Pru e-mails to note a Sunday Times of London story. I wanted to note it now and not wait for the evening post. It's Michael Smith's "Army to put seven paratroops on trial for murder of Iraqi:"


The paratroopers' case centres on the death of Nadhem Abdullah, who was allegedly beaten to death by the paras after a roadside incident at al-Uzayr in Maysan province on May 11, 2003. The location is close to Majar al-Kabir, where six British military policemen were killed by a mob at a police station just six weeks later.
The Royal Military Police special investigation branch twice asked the family of the dead man to allow the body to be exhumed but they refused. They recently agreed that an autopsy could take place but only if it is carried out within the confines of the cemetery where he was buried.
The case is due to be heard at Colchester in September. The army prosecuting authority (APA) asked the judge to put it back so the autopsy could take place but he refused on the grounds that it has already taken more than two years to come to court.
In addition, the APA had hoped to bring Iraqi eyewitnesses to Britain but it is understood that some of them are now refusing to testify.

The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.

[Note: This entry originally appeared at The Common Ills.]

The latest edition of The Third Estate Sunday Review is up. I'm reposting the editorial.

Editorial: The Gang That Couldn't Talk Straight

Jimmy Breslin wrote about The Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight. Plauging our nation today is The Gang That Couldn't Talk Straight. Whether it's "privatization" or "tort reform" or "Clean Skies" or "No Child Left Behind" everything's hidden behind a phrase that implies something directly opposite from the actual meaning. (And no, we don't find that "ironic.")

We've seen it play out since before the Bully Boy started occuyping the White House. "The votes have been counted and recounted!" (When in fact the majority had never been counted.) So maybe it shouldn't be shocking, for instance, that Bully Boy now says he'll fire whomever outed Plame in his administration only if they're found to have committed a crime.

Unless Bully Boy was seeking to establish a precedent, wasn't that always a given? Is he trying to tell us that's what he meant all along? "You go to prison, I'll fire you." That is where he draws the line?His concept of integrity baffles the mind. But we're seeing that and a lot worse play out. Over and over, they try to divert and obscure. The gang that couldn't talk straight fails to grasp that conviction or not, Rove and Libby have already done enough that demonstrates they need to go. Enough has also come out that a Congressional investigation is needed to find out who else helped and (just as important) who failed to do anything when news of the impending outing reached the administration (as early as July 7th, 2003, Valerie Plame was outed on January 14th, 2003).

From Watching the Watchers' "Child Abuse at Abu Ghraib" by A! of Watching the Watchers. , we learn that:

Data is emerging, no matter how the administration attempts to hide it, that the new photos and video of abuse at Abu Ghraib prison include the torture of children.
Norway's Prime Minister's office says it plans to address the situation with the U.S. "in a very severe and direct way."
Could this mean losing yet another ally in the Iraq occupation? Amnesty International in Norway has said that Norway can no longer continue their occupation of Iraq, or their support of US policy in this matter.
And some countries, as Tom Tomorrow notes, actually listen to their activists.While there isn't even an inkling of this in the US Mainstream media, all over the world people are beginning to read about the US abusing children at Abu Ghraib.

We weren't supposed to worry about that either, remember? Remember Operation Happy Talk of "a few bad apples" and that the photos just showed more of the same as the already released photos? Remember the GOP senators rushing to tell the public that releasing the photos could hurt us as a nation?

So they sat on them, after apparently lying about them, and a surprise only to the administration (which never seems to grasp that eventually the truth will come out), the photos haven't gone away.

Karl Rove and Karen Hughes may have instructed, "Clap your hands if you believe in Bully Boys." If so, not enough people clapped because not enough people believe. Operation Happy Talk goes into motion and at best disguises reality for a few weeks. Truth does come out.

And what's coming out is that this administration with all their talk of "integrity" and "honor" has been the least accountable administration in recent history. They've fixed reports. They've lied about PDBs. They've outed a CIA agent. They've tried to cover up abuse that we should have dealt with a long time ago.

If America is hurt by the release of the photos, the Happy Talkers have themselves to blame.

They should have owned up to what was happening when they saw the photos. Instead, they tried to obscure the issue. As if it weren't bad enough that the torture occurred, our administration is now seen as trying to cover it up.That's not the way the United States is supposed to behave.

Make no mistake, Bully Boy and his Bullies Without Borders have had a lot of enablers. Including wishy-washy Democrats who didn't want to speak up or, when they did speak up, wanted to immediately cave, buckle, wimp out in the face of criticism.

The only apologies in the last five years have been coming from Democrats and, frequently, they're apologizing for things that don't require an apology. While the Dems bend over backwards to apologize for words, the administration demonstrates no accountability for its actions.

That needs to stop. The unwarrented apologies from Dems who try to speak the truth and the lack of accountability for the most mismanged administration that any of us can recall.

Congress better start excersizing their oversight because if they don't, accountability may come in the form of votes on election day in 2006. We need a truth movement in this country. Actually, we have it. You saw it on Saturday with people meeting to discuss and raise attention on the Downing Street Memo. As with Valerie Plame, the public's the one pushing for the truth.

Hopefully, the mainstream press will also take part. But they haven't driven this. One person who is asking questions that need to be asked is Robert Parry. From his "Rove-Bush Conspiracy Noose Tightens:"

The second new fact is what Rove did after his conversation with Cooper.
Although supposedly in a rush to leave on vacation, Rove e-mailed Stephen J. Hadley, then Bush's deputy national security adviser (and now national security adviser). According to the Associated Press, Rove's e-mail said he "didn’t take the bait" when Cooper suggested that Wilson's criticisms had hurt the administration.
While it's not entirely clear what Rove meant in the e-mail, the significance is that Rove immediately reported to Hadley, an official who was in a position to know classified details about Plame’s job. In other words, the e-mail is evidence that the assault on Wilson was being coordinated at senior White House levels.
Cooper also told the grand jury that his second source on the allegations about the Niger trip and Wilson’s wife was Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, a leading neoconservative advocate for invading Iraq. According to Cooper, Libby said on a not-for-attribution basis about Plame, "Yeah, I’ve heard that, too."

See last week's editorial and you'll know why we're glad he's raising it and surprised that everyone else (including Richard W. Stevenson in today's New York Times) isn't also on it.As the public begins asking what Parry's asking, The Gang That Couldn't Talk Straight is going to find itself in even hotter water. What we've constantly seen is avoidance in the place of accountability. With consistently bad polling results, we like to hope the sheen is finally off the Bully Boy.

Speeches and phrases based upon coded antonyms and the refusal of others in place to hold the administration accountable (the press, the Congress) have resulted in our current state. But at a time when things could seem hopeless, what we're seeing is a public getting active and asking the questions and raising the issues that others won't. That's healthy for democracy. And having grown weary waiting for leadership, the public's now ready to set the agenda and lead on their own.

[This editorial was written by the following: The Third Estate Sunday Review's Ty, Jess, Dona, Jim and Ava, C.I. of The Common Ills, Betty of Thomas Friedman is a Great Man, Cedric of Cedric's Big Mix, Kat of Kat's Korner and Mike of Mikey Likes It!]

Check out the latest at The Third Estate Sunday Review.

The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.

[Note: This entry originally appeared at The Common Ills.]

In this morning's New York Times, pay attention to Richard W. Stevenson's "For Bush, Effect of Investigation of C.I.A. Leak Case Is Uncertain." Stevenson's addressing some issues that revelations in the Plame outing raise:


Yet Mr. Bush has yet to address some uncomfortable questions that he may not be able to evade indefinitely.
For starters, did Mr. Bush know in the fall of 2003, when he was telling the public that no one wanted to get to the bottom of the case more than he did, that Mr. Rove, his longtime strategist and senior adviser, and I. Lewis Libby Jr., Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, had touched on the C.I.A. officer's identity in conversations with journalists before the officer's name became public? If not, when did they tell him, and what would the delay say in particular about his relationship with Mr. Rove, whose career and Mr. Bush's have been intertwined for decades?
Then there is the broader issue of whether Mr. Bush was aware of any effort by his aides to use the C.I.A. officer's identity to undermine the standing of her husband, a former diplomat who had publicly accused the administration of twisting its prewar intelligence about Iraq's nuclear program.
[. . .]
But Mr. Bush's political opponents say the president is in a box. In their view, either Mr. Rove and Mr. Libby kept the president in the dark about their actions, making them appear evasive at a time when Mr. Bush was demanding that his staff cooperate fully with the investigation, or Mr. Rove and Mr. Libby had told the president and he was not forthcoming in his public statements about his knowledge of their roles.
"We know that Karl Rove, through Scott McClellan, did not tell Americans the truth," said Representative Rahm Emanuel, Democrat of Illinois and a former top aide in the Clinton White House. "What's important now is what Karl Rove told the president. Was it the truth, or was it what he told Scott McClellan?"

The next paragraph begins "There is a third option . . ." But apparently the e-mail Rove sent to Stephen J. Hadley after he got off the phone with Time's Matt Cooper has yet to set off a lightbulb in the mainstream press. (Robert Parry brought the issue up on the 19th of last week.)

At some point, perhaps the press will slap their foreheads and cry out "Insight!" Until that moment comes, we're left with that we can get. Which isn't to suggest that Stevenson's article isn't worthy of reading. (It is suggesting that an important avenue is closed off when it should be taken.) This is the strongest article in the paper this morning. Make a point to check it out or be aware of it.

What's the line from the old I Love Lucy episode? "Slowly I turn, step by step . . ."

We'll close with this from Parry's "Rove-Bush Conspiracy Noose Tightens:"

The second new fact is what Rove did after his conversation with Cooper.
Although supposedly in a rush to leave on vacation, Rove e-mailed Stephen J. Hadley, then Bush’s deputy national security adviser (and now national security adviser). According to the Associated Press, Rove’s e-mail said he “didn’t take the bait” when Cooper suggested that Wilson’s criticisms had hurt the administration.
While it’s not entirely clear what Rove meant in the e-mail, the significance is that Rove immediately reported to Hadley, an official who was in a position to know classified details about Plame’s job. In other words, the e-mail is evidence that the assault on Wilson was being coordinated at senior White House levels.

The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.

[Note: This entry originally appeared at The Common Ills.]

Data is emerging, no matter how the administration attempts to hide it, that the new photos and video of abuse at Abu Ghraib prison include the torture of children.
Norway's Prime Minister's office says it plans to address the situation with the U.S. "in a very severe and direct way."
Could this mean losing yet another ally in the Iraq occupation? Amnesty International in Norway has said that Norway can no longer continue their occupation of Iraq, or their support of US policy in this matter.
And some countries, as Tom Tomorrow notes, actually listen to their activists.
While there isn't even an inkling of this in the US Mainstream media, all over the world people are beginning to read about the US abusing children at Abu Ghraib.

What's the above from? "Child Abuse at Abu Ghraib" by A! of Watching the Watchers. Remember this morning's post about Kate Zernike's "Government Defies an Order to Release Iraq Abuse Photos" in the Times? A!'s on that story.

What's Watching the Watchers? A new site added our to our permalinks. The panel approved that site, if I can digress for a moment (and when I can help myself from digressing). In addition there are two other sites that were added.

An e-mail came in from someone this week who was very upset. He'd recently started blogging.
He'd only picked a few sites to permalink to and The Common Ills was one of them. He felt that the entire internet ignored him.

I certainly have no control over the entire internet. But he is left and he was blogging about politics so if he'd dropped us a line before he deleted his blog, we would have mentioned him here. He felt that I was acting like an "A-list blogger" and making him jump through hoops and "hit a certain traffic volume" before I'd even "recognize" him.

I'm not a "blogger" because this isn't a "blog." I'm blog ignorant and we're a community with an online resource/review. We can be banned or be ignored or break this rule or take this stance because I'm blog ignorant (it's actually a blessing). I'm not sure how an "A-list blogger" acts (never got that memo) but I certainly wasn't trying to ignore someone starting out.

We're a resource/review so if someone's new, aboslutely we want to know about them. But I don't have the time to surf online. Nor do I have the time to visit blogs. I work long hours, I'm volunteering my personal time on issues that matter to me. At any given time, there are probably thousands of voices online that are making a difference. If a member sees one and e-mails to highlight it, it goes up. But as with Blogger A, a lot of people are going to be missed.

If someone wants to contact us at the public e-mail address* we're happy to highlight what they're doing.

No one should throw in the towel because we didn't notice them. To try to prevent that from happening, the panel's approved for links to left sites that are starting out. Shirley found two that are linking to us and they went up with Watching the Watchers (which, again, has panel approval). If you see any site that's starting out and they've linked to us, the panel said we'll operate under the belief that (if they're left) they must hold some (maybe all) of the beliefs we do so those sites can quickly be added. (For a complete list of guidelines on that, Eli, Keesha and Wally will be sending out an e-mail on behalf of the panel tomorrow.)

Blogger A mentioned two sites that went up on our permalinks and noted that we were catering to "the other big dogs." After I got over the, "Did he just call us a dog?" moment, I realized that handling that privately among members (via the gina & krista round-robin) may have left some people wondering about that. For any member or regular visitor that doesn't get the round-robin, we were pranked. Ron and another person's site were replaced with those two sites. (I've e-mailed Ron about this so I think it's okay to mention him here.) When it was first pointed out to me, I went and changed the links back. Then it appeared again (after the password had been changed). As with the corrections of some of my typos, this continued. I didn't have the time to deal with this once a week (or more). So the sites (which do good work) went up on the permalinks. It was the easiest way to address the situation.

That's the short story (as round-robin readers know). But we're not trying to be "A-list" because someone's idea of "A-list" and my idea of "A-list" would probably differ. For instance, Bruce Willis is considered an "A-list" star by film standards based on box office. Though effective in certain roles (especially ones that call for him to be damaged and not flashy), I don't consider him "A-list." If "traffic" is how Blogger A was determing "A-list," we've never cared about it here. There's no site meter announcing, "You are visitor ___." (No site meter I've put up. But as has been said in this space since December, I'm sure google has something up somewhere that counts visits. If so, I don't have access to it and don't care to.)

Rebecca who's become the most internet savy of all of the community members doing sites says that links matter. (More than traffic, according to her.) Certainly, we aren't trying here to be stingy or to avoid listing people because of any elitist rules. Whether you agree with everything someone on our permalinks writes, hopefully you can see that they are trying to address things that matter. That's always been the main criteria. And when I approved links to blogs in the old days, I based it on impassioned e-mails from members advocating for a site.

Unlike "the boogers of the blogs" (Gina and Krista's term), I never felt the need to scream and yell and bully someone in an e-mail for suggesting that we provide a link. Or to demand an apology from them via bullying them that their favorite site would never be mentioned here if they didn't pony up with an apology.

We aren't elitist here. The point (repeated over and over) is that we need more voices, not less.
So if a visitor sees this and knows of a site or does their own site, they're certainly able to e-mail to promote it. We've highlighted an essay that someone's e-mailed in on and needed votes for.
We highlighted a search engine that someone had developed and e-mailed in on. (Which we wouldn't do again due to member complaints of spy ware.) If you're running a site and you feel you're being ignored, we're the last ones to ignore you because we're set up as a resource/review.

We don't highlight neocons. That's been where I drew the line. A man e-mailed saying he was starting his own site around Memorial Day. He's probably a very nice person but we don't highlight neocons even if they say they're of the left.

Occasionally BuzzFlash (one of our first links on the permalinks, Democracy Now! was the other) will e-mail on an editorial. Usually at least one member has already e-mailed on that and it's already intended to go up but if a member hasn't e-mailed on it, it still goes up (usually with a "We'll note . . ." sentence). BuzzFlash does excellent work. In my mind, they're "A-list." So if they can do that, Blogger A should have considered doing that as well.

A! e-mailed on the Watching the Watchers story above. I farmed it out because I saw the e-mail at the end of a break from The Third Estate Sunday Review. (If I'd had the time, I would have gone myself. But Saturdays are not overflowing with time.) Dallas (thank you, Dallas, always) looked it up while hunting down links for The Third Estate Sunday Review to grab some text (otherwise it wouldn't have had an excerpt).

But people can do that. Especially with it being summer and a lot of members going on vacation, we'll miss things that might be of interest to members.

We are not elitist on my end. We're a resource/review and we're happy to note things of the left and things of note. (If anyone wanted to call The Common Ills elitist, it should be community members with their own sites because I'm really bad about doing entries on that. Usually because a member will e-mail in saying Rebecca or Mike or Betty or Cedric or Kat put up something amazing and but they won't provide text or link so I'll take the attitude of "Okay, tonight, I'll have time and go visit their site . . ." and reality is that there's never time.) (I've asked both Mike and Cedric, members who've recently started sites, to e-mail me their writing to try to prevent that.)

I'm "old school" as Cedric will tell you. I'm going by what I read in print for what I'm steering members to. The computer screen usually make my eyes water. And I like to be more mobile than in front of a screen. I can get on the treadmill or the stepper with a book or magazine. I can take a book or magazine with me and read it during the day at various intervals. Members are the one finding things online. And they're the ones who deserve credit.

But they're not going to find everything by themselves. So if someone written something that's important or that they're trying to get out there, we can note it here. When I say "blog ignorant," take me at my word.

I'm really sad that Blogger A felt that the entire internet ignored the work he was doing. There's no series of hoops that someone has to jump through here. You need to be of the left.
That's really all it takes to get mentioned in an entry.

Though there's no "elitist" attitude on my part, there is a luxury of not giving a damn. I don't have to worry that "booger of the blogs" unlinked from us (after we did first if I can "nah-nah-nah" it for a moment). I'm not trying to sell the content of others. (If I can "nah-nah-nah" it one more time.) And we're not dependent upon traffic or ad revenues. We were built up peer to peer and that gives us a luxury that others don't have. And this isn't something I make money off of so I'm able to not worry about demands others have. (And I'm comfortable enough finacially which is another luxury.)

But some people have demands on them and they have to take things very seriously. There was a piece, a parody fairy tale, about advice for blogging at The Third Estate Sunday Review (and there are only five minutes left in the break I'm on so look it up yourself) and the advice in that is something I stand behind. If you're speaking in your own voice, and fate's kind, you will be noticed. Fate was kind for us. And mistakes I made were actually nonmistakes and actually increased word of mouth. (Such as song lyrics and posts titled after them. I obviously care a great deal about music. As Shirley pointed out, it made it hard to find a post on a topic if the topic was the first line of lyric, so we stopped that. But there were people coming to this site blind because Carly or someone else's lyric was in a title.) (The Joni Mitchell "Christmas is sparkling . . ." especially added people to the mix.) So we got lucky and we had members (and visitors, think of West who was banished by "booger" due to calling attention to our site and four others) getting the word out.

But we're not elitist and I have no desire to shut down new voices. But "blog ignorant" means what it implies. I hope Blogger A starts back up and, if so, e-mails to call attention to his work.
On a good day, I'm able to go to BuzzFlash, The Daily Howler and Danny Schecheter's site. That's a good day for me. Most days I don't even have the time for that. So if a visitor stumbles onto this post and feels like there's no one paying attention to her or his work, s/he should e-mail and let us know about it.

To me the "elitist" are the gatekeepers. And that means, for someone who doesn't have the time to surf the net, the Cokie Roberts, et al. To a lot of people, Cokie Roberts is "A-list." To me, Amy Goodman is "A-list" because she's speaking in her own voice and not going for the obvious. I hope that's clear.

*Note: As members voted on in Gina & Krista's poll, there are now two e-mail addresses for this site. There is the public one (common_ills@yahoo.com) and there's a private e-mail address. Members should use the private e-mail address. I'll check that daily (several times). If I'm not in the mood for drive bys and flamers, I may skip a day on the public address. The private address is for members only. If you're a member who doesn't subscribe to the gina & krista round-robin, please e-mail at common_ills@yahoo.com and as soon as I can, I'll e-mail you the private address. I'm thinking that was Jess or Jim's suggestion (of The Third Estate Sunday Review). (And in too much of a hurry to check that out with them.) Whoever had the suggestion, it was a great suggestion and the account was created almost as soon as they came up with the idea. When Krista & Gina's poll results came back Wednesday, members agreed it was a great idea. So that's how we're doing it now.

I'm pushing the clock here but there's a Saturday Howler that Billie's e-mailed to note so let me note it. Somerby's dealing with a number of issues but we'll focus on Senator Overblown, McCain:

IMAGINE ALL THE SHILLING: Senator Straight-Talk couldn't grasp what the whole thing was about. He spoke with Imus Wednesday morning. Frankly, he was bollixed:
IMUS (7/20/05): I think [John Kerry] said Karl Rove ought to resign over this whole CIA leak thing. What's your view of what’s going on over there at the White House?
MCCAIN: Well, I think one thing is obvious. Karl Rove were--and others--were attempting to set the record straight with reporters that Vice President Cheney did not send Mr. Wilson, that it was done by the CIA and at the recommendation of Mr. Wilson's wife; that there were several other factual errors in Mr. Wilson's depiction of events. Now what happened after that, I don't know. I don't understand it, and I don't think you do either, that a journalist who didn't write a word is now in jail. And so—
IMUS: Judith Miller of the New York Times.
MCCAIN: So I don’t know.
Poor Straight-Talk! The straight-shooting solon couldn't understand something an eight—year-old schoolkid could grasp! Why was Judith Miller in jail? Duh! She'd been ordered to testify in a criminal probe, and had refused to do so. Whatever you think of the wisdom of her jailing, there's nothing complex or confusing about it, but Straight-Talk was pandering hard to the press--and pretending that this whole affair really doesn't make any sense. (He had a perfect rube to work with, of course. The hapless Imus says every day that he can't understand why Miller is in jail, since she never wrote a story.) But Straight-Talk did think one thing was "obvious;" he thought it was "obvious" that Rove was just trying to set the record straight when he spoke to reporters like Time's Matt Cooper. We don't know what makes Rove's motive so "obvious"--and Straight-Talk has the facts fuzzed-up himself; too lazy to read Wilson's column himself, he keeps saying and implying that Wilson claimed that Dick Cheney sent him to Niger (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 7/22/05). Could it be that Straight-Talk was spinning us blue? Could it be that "Straight" was talking it crooked? We were amazed when Straight-Talk said that Rove's motives were so "obvious"--but then, along came David Brooks to show what a Full Pander looks like.

Click here to read in full.

The e-mail address (public) for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.

[This entry originally appeared at The Common Ills.]
 

From the Air America homepage, here's the weekend schedule:

So What Else is News • Sat 3pm-5pm ET
This weekend, singer/songwriter Mike Doughty moves on to Dave Matthews' label. Plus, Canada becomes the frontlines of the war against Wal-mart.


Ring of Fire • Sat 5pm-7pm ET, Rebroadcast Sun 3pm-5pm
Mike consults corporate cover-up expert Jackie Rion about the President’s knowledge of Rove’s perfidy, Bobby talks with attorney and DNA expert Barry Scheck, and author Steve Brouwer discusses how the neocons robbed us blind.

The Laura Flanders Show • Sat and Sun 7pm-10pm ET
Saturday: A report from the ACLU’s biennial conference and the latest on the Supreme Court fight to save our CONSTITUTION! Jamin Raskin, author and American University Law professor; John Judge, on 9/11 Commission Failure Briefings; David Swanson on the Downing Street Memo movement; and Maria Raha, author of "Cinderella's Big Score: Women of the Punk and Indie Underground."
Sunday: Laura brings you the truth, from families with folks at war and brave, honest veterans for peace. Karen Houppert, author of "Home Fires Burning: Married to the Military-for Better or Worse," and Stacy Bannerman, a human rights advocate and spouse of National Guard soldier who served in Iraq. Then Claude Anshin Thomas, a homeless Vietnam vet turned Buddhist monk and author of "At Hell's Gate: A Soldier's Journey from War to Peace."

The Kyle Jason Show • Sat 10pm-Midnight ET
Kyle delivers a double feature: Herb Boyd, author of "We Shall Overcome: The History of the Civil Rights Movement As It Happened" and Lee, the Lead Singer of "The Square Egg," Plus, if you've helped an individual or a group of people in anyway, Kyle wants to hear from you! Call 1-866-303-2270

Ecotalk • Sun 7-8 am ET
Betsy meets the woman behind a new PBS film called “The Fire Next Time,” about competing economic and environmental interests in a small town and the horrible effects of right-wing radio. She also talks to a woman who is protecting Asiatic bears from torture, and discusses the recently launched Exxpose Exxon boycott.

Mother Jones Radio • Sun 1pm-2pm ET
Washington correspondent Michael Scherer and People For the American Way president Ralph Neas on the nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court. Plus, consumer advocate John Cobarruvias and grandmother-turned-activist Jordan Fogal on how anti-consumer laws could affect you.

Politically Direct • Sun 3pm-4pm ET
David takes you back (or forward) to Revolutionary Times on Politically Direct this week, with guests Joe Trippi, former campaign manager for Howard Dean and author of "The Revolution Will Not Be Televised" and Grammy Award winning singer/songer writer Steve Earle, host of AAR's "The Revolution Starts Now."

The Laura Flanders Show • Sat and Sun 7pm-10pm ET
Sunday: Laura brings you the truth, from families with folks at war and brave, honest veterans for peace. Karen Houppert, author of "Home Fires Burning: Married to the Military-for Better or Worse," and Stacy Bannerman, a human rights advocate and spouse of National Guard soldier who served in Iraq. Then Claude Anshin Thomas, a homeless Vietnam vet turned Buddhist monk and author of "At Hell's Gate: A Soldier's Journey from War to Peace."

The Revolution Starts...Now • Sun 10pm-11pm ET
Actor and activist Tim Robbins shares his favorite tunes. The flavor is political. Picks include: System of a Down, Eliza Gilkson, X, Tom Waits, P.J. Harvey, and Butch Hancock.

On the Real • Sun 11pm -1 am ET
This week live in the Greenroom is Time magazine editor Christopher John Farley's "Kingston By Starlight." Comedian Zooman drops in to yuck it up and Dave Zirin calls in to chat sports with Chuck and Gia'na.

If you're not famaliar with Dave Zirin (who'll be guesting on On the Real), read Mike's entry about Zirin guesting on Democracy Now!

Air America can be heard on XM satellite radio, online via Windows Media Player or Real Player and over the airwaves in many areas (I'm counting 67 but I'm sure my math is wrong; also note Alaska and Hawaii are areas broadcast in over non-satellite radio).

The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.

[This entry originally appeared at The Common Ills.]

As Eddie requested, here's our third notice for the event promoted at the Randi Rhodes site:

NYC TOWN HALL MEETING
Torture & Lies: Who is Accountable?From Abu Ghraib to the Downing Street Minues
This Saturday from 2-4 pm join:
-Randi Rhodes
-Congressman Maurice Hinchey
- Former Congresswoman Liz Holtzman
- President of Democrats.com Bob Fertik
Discussions to include:
- Karl Rove/TraitorGate
- The Downing Street Minutes
- How to be heard in Washington
- Getting involved in your community, etc.
When:
Saturday, 7/23 from 2-4 pm
Where:
New York Society for Ethical Culture,
2 West 64th St., NYC
Admission: Free!
More info on the NYC eventEvents near youHost your own meeting


I'm sure this goes without saying but Randi Rhodes is the host of The Randi Rhodes Show which broadcasts Monday through Friday on Air America. (And Laura Flanders is back on The Laura Flanders Show this weekend, by the way.) If you're in the area, please consider attending. If you're not in the area but know someone who is, pass on the news. And if you're not in the area and know no one in the area, it's still worth noting because people haven't given up on this and those who haven't deserve credit.

(This is actually the fourth notice since it was also mentioned in a post on The Nation last night.)


The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.

[Note: This entry originally appeared at The Common Ills.]

Lawyers for the Defense Department are refusing to cooperate with a federal judge's order to release secret photographs and videotapes related to the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal.
The lawyers said in a letter sent to the federal court in Manhattan late Thursday that they would file a sealed brief explaining their reasons for not turning over the material, which they were to have released by yesterday.
The photographs were some of thousands turned over by Specialist Joseph M. Darby, the whistle-blower who exposed the abuse at Abu Ghraib by giving investigators computer disks containing photographs and videos of prisoners being abused, sexually humiliated and threatened with growling dogs.

The above is from Kate Zernike's "Government Defies an Order to Release Iraq Abuse Photos"
in this morning's New York Times.

In case you've forgotten, these are the photos that GOP spinners went into overtime to minimize.

Billie e-mails to note that both of her senators spun wildly on how unimportant these photos are.

Yet, court order be damned, they still haven't been turned over.

Zernike provides our spotlight story for today. If you only read one story in the Times today (or are only aware of one) make this the one.

The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
 

Special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald has been reviewing over the past several months discrepancies and gaps in witness testimony in his investigation of the unmasking of CIA operative Valerie Plame, according to lawyers in the case and witness statements.
Fitzgerald has spent considerable time since the summer of 2004 looking at possible conflicts between what White House senior adviser Karl Rove and vice presidential staff chief I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby told a grand jury and investigators, and the accounts of reporters who talked with the two men, according to various sources in the case.

A story on the outing of Valerie Plame! In the New York Times!

Uh, not so fast. It's from the Washington Post, Carol D. Leonnig and Jim VandeHei "Testimony By Rove And Libby Examined: Leak Prosecutor Seeks Discrepancies." Kara agreed to follow the Washington Post.

Kara: And take a look at this, Cheney's limboing even lower in public than usual. Josh White and R. Jeffrey Smith "White House Aims to Block Legislation On Detainees:"


The Bush administration in recent days has been lobbying to block legislation supported by Republican senators that would bar the U.S. military from engaging in "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment" of detainees, from hiding prisoners from the Red Cross, and from using interrogation methods not authorized by a new Army field manual.
Vice President Cheney met Thursday evening with three senior Republican members of the Senate Armed Services Committee to press the administration's case that legislation on these matters would usurp the president's authority and -- in the words of a White House official -- interfere with his ability "to protect Americans effectively from terrorist attack."

Maria agreed to follow the LA Times and notes Douglas Frantz, Sonni Efron and Richard B. Schmitt "CIA Probe Moves from Leak Source to Perjury, Obstruction:"

According to lawyers familiar with the case, investigators are comparing statements to federal authorities by two top White House aides, Karl Rove and I. Lewis Libby, with testimony from reporters who have acknowledged talking to the officials.
The sources also said prosecutors are comparing the various statements to the FBI and the grand jury by Rove, who is a White House deputy chief of staff and President Bush's chief political strategist. Rove in his first interview with the FBI did not mention a conversation he had with Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper, according to lawyers involved in the case. The White House aide has been interviewed twice by the FBI and made three appearances before the grand jury, they said.While no one has suggested that the investigation into who leaked Plame's name has been shelved, the intensity of the inquiry into possible perjury charges has increased, according to one lawyer familiar with events, who spoke on condition that he not be identified because he did not want to anger Fitzgerald.


Billie agreed to watch The Houston Chronicle online to see if anything went up. The only thing she's found is "Accounts differ on who told of agent's identity" Richard Keil (Bloomberg News):


These discrepancies may be important because Fitzgerald is investigating whether Libby, Rove or other administration officials made false statements during the course of the investigation. The Plame case has its genesis in whether anyone violated a 1982 law making it illegal to knowingly reveal the name of a covert intelligence agent.
The CIA requested the inquiry after Novak reported in a July 14, 2003, column that Plame recommended her husband for a 2002 mission to check into reports Iraq tried to buy uranium from Niger.

Dallas watched The Dallas Morning News website (and says "only for the community!") where he found Wayne Slater and G. Robert Hillman's "think piece if think piece means a chat as you hang out the laundry" entitled "Rove puts Bush's loyalty to test:"


The firestorm over the CIA leak has been dampened, at least temporarily, by President Bush's appointment of a Supreme Court justice, and Mr. Rove is not granting interviews.
White House press secretary Scott McClellan, having initially assured reporters that Mr. Rove was not involved, now declines to comment. He cites the investigation by special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald into leaks that led to columnist Robert Novak and then Time magazine identifying Ms. Plame, wife of former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, as a CIA operative.
White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card, who early in the administration said, "It's Karl's job to make sure that we understand the day after tomorrow," was more guarded this week, allowing only that Mr. Rove was doing his job.

Tony saw nothing online at The Des Moines Register.

Tony: Not surprising considering their editorial awhile back instructing "Public Shouldn't Prejudge Rove." They are a bunch of jerks. That might be too cruel, some are just idiots. If you live in an area with a better paper, which isn't hard, consider yourself lucky.

Rob asks if the NBC News employee suing for being molested by priests is in all the papers?
I don't know if it's in all the papers, but Billie mentioned it as did Dallas. Rob was watching the Boston Globe for us. Verdict? No news on Plame.

Rhonda reports that Rocky Mountain News is apparently too busy profiling the Focus on the Fool to even address the Plame issue today.

Despite having a special archive on the Plame outing, Trevor reports that the Baltimore Sun has no news of the hearing yesterday. He reports that they do carry the LA Times article.

Wally watched The Miami Herald and found that they at least carried the AP article on Friday's hearing, Donna De La Cruz's "Rove case bad for security, say ex-agents:"


In a hearing held by Senate and House Democrats examining the implications of exposing Valerie Plame's identity, the former intelligence officers said Bush's silence has hampered efforts to recruit informants to help the United States fight the war on terror. Federal law forbids government officials from revealing the identity of an undercover intelligence officer.
''I wouldn't be here this morning if President Bush had done the one thing required of him as commander in chief -- protect and defend the Constitution,'' said Larry Johnson, a former CIA analyst. "The minute that Valerie Plame's identity was outed, he should have delivered a strict and strong message to his employees.''
Rove, Bush's deputy chief of staff, told Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper in a 2003 phone call that former ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife worked for the CIA on weapons of mass destruction issues, according to an account by Cooper in the magazine. Rove has not disputed that he told Cooper that Wilson's wife worked for the agency, but has said through his lawyer that he did not mention her by name.

Brent couldn't find any articles at the Toledo Blade covering the latest developments in the Valerie Plame case.

Donna De La Cruz's AP article on Friday's hearing is carried by The Philadelphia Inquirer.

No, it's not every paper in the country. No, it's not even the print edition. But if you're wondering how much coverage the hearing Friday or even the issue of outing of Plame is getting, the answers appears to be "not real much."

And you might find other stories. (Feel free to e-mail if you do.) This is what people were able to find online as the paper's latest editions should have been available. The hearing Friday should have garnered more than an AP article. But if others weren't up to writing their own piece, they should have been offering the AP article at their sites. Instead?

Join Gwen and Condi in singing "It's Only a Summer Scandal:"

Say, it's only a summer scandal
Bully Boy will soon have the handle
He's the king of the make-believe
Do you believe in me?

Yes, it's only a scandal de sum
Reporters move on if we play mum
King George of the make believe
Do you believe in me?

. . .

It's a Bully and Cheney world
Just as phony as it can be
But it wouldn't be make-believe
If you believed in me

(Again, the above is a bad rip-off of Harold Arlen & Ted Koehler's "It's Only a Paper Moon." And if you read The Daily Howler on Tuesday you know that Gwen Ifill referred to the outing of Plame as "a summer scandal.")

The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.