Mike calls in a panic. Am I blogging? Yes. But I was waiting for his interview with Kat to go up so I could link to it. He's still typing it. Has been for over three hours now. He's a slow typist. I told him, "Calm down, I'll post something now."
"US Troops Kill Pregnant Iraqi, Cousin" (Democracy Now):
In other Iraq news, US troops shot and killed two Iraqi women Wednesday -- one of them about to give birth. The women were in a vehicle rushing to the hospital where one of the victims, Nabiha Nisaif Jassim, was to deliver her baby. US troops said their car failed to stop in a prohibited zone despite warnings. But Jassim's brother, who drove the vehicle, said he never saw or heard any warnings. Doctors failed to save Jassim's unborn baby. She was the mother of two children. Her cousin was also killed in the attack.
That's how you do it. If you read C.I.'s "NYT: Selective memory on Basra and Burnsie blusters (again)" this morning, you know that the almighty John Burns couldn't name either woman. The headline screams about "two women" but Burns can never name them. He also can't provide anything other than what the military told him. It's like being on a jury and just getting to hear the prosecution's side. It's not reporting. Up above, that's reporting.
Two women died. One was pregnant. They're both dead now. How does that make you feel? Occupation cheerers want to keep cheering?
Kool Aid drinkers may get their jollies from this.
"US Admits Shooting Afghan Demonstrators" (Democracy Now):
In Afghanistan, the US military has admitted it fired directly into a crowd of demonstrators during an anti-US protest held in Kabul Monday. The Pentagon initially claimed soldiers had only fired into the air. An Afghan police commander told the New York Times the shootings killed 4 people. The protests broke out after a US military vehicle spun out of control and smashed into several cars, killing three people. At least 14 died and 160 were wounded in the protests.
Had enough of war cheerleading yet? Ready to get serious? Ready to face the fact that Bully Boy needs to be impeached?
"Critics Say Supreme Court Ruling Limits Government Whistleblowing" (Democracy Now):
The Supreme Court has issued a decision critics say will severely limit whistleblowing by government employees. In a 5 to 4 vote, the Court ruled the First Amendment does not protect public employees from punishment for complaining to their superiors about possible wrongdoing in the workplace. The decision was handed down in the case of Los Angeles Deputy District Attorney Richard Ceballos, who says he was disciplined for accusing a police officer of lying to obtain a search warrant. Steven Shapiro, legal director for the ACLU, said: "In an era of excessive government secrecy, the court has made it easier to engage in a government cover-up by discouraging internal whistle-blowing."
This is frightening but not as frightening as it would be if we had a corporate press that actually pursued stories. Seen much on Sibel Edmonds on ABC or in the New York Times? Nope. The only thing sadder than the Bully Boy's War on the Press is seeing how the press is happy to go along with it. Which reminds me, still think Bully Boy won the 2004 election? Go read
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s " Was the 2004 Election Stolen?Republicans prevented more than 350,000 voters in Ohio from casting ballots or having their votes counted -- enough to have put John Kerry in the White House" (Rolling Stone).
This is a quick post. I planned on blogging about Kat's interview but it's not up yet. Check
Mikey Likes It! later tonight for it.