McCain Bill Is Lethal Injection For Internet FreedomPaul Joseph Watson | Prison Planet | Friday, December 15, 2006
Exploits fear of sexual predators and basic misunderstanding of Internet to attack blogs critical of the warmongering agenda he fronts for
Republican Senator John McCain has introduced legislation that would fine blogs up to $300,000 for offensive statements, photos and videos posted by visitors on comment boards, effectively nixing the open exchange of ideas on the Internet, providing a lethal injection for unrestrained opinion, and acting as the latest attack tool to chill freedom of speech on the world wide web.
McCain's proposal, called the "Stop the Online Exploitation of Our Children Act," encourages informants to shop website owners to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, who then pass the information on to the relevant police authorities.
Comment boards for specific articles are extremely popular and also notoriously hard to moderate. Popular articles often receive comments that run into the thousands over the course of time. In many cases, individuals hostile to the writer's argument deliberately leave obscene comments and images simply to sully the reputation of the website owners. Therefore under the terms of this bill, right-wing extremists from a website like Free Republic could effectively terminate a liberal leaning website like Raw Story by the act of posting a single photograph of a naked child. This precedent could be the kiss of death for blogs as we know them and its reverberations would negatively impact the entire Internet.
Under the banner of saving the children from sexual predators, McCain is obviously on a mission to stamp out the influence of the burgeoning blogosphere and its increasing hostility to the warmongering agenda that he fronts for. ...
Saturday, December 16, 2006
Thursday, November 16, 2006
troubling that NBC and The CW would refuse to accept an otherwise appropriate ad merely because it is critical of President Bush."
October, 27 - 7:21 AM | NBC refuses ads for Dixie Chicks movie
Washington.– In an ironic twist of events, NBC and the CW Television Network efuse to air ads for a documentary focusing on freedom of speech.
NBC Claims that the Network “cannot accept these spots as they are disparaging to President Bush.”
The CW Television Network that the Network Does “Not have Appropriate Programming in which to Schedule this Spot”
NBC and The CW Television Network have taken a stand against the Dixie’s Chicks new documentary “Shut Up & Sing” a behind-the-scenes look at the incredible political and media fallout that occurred in 2003 after the Dixie Chicks lead singer Natalie Maines said that she was "ashamed the president of the United States is from Texas."
“Shut Up & Sing” opens in theaters in NY and Los Angeles on Friday and in theaters nationwide on November 10th.
NBC responded to a clearance report submitted by the Weinstein Company’s media agency saying that the network “cannot accept these spots as they are disparaging to President Bush.”
The CW Television Network responded that it does “not have appropriate programming in which to schedule this spot.”
Famed litigator David Boies stated, “It is disappointing and troubling that NBC and The CW would refuse to accept an otherwise appropriate ad merely because it is critical of President Bush." ...
Washington.– In an ironic twist of events, NBC and the CW Television Network efuse to air ads for a documentary focusing on freedom of speech.
NBC Claims that the Network “cannot accept these spots as they are disparaging to President Bush.”
The CW Television Network that the Network Does “Not have Appropriate Programming in which to Schedule this Spot”
NBC and The CW Television Network have taken a stand against the Dixie’s Chicks new documentary “Shut Up & Sing” a behind-the-scenes look at the incredible political and media fallout that occurred in 2003 after the Dixie Chicks lead singer Natalie Maines said that she was "ashamed the president of the United States is from Texas."
“Shut Up & Sing” opens in theaters in NY and Los Angeles on Friday and in theaters nationwide on November 10th.
NBC responded to a clearance report submitted by the Weinstein Company’s media agency saying that the network “cannot accept these spots as they are disparaging to President Bush.”
The CW Television Network responded that it does “not have appropriate programming in which to schedule this spot.”
Famed litigator David Boies stated, “It is disappointing and troubling that NBC and The CW would refuse to accept an otherwise appropriate ad merely because it is critical of President Bush." ...
U.S. Seeks Silence on CIA Prisons: Court Is Asked to Bar Detainees From Talking About Interrogations
U.S. Seeks Silence on CIA Prisons | Court Is Asked to Bar Detainees From Talking About Interrogations | By Carol D. Leonnig and Eric Rich | Washington Post Staff Writers | Saturday, November 4, 2006; Page A01
The Bush administration has told a federal judge that terrorism suspects held in secret CIA prisons should not be allowed to reveal details of the "alternative interrogation methods" that their captors used to get them to talk.
The government says in new court filings that those interrogation methods are now among the nation's most sensitive national security secrets and that their release -- even to the detainees' own attorneys -- "could reasonably be expected to cause extremely grave damage." Terrorists could use the information to train in counter-interrogation techniques and foil government efforts to elicit information about their methods and plots, according to government documents submitted to U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton on Oct. 26. ...
The Bush administration has told a federal judge that terrorism suspects held in secret CIA prisons should not be allowed to reveal details of the "alternative interrogation methods" that their captors used to get them to talk.
The government says in new court filings that those interrogation methods are now among the nation's most sensitive national security secrets and that their release -- even to the detainees' own attorneys -- "could reasonably be expected to cause extremely grave damage." Terrorists could use the information to train in counter-interrogation techniques and foil government efforts to elicit information about their methods and plots, according to government documents submitted to U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton on Oct. 26. ...
U.S. Seeks Silence on CIA Prisons: Court Is Asked to Bar Detainees From Talking About Interrogations
U.S. Seeks Silence on CIA Prisons | Court Is Asked to Bar Detainees From Talking About Interrogations | By Carol D. Leonnig and Eric Rich | Washington Post Staff Writers | Saturday, November 4, 2006; Page A01
The Bush administration has told a federal judge that terrorism suspects held in secret CIA prisons should not be allowed to reveal details of the "alternative interrogation methods" that their captors used to get them to talk.
The government says in new court filings that those interrogation methods are now among the nation's most sensitive national security secrets and that their release -- even to the detainees' own attorneys -- "could reasonably be expected to cause extremely grave damage." Terrorists could use the information to train in counter-interrogation techniques and foil government efforts to elicit information about their methods and plots, according to government documents submitted to U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton on Oct. 26. ...
The Bush administration has told a federal judge that terrorism suspects held in secret CIA prisons should not be allowed to reveal details of the "alternative interrogation methods" that their captors used to get them to talk.
The government says in new court filings that those interrogation methods are now among the nation's most sensitive national security secrets and that their release -- even to the detainees' own attorneys -- "could reasonably be expected to cause extremely grave damage." Terrorists could use the information to train in counter-interrogation techniques and foil government efforts to elicit information about their methods and plots, according to government documents submitted to U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton on Oct. 26. ...
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
GOP senator reacts to poll showing Bush down: lashed back at the newspaper, yanking its credentials to cover Burns' election night event
MT-SEN: Burns Campaign Punishes Newspaper For Writing About Poll | By Greg Sargent | bio
The campaign of GOP Senator Conrad Burns had a curious reaction to a local paper's decision to write an article about a poll showing Burns down: It lashed back at the newspaper, yanking its credentials to cover Burns' election night event. Making matters even stranger, the paper, the Great Falls Tribune, hadn't even comissioned the poll. It was done by U.S.A. Today and found Dem Jon Tester leading Burns 50%-41%. The paper simply wrote a story about it. But a Burns spokesman defended the punishment: ""Running a bogus poll on the day before an election to try and suppress Republican voter turnout is irresponsible," he said. More after the jump.
The campaign of GOP Senator Conrad Burns had a curious reaction to a local paper's decision to write an article about a poll showing Burns down: It lashed back at the newspaper, yanking its credentials to cover Burns' election night event. Making matters even stranger, the paper, the Great Falls Tribune, hadn't even comissioned the poll. It was done by U.S.A. Today and found Dem Jon Tester leading Burns 50%-41%. The paper simply wrote a story about it. But a Burns spokesman defended the punishment: ""Running a bogus poll on the day before an election to try and suppress Republican voter turnout is irresponsible," he said. More after the jump.
Saturday, October 28, 2006
... bill denies us the right to evaluate the merits of ideas and arguments for ourselves by banning "political" or "anti-religious" speech from class
Thought Police in the Lecture Hall
By Asheesh Kapur Siddique | Saturday, October 28, 2006; Page A15
Universities are the bulwark of democratic societies -- places where individuals with diverse viewpoints come together to learn and to produce new knowledge for addressing social concerns, free of ideological interference. But these centers of freedom are under attack from people who want to inject partisan politics into our classrooms.
Led by activist David Horowitz, some conservatives are pushing for the adoption of an "Academic Bill of Rights" (ABOR) across America. The bill takes the form of student resolutions or legislative proposals claiming to protect the academic freedom of college students from ideological indoctrination by professors.
...
The College Access and Opportunity Act, passed by the House in March and under consideration in the Senate, aims to deny federal funding to institutions -- even private ones -- that refuse to comply with ABOR's limitations on speech.
In truth, these efforts only hurt the students they purport to help. Horowitz and his backers aren't protecting our rights; they're impeding our educations. The Academic Bill of Rights would substitute political correctness for the free exchange of ideas on campus by preventing faculty and students from discussing fresh or controversial ideas in class. It would restrict what professors can teach and what students can learn.
This exchange between teachers and pupils lies at the heart of liberal education. But ABOR's backers argue that professors presenting new ideas might "indoctrinate" or offend students. Their bill denies us the right to evaluate the merits of ideas and arguments for ourselves by banning "political" or "anti-religious" speech from classrooms. ...
Press Feedom: Although it ranked 17th on the first list, published in 2002, the United States now stands at 53, .. deteriorated after Bush actions
U.S. Rank on Press Freedom Slides Lower
By Nora Boustany | Washington Post Foreign Service | Tuesday, October 24, 2006; A15
Some poor countries, such as Mauritania and Haiti, improved their record in a global press freedom index this year, while France, the United States and Japan slipped further down the scale of 168 countries rated, the group Reporters Without Borders said yesterday.
...
Northern European countries top the index, with no reported censorship, threats, intimidation or physical reprisals, either by officials or the public, in Finland, Ireland, Iceland and the Netherlands. All of those countries were ranked in first place.
Serious threats against the artists and publishers of the Muhammad cartoons, which caricatured the prophet of Islam, caused Denmark, which was also in first place last year, to drop to 19th place. Yemen, at 149th place, slipped four places, mostly because of the arrests of journalists and the closure of newspapers that reprinted the cartoons. Journalists in Algeria, Jordan, Indonesia and India were harassed because of the cartoons as well.
Although it ranked 17th on the first list, published in 2002, the United States now stands at 53, having fallen nine places since last year.
"Relations between the media and the Bush administration sharply deteriorated after the president used the pretext of 'national security' to regard as suspicious any journalist who questioned his 'war on terrorism,' " the group said.
"The zeal of federal courts which, unlike those in 33 U.S. states, refuse to recognize the media's right not to reveal its sources, even threatens journalists whose investigations have no connection at all with terrorism," the group said. ...
Saturday, October 14, 2006
Documents Reveal Scope of U.S. Database on Antiwar Protests
Documents Reveal Scope of U.S. Database on Antiwar Protests | By ERIC LICHTBLAU
Published: October 13, 2006
WASHINGTON, Oct. 12 — Internal military documents released Thursday provided new details about the Defense Department’s collection of information on demonstrations nationwide last year by students, Quakers and others opposed to the Iraq war.
The documents, obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union under a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, show, for instance, that military officials labeled as “potential terrorist activity” events like a “Stop the War Now” rally in Akron, Ohio, in March 2005.
The Defense Department acknowledged last year that its analysts had maintained records on war protests in an internal database past the 90 days its guidelines allowed, and even after it was determined there was no threat.
A department spokesman said Thursday that the “questionable data collection” had led to a tightening of military procedures to ensure that only information relevant to terrorism and other threats was collected. The spokesman, Maj. Patrick Ryder, said in response to the release of the documents that the department “views with great concern any potential violation” of the policy.
“There is nothing more important or integral to the effectiveness of the U.S. military than the trust and good will of the American people,” Major Ryder said.
A document first disclosed last December by NBC News showed that the military had maintained a database, known as Talon, containing information about more than 1,500 “suspicious incidents” around the country in 2004 and 2005. Dozens of alerts on antiwar meetings and peaceful protests appear to have remained in the database even after analysts had decided that they posed no threat to military bases or personnel.
Some documents obtained by the A.C.L.U. referred to the potential for disruption to military recruiting and the threat posed to military personnel as a result.
An internal report produced in May 2005, for instance, discussed antiwar protests at the University of California, Santa Cruz, and was issued “to clarify why the Students for Peace and Justice represent a potential threat to D.O.D. personnel.” ...
Published: October 13, 2006
WASHINGTON, Oct. 12 — Internal military documents released Thursday provided new details about the Defense Department’s collection of information on demonstrations nationwide last year by students, Quakers and others opposed to the Iraq war.
The documents, obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union under a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, show, for instance, that military officials labeled as “potential terrorist activity” events like a “Stop the War Now” rally in Akron, Ohio, in March 2005.
The Defense Department acknowledged last year that its analysts had maintained records on war protests in an internal database past the 90 days its guidelines allowed, and even after it was determined there was no threat.
A department spokesman said Thursday that the “questionable data collection” had led to a tightening of military procedures to ensure that only information relevant to terrorism and other threats was collected. The spokesman, Maj. Patrick Ryder, said in response to the release of the documents that the department “views with great concern any potential violation” of the policy.
“There is nothing more important or integral to the effectiveness of the U.S. military than the trust and good will of the American people,” Major Ryder said.
A document first disclosed last December by NBC News showed that the military had maintained a database, known as Talon, containing information about more than 1,500 “suspicious incidents” around the country in 2004 and 2005. Dozens of alerts on antiwar meetings and peaceful protests appear to have remained in the database even after analysts had decided that they posed no threat to military bases or personnel.
Some documents obtained by the A.C.L.U. referred to the potential for disruption to military recruiting and the threat posed to military personnel as a result.
An internal report produced in May 2005, for instance, discussed antiwar protests at the University of California, Santa Cruz, and was issued “to clarify why the Students for Peace and Justice represent a potential threat to D.O.D. personnel.” ...
Thursday, October 12, 2006
Two major American Jewish organizations helped block a prominent New York University historian from speaking at the Polish consulate
In N.Y., Sparks Fly Over Israel Criticism | Polish Consulate Says Jewish Groups Called To Oppose Historian | By Michael Powell | Washington Post Staff Writer | Monday, October 9, 2006; Page A03
NEW YORK -- Two major American Jewish organizations helped block a prominent New York University historian from speaking at the Polish consulate here last week, saying the academic was too critical of Israel and American Jewry.
The historian, Tony Judt, is Jewish and directs New York University's Remarque Institute, which promotes the study of Europe. Judt was scheduled to talk Oct. 4 to a nonprofit organization that rents space from the consulate. Judt's subject was the Israel lobby in the United States, and he planned to argue that this lobby has often stifled honest debate.
An hour before Judt was to arrive, the Polish Consul General Krzysztof Kasprzyk canceled the talk. He said the Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Committee had called and he quickly concluded Judt was too controversial.
"The phone calls were very elegant but may be interpreted as exercising a delicate pressure," Kasprzyk said. "That's obvious -- we are adults and our IQs are high enough to understand that."
Judt, who was born and raised in England and lost much of his family in the Holocaust, took strong exception to the cancellation of his speech. He noted that he was forced to cancel another speech later this month at Manhattan College in the Bronx after a different Jewish group had complained. Other prominent academics have described encountering such problems, in some cases more severe, stretching over the past three decades. ...
NEW YORK -- Two major American Jewish organizations helped block a prominent New York University historian from speaking at the Polish consulate here last week, saying the academic was too critical of Israel and American Jewry.
The historian, Tony Judt, is Jewish and directs New York University's Remarque Institute, which promotes the study of Europe. Judt was scheduled to talk Oct. 4 to a nonprofit organization that rents space from the consulate. Judt's subject was the Israel lobby in the United States, and he planned to argue that this lobby has often stifled honest debate.
An hour before Judt was to arrive, the Polish Consul General Krzysztof Kasprzyk canceled the talk. He said the Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Committee had called and he quickly concluded Judt was too controversial.
"The phone calls were very elegant but may be interpreted as exercising a delicate pressure," Kasprzyk said. "That's obvious -- we are adults and our IQs are high enough to understand that."
Judt, who was born and raised in England and lost much of his family in the Holocaust, took strong exception to the cancellation of his speech. He noted that he was forced to cancel another speech later this month at Manhattan College in the Bronx after a different Jewish group had complained. Other prominent academics have described encountering such problems, in some cases more severe, stretching over the past three decades. ...
latest element in a dispute about restrictions on freedom of speech in the US in relation to comments on Israel.
US free speech row grows as author says Jewish complaints stopped launch party | · Row over postscript on Palestinians' plight | · British-born academic claims lectures cancelled | Ed Pilkington in New York | Wednesday October 11, 2006 | The Guardian
The British-based author and former publisher Carmen Callil has become embroiled in a growing dispute over the limits of freedom of speech in America after a party celebrating her new book on Vichy France was cancelled because of the opinion she expresses about the modern state of Israel.
A party in honour of Bad Faith, Callil's account of Louis Darquier, the Vichy official who arranged the deportation of thousands of Jews, was to have taken place at the French embassy in New York last night but was cancelled after the embassy became aware of a paragraph in the postscript of the book. In the postscript Callil says she grew anxious while researching the "helpless terror of the Jews of France" to see "what the Jews of Israel were passing on to the Palestinian people. Like the rest of humanity, the Jews of Israel 'forget' the Palestinians. Everyone forgets."
Article continues
The embassy said the passage had been brought to its attention after a guest declined the invitation because of it. A spokesman denied allegations from Callil, reported by Reuters, that "fundamentalist Jews" had complained and had the party shut down.
The row over Callil's book is the latest element in a dispute about restrictions on freedom of speech in the US in relation to comments on Israel. ...
The British-based author and former publisher Carmen Callil has become embroiled in a growing dispute over the limits of freedom of speech in America after a party celebrating her new book on Vichy France was cancelled because of the opinion she expresses about the modern state of Israel.
A party in honour of Bad Faith, Callil's account of Louis Darquier, the Vichy official who arranged the deportation of thousands of Jews, was to have taken place at the French embassy in New York last night but was cancelled after the embassy became aware of a paragraph in the postscript of the book. In the postscript Callil says she grew anxious while researching the "helpless terror of the Jews of France" to see "what the Jews of Israel were passing on to the Palestinian people. Like the rest of humanity, the Jews of Israel 'forget' the Palestinians. Everyone forgets."
Article continues
The embassy said the passage had been brought to its attention after a guest declined the invitation because of it. A spokesman denied allegations from Callil, reported by Reuters, that "fundamentalist Jews" had complained and had the party shut down.
The row over Callil's book is the latest element in a dispute about restrictions on freedom of speech in the US in relation to comments on Israel. ...
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
arrested after he approached VP Dick Cheney: alleges that Howards was arrested in retaliation for having exercised his First Amendment rights
Man Arrested For Criticizing Cheney Files LawsuitCharlie Brennan, Rocky Mountain News | October 3 2006
A Denver-area man filed a lawsuit today against a member of the Secret Service for causing him to be arrested after he approached Vice President Dick Cheney in Beaver Creek this summer and criticized him for his policies concerning Iraq.
Attorney David Lane said that on June 16, Steve Howards was walking his 7-year-old son to a piano practice, when he saw Cheney surrounded by a group of people in an outdoor mall area, shaking hands and posing for pictures with several people.
According to the lawsuit filed at U.S. District Court in Denver, Howards and his son walked to about two-to-three feet from where Cheney was standing, and said to the vice president, "I think your policies in Iraq are reprehensible," or words to that effect, then walked on.
Ten minutes later, according to Howards' lawsuit, he and his son were walking back through the same area, when they were approached by Secret Service agent Virgil D. "Gus" Reichle Jr., who asked Howards if he had "assaulted" the vice president. Howards denied doing so, but was nonetheless placed in handcuffs and taken to the Eagle County Jail.
The lawsuit states that the Secret Service agent instructed that Howards should be issued a summons for harassment, but that on July 6 the Eagle County District Attorney's Office dismissed all charges against Howards.
The lawsuit filed today alleges that Howards was arrested in retaliation for having exercised his First Amendment right of free speech, and that his arrest violated his Fourth Amendment protection against unlawful seizure. ..
A Denver-area man filed a lawsuit today against a member of the Secret Service for causing him to be arrested after he approached Vice President Dick Cheney in Beaver Creek this summer and criticized him for his policies concerning Iraq.
Attorney David Lane said that on June 16, Steve Howards was walking his 7-year-old son to a piano practice, when he saw Cheney surrounded by a group of people in an outdoor mall area, shaking hands and posing for pictures with several people.
According to the lawsuit filed at U.S. District Court in Denver, Howards and his son walked to about two-to-three feet from where Cheney was standing, and said to the vice president, "I think your policies in Iraq are reprehensible," or words to that effect, then walked on.
Ten minutes later, according to Howards' lawsuit, he and his son were walking back through the same area, when they were approached by Secret Service agent Virgil D. "Gus" Reichle Jr., who asked Howards if he had "assaulted" the vice president. Howards denied doing so, but was nonetheless placed in handcuffs and taken to the Eagle County Jail.
The lawsuit states that the Secret Service agent instructed that Howards should be issued a summons for harassment, but that on July 6 the Eagle County District Attorney's Office dismissed all charges against Howards.
The lawsuit filed today alleges that Howards was arrested in retaliation for having exercised his First Amendment right of free speech, and that his arrest violated his Fourth Amendment protection against unlawful seizure. ..
why the 9/11 Commission report did not mention the July 10, 2001 meeting: Rice Loyalist Headed 9/11 Commission Probes
Monday, 02 October 2006 | Rice Loyalist Headed 9/11 Commission Probes
Bob Woodward's State of Denial provides evidence of the politicization of the 9/11 Commission's investigative process, conclusions, and certain omissions from its report, as well as then national security advisor Condoleezza Rice's likely role in burying unflattering, damning evidence through the appointment of Bush/Rice loyalist Philip Zelikow (PHOTO RIGHT) as the Commissions' chief investigator and Zelikow's reward (perhaps) of a top senior-level position in the State Department, which Rice now heads. First, some background.
One of the burning questions in newspapers, cable TV news, and blogs is why the 9/11 Commission report did not mention the July 10, 2001 meeting called by then-CIA Director George J. Tenet and his counterterrorism chief, J. Cofer Black, with then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice. Tenet and Black hoped to impress on Rice the compelling need to act immediately against bin Laden because there was "a huge volume of data" suggesting strongly that a major attack was imminent.
"But both men came away from the meeting feeling that Ms. Rice had not taken the warnings seriously," writes Woodward.
The July 10 meeting between Tenet, Black and Rice went unmentioned in the various reports of investigations into the Sept. 11 attacks, but it stood out in the minds of Tenet and Black as the starkest warning they had given the White House on bin Laden and al-Qaeda. Though the investigators had access to all the paperwork on the meeting, Black felt there were things the commissions wanted to know about and things they didn't want to know about. (From "Two Months Before 9/11, an Urgent Warning to Rice," the Washington Post's excerpt of Bob Woodward's new book, State of Denial)
Woodward says the 9/11 investigators "had access to all the paperwork on the meeting." But Black suggests that the commissioners didn't want to hear about some the history, so the July 10 meeting got left out of the 9/11 Commission report.
Why? Perhaps it's that the Commission's investigation was politicized, and its investigators beholden to Ms. Rice.
The executive director of the 9/11 Commission was Philip D. Zelikow, a longtime intimate of Ms. Rice. Since February 2005, Zelikow has served with now-Secretary of State Rice in a "Senior Official" position as "Counselor of the United States Department of State."
In March 2004, Democracy Now!'s Amy Goodman interviewed former Senator Max Cleland of Georgia, who served on the 9-11 commission. Goodman began the segment with a background report:
A pair of public interest groups, the 9-11 Family Steering Committee and the 9-11 Citizens Watch have called for the resignation of the Director of the Independent 9-11 Commission, Phillip Zelikow. It turns out that in Richard Clarke's book, he reveals how Zelikow participated in Bush administration briefings on Al Qaeda prior to 9-11 and they're saying that this compromises him, since the mandate of the commission was to investigate the source of failures. It is now apparent why they said there has been so little effort to assign individual culpability. We can now see that trail would lead to the staff Director himself. ...
Bob Woodward's State of Denial provides evidence of the politicization of the 9/11 Commission's investigative process, conclusions, and certain omissions from its report, as well as then national security advisor Condoleezza Rice's likely role in burying unflattering, damning evidence through the appointment of Bush/Rice loyalist Philip Zelikow (PHOTO RIGHT) as the Commissions' chief investigator and Zelikow's reward (perhaps) of a top senior-level position in the State Department, which Rice now heads. First, some background.
One of the burning questions in newspapers, cable TV news, and blogs is why the 9/11 Commission report did not mention the July 10, 2001 meeting called by then-CIA Director George J. Tenet and his counterterrorism chief, J. Cofer Black, with then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice. Tenet and Black hoped to impress on Rice the compelling need to act immediately against bin Laden because there was "a huge volume of data" suggesting strongly that a major attack was imminent.
"But both men came away from the meeting feeling that Ms. Rice had not taken the warnings seriously," writes Woodward.
The July 10 meeting between Tenet, Black and Rice went unmentioned in the various reports of investigations into the Sept. 11 attacks, but it stood out in the minds of Tenet and Black as the starkest warning they had given the White House on bin Laden and al-Qaeda. Though the investigators had access to all the paperwork on the meeting, Black felt there were things the commissions wanted to know about and things they didn't want to know about. (From "Two Months Before 9/11, an Urgent Warning to Rice," the Washington Post's excerpt of Bob Woodward's new book, State of Denial)
Woodward says the 9/11 investigators "had access to all the paperwork on the meeting." But Black suggests that the commissioners didn't want to hear about some the history, so the July 10 meeting got left out of the 9/11 Commission report.
Why? Perhaps it's that the Commission's investigation was politicized, and its investigators beholden to Ms. Rice.
The executive director of the 9/11 Commission was Philip D. Zelikow, a longtime intimate of Ms. Rice. Since February 2005, Zelikow has served with now-Secretary of State Rice in a "Senior Official" position as "Counselor of the United States Department of State."
In March 2004, Democracy Now!'s Amy Goodman interviewed former Senator Max Cleland of Georgia, who served on the 9-11 commission. Goodman began the segment with a background report:
A pair of public interest groups, the 9-11 Family Steering Committee and the 9-11 Citizens Watch have called for the resignation of the Director of the Independent 9-11 Commission, Phillip Zelikow. It turns out that in Richard Clarke's book, he reveals how Zelikow participated in Bush administration briefings on Al Qaeda prior to 9-11 and they're saying that this compromises him, since the mandate of the commission was to investigate the source of failures. It is now apparent why they said there has been so little effort to assign individual culpability. We can now see that trail would lead to the staff Director himself. ...
INCREDIBLE! FOX 'NEWS' LABELS [Republican child emails] FOLEY AS DEM DURING O'REILLY FACTOR!
10/3/2006 6:07PM INCREDIBLE! FOX 'NEWS' LABELS FOLEY AS DEM DURING O'REILLY FACTOR! Three Different Video Cutaways, 15 Seconds or More Each, Credit Disgraced REPUBLICAN Congressman as Being a Florida DEMOCRAT!
Just amazing. Fox's O'Reilly Factor just covered the Mark Foley (R-FL) issue in two different segments, one of them with a page who says he received communications from Foley, and another with Ann Coulter.
Never mind the content of either segment for now. Incredibly during a total of three different cutaways to video footage of Foley, he was labelled at the bottom of the screen eachtime as "(D-FL)" !
Three different times. In two different segements. Each cutaway about 15 seconds or more. Showing Foley as a DEMOCRAT. Amazing. ...
Just amazing. Fox's O'Reilly Factor just covered the Mark Foley (R-FL) issue in two different segments, one of them with a page who says he received communications from Foley, and another with Ann Coulter.
Never mind the content of either segment for now. Incredibly during a total of three different cutaways to video footage of Foley, he was labelled at the bottom of the screen eachtime as "(D-FL)" !
Three different times. In two different segements. Each cutaway about 15 seconds or more. Showing Foley as a DEMOCRAT. Amazing. ...
Monday, September 18, 2006
Maher Not "Free" To Speak On CBS ... provided with a list of 'approved' topics
Bill Maher Not "Free" To Speak On CBS Sat, Spe 16, 2006
Before Katie Couric debuted on the CBS Evening News, Drudge said Bill Maher was one of the upcoming participants for the new "freeSpeech" segment. But he hasn't appeared yet, and now we apparently know why.
"On Friday's Real Time on HBO, Maher explained that CBS approached him to do a 'freeSpeech' segment on the new Evening News. He asked if he could talk about religion but was rejected and told that he would be provided with a list of 'approved' topics," an e-mailer says. A second e-mailer asks: "Was he 'free' to express his views as long as he did not touch religion?..."
Before Katie Couric debuted on the CBS Evening News, Drudge said Bill Maher was one of the upcoming participants for the new "freeSpeech" segment. But he hasn't appeared yet, and now we apparently know why.
"On Friday's Real Time on HBO, Maher explained that CBS approached him to do a 'freeSpeech' segment on the new Evening News. He asked if he could talk about religion but was rejected and told that he would be provided with a list of 'approved' topics," an e-mailer says. A second e-mailer asks: "Was he 'free' to express his views as long as he did not touch religion?..."
[Second] Secret Study Surfaces at FCC --- being buried at the agency for at least two years
Second Secret Study Surfaces at FCC | READ MORE: Investigations | Here we go again.
Another Federal Communications Commission study on the negative impacts of media consolidation came to light Monday after being buried at the agency for at least two years -- the second suppressed FCC ownership study to surface in as many weeks.
It's clear that FCC's top brass are willing to deep-six any research that contradicts the media industry's pro-consolidation claims.
Another Federal Communications Commission study on the negative impacts of media consolidation came to light Monday after being buried at the agency for at least two years -- the second suppressed FCC ownership study to surface in as many weeks.
It's clear that FCC's top brass are willing to deep-six any research that contradicts the media industry's pro-consolidation claims.
FCC senior managers ordered "every last piece" of the study destroyed ... turned out to undermine [then-FCC chair Michael Powell's] argument
FCC Destroyed Media Ownership Report | Study found local ownership means more local news |
9/15/06
A 2004 Federal Communications Commission study that showed locally owned television stations provide more local news than others was ordered destroyed by FCC officials, and only came to light this week when a copy was leaked to Sen. Barbara Boxer (D.-Calif.).
Three years ago, then-FCC chair Michael Powell launched a proceeding on the effects of local ownership on television news as part of his drive to further deregulate media and allow for even greater consolidation. But the report commissioned under Powell turned out to undermine his argument that consolidation has no ill effects on local news, and, according to former FCC lawyer Adam Candeub, senior managers ordered "every last piece" of the study destroyed (AP, 9/14/06). On September 12, Senator Boxer, armed with the leaked report, questioned current FCC Chair Kevin Martin about it at his renomination hearing.
According to the report, locally owned stations in fact deliver nearly six minutes more of total news and almost five-and-a-half more minutes of local news in a 30-minute newscast than stations with non-local owners. This adds up to 33 more hours of local news a year--a remarkable figure, and a damning one for big media's allies in the FCC, who are required to protect the public interest and to promote localism. ...
9/15/06
A 2004 Federal Communications Commission study that showed locally owned television stations provide more local news than others was ordered destroyed by FCC officials, and only came to light this week when a copy was leaked to Sen. Barbara Boxer (D.-Calif.).
Three years ago, then-FCC chair Michael Powell launched a proceeding on the effects of local ownership on television news as part of his drive to further deregulate media and allow for even greater consolidation. But the report commissioned under Powell turned out to undermine his argument that consolidation has no ill effects on local news, and, according to former FCC lawyer Adam Candeub, senior managers ordered "every last piece" of the study destroyed (AP, 9/14/06). On September 12, Senator Boxer, armed with the leaked report, questioned current FCC Chair Kevin Martin about it at his renomination hearing.
According to the report, locally owned stations in fact deliver nearly six minutes more of total news and almost five-and-a-half more minutes of local news in a 30-minute newscast than stations with non-local owners. This adds up to 33 more hours of local news a year--a remarkable figure, and a damning one for big media's allies in the FCC, who are required to protect the public interest and to promote localism. ...
Easy as ABC ... deliberately false rendering "Path to 9/11" ... but refused to distribute Fahrenheit 9-11,
Lying About 9/11? Easy as ABC | The Nation | September 14, 2006 (October 2, 2006 issue) | Eric Alterman
You may have heard talk of the TV network that decided to devote hours and hours of its prime-time schedule to a deliberately false rendering of significant historical events in order to flatter the ignorance and ideology of its nation's rulers and mislead its citizens. Yes, it's true. Al Manar, the Hezbollah television network, did recently broadcast in Lebanon a prime-time series based on the notoriously dishonest Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
Here at home another network, ABC, and its parent, Disney, broadcast a prime-time, commercial-free miniseries, The Path to 9/11, also devoted to a deliberately dishonest rendering of history designed to flatter our current rulers.
How did Disney's decision differ from Hezbollah's? It's hard to say. ... It is particularly odd when it turns out to be the very same corporation that decided to forgo hundreds of millions of dollars when it refused to distribute another movie, Fahrenheit 9-11, that took a differing view of this same historical event because, as one of its executives explained, "it's not in the interest of any major corporation to be dragged into a highly charged partisan political battle."
...
... ABC also passed along hundreds of advance screeners to right-wing taste-makers like Limbaugh but refused to allow even the ex-President to have an early look.
You may have heard talk of the TV network that decided to devote hours and hours of its prime-time schedule to a deliberately false rendering of significant historical events in order to flatter the ignorance and ideology of its nation's rulers and mislead its citizens. Yes, it's true. Al Manar, the Hezbollah television network, did recently broadcast in Lebanon a prime-time series based on the notoriously dishonest Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
Here at home another network, ABC, and its parent, Disney, broadcast a prime-time, commercial-free miniseries, The Path to 9/11, also devoted to a deliberately dishonest rendering of history designed to flatter our current rulers.
How did Disney's decision differ from Hezbollah's? It's hard to say. ... It is particularly odd when it turns out to be the very same corporation that decided to forgo hundreds of millions of dollars when it refused to distribute another movie, Fahrenheit 9-11, that took a differing view of this same historical event because, as one of its executives explained, "it's not in the interest of any major corporation to be dragged into a highly charged partisan political battle."
...
... ABC also passed along hundreds of advance screeners to right-wing taste-makers like Limbaugh but refused to allow even the ex-President to have an early look.
What Liberal Media?
Friday, September 15, 2006
U.S. excluded car, suicide bombs from Iraq murder toll ...igures raise serious questions about the success of the security operation launched by US
U.S. excluded car, suicide bombs from Iraq murder toll | POSTED: 7:25 p.m. EDT, September 11, 2006
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -- The U.S. military did not count people killed by bombs, mortars, rockets or other mass attacks when it reported a dramatic drop in the number of murders in the Baghdad area last month, the U.S. command said Monday.
The decision to include only victims of drive-by shootings and those killed by torture and execution, usually at the hands of death squads, allowed U.S. officials to argue that a security crackdown that began in the capital August 7 had more than halved the city's murder rate.
But the types of slayings, including suicide bombings, that the U.S. excluded from the category of "murder" were not made explicit at the time. That led to confusion after Iraqi Health Ministry figures showed that 1,536 people died violently in and around Baghdad in August, nearly the same number as in July.
The figures raise serious questions about the success of the security operation launched by the U.S.-led coalition. When they released the murder rate figures, U.S. officials and their Iraqi counterparts were eager to show progress in restoring security in Baghdad at a time when Iraq appeared on the verge of civil war.
At the end of August, the top U.S. military spokesman in Iraq, Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell, said violence had dropped significantly because of the operation. Caldwell said "attacks in Baghdad were well below the monthly average for July. Since August 7, the murder rate in Baghdad dropped 52 percent from the daily rate for July." ...
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
"The Path to 9/11" ... commission's [Repulican] chairman and then made the unfortunate decision to lend his prestige to the project
ABC's 'Path' Not Taken
By Ruth Marcus ...Wednesday, September 13, 2006; Page A17
Does it matter that ABC invented and distorted history in its "warning: this is not a documentary" docudrama, "The Path to 9/11"? After all, the first night of the faux drama was trounced by the brother-against-brother actual drama of "Sunday Night Football."
But consider: The gripping final report of the Sept. 11 commission (budget: $13.5 million) became a surprise bestseller at 1.5 million copies. The not-so-gripping, not-so-accurate ABC production (budget: $40 million) was seen by about 13 million viewers on the first night.
As Thomas H. Kean, who served as the commission's chairman and then made the unfortunate decision to lend his prestige to the project as co-executive producer, correctly predicted this summer, "More people will see this than will ever read our report." Such is the drawing power of even shoddy television. ...
Monday, September 11, 2006
'Who funded this $40 million dollar slanderous propaganda? ... ties to an evangelical Christian group
Dean: 'Who funded this $40 million dollar slanderous propaganda?
RAW STORY ... Published: Friday September 8, 2006
Referring to the controversial docudrama Path to 9/11, Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean is calling on ABC/Disney to reveal "who funded this $40 million dollar slanderous propaganda," in a DNC press release received by RAW STORY.
"It's deeply disappointing that ABC would put something on the air that has been proven to have factual inaccuracies about one of the most important events in our nation's history," said Dean in the press release. "ABC should not air this distortion of history."
Path to 9/11 writer/producer Cyrus Nowrasteh "has ties to an evangelical Christian group whose goals include 'transform[ing] Hollywood from the inside out,' according to research by readers of prominent blogs," Justin Rood reported for TPMmuckraker earlier today. "Path director David L. Cunningham is also involved in The Film Institute, an offshoot of the Hawaii-based global evangelical group, Youth With a Mission."
"The fact that the writer/producer of the piece is a well known conservative raises additional concerns and questions," said Dean. "The American people deserve to know who funded this $40 million dollar slanderous propaganda."
"Use of the public airwaves is a privilege conferred upon broadcasters in the public interest," Dean continued. "It comes with a responsibility to the American people and a responsibility to the truth."
Disney/ABC flat-out REFUSED to provide Pres. Clinton, Madeleine Albright and Sandy Berger copies of its 9/11 "docudrama", tho GOP bloggers got copies
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
Disney/ABC flat-out REFUSED to provide Pres. Clinton, Madeleine Albright and Sandy Berger copies of its 9/11 "docudrama", tho GOP bloggers got copies
by John in DC - 9/06/2006 07:08:00 PM
Interesting behavior for a company that has a lot of business before Congress - a Congress that is expected to turn Democrat (at least in one house, maybe both) in about 8 weeks.
Republican bloggers, Disney/ABC is happy to give them complementary advance copies of its error-riddled TV show about September 11. But when the actual people slandered in the tv show ask to see advance copies, Disney/ABC says no.
I have a law degree. And you enter very interesting legal territory when someone expresses concern about the veracity of your TV show and you refuse to provide them with a copy in advance, yet provide copies to others. Okay, I'm being too polite. Albright wrote Disney/ABC and told them, flat-out, that the malfeasance they attribute to her is absolutely untrue. Disney/ABC has refused to even respond to her. (Sandy Berger wrote Disney/ABC as well.)
Disney/ABC flat-out REFUSED to provide Pres. Clinton, Madeleine Albright and Sandy Berger copies of its 9/11 "docudrama", tho GOP bloggers got copies
by John in DC - 9/06/2006 07:08:00 PM
Interesting behavior for a company that has a lot of business before Congress - a Congress that is expected to turn Democrat (at least in one house, maybe both) in about 8 weeks.
Republican bloggers, Disney/ABC is happy to give them complementary advance copies of its error-riddled TV show about September 11. But when the actual people slandered in the tv show ask to see advance copies, Disney/ABC says no.
I have a law degree. And you enter very interesting legal territory when someone expresses concern about the veracity of your TV show and you refuse to provide them with a copy in advance, yet provide copies to others. Okay, I'm being too polite. Albright wrote Disney/ABC and told them, flat-out, that the malfeasance they attribute to her is absolutely untrue. Disney/ABC has refused to even respond to her. (Sandy Berger wrote Disney/ABC as well.)
9/11 Commission member says key scene in Disney/ABC fictional account of September 11 is "a total fabrication"
Tuesday, September 05, 2006 ... 9/11 Commission member says key scene in Disney/ABC fictional account of September 11 is "a total fabrication"
by John in DC - 9/05/2006 09:30:00 PM
Disney/ABC's spokesman now admits that at least one key scene from its 9/11 "documentary" was simply made up.
Reasonably accurate?
Is that like saying Saddam Hussein had something to do with September 11, and Iraq had WMD? Hasn't America had enough hedging about accuracy regarding September 11 and the war on terror? ...
by John in DC - 9/05/2006 09:30:00 PM
Disney/ABC's spokesman now admits that at least one key scene from its 9/11 "documentary" was simply made up.
Berger, portrayed as a pasty-faced time-server by Kevin Dunn (Col. Hicks in “Godzilla”) freezes in dithering apprehension when a manly and virtuous CIA agent played by Donnie Wahlberg radios in from the wilds of Afghanistan to say that he and his noble band of local tribesmen have Osama bin Laden within sight and begs for the green light to terminate him with extreme prejudice. In the film, the line goes dead before Berger offers any reply.....Ah yes, Disney/ABC's misinformation is already spreading. And now, it seems, the standard Disney/ABC is applying to their tv show is to strive for "reasonable accuracy" when educating American schoolkids about what happened on September 11 and how it happened.
So when the post-screening question-and-answer session began, Ben-Veniste stood to say that the Berger-bashing scene didn’t square with the research he and the other commissioners conducted. “There was no incident like that in the film that we came across. I am disturbed by that aspect of it,” Ben-Veniste, a loyal Democrat, told the panel, which included both the producer and the commission’s GOP chairman, former Gov. Thomas H. Kean of New Jersey.
Berger, reached by phone after the screening, seconded Ben-Veniste’s criticism. “It’s a total fabrication,” he said tersely. “It did not happen.”
That is not likely to prevent the film from being embraced far and wide among Bush supporters. Even before its airdate, the show is being hailed as a breakthrough in the conservative blogosphere. One blogger marveled in an interview with scriptwriter Cyrus Nowrasteh that “one unbelievable sequence shows how . . . Sandy Berger . . . actually hung up the phone on the CIA agent on the ground.”
Reasonably accurate?
Is that like saying Saddam Hussein had something to do with September 11, and Iraq had WMD? Hasn't America had enough hedging about accuracy regarding September 11 and the war on terror? ...
ABC Consultant Richard Clarke Blasts First Installment Of Film, Hints At ABC "Conspiracy"
ABC Consultant Richard Clarke Blasts First Installment Of Film, Hints At ABC "Conspiracy"
Richard Clarke, a consultant for ABC News and a senior counterterrorism official in the Bush and Clinton administrations, has just released a statement blasting the first installment of "The Path to 9/11." Interestingly, Clarke appeared to suggest that more than profit motivated the film: "Although I am not one to easily believe in conspiracy theories and have spent a great deal of time debunking them, it is hard to escape the conclusion that the errors in this screen play are more than the result of dramatization and time compression. There is throughout the screenplay a consistent bias and distortion seeking to portray senior Clinton Administration officials as holding back the hard charging CIA, FBI, and military officers who would otherwise have prevented 9-11. The exact opposite is true." Clarke's full statement after the jump.
American Airlines say they are outraged at the depiction of the airline in the ABC miniseries The Path to 9-11.
American Airlines criticizes ABC miniseries on 9/11 attacks
By TREBOR BANSTETTER ... Star-Telegram Staff Writer
Executives with American Airlines say they are outraged at the depiction of the airline in the ABC miniseries The Path to 9-11.
Airline spokesman Roger Frizzell said Monday that the miniseries falsely portrays an American gate agent at Boston’s Logan Airport allowing a terrorist onto a flight despite a warning that he might have been a threat.
“It’s important for the public to know that the ABC dramatization is inaccurate and irresponsible in its portrayal of the airport check-in events that occurred on the morning of September 11,” Frizzell said. ...
Thursday, September 07, 2006
. Furthermore, the manner in which this program has been developed, funded, and advertised suggests a partisan bent unbecoming of ... Disney and ABC
Senate Democratic leadership threatens Disney with legal and legislative sanctions
by John in DC - 9/07/2006 06:02:00 PM
This letter was sent today by the entire Democratic leadership of the US Senate. This letter is such a major shot across the bow of Disney, it's not even funny. It is FILLED with veiled threats, both legal and legislative, against Disney. US Senators don't make threats like this, especially the entire Democratic leadership en masse, unless they mean it. Disney is in serious trouble.
...
September 7, 2006
Mr. Robert A. Iger
President and CEO
The Walt Disney Company
500 South Buena Vista Street
Burbank CA 91521
Dear Mr. Iger,
We write with serious concerns about the planned upcoming broadcast of The Path to 9/11 mini-series on September 10 and 11. Countless reports from experts on 9/11 who have viewed the program indicate numerous and serious inaccuracies that will undoubtedly serve to misinform the American people about the tragic events surrounding the terrible attacks of that day. Furthermore, the manner in which this program has been developed, funded, and advertised suggests a partisan bent unbecoming of a major company like Disney and a major and well respected news organization like ABC. We therefore urge you to cancel this broadcast to cease Disney’s plans to use it as a teaching tool in schools across America through Scholastic. Presenting such deeply flawed and factually inaccurate misinformation to the American public and to children would be a gross miscarriage of your corporate and civic responsibility to the law, to your shareholders, and to the nation.
The Communications Act of 1934 provides your network with a free broadcast license predicated on the fundamental understanding of your principle obligation to act as a trustee of the public airwaves in serving the public interest. Nowhere is this public interest obligation more apparent than in the duty of broadcasters to serve the civic needs of a democracy by promoting an open and accurate discussion of political ideas and events.
Disney and ABC claim this program to be based on the 9/11 Commission Report and are using that assertion as part of the promotional campaign for it.... To quote Steve McPhereson, president of ABC Entertainment, “When you take on the responsibility of telling the story behind such an important event, it is absolutely critical that you get it right.”
Unfortunately, it appears Disney and ABC got it totally wrong.
Despite claims by your network’s representatives that The Path to 9/11 is based on the report of the 9/11 Commission, 9/11 Commissioners themselves, as well as other experts on the issues, disagree.
...
Richard Clarke, the former counter-terrorism czar, and a national security advisor to ABC has described the program as “deeply flawed” and said of the program’s depiction of a Clinton official hanging up on an intelligence agent, “It’s 180 degrees from what happened.” [“9/11 Miniseries Is Criticized as Inaccurate and Biased,” New York Times, September 6, 2006]
Reports suggest that an FBI agent who worked on 9/11 and served as a consultant to ABC on this program quit halfway through because, “he thought they were making things up.” [MSNBC, September 7, 2006]
...
That Disney would seek to broadcast an admittedly and proven false recounting of the events of 9/11 raises serious questions about the motivations of its creators and those who approved the deeply flawed program. Finally, that Disney plans to air commercial-free a program that reportedly cost it $40 million to produce serves to add fuel to these concerns.
These concerns are made all the more pressing by the political leaning of and the public statements made by the writer/producer of this miniseries, Mr. Cyrus Nowrasteh, in promoting this miniseries across conservative blogs and talk shows.
Frankly, that ABC and Disney would consider airing a program that could be construed as right-wing political propaganda on such a grave and important event involving the security of our nation is a discredit both to the Disney brand and to the legacy of honesty built at ABC by honorable individuals from David Brinkley to Peter Jennings.
...
Should Disney allow this programming to proceed as planned, the factual record, millions of viewers, countless schoolchildren, and the reputation of Disney as a corporation worthy of the trust of the American people and the United States Congress will be deeply damaged. We urge you, after full consideration of the facts, to uphold your responsibilities as a respected member of American society and as a beneficiary of the free use of the public airwaves to cancel this factually inaccurate and deeply misguided program. We look forward to hearing back from you soon.
Sincerely,
Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid
Assistant Democratic Leader Dick Durbin
Senator Debbie Stabenow
Senator Charles Schumer
Senator Byron Dorgan
by John in DC - 9/07/2006 06:02:00 PM
This letter was sent today by the entire Democratic leadership of the US Senate. This letter is such a major shot across the bow of Disney, it's not even funny. It is FILLED with veiled threats, both legal and legislative, against Disney. US Senators don't make threats like this, especially the entire Democratic leadership en masse, unless they mean it. Disney is in serious trouble.
...
September 7, 2006
Mr. Robert A. Iger
President and CEO
The Walt Disney Company
500 South Buena Vista Street
Burbank CA 91521
Dear Mr. Iger,
We write with serious concerns about the planned upcoming broadcast of The Path to 9/11 mini-series on September 10 and 11. Countless reports from experts on 9/11 who have viewed the program indicate numerous and serious inaccuracies that will undoubtedly serve to misinform the American people about the tragic events surrounding the terrible attacks of that day. Furthermore, the manner in which this program has been developed, funded, and advertised suggests a partisan bent unbecoming of a major company like Disney and a major and well respected news organization like ABC. We therefore urge you to cancel this broadcast to cease Disney’s plans to use it as a teaching tool in schools across America through Scholastic. Presenting such deeply flawed and factually inaccurate misinformation to the American public and to children would be a gross miscarriage of your corporate and civic responsibility to the law, to your shareholders, and to the nation.
The Communications Act of 1934 provides your network with a free broadcast license predicated on the fundamental understanding of your principle obligation to act as a trustee of the public airwaves in serving the public interest. Nowhere is this public interest obligation more apparent than in the duty of broadcasters to serve the civic needs of a democracy by promoting an open and accurate discussion of political ideas and events.
Disney and ABC claim this program to be based on the 9/11 Commission Report and are using that assertion as part of the promotional campaign for it.... To quote Steve McPhereson, president of ABC Entertainment, “When you take on the responsibility of telling the story behind such an important event, it is absolutely critical that you get it right.”
Unfortunately, it appears Disney and ABC got it totally wrong.
Despite claims by your network’s representatives that The Path to 9/11 is based on the report of the 9/11 Commission, 9/11 Commissioners themselves, as well as other experts on the issues, disagree.
...
Richard Clarke, the former counter-terrorism czar, and a national security advisor to ABC has described the program as “deeply flawed” and said of the program’s depiction of a Clinton official hanging up on an intelligence agent, “It’s 180 degrees from what happened.” [“9/11 Miniseries Is Criticized as Inaccurate and Biased,” New York Times, September 6, 2006]
Reports suggest that an FBI agent who worked on 9/11 and served as a consultant to ABC on this program quit halfway through because, “he thought they were making things up.” [MSNBC, September 7, 2006]
...
That Disney would seek to broadcast an admittedly and proven false recounting of the events of 9/11 raises serious questions about the motivations of its creators and those who approved the deeply flawed program. Finally, that Disney plans to air commercial-free a program that reportedly cost it $40 million to produce serves to add fuel to these concerns.
These concerns are made all the more pressing by the political leaning of and the public statements made by the writer/producer of this miniseries, Mr. Cyrus Nowrasteh, in promoting this miniseries across conservative blogs and talk shows.
Frankly, that ABC and Disney would consider airing a program that could be construed as right-wing political propaganda on such a grave and important event involving the security of our nation is a discredit both to the Disney brand and to the legacy of honesty built at ABC by honorable individuals from David Brinkley to Peter Jennings.
...
Should Disney allow this programming to proceed as planned, the factual record, millions of viewers, countless schoolchildren, and the reputation of Disney as a corporation worthy of the trust of the American people and the United States Congress will be deeply damaged. We urge you, after full consideration of the facts, to uphold your responsibilities as a respected member of American society and as a beneficiary of the free use of the public airwaves to cancel this factually inaccurate and deeply misguided program. We look forward to hearing back from you soon.
Sincerely,
Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid
Assistant Democratic Leader Dick Durbin
Senator Debbie Stabenow
Senator Charles Schumer
Senator Byron Dorgan
Monday, September 04, 2006
Pentagon's intelligence arm painted a scenario in which Iraq could dissolve into civil war if Iraqi security forces don't soon get their act together
Iraq: A Sweeping, Secret New Report
Newsweek
Sept. 11, 2006 issue - Bush administration policymakers and their congressional backers may get some unwelcome news from a new analysis on Iraq that the office of intelligence czar John Negroponte will soon produce. In late July, leading Senate Democrats asked Negroponte to come up with a new Iraq National Intelligence Estimate, or NIE, a secret study that is supposed to reflect the views of all 16 U.S. intel agencies. The most recent Iraq NIE, produced two years ago, was generally pessimistic about the future of the country. In a letter to Negroponte, the Senate Dems asked for U.S. analysts' best assessment on a sheaf of awkward issues, including: Is Iraq in a civil war or close to it? How effective are new Iraqi security forces? Is the Iraqi government stableThe contents of the report may have been foreshadowed in a recent series of closed-door briefings given to Congress by the Defense Intelligence Agency. The Pentagon's intelligence arm painted a scenario in which Iraq could dissolve into civil war if Iraqi security forces don't soon get their act together. One official familiar with the briefing, who asked not to be identified because of the sensitive subject matter, said that the picture it painted was dire, although another official—who requested anonymity for the same reason—insisted it was not entirely despairing, since Iraqi security forces were beginning to improve. Though NIEs are normally classified, Dems are already pressing the administration to make public a summary of the upcoming study. The officials said intel agencies are under some pressure to produce the new report before the November midterm elections.
Monday, August 14, 2006
Public editor reveals New York Times editor decided to hold wiretap story on eve of 2004 presidential election
The Raw Story | Public editor reveals New York Times editor decided to hold wiretap story on eve of 2004 presidential election: "RAW STORY | Published: Saturday August 12, 2006
...
Executive editor Bill Keller tells the paper's ombudmsman that "internal discussions" about publishing a story on domestic wiretapping by the National Security Agency ended up "dragging on for weeks" before the November 2nd, 2004 election.
"The climactic discussion about whether to publish was right on the eve of the election," Keller tells Calame.
...
"So why did the Dec. 16 article say The Times had 'delayed publication for a year,' specifically ruling out the possibility that the story had been held prior to the Nov. 2 election?" Calame asks Keller. ...
...
Executive editor Bill Keller tells the paper's ombudmsman that "internal discussions" about publishing a story on domestic wiretapping by the National Security Agency ended up "dragging on for weeks" before the November 2nd, 2004 election.
"The climactic discussion about whether to publish was right on the eve of the election," Keller tells Calame.
...
"So why did the Dec. 16 article say The Times had 'delayed publication for a year,' specifically ruling out the possibility that the story had been held prior to the Nov. 2 election?" Calame asks Keller. ...
say what you like in the US, just as long as you don't ask awkward questions about America's role in the Middle East
The Observer | Comment | The land of the free - but free speech is a rare commodity: "Henry Porter | Sunday August 13, 2006 | The Observer
You can say what you like in the US, just as long as you don't ask awkward questions about America's role in the Middle East
It used to be said that academic rows were vicious because the stakes were so small. That's no longer true in America, where a battle is underway on campuses over what can be said about the Middle East and US foreign policy.
Douglas Giles is a recent casualty. He used to teach a class on world religions at Roosevelt University, Chicago, founded in memory of FDR and his liberal-inclined wife, Eleanor. Last year, Giles was ordered by his head of department, art historian Susan Weininger, not to allow students to ask questions about Palestine and Israel; in fact, nothing was to be mentioned in class, textbooks and examinations that could possibly open Judaism to criticism.
Students, being what they are, did not go along with the ban. A young woman, originally from Pakistan, asked a question about Palestinian rights. Someone complained and Professor Giles was promptly fired.
You can say what you like in the US, just as long as you don't ask awkward questions about America's role in the Middle East
It used to be said that academic rows were vicious because the stakes were so small. That's no longer true in America, where a battle is underway on campuses over what can be said about the Middle East and US foreign policy.
Douglas Giles is a recent casualty. He used to teach a class on world religions at Roosevelt University, Chicago, founded in memory of FDR and his liberal-inclined wife, Eleanor. Last year, Giles was ordered by his head of department, art historian Susan Weininger, not to allow students to ask questions about Palestine and Israel; in fact, nothing was to be mentioned in class, textbooks and examinations that could possibly open Judaism to criticism.
Students, being what they are, did not go along with the ban. A young woman, originally from Pakistan, asked a question about Palestinian rights. Someone complained and Professor Giles was promptly fired.
Leaving aside his boss's doubtful qualifications to set limits on a class of comparative religion - her speciality is early 20th-century Midwestern artists such as Tunis Ponsen (nor have I) - the point to grasp is that Professor Giles did not make inflammatory statements himself: he merely refused to limit debate among the young minds in front of him.
...
Joel Beinin of Stanford University is regularly attacked by both. Beinin is a Jew who speaks both Hebrew and Arabic. He worked in Israel and on an assembly line in the US, where he helped Arab workers understand their rights. Now, he holds seminars at Stanford in which all views are expressed. For this reason, no doubt, his photograph recently appeared on the front of a booklet entitled 'Campus Support for Terrorism'.
It was published by David Horovitz, the founder of FrontPageMag.com who has both composed a bill of rights for universities, designed to take politics (for which read liberal influence and plurality) out of the curriculum and a list of the 100 most dangerous academics in America, which includes Noam Chomsky and many other distinguished thinkers and teachers.
The demented, bullying tone of the websites is another symptom of the descent of public discourse in America and, frankly, one can easily see the attractions of self-censorship on the question of Middle East and Israel. Read David Horovitz for longer than five minutes and you begin to hear Senator Joseph McCarthy accusing someone of un-American activities.
At Harvard, a few weeks after what was called Summers's 'mis-step', a much greater row ensued when John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt of Harvard published a paper called 'The Israel Lobby'. Brave because the alleged distortion of US pro-Israel foreign policy is unmentionable in American public life.
Their paper was printed only in the UK, in the London Review of Books. In America, there then followed what has been described as the massive 'Shhhhhhhhh!' Apart from the mud-slinging from sites such as Campus Watch and FrontPageMag, it has had little mainstream circulation and there has been no real debate. ...
Saturday, August 12, 2006
NBC: Disagreement over timing of arrests - American officials pressured them to arrest the suspects sooner.
NBC: Disagreement over timing of arrests - Lisa Myers & the NBC Investigative Unit - MSNBC.com: "Source: U.S., U.K. at odds over timing of arrests | By Aram Roston, Lisa Myers, and the NBC News Investigative Unit | NBC News | Updated: 7:13 p.m. ET Aug 12, 2006
British wanted to continue surveillance on terror suspects, official says
British wanted to continue surveillance on terror suspects, official says
LONDON - NBC News has learned that U.S. and British authorities had a significant disagreement over when to move in on the suspects in the alleged plot to bring down trans-Atlantic airliners bound for the United States.
A senior British official knowledgeable about the case said British police were planning to continue to run surveillance for at least another week to try to obtain more evidence, while American officials pressured them to arrest the suspects sooner. The official spoke on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the case.
In contrast to previous reports, the official suggested an attack was not imminent, saying the suspects had not yet purchased any airline tickets. In fact, some did not even have passports.
The source did say, however, that police believe one U.K.-based suspect was ready to conduct a "dry run." British authorities had wanted to let him go forward with part of the plan, but the Americans balked.
At the White House, a top aide to President Bush denied the account.
...
Another U.S. official, however, acknowledges there was disagreement over timing. Analysts say that in recent years, American security officials have become edgier than the British in such cases because of missed opportunities leading up to 9/11. ...
NBC: Disagreement over timing of arrests - American officials pressured them to arrest the suspects sooner.
NBC: Disagreement over timing of arrests - Lisa Myers & the NBC Investigative Unit - MSNBC.com: "Source: U.S., U.K. at odds over timing of arrests | By Aram Roston, Lisa Myers, and the NBC News Investigative Unit
NBC News | Updated: 7:13 p.m. ET Aug 12, 2006
British wanted to continue surveillance on terror suspects, official says
British wanted to continue surveillance on terror suspects, official says
LONDON - NBC News has learned that U.S. and British authorities had a significant disagreement over when to move in on the suspects in the alleged plot to bring down trans-Atlantic airliners bound for the United States.
A senior British official knowledgeable about the case said British police were planning to continue to run surveillance for at least another week to try to obtain more evidence, while American officials pressured them to arrest the suspects sooner. The official spoke on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the case.
In contrast to previous reports, the official suggested an attack was not imminent, saying the suspects had not yet purchased any airline tickets. In fact, some did not even have passports.
The source did say, however, that police believe one U.K.-based suspect was ready to conduct a "dry run." British authorities had wanted to let him go forward with part of the plan, but the Americans balked.
At the White House, a top aide to President Bush denied the account.
...
Another U.S. official, however, acknowledges there was disagreement over timing. Analysts say that in recent years, American security officials have become edgier than the British in such cases because of missed opportunities leading up to 9/11. ...
Monday, August 07, 2006
'The Constitution in Crisis.': nothing in the AP; nothing in any of the major dailies; nothing on ABC, CBS, or NBC. Not one word.
Crooks and Liars � If a report falls in a forest…: "If a report falls in a forest… | By: Steve on Sunday, August 6th, 2006 at 1:08 PM - PDT
It’s been about 48 hours since Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee issued a sweeping indictment of the Bush administration’s casual approach to law-breaking in a report called, 'The Constitution in Crisis.' How’s the media reaction been?
Using Lexis-Nexis and Google News, it appears that the only mainstream media outlet — literally, the only one — to even mention the release of the report was CNN, when Jack Cafferty devoted 200 words to the subject late last week.
To be fair, the timing of the release wasn’t ideal. A Friday afternoon in August was probably not the way to maximize exposure for the report.
Regardless, this is a well-documented, thoroughly-researched report from congressional Democrats about the Bush administration possibly violating over two dozen federal laws and regulations — some of them multiple times. And yet, nothing in the AP; nothing in any of the major dailies; nothing on ABC, CBS, or NBC. Not one word.
First, many of us frequently feel like congressional Democrats need to be aggressive and go on the offensive more, but let’s not forget, even when they do, much the media blows off what Dems have to say.
And second, if Dems accuse the administration of criminal activity, and it’s widely ignored, does it really make a sound?"
It’s been about 48 hours since Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee issued a sweeping indictment of the Bush administration’s casual approach to law-breaking in a report called, 'The Constitution in Crisis.' How’s the media reaction been?
Using Lexis-Nexis and Google News, it appears that the only mainstream media outlet — literally, the only one — to even mention the release of the report was CNN, when Jack Cafferty devoted 200 words to the subject late last week.
To be fair, the timing of the release wasn’t ideal. A Friday afternoon in August was probably not the way to maximize exposure for the report.
Regardless, this is a well-documented, thoroughly-researched report from congressional Democrats about the Bush administration possibly violating over two dozen federal laws and regulations — some of them multiple times. And yet, nothing in the AP; nothing in any of the major dailies; nothing on ABC, CBS, or NBC. Not one word.
First, many of us frequently feel like congressional Democrats need to be aggressive and go on the offensive more, but let’s not forget, even when they do, much the media blows off what Dems have to say.
And second, if Dems accuse the administration of criminal activity, and it’s widely ignored, does it really make a sound?"
Sunday, July 30, 2006
Sound off: Where the views and opinions of our staff and others are expressed on various topics that relate to Bush
Sound off: Where the views and opinions of our staff and others are expressed on various topics that relate to Bush: "BLOOD IN BEIRUT: $75.05 A Barrel | by Greg Palast | July 26, 2006
The failure to stop the bloodletting in the Middle East, Exxon's record second-quarter profits and Iran's nuclear cat-and-mouse game have something in common -- it's the oil.
I can't tell you how it started -- this is a war that's been fought since the Levites clashed with the Philistines -- but I can tell you why the current mayhem has not been stopped. It's the oil. I'm not an expert on Palestine nor Lebanon and I'd rather not pretend to be one. If you want to know what's going on, read Robert Fisk. He lives there. He speaks Arabic. Stay away from pundits whose only connection to the Middle East is the local falafel stand.
So why am I writing now? The answer is that, while I don't speak Arabic or Hebrew, I am completely fluent in the language of petroleum.
What? You don't need a degree in geology to know there's no oil in Israel, Palestine or Lebanon. (A few weeks ago, I was joking around with Afif Safieh, the Palestinian Authority's Ambassador to the US, asking him why he was fighting to have a piece of the only place in the Middle East without oil. Well, there's no joking now.)
The failure to stop the bloodletting in the Middle East, Exxon's record second-quarter profits and Iran's nuclear cat-and-mouse game have something in common -- it's the oil.
I can't tell you how it started -- this is a war that's been fought since the Levites clashed with the Philistines -- but I can tell you why the current mayhem has not been stopped. It's the oil. I'm not an expert on Palestine nor Lebanon and I'd rather not pretend to be one. If you want to know what's going on, read Robert Fisk. He lives there. He speaks Arabic. Stay away from pundits whose only connection to the Middle East is the local falafel stand.
So why am I writing now? The answer is that, while I don't speak Arabic or Hebrew, I am completely fluent in the language of petroleum.
What? You don't need a degree in geology to know there's no oil in Israel, Palestine or Lebanon. (A few weeks ago, I was joking around with Afif Safieh, the Palestinian Authority's Ambassador to the US, asking him why he was fighting to have a piece of the only place in the Middle East without oil. Well, there's no joking now.)
1984! Who would have imagined that history would prove so easy to rewrite in a democratic nation with a free press? 50% believe Saddam had WMD !
Rozius: Paul Krugman: Reign of Error: "Friday, July 28, 2006
Amid everything else that’s going wrong in the world, here’s one more piece of depressing news: a few days ago the Harris Poll reported that 50 percent of Americans now believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when we invaded, up from 36 percent in February 2005. Meanwhile, 64 percent still believe that Saddam had strong links with Al Qaeda.
At one level, this shouldn’t be all that surprising. The people now running America never accept inconvenient truths. Long after facts they don’t like have been established, whether it’s the absence of any wrongdoing by the Clintons in the Whitewater affair or the absence of W.M.D. in Iraq, the propaganda machine that supports the current administration is still at work, seeking to flush those facts down the memory hole.
But it’s dismaying to realize that the machine remains so effective.
Here’s how the process works.
First, if the facts fail to support the administration position on an issue — stem cells, global warming, tax cuts, income inequality, Iraq — officials refuse to acknowledge the facts.
Sometimes the officials simply lie. “The tax cuts have made the tax code more progressive and reduced income inequality,” Edward Lazear, the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, declared a couple of months ago. More often, however, they bob and weave.
Consider, for example, Condoleezza Rice’s response a few months ago, when pressed to explain why the administration always links the Iraq war to 9/11. She admitted that Saddam, “as far as we know, did not order Sept. 11, may not have even known of Sept. 11.” (Notice how her statement, while literally true, nonetheless seems to imply both that it’s still possible that Saddam ordered 9/11, and that he probably did know about it.) “But,” she went on, “that’s a very narrow definition of what caused Sept. 11.”
Meanwhile, apparatchiks in the media spread disinformation. It’s hard to imagine what the world looks like to the large number of Americans who get their news by watching Fox and listening to Rush Limbaugh, but I get a pretty good sense from my mailbag.
...
Whatever the reason, the fact is that the Bush administration continues to be remarkably successful at rewriting history. For example, Mr. Bush has repeatedly suggested that the United States had to invade Iraq because Saddam wouldn’t let U.N. inspectors in. His most recent statement to that effect was only a few weeks ago. And he gets away with it. If there have been reports by major news organizations pointing out that that’s not at all what happened, I’ve missed them.
It’s all very Orwellian, of course. But when Orwell wrote of “a nightmare world in which the Leader, or some ruling clique, controls not only the future but the past,” he was thinking of totalitarian states. Who would have imagined that history would prove so easy to rewrite in a democratic nation with a free press?
Amid everything else that’s going wrong in the world, here’s one more piece of depressing news: a few days ago the Harris Poll reported that 50 percent of Americans now believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction when we invaded, up from 36 percent in February 2005. Meanwhile, 64 percent still believe that Saddam had strong links with Al Qaeda.
At one level, this shouldn’t be all that surprising. The people now running America never accept inconvenient truths. Long after facts they don’t like have been established, whether it’s the absence of any wrongdoing by the Clintons in the Whitewater affair or the absence of W.M.D. in Iraq, the propaganda machine that supports the current administration is still at work, seeking to flush those facts down the memory hole.
But it’s dismaying to realize that the machine remains so effective.
Here’s how the process works.
First, if the facts fail to support the administration position on an issue — stem cells, global warming, tax cuts, income inequality, Iraq — officials refuse to acknowledge the facts.
Sometimes the officials simply lie. “The tax cuts have made the tax code more progressive and reduced income inequality,” Edward Lazear, the chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, declared a couple of months ago. More often, however, they bob and weave.
Consider, for example, Condoleezza Rice’s response a few months ago, when pressed to explain why the administration always links the Iraq war to 9/11. She admitted that Saddam, “as far as we know, did not order Sept. 11, may not have even known of Sept. 11.” (Notice how her statement, while literally true, nonetheless seems to imply both that it’s still possible that Saddam ordered 9/11, and that he probably did know about it.) “But,” she went on, “that’s a very narrow definition of what caused Sept. 11.”
Meanwhile, apparatchiks in the media spread disinformation. It’s hard to imagine what the world looks like to the large number of Americans who get their news by watching Fox and listening to Rush Limbaugh, but I get a pretty good sense from my mailbag.
...
Whatever the reason, the fact is that the Bush administration continues to be remarkably successful at rewriting history. For example, Mr. Bush has repeatedly suggested that the United States had to invade Iraq because Saddam wouldn’t let U.N. inspectors in. His most recent statement to that effect was only a few weeks ago. And he gets away with it. If there have been reports by major news organizations pointing out that that’s not at all what happened, I’ve missed them.
It’s all very Orwellian, of course. But when Orwell wrote of “a nightmare world in which the Leader, or some ruling clique, controls not only the future but the past,” he was thinking of totalitarian states. Who would have imagined that history would prove so easy to rewrite in a democratic nation with a free press?
Saturday, July 29, 2006
We need 100,000 Megaphone users to make a difference. So, please distribute this mail to all Israel's supporters.
The Truth Will Set You Free: 100,000 Whiners for War Crimes: "100,000 Whiners for War Crimes
Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs has called for 100,000 apologists for Israel to spam web sites reporting the Israeli Death Forces' horrors in Lebanon. Just like Israel bombed the UN and bombed the USS Liberty, get ready for Israel Firsters to bomb your web site with Bu**sh**. The following notice is being circulated to potential supporters of Israel's genocide and war crimes:
Please go to www.giyus.org, download the Megaphone, and you will receive daily updates with instant links to important internet polls, problematic articles that require a talk back, etc.
We need 100,000 Megaphone users to make a difference. So, please distribute this mail to all Israel's supporters.
Do it now. For Israel.
Amir Gissin
Director Public Affairs (Hasbara) Department
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Jerusalem
Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs understands that today's conflicts are won by public opinion. They mobilize pro-Israel activists to be active and voice 'Israel's side to the world.' The Megaphone desktop tool, built by Giyus, which means 'mobilization', sends desktop alerts on key articles on Israel and surveys, online polls where activists could click on the button to support Israel and click alerts to easily voice pro-Israel opinions. The tool tracks down online articles and polls that members should act upon. After installing the tool, members receive alerts on those articles. With this tool Israel's Foreign Ministry obviously thought it would help Israel's fight in cyberspace. However, having used this tool, for others, it is quit useful as well. There is also a weblog and a forum."
Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs has called for 100,000 apologists for Israel to spam web sites reporting the Israeli Death Forces' horrors in Lebanon. Just like Israel bombed the UN and bombed the USS Liberty, get ready for Israel Firsters to bomb your web site with Bu**sh**. The following notice is being circulated to potential supporters of Israel's genocide and war crimes:
Please go to www.giyus.org, download the Megaphone, and you will receive daily updates with instant links to important internet polls, problematic articles that require a talk back, etc.
We need 100,000 Megaphone users to make a difference. So, please distribute this mail to all Israel's supporters.
Do it now. For Israel.
Amir Gissin
Director Public Affairs (Hasbara) Department
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Jerusalem
Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs understands that today's conflicts are won by public opinion. They mobilize pro-Israel activists to be active and voice 'Israel's side to the world.' The Megaphone desktop tool, built by Giyus, which means 'mobilization', sends desktop alerts on key articles on Israel and surveys, online polls where activists could click on the button to support Israel and click alerts to easily voice pro-Israel opinions. The tool tracks down online articles and polls that members should act upon. After installing the tool, members receive alerts on those articles. With this tool Israel's Foreign Ministry obviously thought it would help Israel's fight in cyberspace. However, having used this tool, for others, it is quit useful as well. There is also a weblog and a forum."
Sunday, July 16, 2006
Report Shows Department of Defense Surveillance of UC Berkeley Students’ Plans to Hold Protest
The Daily Californian: "Government Monitored Anti-War Group E-Mails | BY Kaitlin Anderson | Contributing Writer | Thursday, July 13, 2006"
Newly surfaced government surveillance reports reveal that the U.S. Department of Defense monitored anti-war and anti-military e-mails sent by UC Berkeley students in April.
Newly surfaced government surveillance reports reveal that the U.S. Department of Defense monitored anti-war and anti-military e-mails sent by UC Berkeley students in April.
The students' e-mails contained plans to host a campus protest against the war in Iraq and against the presence of military recruiters on campus.
The reports, released on June 15 following a Freedom of Information Act request filed by the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network in January, contained information copied from an e-mail circulated by student group UC Berkeley Stop the War Coalition regarding a protest planned for April 21, 2005 on Sproul Plaza. ..
Monday, July 10, 2006
$1 million Defense Department grant 'to limit the scope of the Freedom of Information Act.'
MySA.com: Metro | State: "Bob Richter: Going after the Freedom of Information Act is a slippery slope | Web Posted: 07/09/2006 12:00 AM CDT | San Antonio Express-News
The Express-News reported Friday that St. Mary's University's Center for Terrorism Law has received a $1 million Defense Department grant 'to limit the scope of the Freedom of Information Act.'
Journalists get slippery-slope worries when we hear the Pentagon wants to alter a law that allows the sun to shine on what politicians and government officials do behind closed doors.
As a federal judge in Michigan (Damon J. Keith) said a couple years ago: 'Democracies die behind closed doors.'" ...
The Express-News reported Friday that St. Mary's University's Center for Terrorism Law has received a $1 million Defense Department grant 'to limit the scope of the Freedom of Information Act.'
Journalists get slippery-slope worries when we hear the Pentagon wants to alter a law that allows the sun to shine on what politicians and government officials do behind closed doors.
As a federal judge in Michigan (Damon J. Keith) said a couple years ago: 'Democracies die behind closed doors.'" ...
Sunday, July 09, 2006
did you know that in April President Bush went to Stanford but was not allowed on campus? students blocked Bush's access
A Republic or an Empire?: "By Paul Craig Roberts
07/09/06 'Information Clearing House' -- -- Gentle reader, did you know that in April President Bush went to Stanford University to speak to the Hoover Institution fellows at the invitation of former Secretary of State George Shultz but was not allowed on campus? The Stanford students got wind of it and blocked Bush's access to the campus. The Hoover fellows had to go to Shultz's home to hear Bush's pitch for war and more war.
A person might think that it would be national news that Stanford University students would not allow the President of the US on campus. It happened to be a day that hundreds of prospective freshmen were on campus with their parents, many of whom joined the demonstration against Bush. I did not hear or read a word about it.
Did you? I learned of it from faculty friends in June when I attended Stanford's graduation to witness a relative receive her degree. The June 16 edition of The Stanford Daily reprints its April 24 report of the episode."
07/09/06 'Information Clearing House' -- -- Gentle reader, did you know that in April President Bush went to Stanford University to speak to the Hoover Institution fellows at the invitation of former Secretary of State George Shultz but was not allowed on campus? The Stanford students got wind of it and blocked Bush's access to the campus. The Hoover fellows had to go to Shultz's home to hear Bush's pitch for war and more war.
A person might think that it would be national news that Stanford University students would not allow the President of the US on campus. It happened to be a day that hundreds of prospective freshmen were on campus with their parents, many of whom joined the demonstration against Bush. I did not hear or read a word about it.
Did you? I learned of it from faculty friends in June when I attended Stanford's graduation to witness a relative receive her degree. The June 16 edition of The Stanford Daily reprints its April 24 report of the episode."
Tuesday, July 04, 2006
this week the entire conservative movement declared war on the very idea of an independent press.
Media Matters - "Media Matters"; by Paul Waldman: "'A declaration of war
This week, the conservatives declared war.
Not on The New York Times. Not even on the media in general. No, this week the entire conservative movement -- from the White House to Republicans in Congress to Fox News to right-wing talk radio to conservative magazines -- declared war on the very idea of an independent press.
They declared war on the idea that journalists have not just the right but the obligation to hold those in power accountable for their actions. They declared war on the idea that journalists, not the government and not a political party, get to decide what appears in the press. They declared war on the idea that the public has a right to know what the government is doing in our name.
This is a profound threat to our democracy, and we underestimate it at our peril.
...
This week, the conservatives declared war.
Not on The New York Times. Not even on the media in general. No, this week the entire conservative movement -- from the White House to Republicans in Congress to Fox News to right-wing talk radio to conservative magazines -- declared war on the very idea of an independent press.
They declared war on the idea that journalists have not just the right but the obligation to hold those in power accountable for their actions. They declared war on the idea that journalists, not the government and not a political party, get to decide what appears in the press. They declared war on the idea that the public has a right to know what the government is doing in our name.
This is a profound threat to our democracy, and we underestimate it at our peril.
...
There is a reason the Founders singled out the press for special protection when they wrote the Bill of Rights. It was because they understood that without an independent, free, aggressive, courageous press, democracy itself is impossible. When the government decides who gets to report the news and what they get to say, we no longer live in a free society. When journalists live under threat of prosecution and even violence, we cease to be citizens and become only subjects.
The right has kept the media under constant assault for decades, and the response from the media has been to bend over backward to prove they aren't biased -- by being harder on Democrats. They should have learned long ago that the "liberal bias" charge has absolutely nothing to do with the content of the news. It is a political strategy, a way of "working the ref" and providing easy excuses for public rejection of the right's goals. But what we have seen this week is something qualitatively different.
Given the constant drumbeat of criticism directed at the media from conservatives, it might be easy to dismiss this latest expulsion of bile as just more of the same. But it's worth stepping back to take a look at exactly what has occurred over the past week. Members of Congress have suggested revoking the Capitol Hill credentials of journalists, so that only news organizations that do not displease the ruling party may be permitted to report from Congress. Other members have accused members of the media of "treason" and advocated their prosecution. A conservative television and radio personality suggested that the government establish an Office of Censorship to screen the news. Another said, "I would have no problem with [New York Times editor Bill Keller] being sent to the gas chamber." The House of Representatives passed a resolution saying it "expects the cooperation of all news media organizations."
In short, the right assembled a posse this week -- vigilantes stalking television studios, radio airwaves, print, and the Internet, their apparent goal to revoke the First Amendment. ..
Terrorist attack by Israel - another terrorist attack by Israel, a Palestinian school was hit in Gaza, during a missile salvo against civilian targets
Terrorist attack by Israel - Pravda.Ru: "Front page / Opinion / Columnists | 02.07.2006
Israel commits another act of state terrorism using military hardware against civilian targets. Tel Aviv replies to kidnapping with war crimes. Palestinian school destroyed by Israeli armed forces.
Israel commits another act of state terrorism using military hardware against civilian targets. Tel Aviv replies to kidnapping with war crimes. Palestinian school destroyed by Israeli armed forces.
Tel Aviv has lost the propaganda war, the hearts and minds of the international community and the war of intelligence, descending to knee-jerk, primary reactions of the crudest form of violence, playing into the hands of the terrorists on the Palestinian side and proving for many that after all, the Israeli camp is no better – and perhaps even deserves what it gets.
If firing shells at Palestinians enjoying themselves on a beach provoked the kidnapping of the Israeli corporal, responding by kidnapping Palestinian Ministers did nothing to create a situation whereby diplomacy could take over, which is exactly the territory in which the terrorists thrive, as has been seen time and time again in different parts of the globe. Tel Aviv, in failing to see the writing on the wall and in failing to learn the lessons of history, is consigned to defeat in its quest to stubbornly occupy lands that do not belong to Israel and whose occupation goes against international law. If Israel does not abide by international law, why should the Palestinians?
Last night the terrorist attack against the Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniya’s office in Gaza was paramount to the Palestinians firing Qasim rockets at civilian targets in Israel. What after all is the difference between a Jewish civilian being murdered by a Palestinian terrorist and a Palestinian civilian being murdered by an Israeli soldier or airman?
Bullseye! Israeli terrorist attack destroys school
In another terrorist attack by Israel, a Palestinian school was hit in Gaza, during a missile salvo against civilian targets on Saturday night. For Israel, this was no doubt a successful military operation against terrorist targets. Today a child, tomorrow a terrosist, is that the motto?
Timothy BANCROFT-HINCHEY
Right-Wing Blog Asks Readers to "Hunt Down" Info About NYT Editors' Children
Right-Wing Blog Asks Readers to "Hunt Down" Info About NYT Editors' Children |by Hunter | Sun Jul 02, 2006 at 05:44:19 PM PDT
...This, the right-wing bloggers assert, is an intentional "exposure" of Cheney and Rumsfeld to terrorists, done with malice by the New York Times. No, I'm not kidding.
There's only a few problems with this "theory", as Greenwald admirably points out with the help of others in the blogosphere. First, noting the astonishing fact that Cheney and Rumsfeld have vacation homes in St. Michaels is hardly new information. In addition to being public information, it was printed in a similar soft story in the Washington Post last year. So did, in fact, NewsMax -- one of the rightwing outlets now pretending that publishing that information now is treason.
Second, the New York Times printed a similar story in 2003 about the Clinton's Chappaqua home, demonstrating that these puff pieces are, golly gee, done all the time. Guess how many right-wing bloggers had a very public and ceremonially overdressed cow over that one? Yeah.
So essentially, this "affront" to the delicate sensibilities of these overstuffed sausages known as the "right" is a completely bogus story. It's all spin; there's no "there". None. NewsMax itself could tell you where Cheney lived -- they even cited the Washington Post story as their source, in their article.
But here's the nasty part. The "response" the right wing blogs have decided on, as a result of this hidden menace that they and only they can see, is retaliation against the reporters and editors who enabled this story. From one right-wing blog (no link; see Greenwald if you must):
So, in the school of what's good for the goose is good for the gander, we are providing this link so YOU may help the blogosphere in locating the homes (perhaps with photos?) of the editors and reporters of the New York Times.Let's start with the following New York Times reporters and editors: Arthur "Pinch" Sulzberger Jr. , Bill Keller, Eric Lichtblau, and James Risen. Do you have an idea where they live?
Go hunt them down and do America a favor. Get their photo, street address, where their kids go to school, anything you can dig up, and send it to the link above. This is your chance to be famous - grab for the golden ring.
Their homes. Their children. Go report on where their kids go to school, and it's "your chance" to "do America a favor". Find out where their kids go to school, so you can "grab for the golden ring".
Yeah. And that particular blogger isn't the only one encouraging such actions, and in fact numerous right-wing blogs have begun to publish the information; phone numbers, street addresses. Maps to get to those houses. And encouragement to grab for that ring. ...
Sunday, June 25, 2006
Indictment of suspected terrorists contains little evidence of plot ... no explosives or weapons
KRT Wire | 06/23/2006 | Indictment of suspected terrorists contains little evidence of plot: "BY MARISA TAYLOR AND LESLEY CLARK | Knight Ridder Newspapers
WASHINGTON - Even as Justice Department officials trumpeted the arrests of seven Florida men accused of planning to wage a 'full ground war against the United States,' they acknowledged the group did not have the means to carry out the plan.
The Justice Department unveiled the arrests with an orchestrated series of press conferences in two cities, but the severity of the charges compared with the seemingly amateurish-nature of the group raised concerns among civil libertarians.
'We're as puzzled as everyone else,' said Howard Simon, the director of the Florida chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union. 'There's no weapons, no explosives, but this major announcement.'
The seven men are charged with conspiring to blow up the Sears Tower in Chicago and FBI buildings in five cities. Prosecutors said they swore allegiance to al-Qaida after meeting with a confidential government informant who was posing as a representative of the terrorist group.
But after sweeps of various locations in Miami, government agents found no explosives or weapons. Investigators also did not document any direct links to al-Qaida." ...
WASHINGTON - Even as Justice Department officials trumpeted the arrests of seven Florida men accused of planning to wage a 'full ground war against the United States,' they acknowledged the group did not have the means to carry out the plan.
The Justice Department unveiled the arrests with an orchestrated series of press conferences in two cities, but the severity of the charges compared with the seemingly amateurish-nature of the group raised concerns among civil libertarians.
'We're as puzzled as everyone else,' said Howard Simon, the director of the Florida chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union. 'There's no weapons, no explosives, but this major announcement.'
The seven men are charged with conspiring to blow up the Sears Tower in Chicago and FBI buildings in five cities. Prosecutors said they swore allegiance to al-Qaida after meeting with a confidential government informant who was posing as a representative of the terrorist group.
But after sweeps of various locations in Miami, government agents found no explosives or weapons. Investigators also did not document any direct links to al-Qaida." ...
Sunday, June 18, 2006
Ann Coulter hasn't lost any of her 100-plus newspaper clients ... despite her nasty remarks in her new book about 9/11 widows
Newspaper Clients, and Syndicate, Stick With Coulter: "By Dave Astor and Greg Mitchell | Published: June 16, 2006 1:40 PM ET updated 4:00 PM
NEW YORK Ann Coulter hasn't lost any of her 100-plus newspaper clients, or the support of her syndicate, Universal Press Syndicate, despite her nasty remarks in her new book about 9/11 widows and her comment in an online interview implying that, perhaps, U.S. Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) should be "fragged."
A Universal spokesman said there were no discussions going on there about dropping the columnist.
Why is Coulter keeping all her subscribers? "Ann's client newspapers stick with her because she has a loyal fan base of conservative readers who look forward to reading her columns in their local newspapers," Universal Director of Communications Kathie Kerr said in a statement, after being queried today by E&P. ...
NEW YORK Ann Coulter hasn't lost any of her 100-plus newspaper clients, or the support of her syndicate, Universal Press Syndicate, despite her nasty remarks in her new book about 9/11 widows and her comment in an online interview implying that, perhaps, U.S. Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) should be "fragged."
A Universal spokesman said there were no discussions going on there about dropping the columnist.
Why is Coulter keeping all her subscribers? "Ann's client newspapers stick with her because she has a loyal fan base of conservative readers who look forward to reading her columns in their local newspapers," Universal Director of Communications Kathie Kerr said in a statement, after being queried today by E&P. ...
Sunday, June 04, 2006
BBC NEWS | Programmes | Panorama | Climate chaos: Bush's climate of fear
BBC NEWS | Programmes | Panorama | Climate chaos: Bush's climate of fear: "Watch Panorama on Sunday 4 June at 2215 BST on BBC One or live or on demand on this site to find out if the Bush administration has covered up the findings of global warming scientists.
A US government whistleblower tells Panorama how scientific reports about global warming have been systematically changed and suppressed.
Some of America's leading climate scientists claim to Panorama that they have been censored and gagged by the administration.
One of them believes the publication of his report, which catalogues the unprecedented rate of ice melt in the Arctic, was delayed as Americans prepared to vote in 2004.
The scientists claim that when Bush came to power in 2000 his administration selected advice which argued that global warming was not a result of human activities and that the phenomenon could be natural.
But one of the people who suggested the president adopt that position explains to Panorama how he has changed his point of view: "It's now 2006. I think most people would conclude that there is global warming taking place and that the behaviour of humans is affecting the climate. I am not the administration. What they want to do is their business. it has nothing to do with what I believe." ...
Thursday, June 01, 2006
High court trims whistleblower rights
High court trims whistleblower rights - Yahoo! News: " By GINA HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer Tue May 30, 5:54 PM ET
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court scaled back protections for government workers who blow the whistle on official misconduct Tuesday, a 5-4 decision in which new Justice Sam Alito cast the deciding vote.
...
Critics predicted the impact would be sweeping, from silencing police officers who fear retribution for reporting department corruption, to subduing federal employees who want to reveal problems with government hurricane preparedness or terrorist-related security.
Monday, May 29, 2006
"I can't imagine a bigger chill on free speech and the public's right to know ...
Attorney Gen.: Reporters Can Be Prosecuted - Yahoo! News: "Sun May 21, 3:31 PM ET
WASHINGTON - Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said Sunday he believes journalists can be prosecuted for publishing classified information, citing an obligation to national security.
The nation's top law enforcer also said the government will not hesitate to track telephone calls made by reporters as part of a criminal leak investigation, but officials would not do so routinely and randomly.
...
Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, said she presumed that Gonzales was referring to the 1917 Espionage Act, which she said has never been interpreted to prosecute journalists who were providing information to the public.
"I can't imagine a bigger chill on free speech and the public's right to know what it's government is up to — both hallmarks of a democracy — than prosecuting reporters," Dalglish said. ...
O'Reilly: Young Americans "have no idea what's going on" because they "get their news from Jon Stewart" ... [study] found Daily Show viewers informed
Media Matters - O'Reilly: Young Americans "have no idea what's going on" because they "get their news from Jon Stewart": "O'Reilly: Young Americans 'have no idea what's going on' because they 'get their news from Jon Stewart'
Summary: Bill O'Reilly asserted that '[m]any Americans ages 18 to 24 have no idea what's going on,' stating that they 'get their news from [Comedy Central host] Jon Stewart and their point of view from bomb-throwing entertainers.' In fact, studies have shown that viewers of Comedy Central's The Daily Show with John Stewart are consistently better informed about current events than consumers of other media, and Daily Show viewers are significantly better educated than viewers of The O'Reilly Factor. Further, consumers of Fox News in general have been found to be significantly more misinformed about current events than consumers of other mainstream media."
Summary: Bill O'Reilly asserted that '[m]any Americans ages 18 to 24 have no idea what's going on,' stating that they 'get their news from [Comedy Central host] Jon Stewart and their point of view from bomb-throwing entertainers.' In fact, studies have shown that viewers of Comedy Central's The Daily Show with John Stewart are consistently better informed about current events than consumers of other media, and Daily Show viewers are significantly better educated than viewers of The O'Reilly Factor. Further, consumers of Fox News in general have been found to be significantly more misinformed about current events than consumers of other mainstream media."
During the May 23 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, Bill O'Reilly asserted that "[m]any Americans ages 18 to 24 have no idea what's going on," stating that they "get their news from [Comedy Central host] Jon Stewart and their point of view from bomb-throwing entertainers." In fact, studies have shown that viewers of Comedy Central's The Daily Show with John Stewart are consistently better informed about current events than consumers of other media, and Daily Show viewers are considerably better educated than viewers of The O'Reilly Factor. Further, consumers of Fox News in general have been found to be significantly more misinformed about current events than consumers of other mainstream media.
In 2004, the nonpartisan Annenberg Public Policy Center released its National Annenberg Election Survey, which found Daily Show viewers to be better informed on campaign issues than consumers of other late-night television programs, newspapers, network news, or cable news. In a press release, Annenberg senior analyst Dannagal Goldthwaite Young said: "Daily Show viewers have higher campaign knowledge than national news viewers and newspaper readers -- even when education, party identification, following politics, watching cable news, receiving campaign information online, age, and gender are taken into consideration." ...
Bush 'planted fake news stories on American TV'
Independent Online Edition > Americas: "Bush 'planted fake news stories on American TV' | By Andrew Buncombe in Washington | Published: 29 May 2006
Federal authorities are actively investigating dozens of American television stations for broadcasting items produced by the Bush administration and major corporations, and passing them off as normal news. Some of the fake news segments talked up success in the war in Iraq, or promoted the companies' products.
Investigators from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) are seeking information about stations across the country after a report produced by a campaign group detailed the extraordinary extent of the use of such items.
The report, by the non-profit group Centre for Media and Democracy, found that over a 10-month period at least 77 television stations were making use of the faux news broadcasts, known as Video News Releases (VNRs). Not one told viewers who had produced the items.
"We know we only had partial access to these VNRs and yet we found 77 stations using them," said Diana Farsetta, one of the group's researchers. "I would say it's pretty extraordinary. The picture we found was much worse than we expected going into the investigation in terms of just how widely these get played and how frequently these pre-packaged segments are put on the air." ...
Friday, May 05, 2006
News Hounds: "Special Report" Edits Rumsfeld Video
News Hounds: "Special Report" Edits Rumsfeld Video: "Reported by Janie - May 05, 2006
In a segment that sent chills down my spine, 'Special Report with Brit Hume' attempted to rewrite history last night (5/4) by editing the video of Rumsfeld's discussion with former CIA agent Roy McGovern during a speech in Atlanta.
Hume opened the segment with, 'Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, meanwhile was trying to take it guff during a speech today in Atlanta where he shrugged off a couple of hecklers, and then took on an audience member who said he had worked at the CIA for 27 years, and accused the Bush Admin.. Rumsfeld and the Bush Administration of lying about whether or not Iraq had WMDs.'
Hume then cut to the heavily edited video of the event.
Ray McGovern: ' Why did you lie to get us into a war that was not necessary, that has caused these kinds of casualties. Why?'
Donald Rumsfeld: 'Well, first of all, I haven't lied. I did not lie then. Colin Powell didn't lie. He spent weeks and weeks with the CIA people and prepared a presentation that I know he believed was accurate, and he presented that to the UN. The President spent weeks and weeks with the CIA, and he went to the American people and made a presentation. I am not in the intelligence business. They gave the world their honest opinion, it appears there were not WMDs there.'
RM: 'You said you knew where they were.'
DR: 'I did not. I said I knew where suspect sites were.'
Comment: This was the first portion of the video that was edited. This is the portion that was removed:
RM: :You said you knew where they were Tikrit, Baghdad, northeast, south, west of there. Those are your words.'
DR: 'My words.... my words were that .... no, no, no wait a minute, wait a minute. Let him stay one second. Just a second.'
RM: 'This is America, Huh.'
DR: 'You’re getting plenty of play, sir.'
RM: 'I’d just like an honest answer.'
DR: 'I’m giving it to you.'
The disgusting propaganda continued ...
In a segment that sent chills down my spine, 'Special Report with Brit Hume' attempted to rewrite history last night (5/4) by editing the video of Rumsfeld's discussion with former CIA agent Roy McGovern during a speech in Atlanta.
Hume opened the segment with, 'Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, meanwhile was trying to take it guff during a speech today in Atlanta where he shrugged off a couple of hecklers, and then took on an audience member who said he had worked at the CIA for 27 years, and accused the Bush Admin.. Rumsfeld and the Bush Administration of lying about whether or not Iraq had WMDs.'
Hume then cut to the heavily edited video of the event.
Ray McGovern: ' Why did you lie to get us into a war that was not necessary, that has caused these kinds of casualties. Why?'
Donald Rumsfeld: 'Well, first of all, I haven't lied. I did not lie then. Colin Powell didn't lie. He spent weeks and weeks with the CIA people and prepared a presentation that I know he believed was accurate, and he presented that to the UN. The President spent weeks and weeks with the CIA, and he went to the American people and made a presentation. I am not in the intelligence business. They gave the world their honest opinion, it appears there were not WMDs there.'
RM: 'You said you knew where they were.'
DR: 'I did not. I said I knew where suspect sites were.'
Comment: This was the first portion of the video that was edited. This is the portion that was removed:
RM: :You said you knew where they were Tikrit, Baghdad, northeast, south, west of there. Those are your words.'
DR: 'My words.... my words were that .... no, no, no wait a minute, wait a minute. Let him stay one second. Just a second.'
RM: 'This is America, Huh.'
DR: 'You’re getting plenty of play, sir.'
RM: 'I’d just like an honest answer.'
DR: 'I’m giving it to you.'
The disgusting propaganda continued ...
Monday, May 01, 2006
New York Times omits Colbert at correspondents' dinner ... President and First Lady unamused
The Raw Story | New York Times omits Colbert at correspondents' dinner: RAW STORY | Published: Monday May 1, 2006
The New York Times' article Monday on the White House correspondent's dinner failed to include any mention of Stephen Colbert, the deadpan host of Comedy Central's Colbert report, RAW STORY has found.
In fact, the paper didn't mention the comic's appearance at the dinner at all. The discovery was first made by a diarist at Daily Kos.
According to Editor & Publisher, the comic's jokes left the President and First Lady unamused. The press, reports said, reacted uncomfortably to the stinging humorous attacks on the press and the Administration.
'Colbert, who spoke in the guise of his talk-show character, who ostensibly supports the president strongly, urged Bush to ignore his low approval ratings, saying they were based on reality, 'and reality has a well-known liberal bias,'' wrote Editor & Publisher's Joe Strupp, who was at the dinner." ...
The New York Times' article Monday on the White House correspondent's dinner failed to include any mention of Stephen Colbert, the deadpan host of Comedy Central's Colbert report, RAW STORY has found.
In fact, the paper didn't mention the comic's appearance at the dinner at all. The discovery was first made by a diarist at Daily Kos.
According to Editor & Publisher, the comic's jokes left the President and First Lady unamused. The press, reports said, reacted uncomfortably to the stinging humorous attacks on the press and the Administration.
'Colbert, who spoke in the guise of his talk-show character, who ostensibly supports the president strongly, urged Bush to ignore his low approval ratings, saying they were based on reality, 'and reality has a well-known liberal bias,'' wrote Editor & Publisher's Joe Strupp, who was at the dinner." ...
Wednesday, April 26, 2006
Air Force Censors Liberal Websites, But Leaves Conservative Ones Alone
Daily Kos: State of the Nation: "BREAKING: Air Force Censors Liberal Websites, But Leaves Conservative Ones Alone | by AmberJane | Mon Apr 24, 2006 at 09:31:33 PM PDT
Earlier today, a friend of mine who flies for the Air Force sent me an email reporting that sometime in the middle of the day today, the Air Force's IT people put a block on DailyKos. He was on a coffee break and wanted to show a colleague a diary about energy policy, so he told me (probably one of Jerome �Paris'). Although it was possible to do that this morning, by around two o'clock (or however they say that in the Air Force) DailyKos was blocked.
So was Atrios.
So was TalkingPointsMemo, for crying out loud - and they're all policy and minimal invective over there!
On the other hand, Free Republic and Little Green Footballs came through just fine, thank you very much."
Earlier today, a friend of mine who flies for the Air Force sent me an email reporting that sometime in the middle of the day today, the Air Force's IT people put a block on DailyKos. He was on a coffee break and wanted to show a colleague a diary about energy policy, so he told me (probably one of Jerome �Paris'). Although it was possible to do that this morning, by around two o'clock (or however they say that in the Air Force) DailyKos was blocked.
So was Atrios.
So was TalkingPointsMemo, for crying out loud - and they're all policy and minimal invective over there!
On the other hand, Free Republic and Little Green Footballs came through just fine, thank you very much."
Media largely ignore ex-CIA official's disclosure that White House dismissed contrary prewar intelligence on Iraq's WMD
Media Matters - Media largely ignore ex-CIA official's disclosure that White House dismissed contrary prewar intelligence on Iraq's WMD: "Media largely ignore ex-CIA official's disclosure that White House dismissed contrary prewar intelligence on Iraq's WMD
Summary: On CBS' 60 Minutes, former high-ranking CIA official Tyler Drumheller proved that the Bush administration dismissed clear-cut evidence undermining President Bush's central case for war -- that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. But in the nearly two days since this explosive report aired, the media have almost entirely ignored the story.
On the April 23 edition of CBS' 60 Minutes, former high-ranking CIA official Tyler Drumheller offered first-hand evidence that, months before the United States invaded Iraq, the Bush administration dismissed clear-cut evidence undermining President Bush's central case for war -- that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. But in the nearly two days since this explosive report aired, the media have -- with the exception of MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann and several brief wire articles -- entirely ignored the story." ...
Summary: On CBS' 60 Minutes, former high-ranking CIA official Tyler Drumheller proved that the Bush administration dismissed clear-cut evidence undermining President Bush's central case for war -- that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. But in the nearly two days since this explosive report aired, the media have almost entirely ignored the story.
On the April 23 edition of CBS' 60 Minutes, former high-ranking CIA official Tyler Drumheller offered first-hand evidence that, months before the United States invaded Iraq, the Bush administration dismissed clear-cut evidence undermining President Bush's central case for war -- that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. But in the nearly two days since this explosive report aired, the media have -- with the exception of MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann and several brief wire articles -- entirely ignored the story." ...
Tony Snow [new Press Secretary] On President Bush: ‘An Embarrassment,’ ‘Impotent,’ ‘Doesn’t Seem To Mean What He Says’
Think Progress � Tony Snow On President Bush: ‘An Embarrassment,’ ‘Impotent,’ ‘Doesn’t Seem To Mean What He Says’: "
Fox News’ Tony Snow is expected to be named White House Press Secretary. Here’s some of what he’s had to say about the President:
– Bush has “lost control of the federal budget and cannot resist the temptation to stop raiding the public fisc.” [3/17/06]
– “George W. Bush and his colleagues have become not merely the custodians of the largest government in the history of humankind, but also exponents of its vigorous expansion.” [3/17/06]
– “President Bush distilled the essence of his presidency in this year’s State of the Union Address: brilliant foreign policy and listless domestic policy.” [2/3/06]
– “George Bush has become something of an embarrassment.” [11/11/05]
– Bush “has a habit of singing from the Political Correctness hymnal.” [10/7/05]
– “No president has looked this impotent this long when it comes to defending presidential powers and prerogatives.” [9/30/05]
...
– “When it comes to federal spending, George W. Bush is the boy who can’t say no. In each of his three years at the helm, the president has warned Congress to restrain its spending appetites, but so far nobody has pushed away from the table mainly because the president doesn’t seem to mean what he says.” [The Detroit News, 12/28/03] ...
Saturday, April 08, 2006
Are US campuses in the grip of a witch-hunt of progressives asks Gary Younge
Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | Are US campuses in the grip of a witch-hunt of progressives asks Gary Younge: "Silence in class |
Tuesday April 4, 2006 | The Guardian
University professors denounced for anti-Americanism; schoolteachers suspended for their politics; students encouraged to report on their tutors. Are US campuses in the grip of a witch-hunt of progressives, or is academic life just too liberal? By Gary Younge
...
In February, Horowitz published a book, The Professors: the 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America, in which he lists, in alphabetical order, the radical academics whom he believes are polluting academe with leftwing propaganda. "Coming to a campus near you: terrorists, racists, and communists - you know them as The Professors," reads the blurb on the jacket. "Today's radical academics aren't the exception - they're legion. And far from being harmless, they spew violent anti-Americanism, preach anti-semitism and cheer on the killing of American soldiers and civilians - all the while collecting tax dollars and tuition fees to indoctrinate our children."
Tuesday April 4, 2006 | The Guardian
University professors denounced for anti-Americanism; schoolteachers suspended for their politics; students encouraged to report on their tutors. Are US campuses in the grip of a witch-hunt of progressives, or is academic life just too liberal? By Gary Younge
...
As chair of African American studies in Yale, Paul Gilroy had a similar experience recently after he spoke at a university-sponsored teach-in on the Iraq war. "I think the morality of cluster bombs, of uranium-tipped bombs, [of] daisy cutters are shaped by an imperial double standard that values American lives more," he said. "[The war seems motivated by] a desire to enact revenge for the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon ... [It's important] to speculate about the relation between this war and the geopolitical interests of Israel."
"I thought I was being extremely mealy-mouthed, but I was accused of advocating conspiracy theories," says Gilroy, who is now the Anthony Giddens professor of Social Theory at the London School of Economics.
Scot Silverstein, who was once on the faculty at Yale, saw a piece in the student paper about Gilroy's contribution. He wrote to the Wall Street Journal comparing Gilroy to Hitler and claiming his words illustrated the "moral psychosis and perhaps psychological sadism that appears to have infected leftist academia". The Journal published the letter. Gilroy found himself posted on Discoverthenetworks.org, a website dedicated to exposing radical professors. The principle accusation was that he "believes the US fabricated the threat posed by Saddam Hussein".
Then the emails started coming to him and his colleagues, denouncing him. "Only one person said anything," says Gilroy. "Otherwise, nobody looked me in the eye. There was something about the way it never came up that made me realise how nervous and apprehensive they were." ...
...
Earlier this year, Fox news commentator Sean Hannity urged students to record "leftwing propaganda" by professors so he could broadcast it on his show. On the web there is Campus Watch, "monitoring Middle East studies on campus"; Edwatch, "Education for a free nation"; and Parents Against Bad Books in School.
In mid January, the Bruin Alumni association offered students $100 to tape leftwing professors at the University of California Los Angeles. The association effectively had one dedicated member, 24-year-old Republican Andrew Jones. It also had one dedicated aim: "Exposing UCLA's most radical professors" who "[proselytise] their extreme views in the classroom". ...
...In February, Horowitz published a book, The Professors: the 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America, in which he lists, in alphabetical order, the radical academics whom he believes are polluting academe with leftwing propaganda. "Coming to a campus near you: terrorists, racists, and communists - you know them as The Professors," reads the blurb on the jacket. "Today's radical academics aren't the exception - they're legion. And far from being harmless, they spew violent anti-Americanism, preach anti-semitism and cheer on the killing of American soldiers and civilians - all the while collecting tax dollars and tuition fees to indoctrinate our children."
The book is a sloppy series of character assassinations, relying more heavily on insinuation, inference, suggestion and association than it does on fact. Take Todd Gitlin, a journalism and sociology professor at Columbia University. Gitlin was the leader of Students for Democratic Society, a radical anti-war movement in the 60s. Today, his politics could be described as mainstream liberal. He supported the war in Afghanistan but not in Iraq and hung out the Stars and Stripes after the terrorist attacks on September 11. He has recently written a book, The Intellectuals and the Flag, calling for progressives to embrace a patriotic culture that distinguishes between allegiance to one's country, which he supports, and loyalty to one's government, which he does not ...
Buried in Washington Post, White House official admits Bush authorized Iraq leak
The Raw Story | Buried in Washington Post, White House official admits Bush authorized Iraq leak: "RAW STORY | Published: Friday April 7, 2006
From the Washington Post, Page A9:
[The White House refused to comment directly on the court filing, except to point out that Bush's very decision to disclose classified information means he declassified it -- an assessment shared by independent legal experts.
A senior administration official, speaking on background because White House policy prohibits comment on an active investigation, said Bush sees a distinction between leaks and what he is alleged to have done. The official said Bush authorized the release of the classified information to assure the public of his rationale for war as it was coming under increasing scrutiny.]
...From the Washington Post, Page A9:
The allegation that President Bush authorized the dissemination of secret intelligence as part of an effort to buttress his case for war with Iraq introduces a new dimension to the long-running CIA leak investigation, while posing troubling new political problems for the administration.
Until now, the investigation had been about aides to Bush and their alleged efforts to attack the credibility of a vocal administration critic, including by possibly leaking classified information. Bush cast himself as a disinterested observer, eager to resolve the case and hold those responsible accountable.
But court papers filed late Wednesday night by Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald, in the perjury case of former White House official I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, implicate Bush as knowing about efforts to disseminate sensitive information -- and also as orchestrating them.
Although Fitzgerald specifically said Bush was not aware of the leaking of a CIA agent's affiliation, the allegation that the president was involved at all in a leak campaign unleashed a torrent of criticism from Democrats.
"The buck doesn't stop anywhere with this White House. Now we know why the president hasn't been straight with Americans," said Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.). "Two and a half years ago, President Bush said. 'If there is a leak out of my administration, I want to know who it is.' He said he'd fire whoever leaked classified information, and now we know the president himself authorized it. Now we know that the president's search for the leaker needs to go no further than a mirror." ...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)