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?..."

[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.

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. ...

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.

What Liberal Media?

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." ...

"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. ...

'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.)

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.

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.....

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.”

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.

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"

By Greg Sargent | bio

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. ...

. 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

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 stable

The 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.

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. ...

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.

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. ...

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

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

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. ...

'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?"

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.)

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?

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."

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.

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. ..

$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.'" ...

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."

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.
...

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. ..