A Slip-Up in the Propaganda War

Maybe now is a good time for an update as to how the war for the 'hearts and minds' of Iraqis is going.

From CNN:

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- The U.S. military on Sunday said it was looking into how virtually identical quotations ended up in two of its news releases about different insurgent attacks.

Following a car bombing in Baghdad on Sunday, the U.S. military issued a statement with a quotation attributed to an unidentified Iraqi that was virtually identical to a quote reacting to an attack on July 13.

After questioning by news media, the military released the statement without the quotation.

Lt. Col. Clifford Kent, spokesman for the U.S. Army's 3rd Infantry Division, said use of the quote was an "administrative error." He said the military was looking into the matter.

*snip*

Following are the two quotes as provided by the U.S. military in news releases:

Sunday's news release said: "'The terrorists are attacking the infrastructure, the ISF and all of Iraq. They are enemies of humanity without religion or any sort of ethics. They have attacked my community today and I will now take the fight to the terrorists,' said one Iraqi man who preferred not to be identified."

The July 13 news release said: "'The terrorists are attacking the infrastructure, the children and all of Iraq,' said one Iraqi man who preferred not to be identified. 'They are enemies of humanity without religion or any sort of ethics. They have attacked my community today and I will now take the fight to the terrorists.'"

Please keep this bizarre 'administrative error' in mind the next time you read a story, dutifully reported by CNN or others, where the U.S. military claims to have killed x many 'insurgents' in an attack, or how various 'Iraqis who preferred not to be identified' are supportive of the war.

In this occupation, the U.S. military is in almost complete control of the information supply; as you can see, that calls for a healthy dose of skepticism.

Those Geneva Convention Rules Serve a Purpose After All!

I'm not a sentimental person by nature, but gosh if the following Associated Press story (via Newsday.com) didn't bring tears of joy to my eyes. The U.S. government, doing an about-face in order to selflessly protect the feelings of the very prisoners they once thought so little of that they tortured. How heartwarming!

ACLU Blames Gov't for Abu Ghraib Delay

By LARRY NEUMEISTER, Associated Press Writer

Fri Jul 22,10:36 PM ET

The American Civil Liberties Union accused the government Friday of putting another legal roadblock in the way of its bid to allow the public to see photographs and videos stemming from the Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal.

The ACLU said sealed documents the government filed Friday in U.S. District Court in Manhattan will be used to argue that dozens of photographs cannot be released because they would result in a safety threat to individuals.

"We obviously express skepticism about the latest move on the government's part to withhold information the public is clearly entitled to," said Amrit Singh, a staff attorney with the ACLU.

The government raised its new challenge to releasing pictures and videos from Abu Ghraib prison on the same day it was supposed to show the exhibits to a judge presiding over the case, the ACLU said.

Sean H. Lane, the government lawyer handling the case, referred questions to Herbert Haddad, a spokesman for U.S. Attorney David Kelley.

Haddad said the government did file papers in the case under seal, and he said he would not discuss their contents for that reason.Singh said the delay by the government ould be challenged in court by the ACLU, which filed a lawsuit in October 2003 seeking information on the treatment of detainees in U.S. custody and the transfer of prisoners to countries known to use torture. The ACLU contends that prisoner abuse is systemic.

Lane has argued that releasing pictures, even in redacted form, would violate Geneva Convention rules on prisoner treatment by subjecting detainees to additional humiliation or embarrassment.

Emphases mine.

Sarcasm aside, I am in awe at the impudence of the Bush administration. Those clowns have, at every turn, sought ways to sidestep the Geneva Convention rules on prisoner treatment because their intention all along has been to not follow them. It is a remarkable display of cheekiness that they now plead safety behind the same rules they have repeatedly betrayed, and will continue to betray. Amazing.

Light Blogging Continues...

I have been swamped with activities for the past week, both work-related and not.

The short-term picture (i.e. this week's outlook) isn't too much better, but I'll make a strong effort to post something before Thursday. When I do have the time I plan to write a glut of posts, including a few more Quicky Film Reviews, a blurb about (& pictures of) my hike up Vancouver's Mount Seymour, some more commentary about the Rovian antics which persist at the White House, and a few other odds & ends. I even plan to introduce a brand new, recurring, By and Large feature, entitled "Canadian Content".

So please come back later in the week, at which time I'll have hopefully given you something new to read!

White House Spin Zone Attacked

Have you ever seen a White House press briefing (or excerpts of such a briefing)? A gaggle of administration-friendly reporters, perhaps a few unfriendly scribes, and sometimes even an administration plant, sit around, pens, notepads and recording devices in hand, while the White House Press Secretary lobs spin at them. Questions are posed, Words are offered in return.

Well at today's press briefing, the normally subservient press corps went at Press Secretary Scott McClelland like a pack of rabid dogs. What set them off? The Karl Rove controversy did, FINALLY.

In 2002, Joseph Wilson, former U.S. ambassador to Gabon, was sent to Niger to investigate whether Iraq had purchased weapons-suitable yellowcake. From Wikipedia,

Wilson achieved wide notoriety due to his involvement in the verification of intelligence regarding Iraq. In 2002 he was sent to Niger to investigate the possibility that uranium-enriched yellowcake had been sold to Iraq. Wilson concluded that since yellowcake mining is managed by an international consortium and supervised by the International Atomic Energy Agency, this was unlikely (Wilson, 2003).

Controversy ensued when the British government issued a white paper asserting an imminent threat from Iraq, on the basis of intelligence that later proved to be a forgery. In his 2003 State of the Union Address, President Bush referred to attempts by Iraq to acquire uranium from Africa. The Bush Administration explicitly affirmed (Fleischer, 2003) this was based on a reference to Niger, but the later Butler Report confirmed the existence of what they found to be credible intelligence that Iraq was attempting to acquire uranium from Niger, see Yellowcake Forgery, and less certain intelligence that Iraq was attempting to acquire uranium from the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Wilson criticized the President over the Niger claims, and shortly thereafter an anonymous source leaked the fact that his wife, Valerie Plame, was a covert CIA operative to columnist Robert Novak. Wilson accused the Bush administration of attempting to discredit and intimidate him. The U.S. Congress has set up an inquiry to determine who was involved with the leak, headed by U.S. Attorney Patrick J. Fitzgerald.

The 'inquiry' is tantamount to a criminal investigation, and Karl Rove is the subject of the investigation.

Imagine if you will, the media's reaction to a Democrat administration leaking the name of a CIA operative - do you think the words "treason," "national security," and "traitor" would come up? You bet they would. Yet even though Rove was identified days ago as being the treasonous traitor who jeopardized U.S. national security, I barely noticed a peep about it coming from the mainstream U.S. media. Yahoo posted an AP story or two, and Michael Isikoff wrote a story for the much-maligned Newsweek's July 18 issue, but CNN, USA Today and others appeared to have chosen silence over news. Until today.

From Editor & Publisher:

NEW YORK At numerous press briefings last week, not a single reporter asked White House Press Secretary about emerging allegations that top presidential aide Karl Rove was a source, or the source, for Time magazine's Matthew Cooper in the Valerie Plame case. Then on Sunday, Newsweek revealed a Cooper e-mail from July 2003 that showed that Rove indeed had talked to him about Plame and her CIA employment, although he apparently did not mention that she worked under cover.

This development apparently freed the journalists to hit McClellan hard at this afternoon's briefing. In September and October 2003, McClellan had rejected as "ridiculous" any suggestion that Rove was involved in the Plame leak. Today, Rove didn't quite get off "Scott free."

Here is a full transcript of the Rove-related queries today.

Below, I present to you Scott McClelland's clinic in 'evasive maneuvering'. It is truly inspiring to watch a man, absolutely pinned down and with nowhere to run, find the strength to completely avoid telling the truth. And this, in the face of a typically docile media turned hostile. Heads will roll.

I debated not including the entire transcript of Rove-related Q&As, but ultimately decided that the full text was entertaining enough to display, unedited. Since McClelland repeats himself so often, it really doesn't take long to read through. If you prefer to watch, you can find the video here or here.

Q: Does the president stand by his pledge to fire anyone involved in a leak of the name of a CIA operative?

MCCLELLAN: I appreciate your question. I think your question is being asked related to some reports that are in reference to an ongoing criminal investigation. The criminal investigation that you reference is something that continues at this point.

And as I’ve previously stated, while that investigation is ongoing, the White House is not going to comment on it.

The president directed the White House to cooperate fully with the investigation. And as part of cooperating fully with the investigation, we made a decision that we weren’t going to comment on it while it is ongoing.

Q: I actually wasn’t talking about any investigation. But in June of 2004, the president said that he would fire anybody who was involved in this leak to the press about information. I just wanted to know: Is that still his position?

MCCLELLAN: Yes, but this question is coming up in the context of this ongoing investigation, and that’s why I said that our policy continues to be that we’re not going to get into commenting on an ongoing criminal investigation from this podium.

The prosecutors overseeing the investigation had expressed a preference to us that one way to help the investigation is not to be commenting on it from this podium....

Q: Scott, if I could point out: Contradictory to that statement, on September 29th of 2003, while the investigation was ongoing, you clearly commented on it. You were the first one to have said that if anybody from the White House was involved, they would be fired. And then, on June 10th of 2004, at Sea Island Plantation, in the midst of this investigation, when the president made his comments that, yes, he would fire anybody from the White House who was involved. So why have you commented on this during the process of the investigation in the past, but now you’ve suddenly drawn a curtain around it under the statement of, 'We’re not going to comment on an ongoing investigation'?

MCCLELLAN: Again, John, I appreciate the question. I know you want to get to the bottom of this. No one wants to get to the bottom of it more than the president of the United States. And I think the way to be most helpful is to not get into commenting on it while it is an ongoing investigation. And that’s something that the people overseeing the investigation have expressed a preference that we follow.

And that’s why we’re continuing to follow that approach and that policy. Now, I remember very well what was previously said. And, at some point, I will be glad to talk about it, but not until after the investigation is complete.

Q: So could I just ask: When did you change your mind to say that it was OK to comment during the course of an investigation before, but now it’s not?

MCCLELLAN: Well, I think maybe you missed what I was saying in reference to Terry’s question at the beginning. There came a point, when the investigation got under way, when those overseeing the investigation asked that it would be — or said that it would be their preference that we not get into discussing it while it is ongoing.

I think that’s the way to be most helpful to help them advance the investigation and get to the bottom of it.

Q: Scott, can I ask you this: Did Karl Rove commit a crime?

MCCLELLAN: Again, David, this is a question relating to a ongoing investigation, and you have my response related to the investigation. And I don't think you should read anything into it other than: We're going to continue not to comment on it while it's ongoing.

Q: Do you stand by your statement from the fall of 2003, when you were asked specifically about Karl and Elliot Abrams and Scooter Libby, and you said, "I've gone to each of those gentlemen, and they have told me they are not involved in this"?

MCCLELLAN: And if you will recall, I said that, as part of helping the investigators move forward on the investigation, we're not going to get into commenting on it. That was something I stated back near that time as well.

Q: Scott, this is ridiculous. The notion that you're going to stand before us, after having commented with that level of detail, and tell people watching this that somehow you've decided not to talk. You've got a public record out there. Do you stand by your remarks from that podium or not?

MCCLELLAN: I'm well aware, like you, of what was previously said. And I will be glad to talk about it at the appropriate time. The appropriate time is when the investigation...

Q: (inaudible) when it's appropriate and when it's inappropriate?

MCCLELLAN: If you'll let me finish.

Q: No, you're not finishing. You're not saying anything. You stood at that podium and said that Karl Rove was not involved. And now we find out that he spoke about Joseph Wilson's wife. So don't you owe the American public a fuller explanation. Was he involved or was he not? Because contrary to what you told the American people, he did indeed talk about his wife, didn't he?

MCCLELLAN: There will be a time to talk about this, but now is not the time to talk about it.

Q: Do you think people will accept that, what you're saying today?

MCCLELLAN: Again, I've responded to the question.

QUESTION: You're in a bad spot here, Scott... because after the investigation began -- after the criminal investigation was under way -- you said, October 10th, 2003, "I spoke with those individuals, Rove, Abrams and Libby. As I pointed out, those individuals assured me they were not involved in this," from that podium. That's after the criminal investigation began.

Now that Rove has essentially been caught red-handed peddling this information, all of a sudden you have respect for the sanctity of the criminal investigation?

MCCLELLAN: No, that's not a correct characterization. And I think you are well aware of that.....

And we want to be helpful so that they can get to the bottom of this. Because no one wants to get to the bottom of it more than the president of the United States.

I am well aware of what was said previously. I remember well what was said previously. And at some point I look forward to talking about it. But until the investigation is complete, I'm just not going to do that.

Q: So you're now saying that after you cleared Rove and the others from that podium, then the prosecutors asked you not to speak anymore and since then you haven't.

MCCLELLAN: Again, you're continuing to ask questions relating to an ongoing criminal investigation and I'm just not going to respond to them.

Q: When did they ask you to stop commenting on it, Scott? Can you pin down a date?

MCCLELLAN: Back in that time period.

Q: Well, then the president commented on it nine months later. So was he not following the White House plan?

MCCLELLAN: I appreciate your questions. You can keep asking them, but you have my response.

Q: Well, we are going to keep asking them. When did the president learn that Karl Rove had had a conversation with a news reporter about the involvement of Joseph Wilson's wife in the decision to send him to Africa?

MCCLELLAN: I've responded to the questions.

Q: When did the president learn that Karl Rove had been...

MCCLELLAN: I've responded to your questions.

Q: After the investigation is completed, will you then be consistent with your word and the president's word that anybody who was involved will be let go?

MCCLELLAN: Again, after the investigation is complete, I will be glad to talk about it at that point.

Q: Can you walk us through why, given the fact that Rove's lawyer has spoken publicly about this, it is inconsistent with the investigation, that it compromises the investigation to talk about the involvement of Karl Rove, the deputy chief of staff, here?

MCCLELLAN: Well, those overseeing the investigation expressed a preference to us that we not get into commenting on the investigation while it's ongoing. And that was what they requested of the White House. And so I think in order to be helpful to that investigation, we are following their direction.

Q: Does the president continue to have confidence in Mr. Rove?

MCCLELLAN: Again, these are all questions coming up in the context of an ongoing criminal investigation. And you've heard my response on this.

Q: So you're not going to respond as to whether or not the president has confidence in his deputy chief of staff?

MCCLELLAN: You're asking this question in the context of an ongoing investigation, and I would not read anything into it other then I'm simply going to comment on an ongoing investigation.

Q: Has there been any change, or is there a plan for Mr. Rove's portfolio to be altered in any way?

MCCLELLAN: Again, you have my response to these questions....

***

Q: There’s a difference between commenting publicly on an action and taking action in response to it. Newsweek put out a story, an e-mail saying that Karl Rove passed national security information on to a reporter that outed a CIA officer. Now, are you saying that the president is not taking any action in response to that? Because I presume that the prosecutor did not ask you not to take action and that if he did you still would not necessarily abide by that; that the president is free to respond to news reports, regardless of whether there’s an investigation or not.

So are you saying that he’s not going to do anything about this until the investigation is fully over and done with?

MCCLELLAN: Well, I think the president has previously spoken to this.

This continues to be an ongoing criminal investigation. No one wants to get to the bottom of it more than the president of the United States. And we’re just not going to have more to say on it until that investigation is complete.

***

Q: When the leak investigation is completed, does the president believe it might be important for his credibility, the credibility of the White House, to release all the information voluntarily that was submitted as part of the investigation, so the American public could see what transpired inside the White House at the time?

MCCLELLAN: This is an investigation being overseen by a special prosecutor. And I think those are questions best directed to the special prosecutor.

Q: Have you or the White House considered whether that would be optimal to release as much information and make it as open…

MCCLELLAN: It’s the same type of question. You’re asking me to comment on an ongoing investigation and I’m not going to do that.

Q: I’d like you to talk about the communications strategies just a little bit there.

MCCLELLAN: Understood. The president directed the White House to cooperate fully with the investigation, and that’s what he expects people in the White House to do.

Q: And he would like to do that when it is concluded, cooperate fully with…

MCCLELLAN: Again, I’ve already responded.

Q: Scott, who in the investigation made this request of the White House not to comment further about the investigation? Was it Mr. Fitzgerald? Did he make a request of you specifically?

MCCLELLAN: You can direct those questions to the special prosecutors. I think probably more than one individual who’s involved in overseeing the investigation had expressed a preference that we not get into commenting on the investigation while it’s ongoing.

Sometimes, surprisingly, what isn't said is more informative than what is said. In those terms, McClelland pretty much said it all.

Fox News Reaction to the London Attacks

I sympathize with Declan - I am also uncomfortable commenting on a tragedy in the immediate aftermath. As the wise blogger points out, rather than argument and debate,

what is needed in these cases (after direct action to minimize the damage, of course) are wise statements of principles and resolve.

Well I'm not qualified to make such statements, so I instead opt for quiet observation and contemplation.

News organizations don't have the luxury of thoughtful, respectful silence, however. Too bad, because when forced to report, an outfit like Fox News can't help but expose their unique brand of ugly, even as bodies are still being pulled from the wreckage.

Courtesy of Media Matters for America, here are some horribly insensitive snippets of commentary from Fox News hosts and reporters, reacting to the London bombings:

Fox News host Brian Kilmeade stated that the attack near the G8 summit "works to ... the Western world's advantage, for people to experience something like this together." From Fox News' July 7 breaking news coverage between 8 and 9 a.m. ET:

KILMEADE: And he [British Prime Minister Tony Blair] made the statement, clearly shaken, but clearly determined. This is his second address in the last hour. First to the people of London, and now at the G8 summit, where their topic Number 1 --believe it or not-- was global warming, the second was African aid. And that was the first time since 9-11 when they should know, and they do know now, that terrorism should be Number 1. But it's important for them all to be together. I think that works to our advantage, in the Western world's advantage, for people to experience something like this together, just 500 miles from where the attacks have happened.

Kilmeade, a good corporate soldier, gets in a shot against global warming, and also betrays his and his peers' views on the importance of African aid. Furthermore, he can barely contain his glee that the topic of terrorism was about to take top priority at the G8 summit. 50+ dead? 700+ injured? Small price to pay to put terrorism back in the spotlight, right Brian?

Fox News contributing correspondent Simon Marks distinguished between Arabs and "regular" Londoners, in reporting on the scope of the attacks, as the weblog Daily Kos noted. From Fox News' July 7 breaking news coverage between 9 and 10 a.m. ET:

MARKS: It [Edgeware Road] is an area that has a very large Arab population. Surrounding that station, a large number of Middle Eastern restaurants. So, it's a further indication, if in fact these attacks were carried out by Al Qaeda-affiliated cells, that these people are, if necessary, prepared to spill Arab blood in addition to the blood of regular -- of non-Arab people living in London.

Was this just an innocent slip of the tongue? Slip of the tongue, maybe, but not likely an innocent one. Marks, like most Westerners, probably couldn't tell apart Sikh from Persian from Arab from East Indian. But to him, none of the above are "regular" Londoners, just like no such people would be considered "regular" Americans.

Fox News Washington managing editor Brit Hume said that his "first thought," when he "heard there had been this attack" and saw the low futures market was "Hmmm, time to buy." From Fox News' July 7 breaking news coverage between 1 and 2 p.m. ET:

HUME: You know, the market was down. It was down yesterday, and you know, you may have had some bargain-hunting going on. I mean, my first thought when I heard -- just on a personal basis, when I heard there had been this attack and I saw the futures this morning, which were really in the tank, I thought, "Hmmm, time to buy." Others may have thought that as well. But you never know about the markets. But obviously, if the markets had behaved badly, that would obviously add to people's sense of alarm about it. But there has been a lot of reassurance coming, particularly in the way that -- partly in the way the Brits handled all this, but also in the way that officials here handled it. There seems to be no great fear that something like that is going to happen here, although there's no indication that we here had any advance warning.

Yep, business as usual. Mind you I've saved the worst for last:

Fox News host John Gibson stated one day before the attacks that the International Olympic Committee (IOC) "missed a golden opportunity" when it awarded the 2012 Olympic Games to London because if France had been selected to host the games, terrorists would "blow up Paris, and who cares?" Following the London attacks, Gibson reiterated that the IOC should have selected Paris instead of London because the British should "let somebody else be worried about guys with backpack bombs for a while."

From the July 6 broadcast of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly, guest-hosted by Gibson:

GIBSON: By the way, just wanted to tell you people, we missed -- the International Olympic Committee missed a golden opportunity today. If they had picked France, if they had picked France instead of London, to hold the Olympics, it would have been the one time we could look forward to where we didn't worry about terrorism. They'd blow up Paris, and who cares?

From the "My Word" segment of the July 7 edition of Fox News' The Big Story With John Gibson:

GIBSON: The bombings in London: This is why I thought the Brits should let the French have the Olympics -- let somebody else be worried about guys with backpack bombs for a while.

If this isn't proof that Gibson is a vile, disgusting maggot, then I don't know what is. Keep in mind that Gibson is the same fiend who complained feverishly in MacLean's¹ about what he perceives as chronic anti-Americanism in Canada, and one week later we find him campaigning for the slaughter of innocent French civilians. What a despicable monster. Why is he given such a high-profile pulpit? Who does he speak for?

Fox News: Fair and Balanced.


-----


¹Princess Monkey, guest blogging on Voice in the Wilderness, also references Gibson's harangue in this smart post about the 'manufactured crisis' of Canadian anti-Americanism.

Sounds like a well thought out plan...

A 30-yr old American woman tattooed a gambling website's address on her forehead after selling the advertising space on eBay.

For $10,000, Kari Smith has gone ahead and had her forehead tattooed with the Web address of a gambling site.

Smith, 30, who sold her unusual advertising space on eBay, said the money will give her 11-year-old son a private education, which she believes he needs after falling behind in school.

"For the all the sacrifices everyone makes, this is a very small one," she said. "It's a small sacrifice to build a better future for my son," she said. "To everyone else, it seems like a stupid thing to do. To me, $10,000 is like $1 million. I only live once, and I'm doing it for my son," she said.

I can appreciate that there are some desperate people out there; no money, want a better life for their children, etc. Furthermore, self-sacrifice is usually the noblest of endeavors. But was this really the solution? This 30-year old woman will probably be wearing the 'Scarlet Lettering of Stupidity' for the rest of her life, all because she thinks that private education is the answer to her son's problems? No offense, but if son is at all like mother, then there probably isn't much hope for the lad anyway.

Oh, if you think I'm being too mean, consider that the winning $10,000 bid came in quite late. She had only raised $999.99 prior to that! One wonders what she would have done had nobody met her price - would she have sold out for less?

Bidding reached $999.99 before Goldenpalace.com, an Internet gambling company in the Mohawk Territory of Kahnawake, Canada, met Smith's $10,000 asking price.

Poor Kari Smith - hopefully she'll eventually think of a way to raise enough money to cover her entire body in tattoos so that this one isn't as noticeable!

HAPPY CANADA DAY!

United States Government Retains Control Over "The Internets"

The United States Government has departed from previously stated policy, and will retain complete oversight of the main computers that control traffic on the Internet. They had previously intended to eventually, officially, pass the responsibility to ICANN, a private, non-profit, U.S.-based, international company, once certain conditions were met.

Michael D. Gallagher, assistant secretary for communications and information at the Commerce Department, shied away from terming the declaration a reversal, calling it instead "the foundation of U.S. policy going forward."

"The signals and words and intentions and policies need to be clear so all of us benefiting in the world from the Internet and in the U.S. economy can have confidence there will be continued stewardship," Gallagher said in an interview with The Associated Press.

He said the declaration, officially made in a four-paragraph statement posted online, was in response to growing security threats and increased reliance on the Internet globally for communications and commerce.

I can appreciate that nothing has really changed for now; the U.S. Commerce Department was already in control of these mysterious machines, holding veto power over ICAAN, the company performing the day-to-day operations. Isn't it interesting though, that with an increased GLOBAL reliance on the Internet's communications and commerce capabilities, the U.S. Government would act to keep control in U.S. hands, away from global influence (or at least a semblance thereof)?

Well maybe it's not so bad - what do these computers (and ICANN) do anyway?

The computers in question serve as the Internet's master directories and tell Web browsers and e-mail programs how to direct traffic. Internet users around the world interact with them every day, likely without knowing it. Policy decisions could at a stroke make all Web sites ending in a specific suffix essentially unreachable.

Though the computers themselves -- 13 in all, known as "root" servers -- are in private hands, they contain government-approved lists of the 260 or so Internet suffixes, such as ".com."

From ICANN:

ICANN is responsible for coordinating the management of the technical elements of the DNS to ensure universal resolvability so that all users of the Internet can find all valid addresses. It does this by overseeing the distribution of unique technical identifiers used in the Internet's operations, and delegation of Top-Level Domain names (such as .com, .info, etc.).

These computers have complete control over what the global population can and can't access on the internets, and ICANN operates to ensure universal access to valid addresses. No biggie!

All sarcasm aside, this announcement doesn't really seem to change the day-to-day operations of oversight of the internet, so I'm not going to jump to conclusions and assume that the next time some poor German lad goes surfing for supermodels he'll get directed, say, here instead. Or that when some Arab family in the middle east tries to find out how to immigrate to the U.S. they get sent here instead. But something seems fishy. Could there be political reasons behind the announcement?

The announcement comes just weeks before a U.N. panel is to release a report on Internet governance, addressing such issues as oversight of the root servers, ahead of November's U.N. World Summit on the Information Society in Tunisia (WSIS).

Some countries have pressed to move oversight to an international body, such as the U.N. International Telecommunication Union, although the U.S. government has historically had that role because it funded much of the Internet's early development.

Ambassador David Gross, the U.S. coordinator for international communications and information policy at the State Department, insisted that Thursday's announcement was unrelated to those discussions.

But he said other countries should see the move as positive because "uncertainty is not something that we think is in the United States' interest or the world's interest."

Sound familiar? The U.S. Government is, for some reason, thumbing its nose at the wishes of other countries, all the while claiming that the world's interest is, or should be, in line with its own. In addition, the Americans have completely undermined a U.N. panel's upcoming report on Internet Governance.

Indeed, angering allies and undermining the U.N. has become the U.S. government's modus operandi. The question of who should govern the Internet is a controversial one, and mere months before the topic was to be discussed in a global forum, the U.S. retreats into full "you're either with us or against us" mode, all in the name of 'security.' Contrast that attitude with the official Welcome Statement by President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali of Tunisia, host of Phase II of the upcoming, aforementioned WSIS:

The World Summit on the Information Society, proposed by Tunisia in 1998, is the first major event of the new millennium and constitutes a historic opportunity for the international community to agree on a common vision of the Information Society and to develop an approach for action aimed at bridging the digital divide and allowing the advent of an Information Society that is balanced and accessible to all.

Gosh, well if anybody can bridge a divide and allow for balance and accessibility, it's George W. Bush!