“Oh, no, we’re not going to have any casualties.”

Robertson, an ardent Bush supporter, told CNN in an interview Tuesday night that he urged the president to prepare the American people for the prospect of casualties before launching the war in March 2003.

Robertson said Bush told him, ” ‘Oh, no, we’re not going to have any casualties.’ “

More than 1,100 American troops have been killed in Iraq since the invasion, most of them battling an insurgency that followed the overthrow of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.

CNN.com – No casualties? White House disputes Robertson comment: 10/20/2004

It hurts. It just hurts don’t it?

Bush Receives Endorsement From Iran

Historically, Democrats have harmed Iran more than Republicans, said Hasan Rowhani, head of the Supreme National Security Council, Iran’s top security decision-making body.

“We haven’t seen anything good from Democrats,” Rowhani told state-run television in remarks that, for the first time in recent decades, saw Iran openly supporting one U.S. presidential candidate over another.

Though Iran generally does not publicly wade into U.S. presidential politics, it has a history of preferring Republicans over Democrats, who tend to press human rights issues.

“We do not desire to see Democrats take over,” Rowhani said when asked if Iran was supporting Democratic Sen. John Kerry (news – web sites) against Bush.

Yahoo! News – Bush Receives Endorsement From Iran: 10/19/2004

How ironic is that?

Lawmakers request CIA’s 9/11 report

Congressional officials said mounting frustration with the agency prompted the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.), and the ranking Democrat, Jane Harman of California, to send a letter to the CIA two weeks ago directing the agency to deliver the report.

The existence of the letter was first reported by the Los Angeles Times on Tuesday in an opinion column by Robert Scheer. The column quoted Harman as saying, “We believe that the CIA has been told not to distribute the report. We are very concerned.”

Yahoo! News – Lawmakers request CIA’s 9/11 report: 10/20/2004

Sounds explosive. And it figures this would be suppressed until after the election.

Stewart’s re-mastered narrative

When you come down to it, Jon Stewart’s segment on Crossfire was actually sort of lame. He told the hosts that they’re playing into the hands of the politicians and corporations, but he didn’t tell them how. He called them hacks but didn’t explain in what sense. He said they were degrading democracy but not what an alternative might be. When people replay this segment in ten or fifty years, they’ll wonder why it mattered.

Nevertheless, I believe this was a seminal moment in the re-framing of the media. To be precise, the moment came when Stewart refused to be Tucker Carlson’s funny “monkey.” Now who’s the entertainer and who’s the seeker?

Joho the Blog: Stewart’s re-mastered narrative: 10/20/2004

Are you afraid to blog?

Corporate Fear.

Fear of being different. Fear of telling your boss your ideas. Fear of speaking up in meetings. Fear of going up to someone you don’t know and introducing yourself. Fear of doing something that might destroy your career.

Fear of weblogging.

It’s time we get over our fears.

I meet a lot of people around the industry. Almost everytime I meet someone, I ask them “do you have a weblog?” That’s my way of saying “I like you and want to hear more of your ideas.” Even deeper: I want a permanent relationship with you (and not of the sexual kind, either).

I’ve asked this question of people at Apple. Google. IBM. eBay. Real Networks. Cisco. Intel. HP. Amazon. And, yes, here at Microsoft.

Too often the answer is “I couldn’t do that.”

“Why not?” I ask.

“Because I might get fired,” is often the answer. I hate that answer. It’s an example of corporate fear. An artifact of a management system that doesn’t empower its employees to act on behalf of customers.

I find this fear disturbing. Imagine being a flight attendant with this kind of fear. “Sorry, I can’t talk to the passengers in this plane today cause I might get fired.”

Scobleizer: Microsoft Geek Blogger: 10/19/2004

“make content that is worth pointing to”

Sure, you want your readers to read your stuff, and you want your site to be well visited. But if that’s your main goal, you’re missing the – er – point. Editors should not be worried about whether their content can “bring people to our site” – that’s simply not a realistic approach anymore. The goal is to make content that is worth pointing to. If you’re feeding the conversation, as I said in my post, the rest will then follow.

John Battelle’s Searchblog
: 10/20/2004

Sinclair blinks: Advertiser pullouts, boycotts, shareholder action and one hell of a blogger buzz contribute

The new at Sinclair Advertiser Boycott and at Media Matters looks promising.

Instead of showing the original, uncut, anti-Kerry Bush advertisement, they still plan on showing portions of it in a new “documentary”. You can’t blame me for being skeptical. And it looks like Josh Marshall is too.

I’m a Proud member of the reality-based community. Are you?

If so, according to the Bush team, you’re in the minority, and you don’t count.

… Mark McKinnon, a longtime senior media adviser to Bush, who now runs his own consulting firm and helps the president. He started by challenging me. ”You think he’s an idiot, don’t you?” I said, no, I didn’t. ”No, you do, all of you do, up and down the West Coast, the East Coast, a few blocks in southern Manhattan called Wall Street. Let me clue you in. We don’t care. You see, you’re outnumbered 2 to 1 by folks in the big, wide middle of America, busy working people who don’t read The New York Times or Washington Post or The L.A. Times. And you know what they like? They like the way he walks and the way he points, the way he exudes confidence. They have faith in him. And when you attack him for his malaprops, his jumbled syntax, it’s good for us. Because you know what those folks don’t like? They don’t like you!” In this instance, the final ”you,” of course, meant the entire reality-based community.

…The aide said that guys like me were ”in what we call the reality-based community,” which he defined as people who ”believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.” I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ”That’s not the way the world really works anymore,” he continued. ”We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.”

Ron Suskin, New York Times: 10/17/04