Of course,

no one can be shocked that BushCo pays for good news. However, it is getting harder to accept their claims that they are “shocked” by

behavior that is clearly inspired by the highest ranks. BushCo is full of PR and advertising flunkies. What’s shocking is how bad they

are at their jobs. mjh

Military Says It Paid Iraq Papers for News By Josh White and

Bradley Graham, Washington Post Staff Writers

The U.S. military command in Baghdad acknowledged for the first time yesterday that

it has paid Iraqi newspapers to carry positive news about U.S. efforts in Iraq, but officials characterized the payments as part of a

legitimate campaign to counter insurgents’ misinformation.

In a statement, the command said the program included efforts,

“customary in Iraq,” to purchase advertising and place clearly labeled opinion pieces in Iraqi newspapers. But the statement suggested

that the “information operations” program may have veered into a gray area where government contractors paid to have articles placed in

Iraqi newspapers without explaining that the material came from the U.S. military and that Iraqi journalists were paid to write positive

accounts. …

Officials said one unanswered question they have is whether the Lincoln Group intentionally misled newspapers by

presenting the articles as freelance journalism, obscuring the fact that the material came from U.S. armed forces.
—–

Press Briefing by

Scott McClellan

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, we’ve seen the reports. We first learned about it when we saw the reports yesterday….

Q But this administration also has a history of having some questions made about paying columnists and having packaged news made

available.

MR. McCLELLAN: I think the President made very clear what his views were on those issues, and some of the practices

that had occurred were stopped, and steps were taken to prevent that from happening again.
—–

class="mine">Remember Armstrong Williams, one of many people paid by BushCo to sell the administration’s view? mjh

mjh’s Dump Bush weBlog: Government Control of the Media

mjh’s Dump Bush weBlog: Fox in the Chicken

Coop

Muted Support for GOP Change Grows By Jonathan Weisman,

Washington Post Staff Writer

Amid Scandals, Some Republicans Push to Permanently Replace DeLay as Leader

Abramoff’s

interactions with DeLay and his staff — including lavish trips to the Northern Mariana Islands and the famed golf course of St. Andrews,

Scotland — has created considerable trepidation among rank-and-file lawmakers, House members and GOP aides say.

In addition,

DeLay was ferried three times in 2003 and 2004 on corporate jets owned by the company of Brent Wilkes, a California defense

contractor who allegedly made illicit payments to Cunningham in exchange for legislative favors. Neither DeLay nor the company

has disclosed the purpose or destination of the trips, which were billed to one of DeLay’s PACs at a commercial flight rate as permitted

under election law.

“The Scanlon thing, the Cunningham thing, I think you have more people waiting for the other shoe to drop,”

said Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.).

Justice Department investigators are trying to link campaign contributions to official legislative

actions. Nobody knows how wide a net the investigators will cast, a DeLay adviser conceded. Such charges of quid pro quo are extremely

difficult to prove but very easy to level, in light of the large amounts of lobbyist money sloshing around Capitol Hill.

Even if

DeLay is never implicated, his return to the majority leader’s post would create political “havoc,” said one Republican House member,

who spoke on the condition of anonymity. The lawmaker pointed to DeLay’s decision in October to fly to Texas ahead of his first

courtroom appearance aboard a corporate jet owned by R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.

“The fact that he flew down on a corporate

jet for his mug shot, and not just any corporate jet but Big Tobacco’s corporate jet, that’s a double whammy,” the lawmaker said. “A

number of my colleagues say he just doesn’t get it. He doesn’t understand how this plays.”

site:www.mjhinton.com DeLay – Google Search

You probably already know

about Congressman Richard W. Pombo’s (R-CA) efforts to “modernize” the ridiculously outdated 1872 Mining Patents Act. Many people agree this act does not

charge enough for the resources one can grab through it. So, to his credit, Pombo wants to charge more — up to $1000 / acre, instead of

pennies — though probably not what the minerals or land are really worth.

My gripe is the underlying assumption — widely held in

the GOP — that the public should own less land. They regularly sneer at all the land “the government owns.” Wrong! You and I own that

land and it serves many uses, including just sitting there for the hell of it. It is neither necessary nor healthy to require every acre

of the earth to belong to someone and “produce” something.

Read through these 4 articles (two by the same author); the third one

attempts to refute the concerns raised by the others.

Our own Saint Pete may be a key player here. Let him know what you think

about this. mjh

Write Your Representative – Contact your Congressperson in the U.S.

House of Representatives.

U.S. Senate: Senators Home
—–

ABQjournal: Plan for Selling Public Lands Worries Govs. By Jennifer

Talhelm, The Associated Press

Six Western governors, including New Mexico’s Bill Richardson, and a growing number of senators say

they fear a congressional plan allowing the sale of millions of acres of public lands could do permanent harm to everything from

agriculture and the environment to the ski industry.

“It’s got implications for hunters, sportsmen, people who use lands for

grazing and basically anybody who uses public lands,” said Angela de Rocha, a spokeswoman for Colorado Sen. Wayne Allard, one of a

handful of Republican senators expressing concern about the proposal.
—–

House Stealth Measure Sells Off Public Lands BY

MIKE DOMBECK AND JACK WARD THOMAS, Former chiefs, U.S. Forest Service

Sometime around 1 a.m. Nov. 18, the House of Representatives

passed the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 by a vote of 217-215. Buried in the 680-page
bill was language that lifts an 11-year

moratorium on the patenting, or sale, of public lands to mining companies, and appears to pave the way for the sale of public lands to

mining companies and other development interests for as little as $1,000 per acre.

These public lands are a birthright that

should not be gambled on legislation passed in the dark of the night with an essential absence of any public notice or scrutiny. …

There are few decisions that Congress makes that have irreversible consequences. Selling off our public land legacy is one that does.

…

Some believe that something so valuable should not be owned by all U.S. citizens but should instead be devolved into other

ownership or corporate control. To be certain, it is the prerogative of members of Congress to change laws as they see fit in the best

interest of their constituents. And it is our duty as citizens to ensure they know our views before they vote. Legislation that has the

potential to remove public lands from public hands should only be brought to a vote after a full and vigorous debate. …

But that

debate, and the debates to follow, can and will occur only so long as public lands remain in public ownership. Within the next few weeks,

the public land sales provisions that passed the House of Representatives will be considered in a conference between the Senate and the

House. Members should be urged to strip out the provisions of the House-passed bill that allows for the sale of our public lands — the

heritage of future generations. Then, by all means, let the debate relative to the provisions of the 1872 Mining Act began in the full

light of public scrutiny.
—–

New land rush? Not so fast! by Editor Hering

First,

the person must hold a valid mining claim open to actual mining, having completed all the required state and federal paperwork. Then the

claim must be contiguous to claims where mining has been or is being done. And finally mining on the claim itself must be taking place.

The committee sums things up by citing as fiction: “Real estate speculators, oil and gas companies, foreign mining corporations

or anyone who is willing to pay as little as $1,000 per acre could buy the land and develop it any way they wanted.”

“The

statement,” the committee answers, “fails to pass the laugh test. Unless real estate speculators, oil and gas companies and the like want

to enter the mining industry and begin staking mining claims and developing hardrock minerals, they would not qualify under the

provisions of this bill to purchase lands.”

If you want more or to check yourself, be my guest. The site is resourcescommittee.house.gov.

A few things about the

preceding defense of the proposed changes. First, how many times have we heard “trust us” only to find out later that, oops, we didn’t

realize this might happen. Second, what an odd tone from a congressional committee — the “laugh test”?! Sounds like it was written by

some corporation that has spent millions already and has no intention of letting anything spoil the deal. Finally, if this is such a

noble effort, why is it buried in a 600+ page budget bill? mjh

—–

Greedy

grab for public land

There are plenty of examples of how companies have used the 1872 mining law to get their hands on public

resources. In 1970, Frank Melluzzo “patented” — bought — public land near Phoenix for $150. Ten years later, he sold it for more than

$400,000. Today, the Pointe Hilton Hotel in Phoenix sits on this mining claim. …

Now a few folks in Congress want to turn back

the clock. The results of these policies will be a fleecing of taxpayers and a cheating of future generations of public land.

Roosevelt said: “The nation behaves well if it treats the natural resources as assets which it must turn over to the next generation

increased, and not impaired, in value.”

A majority of Americans distrust Duhbya and

dislike Cheney (even fear/hate/loathe him). A majority believes we were ‘manipulated’ into war. A majority gives at least lip service

to freedom of speech and dissent. Yet, a majority believes talking about the war hurts troop morale. So, are we to just shut up or is

lowered morale the price we must pay to get at the truth? mjh

Newsday.com:

Poll: Dems’ barbs hurt troops THE WASHINGTON POST

[A] new poll conducted Nov. 17-20 indicates most Americans are sympathetic

to Cheney’s point. Seventy percent of people said that criticism of the war by Democratic senators hurts troop morale – with 44 percent

saying morale is hurt “a lot,” according to a poll taken by RT Strategies.

Even self-identified Democrats agree: 55 percent

believe criticism hurts morale, while 21 percent say it helps morale.
—–

As VP goes on attack, poll numbers fall off CHICAGO

TRIBUNE

The vice president’s hard-line language fires up the conservative base that remains fond of Cheney, it does not appear to

impress much of the rest of the country. Polls show Cheney is less popular than Bush, who himself is suffering from the lowest ratings of

his presidency.

Cheney’s image has not been helped by such moves as his decision to attend an upcoming fundraiser for Rep. Tom

DeLay, R-Texas, the in-dicted former House majority leader. A cartoon in The Washington Post recently showed a glowering Cheney, angry

that Bush pardoned the Thanksgiving turkey.

Among Republicans, 80 percent in a Nov. 11-13 Gallup survey said they approved of

Bush’s job performance, while 68 percent ap-proved of Cheney’s.

A majority of all 1,006 voters surveyed rated Cheney’s

advice to the president as “bad.” [mjh: amen.]
—–

The Phony War Against the Critics By

Michael Kinsley

“One might also argue,” Vice President Cheney said in a speech on Monday, “that untruthful charges against the

commander in chief have an insidious effect on the war effort.” That would certainly be an ugly and demagogic argument, were one to make

it. …

Lest one fear that he might be saying that, Cheney immediately added, “I’m unwilling to say that” —

“that” being what he had just said. He generously granted critics the right to criticize (as did the president this

week). Then he resumed hurling adjectives like an ape hurling coconuts at unwanted visitors. “Dishonest.” “Reprehensible.” “Corrupt.”

“Shameless.” President Bush and others joined in, all morally outraged that anyone would accuse the administration of misleading us into

war by faking a belief that Saddam Hussein possessed nuclear and/or chemical and biological weapons.

class="mine">A friend sent me a link to the following column by Jonah Goldberg of the Los Angeles Times. I read the LA Times

occasionally. I had the impression that it was a serious newspaper until a month or two ago, when they announced they were going to focus

more on Hollywood and less on anything that matters more. Let’s listen to Goldberg for a moment:

A lie for a

just cause by Jonah Goldberg

Roosevelt got Pearl Harbor instead, which was a surprise but nonetheless “rescued” the president,

in Hofstadter’s words, from the “dilemma” of needing to start a war the American people opposed.

Does this make

FDR a bad president? No. While I have my problems with FDR, most historians are right to be forgiving of deceit in a just

cause. World War II needed to be fought, and FDR saw this sooner than others.

Even the most cursory reading of any

presidential biography will tell you that statesmanship requires occasional duplicity. If great foreign policy could be

conducted Boy Scout-style — “I will never tell a lie” — foreign policy would be easy (and Jimmy Carter would be hailed as the American

Bismarck). This isn’t to say that the public’s trust should be breached lightly, but there are other competing goods involved

in any complex situation.

Now, you might say that Iraq was no WWII, Saddam was no Hitler, and 9/11 was no Pearl Harbor. Those are

all fair arguments with varying degrees of merit. But WWII wasn’t “the good war” in our hearts until after Pearl Harbor and even until

after the Holocaust, and a lot of Hollywood burnishing.

Big-money conservatives will never get over their

rage at FDR, even if they dismantle every trace of progressive government and globally search and replace Raygun for FDR. It’s like the

Civil War — the hate and anger is passed down the generations.

Still, Goldberg speaks for me when he says Iraq is no WWII, etc.,

though he doesn’t recognize Duhbya’s no FDR — that would undermine his rather stretched point.

The Bush Doctrine

is not chiefly about WMD and never was. Like FDR’s vision, it balances democracy, security and

morality. Still, the media and anti-Bush partisans have been bizarrely unmoved by the revelations of Hussein’s killing fields, his

torture chambers for tots and democracy’s tangible progress in the Middle East.

Now, talk about

rewriting history! The big push to invading Iraq was entirely about WMD — how else did WMD become a universally recognized abbreviation?

BushCo tried desperately to convince us that the UN weapons inspectors — remember them? — were inept or corrupt. Duhbya, Cheney and

Rice all invoked the mushroom cloud, in spite of evidence to the contrary. I don’t recall once hearing anything about bringing democracy

to Iraqis until the WMD vanished after the invasion.

Just to reassure Goldberg, I am not unmoved about what a despot Hussein was

or how, one day, Iraqis will be better off without him. However, some make the same argument about Cuba, which would be much easier to

invade and overwhelm. Some make the same argument about North Korea, which would bring about the joyous Armageddon. I’m sure more than a

few say the same about invading the US and freeing us. Noble causes abound — they aren’t all equally good ideas to pursue. It is quite

possible that BushCo spoke in-house about the democratic dominoes they would push over. Chalk this up to another consequence of their

obsessive secrecy — they didn’t tell us until it was so late it looked like an after-thought.

Perhaps Americans aren’t

adequately worked up over Hussein’s evil. Or secret CIA prisons, prisons held at the whim of a dubious President who simultaneously

declares there will be no torture while demanding the right to torture. Am I calling Bush Hussein’s moral equal? No. But let’s not

presume all we can do is good.

Let’s turn the tables on Goldberg and say that Duhbya has never, ever lied. Now what? No matter

how just the cause, hasn’t everyone at BushCo made countless errors? Why does the Radical Right support Duhbya in never once admitting a

mistake? Why is incompetence better than duplicity?

Just in case you missed it, Jonah Goldberg, who sees the wisdom in lying for

the good of others, has moved up at the LAT at exactly the same time as one of LAT’s most progressive long-time writers and fierce

anti-war critics got canned. Should be great for business in AmeriCo.

In all of this, I continue to feel manipulated. I feel that

the citizenry is being set at each other’s throats because it benefits those who work in secret. While conservatives and liberals rage

at each other, thieves are at work, stealing our heritage and rights, changing everything they can before they get caught.

Democracy Now! | LA Times Fires Longtime Progressive

Columnist Robert Scheer

The only other fact here that I would throw in, the paper is concerned about what the Bush

administration thinks, because the Tribune Company bought the Times Mirror Corporation and now owns a television station, a very

profitable one, in the same market in Los Angeles as the newspaper. And next year they have asked — they have to get a waiver in order

to be able to do that, because that violates the law right now. They expected Congress — when they bought the property, they thought

Congress would pass that law allowing them to have those two major outlets in the same market. It is now illegal, and in 2006 they are

coming up for a waiver, and the Bush administration’s F.C.C. could easily deny that waiver to them. …

The Los Angeles Times

publisher, Jeffrey Johnson, said, “You’ve got a new editorial page editor and a new publisher. We sat down and talked about the pages and

decided to make changes.” …

These people are just going to suck what they can out of the property. So this guy, Jeff Johnson,

who is an accountant who cares nothing at all about a free press and cares nothing about journalism, he’s a right winger who supported

the war, you know, who two years ago told people he couldn’t stand a word that I wrote. Why? Because I exposed how the whole Jessica

Lynch thing was a fraud ….

AMY GOODMAN: The author Jonah Goldberg will now be an L.A. Times op-ed columnist, the author of

Liberal Fascism. Your response, Robert.

ROBERT SCHEER: Yeah, well, that gives the – I think it shows what they’re really all

about. The publisher has told – you know, if these editors, Andres Martinez and Nick Goldberg, were the least bit honest about this, they

would tell you the publisher has told them he wants the editorial page to be conservative. He has specifically told them that. And so why

don’t they tell their readers that? Why doesn’t the editor of the editorial page tell the readers our publisher, my publisher, my boss,

the guy who owns this press — remember A.J. Liebling’s thing: Freedom of the press belongs to those who own one. The owner of this paper

has taken direct control over the editorial page. Jeff Johnson is an accountant. He’s not a journalist. He has said, “I am going to run

the editorial page. I’m going to run the columns and the editorials,” very clearly, and he’s told both of those individuals very

clearly in those meetings he referred to that “I’m in charge and I want this page to be more conservative.” … And here he

picks Jonah Goldberg, one of the most conservative columnists, to do his bidding for him.

By

the way, The LA Times also fired Michael Ramirez, a Pulitzer-Prize winning conservative staff cartoonist. Now, I despised Ramirez’s

messages. Still, he is a great artist and very effective at what he does. I assume he jabs me the way Oliphant jabs the Radical Right. As

long as Oliphant is published, I want to see Ramirez’s work, too. mjh