portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary global

alternative media | imperialism & war | media criticism

White House Damage Control Rejected Out Of Hand

Well, here's the White House damage control about the Sgrena story: "U.S. Rejects Italy Jounalist's Claims" That's straight from the horse's mouth, none other than Terence Hunt, "AP White House Correspondent."
This "rejects" thing, it leaves a little wiggle room, just in case -- whereas "rejects out of hand" -- now THAT ends the conversation forever. Well, obviously, the corporate press goes to the Source of Truth, the White House, to determine what the truth really is. I mean, you wouldn't want to take it some neutral tribunal (the World Court or whatever) to have to do the "reject" thing. You wouldn't want it to be decided in an Italian court.

Imagine this headline -- "Michael Jackson Rejects Boy's Accusations". Pretty good, no? Except it would really have been great for Michael to have rejected the accusations "out of hand" -- whatever that means. But, poor Michael, all he can do is "deny". That's all any ordinary person can do, really, because the idea that the accused can "reject" the claims, that means that the accused is the judge! And to "reject out of hand" -- that means that the accused is the ultimate judge, God Almighty! I think that Martha Stewart is godly enough (or goddess enough) that she should have rejected out of hand. But poor Martha, even with her millions, all she could do was "deny". And, to the inane American cop-watch viewing public, anyone who has to "deny" must be guilty!

Maybe it could have worked for Kerry. Suppose it could have gone down this way: "A spokesman for John Kerry has rejected the SwiftBoat claims. Noting that it was 'absurd' to think that Kerry had not earned his Silver Star for bravery under fire, the spokesman said that Kerry had promised a full investigation." No, probably not, I guess it wouldn't have worked for Kerry -- you have to be in the White House to have the right to "reject". There's the Catch-22, to get into the White House you need to have the power to reject -- but to have the power to reject, you have to already be in the White House. Unless, maybe, you own the voting machines.

How about we borrow Shakespeare's idea about lawyers and kill all the journalists? Except the real journalists, like Sgrena, working for alternative media. (Maybe Dan Rather got out just in time.)



"U.S. Rejects Italy Journalist's Claims"

White House - AP Mon Mar 7,12:39 PM ET


By TERENCE HUNT, AP White House Correspondent

WASHINGTON - The White House on Monday said it was "absurd" for a former hostage in Iraq to charge that U.S. military forces may have deliberately targeted her car as she was being rushed to freedom.

Responding to Sgrena's statement that the car may have been deliberately targeted, McClellan said. "It's absurd to make any such suggestion, that our men and women in uniform would deliberately target innocent civilians.

"That's just absurd," McClellan repeated.

"And we regret this incident," McClellan added. "We are going to fully investigate what exactly occurred."

"our men in women in uniform" 07.Mar.2005 14:29

U. Sam

A fucking joke. That is what our "men and women in uniform"(and no armor) have become under the "bad apple" tree of Dubya's "hide the caskets" and "mission accomplished" lies.

Deliberate? A deliberate order given from the top maybe, kinda like Rummie and Abu-ghraib, except he tried to resign and georgie won't let him.(he can be used for finger pointing instead)

oh! come on people 07.Mar.2005 17:00

WhiteTrash-watcher

who is their right mind that's that prissy Scott McClellen seriously in first place?

OK! Perhaps those fucking fools that believe every word out of George W. Bush's mouth!

The rest of us that have functioning brains know when we're being lied to/who doing it!

"Absurd" used 3 times 07.Mar.2005 17:45

Pavlov

Notice the word "Absurd" is used three times, in the first three paragraphs.

Repeating something to yourself (or hearing or saying) 3 times is a technique pretty basic technique for learning, autosuggestion or hypnosis.

I guess the AP writer really wanted to make it stick.

Another shill? Or just a statistical improbability (making it an incredibly shoddy piece of writing).

just another mistake..... 07.Mar.2005 22:06

brisa

Oh yeah...like lobbing a tank shell into the Palestine Hotel or sending a cruse missile down the smoke stack of the Al Jazeera headquarters in Afganistan. Information control is essential and murder is part of war.

...it's not unusual 07.Mar.2005 23:26

white trash patriot

....we shoot up people on this stretch regularly. No discrimination. We practice equal opportunity.

"rushed to freedom" 09.Mar.2005 09:16

JR

"...she was being rushed to freedom." suggests that the car was going just a little to fast, in a mad dash to escape the hostage takers, who likely said, "you got one minute to get outta here, see?" Heck, maybe the "mobile checkpoint" was merely defending itself from reckless drivers.

It Was No Accident 10.Mar.2005 02:21

bob

A much more plausible theory than the official story (for those who can think critically):  http://wagnews.blogspot.com/2005/03/sgrena-hit-how-they-did-it-and-why.html

The photo evidence does not hold water 11.Mar.2005 13:38

BaghdadCSI

I'm sorry, but the theory that this car was ambushed from the side just absolutely does not hold water in the light of forensic analysis. Just from these low res photos (if this is in fact the car in question) it is very apparent to anyone with any forensic skill that this vehicle was fired at with small arms fire, fired from a kneeling or prone position from immediately forward or slighthly to the right firing slightly to the right (other damage may be on the other side of the vehicle but we can't see it). I know conspiracy theories, especially if it implicates the current administration are a lot of fun, but we will never make any substantive changes if all we do is engage in this kind of childish sniping at every mistake made by the military. This was the result of some soldiers scared shitless and following orders to take out anyone who did not stop when ordered to.

Sgrena herself said the car was "riddled with bullets" from "a tank", this photo if nothing else should call this claim into question by anyone with common sense. This damage did not come from a 50 cal tank mounted machine gun and from close range as is contended, would have literally disintegrated the windshield and front of the car. Those types of rounds would have passed completely through the the intelligence officer, through Sgrena, and out the back of the car. The intelligence officer stopped a small arms round and not a snipers bullet (which would have likely killed both of them).

Take a look at the photos side by side, first the tire was not penetrated as contended by the article. The bullets skimmed the tires (red arrows show the path of the bullets). This is most apparent by the bulge shown on the back edge of the tire where the rubber "bunched" as it was scraped. There was likely anough damage to flatten the tire, but a direct hit by a bullet (from the side) would be very obvious.

Also it is clear that after hitting the tire it hit the rear wheel well from the front.. The same wheel well that would have prevented this kind of shot hitting the tires from the rear. The same bullet or another shot caused the damage on the opposite side of the rim.

Second notice the dark area immediately below and to the left of the two impact points on the front windshield. That dark area is indicitave of the bullet hitting at a fairly sharp angle from slightly below at a fairly long distance (it it had been close, the bullet would have penetrated the window more cleanly and a visible hole would be visible). This is supported by the elongated shape of the damage to the window growing up and to the right. A full head on shot from someone standing and firing into the window would be more round, and if the angle was from above the elongation of the damage would be downward. As for the driver being targeted, of course this is true, if you are going to stop a vehicle quickly the driver is your targe of choice, even if it only distracts the driver or causes him/her to swerve you are better off. The hollywood crap about shooting at the engine block is just that, crap, unless you are indeed firing a very high caliber weapon. An M-16 will not likely do more than empty the radiator.

Thirdly the contention that the bullet damage on the rear driver's side window was fired from the side is clearly not possible. It is likely another bullet that grazed the side of the car, likely one of the bullets that caused the damage to rearview mirror carried on and glanced off the window (there is no hole - the direct lighting on the window would show a clear dark area indicating a clean hole where a bullet passed through). This is also supported by taking a look at the black, plastic sunscreen that rings the window and is directly below the impact area, it is clearly intact with no hole.

Posting this kind of Rense conspiritorial crap does nothing but provide support to the theory that we are all government conspiracy nuts. Use your brains, think logically and analytically, something "They" don't want you doing, and so far we have cooperated with that wish.

No, Your Official Story Holds No Water 12.Mar.2005 03:25

bob

Sorry BaghdadCOINTELPRO, but your pathetic attempt to bolster the official story absolutely does not hold water in the light of known facts. Go ahead and pretend you're part of the Baghdad CSI team. It's laughable that anyone would believe that from the low res photos you could judge the angle, distance and type of weapons in question. You may think you know conspiracy theories, but it's obvious you have an agenda since you seem to believe incidents of government terror are made up "for fun", and that it's "childish sniping" at every "mistake" made by the military.

So you want us to believe what happened was the result of just "some soldiers scared shitless and following orders to take out anyone who did not stop when ordered to"? Why the curious lack of structural damage to the veheicle that even you pointed out?

It's true that Sgrena herself said the car was "riddled with bullets" from "a tank", but that's only what she thought happened, not necessarily what took place. Imagine you're in car approaching an armored vehicle blocking the road when all of a sudden a few bullets from sniper rifles hit the vehicle while a automatic machine gun fire is going on around you (deliberately missing). Since by then you're probably trying to duck and not looking at who's firing on you, you might assume a machine gun from the vehicle is firing at you.

But had you bothered to actually read this article:  http://wagnews.blogspot.com/2005/03/sgrena-hit-how-they-did-it-and-why.html you would know that they're not claiming any 50 cal. or M16 machine gun fire actually hit the vehicle.
Regarding your contention that shooting the driver would be the best way to stop the vehicle, you again prove the official story was a lie, because evidence indicates the intention was to only slow the car for the marksmen to do their work. Why kill important Italian secret service officers causing needless political havoc when all you want is to silence a single journalist with integrity who might tell the truth to the world (except by accident)?

What you need to do is practice what you preach: use your brains, think logically and analytically, and most of all, I might add, don't believe government/corporate bullshit lies, even if they come from supposed "progressives" like BaghdadCOINTELPRO.

And for those like him that claim to know about conspiracies but in fact have no clue:


Do You Believe In Conspiracies?
By Eric Hufschmid
3-12-5


I often hear people proudly boast, "I don't believe in conspiracy theories", as if they are boasting that they don't have an alcohol problem. There is a widespread attitude that conspiracy theories are a symptom of a paranoid mind. My brother's wife made the wisecrack to me, "Seen any black helicopters lately?"

One reason people dislike conspiracy theories is because they cause fights between the conspiracy theorists and the accused. The people accused of the conspiracy always insist that they are innocent. The fights can become unpleasant and confusing, and that causes a lot of people to avoid getting involved.

Was there a Conspiracy to sell Tobacco?

For example, did executives of tobacco companies conspire to hide information about the dangers of tobacco? Some people say yes, in which case we could describe it as a conspiracy to deceive the American people about the dangers of tobacco. However, the tobacco executives insist they are innocent.

Was there a Conspiracy to Destroy Trains?

For a more complex example, in the 1930's, executives from General Motors, Firestone, and Standard Oil formed a company called the National City Lines which used buses from General Motors, tires from Firestone, and fuel from the Standard Oil company. Some people accuse National City Lines and several other corporations of being part of a conspiracy to destroy the electric trains that were developing in America at that time.

In 1949 our government convicted several of those corporations of violating antitrust laws. However, there is still a dispute over whether they merely violated a few laws, or whether they were part of a conspiracy to destroy the electric trains.

It should be obvious that America's train system is among the worst in the world. The latest trains of Europe and Japan look like something from a science-fiction movie. Some European trains are reaching speeds of 185 miles per hour, and China is experimenting with a train that can go even faster.

Why are American trains so crummy? Is it because of a conspiracy to destroy trains? Or is it because the American people just don't care about trains?

We may never know exactly why our train system is pathetic because the people accused of conspiring to destroy it are certain to insist that there was no conspiracy, even if there was. Every conspiracy theory results in a confusing fight between the people making the accusations and the people insisting that they are innocent.

I think another reason people avoid conspiracy theories is because when they convince themselves that there is no such thing as conspiracies, they don't have to worry about them. When a person refuses to believe in conspiracies, he can ignore the evidence on the grounds that it is paranoid nonsense. He doesn't have to bother reading books or watching videos, nor does he have to think about or discuss how to make a better nation. Refusing to consider conspiracies is taking the easy and irresponsible path in life.

Everybody Believes In Conspiracy Theories

Even though most people ridicule conspiracy theories, almost everybody believes in at least one conspiracy. However, if the majority of people believe in a conspiracy, it is considered a "fact" or a "sensible government policy" rather than a conspiracy.

For example, millions of Americans believe South Americans and Mexicans are making us use drugs. I would refer to this as the "Drug Dealer Conspiracy" because it claims a group of people are conspiring to make us use drugs.

There are so many Americans who believe in the Drug Dealer Conspiracy that our government spends millions of dollars each year trying to arrest the dealers. We also spend money on the spraying of herbicides on drug crops in South America. Many people refer to this as a War On Drugs.

Occasionally policemen, customs agents, and other people die in the process of protecting us from drugs. I would describe their deaths as foolish wastes of life, but most people consider their deaths to be noble sacrifices for the American people.

I would describe the Drug Dealer Conspiracy as a stupid theory because drug dealers cannot make us use drugs. By comparison, the theory that electric trains were destroyed by group of corporate executives is entirely possible because those executives were capable of interfering with the development of trains.

However, since most Americans believe in the Drug Dealer Conspiracy, it is not considered a conspiracy, nor is it considered stupid. Rather, it is considered a "sensible government policy to protect Americans from drugs".

I can't help but wonder how ridiculous the situation has to be before the majority of Americans realize how stupid this war on drugs is. For example, what if some South Americans began offering Do-It-Yourself Lobotomy Kits. If millions of Americans were buying these kits, and then giving themselves lobotomies, would you demand we start a War On The Lobotomy Kits? Would you complain that the South American Lobotomy Pushers are destroying the American people?

If a policeman died in the process of trying to stop the Lobotomy Pushers, would you describe his death as a great sacrifice to the American people? Or would you say he was a fool who threw his life away?

The American Conquest Conspiracy

For another example, millions of people believe our government is controlled by a small group of people. Republicans, for example, believe that the government is controlled by small group of liberals, and their solution to the problem is to elect more Republicans. Liberals, on the other hand, believe the government is controlled by small group of Republicans.

Some people complain that the government is controlled by "The Special Interests", the "Lobbyists", the Military Establishment, "Political Action Committees", Bilderbergs, Zionists, Neocons, Fascists, or Nazis.

I would refer to this as the "American Conquest Conspiracy" because it claims a group of people are conspiring to take control of America's government.

I agree that a small number of people have a tremendous influence over our government, but this conspiracy theoriy is as stupid as the Drug Dealer Conspiracy because a small group of people cannot control a large majority unless the majority allow themselves to be controlled.

However, since it is so common for Americans to blame our crummy government on small groups of people, let me give you an extreme example to show why I consider this conspiracy to be stupid.

Imagine that a few dozen children who live in the Washington D.C. area walk over to the capitol and demand that the government provide free candy to all children. The next day the President Bush passes legislation to increase taxes to purchase and distribute candy to children all over America. As you watched adults distribute candy to children, would you complain that the U.S. government is controlled by a few children? Or would you realize that the American voters are jerks who have elected so many lunatics that our government follows the orders of children?

Now imagine a small group of adults goes to Washington D.C. and asks for some legislation that harms the nation but benefits those few adults. The next day the President Bush passes the legislation they asked for. Would you complain that the U.S. Government is being controlled by a small number of adults?

What's the difference between a group of children telling the U.S. government what to do, and a group of adults telling the U.S. government what to do? In both cases our government is pathetic, and the voters ought to be ashamed of themselves.

A few drug dealers cannot make a nation take drugs. Instead, the people must voluntarily make the decision to use drugs. Likewise, a small group of people cannot control a nation. Instead, the majority of citizens must be so irresponsible and incompetent that they create a government that is easily manipulated.

Some people complain that our government officials are bribed and blackmailed, but how could that be possible unless the voters were electing candidates who could be bribed and blackmailed? Why don't the voters select better candidates?

A nation with a crummy government is vulnerable to abuse by both its own citizens and by foreign nations. And that is exactly what America has. The voters have given us a crummy government, and as a result, Washington D.C. is full of selfish people who are fighting with each other to influence our crummy government.

Complaining about the people who abuse our crummy government is not going to solve our problems. We need a respectable government, and we need respectable voters.

The Helpless Voter Conspiracy

Some people respond to me that we cannot create a respectable government because the elections are controlled by a mysterious group of evil people. These evil people forced us to select between Al Gore and George Bush in the 2000 election, and they are forcing us to select between John Kerry and George Bush in the upcoming election.

I am also told that this mystery group alters the votes with electronic touch screens, so it doesn't matter who we vote for. I would refer to this as the "Helpless Voter Conspiracy".

It certainly seems true that a small group of people have selected George Bush and John Kerry to be our presidential candidates, but we could easily tell both candidates to apply for some other job.

What would you think if your friend spent $5,000 on a do-it-yourself lobotomy kit, and when you asked him why, he replied that the South American salesman only gave him two choices; a lobotomy kit, and a suicide kit, and he chose the lesser of the evils.

When a voter complains that he must select between Bush or Kerry, and that he is going to vote for the lesser of the evils, he is behaving in the same stupid manner.

The Helpless Voter Conspiracy is stupid because voters are not helpless. Rather, they are irresponsible, incompetent, and easily manipulated.

The voters can select anybody they want as president. Voters can refuse to vote if they don't like any of the candidates. Voters are even allowed to write a person's name on the ballot. This allows them to elect people who are not on the ballot, such as you or me. And they can throw government leaders out of office whenever they want, even if it is not an election year.

 http://www.erichufschmid.net/Conspiracies_Underdogs_Main.html

Other good sources regarding the definition of conspiracy:
 http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2004/08/coincidence-theorists-guide-to-911.html
 http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0206/S00092.htm
 http://www.oilempire.us/conspiracy.html
 http://www3.sympatico.ca/sr.gowans/selective.html
 http://www.onlinejournal.com/Commentary/011004Hasty/011004hasty.html
 http://www.onlinejournal.com/archive/05-01-01_Binion.pdf
 http://www.onlinejournal.com/Commentary/092404Hasty/092404hasty.html
 http://www.angelfire.com/pa/dilapidatedzine/reid.html
 http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/030402_cornreply.html
 http://www.questionsquestions.net/documents/constantine_corn.htm
 http://www.davidcogswell.com/Political/CornCrusade.html
 http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/wall4.html
 http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0511-04.htm
 http://www.counterpunch.org/weiner0601.html
 http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/PHI211A.html
 http://www.steamshovelpress.com/fromeditor28.html

back under your bridge untrustworthy one~ 12.Mar.2005 21:06

~

That ain't the car. The U.S. said they "lost" the car!

Stupid trolls.

a troll shouldn't call others a troll 13.Mar.2005 14:32

bob

Actually, you meant this wasn't the right car:  http://wagnews.blogspot.com/2005/03/right-wing-bloggers-fake-sgrena-car.html

And if you actaully believe anything U.S. government tells you at this point you truly are pathetically ignorant and/or naive.