Here is where I differ with Firedoglake. The semantics of the phrase "war on terror" don't bother me as much as it does them, though clearly the phrase is used by Bush in a manner that would make the best propagandists from Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, or Orwell's Oceania proud. (We are at war with Iraq, we have always been at war with Iraq (other than that time Rumsfeld, at the behest of Ronald Reagan, shook Saddam's hand), we will (sadly) always be at war with Iraq.) The problem isn't the war on terror, it's what Bush and his coterie of conservatives ideologues have done with the war on terror. They've taken a valid campaign, a valid battle, and twisted it beyond recognition in order to help push every agenda other than the actual war on terror itself.

Just as bad, to the degree you believe Bush has actually been trying to fight the real war on terror, it's still a wash because he's been so incompetent at it. Whether it's the invasion of Iraq (oops, wrong country, and worse, Bush turned Iraq into the very Al Qaeda playground he claimed he was trying to destroy), or the dismantling of civil liberties at home, which flies in the face of everything our country stands for (not to mention, it doesn't appear to have helped the "war" much either), George Bush is simply too incompetent of a man to effectively fight a war on terror.

Imagine during World War II, had America invaded Mexico instead of attacking Germany and Japan. Could we really claim the war on Mexico was a part of the war against the Axis when Mexico wasn't a member of the Axis, nor did it have anything to do with them? Sure, we'd THINK we were fighting alongside the Allies in World War II, but we wouldn't be really.

Just because Bush says we're fighting the war on terror doesn't make it so.

Whether by misdirection or incompetence, the president who ran and hid for 12 hours on September 11, has been running and hiding ever since. A real, competent president would take the war on terror to the actual enemy. Rather than just say it (repeatedly), he'd actually do it. A real president would recognize our freedoms as our strength, as the very thing we're fighting to protect, rather than marking our liberty as a part of the problem.

So, I'm all for the war on terror.

When does it start? Read the rest of this post...

Bush named new patsy for Treasury

What kind of self-loathing fool is this guy who wants to take this job under Bush? Things must be going poorly for him at Goldman Sachs if he's ready to make a move like this. Read the rest of this post...

US sending more troops to Iraq

Despite all the talk of "progress" in Iraq, the United States has actually increased the number of soldiers in that country:

The top American commander in Iraq has decided to move reserve troops now deployed in Kuwait into the volatile Anbar Province in western Iraq to help quell a rise in insurgent attacks there, two American officials said Monday.

Although some soldiers from the 3,500-member brigade in Kuwait have moved into Iraq in recent months, Gen. George W. Casey Jr. has decided to send in the remainder of the unit after consultations with Iraqi officials in recent days, the officials said.

The confirmation that the number of American forces in Iraq would grow came on a day of soaring violence in Baghdad.

Read the rest of this post...

John Snow is quitting...or getting canned...or something in between

Does it really matter? CNN just reported that Henry Paulson who heads Goldman, Sachs is taking the job as Secretary of the Treasury. Bush will make the big announcement at 9:15 a.m.

UPDATE: Think Progress reports that Paulson not only acknowledges global warming exists, he endorsed the Kyoto protocol and believes that failing to address this problem actually undermines American competitiveness. Not quite the Bush Administration policy. Read the rest of this post...

Tuesday Morning Open Thread

Let's get it started... Read the rest of this post...

Trouble continues in Paris suburbs

When the riots stopped last year, I was quite sure that it was only a matter of time before problems re-started because no real actions were taken to address the serious problems of racism and lack of opportunity within the poor suburbs. It's hard to say if last nights clashes will expand but until the government gets serious about this problem it will not just go away. Read the rest of this post...

EU court knocks down airline passenger data law

The US had been forcing airlines flying into the US from overseas to turn over passenger data which would then be screened. An EU court today has struck down that law because it claims that once in the hands of the US the data can not be protected. Too bad we don't have anyone in DC that is as interested in protecting individuals personal data. With the steady stream of data that is being lost or stolen, you might think that someone might take action, but obviously that's asking for too much. Read the rest of this post...