I contend that NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg was an enabler for President Bush and his administration to wage war in Iraq. Bloomberg's assignment was to use the full force and ability of the New York Police Department and other "anti-terrorist" City agencies to stifle the effect of the anti-war rallies that were planned in early 2003. Additionally, Bloomberg was charged to marginalize to the greatest extent the anti-RNC protesters in and around the RNC Convention in August and September, 2004.
In today's New York Times, Jim Dwyer reports on parts of the illegal surveillance that Bloomberg unleashed on demonstrators and unlucky passersby.
In effect, the New York Police Department acted as agents provocateurs. (more)
Dwyer's article
http://nytimes.com/... highlights several specific details of the illegal police operations. But the deadly serious war came to pass, and anti-war protesters continued to be marginalized.
I wrote the following letter (excerpted) to Byron Calame, NY Times Public Editor, last month:
(start) At the October 2, 2005 New York Times book fair in
Bryant Park in New York City, Bob Herbert stated his
concern about the paper's coverage of the detention of
protesters by the New York City police during the 2004
Republican Nation Convention.
Mr. Herbert was on a panel chaired by Gail Collins,
and other participants were Paul Krugman and Verlyn
Klinkenborg. None of the panelists contested Mr.
Herbert's comments.
I agree with Mr. Herbert that your paper's coverage of
the events was lacking, and I won't put words in his
mouth, as I believe your cameras and C-SPAN covered
the event.
To me, as a participant in the protests with my wife,
daughter and many friends, what happened in those days
was a serious breech of civil liberties for many
hundreds of New Yorkers. The actions of the Police
Department were shocking to people who had long been
residents. Many of us saw a continuum from the early
2003 suppression of the initial protest of the Iraq
War.
Here are some lingering questions and concerns that I
believe I should share with the New York Times:
1. Must readers wait until PhD theses and FOIA
requests are played out, and the anti-war suppression
complicity of the Bloomberg Administration and the
Bush Administration is exposed in five years?
2. You mentioned in your last column (11/6/2005) the
advertising connection and the paper's responsibility.
Is there a connection between the $26,000,000 tax
break for construction of the Times's new building and
aggressive reporting on Mr. Bloomberg? Can The Times
be as reportorially aggressive with him as he was
physically with the protesters?
3. Can the New York City government release the
overview videos and photos that the police took from
helicopters, vantage points, rooftops, windows and
platforms? Can leaders of the protests or a designated
organization such as the ACLU view the tapes and
photos and give their own estimates of numerical
participation? (The Times did informally report,
unsourced, on a 300,000 number after the 2/15/2003
protests, but two weeks later.)
4. If an employee of the paper publicly discloses lack
of coverage on serious civil liberties encroachment,
in front of the editorial board editor, does the news
staff hear the tree fall?
I trust The Times, and have subscribed for decades.
There is a strange pride that New Yorker's have about
the paper - you represent us to the world, you help us
make sense of some things, you are in our house.
Do you know what I mean? (end)
In response, I received an email that the Times had received my email.
My plea to The Times is the same plea that I made to this list: why are so many supposedly smart people not seeing the true nature, the all-encompassing aspect of this war and its proponents? DailyKos is supposed to have overarching principles about supporters of the war, but why are we so compromising to politicians such as Bloomberg?