From Brave New Films:
You mean Mitt is being a hypocrite about something!?! No way! (Watch the video, the accompanying song at least provides some necessary comic relief).
read more | digg story
From Brave New Films:
You mean Mitt is being a hypocrite about something!?! No way! (Watch the video, the accompanying song at least provides some necessary comic relief).
Paul Krugman has a Blog! This is truly great news via Crooks & Liars:
read more | digg story
Welcome into the blogoshere!
This piece is especially important….
Since the late 1970s the America I knew has unraveled. We’re no longer a middle-class society, in which the benefits of economic growth are widely shared: between 1979 and 2005 the real income of the median household rose only 13 percent, but the income of the richest 0.1% of Americans rose 296 percent…read on
Unfuckingbelievable. Well, not really. From Think Progress:
read more | digg story
Last Thursday, Gen. Peter Pace told reporters, “Blackwater has been a contractor in the past with the department and could certainly be in the future.” The next day, that future was already here. The Pentagon had issued a new list of contracts, including one worth $92 million to Presidential Airways, the “aviation unit of parent company Blackwater.” From the release:
Presidential Airways, Inc., an aviation Worldwide Services company (d/b/a Blackwater Aviation), Moyock, N.C., is being awarded an indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity (IDIQ) type contract for $92,000,000.00...
Government officials have repeatedly ignored Blackwater’s transgressions. Senior Iraqi officials “repeatedly complained to U.S. officials” about Blackwater’s “alleged involvement in the deaths of numerous Iraqis, but the Americans took little action to regulate the private security firm.”
Ooooooh, this is gonna be fun. From The WaPo:
Sen. Larry Craig of Idaho is a tough guy to run out of town. Not that his Republican colleagues aren't trying.
Worried that the disgraced lawmaker intends to remain in the Senate indefinitely, they are threatening to notch up the public humiliation by seeking an open ethics hearing on the restroom scandal that enveloped Craig last month.
read more | digg story
Via Crooks & Liars:
read more | digg story
Please go and see this new movie about the way the government uses the media to sell war after war after war. It’s a brilliant flick that dissects the great propaganda machine which is a curse to our democracy.
War Made Easy reaches into the Orwellian memory hole to expose a 50-year pattern of government deception and media spin that has dragged the United States into one war after another from Vietnam to Iraq. Narrated by actor and activist Sean Penn, the film exhumes remarkable archival footage of official distortion and exaggeration from LBJ to George W. Bush, revealing in stunning detail how the American news media have uncritically disseminated the pro-war messages of successive presidential administrations…read on
Oh, please. Oh, please. Oh, pleeeeeeeeeeeeease. This could DOOM rethugs in 2008. If there is a God....
From The NY Times:
read more | digg story
Alarmed at the chance that the Republican party might pick Rudolph Giuliani as its presidential nominee despite his support for abortion rights, a coalition of influential Christian conservatives is threatening to back a third-party candidate in an attempt to stop him.
The group making the threat, which came together Saturday in Salt Lake City during a break-away gathering during a meeting of the secretive Council for National Policy, includes Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family, who is perhaps the most influential of the group, as well as Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, the direct mail pioneer Richard Viguerie and dozens of other politically-oriented conservative Christians, participants said. Almost everyone present expressed support for a written resolution that “if the Republican Party nominates a pro-abortion candidate we will consider running a third party candidate.”
William Kristol Proves what everyone already knew about him. From Crooks & Liars:
Think Progress has more:
Listen to him on the subject of the SCHIP Amendment:
KRISTOL: First of all, whenever I hear anything described as ‘a heartless assault on our children,’ I tend to be…think it’s a pretty good thing…
WALLACE: I think a lot of our viewers would not be surprised to hear that…
KRISTOL: ...I’m happy that the President’s willing to do something bad for the kids. You do wonder about the Democrats, putting a 12 year old, I mean, how pathetic is that? A 12-year-old kid giving the radio address, Nancy Pelosi pretending she’s praying for the President. You really wonder how stupid they think the American people are.
NPR’s Juan Williams rebutted Kristol’s callous approach to children’s health care. “When you have 3.7 million uninsured children in America, you know you have a crisis,” said Williams. He then ripped Kristol’s disparagement of the Democratic Radio Address as hypocritical because conservatives “use soldiers and everything else to bolster their arguments”:
WILLIAMS: I’m surprised to hear you say, “Oh, how dare you use a child.” What do Republicans do except use soldiers and everything else to bolster their arguments.
KRISTOL: Soldiers aren’t children.
WILLIAMS: Oh come on. Yeah, use uniforms and everything else. And in fact, put on — politicians get in uniforms and get on ships to talk about “missions accomplished.” C’mon.
The expansion of SCHIP that Bush is threatening to veto would extend coverage to 4 million children who would otherwise be uninsured.
From Naomi Wolf's Fascist America, in 10 easy steps:
From Hitler to Pinochet and beyond, history shows there are certain steps that any would-be dictator must take to destroy constitutional freedoms. And, argues Naomi Wolf, George Bush and his administration seem to be taking them all.
1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy (Bin Laden, 'Islamofascists' & the Mexican invaders from the south)Examples in ( ) are my shortened version of what Naomi references (my take). Please click on the link to read the full article and see her in depth details of past examples and how they relate to today.
2. Create a gulag (Guantánamo Bay, CIA "black site" prisons, Interment camps being built in the U.S. right now)
3. Develop a thug caste (Blackwater)
4. Set up an internal surveillance system (NSA Domestic Spying with the help of At&T)
5. Harass citizens' groups (Internal Revenue Service going after Liberal organizations, secret Pentagon databases)
6. Engage in arbitrary detention and release (Using Terrorist Watch lists" to detain people of different political leanings)
7. Target key individuals (Purged eight US attorneys for what looks like insufficient political loyalty).
8. Control the press (Our so-called liberal Media is anything but)
9. Dissent equals treason (Right-Wing immediately calls dissenter un-American, especially when criticizing military politicians)
10. Suspend the rule of law (The John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007 just gave the president new powers over the national guard in a national emergency, to be defined by the President).
White evangelical Protestants (ages 18-29) have been one of the most faithful Republican constituencies in presidential elections in recent years. In 2002, for example, an overwhelming majority (87%) approved of Bush's job performance. By August 2007, however, Bush's approval rating among this group had plummeted by 42 percentage points.
read more | digg story
I'm putting this article up again because I just got a "chain" email from my mother that's still "spreading the news" that Barack Obama is a threat to this country. It sickens me that there are people who either still believe this bullshit story spread by Rupert Murdock and his minions or know it's false and don't care. What's most shocking is this is spreading through a group of my mother's friends, well educated, east coast people who should know better. This NY Jew just donated $100 to the Obama Campaign.
Allegations that Sen. Barack Obama was educated in a radical Muslim school known as a "madrassa" are not accurate, to put it mildly. Insight Magazine, which is owned by the same company as The Washington Times, which are both owned by Rupert Murdock, spread the lies and then Fox News and other right-wing pundits ran with it.
JAKARTA, Indonesia (CNN) -- Allegations that Sen. Barack Obama was educated in a radical Muslim school known as a "madrassa" are not accurate, according to CNN reporting.
Insight Magazine, which is owned by the same company as The Washington Times, reported on its Web site last week that associates of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-New York, had unearthed information the Illinois Democrat and likely presidential candidate attended a Muslim religious school known for teaching the most fundamentalist form of Islam.
Obama lived in Indonesia as a child, from 1967 to 1971, with his mother and stepfather and has acknowledged attending a Muslim school, but an aide said it was not a madrassa.
Insight attributed the information in its article to an unnamed source, who said it was discovered by "researchers connected to Senator Clinton." A spokesman for Clinton, who is also weighing a White House bid, denied that the campaign was the source of the Obama claim.
He called the story "an obvious right-wing hit job."
Insight stood by its story in a response posted on its Web site Monday afternoon.
The Insight article was cited several times Friday on Fox News and was also referenced by the New York Post, The Glenn Beck program on CNN Headline News and a number of political blogs.
School not a madrassa
But reporting by CNN in Jakarta, Indonesia and Washington, D.C., shows the allegations that Obama attended a madrassa to be false. CNN dispatched Senior International Correspondent John Vause to Jakarta to investigate.
He visited the Basuki school, which Obama attended from 1969 to 1971.
"This is a public school. We don't focus on religion," Hardi Priyono, deputy headmaster of the Basuki school, told Vause. "In our daily lives, we try to respect religion, but we don't give preferential treatment."
Vause reported he saw boys and girls dressed in neat school uniforms playing outside the school, while teachers were dressed in Western-style clothes.
"I came here to Barack Obama's elementary school in Jakarta looking for what some are calling an Islamic madrassa ... like the ones that teach hate and violence in Pakistan and Afghanistan," Vause said on the "Situation Room" Monday. "I've been to those madrassas in Pakistan ... this school is nothing like that."
Vause also interviewed one of Obama's Basuki classmates, Bandug Winadijanto, who claims that not a lot has changed at the school since the two men were pupils. Insight reported that Obama's political opponents believed the school promoted Wahhabism, a fundamentalist form of Islam, "and are seeking to prove it."
"It's not (an) Islamic school. It's general," Winadijanto said. "There is a lot of Christians, Buddhists, also Confucian. ... So that's a mixed school."
The Obama aide described Fox News' broadcasting of the Insight story "appallingly irresponsible."
Fox News executive Bill Shine told CNN "Reliable Sources" anchor Howard Kurtz that some of the network's hosts were simply expressing their opinions and repeatedly cited Insight as the source of the allegations.
Obama has noted in his two books, "Dreams From My Father" and "The Audacity of Hope," that he spent two years in a Muslim school and another two years in a Catholic school while living in Indonesia from age 6 to 10.
Sy Hersh joined CNN’s Late Edition and discussed his new article out in the NewYorker: “Shifting Targets,” which says that the WH has a new talking point which it will sell and as usual—our media will lap it it! ” The CIA has created an Iran Study group with dozens of new members that have the goal of launching a strike against Iran, but will now include ground forces. Bush feels that using the nuclear threat as the reason to bomb Iran has failed miserably so they switched talking points and are going to say they are defending themselves against Iranian meddling in Iraq. We told you so….read more - see video | digg story
Hersh: You can also sell counter-terror, it’s much more logical. You can say to the American people, we’re only hitting these people that are trying to kill our boys and the coalition forces and so that seems to be more sensible, The White House think s they can actually pitch this, this would actually work…
Now you understand why the Lieberman/Kyl amendment was just put through. If BushCo. wants to heighten the sense of nationalism in Iran, just attack them and keep on this course of immorality. It’s another disaster coming from Bush/Cheney and the Neocons in a long line of them and I know Bush and Cheney thank our media for doing what they always do…Nothing, except Sy…Thanks Sy….Here’s my Iran Action Alert post:
Call the Capitol switchboard at 202-225-3121. We need to let our representatives know that Bush cannot attack Iran.
In his article, Hersh writes, “This summer, the White House, pushed by the office of Vice-President Dick Cheney, requested that the Joint Chiefs of Staff redraw long-standing plans for a possible attack on Iran,” emphasizing the shift in rationale. The “shifting emphasis” is “gathering support among generals and admirals in the Pentagon.”
Hersh also reveals:
During a secure videoconference that took place early this summer, the President told Ryan Crocker, the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, that he was thinking of hitting Iranian targets across the border and that the British “were on board.” At that point, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice interjected that there was a need to proceed carefully, because of the ongoing diplomatic track. Bush ended by instructing Crocker to tell Iran to stop interfering in Iraq or it would face American retribution.
The White House has even prepared a “Clinton did it too” defense for attacking Iran, according to Hersh. “If Democrats objected, the Administration could say, “Bill Clinton did the same thing; he conducted limited strikes in Afghanistan, the Sudan, and in Baghdad to protect American lives.”
Another one today from Crooks & Liars:
read more & see video | digg story
On this week’s Journal, Bill Moyers takes a look at waste and contractor fraud going on in Iraq. Just last week, the House Armed Services Committee found that $6 billion worth of military contracts are under criminal review, and another $88 billion (to put that into perspective, that’s two and a half times the cost of the expansion of the SCHIP bill that Bush is threatening to veto) in contracts are currently being audited for suspicion of fraud. When the AP took a look at the auditing process required by law that is supposed to catch these war profiteers, it found it had not “met even basic accounting requirements, leaving them vulnerable to waste, fraud and abuse.”
BILL MOYERS: “As Inspector General of the State Department, Howard Krongard - known as “Cookie” - was supposed to be the watchdog guarding against corruption there. But he’s a political appointee with strong partisan loyalties, and now seven people on his staff have accused him not only of failing to do his job but of actively blocking their efforts to do theirs. The reason? Quote: “To protect the State Department and the White House from political embarrassment.” “
Fortunately, the Democratic Congress is responding accordingly. Rep Henry Waxman (D-CA) is currently investigating allegations that Krongard has been blocking inquiries about corrupt contractors by threatening to fire members of his staff for cooperating with Waxman’s investigation, and Senators Jim Webb (D-VA) and Claire McCaskill (D-MO)’s bill unanimously passed in the Senate on Thursday to create an independent, bipartisan commission to investigate contracting in Iraq and Afghanistan.
From Raw Story:
Rep. Dennis Kucinich says he is so concerned about what he sees as the Bush administration's push for a war with Iran that he is considering using a parliamentary measure to force the House of Representatives to vote on impeaching Vice President Dick Cheney.
"We're preparing for another war, and they're going to destroy America," the Ohio Democrat said Thursday on the Ed Schultz show. "We have a government in place right now that has to be challenged. I'm seriously thinking about calling a privileged resolution on impeachment of the vice president and forcing a vote on the floor of the House."
A privileged resolution would force the full House to debate about whether to proceed with impeachment, but it remains unclear precisely how, when or whether Kucinich would be able to introduce such a resolution. Privileged measures "may be called up on the floor whenever another measure is not already pending" and the House agrees to consider it, according to the Congressional Research Service.
Privileged measures can include questions of House privileges or resolutions of inquiry, according to the CRS report.
read more | digg story
From Paul Krugman, one of the smartest people at the NY Times. I'm so glad it's 'diggable" now since it's no longer a fee based read:
read more | digg story
Sometimes it seems that the only way to make sense of the Bush administration is to imagine that it’s a vast experiment concocted by mad political scientists who want to see what happens if a nation systematically ignores everything we’ve learned over the past few centuries about how to make a modern government work.
Thus, the administration has abandoned the principle of a professional, nonpolitical civil service, stuffing agencies from FEMA to the Justice Department with unqualified cronies. Tax farming — giving individuals the right to collect taxes, in return for a share of the take — went out with the French Revolution; now the tax farmers are back.
And so are mercenaries, whom Machiavelli described as “useless and dangerous” more than four centuries ago.
As far as I can tell, America has never fought a war in which mercenaries made up a large part of the armed force. But in Iraq, they are so central to the effort that, as Peter W. Singer of the Brookings Institution points out in a new report, “the private military industry has suffered more losses in Iraq than the rest of the coalition of allied nations combined.”
Fox accuses the generals of "betraying" their own soldiers and putting their reputations and careers ahead of the lives of U.S. soldiers. Betray? Where have I heard this one before? Hmmm.
As usual, Glenn Greenwald really know how to dissect an issue:
As we learned from both our Senate and House last week, in the United States we must never "attack the honor and integrity . . . of members of the United States Armed Forces." All good patriots from both parties agree on this.
I naturally assumed that the "disgraceful military leaders" attacked by the Fox headline must be those of another country, not those of the United States leading our Nation, putting themselves in harm's way, during a Time of War. Yet when I clicked on the item, this is the anti-military filth that I found:
And the text of the article -- by Fox News Contributor and frequent O'Reilly guest David Hunt -- is even more Despicable, as it repeatedly attacks the honor and integrity of members of the United States Armed Forces in one smearing paragraph after the next, beginning with this first sentence:Our generals are betraying our soldiers . . . again.
From Think Progress:
In an opinion column posted on Foxnews.com, Fox News analyst Col. David Hunt, a frequent guest on The O’Reilly Factor, declares that “Our generals are betraying our soldiers … again.” Hunt claims that “our generals put their careers over their men’s lives” and that “we should be putting these generals on trial.” Glenn Greenwald wonders if Hunt’s “attack on the honesty and integrity…of members of the United States Armed Forces” will be denounced on the Senate floor.
From Crooks & Liars:
read more | digg story
Let’s not do what we did before and wind up apologizing for our resolutions and saying we’re sorry. Now remember, the Founding Fathers gave the powers to declare war to the Congress. That power cannot be delegated to the President. You can’t adopt a resolution and say well, the Founding Fathers wanted us to do it, but it’s too heavy a lift for us, so we empower you, Mr. President, if you feel like doing it, to do it.
And my goodness, the President you’re talking about is the president who started a war with a mistaken context-assuming he was telling the truth, and I will-he was wrong about the reason for it, he was wrong about complicity, he was wrong about how many troops we needed, he was wrong about how we would be greeted when we got there, he was wrong about the civil war, wrong about how much it would cost, wrong about how long it would last and now you’re saying maybe he can start another war. It’s a mistake; this an opportunity for Democrats to show real leadership. And the presidential candidates should lead the way. And if they don’t, then the question is going to be when it comes to improvident war-making, why are you any better than Bush?
From Greg Sargent over at TPM's Horses Mouth:
This is just sad.read more | digg story
The Associated Press has now covered the controversy surrounding Rush Limbaugh's now-infamous assertion that soldiers favoring withdrawal from Iraq are "phony soldiers." Unfortunately, the AP's reporting on Rush's pushback on the controversy is outright false -- so bad, in fact, that it goes much farther than even Rush himself did in falsifying the actual meaning of his original remarks.
As Steve Benen notes over at TPM, Limbaugh is now trying to explain away the "phony soldiers" comment by saying that he wasn't referring in general to pro-withdrawal troops, but to specific phony soldiers whom the left is using for propaganda purposes. Limbaugh has posted a transcript of the controversial radio episode, and in it, he refers to these specific "fake soldiers" later in the broadcast.
Here's how the Associated Press reported on this today:In a transcript of Thursday's show posted on his Web site, Limbaugh said the comment followed a discussion of Jesse Macbeth, who was sentenced to five months in prison earlier this month for collecting more than $10,00 in benefits to which he was not entitled...In the AP's telling, Limbaugh first mentioned the specific phony soldier, and then "followed" with a reference to "phony soldiers." This description, of course, makes Limbaugh's pushback sound completely reasonable: Limbaugh established the specific context -- a discussion of MacBeth -- before using the controversial phrase.
"He became a hero to the anti-war left. They love phony soldiers, and they prop 'em up," Limbaugh said Thursday. "I was not talking ... about the anti-war movement generally. I was talking about one soldier with that phony soldier comment, Jesse MacBeth."
But this is not what Limbaugh's transcript says at all, of course. Indeed, not even Limbaugh himself is arguing this. Rather, Limbaugh's transcript shows that the mention of MacBeth came long after his initial reference to phony soldiers. He hadn't established this context first at all. This is just a pathetic error.
From Brave New Films, come this new video. Rudy skips minority debate to fundraise with Bo Derek:
We can imagine how busy Rudy is. Running for president while distorting your record on 9/11, takes a lot of time and energy. So I can't say we were surprised to learn that Rudy (plus Romney, Thompson and McCain) was too busy to attend Thursday night's debate on minority issues hosted by Tavis Smiley.
But where was Rudy going? John Ehrenfeld, a BNF field producer, volunteered to track him down. Turned out he would be right here in Southern California accepting an endorsement from widely discredited Pete Wilson, who's known for exploiting racial division for votes, and pushing the horrible proposition 187. Then off to a $2300-a-plate fundraiser at the Biltmore Four Seasons in Santa Barbara with Bo Derek.
John attended the "open to anyone" endorsement announcement, but was quickly escorted out when they learned he was from Brave New Films! (Read John's blog about the whole event) Quietly though, Phillip snuck through and got the full deal on tape. Always send two people!
So watch the WHERE'S RUDY video, and if you have any ideas for what Rudy's excuse should have been, post a comment below.
From Crooks & Liars:
Another powerful ad from Vote Vets, and they really let Limbaugh have it. Rush can’t help himself as he continues his attacks on our troops and veterans, accusing Ohio Democrat and Iraq veteran Paul Hackett of joining the military to pad his resume. Think Progress has more on a letter that’s circulating around Capitol Hill urging members to condemn Rush and have also issued a challenge to lawmakers to give him the same treatment they did Move On.
We can’t run this ad without reminding Rush about Jon Soltz’s challenge:
Via The Huffington Post:
My challenge to you, then, is to have me on the show and say all of this again, right to the face of someone who served in Iraq. I’ll come on any day, any time. Not only will I once again explain why your comments were so wrong, but I will completely school you on why your refusal to seek a way out of Iraq is only aiding al Qaeda and crippling American security.
Ball’s in your court. Read more…
From Eric Boehlert:
After all of the controversy surrounding the Texas Air National Guard story in 2004 which led to Dan Rather's departure from CBS, and the renewed interest following Rather's recently announced $70 million lawsuit, one little detail seems to have eluded the nation's attention... George W. Bush did indeed snub his Guard duty for nearly two years.read more | digg story
The Guard story is true because in the spring of 1972, with 770 days left of required duty, then-Lt. Bush unilaterally decided that he was done fulfilling his military obligation and walked away from the Guard. For the next two years it was as if Air Force and Guard regulations simply did not apply to Bush, who became a ghost-like figure, doing -- or not doing -- whatever he pleased, unsupervised and unrated by his commanders.
From Think Progress:
Last week, 72 senators voted to condemn an ad by MoveOn.org with a resolution repudiating “any effort to attack the honor and integrity” of “all members of the United States Armed Forces.”Uh, no.
On the Senate floor and in the press, Sen. John Cornyn, who introduced the bill, was vitriolic in his rhetoric towards the ad, calling it a “a despicable political attack” that “crossed a historic line of decency.” He was joined in raucous condemnation by his Senate colleagues:During the September 26 edition of his radio show, right-wing standard bearer Rush Limbaugh claimed that service members who support US withdrawal from Iraq are actually 'phony soldiers.' On the House floor last night, Rep. Frank Pallone (D-NJ) asked if those 'who showed so much outrage towards MoveOn.org - will hold Rush Limbaugh to the same standard?'
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY): “This amendment gives our colleagues a chance to distance themselves from these despicable tactics, distance themselves from the notion that some group has them on a leash.”
Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT): “It is MoveOn that is the disgrace. And I think it is important that the entire Congress publicly repudiate these absurd charges.”
From Daily Kos diarist, rjmac, here's what Bruce said:
This is a song called Livin' In the Future. But it's really about what's happening now. Right now. It's kind of about how the things we love about America, cheeseburgers, French fries, the Yankees battlin' Boston... the Bill of Rights [holds up microphone, urging crowd to cheer] ... v-twin motorcycles... Tim Russert's haircut, trans-fats and the Jersey Shore... we love those things the way womenfolk love Matt Lauer.
But over the past six years we've had to add to the American picture: rendition, illegal wiretapping, voter suppression, no habeus corpus, the neglect of that great city New Orleans and its people, an attack on the Constitution. And the loss of our best men and women in a tragic war.
This is a song about things that shouldn't happen here happening here.
So right now we plan to do something about it, we plan to sing about it. I know it's early, but it's late. So come and join us.
Found on Crooks & Liars:
"We got our wish… Larry Craig has decided to stick around a little longer. More from Driftglass (who made the GOP men’s room sign above…love the machine gun, Drifty honey), Winds of Change, and Idahofallz."Digg it
By John Ehrenfeld from Brave New Films:
"Just when you thought that there was hope for Democracy in America. This morning, I was thrown out of a Rudy Giulliani press conference in Santa Monica, California after being told I was welcome to attend. The reason? They found out I worked for Brave New Films.
We were all curious as to why Rudy Giuliani did not think it was important to attend the Republican presidential debate tonight at Morgan State University in Baltimore, a historically black college. The debate, hosted by Tavis Smiley will focus on issues important to minority communities. Giuliani’s campaign suggested there were “important scheduling conflicts”. So, we decided to see what was more important than listening to and addressing the concern’s of African-American voters."
read more | digg story
Infamous hate group, Focus on the Family, must have pissed off God becuase he/she/it is hitting them where it really hurts, (no not there) in the pocket. Imagine that. No doubt these lunatics will blame the homosexual agenda for this.
From MSNBC via AmeriaBlog:
Focus on the Family announced Monday that it is laying off 30 employees and reassigning 15 others. It also announced that founder James Dobson had been cleared of accusations that he jeopardized the group's nonprofit status by endorsing Republican candidates.read more | digg story
Most of the layoffs are in the organization's Constituent Response Services department that answers mail and telephone requests.
A drop in projected revenue played a part in the layoffs, and the growth of e-mail and Internet-based communications is behind the reassignments, said Gary Schneeberger, vice president of communications.
Media Matters is really having a field day with BillO's racism and BillO seems to be digging the sink hole he created into a full blown crater. The deeper the better as far as I'm concerned:
Media Matters items on the O'Reilly controversy:
AUDIO/TRANSCRIPT: Listen to O'Reilly's comments for yourself
Wash. Post: Fox's Bill O'Reilly Says His Stereotypes Taken Out of Context, 09/26/07
AP: Bill O'Reilly Says He's Being Smeared, 09/26/07
The Guardian: Dinnertime tale lands Fox pundit in race row 09/26/07
CNN: Fox host O'Reilly says restaurant comments not racist 09/26/07
AP: Group Points Out O'Reilly Race Comments 09/25/07
1 tiny tiny step forward. From Think Progress:
Moments ago, the Senate voted to expand the hate crimes law to include crimes motivated by gender, sexual orientation, or disability of the victims. The vote retained the 60 votes necessary to prevent a filibuster, and it will pass as an attachment to the defense authorization bill.read more | digg story
Opponents of the measure immediately predicted it “ultimately would fail either in negotiations with the House or by presidential veto. ‘The president is not going to agree to this social legislation on the defense authorization bill’ said Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C. ‘This bill will get vetoed.’” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said, “Our troops are on the front lines in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere fighting against evil and hate. We owe it to them to uphold those same principles here at home.”
Now if only ABC would look into Mark Halpern's credentials too. From Crooks & Liars:
read more | digg story
Ahem. Media Bloodhound is covering a fascinating breach of journalistic ethics. ABC news discovered they couldn’t verify the credentials of their terrorism “analyst” Alexis Debat as having a degree from the Sorbonne, and it turned out he might have fabricated an interview with Barack Obama. Perhaps most serious are questions as to when ABC was using Debat as an information source and when he was a reporter paid by the network. It is clear that his producers loved some of the sensational stories he covered about “possible” post 9/11 terrorist plans.
It is also fact that Debat was on the payroll of ABC and a necon think tank at the same time.
[Debat was] quoted and used as a source for multiple post-9/11-related stories for the rest of 2001 and much of 2002, finally officially earns the title “ABC News consultant” in addition to “former French Defense Ministry official” in a story about how Zacharias Moussaoui, the infamous “20th hijacker” - according to “French intelligence authorities,” which in this case appears to be, well, Debat – was actually “part of a second wave of suicide hijackings planned for early 2002 in Europe and the United States.” Read more….
From the Washington Post via Crooks & Liars:
A federal judge in Oregon ruled Wednesday that two provisions of the USA Patriot Act are unconstitutional, marking the second time in as many weeks that the anti-terrorism law has come under attack in the courts. …Judge Ann Aiken ruled that the Patriot Act violates the Constitution because it “permits the executive branch of government to conduct surveillance and searches of American citizens without satisfying the probable cause requirements of the Fourth Amendment.” Read more...read more | digg story
From Media Matters:
"On the September 23 edition of CNN's Reliable Sources, during a discussion of HDNet global correspondent and former CBS Evening News anchor Dan Rather's lawsuit against CBS, host Howard Kurtz asked if it was "plausible" that CBS made Rather "a scapegoat to placate the Bush administration," as Rather alleges the network did following his controversial 60 Minutes II report about President Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard. Kurtz directed the question to conservative radio host Laura Ingraham, who replied that "the idea that this was an effort to appease President Bush" was "laughable." Former Evening News executive producer Rome Hartman agreed, saying that "this was not an effort to placate anyone." But neither Kurtz nor his guests mentioned two other instances in which CBS allegedly acted to placate the White House in 2004: then-60 Minutes correspondent Ed Bradley's story on the Bush administration's pre-Iraq war claims about purported Iraqi nuclear capabilities, which CBS shelved because, according to a CBS spokeswoman, it would have been "inappropriate to air the report so close to the presidential election"; and Rather's story on abuse of detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison, which he alleges CBS executives stalled in response to administration pressure."More from Brave New Films:
"Watch as CNN anchor Rick Sanchez reports how creepy wild Bill O'Reilly called them today, "screaming at the top of his lungs for a very long time". The spineless, thin-skinned Fox Noise lunatic was complaining about CNN's reporting on comments he made about African-Americans while dining with Al Sharpton in Harlem recently. Never mind that the comments were reported accurately and that O'Leilly fibbed about what was said. Facts schmacts, who needs 'em!"read more | digg story
From CNN's Anderson Cooper 360 via Crooks & Liars:
CLINTON: …This was classic bait and switch.
COOPER: Focus on that as opposed to focus on what’s really happening ….
CLINTON: Oh yeah. That’s right. “I don’t have to deal with Iraq. I don’t have to tell anybody what I’m going to do. Everything we do in Iraq is obviously right because they said this about Petraeus,” as if it was the only issue in the whole wide world. Come on, these Republicans were all upset about Petraeus-this was one newspaper ad-these are the people that ran a television ad in Georgia with Max Cleland, who lost half his body in Vietnam, in the same ad with Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. That’s what Republicans do. And the person that rode into the Senate on that ad was there voting to condemn the Democrats over the Petraeus ad. I mean, these are the people that funded the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. The President appointed one of the principal funders of the Swift Boat ads to be an ambassador, but they’re really about the Petraeus one. It’s okay to question John Kerry’s patriotism on the blatantly dishonest claims by people that didn’t know what they are talking about. So it was just bait and switch. It was “Oh, thank goodness, I can take this little word here and ignore what we’ve done in Iraq and what we’re gonna do and the outrageous way that we’re gained political power by smearing John Kerry.”read more | digg story
From Cliff Schecter over at Brave New Films:
That was the line of the Democratic debate last night. Delivered by Joe Biden about Rudy Giuliani's tough talk on Iran when he has shown numerous times he doesn't know what the hell he's talking about on foreign policy (or much else for that matter).
read more | digg story
First, Keith did a story on the news before speaking to Jane Harmon:
Now, Crooks & Liars talks about the follow-up from the initial story with Keith's interview with Jane herself:
Following up on Monday night’s Nexus of Terror & Politics report, Keith Olbermann talks with Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA) to get more details on the revelation that the Bush Administration used bogus intelligence in order to frighten lawmakers into voting for last August’s expanded FISA bill.read more | digg storyOlbermann: “Nobody doubts the existence of terrorism or terrorists or the need to act on their existence, but at this point, is our freedom beginning to be or even now already at greater risk from terrorism, or from people who are exploiting the fact of terrorism to gain unprecedented and perhaps irreversible rights to spy and detain and rendition and everything else?”
Harman: “Well, I think this is a-a quite a scary period in our history and there are right answers. We can get surveillance right. I think most of us, maybe all of us in the House and in the Senate support surveilling people who are trying to harm us, but we can do that within the careful framework of FISA. FISA is not broken. What’s broken is the view of executive power that some hold in the administration. They claim it trumps all laws and our constitution.”
By now you must have heard of Bill O’Reilly’s visit to famed NY restaurant, Sylvia’s, with Al Shaprton and how he was amazed to see no one in the African-American owned restaurant screamed “Mother Fucker, I want some more tea”, among other racially ignorant beliefs? No? Oh, well then here:
O'Reilly surprised "there was no difference" between Harlem restaurant and other New York restaurantsWhat’s most shocking about the comments isn’t that he said it, it’s that he doesn’t think he’s a racist through and through, as passive-aggressive as this example seems to be.
During the September 19 edition of his nationally syndicated radio program, discussing his recent trip to have dinner with Rev. Al Sharpton at Sylvia's, a famous restaurant in Harlem, Bill O'Reilly reported that he "had a great time, and all the people up there are tremendously respectful," adding: "I couldn't get over the fact that there was no difference between Sylvia's restaurant and any other restaurant in New York City. I mean, it was exactly the same, even though it's run by blacks, primarily black patronship." Later, during a discussion with National Public Radio senior correspondent and Fox News contributor Juan Williams about the effect of rap on culture, O'Reilly asserted: "There wasn't one person in Sylvia's who was screaming, 'M-Fer, I want more iced tea.' You know, I mean, everybody was -- it was like going into an Italian restaurant in an all-white suburb in the sense of people were sitting there, and they were ordering and having fun. And there wasn't any kind of craziness at all." O'Reilly also stated: "I think black Americans are starting to think more and more for themselves. They're getting away from the Sharptons and the [Rev. Jesse] Jacksons and the people trying to lead them into a race-based culture. They're just trying to figure it out. 'Look, I can make it. If I work hard and get educated, I can make it."
MSNBC's Scarborough highlighted O'Reilly's comments about Sylvia's in Harlem:
On the September 25 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, host Joe Scarborough, co-anchor Mika Brzezinski, and guest host Willie Geist discussed Fox News host Bill O'Reilly's recent comment, documented by Media Matters for America, that he, in Scarborough's words, "couldn't get over the fact that there was no difference between a black restaurant and a white restaurant," after a recent trip to Harlem's famous restaurant Sylvia's. Scarborough twice played audio clips of O'Reilly's comments, made on the September 19 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show. Scarborough called the remarks "shocking" and "fascinating," and added, "I'm sure we're going to be hearing more about that throughout the day." Scarborough also highlighted O'Reilly's comment that everyone at the restaurant was "tremendously respectful," to which Geist responded: "And Sylvia's of all places, which is like world famous, great restaurant. He was still surprised." From the September 25 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe:
Of course there are even more ignorant people out there other than Bill as CNN’s Rick Sanchez proves by making excuses for him. I guess since BillO wasn’t talking about little brown people, this time, it’s OK:
O'Reilly told CNN that Harlem restaurant comments were "hatchet job by Media Matters"
"During the September 24 edition of CNN's Out in the Open, host Rick Sanchez and CNN contributor Roland Martin discussed Fox News host Bill O'Reilly's statement during the September 19 edition of his radio program -- which Media Matters for America documented -- that he was surprised there was "no difference" between Sylvia's restaurant in the Harlem neighborhood of Manhattan and other New York restaurants, even though Sylvia's is "run by blacks." Sanchez reported that during an "animated" phone conversation, O'Reilly denied any "racial intent" in his comments and described the story as "a hatchet job by Media Matters."
Bill O'Reilly's comments about Harlem restaurant draw fireThis is getting good.
NEW YORK — After eating dinner at a famed Harlem restaurant recently, Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly told a radio audience he "couldn't get over the fact" that there was no difference between the black-run Sylvia's and other restaurants.
"It was like going into an Italian restaurant in an all-white suburb in the sense of people were sitting there, and they were ordering and having fun," he said. "And there wasn't any kind of craziness at all."
The Village Voice has it.There are now 104 stories (at last count) making the rounds.
The NY Daily News has it.
O'Reilly Attacks Media Matters for Posting Harlem RemarksNewsbuster’s has much much more.
O'Reilly: "CNN has now entered the dark side with Media Matters"
I smell snowballs coming BillO’s way. No! In honor of BillO’s way of thinking, make that fried chicken.Digg it
In case you missed this incredible article by a real journalist. From Glenn Greenwald:
read more | digg story
The first tactic is merely the most commonplace conceit of the standard Beltway pundit: Brooks takes whatever opinions he happens to hold on a topic, and then -- without citing a single piece of evidence -- repeatedly asserts that "most Americans" hold this view, and then bases his entire "argument" on this premise. Thus, the only way for Democrats to have any hope of winning elections is to repudiate their radical, rabid Leftist base and instead follow Brooks' beliefs, because that is "centrism." This is actually a defining belief of the Beltway pundit, and it is as intellectually corrupt as an argument gets.
There is now this new invention called "polling data" which reveal what "most Americans" actually think about virtually any topic. Yet when Beltway pundits claim that "most Americans" think X (and, invariably, X = "the opinion of the Beltway pundit" which = "conventional Beltway wisdom"), they rarely cite polls because those polls virtually always contradict what they are claiming about what "most Americans" think.
Instead, Beltway pundits believe that they are representative of, anointed spokespeople for, the Average Real American, and thus, whatever the pundit's belief is about an issue is -- in their insular, self-loving minds -- a far more reliable indicator of what "Americans believe" than something as tawdry as polling data. Nobody uses this manipulative tactic more than David Brooks.
The other Brooks tactic is also a defining feature among pundits and a central prong in the Washington Establishment's orthodoxies. No matter what polls or elections show, Brooks' overriding goal is to "prove" that "most Americans" favor a "hawkish" foreign policy whereby America will rule the world by military force, most importantly in the Middle East. As he put it earlier this year, citing absolutely nothing (as always):
I don't normally appreciate Joe, but this item from Media Matters made me smile:
On the September 25 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, host Joe Scarborough, co-anchor Mika Brzezinski, and guest host Willie Geist discussed Fox News host Bill O'Reilly's recent comment, documented by Media Matters for America, that he, in Scarborough's words, "couldn't get over the fact that there was no difference between a black restaurant and a white restaurant," after a recent trip to Harlem's famous restaurant Sylvia's. Scarborough twice played audio clips of O'Reilly's comments, made on the September 19 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio show. Scarborough called the remarks "shocking" and "fascinating," and added, "I'm sure we're going to be hearing more about that throughout the day." Scarborough also highlighted O'Reilly's comment that everyone at the restaurant was "tremendously respectful," to which Geist responded: "And Sylvia's of all places, which is like world famous, great restaurant. He was still surprised." From the September 25 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe:read more | digg storySCARBOROUGH: You know, I just heard the most fascinating clip in my ear. Bill O'Reilly, on the syndicated talk show, on September the 19th, was describing a lunch with the Reverend Al Sharpton, and I will say no more; I'm just going to play it and let you be the judge of what he said.
He could not get over the fact that there was no difference, even though the restaurant was run by black people.
It is shocking. So, I've got chills right now, going up and down my back. I'm gonna throw it over to you all and think I'm gonna take a shower.
Via Crooks & Liars:
And from Think Progress:
Webb: We are about to vote on something that may fundamentally change the way that the United States views the Iranian military, and we haven’t had one hearing. This is not the way to make foreign policy. It’s not the way to declare war, although this cleverly worded sense of the Congress could be interpreted that way.
Those who regret their vote five years ago to authorize military action in Iraq should think hard before supporting this approach, because in my view, it has the same potential to do harm where many are seeking to do good. The constant turmoil that these sorts of proposals and actions are bringing to the region is counterproductive. They are regrettable substitute for a failure of diplomacy by this Administration.
I do not believe that any serious student of foreign policy could support this amendment as it now exists.
This proposal is Dick Cheney’s fondest pipe dream. It’s not a prescription for success. At best, it’s a deliberate attempt to divert attention from a failed diplomatic policy. At worst, it could be read as a back door method of gaining congressional validation for action with one hearing or without serious debate.
On the Senate floor today, Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) made an impassioned appeal to his fellow senators, declaring that the Lieberman-Kyl amendment on Iran should be “withdrawn” because the “proposal is Dick Cheney’s fondest pipe dream.” Webb cautioned that the “cleverly-worded sense of the Congress” could be “interpreted” to “declare war” on Iran.read more | digg story
Webb said that amendment’s attempt to categorize the Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corp as “a foreign terrorist organization” would, for all practical purposes, “mandate” the military option against Iran. “It could be read as tantamount to a declaration of war. What do we do with terrorist organizations? If they are involved against us, we attack them.”WEBB: "We haven’t had one hearing on this. I’m on the Foreign Relations Committee, I’m on the Armed Services Committee. We are about to vote on something that may fundamentally change the way the United States views the Iranian military and we haven’t had one hearing. This is not the way to make foreign policy. It’s not the way to declare war."
Blithering cowards. From Talking Points Memo:
MSNBC's David Schuster shared some very interesting news with his viewers last night: He said that pro-war GOP Senators who are up for reelection have repeatedly refused to go on MSNBC and have directly turned down multiple invitations to appear on the network and discuss the war:MSNBC: If you want to know what a real reporter looks like – someone who doesn’t let people bullshit the viewer and someone who actually knows how to play hardball, tell them to take a look at David Shuster.
He's the kind of journalist that you should be looking to hire (and emulate) instead of propping up the bought and paid for insiders like David Gregory, Andrea Mitchell and Tim Russert or worse, the sexist pig, Chris Matthews & his gossip whore lead in, Tucker Carlson.
Thank you David Shuster.crossposted at DailyKos
Racism (& fear) in all it's glory. From Crooks & Liars:
Steve posted this last week, but I think we need to see him say this so he can’t get away with the “I was misquoted” routine. Rep. Peter King often makes idiotic remarks, (Baghdad is just like Manhattan) but Rudy can’t be happy about this one.read more | digg story
King: “Unfortunately we have too many mosques in this country, there’s too many people who are sympathetic to radical Islam. We should be looking at them more carefully, we should be finding out how we can infiltrate, we should be much more aggressive in law enforcement.”
As Digby notes:
And btw, is Rudy Giuliani the craziest nutball they’ve ever tried to foist on us, or what? How can anyone think this man is an appropriate choice to be president?
Giuliani’s craziness has been exposed more and more lately and I wonder if the media will ask Rudy about King.
From Crooks & Liars:
According to Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA), Chairwoman of the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Terrorism Risk Assessment, the Bush administration knowingly used bogus intelligence to make lawmakers believe there was the chance of an imminent attack on the U.S. Capitol, thus frightening them into passing the temporary expansion of his powers to spy on Americans under the FISA act. Keith talks with former Reagan administration official and chairman of the American Freedom Agenda Bruce Fein, who has called for the impeachment of both Dick Cheney and George Bush about Bush’s unconstitutional power grabs and how the Democrats can exert their powers as a co-equal branch of government by refusing to fund any spending mandated in future FISA bills.
As CNN's ratings continue to fall, perhaps this might help them understand why.
From Crooks & Liars:
It’s unbelievable that he said it, but it’s not as bad as it sounds. It’s just Beck’s authoritarian mind at work, in a really bizarre false equivalency way. In a discussion that revolves around honesty, comedian D.L. Hughley bemoans the lack of a clear front-runner in the presidential race. Beck equates that with his notion of electing based on Cult of Personality:Why haven’t the normal folk who work at CNN stood up and said enough? Anderson? Wolf? Larry? Jack? John Roberts?
BECK: …(Y)ou`re saying that people want somebody that they just think they have all the answers. I`m saying that…
HUGHLEY: No. That`s who we voted for, who we always voted for.
HUGHLEY: I`m saying that that seems to be who we vote for.
BECK: I think people want somebody who have room for doubt, but also have the confidence. I think Jesus Christ and Hitler had a lot in common, and that was they could both look you in the eye and say, “I`ve got an answer for you, follow me.” One was evil; one was good. But they both could look you in the eye and have an answer for you. There are very few politicians right now that can look you in the eye and you believe it.
Again, with this kind of incisive political thought, I must ask the question: Why does Glenn Beck have his own show?
Thank you David Shuster for not letting Rep. Marsha Blackburn continue changing the subject on Iraq. Thank you for pointing out how insignificant Republican cries about the MoveOn.org ad truly are.
If MSNBC wants to know what a real reporter looks like – someone who doesn’t let people bullshit the viewer and someone who actually knows how to play hardball, they should to take a look at David Shuster.
He the kind of journalist that you should be looking to hire (and emulate) instead of propping up the bought and paid for insiders like David Gregory, Andrea Mitchell and Tim Russert or worse, the sexist pig, Chris Matthews & his gossip whore lead in, Tucker Carlson.From Crooks & Liars:
Tucker substitute host David Shuster confronts Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) about the blatant hypocrisy of the Republican party when he asks about Rush Limbaugh’s Senator Betrayus smear against Senator Chuck Hagel and all Blackburn wants to do is rehash tired slams against the New York Times over the MoveOn ad.read more | digg story
As Blackburn prattles on about the NYT betraying the public trust and making sweetheart deals, Shuster turns the tables on her and asks her to name the last soldier from her district who was killed in Iraq — and what do you know? She had no idea what his name was, or even why she didn’t know. Watch Blackburn stutter and get backed into a corner, with Shuster proving she cared more about making partisan hits than she did about the dead soldiers from her own district.
Shuster: “Let’s talk about the public trust. You represent, of course, a district in western Tennessee. What was the name of the last solider from your district who was killed in Iraq?”
Blackburn:”The name of the last soldier killed in Iraq uh - from my district I - I do not know his name -”
Shuster: “Ok, his name was Jeremy Bohannon, he was killed August the 9th, 2007. How come you didn’t know the name?”
Blackburn: “I - I, you know, I - I do not know why I did not know the name…” [Snip]
Shuster: “But you weren’t appreciative enough to know the name of this young man, he was 18 years old who was killed, and yet you can say chapter and verse about what’s going on with the New York Times and Move On.org.” [Snip]
Shuster: “But don’t you understand, the problems that a lot of people would have, that you’re so focused on an ad — when was the last time a New York Times ad ever killed somebody? I mean, here we have a war that took the life of an 18 year old kid, Jeremy Bohannon from your district, and you didn’t even know his name.”