home

Report: U.S. to Block Media, Not Just Photos of New Orleans' Dead

Update: Brian Williams of NBC:

At that same fire scene, a police officer from out of town raised the muzzle of her weapon and aimed it at members of the media... obvious members of the media... armed only with notepads. Her actions (apparently because she thought reporters were encroaching on the scene) were over the top and she was told. There are automatic weapons and shotguns everywhere you look. It's a stance that perhaps would have been appropriate during the open lawlessness that has long since ended on most of these streets. Someone else points out on television as I post this: the fact that the National Guard now bars entry (by journalists) to the very places where people last week were barred from LEAVING (The Convention Center and Superdome) is a kind of perverse and perfectly backward postscript to this awful chapter in American history.

Update: Blogger Bob Brigham reports by e-mail:

We are in Jefferson Parish, just outside of New Orleans. At the National Guard checkpoint, they are under orders to turn away all media. All of the reporters are turning they're TV trucks around. Things are so bad, Bush is now censoring all reporting from NOLA. The First Amendment sank with the city.

*************
Original Post:

The United States of Repression acts again.

The U.S. government agency leading the rescue efforts after Hurricane Katrina said on Tuesday it does not want the news media to take photographs of the dead as they are recovered from the flooded New Orleans area. The Federal Emergency Management Agency, heavily criticized for its slow response to the devastation caused by the hurricane, rejected requests from journalists to accompany rescue boats as they went out to search for storm victims.

This is reminiscent of the policy against photographs of the flag-draped coffins of dead soldiers. Anything that puts the Government in a bad light becomes taboo.

Update: If you're looking for photos of the dead in New Orleans, you can find them here and here. Warning: They are graphic and gruesome. View at your own risk.

< Four Security Guards Killed in Iraq | Poverty and Environmental Injustice >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Re: Report: U.S. to Block Media, Not Just Photos (none / 0) (#1)
    by aw on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:25 PM EST
    Hide the evidence. Perhaps this is one of the things Arianna was talking about.

    Re: Report: U.S. to Block Media, Not Just Photos (none / 0) (#2)
    by desertswine on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:25 PM EST
    Not only will they hide the pictures of the dead, they will lie about the numbers of the dead as well, so as to minimize the damage to themselves.

    Re: Report: U.S. to Block Media, Not Just Photos (none / 0) (#3)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:25 PM EST
    I watched Oprah yesterday; and they did not allow cameras into the morgues - but showed coffins. If they block reporters from seeing, and not photographing, the dead. Or block photographs of coffins that is one thing. Showing some respect for the dead by not having cameramen shooting their bloated bodies is another. Perhaps they do not want Aunt Cathy seeing her husband's dead body on the 6 o'clock news for the first time. Have some decency please

    Re: Report: U.S. to Block Media, Not Just Photos (none / 0) (#4)
    by glanton on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:25 PM EST
    Well said, jch. It seems to me a very different proposition, showing coffins of the dead on the one hand, and showing the bodies in-the-raw on the other. TL, like you I loathe the secrecy and the duplicity with which our government operates. But on encountering this thread all I had to do was imagine what if it were my wife among the tragic dead? In that case, I have to admit I'd want to kill some cameraman outright.

    Re: Report: U.S. to Block Media, Not Just Photos (none / 0) (#5)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:25 PM EST
    That is the question, is it out of respect for the dead or out of shame at the inaction of our leaders? The growing secrecy of our govt. is troubling, regardless. What will they deem secret next?

    Re: Report: U.S. to Block Media, Not Just Photos (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:25 PM EST
    I am sure some enterprising photographer will be able to get pictures of corpses in the papers. We have already seen them. What I don't quite get is what we will learn from those pictures-other than common decency having taken a holiday along with the President.

    Re: Report: U.S. to Block Media, Not Just Photos (none / 0) (#7)
    by aahpat on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:25 PM EST
    There has already been too much censorship. Including the media censoring stuff they deem to sensitive. On Thursday NBC photographer Tony Zumbado was being interviewed on MSNBC. He started to relate something that happened in the Superdome, stopped and mentioned that it is on the film that he filed. The anchor said that she saw the film and that it would not be shown. She gave no reason except a vague hint that it was too rough. Zumbado started to say that he specifically shot it so that it would be airable and they cut him off. The man was clearly tortured by his experience. He kept trying to say that there was no violence. That the people were simply normal citizens who had been abandoned. MSNBC shut him down and I have not seen him or seen reference to him since. Combine the censorship with the rumor mongering that the Associated Press has engeged in and its a wonder the government hasn't simply sprayed poison gas on the whole city. And they would call it the humane thing to do. Without a viable press to see the truth who would know.

    Re: Report: U.S. to Block Media, Not Just Photos (none / 0) (#8)
    by glanton on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:25 PM EST
    kdog, I think in this case there's really no hiding the failures of local, state, and federal leaders in responding to this tragedy. Such failures have, after all, been right in the middle of all Katrina coverage. Too, even though we don't know the final numbers, we do know that the death toll is going to be staggering--the possibility of hiding any of this is nil. So I ask you, what does showing bloated bodies really accomplish? Surely those of us who are rightfully outraged at the government ban on showing coffins of the war dead never suggested that they show the bodies themselves. I know your sensibility here, kdog, and respect the hell out of it. Any abrogation of freedom whatever is serious business, and having said that I suppose I must take the medicine of being called a hypocrite for supporting the government's decision to abrogate journalistic freedom in this case. So be it. I've been called much worse.

    Re: Report: U.S. to Block Media, Not Just Photos (none / 0) (#9)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:25 PM EST
    There is, no doubt, a large element of PR control by the administration here. Decency is one thing, and certainly on the radar, but the ugly truth of this disaster, and what it means for the nation, and what it reveals about the extent of the Federal failure here, is much more worrisome for those in power than offending the loved one of a victim. Indeed, Bush (and his mother) have shown great skill in offending beyond measure.

    Re: Report: U.S. to Block Media, Not Just Photos (none / 0) (#10)
    by aahpat on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:25 PM EST
    What people learn from graphic disaster pictures is simply 'there but for the grace of God go I'. Since there are always people who can use the humility of seeing what can happen when society breaks down it is always important to show representations for each and every breakdown. There is also the vitally important component of showing the people exactly how incredible America's fire, rescue and police emergency personnal really are. It is important for TAX PAYERS to see what they are paying for so that when time comes that these daily American heroes ask for more resources we all can understand and appreciate exactly what they need it for. The tax cuts and budget cuts of Newt Gingrich and the GOP's 'contract with America' gave us the horrific outcome of the Katrina aftermath. Isn't it important for Americans to see the graphic result of their short sighted tax cut, budget cutting greed?

    Two words: Emmit Till

    The Sun King-"Apres moi, Le Deluge" The Scum King(formerly the Son King)-"Moi, ju suis Le Deluge."

    DAng, Adept-Havelock, I'd like attribution. But, at least you steal from the best.. "Talent borrows. Genius Steals!"

    Re: Report: U.S. to Block Media, Not Just Photos (none / 0) (#14)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:25 PM EST
    Posted by Ernesto Del Mundo at September 7, 2005 01:07 PM Two words: Emmit Till
    Emmit Till This is one of the saddest and most stomach turning things things I've ever read, Ernesto... but it's important for people to know....

    Sorry Mr. Bill, my apologies. I should have attributed. Beautiful quote. As for those that have no problem with the press being silenced here, a little nostalgic reading:
    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
    Those were the days....

    Re: Report: U.S. to Block Media, Not Just Photos (none / 0) (#16)
    by Lis Riba on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:26 PM EST
    Just seen on AMERICAblog: Bush Locks Press Out of NOLA
    We are in Jefferson Parish, just outside of New Orleans. At the National Guard checkpoint, they are under orders to turn away all media. All of the reporters are turning they're TV trucks around. Things are so bad, Bush is now censoring all reporting from NOLA. Haven't seen any independent confirmations (yet), but the blogger is reputable.

    Re: Report: U.S. to Block Media, Not Just Photos (none / 0) (#17)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:26 PM EST
    "Wherever they burn books, they will also, in the end, burn people." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson "Censorship reflects a society's lack of confidence in itself." --Potter Stewart "He is always the severest censor of the merit of others who has the least worth of his own." -- Elias Lyman Maggon "The books that the world calls immoral are the books that show the world its own shame." -- Oscar Wilde "If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all." -- Noam Chomsky "The worst part of censorship is XXXXXXXXXXX." -- Unknown "A sodomite got very excited looking at a zoology text. Does this make it pornography?" -- Stanislaw J. Lec "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." -- Voltaire "I never heard of anyone who was really literate or who ever really loved books who wanted to suppress any of them. Censors only read a book with great difficulty, moving their lips as they puzzle out each syllable, when someone tells them that the book is unfit to read." -- Robertson Davies "It may be said that artist and censor differ in this wise: that the first is a decent mind in an indecent body and that the second is an indecent mind in a decent body." -- George Jean Nathan "Literature should not be suppressed merely because it offends the moral code of the censor." -- Justice William O. Douglas "Censorship, like charity, should begin at home, but unlike charity, it should end there." -- Clare Boothe Luce Here are some of the most banned books of the 1990s: Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain Heather Has Two Mommies by Leslea Newman Christine by Stephen King I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings by Maya Angelou Little Red Riding Hood by Jacob and Wilhelm Grimm Slaughterhouse-Five by Kurt Vonnegut The Color Purple by Alice Walker James and the Giant Peach by Roald Dahl The Learning Tree by Gordon Parks The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck Cujo by Stephen King The Adventures of Tom Sawyer by Mark Twain The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood Witches, Pumpkins, and Grinning Ghosts: The Story of the Halloween Symbols by Edna Barth And from the other side... "Propaganda tries to force a doctrine on the whole people; the [party] organization embraces within its scope only those who do not threaten on psychological grounds to become a brake on the further dissemination of ideas." -- Adolf Hitler.

    Edger, don't forget two others that are the subject of banned book attempts almost every year: Farenheit 451, and 1984. Add The Handmaids Tale, and these idiots don't even know the meaning of the word irony.

    Why hide the bodies of the dead? Are you that afraid of your own mortality? Are you that afraid of seeing the consequences of poor planning and even poorer action? I wish I could be the needle that pops humanity's insular little bubble world.

    Re: Report: U.S. to Block Media, Not Just Photos (none / 0) (#20)
    by glanton on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:26 PM EST
    So you really think that banning these scores of dead bodies from the public viewing is a point-for-point analog to book burning and outright censorship? Myself, I see them as related, but definitely not reflections of one another. By comparing this decision to a book burning or a book banning, you guys oversimplify things significantly--if you were in my rhetoric class I'd make you all do rewrites. :-)

    I don't think there is a direct correlation between the two, Glanton. However, they both stem from precisely the same mindset. IMO.

    Re: Report: U.S. to Block Media, Not Just Photos (none / 0) (#22)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:26 PM EST
    So I ask you, what does showing bloated bodies really accomplish?
    Fair point glanton. To those that are already outraged, probably nothing. But to those who are in denial to how our people were abandoned, it could wake their arses up.

    This is one of the saddest and most stomach turning things things I've ever read, Ernesto... but it's important for people to know....
    Indeed and the relevance here is this part: "Authorities wanted to bury the body quickly, but Till's mother, 33 year old Mamie Bradley, requested to be sent back to Chicago where she could make sure it was really her son. When she saw it, she sobbed and decided to have an open casket funeral so the world could see what murderers had done to her only son." Show the dead. Let them tesify to the world exactly where this country's priorities really are. Then maybe, just maybe, there will be some impetus for change.

    Re: Report: U.S. to Block Media, Not Just Photos (none / 0) (#24)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:26 PM EST
    glanton
    think that banning these scores of dead bodies from the public viewing is a point-for-point analog
    Not at all... I do agree with you that they are "related, but definitely not reflections of one another" I also agree with Adept that "they both stem from precisely the same mindset" Pictures and videos of bodies are very grisly and really not something I need or want to see. I've seen enough "live" dead bodies... Parents might want to be careful when kids are around, but, I do not in any way agree with censorship.

    From "The Boston Trial of 'Naked Lunch'": THE COURT: What do you understand him to mean by the phrase: "As always the lunch is naked"? Do you mind my asking these questions ? DE GRAZIA: No, Your Honor. GINSBERG: That phrase occurs when he is discussing capital punishment, I think. THE COURT: Where does he discuss capital punishment ? GINSBERG: Right in that. THE COURT: He discusses it in the foreword, or the introduction? GINSBERG: In the paragraph on the same page. "Let them see what is on the end of that long newspaper spoon." THE COURT: What is a "newspaper spoon" ? GINSBERG: We are presented or spoonfed with news about death, about capital punishment, or executions. THE COURT: Does he use the expression, "newspaper spoon"? GINSBERG: Yes. THE COURT: What page is that ? GINSBERG: The same page you were reading from, page xii, "Since NAKED LUNCH treats this health problem,"----the next paragraph beginning: "Certain passages in the book," the end of the paragraph: "Let them see what is on the end of that long newspaper spoon."

    Re: Report: U.S. to Block Media, Not Just Photos (none / 0) (#26)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:26 PM EST
    Fenria:
    I wish I could be the needle that pops humanity's insular little bubble world.
    ... and I wish there were more people around with your attitude, Fenria! We might not be having to deal with this Bush League fake leadership if there were...

    Two words: Emmit Till Precisely right. The people have a right to know. Some of us have forgotten that We The People pay the salaries of the people who have unilaterally taken upon themselves to deny us our inalienable right to know.

    I agree that pictures of the dead should not be shown as a general principle. Maybe one could have a discussion on whether a picture that showed the tragedy of this story honestly without the ability to identify said victims might be acceptable, but certainly a recognizable picture of a victim needs to be kept off TV. There is a question of dignity, as well as sensibility and sensitivity here. But if the media is being kept from entering the area completely - and, as other writers have passed along, removed when they are already there - that is not acceptable. There are far more stories, visible as well as verbal, that will be lost or hidden, and this is now our history as well as their stories. That loss is flat-out wrong. We all have seen journalists be excessive in their reporting. That's not completely avoidable, no matter how good or bad you think the press in general is. But the value of the news and record that will be lost here overrides the errors of that fraction of reporters who cross the line. This ban needs to be broken. Preferably with a really big club. CS

    "I agree that pictures of the dead should not be shown as a general principle." Why? If my child died in New Orleans, I would consider it the height of disrespect - to her and to me - to ban her picture from the public. I think it's time for a Naked Lunch, as Burroughs said. Let's see what's dangling at the end of Bush's fork. Let's see the bodies from Iraq, the mangled soldiers and civilians, and the tortured prisoners. Let's see the bodies in New Orleans. It's time to get a really good close-up look at how our tax dollars are being spent.

    Edger: "I wish there were more people around with your attitude, Fenria! We might not be having to deal with this Bush League fake leadership if there were..." Actually, that wouldn't change things. Without repeal of the Diebolding of America, we will still have these problems within the next several years, unless a wave of REGURGITATION and NAUSEA forces the swallowed poison from the Congress is a great historical vomitus. Otherwise, the task of state-by-state rebuilding of the voting system and ESPECIALLY the VOIDING OF ALL DIEBOLDING CONTRACTS is where we need the pinprick that starts the bleeding out of this corruption. *Please make a note of it.*

    "forces the swallowed poison from the Congress IN a great historical vomitus." sorry for not checking.

    Does anyone know who, exactly, gave this order? Bush bashing is fun and all, but some info would be nice.

    Re: Report: U.S. to Block Media, Not Just Photos (none / 0) (#33)
    by aw on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:26 PM EST
    People need to be exposed to reality. This is not a Disney world we're living in. When I was a kid, I can remember the older incarnations of the National Enquirer with pictures of people with their throats slit on the front page. I stood at a newsstand looking at it. It was pretty gruesome, but it didn't affect my life. I got a little older and there were photos of Vietnamese monks setting themselves on fire, dead and injured soldiers. All you had to do was turn on the Twentieth Century at 7PM to see film of people being gunned down by Nazi soldiers. Adults didn't used to be such children. Even children didn't used to be so shielded that we couldn't get a clue about what was going on in the world. We still felt protected by our parents, community, and government and felt lucky to be here.

    ...certainly a recognizable picture of a victim needs to be kept off TV. There is a question of dignity, as well as sensibility and sensitivity here.
    The only principle the networks follow is accountability to advertisers. The FCC used to take the view that broadcasters were public trustees of a national resource, and had an obligaion to keep the public informed on substantive and controversial issues--that was before the Reagan administration. The idea was that the citizens of a democracy need to be informed and that a free press is essential to a democracy. So much for that idea. A lot can be hidden "out of respect" for the relatives of the dead. Not to mention that the slightest scrutiny offends the profound sense of entitlement of the bureaucrats who contributed to the carnage and destruction.

    Too late. Anderson Cooper just showed a dead body on Oprah. Actually, it was only the arms and legs of a partially covered elderly woman, but she was obviously very dead. It was about as tastefully done as these things can be, I guess.

    When are we going to mourn the dead? Has any national day of mourning been announced? Or is the Bush plan going to be to bury them and forget about them?

    To tristero - I doubt very much that the husband or wife of a dead victim would be much surprised at seeing their lost spouse on TV at this point, but I don't how much good up-close-and-personal shots of decaying flesh are going to do much for the cause of accountability. The Emmitt Till reference above is well-taken, but I wonder whether there is any new information in the faces of the dead in this case. I really don't know. I should have gone back and edited my statement to reflect the more specific conditions I discussed later. To Mac Lane - your point is well-taken as well. On reflection I also worry at the ability of the Republican noise machine to twist the revulsion and anger people would feel at such intimate pictures back on those who exhibit them, rather than those responsible for them. Sometimes a kick in the gut can be well-aimed and miss its mark anyway. And gentlyweepingguitar's question is excellent. Something else we should be asking, loudly and constantly. CS

    Re: Report: U.S. to Block Media, Not Just Photos (none / 0) (#38)
    by wishful on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:26 PM EST
    Well, maybe we do need the pictures from NOLA. How else can the photo montage be created for history's sake. You know, showing how Americans mourned their dead circa 2005. We could include photos with national interest---perhaps Chief Justice Wm Rehnquist's lying in state as well as the victims of NOLA--the poor, old, infirm and babies--lying in state.

    ...I wonder whether there is any new information in the faces of the dead in this case.
    The dead are an abstract thought right now. How can anyone even begin to imagine ten thousand lives snuffed out? Pictures drive the point home and effect a response...and hopefully make people snap out of their zombie-like complacency and ask how this could have happened in the richest country on earth.

    For heaven's sake. How is it that they can fuzz out identifiable faces on all those "Cops" reality shows, blur (or put a black bar) over people's naughty bits on all those other silly reality shows, but they can't do the same thing in this case? Couldn't the Bush administration have just told them to do that? Josh Marshall puts the puzzle pieces together. It is censorship, not sensitivity, that's going on here.
    Perhaps there could be guidelines about photographs which in any way clearly identified the deceased. No one wants to get first confirmation of the death of a loved by seeing their bodies on the nightly news. But a blanket ban serves only to prevent the public from knowing what really happened. And the right of FEMA or the federal government at all on American soil to issue such a ban seems highly dubious to me. It's one thing with military casualties: the military operates under its own legal code and not under normal civilian rules. But this is happening on American soil. It's not a war zone. It's recovery from a natural disaster. Now comes this post from Brian Williams, which suggests a general effort to bar reporters from access to many of the key points in the city. Take a moment to note what's happening here: these are the marks of repressive government, which mixes inefficiency with authoritarianism. The crew that couldn't get key aid on the scene last week is coming in in force now and taking as one of its key missions cutting public information about what's happening in the city. This is a domestic, natural disaster. Absent specific cases where members of the press would interfere or get in the way of some particular clean up operation or perhaps demolition work there is simply no reason why credentialed members of the press should not be able to cover everything that is happening in that city.


    Re: Report: U.S. to Block Media, Not Just Photos (none / 0) (#41)
    by aw on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:27 PM EST
    View at your own risk.
    Fellow TL posters: tell me, what is the risk for you to look at these pictures. Serious question, no snark. I'm curious.

    Re: Report: U.S. to Block Media, Not Just Photos (none / 0) (#42)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:27 PM EST
    Brian Williams is reporting the news censorship too. He had a cop point a gun at him.

    Re: Report: U.S. to Block Media, Not Just Photos (none / 0) (#43)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:27 PM EST
    aw:
    what is the risk for you to look at these pictures
    The risk is losing your prejudices, your preconceptions, your biases, and your excuses. The risk is learning that cold, naked reality, is something you never, ever, expected. ...It's a mirror....

    Re: Report: U.S. to Block Media, Not Just Photos (none / 0) (#44)
    by Darryl Pearce on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:27 PM EST
    As suburban and exurban dwellers, we are far too removed from "real life." These neighborhoods, if they can be reclaimed, will need someone to undertake the responsibility of moving and interning the dead. How many dead does it take to make a killing field? Those that ran leaving their wards behind will need to live a long life with their cowardice.

    Talk about not allowing photos of the mortuaries. Look inside them, and prominently displayed you will find the corpse of GW's political career. He just burned himself in front of the entire country. The words, "No one predicted the levees would fail," are IMPEACHABLE, in themselves, without reference to any other crime or war crime committed by this errant, vote-fraud foisted tyrannical government. Those words, by themselves, are grave testimony to the most profound sort of failure of the president's primary duty of protecting the people. His vacations finally bit him in the arse, no matter what the troll spin is. Pared to the bone, his tyranny has been exposed, and will be more exposed, from here on out. Blocking the Media has been what Bush and his fellow liars and traitors have been doing since their conquest of the throne via the treason of a dead and damned former-Chief Justice of our highest court. He put ashes on America in 2000; now the ashes are on him. Bush must be impeached, and it is the Republican party that is going to have to be forced by public pressure to do it.

    Re: Report: U.S. to Block Media, Not Just Photos (none / 0) (#46)
    by Ben Masel on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:27 PM EST
    Call a couple hours ago from a patron at Johnny White's Sports Bar, the only establishment still open in New Orleans, serving warm beer. Somewhere around 10 O'clock, a couple plainclothes NOPD officers, (familiar to the regulars) peppersprayed the joint. They're cleaning up, still serving. Their longtime motto: "We never close." It's become a hangout for the reporters in town, but if the booze runs out, reporters tend to move on.

    Re: Report: U.S. to Block Media, Not Just Photos (none / 0) (#47)
    by scarshapedstar on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:27 PM EST
    Quit making excuses for this. If people don't want to know they don't have to look. This is prior restraint. I cannot imagine people have to nerve to say "What I don't quite get is what we will learn from those pictures-other than common decency having taken a holiday along with the President." Oh really? I bet you won't care when conservative sites are festooned with the infamous "jumpers" from 9/11. Even though there's nothing to learn. What I learn from these pictures is: this person didn't have to die. This person didn't have to die. This person didn't have to die. Gee, I wonder why the government is trying to cover them up. Disgusting.

    Vince Carroll quoted TalkLeft in today's Rocky Mountain News.

    I slightly misquoted Bush. His actual words were: "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees." (GWB, 01 Sep 2005) This by itself is a valid basis for impeachment.

    once the US Govt and its "leaders" are viewed as a corporate business all recent actions/wars/inactions all make sense. It is only when we superimpose the old American ideals, constitution, etc., that the news looks confusing and unbelievable. We are now slaves to the rights of stockmarket shareholders, our only gauge of morality is the financial bottomline, our dreams of rightousness are dlimited by margins of profit. All current world disaters are all to support the us acquisition of the new asian oil pipeline. Do the research and all starts to make sense. Russians were researching earthquake/hurricane incipiation all throught the 40's and 50's. Deep mined nuclear weapons and atmospheric chemical bombs are all it takes. Whenever you need a blindfold to carry out dirty deeds unnoticed, have a natural disaster, and might as well take out the most downtrodden in the process. Sick but true....