Category: News & Comment

The U.S. Supreme Court today refused to rule on a lower-court judgement that found against the Federal Communications Commission and a Repug-led attempt to ease TV and radio station ownership limits.

The decision was a loss for broadcast and newspaper companies and a victory for critics of media consolidation.

Without comment, the justices let stand a ruling by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that blocked the 2003 rules change.

The Supreme Court’s decision not to intervene sends the rules back to the Federal Communications Commission for revision.

The rules, adopted by the FCC on a 3-to-2 Republican-led party-line vote, aimed to let companies own more TV and radio stations in a single market, and to own a daily newspaper and nearby broadcast station.

FCC: “Curses! Foiled again!”

This part of Dr. (as long as Condo keeps using it, I’ll use it for Howie) Howard Dean’s comments Sunday aren’t getting as much play as his calling Fox News a Republican propaganda machine, but it should.

Chicago Tribune:

Dean…sharply criticized the Republican Party, which he said has yet to support reauthorizing certain provisions of the Voting Rights Act that expire in 2007.

After barely registering a double-digit showing among black voters nationally in last fall’s election, the Republican Party has intensified its efforts to recruit African-American supporters. Chairman Ken Mehlman is engineering the party’s most aggressive outreach to black voters, frequently speaking in churches and to community groups in an effort to improve the party’s performance before the 2006 mid-term elections and the 2008 presidential race.

Dean said Republicans should not “pretend” to be genuinely interested in courting African-Americans until the party makes a clear statement on the Voting Rights Act.

“The chairman of the Republican Party, as you know, has made a big deal about attracting African-American voters,” Dean said to people attending the conference. “And this is a litmus test. If you aren’t going to support the extension of the Voting Rights Act, I don’t know what right you have to go to a black church and show your face.”

But like so many things Republicans have the gall to do, this one appears to be working. More blacks are switching parties, due in large part to the GOP going after members of black churches. Black Christian fundamentalists must not be any better at resisting cynical Republican manipulation than white Christian fundamentalists.

If you don’t think so, check out the comments of Rev. O’Neal Dozier, the White House’s “go-to” African-American, posted earlier.

If you think the Dems have been too hard on their leader for being too hard on the Republicans, sign a petition letting them know here. The peition, written by members of the Daily Kos, is almost as short as the warning message about invalid signatures is long:

To: Democrats in U.S. Congress

Recently some Democrats in Congress have chastised Governor Howard Dean, Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, saying that he does not speak for the party.

We the undersigned have a simple message we would like to convey to you:

Howard Dean Speaks For Me

And, we respectfully request that you refrain from public criticism of your fellow Democrats and that you begin to speak for us as well

Sincerely,

The Undersigned

If you think the chairman of the Democratic Party should be able to call a wingnut a wingnut without being pilloried by his party, consider signing.

A new poll from the Gallup organization shows that Americans’ patience on Iraq is wearing thin:

Nearly six in 10 Americans say the United States should withdraw some or all of its troops from Iraq, a new Gallup Poll finds, the most downbeat view of the war since it began in 2003.

Patience for the war has dropped sharply as optimism about the Iraqi elections in January has ebbed and violence against U.S. troops hasn’t abated. For the first time, a majority would be “upset” if President Bush sent more troops. A new low, 36%, say troop levels should be maintained or increased.

The souring of public opinion presents challenges for the president, who has vowed to stay the course until democracy is established and Iraqi forces can ensure security. He hasn’t suggested sending more U.S. troops.

“We have reached a tipping point,” says Ronald Spector, a military historian at George Washington University. “Even some of those who thought it was a great idea to get rid of Saddam (Hussein) are saying, ‘I want our troops home.’ ”

The pattern of public opinion on Iraq – strong support for the first two years that then erodes – is reminiscent of the Korean and Vietnam conflicts, he says.

There is one horrifying factoid in the new poll. “Of the 42% who say the war was worth it, the top reasons cited are the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States, the need to stop terrorism and a desire to end the oppression of the Iraqi people.” The fact that anyone still believes there was a connection between the Sept. 11 attacks and the war in Iraq is truly frightening.

Bush & Co., through their mouthpieces Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity and the folks at Fox News, are perpetuating this lie at their own peril. One day the truth will be revealed in a way that these lies can no longer be supported, and then even the die-hard wingnut Right will have to admit their beloved leaders lied to them, over and over.

Last week, Prime Minister Tony Blair had what appeared to be a contentious meeting with President Bush. Now a second memo has been leaked by the Blair government that indicates the Bush Administration was lying to American public during the run-up to the war in Iraq. The story broke in the London Times:

Ministers were warned in July 2002 that Britain was committed to taking part in an American-led invasion of Iraq and they had no choice but to find a way of making it legal.

The warning, in a leaked Cabinet Office briefing paper, said Tony Blair had already agreed to back military action to get rid of Saddam Hussein at a summit at the Texas ranch of President George W Bush three months earlier.

The briefing paper, for participants at a meeting of Blair’s inner circle on July 23, 2002, said that since regime change was illegal it was “necessary to create the conditions” which would make it legal.

This was required because, even if ministers decided Britain should not take part in an invasion, the American military would be using British bases. This would automatically make Britain complicit in any illegal US action.

“US plans assume, as a minimum, the use of British bases in Cyprus and Diego Garcia,” the briefing paper warned. This meant that issues of legality “would arise virtually whatever option ministers choose with regard to UK participation”.

So Blair signed onto the Bush plan in March 2002 – which means the intention to go to war was already set by our government. Bush started “marketing” the war (as his chief of staff Andy Card put it) in September. But remember, we were told that they were only considering war as one of several options for dealing with Saddam Hussein.

The good news for the future of our democracy is that the leaking of the second memo was reported on the front page of the Washington Post. Their story emphasizes criticism by Blair’s cabinet of the shoddy planning of the war by Bush and his staff:

[The memo] concluded that the U.S. military was not preparing adequately for what the British memo predicted would be a “protracted and costly” postwar occupation of that country…

In its introduction, the memo “Iraq: Conditions for Military Action” notes that U.S. “military planning for action against Iraq is proceeding apace,” but adds that “little thought” has been given to, among other things, “the aftermath and how to shape it.”

At some point, you would think these revelations would start to damange Bush’s credibility.

On May 28, three U.S. citizens working for a North Carolina engineering company in Iraq were picked up and held by by U.S. Marines, who accused them of firing indiscriminately at troops and civilians in Fallouja. According to the Los Angeles Times:

Matt Raiche knew he was in trouble when the Marines handed him an orange jumpsuit, a bottle to urinate in, a Koran and a Muslim prayer rug.

Guards put the former Marine into a 6-foot-by-6-foot concrete cell, locked the steel door and told him to keep his mouth shut. In cells nearby, he heard imprisoned insurgents screaming in Arabic.

“They took us to be … insurgent terrorists,” said Raiche, 34.

Raiche told the Times that the Marines were resentful about the high salaries paid to contractors. While he was being held on the ground, one of them asked him, “How does it feel to make that contractor money now? ”

The incident also renewed questions about the U.S. military’s treatment of prisoners in Iraq. One of the few things both sides largely agree on is that the Marines treated the contractors like any other detainees — treatment the contractors found abusive and humiliating.

The contractors admit they fired at a “suspicious vehicle” but never aimed at Marines or “civilians.” (But weren’t civilians driving the suspicious vehicle?) They were held for three days and are returning home, according to the Times.

Another contractor captured with Raiche, Rick Blanchard, 42, a former Marine and Florida state trooper, said the Marines had confused the Zapata convoy with an earlier security convoy that had fired indiscriminately.

In outsourcing the grunt work in Iraq to contractors, the push for privatization has created a condundrum. You have military personnel who are paid minimum wages working side by side with, say, truck drivers who are paid a hundred grand a year. Your average couch potato American could tell you that ain’t gonna fly. (And let’s not forget, taxpayer dollars are picking up the tab for the contractors’ fees.)

President Bush has nominated Henrietta Holsman Fore (right) to a State Dept. position in which she would head, among other things, the department’s human resources activities. But Think Progress reports that Ms. Fore got into trouble in the late 1980’s over racist comments she made in a public forum. (She even reiterated the comments in her published “apology” for the racist comments!) Here’s how the New York Times covered the incident:

A Wellesley College trustee’s remark that blacks preferred pushing drugs to working in a factory has precipitated an emotional debate on this bucolic campus already grappling with charges of racial insensitivity…

The trustee, Henrietta Holsman, a 1970 graduate of Wellesley who runs a manufacturing concern in Los Angeles, resigned from the board last weekend after apologizing for her comments, which also cast aspersions on the work ethic of Hispanic and white employees. But in a letter to the college newspaper, Ms. Holsman reiterated her statement that she had trouble keeping black assembly-line workers from going “…back to the street to earn more money … selling drugs.”

In her lecture, Ms. Holsman also said she had found Hispanic workers to be lazy, white workers resentful of having to work with machines, and Asians, while very productive, likely to move on to professional or management jobs. [NYT, 2/12/87]

Ms. Fore is currently director of the U.S. Mint.