Page created 25 Mar 2003 by Shredzilla
"Oh I get it. Spelling America with a 'k' are we?" - The Tick. American flags everywhere. Dissenting opinion being interpreted as unpatriotic. The American military switches gears from defense to expansion. The government changes the name of french fries to Freedom Fries. Any other examples of absurd nationalism? Springtime for Dub-ya and Amerikkka. btr Dave
FREEDOM HAIR
I was playing with the brass quintet. And we realized that one of our instruments is the FREEDOM HORN. That sounds totally awesome!
The Freedom Horn, especially when played by someone sporting Freedom Hair, is a mighty and terrible instrument, capable of thwarting even the most filthy Frenchman. Now, if you'll pardon me, I must douse my frankfurter- exuse me- Freedomfurter in Freedom's mustard.
P-Yew!It stinks like a Freedom Whore House in here.
while i don't believe this is a war being sought solely for oil, i do believe that SUV's are just insulting to the earth and it's population in general. and we of course see them everywhere.
when we saw gospeed you! black emperor the drum kit said 'burn all flags'. i thought that was pretty cool.
Upon seeing the motley crew of nine musicians, the station's attendant phoned the police, reporting the possibility that the band might be terrorists.
i guess that's another reason to stay out of Oklahoma.
i saw their show in chicago. they are amazing. go see them if you have any chance at all. smax, they're playing in nyc. how far are you from there? its worth the drive to see these guys. the black dice, however, suck donkeys.
satire: natalie apologizes
not satire: bill requesting chicks to apologize
...its by dennis miller.
"TRYING TO HELP" By Dennis Miller
All the rhetoric on whether or not we should go to war against Iraq has got my little brain spinning like a top. I enjoy reading opinions from both sides, but I've detected a hint of confusion from some of you. Maybe this can help.
As I was reading the paper recently, I was reminded of the best advice anyone ever gave me. He told me about the "KISS" method ("Keep It Simple, Stupid!"). So with this as a theme, I'd like to apply this theory for those who don't quite get it. My hope is that we can simplify things and recognize a few important facts.
Here are ten things to consider when voicing an opinion on this important issue:
(1) Between President Bush and Saddam Hussein ... Hussein is the bad guy.
(2) If you have faith in the United Nations to do the right things, keep this in mind: the UN has Libya heading the Committee on Human Rights and Iraq heading the Global Disarmament Committee. Do your own math here.
(3) If you use a Google or Yahoo search and type in "French Military Victories," don't be surprised if your computer panics at its inability to respond to your inquiry.
(4) If your only anti-war slogan is "No War For Oil," hire a pit bull lawyer and sue your school district for having allowed you to slip through the cracks and robbing you of the minimum education that any non-troglodyte deserves
(5) You can take this one to the bank: Saddam and bin Laden will NOT seek UN approval before they try to kill us.
(6) Despite common belief among some, Martin Sheen is NOT the President. He only plays one on TV.
(7) If you are anti-war and even an outright "America Basher," to bin Laden you are still an "infidel" whom he wants dead.
(8) Be careful: if you believe in a "vast right-wing conspiracy," but not in the danger that Hussein poses, the only job you may be able to get is as an Ivy League college professor.
(9) Even multi-culturalists who try to browbeat us into believing that all cultures are equally deserving of respect have trouble explaining the past 500 years of Islam.
(10) Whether you are for or against military action, our young men and women overseas are fighting to defend our right to speak out on these issues. They deserve our unreserved support.I hope this helps.
THANKS DENNIS! THAT HELPS A LOT! I NEVER KNEW THINGS AS COMPLICATED AS WAR AND INTERNATIONAL CONFLICT COULD BE MADE SO SIMPLE, STUPID!
and i thought celebrity opinion in opposistion of the war was bad.....
Dennis Miller did not write the above. See the explanation at this page at snopes.com for more.
i'll foreward it on to my moms.when i got the e-mail, i had JUST SEEN a dennis miller snippet on some "celbrities talk about the war" segment on that bastion of enterainment news knows as EXTRA, where he said "this is a just war, and we are a just country."
so i figured...
thanks for the info.
Al-Ajeerza got hacked.... totally patriotic, dude.
according to a little birdy at state, the general feeling is that the hacking was probably done by a certain gov't agency. more details tomorrow hopefully.
france backpedalsThe French are particularly troubled about mounting calls in the United States for a boycott of French products. A U.S.-based Internet site this week published an advertisement in The New York Times urging consumers not to fly Air France, eat Yoplait yogurt or buy other French goods.
Even President Bush is not above the fray. On a visit to Florida on Wednesday, the breakfast menu aboard Air Force One listed "stuffed Freedom Toast," instead of French toast.
...being told to shut up????
and lets us know when his movie "drops" (three times).
Did anyone see the people who boycotted French wine by first *purchasing* it and then pouring it down the storm sewers? I caught it on The Daily Show...priceless.btr
Dave
America is great, because we're free to say that we hate America sometimes. I, for one, believe that the Bushes have had a vendetta for Saddam Hussein for quite sometime. There is also information that claims G. W. knew of 9/11 before it took place. Perhaps he allowed it to occur, in order to further his influence. On PBS they had a special on the agenda that both Bushes have had to "Democratize the world" beginning with the Middle East. There's a reason that the prime directive on Star Trek is noninterference. One day we as nation believe we're doing what's just, and the next day we realize we've created the Taliban. That's why this is a stupid idea. We can't force world peace by putting a gun to the world's head. It's like people who kill abortion doctors. You cannot allow yourself to stoop to your enemy's level, lest you risk becoming just like him/her. The day that I am punished for speaking out against America, is the day we are no better than Nazi Germany.Also, I'd like to give a shout out to Shredzilla whose entree name is even more creative than my very own "Scoop of I Scream..."
...the part about GWB knowing about 9/11 before it happened. I've heard that charge many times before but I have yet to see any convincing evidence, and in the lack of same, I just can't believe that any President would be so nihilistic.
Early on, when they thought the numbers could have been in the 20 or 30,000s... you have to believe that someone is quite a monster to sacrifice his own people for that. Stranger things have happened, even in this century, but I gotta believe we didn't truly *know* about it beforehand.
Pedro, JT, seriously...Didn't you guys hear the reports about the FBI people in Minneapolis who knew something was up, told their higher-ups, and were poo-pooed? Are you not acknowledging that that happened? That should be enough evidence that if not Gorgeous George, Chud Cheney, and FBI Director Louis "Sweet Lou" Freeh, then at least Robert "Don't call me Ferris" Mueller knew, or had at least read a report asking for an expanded investigation of Zacarias Moussaoui from the regional bureau chiefs out of Minneapolis, twice.
Oh, and French intelligence warned us 3 times. No wonder we are trying to distance ourselves from them.
I mean, you should see the amount of paper work that the FBI has to outsource just to pursue meth labs on the Iron Range. It is completely unreasonable to me to suggest that more people, beyond a regional FBI office, didn't know something was weird in Eagan.
btr
Dave
It's pretty well established that where terrorism is concerned, the government's left hand didn't know what its right hand was doing. That, combined with good old fashioned megalomania, combined with 20-20 hindsight, presents a pretty convincing case that 9/11 should not have been the surprise it was.But that's a different animal from saying that GWB knew the World Trade Center was about to be hit, and intentionally did nothing, in an effort to further his own foreign policy agenda. THAT is what I consider too nihilistic to believe. The picture of egotism and incompetence that you have presented is convincing, and in fact I believe it. But negligence is not malice aforethought.
OH LUCY! YOU GOTTA LOTTA 'SPLAININ' TO DO!!!!"
i think that if bush or anyone really knew, they wouldn't have let the second plane hit. One plane was enough to further bush's foreign policy "agenda".
I'm not saying that Bush knew exactly of the events of 9/11, but his administration obviously knew something was up. I wouldn't put it past our president to have manipulated things so that he could create this New World Order where America serves as judge, jury, and executioner. Where do we draw the line? Do we attack all terror? If so, we should look into the dealings of every country from the IRA bombings, to the turmoil in the former Yugoslavia, to North Korea. North Korea is basically begging us to take them on next. Intelligence reports say they have the third largest military force in the world. Let's not forget their burgeoning nuclear capability. How far do we go? Do we risk destroying America to "save the world."
If you're are the kind of person willing to let one plane full of people slam into a building building full of people, you are the same kind of person willing to let two planes full of people slam into a building full of people.And I will even spot anyone on this board that Dub-ya didn't know. But there is no way in hell that Chud Cheney, with all of his Enron buddies, his oil cronies, and his CIA pals like G.H.W. Bush...there is no way in hell Cheney did not know. Dub-ya may very well be the puppet here. Who is pulling the strings?
btr
Dave
$70 million to investigate clinton's sex life and whitewater
$50 million to investigate columbia disaster
$12 million to investigate 9/11
Initially the 9/11 commission was given $3m and 18 months to produce. Even a commission to look into illegal gambling was given $5m a couple years ago. With funds running out the comission requested an additional $11m to be added in the $75b budget. That request was denied and they had to accept an additional $9m. Something's wrong with this picture.
I Should Not Be Allowed To Say The Following Things About America
In today's New York Times:AJAF, Iraq, April 2 -- In the giddy spirit of the day, nothing could quite top the wish list bellowed out by one man in the throng of people greeting American troops from the 101st Airborne Division who marched into town today.And people think they hate American values....What, the man was asked, did he hope to see now that the Baath Party had been driven from power in his town? What would the Americans bring?
"Democracy," the man said, his voice rising to lift each word to greater prominence. "Whiskey. And sexy!"
The first public hearings were this week. I hope this woman receives answers to her questions.
So, maybe crooked pols would let planes crash into the twin towers, but would they have let them crash into the pentagon, not knowing what kind of destruction might happen? Rummy was *at* the Pentagon that morning...
I was only asking
anything to get the Dixie Chicks naked...
I'll take them like that anyday!! The lead singer is fricken hot! Never realized they had such nice bodies under all that denim and fringe, :)
you should watch CMT sometime with the volume off. its fun. shania twain, dixie chicks...
Country music singers are probably the hottest of all female performers. Except for Wynona!!
we used to play a game where you had to watch the CMT channel untill you saw a pickup truck, and then you could turn it off.ONE TIME IT TOOK TWO HOURS!!!!!
so we changed the game to "watch it till you see a cowboy hat," easy, right?
hell no. we still had to sit through about 5 cowboy-hat-less videos.
it's too bad that we can't judge people on looks alone. all this damn personality shiznit, what has this world gotten to?
9/11 Mastermind: Plan Involved 10 Planes
Bad SamaritanGoing to Iraq to be a human shield was not exactly a brilliant idea, but I think it's interesting that they are charging her with breaking the economic embargo. Every single media company that was in Iraq prior to the start of the war was paying thousands of dollars a week directly to the Iraqi government for access. As far as I can tell, these companies were even given a slap on the hand for funneling cash to the regime in it's final days. I think a FoxNews spokesperson summed it up: "Given the choice, it's better to be viewed as a foot soldier for Bush than a spokeswoman for al-Qaeda."
A 62-year-old retired Florida schoolteacher will likely go to jail for traveling to Iraq as a human shield. To many, Faith Fippinger is a humanitarian, but to the U.S. government she's a criminal. For three months, she taught in Iraqi schools and worked in hospitals. Back home, a letter from the U.S. Treasury Department informed her that going to Iraq and spending money there breached the U.S. economic embargo. Supporters argue her right to freedom of travel and speech and accuse the Bush administration of making an example of her. "It's in regimes like Saddam Hussein's where that freedom is not allowed," Fippinger said. The U.S. Treasury Department says freedom of speech is a right but breaking the law of the United States is not a privilege.
the foxnews quote is out-of-context (it was about amanpour's comment about the media self-muzzling itself), but I think it fits in this case too.
And this is not directly aimed at anyone at all... just some rambling:I think that Americans should be free to go be human sheilds if they want to. I don't necessarily think however that voluntary human shields from the USA puts any burden on the government to not kill them any more than they would (hopefully) try to avoid killing foreign civilians. And if she is to be fined, then so should the news agencies, OR the laws should be rewritten to account for them, if they're going to be allowed.I don't think the fact that we have laws involving travel restrictions and economic embargoes is a threat to American Freedom. And given those laws, it is not ridiculous that they carry penalties. Should those penalties be ignored because the lady in this case is a retired schoolteacher? I don't think so.
Sometimes we seem to think that civil disobedience should never have unpleasant consequences. I think that is fantasy. Often times, the laws are change precisely because someone is punished for breaking the law in protest, and that punishment forces a change in opinion and ultimately law. Leaving the laws unadministered but on the books is the more sinister act.
Maybe the penalties for breaking travel or economic sanctions should be different somehow for private citizens in an act of civil disobedience versus say, an entreprenurial trip to Iraq. I would probably support such a change because I believe that, in the case of human shields, their punishment should be the risk they take in going, so long as they are not putting other people's lives at risk. But the idea that there are penalties for breaking the law is essential and should not be surprising.
Basically what that this story makes me think is primarily -- the bigger outrage is not that she might go to jail for breaking the law in an act of "civil disobedience," it's that the law is not administered uniformly and/or is a poor law. If it *were* administered uniformly, then perhaps the impracticality of it would be apparent and a change would be forced, either to exempt her, or create provisions for media outlets (it's mind-boggling that such provisions do not exist). It is stupid to keep a law on the books that is not administrable or simply is not administered except to make examples of people. That is unjust either way. Perhaps though that is exactly what happens when we "make examples" of people. Punish just enough to stop others, but not enough to incite people to force the laws off the books.
I don't know why I got so worked up about it. I think it was the line: "To many, Faith Fippinger is a humanitarian, but to the U.S. government she's a criminal." She is a criminal. What happens from here is what's important.
I would suspect that there are provisions to allow the media (or even civilians for that matter) to enter and operate in embargoed territories. If no such provisions exist, they should be immediately instituted, because without them we either force the free press to break the law, or are left with only the government's take on what is happening in such an area. In the current case, open information about the atrocities committed by Saddam is absolutely critical in the process of creating an informed opinion throughout the populace on the matter. This is, of couse, not to say that some reporters and media outlets didn't behave in an incredibly shameful manner to protect their interests in Iraq (for more on that, read John Burns' article in Editor and Publisher).As for Amanpour, this is what she said:
I think the press was muzzled, and I think the press self-muzzled. I'm sorry to say, but certainly television and, perhaps, to a certain extent, my station was intimidated by the administration and its foot soldiers at Fox News. And it did, in fact, put a climate of fear and self-censorship, in my view, in terms of the kind of broadcast work we did.You read Fox's retort to that comment above in lukas' post.
And now for the Top Ten Ways Fox News Intimidated CNN:
10. Sent Greta Van Susteren to use a little muscle on Aaron Brown.
9. Fox and Friends urged viewers to egg Paula Zahn's house.
8. Neil Cavuto challenged Lou Dobbs to a Financial News Death Match.
7. Sean Hannity snapped Larry King's suspenders and raised a welt.
6. Brit Hume shaved off Wolf Blitzer's beard and held it hostage.
5. Fox anchors kept referring to CNN as the "Commie News Network."
4. Laurie Dhue's makeup tips caused Christiane Amanpour's skin to break out.
3. Geraldo Rivera threatened to nuke CNN's ratings "back to MSNBC country."
2. Painted Fox News helicopters black and had them hover over CNN headquarters.
1. Bill O'Reilly's mean smirks sent shivers of fear throughout CNN.
I just read that there are expemtions for journalists and humanitarian workers. Are human shields humanitarian workers? Probably not. Although I would think volunteering in the local hospitals during the war qualifies. Was it ethical for the media companies to be pouring thousands of dollars in cash to Information Ministry? Nope, but ethics and journalism are two things that don't seem to mix these days.
Was there ever any attempt by Fippinger or any of the other human shields to obtain an exemption on the basis of the humanitiarian work they did?From the Anchorage Daily News article: "She read about them on the Internet and knew right away: She could be more effective protesting the war from Iraq than from the United States, she decided, and that was that. She didn't wrestle with the idea of dying."
Or, apparently, the idea that she was breaking the law, and would be held accountable for that action.
she clearly understands she broke the law and is ready to go to jail for it so i'm not sure what your point is.
If the government could throw me in jail for ten years and fine me a million dollars, but offered to settle for $10,000, I'd hand over the money right quick and call it a day. Refusing to pay it because "she'd rather go to jail than give them money to buy more weapons" is maybe the least supportable position possible. Does she refuse to pay income tax as well? Maybe the IRS should look into it.
The point is, what's the big deal then, if she broke the law, is punished for it, acknowledges that, and deals with it? Is it some kind of issue that she was punished for an illegal activity? Is the law the problem, or does it come back around ultimately to how one feels about the war? Using broad strokes here, if you're upset about the war, you're upset that she was punished for going (and that she even felt the need to go and thus be punished). If you're not upset about the war, it's not a big deal? I mean, my question isn't so much what is Jack's point, but what is the point of all of this?Out of curiosity, who decides the penalty?
I think the treasury department decides the penalty from up to $1 million in fines or 12 years in prison. But it doesn't seem to be a criminal offence. Like she won't be arrested, tried, convicted and then punished. But I'm not completely clear on the process.I guess I just think it's pretty absurd that they fine someone like Fippinger but no one seemed to mind the mounds of cash paid to the regime for access. Not to mention the loopholes the size of an oil tanker that allowed american companies do highly profitable business with iraq via foreign subsidaries for years and years.
Personally, I think she was nutty to go over there as a human shield. The logic of it all just didn't make sense. Plus I think their concern for the Iraqi people would have been shown better by going as humanitarian aid workers in emergency clinics and whatnot.
here's a quote from a treasury dep't fact sheet:Criminal penalties for violating the Iraqi Sanctions Regulations range up to 12 years in jail and $1,000,000 in fines. In addition, civil penalties of up to $275,000 per violation may be imposed administratively.
I totally agree about loopholes and access cash. The loopholes are probably ignored because of the profit the business people are making and the "service" the media outlets "provide".
which 11 corporations (mentioned in the ADN article) are being investigated.Also, I would guess the penalties above are on a per incident basis, which could mean some huge fines for companies found to have violated the laws consistently over a period of time.
"but no one seemed to mind the mounds of cash paid to the regime for access. Not to mention the loopholes the size of an oil tanker that allowed american companies do highly profitable business with iraq via foreign subsidaries for years and years."
I agree, and think that the media should be held to a higher standard than others in this case, if not in the eyes of the law, at least in the eyes of the public. Mass media in America is in a sorry state of affairs, and not because they're being intimidated by the Bush Administration. I can't believe there hasn't been more of an outcry given what we now know went on in Iraq. Do people really think these are isolated cases of the media acting in an unscrupulous manner?
Even transactions by subsidiaries in third-party countries were governed under the Oil for Food program. Doing business in Iraq is not necessarily proof of breaking the law. However, if the law was broken then any company found to be in violation needs to be prosecuted. And yes, the law needs to be applied equally across the board, to citizens and corporations alike.
quoth pedro: "Is the law the problem, or does it come back around ultimately to how one feels about the war?"I guess my answer to this would be: C. None of the Above
If the law is applied equally and justly to all, I see no problem with it, and don't think that exceptions should be made specifically for civil disobedience, especially considering the law as it stands has provisions to allow for humanitarian support. As lukas pointed out in his original post, it's interesting that human shields are being charged with breaking the economic embargo and not something else, such as treason. I find this telling, because I don't see this as a matter of the government silencing protest. As far as I can tell, people will still be free to act as human shields in future conflicts.
Did any human shields try to obtain passport validation to travel in Iraq? Did they apply to enter the country on the basis of providing humanitarian support? If they did and were rejected, prosecuting them would seem a little underhanded. If that were the case I would definitely have more sympathy for their position, and would even be willing to look at how the law could be changed or interpreted differently. However, as that doesn't seem to be the case, what was their rationale for not taking these steps?
i didn't read the full article and have skimmed the conversation that followed the initial post, but here are my uninformed thoughts.was this woman really pouring that much money into iraq? i would tend to think that she wasn't. and was it money that went to the government/regime or support for civilians and those in need [i.e. hospitals]?
while i can see the need to proceed with caution in times of great distress, even though her mind was made up to go and she didn't really give two shits if it meant her death and her goal was humanitarian effort, i feel like the people who decide when punishments ought to be doled out would recognize if her financing was minimal and directed into civil need.
and, yes, of course the law should be enforced evenly, but it isn't. and yes, the media is lacking a whole lot of courage and should be changed, but it won't.
That I don't think her primary goal was "humanitarian aid" in the sense that the law probably means. So (although as alaric pointed out, "we won't know, since they didn't try to go legally") even though humanitarian aid is a possible way in, I wonder if they would allow being a "human shield" as legit. Alaric also pointed out to me in person that maybe the financial thing is a slap on the wrist, compared to the other things she could be tried for -- 50 years ago a person would probably see prison or a treason trial over it. Not that that's better, but perhaps a little perspective is a good thing.
i think the law is bullshit, personally. who the fuck is this government to tell me where i can fly off U.S. soil and protest, or aid foreign war victims? and then punish me for something i did while off U.S. soil? fuck that... she should tell them to burn in hell, if she doesn't mind going to jail for it... i think our government sucks. i can't believe we have laws like this, or the audacity to punish somebody for standing up and disagreeing with the government.
Congress shall have power to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations
somehow, this doesn't seem to fall under 'Commerce' in the spirit of the law. it seems more like a techinicality on which Congress is basing it's case against this woman. It seems to me like they are just using it to make an example of this woman...
The Supreme Court has always defined 'commerce' very broadly so as to cover all instances of trade with other countries. Now, we're free to disagree with that interpretation, but this is probably not the case to fight the constitutionality of trade embargoes with. At least not if you're looking to win.Also, the government isn't exactly making an example of this woman. That's what the media is doing. Going back a few weeks you will find similar human interest pieces, such as this one, featuring some of the other human shields. From that article, we learn there were "about 20" Americans in the bunch. As far as I've been able to discern from a night of googling, I can't find any information to the effect that the others were treated any differently. Evidently Faith Fippinger has the best story though, as most of the coverage and public outrage is behind her.
I also ran across this interview with Ms. Fippinger which confirmed something I had suspected since reading lukas' first post on the subject. You see, that article noted "for three months, she taught in Iraqi schools and worked in hospitals," but the thing is, why would human shields be necessary to protect those institutions? Now, I didn't have access to any military briefings deciding on suitable targets for the bombing campaign, but I'm reasonably certain that schools and hospitals would have been ruled out pretty quickly. It was in the above interview that I found out she chose to be a human shield at the Doura Oil Refinery. From the interview: "I was there through the bombing to when American tanks arrived to take possession of the refinery. Then I went to Medical City in Baghdad..." where she spent "about a week" volunteering at the hospital. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that she had bad intentions, and I applaud her desire to help ease the suffering of Iraqis, but that's just not, practically speaking, what a human shield's purpose is.
the companies selling stuff through subsidaries (including halliburton) were selling oil refining equpiment afaict. this would appear to be prohibited byt the iraq sanctions act of 1990.Also, she also probably didn't have a 1st amendment right to protest in iraq as a human shield. The courts would probably side with the military. She might have a had a chance with that argument, but I kind of doubt it. Here's an article with some brief legal analysis.
I think they picked up on Fippinger because she was outspoken but also just a good story by shattering the conventional wisdom on what 60+ year old retired school teachers are supposed to be like. Plus she's the only one that I can find that has spoken out against the fines in the media. But maybe she's the only one that the media has picked up one.
Also, lexis-nexis searches are really fun, but I don't think it will be long before google is as good or better. I sure hope so because once karna graduates they'll cut her full student access.
there are some treasury guidelines for enforcement of the economic sanction violations that inludes several mitigating factors. A couple of them are:
(b) First offense (n) Humanitarian nature of transaction;Of course, there are also aggravating factors, one of which is "willfullness." It's also possible for a warning letter to be issued in leiu of fines. It seems to me that they had some leeway but chose to slap them with the big fine.
The Iraqi sanctions act was modified in 1996 when the UN's Oil for Food program was implemented. That program was further expanded in 1998 to allow spare parts for oil facilities. For more on Haliburton and its subsidiaries dealings under the Oil for Food program, see this article. And while we're being corporate watchdogs, let's not neglect European contributions under the Oil for Food program.
31 CFR 575.524§ 575.524 Exportation of pipeline parts and equipment.
(a) Specific licenses may be issued to U.S. persons on a case-by-case basis to permit the sale and exportation to Iraq of pipeline parts and equipment essential for the safe operation of the Kirkuk-Yumurtalik pipeline system in Iraq, in accordance with the provisions of UNSC Resolution 986, other applicable Security Council resolutions, the Memorandum of Understanding, and applicable guidance issued by the 661 Committee.
[cfr as of 3/27/02. if you want to read the whole ISA it's 301 CFR 575]
From this story in the Philadelphia Inquirer:
Bush told his senior aides Tuesday that he "didn't want to see any stories" quoting unnamed administration officials in the media anymore, and that if he did, there would be consequences, said a senior administration official who asked that his name not be used.
since bush doesn't read newspapers his aides probably won't tell him about that leak...
ferc report out on the blackouts. no word on the 9/11 commission...
This is a great article on the 9/11 commission and has some details about the hijackings I hadn't read before.