Tuesday, October 30, 2007


When I woke up this morning,
you were on my mind,
but I got out of bed,
dragged a comb across my head,
and read the news today, oh boy.
Here's the headline & lede I saw:
Blackwater Guards Offered Immunity
Officials Say Security Company's Guards Given Legal Protection After Iraqi Civilian Shootings

The State Department promised Blackwater USA bodyguards immunity from prosecution in its investigation of last month's deadly shooting of 17 Iraqi civilians
Then I saw this story:
Blackwater not offered immunity, official says - CNN.com
No immunity deal was offered to Blackwater USA guards for their statements regarding a shootout in Iraq last month that left 17 Iraqi civilians dead, ...
www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/30/blackwater.immunity/index.html?iref=topnews - 6 hours ago
And yet ... and yet ... when you click on the link the headline reads: Officials: Blackwater guards offered limited immunity

So the CNN article disappeared from the time I read it till the time I got home. Now obviously CNN was lied to on their original article, but it brings up the question of why they just didn't correct it instead of making it vanish? (Obviously it's time to have another Blogger Ethics Panel.[/snark])

And it brings up even more questions:
Why won't the media out their 'unnamed sources' when they know they've been lied to?
Why, after 7 years of Bushco manipulating them with lie after lie, do they still collaborate with 'unnamed sources' in the Bush misAdministration who only lie to them?[/naive]

But I digress, here are some of the stories:
Immunity Deals Offered to Blackwater Guards
ABC News Obtains Text of Blackwater Immunity Deal
And my personal favorite, an exchange between the WH spokesliar and the only honest WH beat reporter in DC, Helen Thomas:
Q Dana, why did the Bush administration give immunity to the Blackwater guards, and is the administration going to hold these guys accountable for what transpired?

MS. PERINO: This is what I can tell you: Secretary Rice has made it very clear that she takes the situation very seriously. It is under review. She said that anyone who has engaged in criminal behavior will be prosecuted. I don't have additional detail that I can provide for you, and I'll have to refer you to the State Department and Justice Department for more.

Q Has the President been briefed on this, or what does he think? What is he saying?

MS. PERINO: I do not know if the President has been briefed on it specifically. I can ask.

Q Were they given immunity or weren't they?

MS. PERINO: Helen, as I said, it's a matter that's under review.

Q (Inaudible) tough questions. Why can't you answer them?

MS. PERINO: Because it is a matter that's under review, and I'm going to refer you to the State or the Justice Department for more.

Q What do you mean "under review"? Why don't you say yes or no?

MS. PERINO: The State Department is the one that is looking into this and they are the ones answering questions on it.

Q So the administration hasn't decided whether or not the reports of that are true? You're still looking into whether or not they actually were?

MS. PERINO: I am going to refer you to the State Department on that, who is looking into it.

Q As a general question, how could you both be offered immunity and promised prosecution?
Of course Ms. Thomas never got a straight answer. But at least she asked and pursued the right questions.

Cross posted at VidiotSpeak