Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility: News Releases: "July 20, 2005
Contact: Chas Offutt (202) 265-7337
“DISINFORMATION SYNDROME” AFFLICTS FEDERAL GOVERNMENT — Officials Routinely Rewarded for Lying and Punished for Telling the Truth
Washington, DC — The federal government suffers from a “severe disinformation syndrome” in which agency specialists are pressured to alter reports by managers who are promoted for breaking the law, according to congressional testimony delivered today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER). As a consequence, scientific and technical papers, particularly within environmental agencies, are routinely censored, altered or manipulated for political purposes.
“The Bush administration obsession with controlling the flow of information means that factual information that does not serve its political agenda rarely sees the light of day,” stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch who testified today. “Public servants who wish to speak honestly about matters outside officially approved agency talking points are required to cast a profile in courage because their honesty could cost them their jobs.”
...
The PEER testimony outlines a pervasive effort to edit out vital but discordant information across the range of environmental activities:
* Science. PEER and the Union of Concerned Scientists have conducted surveys among federal scientists showing a high degree of political intervention to amend scientific findings;
* Land Management. Federal agencies are routinely issuing documents that do not withstand judicial scrutiny because the documents are at variance with the agency’s own internal data; and
* Public Health. Whistleblowers lack meaningful protections so that professionals who raise concerns are banished or terminated as a result.
A major problem cited by PEER is that Congress extends no meaningful legal protections for executive branch employees who communicate information to oversight committees or individual members. As a consequence, official reports to Congress are often inaccurate, incomplete or untimely.
“If agencies can lie with impunity to Congress, why should they be expected to tell anyone else the truth?” Ruch asked, calling for Congress to put teeth into laws forbidding interference with or retaliation for transmitting information to elected representatives. “Right now, the federal civil service is scared to death.”
Sunday, July 31, 2005
Friday, July 29, 2005
Fedrs decline to press charges of impersonating a Secret Service agent against White House volunteer who forcibly ousted three progressives
Rocky Mountain News: News: "No charges in Denver 3 ouster | By Ann Imse, Rocky Mountain News | July 29, 2005
Federal prosecutors have declined to press charges of impersonating a Secret Service agent against a White House volunteer who forcibly ousted three people from a speech by President George W. Bush in Denver on March 21.
The announcement was made without explanation today in a letter from the Secret Service to Colorado Sen. Ken Salazar and Reps. Mark Udall and Diana DeGette, all Democrats who had asked for the agency to investigate the incident.
...
Although the three are involved in a political group called the Denver Progressives, they did nothing to interfere with the event and were bounced before the president arrived. They admitted to wearing t-shirts under their clothing that said, "No more lies." They said they considered revealing the t-shirts, but decided not to do so. Later, though they had done nothing disruptive, the unidentified man forced them to leave.
Federal prosecutors have declined to press charges of impersonating a Secret Service agent against a White House volunteer who forcibly ousted three people from a speech by President George W. Bush in Denver on March 21.
The announcement was made without explanation today in a letter from the Secret Service to Colorado Sen. Ken Salazar and Reps. Mark Udall and Diana DeGette, all Democrats who had asked for the agency to investigate the incident.
...
Although the three are involved in a political group called the Denver Progressives, they did nothing to interfere with the event and were bounced before the president arrived. They admitted to wearing t-shirts under their clothing that said, "No more lies." They said they considered revealing the t-shirts, but decided not to do so. Later, though they had done nothing disruptive, the unidentified man forced them to leave.
Wednesday, July 27, 2005
Pentagon probes use of apparent fake quotes in Iraq news releases
Pentagon probes use of apparent fake quotes in Iraq news releases - Yahoo! News: "Tue Jul 26, 7:17 PM ET
WASHINGTON (AFP) - The Pentagon said it was investigating the use of near-identical quotations from unidentified Iraqis in official news releases that criticized insurgent bombings.
...
Journalists in Iraq first complained Sunday to US authorities in Baghdad about the questionable quotes in the releases.
"If a journalist were to make up a quote or copy a quote or misuse a quote like that, he could lose his job," a reporter told DiRita Tuesday.
WASHINGTON (AFP) - The Pentagon said it was investigating the use of near-identical quotations from unidentified Iraqis in official news releases that criticized insurgent bombings.
...
Journalists in Iraq first complained Sunday to US authorities in Baghdad about the questionable quotes in the releases.
"If a journalist were to make up a quote or copy a quote or misuse a quote like that, he could lose his job," a reporter told DiRita Tuesday.
Sunday, July 24, 2005
Estate Tax Myths: numbers [of farmers and owners of small businesses] that owed estate tax were paltry
Estate Tax Myths: "Sunday, July 24, 2005; Page B06
ONE OF THE chief arguments of those seeking permanent repeal of the estate tax is that it cruelly penalizes farmers and owners of small businesses whose heirs are forced to sell off their holdings to pay the tax. 'In order to make sure our farms stay within our farming families, we need to get rid of the death tax once and for all,' President Bush proclaimed in a speech last month to the Future Farmers of America."
...
A new study by the Congressional Budget Office examined estate tax returns filed by farmers and owners of small businesses in 1999 and 2000. The numbers that owed estate tax, the CBO found, were paltry, and the number without enough cash on hand to pay the bill even punier: In 2000, for example, just 1,659 farm estates had taxes due, of which 138 didn't report enough liquid assets to cover their tax liability. ... But members of Congress debating the issue now ought to look at the facts assembled by the CBO -- not the misinformation peddled by those maneuvering to make repeal permanent.
ONE OF THE chief arguments of those seeking permanent repeal of the estate tax is that it cruelly penalizes farmers and owners of small businesses whose heirs are forced to sell off their holdings to pay the tax. 'In order to make sure our farms stay within our farming families, we need to get rid of the death tax once and for all,' President Bush proclaimed in a speech last month to the Future Farmers of America."
...
A new study by the Congressional Budget Office examined estate tax returns filed by farmers and owners of small businesses in 1999 and 2000. The numbers that owed estate tax, the CBO found, were paltry, and the number without enough cash on hand to pay the bill even punier: In 2000, for example, just 1,659 farm estates had taxes due, of which 138 didn't report enough liquid assets to cover their tax liability. ... But members of Congress debating the issue now ought to look at the facts assembled by the CBO -- not the misinformation peddled by those maneuvering to make repeal permanent.
Friday, July 22, 2005
56% say "[news] stories and reports are often inaccurate,"
David Domke: There's No Shield Against Public Anger: "July 22, 2005 | The American Press and Credibility | By DAVID DOMKE
...
A recent Pew Research Center poll shows U.S. press credibility at historic lows. In early June, 56% of randomly sampled U.S. adults said that "[news] stories and reports are often inaccurate," an increase from 34% of the public who held this view in 1985. Similarly, 72% of Americans today say news organizations "tend to favor one side" when covering political and social issues, up from 53% two decades ago. And 75% of Americans said news organizations' reporting is most concerned about "attracting the biggest audience," while only 19% said it was "keeping the public informed."
...
The desire for pro-American news produces this outcome: when news content is critical of U.S. actions, many Americans become angry with the press, rather than the government. In other words, the public becomes likely to shoot the messenger. It would help if the news media stopped providing ammunition.
...
A recent Pew Research Center poll shows U.S. press credibility at historic lows. In early June, 56% of randomly sampled U.S. adults said that "[news] stories and reports are often inaccurate," an increase from 34% of the public who held this view in 1985. Similarly, 72% of Americans today say news organizations "tend to favor one side" when covering political and social issues, up from 53% two decades ago. And 75% of Americans said news organizations' reporting is most concerned about "attracting the biggest audience," while only 19% said it was "keeping the public informed."
...
The desire for pro-American news produces this outcome: when news content is critical of U.S. actions, many Americans become angry with the press, rather than the government. In other words, the public becomes likely to shoot the messenger. It would help if the news media stopped providing ammunition.
Thursday, July 21, 2005
Iraq: The War We Are Not Being Shown: It’s like a pair of blinders has been removed
Iraq: The War We Are Not Being Shown Huffington Post | 07.20.2005 Arianna Huffington
My vacation has been remarkably eye-opening. Now, when travelers say things like that, they usually are talking about being introduced to new cultures, different foods, singular settings… but in my case, I’m talking about war. Specifically, how shockingly different the coverage of the war in Iraq is here in Europe compared to what we get back home.
It’s like a pair of blinders has been removed and I’m suddenly seeing for myself what I’ve long known to be the case: just how sanitized a version of the war the American mainstream media are delivering, and how little of even this cleaned-up coverage we get.
Take Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari’s lovefest visit to Tehran on Sunday, where he laid a wreath on the tomb of Ayatollah Khomeini and hailed what he called “a new chapter in brotherly ties” between Iran and Iraq. Now, by all rights, this should have been a major story in the U.S. Here you have the leader of the new government we’re spending hundreds of billions of dollars creating in Iraq making very nice with the terror-funding and nuke-building mullahs in Iran. So this is what our soldiers are putting their lives on the line for -- 1,770 killed so far -- a budding alliance between fundamentalist theocracies? (And yesterday’s news about the Iraqi constitution being based on fundamentalist Islamic principles, including curtailing women’s rights only confirms these fears) Surely that’s front page news, right? Not in America.
In fact, the historic visit was barely covered in the mainstream American press. The only major U.S. newspaper to report it was the Washington Post -- and its story was on page A-21. A-21?! The consequences of this lack of coverage are enormous. As the blogger Billmon at Whiskey Bar nailed it:
“How would the folks back home feel if they knew their sons and daughters were getting limbs blown off so that Iraqi politicians could jaunt off to Tehran and say warm and fuzzy things about the crazy old man who gave us the Iranian hostage crisis? And what kind of surrealist cover story would the GOP propaganda machine come up with to convince the Fox News audience that fighting and dying to keep Khomeini lovers in power is really a good thing?”
Another example of this lack of proper coverage -- and of the media’s bizarre priorities -- came when the Iraq Body Count dossier on civilian casualties in Iraq that HuffPost’s Jane Wells blogged about was released. Despite the vitally important information it contained, the Washington Post story on it ran on page A-18, the LA Times’ on page A-12, and the New York Times’ on A-8 . Thirty-seven percent of all non-combatant deaths were caused by US led coalition forces -- compared to 9% caused by insurgents -- and in the nation’s capital it runs on A-18.
My vacation has been remarkably eye-opening. Now, when travelers say things like that, they usually are talking about being introduced to new cultures, different foods, singular settings… but in my case, I’m talking about war. Specifically, how shockingly different the coverage of the war in Iraq is here in Europe compared to what we get back home.
It’s like a pair of blinders has been removed and I’m suddenly seeing for myself what I’ve long known to be the case: just how sanitized a version of the war the American mainstream media are delivering, and how little of even this cleaned-up coverage we get.
Take Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari’s lovefest visit to Tehran on Sunday, where he laid a wreath on the tomb of Ayatollah Khomeini and hailed what he called “a new chapter in brotherly ties” between Iran and Iraq. Now, by all rights, this should have been a major story in the U.S. Here you have the leader of the new government we’re spending hundreds of billions of dollars creating in Iraq making very nice with the terror-funding and nuke-building mullahs in Iran. So this is what our soldiers are putting their lives on the line for -- 1,770 killed so far -- a budding alliance between fundamentalist theocracies? (And yesterday’s news about the Iraqi constitution being based on fundamentalist Islamic principles, including curtailing women’s rights only confirms these fears) Surely that’s front page news, right? Not in America.
In fact, the historic visit was barely covered in the mainstream American press. The only major U.S. newspaper to report it was the Washington Post -- and its story was on page A-21. A-21?! The consequences of this lack of coverage are enormous. As the blogger Billmon at Whiskey Bar nailed it:
“How would the folks back home feel if they knew their sons and daughters were getting limbs blown off so that Iraqi politicians could jaunt off to Tehran and say warm and fuzzy things about the crazy old man who gave us the Iranian hostage crisis? And what kind of surrealist cover story would the GOP propaganda machine come up with to convince the Fox News audience that fighting and dying to keep Khomeini lovers in power is really a good thing?”
Another example of this lack of proper coverage -- and of the media’s bizarre priorities -- came when the Iraq Body Count dossier on civilian casualties in Iraq that HuffPost’s Jane Wells blogged about was released. Despite the vitally important information it contained, the Washington Post story on it ran on page A-18, the LA Times’ on page A-12, and the New York Times’ on A-8 . Thirty-seven percent of all non-combatant deaths were caused by US led coalition forces -- compared to 9% caused by insurgents -- and in the nation’s capital it runs on A-18.
Friday, July 15, 2005
Comcast Corporation has been automatically deleting email sent to Comcast customers with the text "www.afterdowningstreet.org" in the body of the emai
THE BRAD BLOG: "COMCAST KILLS EMAIL FROM 'AFTERDOWNINGSTREET' COALITION!": "7/15/2005 @ 3:10pm PT...
...
The BRAD BLOG has learned that cable company and Internet service provider, Comcast Corporation has been automatically deleting email sent to Comcast customers with the text "www.afterdowningstreet.org" in the body of the email.
AfterDowningStreet.org ("ADS") is the citizen's coalition advocacy group organized to raise awareness of the leaked British memos and minutes referred to as the "Downing Street Documents". Those documents, first reported by Michael Smith of the Sunday Times suggest that the Bush Administration had determined to topple Saddam Hussein by military means and planned to "fix" the facts and intelligence around the policy" at least eight months prior to receiving authorization of the U.S. Congress to wage war in Iraq. At the same time, George W. Bush and administration officials were routinely telling both Congress and the American people that no tactical decisions had yet been made regarding regime change in Iraq.
...
The BRAD BLOG has been able to independently confirm that email sent to two different Comcast customers with the text "www.afterdowningstreet.org" in the body of the mail, is not currently reaching those customers as expected. Though messages with only "afterdowningstreet.org" are, in fact, able to get through to those same customers without a problem.
...
The BRAD BLOG has learned that cable company and Internet service provider, Comcast Corporation has been automatically deleting email sent to Comcast customers with the text "www.afterdowningstreet.org" in the body of the email.
AfterDowningStreet.org ("ADS") is the citizen's coalition advocacy group organized to raise awareness of the leaked British memos and minutes referred to as the "Downing Street Documents". Those documents, first reported by Michael Smith of the Sunday Times suggest that the Bush Administration had determined to topple Saddam Hussein by military means and planned to "fix" the facts and intelligence around the policy" at least eight months prior to receiving authorization of the U.S. Congress to wage war in Iraq. At the same time, George W. Bush and administration officials were routinely telling both Congress and the American people that no tactical decisions had yet been made regarding regime change in Iraq.
...
The BRAD BLOG has been able to independently confirm that email sent to two different Comcast customers with the text "www.afterdowningstreet.org" in the body of the mail, is not currently reaching those customers as expected. Though messages with only "afterdowningstreet.org" are, in fact, able to get through to those same customers without a problem.
Wednesday, July 13, 2005
Knight Ridder's Baghdad Chief Replies to Criticismof war coverage as 'bad' for focusing on the negative
Knight Ridder's Baghdad Chief Replies to Criticism From Back Home: "By Greg Mitchell | (July 13, 2005)
Early this week, Mark Yost, an editorial writer at Knight Ridder's St. Paul Pioneer Press, wrote a column that sharply criticized Iraq war coverage as 'bad' for focusing on the negative. Today, another Knight Ridder writer who may actually know what's going on in Baghdad, penned a reply.
...
Knight Ridder's Baghdad bureau chief, Hannah Allam, has read Mark Yost's column. Her response, from the front, says it far better than I could.
***
From Hannah Allam:
It saddens me to read Mark Yost's editorial in the Pioneer Press, the Knight Ridder paper that hired me as a rookie reporter and taught me valuable lessons in life and journalism during the four years I spent there before heading to Iraq.
I invite Mr. Yost to spend a week in our Baghdad bureau, where he can see our Iraqi staff members' toothbrushes lined up in the bathroom because they have no running water at home. I frequently find them camping out in the office overnight because electricity is still only sporadic in their sweltering neighborhoods, despite what I'm sure are the best-intentioned efforts of people like his Marine buddy working on the electrical grid.
Mr. Yost could have come with me today as I visited one of my own military buddies, who like most officers doesn't leave the protected Green Zone compound except by helicopter or massive convoy. The Army official picked me up in his air-conditioned Explorer, took me to Burger King for lunch and showed me photos of the family he misses so terribly. The official is a great guy, and like so many other soldiers, it's not politics that blind him from seeing the real Iraq. The compound's maze of tall blast wall and miles of concertina wire obscure the view, too.
Mr. Yost can listen to our bureau's morning planning meetings, where we orchestrate a trip to buy bottled water (the tap water is contaminated, when it works) as if we're plotting a military operation. I wonder whether he prefers riding in the first car -- the most exposed to shrapnel and bullets -- or the chase car, which is designed to act as a buffer between us and potential kidnappers.
Perhaps Mr. Yost would be moved by our office's tribute wall to Yasser Salihee, our brave and wonderful colleague, who at age 30 joined the ranks of Iraqi civilians shot to death by American soldiers. Mr. Yost would have appreciated one of Yasser's last stories -- a rare good-news piece about humanitarian aid reaching the holy city of Najaf.
Mr. Yost's contention that 14 of Iraq's 18 provinces are stable is pure fantasy. On his visit to Baghdhad, he can check that by chatting with our resident British security consultant, who every day receives a province-by-province breakdown of the roadside bombs, ambushes, assassinations and other violence throughout the country.
If Baghdad is too far for Mr. Yost to travel (and I don't blame him, given the treacherous airport road to reach our fortress-like hotel), why not just head to Oklahoma? There, he can meet my former Iraqi translator, Ban Adil, and her young son. They're rebuilding their lives under political asylum after insurgents in Baghdad followed Ban's family home one night and gunned down her 4-year-old daughter, her husband and her elderly mother in law.
Freshly painted schools and a new desalination plant might add up to "mission accomplished" for some people. Too bad Ban's daughter never got to enjoy those fruits of her liberation.
Early this week, Mark Yost, an editorial writer at Knight Ridder's St. Paul Pioneer Press, wrote a column that sharply criticized Iraq war coverage as 'bad' for focusing on the negative. Today, another Knight Ridder writer who may actually know what's going on in Baghdad, penned a reply.
...
Knight Ridder's Baghdad bureau chief, Hannah Allam, has read Mark Yost's column. Her response, from the front, says it far better than I could.
***
From Hannah Allam:
It saddens me to read Mark Yost's editorial in the Pioneer Press, the Knight Ridder paper that hired me as a rookie reporter and taught me valuable lessons in life and journalism during the four years I spent there before heading to Iraq.
I invite Mr. Yost to spend a week in our Baghdad bureau, where he can see our Iraqi staff members' toothbrushes lined up in the bathroom because they have no running water at home. I frequently find them camping out in the office overnight because electricity is still only sporadic in their sweltering neighborhoods, despite what I'm sure are the best-intentioned efforts of people like his Marine buddy working on the electrical grid.
Mr. Yost could have come with me today as I visited one of my own military buddies, who like most officers doesn't leave the protected Green Zone compound except by helicopter or massive convoy. The Army official picked me up in his air-conditioned Explorer, took me to Burger King for lunch and showed me photos of the family he misses so terribly. The official is a great guy, and like so many other soldiers, it's not politics that blind him from seeing the real Iraq. The compound's maze of tall blast wall and miles of concertina wire obscure the view, too.
Mr. Yost can listen to our bureau's morning planning meetings, where we orchestrate a trip to buy bottled water (the tap water is contaminated, when it works) as if we're plotting a military operation. I wonder whether he prefers riding in the first car -- the most exposed to shrapnel and bullets -- or the chase car, which is designed to act as a buffer between us and potential kidnappers.
Perhaps Mr. Yost would be moved by our office's tribute wall to Yasser Salihee, our brave and wonderful colleague, who at age 30 joined the ranks of Iraqi civilians shot to death by American soldiers. Mr. Yost would have appreciated one of Yasser's last stories -- a rare good-news piece about humanitarian aid reaching the holy city of Najaf.
Mr. Yost's contention that 14 of Iraq's 18 provinces are stable is pure fantasy. On his visit to Baghdhad, he can check that by chatting with our resident British security consultant, who every day receives a province-by-province breakdown of the roadside bombs, ambushes, assassinations and other violence throughout the country.
If Baghdad is too far for Mr. Yost to travel (and I don't blame him, given the treacherous airport road to reach our fortress-like hotel), why not just head to Oklahoma? There, he can meet my former Iraqi translator, Ban Adil, and her young son. They're rebuilding their lives under political asylum after insurgents in Baghdad followed Ban's family home one night and gunned down her 4-year-old daughter, her husband and her elderly mother in law.
Freshly painted schools and a new desalination plant might add up to "mission accomplished" for some people. Too bad Ban's daughter never got to enjoy those fruits of her liberation.
Tuesday, July 12, 2005
CNN, ABC offered unchallenged legal analysis on Plame leak from Novak's partisan friends
CNN, ABC offered unchallenged legal analysis on ... [Media Matters for America]: "CNN, ABC offered unchallenged legal analysis on Plame leak from Novak's partisan friends
Reporting on White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove's alleged involvement in the leaking of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity, CNN and ABC News presented unchallenged legal analysis from Victoria Toensing and Joseph E. DiGenova, respectively, both of whom defended Rove and were identified only as a 'legal analyst' and a 'former US attorney.' Toensing and DiGenova, however, are partisan Republicans and personal friends of CNN host and columnist Robert D. Novak, who originally outed Plame in July 2003.
DiGenova and Toensing are married and are the founding partners of DiGenova & Toensing LLP, a Washington law firm. Toensing was President Reagan's deputy assistant attorney general and chief counsel to former Sen. Barry Goldwater (R-AZ). DiGenova has been described as a "confidant" of independent counsel Kenneth Starr during the Monica Lewinsky investigation [The Baltimore Sun, 9/21/00] and as "a former federal prosecutor now working for House Republicans" [The Washington Post, 2/23/98]. In 1998, Toensing and DiGenova angered House Democrats by repeatedly discussing the Lewinsky investigation in the media while under contract with the House Committee on Education and the Workforce to investigate the Teamsters union [The Washington Post, 2/13/98]. Toensing and DiGenova have a well-documented personal relationship with Novak. ...
Reporting on White House deputy chief of staff Karl Rove's alleged involvement in the leaking of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame's identity, CNN and ABC News presented unchallenged legal analysis from Victoria Toensing and Joseph E. DiGenova, respectively, both of whom defended Rove and were identified only as a 'legal analyst' and a 'former US attorney.' Toensing and DiGenova, however, are partisan Republicans and personal friends of CNN host and columnist Robert D. Novak, who originally outed Plame in July 2003.
DiGenova and Toensing are married and are the founding partners of DiGenova & Toensing LLP, a Washington law firm. Toensing was President Reagan's deputy assistant attorney general and chief counsel to former Sen. Barry Goldwater (R-AZ). DiGenova has been described as a "confidant" of independent counsel Kenneth Starr during the Monica Lewinsky investigation [The Baltimore Sun, 9/21/00] and as "a former federal prosecutor now working for House Republicans" [The Washington Post, 2/23/98]. In 1998, Toensing and DiGenova angered House Democrats by repeatedly discussing the Lewinsky investigation in the media while under contract with the House Committee on Education and the Workforce to investigate the Teamsters union [The Washington Post, 2/13/98]. Toensing and DiGenova have a well-documented personal relationship with Novak. ...
Wednesday, July 06, 2005
Once again a scientific report has been recast for the sake of political expediency and used as the basis for a federal rule that puts industry profit
Science Fiction: "July 5, 2005 latimes.com :EDITORIAL | Science Fiction
The altering of reports to fit policies is dismaying.
Once again a scientific report has been recast for the sake of political expediency and used as the basis for a federal rule that puts industry profit over the health of people and the environment. If that sounds familiar, it's because it has been happening regularly throughout President Bush's tenure.
In the most recent case, a government biologist and hydrologist complained that their findings on how cattle grazing damages wildlands were rewritten to produce contrary conclusions. A 'significant adverse impact' on wildlife, for instance, somehow became 'beneficial to animals.' Then the Bush administration announced that based on these rosy findings, it would relax rules that limit grazing on public lands.
The Bush administration's efforts to undermine, ignore and edit scientific findings add up to something even more dismaying than the resulting poor public policy. It's bad enough to push an ill-considered idea — such as increasing budgets for abstinence-only sex education — despite studies that show the idea doesn't work. Even more disheartening is the rewriting and deletion of scientific truth. It damages the scientific disciplines that have held the rational pursuit of truth above all else and, in that pursuit, have produced technical and medical marvels. This country already faces unprecedented challenges to its scientific supremacy from India, China and Singapore. It's not going to help the nation's scientific prestige to downgrade the work U.S. experts do.
The grazing case follows revelations weeks earlier that a former lobbyist for the oil industry, while working for the White House, tinkered with government reports on climate change to make global warming appear a more dubious and trivial phenomenon. ...
The altering of reports to fit policies is dismaying.
Once again a scientific report has been recast for the sake of political expediency and used as the basis for a federal rule that puts industry profit over the health of people and the environment. If that sounds familiar, it's because it has been happening regularly throughout President Bush's tenure.
In the most recent case, a government biologist and hydrologist complained that their findings on how cattle grazing damages wildlands were rewritten to produce contrary conclusions. A 'significant adverse impact' on wildlife, for instance, somehow became 'beneficial to animals.' Then the Bush administration announced that based on these rosy findings, it would relax rules that limit grazing on public lands.
The Bush administration's efforts to undermine, ignore and edit scientific findings add up to something even more dismaying than the resulting poor public policy. It's bad enough to push an ill-considered idea — such as increasing budgets for abstinence-only sex education — despite studies that show the idea doesn't work. Even more disheartening is the rewriting and deletion of scientific truth. It damages the scientific disciplines that have held the rational pursuit of truth above all else and, in that pursuit, have produced technical and medical marvels. This country already faces unprecedented challenges to its scientific supremacy from India, China and Singapore. It's not going to help the nation's scientific prestige to downgrade the work U.S. experts do.
The grazing case follows revelations weeks earlier that a former lobbyist for the oil industry, while working for the White House, tinkered with government reports on climate change to make global warming appear a more dubious and trivial phenomenon. ...
Saturday, July 02, 2005
Demands that Fox News remove C. Boyden Gray as a Supreme Court analyst: spent many hours raising millions to confirm Bush judicial nominees
David Brock to Fox: Drop Gray as Supreme Court ... [Media Matters for America]: "July 1, 2005 |
Roger Ailes
Chairman and CEO
Fox News Channel
1211 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York 10036
Dear Mr. Ailes:
I am writing to demand that Fox News Channel remove C. Boyden Gray from his position as a Supreme Court analyst. Gray's involvement as a leading player in the coming Supreme Court nomination battle makes him an inappropriate choice to serve as an analyst for Fox News, and Fox's failure to disclose Gray's conflict of interest to its viewers only compounds the problem.
In its initial coverage of the retirement of Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, Fox News featured extended commentary by Gray, identifying him only as a 'Fox Supreme Court Analyst.' But this does not fully inform Fox News viewers of Gray's involvement in the Supreme Court fight.
Gray is founder and chairman of the Committee for Justice, a group formed to advance the confirmation of President Bush's judicial nominees. In a May 24 profile of Gray, The Washington Post reported: 'Every Monday morning for months, veteran Washington lawyer C. Boyden Gray has plotted strategy via a conference call with the heads of groups that want to ease the confirmation of President Bush's judicial nominees. He has also spent many hours raising millions of dollars for the cause.'"
Roger Ailes
Chairman and CEO
Fox News Channel
1211 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York 10036
Dear Mr. Ailes:
I am writing to demand that Fox News Channel remove C. Boyden Gray from his position as a Supreme Court analyst. Gray's involvement as a leading player in the coming Supreme Court nomination battle makes him an inappropriate choice to serve as an analyst for Fox News, and Fox's failure to disclose Gray's conflict of interest to its viewers only compounds the problem.
In its initial coverage of the retirement of Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, Fox News featured extended commentary by Gray, identifying him only as a 'Fox Supreme Court Analyst.' But this does not fully inform Fox News viewers of Gray's involvement in the Supreme Court fight.
Gray is founder and chairman of the Committee for Justice, a group formed to advance the confirmation of President Bush's judicial nominees. In a May 24 profile of Gray, The Washington Post reported: 'Every Monday morning for months, veteran Washington lawyer C. Boyden Gray has plotted strategy via a conference call with the heads of groups that want to ease the confirmation of President Bush's judicial nominees. He has also spent many hours raising millions of dollars for the cause.'"
Wednesday, June 29, 2005
Bush's Iraq-9/11 link irks US press: we had hoped he would resist the temptation to raise the bloody flag of 9/11 .. to justify a war ...
Aljazeera.Net - Bush's Iraq-9/11 link irks US press: "Wednesday 29 June 2005, 15:03 Makka Time, 12:03 GMT
US newspapers have said President George Bush failed, in his televised Tuesday speech, to speak honestly about Iraq and should not have linked the US-led fight there to September 11.
'Sadly, Mr Bush wasted his opportunity last night, giving a speech that only answered questions no one was asking,' said the New York Times on Wednesday, referring to Bush's mantra that a stable and democratic Iraq would be worth US sacrifices.
'We did not expect Mr Bush would apologise for the misinformation that helped lead us into this war, or for the catastrophic mistakes his team made in running the military operation.
'But we had hoped he would resist the temptation to raise the bloody flag of 9/11 over and over again to justify a war in a country that had nothing whatsoever to do with the terrorist attacks,' said the daily.
Rather than explain that 'it will take years before the Iraqi government and its military are able to stand on their own' and that 'all those years of effort and suffering' could still result in civil war, Bush offered 'the usual emotional rhetoric about the advance of freedom', added the Times."
US newspapers have said President George Bush failed, in his televised Tuesday speech, to speak honestly about Iraq and should not have linked the US-led fight there to September 11.
'Sadly, Mr Bush wasted his opportunity last night, giving a speech that only answered questions no one was asking,' said the New York Times on Wednesday, referring to Bush's mantra that a stable and democratic Iraq would be worth US sacrifices.
'We did not expect Mr Bush would apologise for the misinformation that helped lead us into this war, or for the catastrophic mistakes his team made in running the military operation.
'But we had hoped he would resist the temptation to raise the bloody flag of 9/11 over and over again to justify a war in a country that had nothing whatsoever to do with the terrorist attacks,' said the daily.
Rather than explain that 'it will take years before the Iraqi government and its military are able to stand on their own' and that 'all those years of effort and suffering' could still result in civil war, Bush offered 'the usual emotional rhetoric about the advance of freedom', added the Times."
As usual, he failed to mention that the Sept. 11 commission found no credible evidence linking saddam Hussein and the 2001 terror attacks
Newsday.com: Linking Iraq with 9/11: "BY CRAIG GORDON | wASHINGTON BUREAU | June 29, 2005
With war worries growing, the president evokes the attacks of 2001 in a speech he hopes will rally support"
FORT BRAGG, N.C. -- In the past, when sagging polls have put President George W. Bush in trouble, he has invoked the event that shaped his presidency to confront critics and rally public support, the Sept. 11 attacks.
He did it again last night, wrapping the Iraq war in the mantle of 9/11 to reject calls for an exit timetable and appeal for patience from an increasingly skeptical public. Never forget "the lessons of September the 11th," Bush warned, or risk handing victory in Iraq to the likes of Osama bin Laden.
It was Bush's most direct and high-profile link between Iraq and Sept. 11 since winning re-election - and as usual, he failed to mention that the Sept. 11 commission found no credible evidence linking the former Iraqi government of Saddam Hussein and the 2001 terror attacks.
Instead, he invoked 9/11 to crystallize public support for what has become an open-ended conflict, much the way he asked the nation in the days after Sept. 11, 2001, to brace for a war-on-terror both global and generational in scope.
...
Flag-draped appeals
Bush administration critics have long faulted the president for trying to conflate the Iraq war with the Sept. 11 attacks as a way to drum up public support with flag-draped appeals to patriotism, especially in the face of slipping poll numbers during the presidential campaign last year.
Bush at that time said he never tried to blame Hussein for the attacks even as he continued to talk up Baghdad's links with al-Qaida - an argument that took root with sizable numbers of American voters who believed Hussein had a role in 9/11.
And just last week, 9/11 made another appearance, when Bush's top political adviser, Karl Rove, accused liberals of a weak response to the Sept. 11 attacks, prompting Democratic cries that he was politicizing the tragedy.
With war worries growing, the president evokes the attacks of 2001 in a speech he hopes will rally support"
FORT BRAGG, N.C. -- In the past, when sagging polls have put President George W. Bush in trouble, he has invoked the event that shaped his presidency to confront critics and rally public support, the Sept. 11 attacks.
He did it again last night, wrapping the Iraq war in the mantle of 9/11 to reject calls for an exit timetable and appeal for patience from an increasingly skeptical public. Never forget "the lessons of September the 11th," Bush warned, or risk handing victory in Iraq to the likes of Osama bin Laden.
It was Bush's most direct and high-profile link between Iraq and Sept. 11 since winning re-election - and as usual, he failed to mention that the Sept. 11 commission found no credible evidence linking the former Iraqi government of Saddam Hussein and the 2001 terror attacks.
Instead, he invoked 9/11 to crystallize public support for what has become an open-ended conflict, much the way he asked the nation in the days after Sept. 11, 2001, to brace for a war-on-terror both global and generational in scope.
...
Flag-draped appeals
Bush administration critics have long faulted the president for trying to conflate the Iraq war with the Sept. 11 attacks as a way to drum up public support with flag-draped appeals to patriotism, especially in the face of slipping poll numbers during the presidential campaign last year.
Bush at that time said he never tried to blame Hussein for the attacks even as he continued to talk up Baghdad's links with al-Qaida - an argument that took root with sizable numbers of American voters who believed Hussein had a role in 9/11.
And just last week, 9/11 made another appearance, when Bush's top political adviser, Karl Rove, accused liberals of a weak response to the Sept. 11 attacks, prompting Democratic cries that he was politicizing the tragedy.
Sunday, June 26, 2005
Limbaugh, Noonan attempt to distance Klein book ... "Truth about Hillary" ... "poorly written, poorly thought, poorly sourced."
Limbaugh, Noonan attempt to distance Klein book ... [Media Matters for America]: "Limbaugh, Noonan attempt to distance Klein book from conservatives
Wall Street Journal contributing editor Peggy Noonan and nationally syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh wrongly denied that conservatives are behind the promotion of Edward Klein's discredited attack book The Truth About Hillary (Sentinel, June 2005).
Limbaugh claimed that conservatives 'have nothing to do with' the book, instead speculating that it was a 'left-wing idea' intended to 'inoculate' Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) from criticism through the dismissal of the book's claims as 'a right-wing hatchet job.'" ...
...
In her June 23 column, Noonan similarly denied conservative involvement with the book, which she called "poorly written, poorly thought, poorly sourced." Claiming the book will "inoculate" Clinton "against future and legitimate criticism and revelations," she characterized Klein as having "no conservative bona fides" and described the book as "an anti-Hillary book by the MSM [mainstream media]."
Limbaugh claimed that The Truth about Hillary "has nothing to do with anybody in the conservative wing of any party. It has nothing to do with a bunch of right-wingers." He further stated that it was neither written by a conservative author nor published by a conservative publishing house like Regnery, the publisher of Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry, the book co-written by Jerome R. Corsi and Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (SBVT) co-founder John E. O'Neill. But as Media Matters for America has noted The Truth About Hillary has much in common with SBVT's discredited attack on Sen. John Kerry (D-MA):
-- Sentinel, the two-year-old conservative imprint of the Penguin Putnam publishing house that published Klein's book, has stated as its goal: "Just as the Swift Boat Veterans convinced millions of voters that John Kerry lacked the character to be president, Klein's book will influence everyone who is sizing up the character of Hillary Clinton." ...
...
Other conservatives have joined in promoting the book, including Hannity, syndicated columnist and CNN political analyst Robert D. Novak, Washington Times editorial page editor Tony Blankley, and Limbaugh himself.
Wall Street Journal contributing editor Peggy Noonan and nationally syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh wrongly denied that conservatives are behind the promotion of Edward Klein's discredited attack book The Truth About Hillary (Sentinel, June 2005).
Limbaugh claimed that conservatives 'have nothing to do with' the book, instead speculating that it was a 'left-wing idea' intended to 'inoculate' Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) from criticism through the dismissal of the book's claims as 'a right-wing hatchet job.'" ...
...
In her June 23 column, Noonan similarly denied conservative involvement with the book, which she called "poorly written, poorly thought, poorly sourced." Claiming the book will "inoculate" Clinton "against future and legitimate criticism and revelations," she characterized Klein as having "no conservative bona fides" and described the book as "an anti-Hillary book by the MSM [mainstream media]."
Limbaugh claimed that The Truth about Hillary "has nothing to do with anybody in the conservative wing of any party. It has nothing to do with a bunch of right-wingers." He further stated that it was neither written by a conservative author nor published by a conservative publishing house like Regnery, the publisher of Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry, the book co-written by Jerome R. Corsi and Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (SBVT) co-founder John E. O'Neill. But as Media Matters for America has noted The Truth About Hillary has much in common with SBVT's discredited attack on Sen. John Kerry (D-MA):
-- Sentinel, the two-year-old conservative imprint of the Penguin Putnam publishing house that published Klein's book, has stated as its goal: "Just as the Swift Boat Veterans convinced millions of voters that John Kerry lacked the character to be president, Klein's book will influence everyone who is sizing up the character of Hillary Clinton." ...
...
Other conservatives have joined in promoting the book, including Hannity, syndicated columnist and CNN political analyst Robert D. Novak, Washington Times editorial page editor Tony Blankley, and Limbaugh himself.
Saturday, June 25, 2005
Mad Cow Test: for seven months there was no bad intention or cover-up, and the test in question was only experimental.
For Months, Agriculture Department Delayed Announcing Result of Mad Cow Test - New York Times: "By DONALD G. McNEIL Jr. and ALEXEI BARRIONUEVO | Published: June 26, 2005
Although the Agriculture Department confirmed Friday that a cow that died last year was infected with mad cow disease, a test the agency conducted seven months ago indicated that the animal had the disease. The result was never publicly disclosed."
...
For seven months, all that was known was that a test on the same cow done at the same laboratory at roughly the same time had come up negative. The negative result was obtained using a test that the Agriculture Department refers to as its "gold standard."
The explanation that the department gave late Friday, when the positive test result came to light, was that there was no bad intention or cover-up, and that the test in question was only experimental.
"The laboratory folks just never mentioned it to anyone higher up," said Ed Loyd, an Agriculture Department spokesman. "They didn't know if it was valid or not, so they didn't report it."
Although the Agriculture Department confirmed Friday that a cow that died last year was infected with mad cow disease, a test the agency conducted seven months ago indicated that the animal had the disease. The result was never publicly disclosed."
...
For seven months, all that was known was that a test on the same cow done at the same laboratory at roughly the same time had come up negative. The negative result was obtained using a test that the Agriculture Department refers to as its "gold standard."
The explanation that the department gave late Friday, when the positive test result came to light, was that there was no bad intention or cover-up, and that the test in question was only experimental.
"The laboratory folks just never mentioned it to anyone higher up," said Ed Loyd, an Agriculture Department spokesman. "They didn't know if it was valid or not, so they didn't report it."
Two weeks after the attacks, 84% of self-described liberals supported 'military action' against the terrorists and 75% supported 'going to war with...
www.AndrewSullivan.com - Daily Dish: "'LIBERALS' AND 9/11: Mystery pollster went back and looked at the polling data on how self-described 'liberals' responded to 9/11. Bottom line:
Two weeks after the attacks, 84% of self-described liberals supported 'military action' against the terrorists and 75% supported 'going to war with a nation that is harboring those responsible.'
What a bunch of wimps and traitors. Of course, the Bush-Rove strategy of dividing the homeland while at war for partisan purposes has turned this around somewhat. The hard left's vileness and stupidity did the rest."
Two weeks after the attacks, 84% of self-described liberals supported 'military action' against the terrorists and 75% supported 'going to war with a nation that is harboring those responsible.'
What a bunch of wimps and traitors. Of course, the Bush-Rove strategy of dividing the homeland while at war for partisan purposes has turned this around somewhat. The hard left's vileness and stupidity did the rest."
Only 118 people comprise the membership on the boards of the 10 big media giants ... 8 out of 10 share common memberships on boards ...
Big Media Interlocks with Corporate America: "June 24, 2005 by CommonDreams.org | Big Media Interlocks with Corporate America | by Peter Phillips
Mainstream media is the term often used to describe the collective group of big TV, radio and newspapers in the United States. ...
...
Instead it is more accurate to speak of big media in the US today as the corporate media and to use the term in the singular tense-as it refers to the singular monolithic top-down power structure of self-interested news giants.
A research team at Sonoma State University has recently finished conducting a network analysis of the boards of directors of the ten big media organizations in the US. The team determined that only 118 people comprise the membership on the boards of director of the ten big media giants. This is a small enough group to fit in a moderate size university classroom. These 118 individuals in turn sit on the corporate boards of 288 national and international corporations. In fact, eight out of ten big media giants share common memberships on boards of directors with each other. NBC and the Washington Post both have board members who sit on Coca Cola and J. P. Morgan, while the Tribune Company, The New York Times and Gannett all have members who share a seat on Pepsi. It is kind of like one big happy family of interlocks and shared interests. The following are but a few of the corporate board interlocks for the big ten media giants in the US:
* New York Times: Caryle Group, Eli Lilly, Ford, Johnson and Johnson, Hallmark, Lehman Brothers, Staples, Pepsi
* Washington Post: Lockheed Martin, Coca-Cola, Dun & Bradstreet, Gillette, G.E. Investments, J.P. Morgan, Moody's
* Knight-Ridder: Adobe Systems, Echelon, H&R Block, Kimberly-Clark, Starwood Hotels
* The Tribune (Chicago & LA Times): 3M, Allstate, Caterpillar, Conoco Phillips, Kraft, McDonalds, Pepsi, Quaker Oats, Shering Plough, Wells Fargo
* News Corp (Fox): British Airways, Rothschild Investments
* GE (NBC): Anheuser-Busch, Avon, Bechtel, Chevron/Texaco, Coca-Cola, Dell, GM, Home Depot, Kellogg, J.P. Morgan, Microsoft, Motorola, Procter & Gamble
* Disney (ABC): Boeing, Northwest Airlines, Clorox, Estee Lauder, FedEx, Gillette, Halliburton, Kmart, McKesson, Staples, Yahoo
* Viacom (CBS): American Express, Consolidated Edison, Oracle, Lafarge North America
* Gannett: AP, Lockheed-Martin, Continental Airlines, Goldman Sachs, Prudential, Target, Pepsi
* AOL-Time Warner (CNN): Citigroup, Estee Lauder, Colgate-Palmolive, Hilton
Mainstream media is the term often used to describe the collective group of big TV, radio and newspapers in the United States. ...
...
Instead it is more accurate to speak of big media in the US today as the corporate media and to use the term in the singular tense-as it refers to the singular monolithic top-down power structure of self-interested news giants.
A research team at Sonoma State University has recently finished conducting a network analysis of the boards of directors of the ten big media organizations in the US. The team determined that only 118 people comprise the membership on the boards of director of the ten big media giants. This is a small enough group to fit in a moderate size university classroom. These 118 individuals in turn sit on the corporate boards of 288 national and international corporations. In fact, eight out of ten big media giants share common memberships on boards of directors with each other. NBC and the Washington Post both have board members who sit on Coca Cola and J. P. Morgan, while the Tribune Company, The New York Times and Gannett all have members who share a seat on Pepsi. It is kind of like one big happy family of interlocks and shared interests. The following are but a few of the corporate board interlocks for the big ten media giants in the US:
* New York Times: Caryle Group, Eli Lilly, Ford, Johnson and Johnson, Hallmark, Lehman Brothers, Staples, Pepsi
* Washington Post: Lockheed Martin, Coca-Cola, Dun & Bradstreet, Gillette, G.E. Investments, J.P. Morgan, Moody's
* Knight-Ridder: Adobe Systems, Echelon, H&R Block, Kimberly-Clark, Starwood Hotels
* The Tribune (Chicago & LA Times): 3M, Allstate, Caterpillar, Conoco Phillips, Kraft, McDonalds, Pepsi, Quaker Oats, Shering Plough, Wells Fargo
* News Corp (Fox): British Airways, Rothschild Investments
* GE (NBC): Anheuser-Busch, Avon, Bechtel, Chevron/Texaco, Coca-Cola, Dell, GM, Home Depot, Kellogg, J.P. Morgan, Microsoft, Motorola, Procter & Gamble
* Disney (ABC): Boeing, Northwest Airlines, Clorox, Estee Lauder, FedEx, Gillette, Halliburton, Kmart, McKesson, Staples, Yahoo
* Viacom (CBS): American Express, Consolidated Edison, Oracle, Lafarge North America
* Gannett: AP, Lockheed-Martin, Continental Airlines, Goldman Sachs, Prudential, Target, Pepsi
* AOL-Time Warner (CNN): Citigroup, Estee Lauder, Colgate-Palmolive, Hilton
Klein nailed on falsehoods in Al Franken Show grilling [on "Truth about Hillary"] ... Podhoretz [neo-con] calls it "Smear for Profit."
Klein nailed on falsehoods in Al Franken Show grilling about "The Truth about Hillary" ... [Media Matters for America]: "
Hosts Al Franken and Katherine Lanpher, and guest Joe Conason confronted author Edward Klein on the many factual errors, distortions, and misleading claims in his attack book on Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY), The Truth About Hillary (Sentinel, 2005). On the June 24 edition of the Al Franken Show on Air America Radio, Klein acknowledged his falsehood in portraying the chronology of the reporting of Clinton's Jewish step-grandfather and her controversial meeting with Suha Arafat, first noted by Media Matters for America. He also admitted that he had never seen Clinton's chief of staff Melanne Verveer (whose name he misspelled in the book), although he described her appearance as 'mannish-looking.' But he refused to retract other false claims when confronted by Franken, Conason and Lanpher."
...
FRANKEN: You know why? Because I -- here -- this is what I think, Ed, and you may take issue with this. I think you deliberately left it out because it would have hurt the sentence where you say, "For Moynihan it was easier to say 'she' than 'Hillary.' " I think that's why you left out the sentence that says, "Hillary."
...
FRANKEN: And, you know, he's not alone. There are critics of the book that are even, like John Podhoretz on the right. He says -- writes -- he's a conservative. He writes, "This is one of the most sordid volumes I've ever waded through. Thirty pages into it, I wanted to take a shower. Sixty pages into it, I wanted to be decontaminated. And 200 pages into it, I wanted someone to drive stakes through my eyes so I wouldn't have to suffer through another word." Now this is a conservative, and I gotta say that it wasn't that bad.
...
FRANKEN: OK. Ah, let's talk about the FBI files that you talk about, sort of what was called "Filegate." And you call it the "Purloined FBI Files," and you write about it on page 39.
KLEIN: Mm-hmm [affirmative].
FRANKEN: And later, in a Salon interview, you said, "Like Nixon, Hillary has used FBI files against her enemies."
KLEIN: Mm-hmm [affirmative].
FRANKEN: Now, you know that she was absolved of this by the Office of Independent Counsel.
...
KLEIN: It's still my -- it's still my belief and contention that Craig Livingstone was responsible for taking those files, and that he was operating under direct orders from Hillary.
CONASON: Do you know whose files those were? I mean, did you ever look at the names of the people whose files they were?
KLEIN: They were a lot of Republican activists --
CONASON: There were not, actually. They were not. Can -- name one Republican activist whose file was taken. One.
KLEIN: I couldn't do that 'cause I --
CONASON: You couldn't! 'Cause you haven't looked at the names! Did you ever look at the names?
KLEIN: No, I haven't.
CONASON: Okay. Ah, you've never looked at the names, but you know they're a lot of Republican activists. How would you know that if you've never looked at the names?
KLEIN: I've read it in The New York Times and other publications.
CONASON: Oh, no, you didn't. You did not. You did not.
FRANKEN: You know, Ed, the first --
CONASON: Because the people whose names were on that list were former White House employees. Most of them were people like gardeners and janitors and people like that. I've looked at every name on that list --
KLEIN: Former White House employees --
CONASON: That's correct.
KLEIN: in the previous Republican administration.
CONASON: Oh, no. James Carville's name was on that list!
KLEIN: Well, ah, yes, but there [inaudible] --
CONASON: Why was his name on the list?
KLEIN: Many Republican officials on that list, as well.
CONASON: There were --
KLEIN: Are you saying there weren't?
CONASON: No, I'm saying there was no, there were no Republican activists of any note on that list. If you look through that list, it's hundreds of names of people that you had never heard of and that the Republican Party had no significant connection to.
...
FRANKEN: Okay. Well, thank you, Ed. And I will say that John Podhoretz did write his -- the headline on his thing was "Smear for Profit." So I think that he actually does believe that, ah, that you did this for money, which actually you do say that that's why you write books. So -- but I want to thank you for joining us, and I know that this couldn't have been, ah, fun, because it really was us ganging up on you, so I really appreciate it. And, you know, talk to Adrian, because I really did tell him that Joe was gonna be here. Thank you! Really, honestly, thank you for coming on.
Hosts Al Franken and Katherine Lanpher, and guest Joe Conason confronted author Edward Klein on the many factual errors, distortions, and misleading claims in his attack book on Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY), The Truth About Hillary (Sentinel, 2005). On the June 24 edition of the Al Franken Show on Air America Radio, Klein acknowledged his falsehood in portraying the chronology of the reporting of Clinton's Jewish step-grandfather and her controversial meeting with Suha Arafat, first noted by Media Matters for America. He also admitted that he had never seen Clinton's chief of staff Melanne Verveer (whose name he misspelled in the book), although he described her appearance as 'mannish-looking.' But he refused to retract other false claims when confronted by Franken, Conason and Lanpher."
...
FRANKEN: You know why? Because I -- here -- this is what I think, Ed, and you may take issue with this. I think you deliberately left it out because it would have hurt the sentence where you say, "For Moynihan it was easier to say 'she' than 'Hillary.' " I think that's why you left out the sentence that says, "Hillary."
...
FRANKEN: And, you know, he's not alone. There are critics of the book that are even, like John Podhoretz on the right. He says -- writes -- he's a conservative. He writes, "This is one of the most sordid volumes I've ever waded through. Thirty pages into it, I wanted to take a shower. Sixty pages into it, I wanted to be decontaminated. And 200 pages into it, I wanted someone to drive stakes through my eyes so I wouldn't have to suffer through another word." Now this is a conservative, and I gotta say that it wasn't that bad.
...
FRANKEN: OK. Ah, let's talk about the FBI files that you talk about, sort of what was called "Filegate." And you call it the "Purloined FBI Files," and you write about it on page 39.
KLEIN: Mm-hmm [affirmative].
FRANKEN: And later, in a Salon interview, you said, "Like Nixon, Hillary has used FBI files against her enemies."
KLEIN: Mm-hmm [affirmative].
FRANKEN: Now, you know that she was absolved of this by the Office of Independent Counsel.
...
KLEIN: It's still my -- it's still my belief and contention that Craig Livingstone was responsible for taking those files, and that he was operating under direct orders from Hillary.
CONASON: Do you know whose files those were? I mean, did you ever look at the names of the people whose files they were?
KLEIN: They were a lot of Republican activists --
CONASON: There were not, actually. They were not. Can -- name one Republican activist whose file was taken. One.
KLEIN: I couldn't do that 'cause I --
CONASON: You couldn't! 'Cause you haven't looked at the names! Did you ever look at the names?
KLEIN: No, I haven't.
CONASON: Okay. Ah, you've never looked at the names, but you know they're a lot of Republican activists. How would you know that if you've never looked at the names?
KLEIN: I've read it in The New York Times and other publications.
CONASON: Oh, no, you didn't. You did not. You did not.
FRANKEN: You know, Ed, the first --
CONASON: Because the people whose names were on that list were former White House employees. Most of them were people like gardeners and janitors and people like that. I've looked at every name on that list --
KLEIN: Former White House employees --
CONASON: That's correct.
KLEIN: in the previous Republican administration.
CONASON: Oh, no. James Carville's name was on that list!
KLEIN: Well, ah, yes, but there [inaudible] --
CONASON: Why was his name on the list?
KLEIN: Many Republican officials on that list, as well.
CONASON: There were --
KLEIN: Are you saying there weren't?
CONASON: No, I'm saying there was no, there were no Republican activists of any note on that list. If you look through that list, it's hundreds of names of people that you had never heard of and that the Republican Party had no significant connection to.
...
FRANKEN: Okay. Well, thank you, Ed. And I will say that John Podhoretz did write his -- the headline on his thing was "Smear for Profit." So I think that he actually does believe that, ah, that you did this for money, which actually you do say that that's why you write books. So -- but I want to thank you for joining us, and I know that this couldn't have been, ah, fun, because it really was us ganging up on you, so I really appreciate it. And, you know, talk to Adrian, because I really did tell him that Joe was gonna be here. Thank you! Really, honestly, thank you for coming on.
The return of '1984' - ''newspeak,' ''doublethink,' and ''the mutability of the past," -- Orwell's ''Ministry of Truth,'
The return of '1984' - The Boston Globe - Boston.com - Op-ed - News: "By H.D.S. Greenway | June 24, 2005
IF YOU TAKE something to read at the beach this summer make sure it is not one of George Orwell's books. The comparison with current events will ruin your day.
In what was then the futuristic, nightmare world of ''1984,' written in 1949, Orwell introduced the concepts of ''newspeak,' ''doublethink,' and ''the mutability of the past,' all concepts that seem to be alive and well in 2005, half a century after Orwell's death. In the ever-changing rationale of why we went to war in Iraq, we can imagine ourselves working in Orwell's ''Ministry of Truth,' in which ''reality control' is used to ensure that ''the lie passed into history and became the truth.'
And what about the Bush administration's insistence that all is going well in Iraq? In the Ministry of Truth, statistics are adjustable to suit politics -- ''merely the substitution of one piece of nonsense for another,' Orwell wrote. ''Most of the material that you were dealing with had no connection to anything in the real world, not even the kind of connection that is contained in a direct lie. Statistics were just as much a fantasy in their original version as in the rectified version.' Welcome to the Iraq war, Mr. Orwell.
What of Donald Rumsfeld's newspeak, or was it doublethink, saying that ''no detention facility in the history of warfare has been more transparent' than Guantanamo? We have the FBI's word for it that prisoners were chained hand and foot in a fetal position to the floor, left for 18 to 24 hours with no food and no water, left to defecate and urinate on themselves.
The deaths by torture in Abu Ghraib and Afghanistan sound very much like what happens in Orwell's fictional torture chamber: Room 101.
He might as well have been writing about the Bush administration's redefinition of torture when he wrote about using ''logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it.'
In Orwell's profoundly pessimistic view: ''Political language . . . is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.'"
IF YOU TAKE something to read at the beach this summer make sure it is not one of George Orwell's books. The comparison with current events will ruin your day.
In what was then the futuristic, nightmare world of ''1984,' written in 1949, Orwell introduced the concepts of ''newspeak,' ''doublethink,' and ''the mutability of the past,' all concepts that seem to be alive and well in 2005, half a century after Orwell's death. In the ever-changing rationale of why we went to war in Iraq, we can imagine ourselves working in Orwell's ''Ministry of Truth,' in which ''reality control' is used to ensure that ''the lie passed into history and became the truth.'
And what about the Bush administration's insistence that all is going well in Iraq? In the Ministry of Truth, statistics are adjustable to suit politics -- ''merely the substitution of one piece of nonsense for another,' Orwell wrote. ''Most of the material that you were dealing with had no connection to anything in the real world, not even the kind of connection that is contained in a direct lie. Statistics were just as much a fantasy in their original version as in the rectified version.' Welcome to the Iraq war, Mr. Orwell.
What of Donald Rumsfeld's newspeak, or was it doublethink, saying that ''no detention facility in the history of warfare has been more transparent' than Guantanamo? We have the FBI's word for it that prisoners were chained hand and foot in a fetal position to the floor, left for 18 to 24 hours with no food and no water, left to defecate and urinate on themselves.
The deaths by torture in Abu Ghraib and Afghanistan sound very much like what happens in Orwell's fictional torture chamber: Room 101.
He might as well have been writing about the Bush administration's redefinition of torture when he wrote about using ''logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it.'
In Orwell's profoundly pessimistic view: ''Political language . . . is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.'"
Friday, June 24, 2005
Republican candidate calls Bush Admin 'Nazis,' quits party: Those who disagree with any aspect of the administration are branded as traitors
The Raw Story | Republican candidate calls Bush Admin 'Nazis,' quits party: "RAW STORY
The following is excerpted from the Lincoln Tribune. Their servers went down when we linked to it directly. The North Carolina Supreme Court Justice candidate's personal website is available here.
Cary, NC - A candidate for North Carolina Chief Justice of the North Carolina Supreme Court has announced on her campaign's blog that she is leaving the Republican Party and denounced the Bush administration's policy on troop withdrawal from Iraq. Rachel Lea Hunter, a Republican and a candidate for Chief Justice, likens Bush’s administration to the “Nazis” and says that all who disagree with the administration are being branded as “traitors”."
...
"What I find disturbing is that we are criticized for nothing more than the exercise of our Constitutional rights. Those who disagree with any aspect of the administration are branded as traitors and must be silenced. I thought the previous administration was bad because of the amorality. This is far worse.
The following is excerpted from the Lincoln Tribune. Their servers went down when we linked to it directly. The North Carolina Supreme Court Justice candidate's personal website is available here.
Cary, NC - A candidate for North Carolina Chief Justice of the North Carolina Supreme Court has announced on her campaign's blog that she is leaving the Republican Party and denounced the Bush administration's policy on troop withdrawal from Iraq. Rachel Lea Hunter, a Republican and a candidate for Chief Justice, likens Bush’s administration to the “Nazis” and says that all who disagree with the administration are being branded as “traitors”."
...
"What I find disturbing is that we are criticized for nothing more than the exercise of our Constitutional rights. Those who disagree with any aspect of the administration are branded as traitors and must be silenced. I thought the previous administration was bad because of the amorality. This is far worse.
Rove is not merely a hypocrite. He's a thug.
David Corn: "Rove: Not Just a Hypocrite, a Thug....And Explaining Durbin's Unnecessary Apology"
...
in an interview on Hardball on Tuesday, Rove said the Senate Democrats opposing the John Bolton nomination are "putting their commitment to politics above their commitment to doing what's right for the country." That is, he was impugning their motives, not answering their arguments.
That made him a hypocrite. But it gets worse. Yesterday, Rove spoke at a Conservative Party fundraiser in New York City and said,
Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers,
...
Rove, not satisfied with lying about liberals, also claimed that US troops overseas now faced greater risk because of the remarks of Senator Dick Durbin, who last week said interrogation practices at Guantanamo were befitting of "Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime--Pol Pot or others." Rove huffed,
...
Durbin did nothing other than speak frankly about FBI reports that noted that interrogators at Guantanamo were using "torture techniques" and that described horrific conditions at the camp. Anyone who reads Durbin's full statement would see he was motivated by a deep concern about the conduct of interrogations at Gitmo and the potential harm to US national security these practices could cause.
...
Soon after that, Durbin decided to issue an apology. ... Once they had done that, Rove still found it useful to kick Durbin further and accuse him of harboring anti-US motives and engaging in traitorous conduct. Rove is not merely a hypocrite. He's a thug.
...
in an interview on Hardball on Tuesday, Rove said the Senate Democrats opposing the John Bolton nomination are "putting their commitment to politics above their commitment to doing what's right for the country." That is, he was impugning their motives, not answering their arguments.
That made him a hypocrite. But it gets worse. Yesterday, Rove spoke at a Conservative Party fundraiser in New York City and said,
Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers,
...
Rove, not satisfied with lying about liberals, also claimed that US troops overseas now faced greater risk because of the remarks of Senator Dick Durbin, who last week said interrogation practices at Guantanamo were befitting of "Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime--Pol Pot or others." Rove huffed,
...
Durbin did nothing other than speak frankly about FBI reports that noted that interrogators at Guantanamo were using "torture techniques" and that described horrific conditions at the camp. Anyone who reads Durbin's full statement would see he was motivated by a deep concern about the conduct of interrogations at Gitmo and the potential harm to US national security these practices could cause.
...
Soon after that, Durbin decided to issue an apology. ... Once they had done that, Rove still found it useful to kick Durbin further and accuse him of harboring anti-US motives and engaging in traitorous conduct. Rove is not merely a hypocrite. He's a thug.
Senator Durbin apologizes, for what? Telling the truth? while The howling banshees of the GOP and corrupt media sprout hair under a full moon
t r u t h o u t - John Cory | The Howling:Perspective | Friday 23 June 2005
Sometimes I get so angry I could just spit.
What the hell is wrong with you Democratic politicians? Why do you turn on each other? Why won't you stand by your own words and ideals? Why do you keep apologizing for telling the truth? And why can't anyone see McCain's true colors? Or Lieberman or Biden?
And why in God's name do you expect folks like me to come support you after you turn tail and run?
Senator Durbin apologizes, for what? Telling the truth?
The howling banshees of the GOP and corrupt media sprout hair under a full moon and wail into the sky until the noise becomes unbearable for simpering politicians. And the jackals of right-wing power feast on the carcass of democracy. Warm jelly spine is such a delicacy for these carnivores.
We know the truth out here. We will stand with anyone who stands up for us. Where are you?"
Sometimes I get so angry I could just spit.
What the hell is wrong with you Democratic politicians? Why do you turn on each other? Why won't you stand by your own words and ideals? Why do you keep apologizing for telling the truth? And why can't anyone see McCain's true colors? Or Lieberman or Biden?
And why in God's name do you expect folks like me to come support you after you turn tail and run?
Senator Durbin apologizes, for what? Telling the truth?
The howling banshees of the GOP and corrupt media sprout hair under a full moon and wail into the sky until the noise becomes unbearable for simpering politicians. And the jackals of right-wing power feast on the carcass of democracy. Warm jelly spine is such a delicacy for these carnivores.
We know the truth out here. We will stand with anyone who stands up for us. Where are you?"
Rove Under Intense Fire for 9/11 Smear; White House rejected Democrats' demands for an apology [... immeidately after Durbin outcry!! ]
t r u t h o u t - Rove Under Intense Fire for 9/11 Smear: "Democrats Demand Rove Apologize for 9/11 Remarks | By Raymond Hernandez | The New York Times | Friday 24 June 2005
Washington - Leading Democrats reacted furiously on Thursday to remarks by Karl Rove that liberals had responded to the Sept. 11 attacks by wanting to 'offer therapy and understanding for our attackers,' with some Democrats calling for him to apologize or resign as a White House adviser.
The remarks also rippled through New York political circles, putting two top Republicans, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and Gov. George E. Pataki, on the defensive in the state that bore the brunt of the terror attacks in 2001.
Mr. Rove made the comments at a fund-raiser in Manhattan on Wednesday, saying: 'Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers.'
'Conservatives saw what happened to us on 9/11 and said, 'We will defeat our enemies,' ' Mr. Rove continued at a gathering in Midtown for the Conservative Party of New York State. 'Liberals saw what happened to us and said, 'We must understand our enemies.' '
The remarks led to a cascade of criticism from Democratic lawmakers, particularly in the Senate, where Republicans have sought to put the party on the defensive for days after a leading Democratic senator, Richard J. Durbin, compared abusive treatment of prisoners at Guant�namo Bay, Cuba, to the war crimes of the Nazis and the Khmer Rouge.
'Karl Rove should immediately and fully apologize for his remarks or he should resign,' Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic minority leader, said in a statement. 'Dividing our country for political gain is an insult to all Americans and to the common memory we all carry with us from that day.'
The White House immediately rejected the Democrats' demands for an apology, offering a strenuous defense of Mr. Rove and suggesting that his statements had been taken out of context."
Washington - Leading Democrats reacted furiously on Thursday to remarks by Karl Rove that liberals had responded to the Sept. 11 attacks by wanting to 'offer therapy and understanding for our attackers,' with some Democrats calling for him to apologize or resign as a White House adviser.
The remarks also rippled through New York political circles, putting two top Republicans, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and Gov. George E. Pataki, on the defensive in the state that bore the brunt of the terror attacks in 2001.
Mr. Rove made the comments at a fund-raiser in Manhattan on Wednesday, saying: 'Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 and the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers.'
'Conservatives saw what happened to us on 9/11 and said, 'We will defeat our enemies,' ' Mr. Rove continued at a gathering in Midtown for the Conservative Party of New York State. 'Liberals saw what happened to us and said, 'We must understand our enemies.' '
The remarks led to a cascade of criticism from Democratic lawmakers, particularly in the Senate, where Republicans have sought to put the party on the defensive for days after a leading Democratic senator, Richard J. Durbin, compared abusive treatment of prisoners at Guant�namo Bay, Cuba, to the war crimes of the Nazis and the Khmer Rouge.
'Karl Rove should immediately and fully apologize for his remarks or he should resign,' Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic minority leader, said in a statement. 'Dividing our country for political gain is an insult to all Americans and to the common memory we all carry with us from that day.'
The White House immediately rejected the Democrats' demands for an apology, offering a strenuous defense of Mr. Rove and suggesting that his statements had been taken out of context."
Bush's Invitation-Only Speech Riles Crowd in Montgomery [... President for a chosen few?]
Bush's Invitation-Only Speech Riles Crowd in Montgomery: "Opponents of President, Social Security Plan Block Traffic | By Nancy Trejos | Washington Post Staff Writer | Friday, June 24, 2005; Page A08
President Bush visited Montgomery Blair High School yesterday for a town hall-style meeting to discuss his plan to partially privatize Social Security -- an appearance that drew about 400 protesters outside the Silver Spring school.
The loudest voices came from some Montgomery County residents and Blair students who questioned why they were not allowed inside. They were kept far from the president, but their shouts and beating drums could be heard by some of the 500 invitees waiting to pass through security."
...
U.S. Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), a possible candidate for Senate next year, joined County Executive Douglas M. Duncan (D) and state Sen. Ida G. Rubin (D-Montgomery) at a news conference outside the school to speak out against Bush's Social Security plan. Duncan is expected to run for governor.
Van Hollen said Bush should return to the school in the fall to talk to Blair students. "The president has very carefully scripted these meetings," he said after the news conference.
President Bush visited Montgomery Blair High School yesterday for a town hall-style meeting to discuss his plan to partially privatize Social Security -- an appearance that drew about 400 protesters outside the Silver Spring school.
The loudest voices came from some Montgomery County residents and Blair students who questioned why they were not allowed inside. They were kept far from the president, but their shouts and beating drums could be heard by some of the 500 invitees waiting to pass through security."
...
U.S. Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), a possible candidate for Senate next year, joined County Executive Douglas M. Duncan (D) and state Sen. Ida G. Rubin (D-Montgomery) at a news conference outside the school to speak out against Bush's Social Security plan. Duncan is expected to run for governor.
Van Hollen said Bush should return to the school in the fall to talk to Blair students. "The president has very carefully scripted these meetings," he said after the news conference.
Wednesday, June 22, 2005
If you had been told that prisoners had been found in this state in one of Saddam's or Stalin's jails, would you have believed it? Of course
www.AndrewSullivan.com - Daily Dish: "DURBIN, AGAIN:
I'm a little bemused by some of the emails saying that I've gone crazy about Dick Durbin. They're missing an important nuance. If Durbin had said, as Amnesty unfortunately did, that Gitmo was another Gulag, I'd be dismayed and critical, as I was with Amnesty. There's no comparison in any way between the scale, intent and context of the Soviet gulags and Gitmo. If Durbin had said that what was being done there in the aggregate was comparable to Auschwitz or Siberian death camps, the same would be true. But Durbin said something subtler. Now I know subtlety is not something that plays well on talk radio. But in this case, it matters. Durbin focused on one very credible account of inhumane treatment and abuse of detainees (see below) and asked an important question:
'If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime--Pol Pot or others--that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.'
So go ahead: answer his implied question. If you had been told that prisoners had been found in this state in one of Saddam's or Stalin's jails, would you have believed it? Of course, you would. In fact, I spent much time and effort before the war documenting the cruel and inhumane conduct of the regime we were trying to destroy - a regime whose cruelty encompassed low-level inhumanity like Gitmos - and, of course, unimaginably worse."
I'm a little bemused by some of the emails saying that I've gone crazy about Dick Durbin. They're missing an important nuance. If Durbin had said, as Amnesty unfortunately did, that Gitmo was another Gulag, I'd be dismayed and critical, as I was with Amnesty. There's no comparison in any way between the scale, intent and context of the Soviet gulags and Gitmo. If Durbin had said that what was being done there in the aggregate was comparable to Auschwitz or Siberian death camps, the same would be true. But Durbin said something subtler. Now I know subtlety is not something that plays well on talk radio. But in this case, it matters. Durbin focused on one very credible account of inhumane treatment and abuse of detainees (see below) and asked an important question:
'If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime--Pol Pot or others--that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.'
So go ahead: answer his implied question. If you had been told that prisoners had been found in this state in one of Saddam's or Stalin's jails, would you have believed it? Of course, you would. In fact, I spent much time and effort before the war documenting the cruel and inhumane conduct of the regime we were trying to destroy - a regime whose cruelty encompassed low-level inhumanity like Gitmos - and, of course, unimaginably worse."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)