Patriot Act: Good or Bad?

[John Simkin]

Keith Gottschalk argues that Bush claims Congress gave him authorizing the use of military force after the 9/11 attacks which authorized the President “to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks ... ”

He adds:

Further, Bush said:

“My personal opinion is, it was a shameful act for someone to disclose this very important program in a time of war. The fact that we're discussing this program is helping the enemy.”

and:

“I think I've got the authority to move forward,” he said, adding: “It's legal to make the decisions I'm making ... An open debate about law would say to the enemy, 'Here's what we're going to do.'”

So let me get this straight. The President of the United States decides its okay to wiretap Americans within the United States without a warrant or any other oversight because of a “war” he created, attacking a country that did nothing to harm the United States and now claims he has Constitutional authority to commit a Federal crime?

And still a third of Americans see nothing wrong with this because they've been brainwashed into believing that if the President isn't given the powers of a dictator the mullahs will be marching down Main Street?

This point is important to grasp as it mirrors what has happened before in history. For example, on 27th February, 1933 the German Reichstag caught fire. When they police arrived they found Marinus van der Lubbe on the premises. After being tortured by the Gestapo he confessed to starting the Reichstag Fire. However he denied that he was part of a Communist conspiracy. Hermann Goering refused to believe him and he ordered the arrest of several leaders of the German Communist Party (KPD).

When Hitler heard the news about the fire he gave orders that all leaders of the German Communist Party should "be hanged that very night." Paul von Hindenburg vetoed this decision but did agree that Hitler should take "dictatorial powers". KPD candidates in the election were arrested and Hermann Goering announced that the Nazi Party planned "to exterminate" German communists.

On 23rd March, 1933, the German Reichstag passed the Enabling Bill. This law gave Hitler what he wanted - a ban on the Communists and Socialists taking part in future election campaigns.

On 7th April 1933, Nazi officials were put in charge of all local government in the provinces.

On May 2nd 1933, trades unions were abolished, their funds taken and their leaders put in prison.

On July 14th 1933, a law was passed making it illegal to form a new political party. It also made the Nazi Party the only legal political party in Germany.

[Tim Carroll]

I agree with the member who asserted that 9-11 was the historical equivalent of the Reichstag fire.

For example, on 27th February, 1933 the German Reichstag caught fire.

The Riechstag fire is increasingly the appropriate model for what has transpired as a result of 9-11. The roles of the respective governments in the events themselves will most likely remain unresolved, unfortunately.

Tim

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

Re: FISA requests and 9-11

Last Week, when Thom Hartmman was hosting on Air America, I called him with a follow up to a remark he had just made reguarding the history of FISA requests.

What I told him came from a New York Times Article of August 20002. It was exactly in the middle of a very long article about the entire 9-11 investigation, and dealt with various FBI warnings, and their bureaucratic smotherings.

The article claimed that there had been more than 7,300 FISA requests (it gave the exact number) between 1996--just after the process had been modified under Clinton-- and September 11, 2001.

Of these requests a total of one had ever been turned down. The Colleen Rowley (Minn, FBI agent) request to go into the laptop of a known Al Queda Agent.

Though I was able to tell Hartmann of this intesting example of Coincidence Theory, he cut me off on tape delay, so the comment was never heard on the national radio program. Great ground control, Major Thom!

This censorship was difficult to comprehend, as Hartmann himself had raised the topic of the FISA process.

Since then I have heard the FISA record mentioned several times but always in terms of "five requests out of SOMEOTHERNUMBER turned down" . This I find curious.

[Len Colby]

Re: FISA requests and 9-11

Last Week, when Thom Hartmman was hosting on Air America, I called him with a follow up to a remark he had just made reguarding the history of FISA requests.

What I told him came from a New York Times Article of August 20002. It was exactly in the middle of a very long article about the entire 9-11 investigation, and dealt with various FBI warnings, and their bureaucratic smotherings.

The article claimed that there had been more than 7,300 FISA requests (it gave the exact number) between 1996--just after the process had been modified under Clinton-- and September 11, 2001.

Of these requests a total of one had ever been turned down. The Colleen Rowley (Minn, FBI agent) request to go into the laptop of a known Al Queda Agent.

Though I was able to tell Hartmann of this intesting example of Coincidence Theory, he cut me off on tape delay, so the comment was never heard on the national radio program. Great ground control, Major Thom!

This censorship was difficult to comprehend, as Hartmann himself had raised the topic of the FISA process.

Since then I have heard the FISA record mentioned several times but always in terms of "five requests out of SOMEOTHERNUMBER turned down" . This I find curious.

More recent articles cite four warrents that FISA courts turned down. I assume the other three were turned after 9/11. The 7300 number sounds very high to me that would come out to about 3 warrants a day pre- 9/11. Do you have a link to the article?

[Ron Ecker]

Re the Reichstag Fire and 9/11, on October 10, 2001, one month after 9/11, two Israelis were caught in Mexico City in an apparent attempt to bomb the Mexican Congress.

When apprehended inside the congressional palace, retired Israeli Defense Forces colonel Salvador Guersson Smecke and Israeli illegal immigrant Saur Ben Zvi had in their possession nine hand grenades, sticks of dynamite, detonators, wiring and two 9mm "Glock" automatics.

A few days later, the Mexican Department of Justice released both men from custody.

http://www.rense.com/general17/mossadagentsarrested.htm

http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/01/12/Mexico2.html (a confused early account in Diaro de Mexico but with photo)

Edited December 29, 2005 by Ron Ecker

[Robert Howard]

Re the Reichstag Fire and 9/11, on October 10, 2001, one month after 9/11, two Israelis were caught in Mexico City in an apparent attempt to bomb the Mexican Congress.

When apprehended inside the congressional palace, retired Israeli Defense Forces colonel Salvador Guersson Smecke and Israeli illegal immigrant Saur Ben Zvi had in their possession nine hand grenades, sticks of dynamite, detonators, wiring and two 9mm "Glock" automatics.

A few days later, the Mexican Department of Justice released both men from custody.

http://www.rense.com/general17/mossadagentsarrested.htm

http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/01/12/Mexico2.html (a confused early account in Diaro de Mexico but with photo)

When did Rense actually report the story, I looked at the article but could not determine that? At any rate, this is something that needs to hit the American media. I do not believe that given the current stance that the N.Y. Times is taking towards Bush they would not run the story, but I have been wrong before. At any rate the implications are staggering. At the risk of being ridiculed, although the author's premise about 'why this was done' is completely logical, it also makes me wonder if there is more to the 9-11 conspiracy theories than the 'short shrift' that has been made of them for the most part. I mean, the Mossad agents watching the explosions across the Harbor on 9/11/01 really happened didn't it?

Edited December 29, 2005 by Robert Howard

[Ron Ecker]

When did Rense actually report the story, I looked at the article but could not determine that?

His cited source (http://www.kosmos.uni.cc/), which is now a dead link, is dated November 26, 2001, so I assume that Rense reported it soon after that.

the Mossad agents watching the explosions across the Harbor on 9/11/01 really happened didn't it?

As reported by ABC News and other sources, they were 5 young Israeli army veterans, working for an Israeli-owned moving company in New Jersey with little discernible assets. They were arrested for their puzzling behavior (happily videotaping themselves with the burning WTC in the background). One had $4,000 in cash in his sock, another had two passports. They were held for two months on charges of visa violations and working illegally in the U.S., and finally deported. They were believed by many in the U.S. intelligence community to be Israeli intelligence operatives. The owner of the company was questioned after their arrest, but fled to Israel before he could be questioned again.

[Robert Howard]

When did Rense actually report the story, I looked at the article but could not determine that?

His cited source (http://www.kosmos.uni.cc/), which is now a dead link, is dated November 26, 2001, so I assume that Rense reported it soon after that.

the Mossad agents watching the explosions across the Harbor on 9/11/01 really happened didn't it?

As reported by ABC News and other sources, they were 5 young Israeli army veterans, working for an Israeli-owned moving company in New Jersey with little discernible assets. They were arrested for their puzzling behavior (happily videotaping themselves with the burning WTC in the background). One had $4,000 in cash in his sock, another had two passports. They were held for two months on charges of visa violations and working illegally in the U.S., and finally deported. They were believed by many in the U.S. intelligence community to be Israeli intelligence operatives. The owner of the company was questioned after their arrest, but fled to Israel before he could be questioned again.

To Len Colby, here is the story about the list of accomplishments for the Bush Administration 2005 courtesy of Reuters, the Washington Post also carried the story.

http://go.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?ty...toryID=10675007

Sorry for the delay, I have not read this thread for several day's.

What was it Abraham Lincoln said about 'fooling the people'? Was he wrong?

Edited December 29, 2005 by Robert Howard

[Len Colby]

To Len Colby, here is the story about the list of accomplishments for the Bush Administration 2005 courtesy of Reuters, the Washington Post also carried the story.

http://go.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?ty...toryID=10675007

Sorry for the delay, I have not read this thread for several day's.

What was it Abraham Lincoln said about 'fooling the people'? Was he wrong?

The article seemed as balanced as we can expect from mainstream media. I'm sure Republicans would complain that it was an example of "liberal media bias". The theme of the article is that things aren't as rosy as Bush would have us believe

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - By most accounts, it was a tough year for President George W. Bush, marked by a drop in public support for the Iraq war, legislative setbacks on Social Security and arctic oil drilling and a politically disastrous initial response to Hurricane Katrina.

But according to a White House fact sheet, 2005 was a year full of "accomplishments" -- six, single-spaced pages worth distributed to reporters as Bush left town for his holiday break.

The White House list of accomplishments included elections in Iraq, Senate confirmation of John Roberts to the Supreme Court and the first national energy plan in more than a decade. Bush is "advancing his agenda" and passing "legislation important to the American people," the fact sheet declares.

"This has been a year of strong progress toward a freer, more peaceful world and a prosperous America," said Bush, whose approval ratings have improved somewhat in recent days after touching all-time lows in 2005.

Under the headline "The president nominated well-qualified candidates to the U.S. Supreme Court," Bush made no mention of his failed nomination of Harriet Miers, who withdrew under fierce attack from conservatives.

Under the headline "The president is acting to help the Gulf Coast recover from natural disaster," Bush touted more than $70 billion in hurricane-related assistance. Left out was any mention of the slow and bundled federal response to Katrina, which angered many Americans and which Bush himself called appalling.

[Len Colby]

Re the Reichstag Fire and 9/11, on October 10, 2001, one month after 9/11, two Israelis were caught in Mexico City in an apparent attempt to bomb the Mexican Congress.

When apprehended inside the congressional palace, retired Israeli Defense Forces colonel Salvador Guersson Smecke and Israeli illegal immigrant Saur Ben Zvi had in their possession nine hand grenades, sticks of dynamite, detonators, wiring and two 9mm "Glock" automatics.

A few days later, the Mexican Department of Justice released both men from custody.

http://www.rense.com/general17/mossadagentsarrested.htm

http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/01/12/Mexico2.html (a confused early account in Diaro de Mexico but with photo)

Ron both Rense and FPP are anti-Semitic Holocaust denial sites. Hectoe Carreon who wrote the account in Rense is also openly anti-Semitic often writing about the evil doing of the "nefarious Jews". Do you consider these to be reliable news sources? Nothing in the Diario de Mexico front page indicated that they were on a bombing mission. It appears they were working for a security company. The scenario doesn't fit a terrorist attack. They went into a heavily secured compound when it was full of people during the day, they drew attention to themselves by taking photos of the sugar workers, they were handguns on their persons, they had id with their real names etc. One also has to ask why the Mexicans would have released the two so quickly if they though there was any possibility that the men were going to bomb the congress?

Correction & Update on Mexico Arrests

Yesterday, October 13th, Narco News published translations of two articles from the Mexican press about the arrest of two former Israeli military officers in Mexico City. While the translation was accurate, we stated that the information had "not been reported nor refuted by a single U.S. correspondent from wire services or daily newspapers with offices in Mexico."

But according to authentic journalist Ken Layne - www.kenlayne.com - who was, until very recently when he was inexplicably let go from the publication, the best reason to read Online Journalism Review (a web publication of the Annenberg School of Journalism at the University of California), other English-language news organizations did, in fact, publish brief stories after the two Israelis were arrested, and made those stories available to U.S. newspapers.

No news organization likes to issue corrections, but authentic journalism demands corrections, even if errors were innocently made. This is especially true at an hour like this one, when so much of the media is publishing unsubstantiated and soon discredited "official information." We would rather correct our errors at Narco News than try to save face.

Our statement was based on our search of the websites of the English-language news organizations: none of these stories were available to the public on the free websites of the agencies - AP, EFE, AFP, Dow Jones and Notimex - that did cover at least part of this story. But Ken Layne, on his own initiative, utilizing the paid service of Dow Jones, not available gratis to the general public, has learned that the story was at least mentioned by these organizations and was, in fact, made available to English-language newspapers.

Layne writes, "the Dow Jones database shows five English-language wire reports on Oct. 11 (two from EFE News Service, and one each from Dow Jones, AP, and Notimex), one on Oct. 12 (BBC), and one today (Agence France-Presse)."

Narco News thus regrets our error in criticizing "all" news organizations, when these five agencies clearly did offer coverage of the story.

Layne summarizes those wire reports on his web site: "The wire stories say the men work for a Mexican company called Private Security Systems Development; that the company's lawyer says the men (both former members of Israel's military; one a naturalized Mexican citizen) have permits for their pistols; that the men were outside the House of Representatives and on their way to a meeting to try to sell their company's security services... the "nine grenades" was a novelty cigarette lighter; that the "sugar industry" workers were a bunch of farmers having a Sit-In outside the government building; that said sugar farmers were annoyed by the men taking photos of the area, which would be necessary if they were selling private security services to officials who worked there; and that the "bomb" consisted of some cables in a briefcase one of the men carried."

Layne also states that: "The most telling detail in this story comes from a BBC translation of a Notimex report: 'The arrest of the two individuals, one who said he was Mexican and the other Israeli, provoked a huge police mobilization this Wednesday (10 October) at the Congressional headquarters, known as the San Lazaro Palace.'"

http://www.narconews.com/mexicancapitol1.html

Edited December 30, 2005 by Len Colby

[Ron Ecker]

Ron both Rense and FPP are anti-Semitic Holocaust denial sites. Hectoe Carreon who wrote the account in Rense is also openly anti-Semitic often writing about the evil doing of the "nefarious Jews". Do you consider these to be reliable news sources?

Rense.com and websites like it are sources for stories that the corporate media will not cover. In this respect, whether Rense or others are Holocaust deniers or serial child molesters or whatever is irrelevant to what information they are able to provide. You have to go where you have to go to get information, and decide then how truthful or reliable it appears to be. I blame this situation on the corporate media and not on the Renses of the world.

You say that "openly anti-Semitic" Carreon wrote the account, which is false. It was written by Ernesto Cienfuegos. Maybe he hates Jews too, I have no idea, but that doesn't change the fact is that two Israelis were arrested in the Mexican Congress. Should Cienfuegos have disqualified himself from writing about it, citing his anti-Semitic bias?

You quote at length a Narco News article that appears to debunk Rense et al., but does it? (Is Narco News more "reliable" than Rense et al.? I've never heard of it, which is why I ask.) Narco News and/or Ken Layne talk about who the Israelis worked for, that they weren't carrying the kind of stuff they were accused of carrying, etc. Where did this information come from? Why didn't the Mexican government provide this information, to clear all this up, if what Narco News/Layne says is true? Here is my rough translation of the statement issued by the Mexican Dept of Justice (Procurator General of the Republic) two days after the arrests. Phrases I'm unsure of in my unfluent Spanish are in parentheses. Notice that the statement says nothing at all about what these two men were carrying, except that one had a permit to carry a gun. We aren't told if he also had a permit to carry dynamite, or if he was carrying any. The statement refers to penal code articles without telling us what they're about. The men were questioned for two days, Smeck was released, the other guy turned over on apparent immigration matters, so why aren't we told the story of what really happened in the Mexican Congress? The government statement reads like nothing but government spin and noninformation. The story of what really happened, as far as I can tell, remains unresolved to this day.

"The PGR Reports on the Situation regarding the Subjects Detained in the Chamber of Deputies

"With respect to the situation of the two subjects detained this past Wednesday (in the environs) of the San Lazaro Legislative Palace, the Procurator General of the Republic reports that the Israeli citizen Saer Ben-Zvi or Saar Noam Ben Zvi was placed for disposition with the (First Court of District A of the Federal Penal Processes in the Federal District), while the Mexican Salvador Gersson Smeck was ordered freed (with reservations of the law), given that no elements were found for his (consignment).

"(In virtue of the fact) that when detained Gersson Smeck was carrying a 9mm weapon, he remained at liberty (with reservations of the law) and showed the Secretary of National Defense a permit to carry a firearm.

"The Israeli Ben Zvi was confined in the North Varonil Reclusorio, pending resolution of his judicial situation, probably responsible to the commission of crimes of violation of the General Population Law, provided and sanctioned by articles 123 and 143 of the General Population Law, all in accord with 6 and 7, (section) 1, 8, 9 and 13, (Section) II of the Federal Penal Code, with which the corresponding penal process was initiated."

One also has to ask why the Mexicans would have released the two so quickly if they though there was any possibility that the men were going to bomb the congress?

Obviously they would have released them at the urging of the U.S. and Israeli governments. By analogy, do you believe that the Bush regime had nothing to do with the pardons by the Panamian government for Posada Carriles and other Cuban terrorist darlings of the U.S. government (all of whom except Posada arrived in Miami just in time for a Bush campaign rally)?

Edited December 30, 2005 by Ron Ecker

[Len Colby]

Ron both Rense and FPP are anti-Semitic Holocaust denial sites. Hectoe Carreon who wrote the account in Rense is also openly anti-Semitic often writing about the evil doing of the "nefarious Jews". Do you consider these to be reliable news sources?

Rense.com and websites like it are sources for stories that the corporate media will not cover. In this respect, whether Rense or others are Holocaust deniers or serial child molesters or whatever is irrelevant to what information they are able to provide. You have to go where you have to go to get information, and decide then how truthful or reliable it appears to be. I blame this situation on the corporate media and not on the Renses of the world.

You say that "openly anti-Semitic" Carreon wrote the account, which is false. It was written by Ernesto Cienfuegos. Maybe he hates Jews too, I have no idea, but that doesn't change the fact is that two Israelis were arrested in the Mexican Congress. Should Cienfuegos have disqualified himself from writing about it, citing his anti-Semitic bias?

But the 'spin' that they were on a bombing mission came from them not the Mexican newspapers whose articles did not indicate this. I did err in attributing the Rense story to Carreon but Cienfuegos works for his "La Voz del Altazan" website so I imagine he shares his boss' views. I don't know if being anti-Semitic should disqualify him from writing a factual account of the story but it does make his conclusions suspect. Imagine a black man is arrested on the campus of a predominantly white women's college for carring a gun. Wouldn't a story claiming he was there to rape would be suspect if it were published in a paper run by a Klansman? The only basis for your conclusion that they were their to bomb came from suspect sources.

Also there are many alternative news sites not run by racists.

You quote at length a Narco News article that appears to debunk Rense et al., but does it? (Is Narco News more "reliable" than Rense et al.? I've never heard of it, which is why I ask.) Narco News and/or Ken Layne talk about who the Israelis worked for, that they weren't carrying the kind of stuff they were accused of carrying, etc. Where did this information come from? Why didn't the Mexican government provide this information, to clear all this up, if what Narco News/Layne says is true? Here is my rough translation of the statement issued by the Mexican Dept of Justice (Procurator General of the Republic) two days after the arrests. Phrases I'm unsure of in my unfluent Spanish are in parentheses. Notice that the statement says nothing at all about what these two men were carrying, except that one had a permit to carry a gun. We aren't told if he also had a permit to carry dynamite, or if he was carrying any. The statement refers to penal code articles without telling us what they're about. The men were questioned for two days, Smeck was released, the other guy turned over on apparent immigration matters, so why aren't we told the story of what really happened in the Mexican Congress? The government statement reads like nothing but government spin and noninformation. The story of what really happened, as far as I can tell, remains unresolved to this day.

I don't know if the story is unsolved, if Layne accurately quoted the wire reports and they were truthful the episode has been explained. It's probable that this story got wider coverage in Mexico. There is no indication the men were there to bomb the congress and their behavior seems to indicate otherwise. Why would Mossad agents on bombing mission draw attention to themselves by taking photos of the sugar workers? Why would they be carrying IDs with their real names? Why would they be carrying not very well concealed guns? Why would they be on the grounds of the Congress when it was full of people? This better fits the security consultant scenario than the bomber one.

As for why the prosecutors press release was so brief I have no idea maybe that's the way whoever is in charge prefers it. Press releases are frequently short on detail. It could be they wanted to down play the story because government allies were contracting the services of a foreign security company something that would probably upset nationalist tendencies in Mexico (this would definitely not go over well in Brazil). They also might not have thought it necessary to repeat details that were widely reported in the press. I don't know if you need a permit to carry dynamite in Mexico.

Narco News is a lefty anti-establishment site endorsed by Gary Webb and Cynthia McKinney. They were one of the first sites in the US to cover the story in fact they were the ones who translated the Mexican news articles cited by Rense, they denounced Posada as a terrorist and CIA operative. They don't seem like a likely source of pro-Bush or Israeli spin, they wouldn't have reported the story in the first place if they were.

One also has to ask why the Mexicans would have released the two so quickly if they though there was any possibility that the men were going to bomb the congress?

Obviously they would have released them at the urging of the U.S. and Israeli governments. By analogy, do you believe that the Bush regime had nothing to do with the pardons by the Panamanian government for Posada Carriles and other Cuban terrorist darlings of the U.S. government (all of whom except Posada arrived in Miami just in time for a Bush campaign rally)?

The Posada case was hardly analogous. He and the others were accused of trying to kill Castro not blow up the Panamanian congress building. The Panamanian president was no fan of Castro so it wouldn't take much to convince her to let them go. I don't even know how strong the case was.

I can't believe that if it appeared these men were going to bomb the congress they would have been let go. Even if the Fox Government could have been pressured to relese them the opposition parties would have raised a stink. Nor do I believe it would have been tenable for Fox to simply let them go

[Ron Ecker]

There is no indication the men were there to bomb the congress and their behavior seems to indicate otherwise. Why would Mossad agents on bombing mission draw attention to themselves by taking photos of the sugar workers?

If they were carrying dynamite, detonators, etc. as reported, that would certainly indicate they were there to bomb the place. If they were there as consultants just to show this stuff to somebody, who were they going to show it to? Wouldn't that be relevant info in determining why they were there? As for taking photos, first we were told that the sugar workers became suspicious because these two men were photographing the place. Then we are told they were photographing the workers themselves, which of course doesn't make any sense.

Why would they be carrying IDs with their real names?

Perhaps they didn't intend to get caught. Most criminals intend to get away. Perhaps they also knew that if caught, they were safe, as it turned out they were.

Why would they be carrying not very well concealed guns? Why would they be on the grounds of the Congress when it was full of people? This better fits the security consultant scenario than the bomber one.

It doesn't fit the consultant scenario because we don't know who they were supposedly consulting. As to how well concealed their weapons were, or being there when the place was full of people, their behavior may seem arrogant or foolish, but no more so than the British agents who were recently caught in Basra with explosives and dressed as Arabs, and opened fire when Iraqis dared to stop them. The British army then busted them out of jail. Do you suppose that those Brits were simply on their way to consult with someone, or were they rather on their way to contribute to the "insurgency" and got careless? We'll never know, because the story was killed, just like the story in Mexico was killed.

I can't believe that if it appeared these men were going to bomb the congress they would have been let go.

Why not? The U.S. government was apparently complicit in the slaughter of some 3,000 U.S. citizens on 9/11, and no one in the government has even been arrested for it. What could the Mexicans possibly do to top that?

Edited December 30, 2005 by Ron Ecker

[Ron Ecker]

Anyone who has an old copy of "1984" to spare, send it to the Oakland Tribune. They need 537 copies for a worthwhile cause (and have written an excellent editorial):

http://www.insidebayarea.com/oaklandtribune/oped/ci_3337465

[Robert Howard]

Anyone who has an old copy of "1984" to spare, send it to the Oakland Tribune. They need 537 copies for a worthwhile cause (and have written an excellent editorial):

http://www.insidebayarea.com/oaklandtribune/oped/ci_3337465

I sent a link to the Rense article to Andersen Cooper of CNN and mentioned that the story never seemed to get any attention in the USA, I also referenced the pathetic situation regarding the US Media coverage of 'unpopular stories, (as in unpopular to the current administration) and added that I hoped he wouldnt be part of the crowd. I don't expect anything to come of it, but I gave it a shot. My reasoning was that he certainly appeared to be the only major media person adequately covering the Katrina debacle.