White House Cease & Desists to The Onion 781
raj2569 writes "You might have thought that the White House had enough on its plate late last month, what with its search for a new Supreme Court nominee, the continuing war in Iraq and the C.I.A. leak investigation. But it found time to add another item to its agenda - stopping The Onion (soul sucking, life sapping, irritating, obnoxious, but still free registration), the satirical newspaper, from using the presidential seal." The only joke here is that our tax dollars are being spent on this.
No reg link (Score:4, Informative)
Save your sould (Article Text) (Score:2, Informative)
The newspaper regularly produces a parody of President Bush's weekly radio address on its Web site (www.theonion.com/content/node/40121), where it has a picture of President Bush and the official insignia.
"It has come to my attention that The Onion is using the presidential seal on its Web site," Grant M. Dixton, associate counsel to the president, wrote to The Onion on Sept. 28. (At the time, Mr. Dixton's office was also helping Mr. Bush find a Supreme Court nominee; days later his boss, Harriet E. Miers, was nominated.)
Citing the United States Code, Mr. Dixton wrote that the seal "is not to be used in connection with commercial ventures or products in any way that suggests presidential support or endorsement." Exceptions may be made, he noted, but The Onion had never applied for such an exception.
The Onion was amused. "I'm surprised the president deems it wise to spend taxpayer money for his lawyer to write letters to The Onion," Scott Dikkers, editor in chief, wrote to Mr. Dixton. He suggested the money be used instead for tax breaks for satirists.
More formally, The Onion's lawyers responded that the paper's readers - it prints about 500,000 copies weekly, and three million people read it online - are well aware that The Onion is a joke.
"It is inconceivable that anyone would think that, by using the seal, The Onion intends to 'convey... sponsorship or approval' by the president," wrote Rochelle H. Klaskin, the paper's lawyer, who went on to note that a headline in the current issue made the point: "Bush to Appoint Someone to Be in Charge of Country."
Moreover, she wrote, The Onion and its Web site are free, so the seal is not being used for commercial purposes. That said, The Onion asked that its letter be considered a formal application to use the seal.
No answer yet. But Trent Duffy, a White House spokesman, said that "you can't pick and choose where you want to enforce the rules surrounding the use of official government insignia, whether it's for humor or fraud."
O.K. But just between us, Mr. Duffy, how did they find out about it?
"Despite the seriousness of the Bush White House, more than one Bush staffer reads The Onion and enjoys it thoroughly," he said. "We do have a sense of humor, believe it or not."
KATHARINE Q. SEELYE
Commercial purposes (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Wow... Just... wow (Score:5, Informative)
TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 33 713
(a) Whoever knowingly displays any printed or other likeness of the great seal of the United States, or of the seals of the President or the Vice President of the United States, or the seal of the United States Senate, or the seal of the United States House of Representatives, or the seal of the United States Congress, or any facsimile thereof, in, or in connection with, any advertisement, poster, circular, book, pamphlet, or other publication, public meeting, play, motion picture, telecast, or other production, or on any building, monument, or stationery, for the purpose of conveying, or in a manner reasonably calculated to convey, a false impression of sponsorship or approval by the Government of the United States or by any department, agency, or instrumentality thereof, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.
(b) Whoever, except as authorized under regulations promulgated by the President and published in the Federal Register, knowingly manufactures, reproduces, sells, or purchases for resale, either separately or appended to any article manufactured or sold, any likeness of the seals of the President or Vice President, or any substantial part thereof, except for manufacture or sale of the article for the official use of the Government of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.
(c) Whoever, except as directed by the United States Senate, or the Secretary of the Senate on its behalf, knowingly uses, manufactures, reproduces, sells or purchases for resale, either separately or appended to any article manufactured or sold, any likeness of the seal of the United States Senate, or any substantial part thereof, except for manufacture or sale of the article for the official use of the Government of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.
(d) Whoever, except as directed by the United States House of Representatives, or the Clerk of the House of Representatives on its behalf, knowingly uses, manufactures, reproduces, sells or purchases for resale, either separately or appended to any article manufactured or sold, any likeness of the seal of the United States House of Representatives, or any substantial part thereof, except for manufacture or sale of the article for the official use of the Government of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.
(e) Whoever, except as directed by the United States Congress, or the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives, acting jointly on its behalf, knowingly uses, manufactures, reproduces, sells or purchases for resale, either separately or appended to any article manufactured or sold, any likeness of the seal of the United States Congress, or any substantial part thereof, except for manufacture or sale of the article for the official use of the Government of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.
(f) A violation of the provisions of this section may be enjoined at the suit of the Attorney General,
(1) in the case of the great seal of the United States and the seals of the President and Vice President, upon complaint by any authorized representative of any department or agency of the United States;
(2) in the case of the seal of the United States Senate, upon complaint by the Secretary of the Senate;
(3) in the case of the seal of the United States House of Representatives, upon complaint by the Clerk of the House of Representatives; and
(4) in the case of the seal of the United States Congress, upon complaint by the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives, acting jointly.
Re:This is called a "joke?" (Score:5, Informative)
Moreover, if the US Code states that the seal "is not to be used in connection with commercial ventures or products in any way that suggests presidential support or endorsement," then that pretty much paves the way for the White House to decide where the seal can be used.
Looks like the Onion is out of luck. (And out of humor too, starting about a year and a half ago, IMHO.)
Two points (Score:5, Informative)
and paste
2) The Onion may be free, but it *is* commericial - it has a lead in ad as well
as ads on its pages.
3) The government does this all the time.. they are just glacially slow in doing anything about it.
You kids... (Score:5, Informative)
Let me help you.
If you're writing satire, you can use this kind of stuff. And particularly political satire is given wide latitude. So if I were the Onion, I would relish a court fight here. It would give them even more notority, and they would win.
This proves to me that the White House is actually manned by monkeys. No the smart ones, either.
Re:no way to stop it (Score:5, Informative)
As for the mis-use of it congress put it rather high, 6 months jail time [cornell.edu].
Over all not that much of a big issue, someone complained, the customized form letter was sent out as required by federal law, and as you mention the onion will have to make some changes and will probably get a few funny articles out of it.
Re:This is called a "joke?" (Score:4, Informative)
As a work of the federal government, isn't the seal in the public domain? Wikipedia certainly think so [wikipedia.org]. If that's the case, the government can't do much of anything to stop the Onion from doing whatever they want with it.
Re:I thought this was all public domain (Score:5, Informative)
Whoever knowingly displays any printed or other likeness of the great seal of the United States, or of the seals of the President or the Vice President of the United States, or the seal of the United States Senate, or the seal of the United States House of Representatives, or the seal of the United States Congress, or any facsimile thereof, in, or in connection with, any advertisement, poster, circular, book, pamphlet, or other publication, public meeting, play, motion picture, telecast, or other production, or on any building, monument, or stationery, for the purpose of conveying, or in a manner reasonably calculated to convey, a false impression of sponsorship or approval by the Government of the United States or by any department, agency, or instrumentality thereof, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both. (Emphasis mine)
Seems like this wouldn't apply to The Onion as a satirical piece.
Re:Big deal. (Score:3, Informative)
The Law (Score:4, Informative)
The Secretary of State shall have the custody and charge of such seal. Except as provided by section 2902 (a) of title 5, the seal shall not be affixed to any instrument without the special warrant of the President therefor.
The Onion is obvioulsy a parady which is surely covered by the First Amendment. This is basically a sacred-symbol-protection law which didn't work for flag burning and probably won't for the seal. Be interesting to hear what the courts have to say.
Re:no way to stop it (Score:1, Informative)
Re:I dunno (Score:3, Informative)
This might be hard for most people to understand these days (since we don't use seals the way we used to), but let me use an analogy. Let's say that The Oninon put up a story which featured your company's CEO's signature. I'm sure that within a short span of minutes, they'd get some pretty irate calls from your executive management team. Same exact deal here. The President's signature is actually not terribly potent, as he is only the temporary holder of the office. What's important is the seal which represents the office, regardless of who holds it. It's more than a flag or a signature or a logo. It's represents the authorization of the President of the United States. This is why you cannot sell any item that contains the seal (for example, someone was sharing cigars with the seal at the office the other day, since he didn't smoke and couldn't do anything else with them).
I'm no banner-waver for this administration, but in this case, I would hope that any executive administration would have come down swiftly on such use of the seal.
It's trivial for The Onion to make a parody of the seal, and they know better. This smells like a grab for headlines to me.
It's a SEAL (Score:2, Informative)
Re:White House Staff Reads The Onion (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Well... (Score:2, Informative)
Joining the National Guard, then taking leave to campaign for daddy = Patriotism.
Don't you lefties know anything?
Re:First amendment? (Score:5, Informative)
If that's true, they should drop the banner ads, and they should definitely stop intercepting hits to their home page to display interstitial commercials. Today the Onion is trying to get me to buy shoes, watch TV shows, eat fast food, report software pirates, wear jeans, buy belts, buy The Onion books, and go to the theater. I certainly hope they're getting paid for all that.
and if you can find someone who reads one of these Onion pieces and believes it suggests presidential support,
Okay, here you go:
http://www.weeklyradioaddress.com/ [weeklyradioaddress.com]
This is the page that made me think they may have a case. I too thought that this was just another attempt by the Whitehouse to bitchslap dissent, because I thought that they were just talking about the presidential seal graphics that might be in photos used in obvious parody articles about the President.
But look at this page. There's no info about the Onion (you'd have to have started from an Onion page [theonion.com] to find out the connection), all the links go to official whitehouse.gov pages, the style is that of the official whitehouse.gov page, the server uses local copies of their potentially copyrighted graphics, and they've got a nearly identical (it says "Resident of the United States" now) copy of the Presidential Seal in the upper left corner: large enough to recognize, but small enough that the modification (even assuming it's always been modified) isn't obvious.
Could someone listen to one of these addresses and not realize they were listening to a parody? I doubt it, but then again I knew they were an Onion parody before I ever went to the site, and I've only listened to one address so far. Since the Onion's humor is sometimes of the prescient "it's funny [theonion.com] cause it's true [theonion.com]" variety, I could definitely imagine there being addresses in there capable of fooling people.
could you point them in my direction, as i've got this bridge i'd like to sell them.
Well, I'm not buying, but there's no story so ridiculous you won't find someone to buy it. Even the Onion's regular articles have fooled the Bejing Evening News, MSNBC, and some fundamentalist Christian groups [wired.com] in the past.
Re:I dunno (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Trademark Dilution (Score:3, Informative)
From:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/18
Whoever knowingly displays any printed or other likeness of
the great seal of the United States, or of the seals of the
President or the Vice President of the United States, or the seal
of the United States Senate, or the seal of the United States House
of Representatives, or the seal of the United States Congress, or
any facsimile thereof, in, or in connection with, any
advertisement, poster, circular, book, pamphlet, or other
publication, public meeting, play, motion picture, telecast, or
other production, or on any building, monument, or stationery, for
the purpose of conveying, or in a manner reasonably calculated to
convey, a false impression of sponsorship or approval by the
Government of the United States or by any department, agency, or
instrumentality thereof, shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned not more than six months, or both.
Doesn't say a thing about "so long as a reasonabl person won't confuse it with official endorsement". Not sure where you got that.
Re:White House Staff Reads The Onion (Score:3, Informative)
But, if you want to think that way, the feds got there in three days for Katrina, and Clinton took five days to get anything going for Andrew. Maybe you're right. Clinton was definately to blame for that.
Thin Skinned (Score:3, Informative)
Re:This is called a "joke?" (Score:4, Informative)
But that's not the rule. The rule is about commercial use that implies endorsement, as in selling "Presidential" Hair Care Products with the seal on them, or putting the seal on an ad for your product to lend your product credibility (ha, not that that would be implied with this administration). The Onion is obviously satire, and it should be obvious to any reader that the seal is not implying any endorsement of The Onion or what is written in it. Satire is protected by the first amendment, and they shouldn't have any difficulty making a case here, if they wish to do so.
Re:I dunno (Score:3, Informative)
> signature. I'm sure that within a short span of minutes, they'd get some pretty
> irate calls from your executive management team.
That's a trademark issue - they *have* to defend it. No-one has to defend a presidential seal, especially on a satirical website, because you can tell from the URL that it's not really an official presidential website, and if you weren't sure you could read the content and tell straight away that it's a satirical website and not an arm of the government.
Re:Thin Skinned (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Well... (Score:5, Informative)
- In Kosovo and Haiti, the death toll has been much lower than Iraq. In addition, in Kosovo, Clinton used this thing called 'the international community', which can be beneficial when conducting 'police actions'.
- FEMA did so well in Florida because they were, well, f'n embarrassed by Louisana (one n, thanks). In the case of LA, when your state is so devastated that the local infrastructure collapses, you have a right to expect federal help. There are documented cases where FEMA told police officers in various parts of LA to *email* them requests for help, when police stations and power stations were completely flooded and useless. Good job Brownie!
- Blowing about a blow job, understandable. Blowing the cover of a CIA agent because you're pissed that they uncovered one of your major lies for going to war, understandable but kind of much worse than the blowjob thing.
FYI, Bush != Conservative. I never thought a tax and spend Democrat would be preferable to a borrow and borrow and borrow and spend and spend and spend Republican.Re:I thought this was all public domain (Score:3, Informative)
Given the LAW, the Onion is wrong on this one. Besides, it really wouldn't kill the Onion to make a parody seal instead of trying to co-opt the real seal.
Re:This is called a "joke?" (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, no, they don't. The government gets to pick where they spend their law-enforcement resources and the executive branch makes the call. (Another example of this is the consistent case law declaring that the police have no obligation to protect any given individual from a crime or threat, no matter how grave or obvious in advance.)
A private individual or company has an obligation to take some action if his mark is being infringed to avoid it going public domain. But even there the requirement is not to pursue every infringer.
The closest argument to "must pursue all" is the requirement for equal protection. But even that only comes into play if there's a consistent pattern of only going after a suspect class of infringers, rather than making the pick in a way that doesn't discriminate, or discriminates only on some rational basis (such as biggest ones get the hit) with other things (like race) only present, if at all, as a side effect.
However, as a separate issue, satire is protected speech. If the seal was used in a clearly satirical way the Onion has legs to stand on. (I haven't seen the article in question yet, but given that it's the Onion it seems likely that's what they were doing.)
The problem with satire is that sometimes it looks too much like what it's satirizing and confuses people. I suspect that's what happened here - either because some functionary didn't get that it was satire, or thought others wouldn't.
Re:Well... (Score:5, Informative)
Business Week, 5/19/97: "Clinton's 1993 budget cuts, which reduced projected red ink by more than $400 billion over five years, sparked a major drop in interest rates that helped boost investment in all the equipment and systems that brought forth the New Age economy of technological innovation and rising productivity."
Goldman Sachs, March 1998: "on the policy side, trade, fiscal, and monetary policies have been excellent, working in ways that have facilitated growth without inflation. The Clinton Administration has worked to liberalize trade and has used any revenue windfalls to reduce the federal budget deficit."
U.S. News & World Report, 6/17/96: "President Clinton's budget deficit program begun in 1993... [led] to lower interest rates, which begat greater investment growth (by double digits since 1993, the highest rate since the Kennedy administration), which begat three-plus years of solid economic growth averaging 2.6 percent annually, 50 percent higher than during the Bush presidency."
Paul Volcker, former Federal Reserve Chairman, Audacity, Fall 1994: "The deficit has come down, and I give the Clinton Administration and President Clinton himself a lot of credit for that... and I think we're seeing some benefits."
While we're on the topic, the government shutdown was as much the fault of the Republican Majority in Congress and Clinton's. Alexis de Tocqueville once said that it is the nature of American Democracy to "view as virtuous an incomplete conquest." The willingness of BOTH the Republican Congress and the Democratic Whitehouse to ignore this sage wisdom was the cause of the shutdown. It takes two to tango.
While you're quite right that some of the actions taken by the Clinton administration militarily didn't turn out for the best, those actions were not unilateral invasions of a sovereign country with neither the backing nor support of the UN or NATO. Moreover, our involvement did not turn into the most costly and deadly American overseas deployment since Vietnam. As to Rwanda -- it was a tragic failure, and one for which I'll never forgive the Clinton Administration. It's good to see that Bush learned from that failure and is responding in the Sudan.... oh... wait....
Your depiction of the Plame case goes from evasive to outright lies, so we'll clear that up.
1 - You're right, no crime has technically been committed if no one was aware that Plame was undercover at the time since you can't expose someone who you don't know to be undercover.
2 - Plame WAS undercover at the time, according to ABC News [go.com].
3 - Even presidents are innocent until proven guilty in this country. Clinton was never convicted of perjury. That said, what he did smacks of dishonesty and was unquestionably wrong. Speaking of perjury -- it's interesting that the testimonies of Rove, Cheney, and Bush, and the various reporters being questioned are not only divergent, but don't even line up from session to session. You might see some GOP perjury indictments before this is all over.
Final Correction -- Your mischaracterization of Katrina is fairly misleading as well. A hurricane breaching New Orleans levees was on the FEMA list of nightmare scenarios. Bush's budget priorities transferred funds away from the Corps of Engineers levee projects, contributing to the collapse.
Also, don't forget that you can heap blame upon the state of Louisiana as much as you want - but the failure to Federalize the National Guard rests with one man alone. Bush had the authority to act and failed to. Did the state government screw up? Yes. But Bush -=LET=- them screw up. That matters.
Re:I thought this was all public domain (Score:3, Informative)
The Onion is not using the seal, "...for the purpose of conveying, or in a manner reasonably calculated to convey, a false impression of sponsorship or approval by the Government of the United States..." If the Onion went to court over this, there is a good chance they would win.
Re:hypocrisy (Score:1, Informative)
Re:I thought this was all public domain (Score:5, Informative)
I will repeat myself. The Onion is WRONG. If they want to pursue this, it could become a matter of imprisionment for the Onion editors and/or writers. They do NOT want to mess with this.
Re:Well... (Score:5, Informative)
It was FEMA who turned away Wal-Mart trucks with water and supplies.
It was FEMA who told Amtrak they didn't want evacuation help.
It was FEMA who did not use available Navy ships and sent away the Coast Guard with diesel fuel.
It was FEMA who turned away volunteers with boats and hovercraft.
The recent Florida situation doesn't count because FEMA is trying to overcompensate now. Also your conspiracy theorist will tell you to look at who is Governor of Florida...
The fact is both governments screwed up, but FEMA is looking worst in this because they are the ones who are suppose to have the resources to provide aid. I point you to about 1/2 the way down the story here [phxnews.com]. An example of government preventing aid, and why I think (as a libertarian) that FEMA is nothing more then a unnecessary entity that has only gotten in the way of volunteer efforts.
I can probably find a few local and state government screw ups too (there was a Doctor licensing issue involving the state govt. I think). There is plenty of blame to go around, the fact is FEMA does share a lot of blame and to ignore that fact is pure ignorance.
Re:I thought this was all public domain (Score:3, Informative)
The Onion can and WILL face criminal charges if they persist. This is NOT a matter of copyright law, it is a matter of CRIMINAL law. The Onion editors and/or writers WILL be prosecuted and sentenced if they persist on this route. There is no exception to this law other than obtaining permission from the Office of the President. Since they don't have that permission, they would do best to fix their seal in a hurry.
Re:Well... (Score:2, Informative)
Remember that soldier who refused an order to wear a UN beret? He was a "hero". Yet soldiers that refuse to illegally occupy a foreign country are called traitors by these so-called patriots.
Re:Everyone else is clamping down on their IP righ (Score:2, Informative)
Examples:
Re:This is called a "joke?" (Score:3, Informative)
From Title 18, Section 713, Paragraph (b):So the question is, do the Onion editors want to go to jail?
Re:Thin Skinned (Score:1, Informative)
Anyways, I fail to see why stating the liberal tards have no respect is evidence of thin skinnediness (made that one up..)
I agree, about the debate about mental stablilty, er, well except my debate is paranoid schizo...
Comment removed (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I thought this was all public domain (Score:5, Informative)
Read on:
(b) Whoever, except as authorized under regulations promulgated by
the President and published in the Federal Register, knowingly
manufactures, reproduces, sells, or purchases for resale, either
separately or appended to any article manufactured or sold, any likeness
of the seals of the President or Vice President, or any substantial part
thereof, except for manufacture or sale of the article for the official
use of the Government of the United States, shall be fined under this
title or imprisoned not more than six months, or both.
And those regulations were specified by Richard Nixon (later amended by Gerald Ford):
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/u
Ex. Ord. No. 11649. Regulations Governing Seals of President and Vice President of United States
Ex. Ord. No. 11649, Feb. 16, 1972, 37 F.R. 3625, as amended by Ex. Ord. No. 11916, May 28, 1976, 41 F.R. 22031, provided:
By virtue to the authority vested in me by section 713 (b) of title 18, United States Code, I hereby prescribe the following regulations governing the use of the Seals of the President and the Vice President of the United States:
Section 1. Except as otherwise provided by law, the knowing manufacture, reproduction, sale, or purchase for resale of the Seals or Coats of Arms of the President or the Vice President of the United States, or any likeness or substantial part thereof, shall be permitted only for the following uses:
(a) Use by the President or Vice President of the United States;
(b) Use in encyclopedias, dictionaries, books, journals, pamphlets, periodicals, or magazines incident to a description or history of seals, coats of arms, heraldry, or the Presidency or Vice Presidency;
(c) Use in libraries, museums, or educational facilities incident to descriptions or exhibits relating to seals, coats of arms, heraldry, or the Presidency or Vice Presidency;
(d) Use as an architectural embellishment in libraries, museums, or archives established to house the papers or effects of former Presidents or Vice Presidents;
(e) Use on a monument to a former President or Vice President;
(f) Use by way of photographic or electronic visual reproduction in pictures, moving pictures, or telecasts of bona fide news content;
(g) Such other uses for exceptional historical, educational, or newsworthy purposes as may be authorized in writing by the Counsel to the President.
Sec. 2. The manufacture, reproduction, sale, or purchase for resale, either separately or appended to any article manufactured or sold, of the Seals of the President or Vice President, or any likeness or substantial part thereof, except as provided in this Order or as otherwise provided by law, is prohibited.
Richard Nixon.
Re: Trademark Dilution (Score:5, Informative)
That use is expressly provided for via executive order.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/u
Re:Everyone else is clamping down on their IP righ (Score:2, Informative)
But beyond all that, I thank you, sir, for educating us all about our schizophrenic government.
Re:Well... (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, he won. Hence, he took the oath of office and was President for 4 years. I don't know how you missed that, but it did happen.
In Kosovo and Haiti, the death toll has been much lower than Iraq. In addition, in Kosovo, Clinton used this thing called 'the international community', which can be beneficial when conducting 'police actions'.
So, the military and nom-military forces in Iraq from Albania, Armenia, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Estonia, Fiji, Georgia, Honduras, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, the Philippines, Portugal, Poland, Romania, Singapore, Slovakia, Spain, Thailand, Tonga, the UK, and the Ukraine are not an "international community."
But Clinton! First he assembled Britain, France, Germany, Italy, and Russia into a partnership that involved rich guys in suits arguing about stuff while thousands died. They around and did nothing for years while over a quarter million more people were slain. Finally the United Nations heads in with the "international community" and brokers a cease fire that almost immediately breaks down and the bloodshed resumes. Sounds like Israel in the 1940's and 1950's, huh?
FEMA did so well in Florida because they were, well, f'n embarrassed by Louisana (one n, thanks). In the case of LA, when your state is so devastated that the local infrastructure collapses, you have a right to expect federal help. There are documented cases where FEMA told police officers in various parts of LA to *email* them requests for help, when police stations and power stations were completely flooded and useless. Good job Brownie!
You have the right to expect federal help, but not 24 hours later. The federal government can't produce an armpit fart in under six days of paperwork and discussion. The local infrastructure didn't just break down, it cut tail and run, then went on TV whining that nobody was helping. There's no question that the federal response was sluggish and inadequate, but the local government didn't even follow it's own plan. Brownie was indeed a hapless cronie with no business being in his business.
Blowing the cover of a CIA agent because you're pissed that they uncovered one of your major lies for going to war, understandable
We don't know that. That's what you want to believe happened. I'm reserving judgment on this until Fitzgerald's report is done.
FYI, Bush != Conservative.
I agree, but I can't figure out what he is.
Re:Well... (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee would say otherwise. They did find that Joe Wilson misrepresented his findings in his New York Times article, versus that he told the CIA directly. (His trip pretty much confirmed that Iraq was seeking to buy uranium from Niger, though word from officials was that the sale didn't go down.)
Furthermore, they found that Joe Wilson's wife, Valerie, did indeed recommend him for the trip.
Read the article yourself: Report Disputes Wilson's Claims on Trip, Wife's Role [washingtonpost.com]
Re:Everyone else is clamping down on their IP righ (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Everyone else is clamping down on their IP righ (Score:3, Informative)
Some more distinctions: no treason, no sueing parody newspapers. Even the indictments score is incomparable, especially on the charges. Oh, yeah, the job approval ratings are inverted. And, wait, er, the Bush administration is actually running the country, while Clinton is long gone. Is that all you've got, invoking your worst nightmares from 2 terms ago?
Re:Well... (Score:4, Informative)
The following is paraphrased from what I've heard on radio or TV, so any clarifications/contrary evidence is most welcome.
AFAIK, there is a rule of handling this type of information, which is part of the set of documents everyone with certain types of clearance signs. The rule is that no confirmation (negative or positive) of a CIA employee's status can be made, unless it is known that they are not undercover operatives. There is a specific form that has to be sent to the CIA for a status inquiry, and until a response is received, no discussion is allowed, period.
In other words, if you don't know the status, but discuss/confirm CIA affiliation, it is still a crime...
Selective memory (Score:3, Informative)
The feds said "get out of there" DAYS before it hit. Your own mayor didn't concur until it was too late.
This is absolutely untrue. I remember it QUITE well because I was in Detroit, MI on Friday evening, and went to bed thinking (along with the locals, the feds, the NOAA, and the rest of the country) that Katrina would be a cat 1 to cat 2 event for northern Florida. When I woke up Saturday morning I found out at the airport that it was going to be a cat 5 headed right up my arse.
About 36 hours later -- mid-day Sunday -- if you weren't out of town, it was too late. All previous evacuation planning had assumed a 72 hour window of opportunity, and we barely got 48 this time (and that realistically starting in the middle of the night). NOBODY was advising evacuation before Saturday morning, unless you count the "gee why does anybody live there at all" crowd. The fact that we managed to get everyone who had the means out in that time frame is a miracle. Nobody, including the people in charge, really expected it to work that well. It didn't work that well for Dennis a mere three weeks before. It had never worked that well in the 10 years or so that contraflow plans have been on the drawing board.
So where do you get this bullshit idea that "the Feds told us to get out days before?" Maybe from the same bullshit source that said those school buses were "intended for evacuation?" Here's a clue: Those school buses were "intended" to carry kids to school. Nobody in their right mind would have loaded them up with people when their most likely fate based on all of our experience would be to get caught out on a gridlocked overwater crossing when the hurricane arrived.
However vulnerable they are, buildings are safer than vehicles on the road in a hurricane. We live here. We know that.
Had Katrina spared us as so many other threats did, we might have gotten around to forming bus plans in the future. It's not as simple as it sounds. You have to have places to drive the buses to, and you have to have a plan for getting them back if the hurricane doesn't hit. And you have to expect the evacuation to succeed, which it never had in the past. We got that right just in time. It's easy for back-seat drivers who have never seen NOLA to snipe about what we coulda shoulda done, but out here on the porch it ain't that simple when you ain't got the 20/20 hindsight and you don't know what the fucking storm is actually going to do.
I will repeat this: I live here. I flew home only to evacuate 24 hours later myself. I have watched local officials prepare for this kind of event for my entire life. Kindly refrain from telling me how things are in my home when you obviously have no clue what you are talking about, kthx.
Re:Well, you already calle me a liar (Score:3, Informative)