News Focus
News Focus
icon url

goodluck

11/25/03 10:03 PM

#29695 RE: brainlessone #29694

What was it Bush said in London, something like, "I see freedom of expression is alive and well in GB, now Iraqis have freedom of speech too"?

Maybe that doesn't apply to some Arab broadcasters who aren't fond of the US.

Iraq Council Accused of Censorship After TV Ban

The closure of Al Arabiya's office follows earlier sanctions against the channel and Al Jazeera -- both of which have broadcast messages attributed to Saddam -- under a Governing Council decree banning incitement to violence.

Those messages, like tapes purported to be the voice or image of Osama bin Laden (news - web sites), have also been broadcast by Western media outlets. But no action has been taken against Western media, sparking accusations of discrimination against Arab channels that Washington accuses of siding with Saddam.


By Joseph Logan

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - By gagging a gadfly Arab TV news channel, Iraq (news - web sites)'s U.S.-backed administration risks looking more like the regime of Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) that America ousted than the democratic government Washington says it wants to install, media groups said on Tuesday.

Iraqi police raided and shut down the Baghdad offices of Dubai-based Al Arabiya on Monday, shortly after the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council said it would take legal action against the channel for inciting violence by running an audio tape purportedly recorded by Saddam.


The raid on Al Arabiya, a channel Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld denounced last week as "violently anti-coalition," drew accusations from fellow media organizations and journalists' unions that free speech was being curtailed where Washington promises to let it flourish.


"It only reflects negatively on the Governing Council and the U.S. administration in Iraq because at the end of the day, closing a channel flies in the face of the principles that America claims to stand for and to want to import to Iraq," said an official at Al Jazeera, a competitor Arabic-language satellite news channel and itself a target of U.S. ire.


"These tapes are news, part of the puzzle that people need to be aware of, and it's incumbent on the media to report that."


Rumsfeld, taking questions from journalists in Washington, agreed that the U.S. military in Iraq had gathered "compelling evidence" showing that either Al Jazeera or Al Arabiya or both was cooperating with insurgents.


"The answer is 'yes'," he said. "I have seen scraps of information over a sustained period of time that need to be looked at in a responsible orderly way. And I am not in a position to make a final judgment on it, as I indicated earlier."


"I opined accurately that from time to time those stations (Al Arabiya and Al Jazeera) have found themselves in very close proximity to things that were happening against coalition forces before the event happened and during the event.


"There are only so many events in the country and there is a relatively finite number of their people. So how it happens is for time to tell."


The International Federation of Journalists said the Council's ban on Al Arabiya was "playing into the hands of the enemies of democracy by imposing the sort of censorship that was a hallmark of Saddam Hussein's odious regime."


"This sort of thing will only encourage more rumor, speculation and uncertainty within a community already fearful about the future," IFJ Secretary General Aidan White said.


CHARGES OF DISCRIMINATION


The closure of Al Arabiya's office follows earlier sanctions against the channel and Al Jazeera -- both of which have broadcast messages attributed to Saddam -- under a Governing Council decree banning incitement to violence.


Those messages, like tapes purported to be the voice or image of Osama bin Laden (news - web sites), have also been broadcast by Western media outlets. But no action has been taken against Western media, sparking accusations of discrimination against Arab channels that Washington accuses of siding with Saddam.


"We have run this stuff, as we did with bin Laden tapes, on its merits as a tape purportedly from Saddam Hussein," BBC foreign editor Jonathan Baker told Reuters.


"It appears that the Governing Council has identified certain broadcasters to punish for something everyone has done."

Many Iraqis rely on Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya for news. But others accuse the two channels of being biased toward Saddam.

"They got what they deserved, they shouldn't have broadcast these things," said Salim Abdel Wahhab, 55, a security guard in central Baghdad. "They're not interested in democracy either, or they wouldn't side with these people."

Ibrahim al-Khayyat, Baghdad bureau chief of Lebanon's LBC satellite channel, said Arab media channels were not necessarily pro-Saddam but did have an editorial stance on the U.S.-led occupation of Iraq.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20031126/tv_nm/iraq_media_dc_5


icon url

goodluck

11/25/03 10:14 PM

#29698 RE: brainlessone #29694

Medicare post. I don't know why anyone is surprised that AARP backs this bill. The president of AARP since 2001 is a guy who worked as an in-house adman in Nixon's WH, for heavens sake (according to this week's Newsweek). AARP has become a marketing organization more than anything else, with pretensions to being a lobbying organization for seniors.

People are saying that this bill will be good for Bush, that he claim a "victory" of some sort. By the time the real details of the bill come out, it will just be further proof that he is in the pocket of big business, in this case insurance and pharmaceutical companies. There is a reason it doesn't really kick in until 2006, and not in a full-fledged way until 2010 (I think it is 2010, anyway)--they don't want people to really experience it for awhile, they would rather crow about it in the abstract, hold it up as an example of how wonderful they are, then by 2010, when they are out of office but they control the judiciary, boom.

The article that follows is just the tip of the iceberg.

Analysts: Medicare Drug Costs Will Rise

By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Seniors will face annual increases in premiums and deductibles — and a growing gap in coverage — for the prescription drugs they buy under the new Medicare law, budget analysts say.

For example, the $250 annual deductible at the start of the program in 2006 is projected to rise to $445 by 2013.

The legislation that won final congressional approval Tuesday would allow seniors to buy coverage — at an estimated monthly premium of $35 — for their prescription drugs beginning in three years. After they agreed to the monthly premiums and paid their first $250 in pharmacy bills, the coverage would kick in, paying 75 percent of their bills between $250 and $2,250.


After that, there would be no further coverage until beneficiaries' drug bills for the year reached $5,100, leaving a gap of $2,850 that they would have to pay out of their own pockets. Above $5,100 the insurance would pick up roughly 95 percent of costs.


Those are the numbers supporters of the bill have used, with little mention that they would change in future years.


But after just one year, the Congressional Budget Office (news - web sites) projects that seniors would see their $250 deductible and the $2,850 gap for which there is no coverage both jump 10 percent.


By 2013, the eighth year of the program, the deductible and the coverage gap are both projected to grow by 78 percent.


In other words, seniors would pay a $445 deductible and those with the largest drug bills would be entirely responsible for more than $5,000 in drug costs.


"I think these numbers will come as a shock to consumers and they are pretty optimistic projections based on what drug costs are going to do," said Gail Shearer, a health policy analyst at Consumers Union and an opponent of the legislation. She noted the focus has been on 2006, the year the prescription drug benefit begins.


At the same time, CBO said, Medicare's contribution also would rise each year so that the program would pay $1,500 of the first $2,250 in drug costs in 2006 and $2,666 of the first $4,000 in 2013.


Insurance premiums, which are not set in the bill even for 2006, are projected to increase 65 percent to $58 a month by 2013.


The numbers were contained in a CBO analysis provided to Sen. Don Nickles, R-Okla., the Senate Budget Committee chairman, and are posted on the CBO Web site.


The projections reflect the lawmakers' decision to tie the cost of the program to increases in drug costs from inflation, new costly drugs coming on the market and expected increases in drug purchases.


"The numbers inflate with the cost of the program. I think that's a good provision," said Nickles, who voted against the bill.

But David Certner, an official of AARP, said: "One of our complaints has been that this benefit would become more unaffordable over time if pegged to drug costs. This bill does not do enough to hold down drug costs."

The AARP tried but failed to get Congress to include measures to slow the rise of drug prices — including allowing cheaper drugs from Canada and giving Medicare authority to negotiate drug prices. Still, the 35-million-member seniors organization endorsed the bill.

"This is a key issue we'll be coming back to," Certner said.

CBO Director Douglas Holtz-Eakin said there is not even an assurance that the initial monthly premium for the drug benefit will be $35. That number could change by 2006 depending on the many "moving pieces" on which the formula is based, he said.


icon url

jbennett53

11/25/03 11:18 PM

#29704 RE: brainlessone #29694

Why not post some of Yigal's writings? Same hate, same roots. And they want to not only kill each other they want to take everyone with them. This sunday maybe you should take in the services at a snake handling congregation.