Letterman just said that according to his source the White House did indeed contact CNN to try and influence their coverage of his clip of Bush speech.
If true, this is really incredible. First, CNN will report whatever the White House sends over to them. And, more importantly, when busted CNN will lie and claim they didn't get the information from the White House. They'll cover for them.
Unbelievable.
Wednesday, March 31, 2004
Game, Set, Match
Asleep at the wheel.
It's important to be honest about what happened. For too long the White House has tried to pretend that they were on top of things, when all of the facts went against them.
Anyone who thinks that our biggest concern is missiles is a fool or a liar. Period.
-
On Sept. 11, 2001, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice was scheduled to outline a Bush administration policy that would address "the threats and problems of today and the day after, not the world of yesterday" -- but the focus was largely on missile defense, not terrorism from Islamic radicals.
The speech provides telling insight into the administration's thinking on the very day that the United States suffered the most devastating attack since the 1941 bombing of Pearl Harbor. The address was designed to promote missile defense as the cornerstone of a new national security strategy, and contained no mention of al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden or Islamic extremist groups, according to former U.S. officials who have seen the text.
The speech was postponed in the chaos of the day, part of which Rice spent in a bunker. It mentioned terrorism, but did so in the context used in other Bush administration speeches in early 2001: as one of the dangers from rogue nations, such as Iraq, that might use weapons of terror, rather than from the cells of extremists now considered the main security threat to the United States.
The text also implicitly challenged the Clinton administration's policy, saying it did not do enough about the real threat -- long-range missiles.
It's important to be honest about what happened. For too long the White House has tried to pretend that they were on top of things, when all of the facts went against them.
Anyone who thinks that our biggest concern is missiles is a fool or a liar. Period.
Majority Report Blog
Sam Seder, the co-host of the Majority report, really wants to push blogs on the show, which is great. I'll be on regularly until they decide I suck, as will Kos. But, they're starting their own blog which is a pretty good idea.
Letterman
Links to the orignal show on Monday and follow-up with CNN passing on White House lies verbatim can be found here.
John Kerry Day Update
Total Donations: 1330
Total Dollars: $117594.14
Need about 2 grand more to make it 10K for the day. And, I'll put the begging bowl away next Thursday and give everyone a week off. Click to give.
Total Dollars: $117594.14
Need about 2 grand more to make it 10K for the day. And, I'll put the begging bowl away next Thursday and give everyone a week off. Click to give.
Radio Tonight
Don't forget, I'll be on the Majority Report on Air America around 9. But, don't worry, listen to the show anyway - they actually will be having some guests that people have heard of too!
More on Letterman
Link:
CNN's totally in the tank.
-
Last night we showed a clip of the President giving a speech. Behind him stood a lad who was obviously bored silly. The 14-year-old or so yawned, scratched, yawned, yawned, checked his watch, bent over, stared at the ceiling, and then fell asleep during the President's speech. It was very funny. So funny, in fact, that CNN replayed the clip Tuesday during their broadcasts. But, but, but, the first time is was shown, CNN anchorwoman Daryn Kagan reported that the White House said the clip was a total fake, it was merely the Late Show having fun with their ability to edit and do TV tricks. Dave says what the CNN reporter said was an out and out 100% lie. A couple hours later, CNN anchor person Kyra Phillips reported that the kid was at the speech but not where the Late Show had him. Dave again makes the claim, "That's an out and out absolute 100% lie. That kid was exactly where we said he was." It's true. The speech was at a Florida Rally on March 20th at the Orange County Convention Center in Orlando, Florida. Dave is irked that the White House was trying to make him look like a jerk. But he's glad he got his side of the story out in the open.
CNN's totally in the tank.
Blitzer
This is just unbelievable. Are any of these people ever honest? From the Howler:
Somerby is too generous. While it's possible (though doubtful) Blitzer was referring to Wilkinson, no reasonable person would have actually thought he was. So, he may have "misspoke," but he tries to blame Krugman.
I hate these people.
-
DOWN IN THE MIRE: Wolf Blitzer has offered an explanation for his comment about Clarke?s personal life (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 3/30/04). He spoke on yesterday's Blitzer Reports. As he did, he misled viewers about Paul Krugman:-
BLITZER (3/30/04): Last Wednesday, while I was debriefing our senior White House correspondent, John King, I asked him if White House officials were suggesting there were some weird aspects to Richard Clarke's life. Clarke, of course, is the former counter-terrorism adviser who has sharply criticized the president's handling of the war on terror. I was not referring to anything charged by so-called unnamed White House officials as alleged today by New York Times columnist Paul Krugman. I was simply seeking to flesh out what Bush National Security Council spokesman Jim Wilkinson had said on this program two days earlier.
WILKINSON (videotape): Let me also point something. If you look in this book, you find interesting things such as reported in the Washington Post this morning. He's talking about how he sits back and visualizes chanting by bin Laden and how bin Laden has some sort of mind control over U.S. officials. This is sort of X-Files stuff. And what I'd say is, this is a man who was in charge of terrorism, Wolf, who was supposed to be focused on that. And he was focused on meetings.
BLITZER: Other than that, John Kerry [sic] reported White House officials were not talking about Clarke's personal life in any way. Lou Dobbs Tonight starts right now.
Presumably, Blitzer meant to say "John King," not "John Kerry." But when it comes to Wolf Blitzer, who knows?
Was Blitzer referring to Wilkinson in last week's comment? Here at THE HOWLER, we don't really know (more below). For the record, Wilkinson's comments were a stupid, fake account of what Clarke actually says in his book -- the kind of fakery men like Wilkinson know they can offer to Blitzer. Simply put, Wilkinson lied, right in Blitzer?s face. But was that what Blitzer had in mind when he spoke to King last week? Here, again, is what he said when he posed his question:-
BLITZER (question to King, Wednesday, 3/24/04): What administration officials have been saying since the weekend, basically that Richard Clarke from their vantage point was a disgruntled former government official, angry because he didn't get a certain promotion. He's got a hot new book out now that he wants to promote. He wants to make a few bucks, and that his own personal life, they're also suggesting that there are some weird aspects in his life as well, that they don't know what made this guy come forward and make these accusations against the president. Is that the sense that you're getting, speaking to a wide range of officials?
Let's state the obvious. Blitzer did refer to unnamed "administration officials," the claim he mocked on yesterday's program. If you watched him yesterday, you would have thought that Krugman invented the part about "unnamed officials." CNN's viewers were baldly misled. Sadly, they were misled by Blitzer.
So Blitzer dissembled about Paul Krugman. Beyond that, it's conceivable that Blitzer was referring to Wilkinson in his question to King. In truth, it seems like a bit of a stretch. But yes, it's always conceivable. -
Somerby is too generous. While it's possible (though doubtful) Blitzer was referring to Wilkinson, no reasonable person would have actually thought he was. So, he may have "misspoke," but he tries to blame Krugman.
I hate these people.
Abuse of Power
The Bush administration keeps having civil servants violate the law by having them work on explicitly political projects.
John Kerry Day Update!
Total Donations: 1279
Total Dollars: $112874.14
That's about $3200 for the day so far!
It's the end of the quarter, so it's important to get those numbers up and keep the Big Mo going.
Total Dollars: $112874.14
That's about $3200 for the day so far!
It's the end of the quarter, so it's important to get those numbers up and keep the Big Mo going.
Letterman
A bunch of people have sent this in. Here's reader d:
-
I don't know if you saw Letterman last night, but there was some interesting stuff.
On Monday night, he showed a long clip of a Bush speech (headlined as "George W. Bush energizes the youth of America," or something like that) with this young boy (around 12 years old) on the stage behind him who was obviously having a really hard time concentrating. As the clip jumped forward in time, he gradually got more fidgetty--the kid was yawning, checking his watch, cracking his neck, bending over and touching his toes. It was absolutely hysterical.
Last night, Dave says that earlier on Tuesday, CNN showed the clip from his show. Afterwards, the anchor came on and said that the White House informed them that the Letterman people edited the boy into the clip. Dave came back and said that that was a flat-out lie! Then he showed a CNN broadcast from later on Tuesday when they repeated the clip, and a different anchor said that the White House now said that, yes, the boy was at the speech, but not actually on stage behind George. Dave reiterated that, in fact, they were big LIARS!
A few minutes later, Dave's producer informs him that CNN contacted the show and said that the White House had never actually contacted them, and the anchor had made a mistake. For the rest of the show, Dave was lamenting that he had accused the Bush administration of being liars, when he didn't have his facts straight. Off mike, you could see the producer mouth the same thing I was thinking, which was that TWO different anchors each reported being given information by the White House-how could they both just make that up?
Sounds like the Bushies lied as usual (as they do about things big and small?), and that for some reason CNN decided to provide damage control cover-up. I don't know why Dave didn't push them further. The whole thing was very surreal, but typical. Can someone get the real story about what transpired? (Actually, I went to sleep a little bit before the show ended, so I don't know if there were any other tidbits that came up?)
That Liberal NPR
From Talk of the Nation:
-
CONAN: Susannah Meadows is general editor at Newsweek magazine. She analyzed Newsweek's recent poll, which measured the effect of Richard Clarke's testimony on public opinion. And she spoke to us from her home in Brooklyn, New York. Obviously, that was the first poll to emerge last week. There will be others with greater information as time goes on.
Let's get some callers on the line. And Richard joins us from Louisville, Kentucky.
RICHARD (Caller): Yes.
CONAN: Yes.
RICHARD: I'd like to say that, listening to Clarke's testimony, it solidified in my mind the fact that not only was there smoke but fire underlining this decision to enter the war in Iraq. And it caused me to do a little bit more research and understand that prior to 9/11, Dick Cheney was appointed head of the task force for anti-terrorism, and yet he had no meetings, zero meetings, with people to discuss terrorism in this country or facing this country.
CONAN: I'm unfamiliar with that.
RICHARD: Yeah. And I found it quite unusual that that little item wasn't subpoenaed. So, you know, and being a Vietnam veteran, I guess I had leanings in that direction anyway.
CONAN: I have to ask Mary Louise, are you familiar with this? I've not heard it come up in the hearings at all.
KELLY: Oh, I haven't heard it come up at all. When you said Dick Cheney, sir, becoming the chair of the counterterrorist group in the White House, you meant Dick Cheney, not Richard Clarke?
RICHARD: No, Dick Cheney was appointed as a task-force leader by President Bush, and he made that statement to the public, that he was going to be looking over terrorism and the threat that it posed...
CONAN: Again, I'm going to have to look into that. It would seem it would have come up had it happened that way. Maybe I'm wrong, though, Richard. We'll have to go back and check on that.
RICHARD: Well, that'd be great.
CONAN: OK.
RICHARD: Thank you for the show and the call.
CONAN: OK. Thank you very much.
RICHARD: Right-o. Bye.
Air America Premiers
Story in NYT.
I met Janeane Garofalo and her co-host Sam Seder earlier this evening. It should be fun - let's hope they increase the number of outlets and that they last.
Funny how people look different on screen. Janeane is absolutely tiny, as is Paul Rudd. Tim Robbins isn't as tall as I thought.
I met Janeane Garofalo and her co-host Sam Seder earlier this evening. It should be fun - let's hope they increase the number of outlets and that they last.
Funny how people look different on screen. Janeane is absolutely tiny, as is Paul Rudd. Tim Robbins isn't as tall as I thought.
Happy John Kerry Wednesday!
Happy John Kerry Day! Yes, I know JK Day is usually on Thursdays, but today's the last day of the quarter and it's a good idea to pump up the numbers. So, we'll bump JK day up one day, and then we'll take next week off to give your wallets a rest.
Click to give!
Click to give!
Chase Out the Fundies
From Signorile:
-
Why would Rivenburg be pushing an agenda in his reporting? Let's look at the website of the World Journalism Institute, where Rivenburg is listed as a "guest faculty" member.
"In this age of mass secular media, the mission of the World Journalism Institute is to overcome the culture's efforts to eclipse God by providing a counter-thrust to the secular media, as well as the tepid and non-discerning Christian media," the institute's site reads. "By helping train aspiring Biblically-minded journalists, WJI can lift the spiritually impoverished public to the renewing grace of God, and to this end we must press our unwilling materialistic-naturalistic newsroom culture itself into the strategic service of the universal and unrelenting claims of the Lord of the cosmos."
Responding to some questions I emailed him, Rivenburg, whose Columbia University master's thesis about modern exorcism was titled "Deliverance From the Devil," attempted to distance himself from WJI.
"I'm not sure that listing me as an instructor for a five-hour feature-writing seminar necessarily implies that I'm an evangelical Christian [I'm Catholic] or endorse all of their philosophies," Rivenburg said. "But I have, in the past, thought about asking them not to put me on their website. Maybe I should reconsider that."
If he doesn't agree with the institute's philosophy, why would he lend his name and reputation to it? Why would he work for it at all?
"It's not like I'm doing ads or cover blurbs for them," he responded. "I simply agreed to teach a seminar on feature writing and they've listed me as one of their instructors, which I am." (Rivenburg told the LA Observed website last week that though he didn't fully agree with WJI, it did offer a "generous" fee and that a friend told him to "give it a whirl.")
As for his own position on same-sex marriage, Rivenburg prefers to stay in the closet, even as his association with WJI seems to have outed his leanings.
"When I wrote about the presidential race in 2000, it would have been unprofessional for me to publicly discuss my political beliefs or voting record," he said. "Likewise, I think it's unprofessional for me to publicly discuss my personal views on this topic."
Rivenburg, who says his editors assigned him the same-sex marriage piece (an example, perhaps, of bias or carelessness on their part), often writes opinionated political and cultural humor columns for the L.A. Times, which raises the question of why he can't offer me a position on same-sex marriage. It's interesting that he takes on the mantle of objective reporter when he's writing about issues important to Christian fundamentalists, such as his pieces on so-called partial birth abortion and how Hugh Hefner brought us the era of AIDS and sexually transmitted diseases.
If Big Media is going to stop gay journalists who get married from covering the same-sex marriage movement, shouldn't it be clamping down on reporters and editors aiding and abetting a hidden Christian right agenda as well?
Tuesday, March 30, 2004
Holy Crap
John Gorenfeld let me know this morning that the Reverend Moon was claiming to have spoken to Congress and proclaimed himself to be the Messiah. I was having a hard time believing it was true, but it appears it is at least sort of true.
MW writes in with this link, which confirms the story.
Apparently, there was an "Ambassadors for Peace" awards ceremony, at which Moon gave the keynote address, in the Dirksen Senate Office Building, given by the "Interreligious and International Peace Council."
Here's the link to the program. Here's the "Host Committee," filled with plenty of names of Members (yes, Democrats too). And, here's a bit of what Moon had to say to them.
MW writes in with this link, which confirms the story.
Apparently, there was an "Ambassadors for Peace" awards ceremony, at which Moon gave the keynote address, in the Dirksen Senate Office Building, given by the "Interreligious and International Peace Council."
Here's the link to the program. Here's the "Host Committee," filled with plenty of names of Members (yes, Democrats too). And, here's a bit of what Moon had to say to them.
-
The five great saints and many other leaders in the spirit world, including even Communist leaders such as Marx and Lenin, who committed all manner of barbarity and murders on earth, and dictators such as Hitler and Stalin, have found strength in my teachings, mended their ways and been reborn as new persons. Emperors, kings and presidents who enjoyed opulence and power on earth, and even journalists who had worldwide fame, have now placed themselves at the forefront of the column of the true love revolution. Together they have sent to earth a resolution expressing their determination in the light of my teaching of the true family ideal. They have declared to all Heaven and Earth that Reverend Sun Myung Moon is none other than humanity's Savior, Messiah, Returning Lord and True Parent. This resolution has been announced on every corner of the globe.
Walmart Follies
Video they won't carry because it's "unpatriotic": Uncovered: The Whole Truth About the Iraq War.
Video they will carry, apparently because it is patriotic: Triumph of the Will.
Video they will carry, apparently because it is patriotic: Triumph of the Will.
Condi Flashback
I'm just going to be covering ground that many others before me have. But, I think it's worth putting it out there again.
One of Rice's more interesting - and much mocked - statements following 9/11 was this one:
Now, this was ridiculous because of course plenty of people within the intelligence community and elsewhere predicted just such a thing. But, it's a completely bizarre statement because it's hard to comprehend why anyone would think to say it even if it were true. What distinction is there between a "normal hijacking" and hijacking planes and flying them into buildings. From the perspective of the intelligence community, how on Earth would this difference matter at all? From the perspective of domestic security, how would this influence the appropriate preventative measures at all? Aside from scrambling Air Force jets to shoot them down, it would make no difference that I can imagine.
Rice has now "retracted" that statement to the Commission. But, frankly, I'm still more than a little puzzled.
If that's true, it's absolutely phenomenal. I would expect that the National Security Advisor would have some knowledge and input on the security measures being taken when the president travels abroad. From 7/11/2001:
And, then again from 9/27/01:
One of Rice's more interesting - and much mocked - statements following 9/11 was this one:
-
"I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center . . . that they would try to use . . . a hijacked airplane as a missile.
Now, this was ridiculous because of course plenty of people within the intelligence community and elsewhere predicted just such a thing. But, it's a completely bizarre statement because it's hard to comprehend why anyone would think to say it even if it were true. What distinction is there between a "normal hijacking" and hijacking planes and flying them into buildings. From the perspective of the intelligence community, how on Earth would this difference matter at all? From the perspective of domestic security, how would this influence the appropriate preventative measures at all? Aside from scrambling Air Force jets to shoot them down, it would make no difference that I can imagine.
Rice has now "retracted" that statement to the Commission. But, frankly, I'm still more than a little puzzled.
-
"She corrected (herself) in our private interview by saying, `I could not anticipate that they would try to use an airplane as a missile,' but acknowledging that the intelligence community could anticipate it," Ben-Veniste said.
"No reports of the use of airplanes as weapons were briefed or presented to Dr. Rice prior to May 2002," said her spokesman Sean McCormack.
If that's true, it's absolutely phenomenal. I would expect that the National Security Advisor would have some knowledge and input on the security measures being taken when the president travels abroad. From 7/11/2001:
-
Italy has installed a missile defence system at Genoa's airport to deter airborne attacks during next week's G8 summit, fuelling hysteria about looming violence.
A land-based battery of rockets with a range of nine miles and an altitude of 5,000 feet has been positioned in the latest security measure against perceived threats from terrorists and protesters.
Unidentified planes, helicopters and balloons risk being shot down should they drift too close to the heads of state from the group of seven leading industrialised nations and Russia.
Colonel Alberto Battaglini, of the ministry of defence, said the precaution was not exces sive. "The measure, which was planned by the previous government, may seem open to criticism, but in reality it is merely to act as a deterrent against any aerial incursion during the summit.
"They are little missiles ... which only have a deterrent function to discourage any aerial-led attack and they do not present any danger to the residents of the city," he said.
And, then again from 9/27/01:
-
Two months before the attacks on New York and Washington, Osama bin Laden may have been contemplating an aerial attack against world leaders assembled in Genoa for a G8 summit.
Rumours that the terrorist suspect planned to pack an aircraft with explosives and launch it at the Ducal palace containing George Bush have been given weight by the president of Egypt, Hosni Mubarak.
He said Islamist suicide pilots were originally intended to launch an attack on the Italian riviera.
"On June 13 of this year, we learned of a communique from Bin Laden saying he wanted to assassinate Mr Bush and other G8 heads of state during their summit in Italy. It was a well-known piece of in formation," said President Mubarak.
On a state visit to Paris, the president told French media that Egypt's intelligence services had intercepted plans for "an aeroplane stuffed with explosives" to plunge into Genoa. A warning was passed to the US, he said.
Presidential Infallibility
Jesse and Kevin wonder why the Bushies don't just come clean, admit "mistakes were made," and move on. I agree that it would seem to be the smart thing to do, but one of the hallmarks of this administration is their insistence on maintaining the illusion that all utterances made by Bush and the rest of the administration are Ex Cathedra ones, inspired by God, and therefore by definition not in error. I'm not sure how much of this is just a reflection of Bush's own particular pathology, or a part of the Roveian strategy, but it's nonetheless an important part of their Teflon armor. These people don't make mistakes. If you question them, you are wrong. Period.
Unbelievable
You know, I should be used to stuff like this by now but this made my jaw drop.
I suppose we should appreciate the honesty.
-
"Thirty-one percent of our state is African-American. I can assure you, from my travels, that we all have the same hopes and the same dreams. It's time for the Republican Party to become the party of the working people, regardless of race."
I suppose we should appreciate the honesty.
KO
More like this, please.
Go Durbin! He had the best seat the other night at the Unity Dinner - at my table.
Reward good behavior. And, a note to the party organizations - this is the kind of thing we love to hear about!
...more good behavior! Check out Daschle kicking some dittohead ass on the Senate floor today.
Give them some turkee! Make their spines grow strong!
-
In a recent morning in early March, the Senate Judiciary Committee convened to protect the American flag from burning, stomping, shredding, and the notion that, as Judiciary Chairman Orrin Hatch put it, "urinating or defecating on the flag is some form of speech." The Committee's Republican majority had carefully assembled the audience for this hearing. The room was filled with dozens of aging veterans, wearing medals and dark red VFW hats. Also in attendance was a hero of perhaps even greater red-state status: nascar driver John Andretti, who would testify that "those who desecrate the flag have total disregard for our military."
In other words, the hearing had all the trappings of a perfect, election-year GOP stunt. But then things got a little more complicated. Committee Democrats, such as Richard Durbin of Illinois, noted that Republicans had voted down a Senate amendment increasing veterans' health spending the previous night. "Giving a veteran a flag is not a substitute for giving our vets the quality health care they were promised," Durbin said, causing brows to furrow under those VFW caps. Committee Republicans were furious. GOP Senator Larry Craig of Idaho nearly sputtered with rage as he defensively rambled about shortened lines at a veterans' clinic in Boise and vowed that veterans' spending would eventually be "plussed-up" in the budget process. The cultural issue had become an economic one; Democrats had found a soft spot.
Go Durbin! He had the best seat the other night at the Unity Dinner - at my table.
Reward good behavior. And, a note to the party organizations - this is the kind of thing we love to hear about!
...more good behavior! Check out Daschle kicking some dittohead ass on the Senate floor today.
Give them some turkee! Make their spines grow strong!
Smear the Queer
I have no idea what's "weird" about Richard Clarke's personal life, if anything, but it's interesting that the White House has apparently been shopping this information to Wolf Blitzer - who ran with it on air, but not apparently to John King.
If he's gay, as is being pushed around the rumor mill, then I say great! Let the outings begin! I'd love to spend a few weeks discussing closeted gay Republicans.
-
BLITZER: Well, John, I get the sense not only what Dr. Rice just said to you and other reporters at the White House, but what administration officials have been saying since the weekend, basically that Richard Clarke from their vantage point was a disgruntled former government official, angry because he didn't get a certain promotion. He's got a hot new book out now that he wants to promote. He wants to make a few bucks, and that his own personal life, they're also suggesting that there are some weird aspects in his life as well, that they don't know what made this guy come forward and make these accusations against the president.
Is that the sense that you're getting, speaking to a wide range of officials?
KING: None of the senior officials I have spoken to here talked about Mr. Clarke's personal life in any way.
If he's gay, as is being pushed around the rumor mill, then I say great! Let the outings begin! I'd love to spend a few weeks discussing closeted gay Republicans.
Condi to Testify
Now, media, don't let yourselves be fooled. The issue of whether or not Condi should testify was never the issue. The point is, if you're still awake, what she'll say and how it fits in with what she's said before, and with what Richard Clarke has said.
And, all this stuff about the commission promising in writing that this won't set a precedent is nonsense. The commission has no authority to make such promises. It's silly.
And, all this stuff about the commission promising in writing that this won't set a precedent is nonsense. The commission has no authority to make such promises. It's silly.
Monday, March 29, 2004
Majority Report
I just had a bit of fun participating in a rehearsal for Janeane Garofalo and Sam Seder's new show on Air America.
If all goes according to plan, I'll be on their premier show on Wednesday night.
Don't worry, they'll have some A-list guests, too.
If all goes according to plan, I'll be on their premier show on Wednesday night.
Don't worry, they'll have some A-list guests, too.
Another Victory For the Homosexual Agenda!
Gay Marriage is driving the Reverend Moon out of the country!
Kurtz
Here's Howie Kurtz on why no one (him) cares about the Jack Kelley story:
Of course, what Kurtz should know is that Kelley's editors explicitly stated that the fact that he was a devout Christian made them more likely to give him a pass. Why is this not a story? And why has Kurtz not attempted to address the substance of Kelley's fabrications - fabrications which were largely designed to inflame ethnic tensions between Jews, Muslims, and Christians? Why is nobody wondering what kind of agenda this guy had?
-
KURTZ: But isn't there also the question of race? I mean, there was a whole affirmative action debate about Jayson Blair.
Of course, what Kurtz should know is that Kelley's editors explicitly stated that the fact that he was a devout Christian made them more likely to give him a pass. Why is this not a story? And why has Kurtz not attempted to address the substance of Kelley's fabrications - fabrications which were largely designed to inflame ethnic tensions between Jews, Muslims, and Christians? Why is nobody wondering what kind of agenda this guy had?
Two Rules
I would be sympathetic to those who thought it was right for Phil Bronstein of the SF Chronicle to forbid two journalists who had a same-sex marriage from covering that story if they ever thought it important to apply those standards across the board. Consider what David Shaw from the LA Times says:
He later goes on to ask this question:
Well, or a pregnant woman who chose not to have an abortion covering abortion. Why not phrase it that way? Since when is having an abortion a controversial act?
He then says:
How about all of those highly paid journalists covering Bush's tax cuts? They surely stood to gain or lose?
Should we only allow people whose sons and daughters wouldn't go off to war cover the march to war? After all, they have no personal stake?
How about devout Christians who taught for an organization whose mission is, in part:
Should the LA Times let them write articles about gay marriage, particularly when the parent group of that organization has extreme and explicity anti-gay views? Or, more specifically, why is the LA Times letting such people (cough Roy Rivenburg cough) write such articles?
-
We in the media are deluding ourselves if we think the public automatically accepts our simple assertion that we can report fairly on issues we not only feel strongly about but are personally involved in.
He later goes on to ask this question:
-
I suppose the closest analogy to the Chronicle case would be a reporter who had an abortion covering abortion. Here too there's a difference, though. The woman may not have chosen to get pregnant — and, once pregnant, she has to do something, either have the baby or have an abortion.
Well, or a pregnant woman who chose not to have an abortion covering abortion. Why not phrase it that way? Since when is having an abortion a controversial act?
He then says:
-
However the courts ultimately decide, would readers be likely to trust the Chronicle's coverage of the story if they knew that Gordon and Mangelsdorf stood to gain, or lose, personally by that decision?
How about all of those highly paid journalists covering Bush's tax cuts? They surely stood to gain or lose?
Should we only allow people whose sons and daughters wouldn't go off to war cover the march to war? After all, they have no personal stake?
How about devout Christians who taught for an organization whose mission is, in part:
-
There is one primary reason why the World Journalism Institute should be committed to the education of young journalists: it comes directly from the need to be faithful to the Christian example of accurately reporting (e.g., being reliable eyewitnesses) the work of God in today's world.
Should the LA Times let them write articles about gay marriage, particularly when the parent group of that organization has extreme and explicity anti-gay views? Or, more specifically, why is the LA Times letting such people (cough Roy Rivenburg cough) write such articles?
Dear Media
Legally, there is difference between testifying in front of a Congressional Committee and testifying in front of a commission established by a Bill signed into Law by the preznit.
Hoeffel Fundraising Update
25 donors and $1000 today.
Keep it coming... One Hundred for Hoeffel!
...As of 7:15 – 45 donors and $1803.
Keep it coming... One Hundred for Hoeffel!
...As of 7:15 – 45 donors and $1803.
Woodward, Bush At War
It's amazing how many of the interesting details in this book were ignored by the media, but all the codpiece hagiography was trumpeted everywhere. From the Howler:
-
WOODWARD (page 98-99): As for Saddam Hussein, the president ended the debate [about immediate military action against Iraq]. “I believe Iraq was involved, but I’m not going to strike them now. I don’t have the evidence at this point.”
Nit Picklering Returns!
Nedra had been on better behavior lately, but old habits die hard:
Which, as Confessore explains, is a completely irrelevant detail. He then says:
Actually, it won't. For all his supposed "piety" and regular reading of the Bible, Bush has rarely actually invoked Scripture. What he does use quite frequently are the code words of the culture warriors on the Religious Right, but almost never demonstrates any actual knowledge of the Bible.
-
Kerry is Roman Catholic, but his support for abortion rights is at odds with Vatican teachings.
Which, as Confessore explains, is a completely irrelevant detail. He then says:
-
Speaking of which, the Bush campaign's response to Kerry's speech -- "was beyond the bounds of acceptable discourse and a sad exploitation of Scripture for a political attack" -- is so over-the-top it's laughable. If quoting Scripture to make political points is now off-limits, President Bush is going to have a problem.
Actually, it won't. For all his supposed "piety" and regular reading of the Bible, Bush has rarely actually invoked Scripture. What he does use quite frequently are the code words of the culture warriors on the Religious Right, but almost never demonstrates any actual knowledge of the Bible.
Hundred for Hoeffel!
I'm going to kick off my new fundraising endeavor - let's try and raise one hundred grand for Joe Hoeffel, candidate for the Pennsylvania Senate seat. The campaign has set up a dedicated donation page, so they'll be able to track donations made through this website.
Hoeffel's going to either be running against wingnut Toomey or a seriously wounded Arlen Specter. Either way, he really should win. We keep losing senate seats here in Pennsylvania because of a basic split in the Dem party and an inability to nominate decent candidates. We finally have a Democratic governor, Rendell, which should help keep the troops in line. And, presumably the November election turnout should favor Hoeffel as well.
Frankly, the big problem for his campaign is the lack of statewide name recognition. There's really only one way to fix that - money. This is definitely a seat where money will make a difference. He won't need to fight the large war chest the Republicans will amass, he'll just need to have enough to get the word out.
So, if you haven't depleted your donation budget yet please consider giving. And, if you're a a PA resident make sure to check out the campaign website and see how else you can help out.
We're starting with about $3500 already raised for the Hoeffel campaign through this site... let's make it a Hundred for Hoeffel!
Hoeffel rhymes with ruffle
Hoeffel's going to either be running against wingnut Toomey or a seriously wounded Arlen Specter. Either way, he really should win. We keep losing senate seats here in Pennsylvania because of a basic split in the Dem party and an inability to nominate decent candidates. We finally have a Democratic governor, Rendell, which should help keep the troops in line. And, presumably the November election turnout should favor Hoeffel as well.
Frankly, the big problem for his campaign is the lack of statewide name recognition. There's really only one way to fix that - money. This is definitely a seat where money will make a difference. He won't need to fight the large war chest the Republicans will amass, he'll just need to have enough to get the word out.
So, if you haven't depleted your donation budget yet please consider giving. And, if you're a a PA resident make sure to check out the campaign website and see how else you can help out.
We're starting with about $3500 already raised for the Hoeffel campaign through this site... let's make it a Hundred for Hoeffel!
Hoeffel rhymes with ruffle
Compromise
Let's all just agree that Raines and Lelyveld both suck. Lelyveld presided over Gerth's reign of terror, and dishonestly defends him to this day, and and Raines angrily trumpeted his findings. My favorite Rainesism from his days in charge of the op-ed pages was when he called upon Hillary Clinton to prove her innocence of unspecified charges.
Revealed
uh-oh. Kos posted up some pictures of me.
...I think kos is in love with Al Sharpton. Check out the loving gaze...
...I think kos is in love with Al Sharpton. Check out the loving gaze...
Sunday, March 28, 2004
O'Reilly, 3/23/04
-
O'REILLY: Thanks for staying with us. I'm Bill O'Reilly.
In THE FACTOR "Follow-Up" Segment tonight, we've been following the various demographic shifts throughout America, and now the Census Bureau estimates, by the year 2050, white Americans will make up less than 50 percent of the population. How will that change the USA?
Joining us now from Washington is Dr. William Frey, a demographer at the Brookings Institution. Here in the studio, John McManus, the editor in chief of "American Demographics" magazine.
So I guess this is being driven by Hispanics, right, with all the illegal immigration, millions of people coming in here and the higher birth rate among Hispanics in America. That's what's driving this?
JOHN MCMANUS, "AMERICAN DEMOGRAPHICS": The Hispanic population is the greatest increase that we'll see over the time period that we're talking about. Illegal immigration is a portion of the story, but it's the increase in -- rapid increase in immigration and birth rate in people of Hispanic origin that we'll see.
O'REILLY: All right. Because black birth rate is fairly stable, right?
MCMANUS: Proportionately, black birth rate and increases in their population will level out and be less significant in growth in that time period. I think Bill will be able to address the numbers better than I can, but...
O'REILLY: OK. And how about Asian? What's the situation with that?
MCMANUS: Asian -- we're going to see a 213 percent increase, according to the Census Bureau projection, and so that will be a very rapid increase of the percentage of their population in the U.S. as well.
O'REILLY: All right. Now, Doctor, the Census Bureau really doesn't tell us how this is going to affect the country. Do you have any theories on it?
WILLIAM FREY, PH.D., BROOKINGS INSTITUTION: Well, I really think what's happening is going to be this phasing out or fading out of the white baby boom population. It is a 50-year time period we're talking about...
O'REILLY: Yes. We'll all be dead. Thank God, right?
Get Over It
Brit Hume today:
Get Over It.
...what's so funny? (remember...the people laughing here are the beltway media)
-
WALLACE: And one that got a big laugh in the room that day -- and I must say, I still think it's funny -- the day after, some Democrats and the families of some American soldiers in Iraq, some who died in Iraq, said they were offended by this kidding about the missing weapons of mass destruction.
Brit?
HUME: Well, we have a society in which one of the greatest things you can do is a platform (ph) to see victim status, and one of the qualifications for that is that you have these exquisitely tender feelings about things and sensibilities which are easily offended.
And in America today, if your sensibilities are offended by something that has happened, you get an enormous amount of credibility and are taken very seriously.
My own view of this is, the president's there poking fun at himself over what goes down, I think, as one of his failures. And I thought it was a good-natured performance, and it made him look good only in the sense that it showed he could poke fun at himself. But he certainly doesn't disguise the record on weapons of mass destruction.
And you have to feel like saying to people, "Just get over it."
Get Over It.
...what's so funny? (remember...the people laughing here are the beltway media)
Liar
Condi:
First of all, this isn't even about testifying in front of congress. Second, to the extent that there is any long-standing principle, it's about being compelled to testify in front of congress by congress and its committees - not about being compelled to testify to an independent committee set up by an Act of Congress and signed into law by the preznit. Third, National Security Advisors have testified before congress. Fourth, and most importantly, we aren't talking about compelling you to testify at all.
LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR
-
Nothing would be better, from my point of view, than to be able to testify," Rice told CBS's "60 Minutes." "I would really like to do that. But there is an important principle involved here: It is a long-standing principle that sitting national security advisers do not testify before the Congress."
First of all, this isn't even about testifying in front of congress. Second, to the extent that there is any long-standing principle, it's about being compelled to testify in front of congress by congress and its committees - not about being compelled to testify to an independent committee set up by an Act of Congress and signed into law by the preznit. Third, National Security Advisors have testified before congress. Fourth, and most importantly, we aren't talking about compelling you to testify at all.
LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR LIAR
60 Minutes Thread
Count Condi's lies.
...that liberal media. Last week 60 Minutes had Hadley on after Clarke to provide a rebuttal. So, now they've let two people do it.
...that liberal media. Last week 60 Minutes had Hadley on after Clarke to provide a rebuttal. So, now they've let two people do it.
Liar
I Can't Take it Anymore! Is Condi Rice able to utter the truth ever? Just once? Consider this:
What a load of crap. Nobody, not even Ted "Marat" Olson, has ever seriously argued that Condi Rice would be "constitutionally barred" from testifying to the 9/11 commission. At most they would argue that separation of powers means that she couldn't be compelled to testify.
What horseshit.
-
Rice said in a TV interview that she wants to testify publicly, but is constitutionally barred from doing so, a senior administration official said Sunday afternoon, before the program aired. Rice also said in the ``60 Minutes'' interview that she wants to meet with family members of the Sept. 11 victims, to hear their concerns, the official said.
What a load of crap. Nobody, not even Ted "Marat" Olson, has ever seriously argued that Condi Rice would be "constitutionally barred" from testifying to the 9/11 commission. At most they would argue that separation of powers means that she couldn't be compelled to testify.
What horseshit.
More WJI
Roger Ailes notes that not only were many of WJI's mainstream big guns knocked off their "faculty" list, they've also been disappeared from the page advertising them as lecturers in a summer course offering. Is this a bait and switch, as Roger suggests? Or are these people still going to teach the course "secretly?"
anti-Olasky
Obviously, John Kerry doesn't understand Christianity because he doesn't have Olasky's "objectivity."
-
John Kerry, speaking Sunday to churchgoers on the city's north side, rejected President Bush's claim to be a compassionate conservative and said the administration was neglecting the less fortunate.
Today we are told that, after 3 million lost jobs and so many lost hopes, America is now turning a corner," the pending Democratic presidential nominee said. "But those who say that, they're not standing on the corner of Highland Street, where two 15-year-old teenagers were hit in a drive-by shooting last week."
Kerry never mentioned Bush by name, instead aiming his criticism at "our present national leadership." In appealing to worshippers to oppose the devout Christian president, Kerry cited scripture and an African proverb: "When you pray, move your feet."
"The scriptures say, what does it profit, my brother, if someone says he has faith but does not have works?" Kerry told the congregation at New North Side Baptist Church. "When we look at what is happening in America today, where are the works of compassion?"
Catholicism
Kevin Drum says:
This isn't as nearly as true as Kevin states - there were parts of the Catholic church and related organizations that were always very politicized. And, in the cities where Catholics were more dominant - New York, Boston - Catholics were very powerful and politically active. In some ways much more so than today.
But, I do think it's true that Catholics in this country seem to have to a large degree forgotten the past. It is definitely true that overall, and in many places to an extreme degree, Catholics were genuinely a persecuted religious minority. And, as a religious minority they well understood the importance of the separation of Church and State. Sadly, this is much less true.
There's also increasing overlap between Catholics and Protestants, with many of the "old battles" completely forgotten. In this country, Catholicism no longer seems to be something completely distinct from Protestantism, but rather simply yet another flavor of Christianity. Papal authority, iconography, etc... - all the prior divisions - seem to have been replaced mostly by the standard issues in the culture wars. The overall divide seems to less be between different denominations and more between liberals and conservatives.
Jack Kelley, formerly of USA Today, is a Catholic, but he's an evangelical Charismatic Catholic, which made him fit right in with conservative Protestants in a way which would have hardly seemed possible 50 years ago.
- In an odd twist, at the same time that Americans have gotten over their anti-Catholic bigotry of days past the Catholic Church itself has become far more politicized.
This isn't as nearly as true as Kevin states - there were parts of the Catholic church and related organizations that were always very politicized. And, in the cities where Catholics were more dominant - New York, Boston - Catholics were very powerful and politically active. In some ways much more so than today.
But, I do think it's true that Catholics in this country seem to have to a large degree forgotten the past. It is definitely true that overall, and in many places to an extreme degree, Catholics were genuinely a persecuted religious minority. And, as a religious minority they well understood the importance of the separation of Church and State. Sadly, this is much less true.
There's also increasing overlap between Catholics and Protestants, with many of the "old battles" completely forgotten. In this country, Catholicism no longer seems to be something completely distinct from Protestantism, but rather simply yet another flavor of Christianity. Papal authority, iconography, etc... - all the prior divisions - seem to have been replaced mostly by the standard issues in the culture wars. The overall divide seems to less be between different denominations and more between liberals and conservatives.
Jack Kelley, formerly of USA Today, is a Catholic, but he's an evangelical Charismatic Catholic, which made him fit right in with conservative Protestants in a way which would have hardly seemed possible 50 years ago.
More Hypocrisy
Should change the name to the GOH.
-
Republicans used to complain that President Bill Clinton used Air Force One as his personal campaign plane, taking many official presidential trips that had no real purpose other than to raise reelection funds or drum up votes.
But President Bush has been on the go even more than his predecessor, according to an analysis by Brookings Institution visiting scholars Kathryn Dunn Tenpas and Anthony Corrado and research intern Emily Charnock.
In his first three years in office, Bush took 416 trips to 46 states, compared with Clinton's 302 trips to 40 states during a similar period. Virginia was Bush's most visited state (not surprising, since presidents often take day trips across the Potomac for public events).
Don't Forget...
Air America and the O'Franken factor premier at noon on Wed.
I believe they'll be streaming, at least initially.
I believe they'll be streaming, at least initially.
When Every Hypocrite Counts
Bill Frist, hypocrite.
...I just submitted my review to Amazon for this book.
...I just submitted my review to Amazon for this book.
-
I am troubled that someone would sell a book, trading on their service as a government insider with access to our nation’s most valuable intelligence, in order to profit from the suffering that this nation endured on September 11, 2001.
Christian Journalism
Marvin Olasky the brains behind WJI. He's written a little book called "Telling the Truth," about what Christian journalists should be like. From Chapter 1:
There are three more "classes" - they go from low to high regarding the degree of "balance" a well-trained journalist must provide. The chapter is entitled "Biblical Objectivity."
(thanks to Terry of Conwebwatch)
-
Class one: explicit biblical embrace or condemnation. The Bible condemns homosexuality so clearly that only the most shameless of those who twist Scripture can try to assert the practice?s biblical acceptability. Biblical objectivity means showing the evil of homosexuality; balancing such stories by giving equal time to gay activists is ungodly journalism. Similarly, in an article showing the sad consequences of heterosexual adultery there is no need to quote proadultery sources.
Class two: clearly implicit biblical position. Even though there is no explicit biblical injunction to place children in Christian or home schools, the emphasis on providing a godly education under parental supervision is clear. Biblical objectivity means supporting the establishment and improvement of Bible-based education, and criticizing government schools, in the understanding that turning education over to "professionals" who have no regard for God is an abdication of biblical parental responsibility.
Class three: partisans of both sides quote Scripture but careful study allows biblical conclusions. On poverty-fighting issues, partisans from the left talk of God's "preferential option" for the poor, but the biblical understanding of justice means giving the poor full legal rights and not treating them as more worthy than the rich by virtue of their class position. Since even widows are not automatically entitled to aid, broad entitlement programs are suspect. Biblically, provision of material help should be coupled with the provision of spiritual lessons; the poor should be given the opportunity to glean but challenged to work.
There are three more "classes" - they go from low to high regarding the degree of "balance" a well-trained journalist must provide. The chapter is entitled "Biblical Objectivity."
(thanks to Terry of Conwebwatch)
Pumpkinhead
It's quite shocking. Russert is lobbing (mostly) softballs and actually letting him respond. None of the rat-a-tat-tat interruptions.
Silly Tom
I suppose it's a nice that a columnist admits that he'd rather not know any actual facts because he's already constructed the appropriate mixed metaphor, and he wouldn't want to actually come up with a new one on which he could pin his ramblings.
But, for a moment Friedman moves away from talking about foreign affairs that he knows nothing about and gets to domestic politics, proving he's as clueless about that as he is about everything else.
I actually think McCain could boost Kerry's electoral chances, but as for the actual governing part if Friedman believes that a McCain Vice Presidency would somehow stoke the bipartisan fires he's even more clueless than I thought.
A Kerry/McCain ticket would just make McCain persona non grata in the Republican party. He would have no ability to reach across the aisle to his former colleagues - they would spit on him as he walked by.
More generally, I think anyone who preaches the joys of bipartisanship is a fool who has little understanding of how American politics does and should work. Partisanship is a good thing. If the opening position is compromise then the public never receives a healthy debate over the merits of a particular policy. Sometimes I wonder if that's really what members of the Broder school of political analysis really want - to cut the pesky people out of the process.
Of course, well-run government does require that there are a few responsible adults on both sides who can, at the end of the day, come together and iron out their differences. But, bipartisanship is not an end in itself. Democracy requires healthy debate and disagreement.
But, for a moment Friedman moves away from talking about foreign affairs that he knows nothing about and gets to domestic politics, proving he's as clueless about that as he is about everything else.
-
Most of all, I want to wake up and read that John Kerry just asked John McCain to be his vice president, because if Mr. Kerry wins he intends not to waste his four years avoiding America's hardest problems -- health care, deficits, energy, education -- but to tackle them, and that can only be done with a bipartisan spirit and bipartisan team.
I actually think McCain could boost Kerry's electoral chances, but as for the actual governing part if Friedman believes that a McCain Vice Presidency would somehow stoke the bipartisan fires he's even more clueless than I thought.
A Kerry/McCain ticket would just make McCain persona non grata in the Republican party. He would have no ability to reach across the aisle to his former colleagues - they would spit on him as he walked by.
More generally, I think anyone who preaches the joys of bipartisanship is a fool who has little understanding of how American politics does and should work. Partisanship is a good thing. If the opening position is compromise then the public never receives a healthy debate over the merits of a particular policy. Sometimes I wonder if that's really what members of the Broder school of political analysis really want - to cut the pesky people out of the process.
Of course, well-run government does require that there are a few responsible adults on both sides who can, at the end of the day, come together and iron out their differences. But, bipartisanship is not an end in itself. Democracy requires healthy debate and disagreement.
Incompetent
There are plenty of reasons to dislike John Ashcroft, and I probably dislike him for all of those reasons. But, lost in the clutter is an additional one which should concern us all - he's incompetent. It's well understood that Crisco John is not the brightest bulb on the tree, and he doesn't seem to be able to do his job effectively.
More WJI
It sends their students off to battle:
...we even got Olasky's attention. He likes to miss the point, as these people do. I have nothing against conservatives in the newsroom. I have nothing against conservative Christians in the newsroom. I have something against conservative Christians in the newsroom who are graduates of an institute whose mission is to train people to push a conservative Christian agenda in their capacity as straight journalists and do it in such a way that their editors don't notice.
But, in the end, I blame the editors. Some of the articles I've read by WJI people - particularly this Roy Rivenburg one (oy, link broken - here's a link to someone who posted a copy) - are incredibly slanted and no editor without an agenda should have let it be printed. Some of the WJI people are quite good, like the NPR reporter Barbara Bradley Hagerty, who is yet another person who has been disappeared off their "faculty"...oops, now it's "guest teacher" list. By "good," I mean quite subtle - the agenda doesn't jump out at you and smack you on the head, but once you know it's there it's fairly easy to spot.
It isn't the agenda - it's the hidden agenda.
-
Preparing for battle
WJI sends students into the war zone of American journalism, but it needs your gifts to train its soldiers
...
The "hard stuff" means getting ready to go out into the war zone of American journalism?especially into the daily newspapers of America where secularism, liberalism, and political correctness rule supreme. WJI is here to help the very best of those 100 students who show up each year equip themselves to perform on the terms demanded "out there," but to do so with some gutsy inner equipment of unusual design. It's a lean and mean approach?and it's working
...
In three-week courses in New York, Washington, Los Angeles, and other sites, Mr. Case's curriculum helps shape the thinking of his students so that, when they finish, they know both what their secular employers will expect and what it will take to carry a telling Christian influence into those positions. Paid internships and a graduate-level course with WORLD's Marvin Olasky wait for the top performers. And the possibility of someday writing for WORLD itself is high motivation for some of the students. Priya Abraham and John Dawson, both WJI products, write regularly for WORLD.
...we even got Olasky's attention. He likes to miss the point, as these people do. I have nothing against conservatives in the newsroom. I have nothing against conservative Christians in the newsroom. I have something against conservative Christians in the newsroom who are graduates of an institute whose mission is to train people to push a conservative Christian agenda in their capacity as straight journalists and do it in such a way that their editors don't notice.
But, in the end, I blame the editors. Some of the articles I've read by WJI people - particularly this Roy Rivenburg one (oy, link broken - here's a link to someone who posted a copy) - are incredibly slanted and no editor without an agenda should have let it be printed. Some of the WJI people are quite good, like the NPR reporter Barbara Bradley Hagerty, who is yet another person who has been disappeared off their "faculty"...oops, now it's "guest teacher" list. By "good," I mean quite subtle - the agenda doesn't jump out at you and smack you on the head, but once you know it's there it's fairly easy to spot.
It isn't the agenda - it's the hidden agenda.
Saturday, March 27, 2004
WJI, From the Horse's Mouth
Link:
...and, check out the lovely work of Lynde here. Fair and balanced journalism at its finest.
-
Journalistic leverage
World Journalism Institute is gaining momentum
By Joel Belz
THERE SHOULD BE AN ENVELOPE TUCKED INTO THE fold of this magazine not far from these words. What you do with that envelope could well affect the future shape of WORLD magazine—and maybe even the nature of American journalism itself.
Five years ago, when WORLD was closing in on a circulation of 100,000 readers and an increasingly enduring spot among news magazines in this country, I found myself wrestling with a nagging concern: Where, I wondered, would WORLD find in the years ahead a growing number of young reporters, writers, and editors who practiced their craft with the unique approach both spelled out and modeled by our editor-in-chief, Marvin Olasky? There was little point looking to existing journalism schools; they were mostly a big part of the problem.
I mentioned the issue to Mr. Olasky, who agreed the challenge was both real and big. I mentioned it also to Robert Case, one of our board members who lived then in Ellensburg, Wash., where he divided his working hours between the real estate business and teaching philosophy at Central Washington University. Would he be willing, I asked, to come to North Carolina the following summer and organize an instructional program in journalism—just to see whether anyone might be interested?
He came, and they were interested. World Journalism Institute was born. But as it emerged from its infancy over the next couple of years, WJI took on a brand new identity of its own. What I had envisioned as a narrow training opportunity for our own WORLD staff started, almost immediately, to produce young Christian journalists with a vision for the broader journalistic task among mainstream media.
Take Lynde Hedgpeth, for example. Lynde expects to graduate next month from the University of Missouri at Columbia, with a double major in journalism and Russian—and with a 3.99 grade point average. Long before she came to WJI, Lynde was on track toward a successful career in journalism. Her father especially, who studied for the Lutheran ministry, encouraged her to be a reader, an analytic thinker, and an adventurer. She was a debater in high school—"but most debaters become lawyers," she told me, "or even worse, they become debate coaches." So she headed north from her home in Midland, Texas, to study journalism at Mizzou.
During her busy college days, Lynde served as an intern for the Columbia Daily Tribune. She wrote editorials for the university's student paper. And she covered city and county government for the Columbia Missourian.
Along the way she heard about World Journalism Institute—a program offering something the University of Missouri had not provided. Here was an opportunity to integrate her Christian faith with her study of journalism.
"It was quite a contrast with the liberal teachers I had at the university," says Lynde. "Yes, I really did have some who wanted me to believe there is no such thing as right and wrong. Did that mean, I thought, that I should get an A in all my classes, since I couldn't really provide any wrong answers?"
Lynde says WJI gave her a framework within which to put the rest of her studies. "I wasn't indoctrinated; I'm pretty pig-headed and would have resisted that," she says. But Marvin Olasky's approach made enough sense that she found herself applying it this last summer while serving as a Pulliam Fellow at the half-million-circulation Indianapolis Star—a prestige appointment she says she earned partly through her involvement at WJI. "God has a plan for me," she says modestly but confidently.
World Journalism Institute thinks God has a plan for a good number of other able journalists—and with your help wants to provide them with that added edge that moves them past just being journalists who also happen to be Christians to the point where they are self-conscious Christians, mixing it up in the secular media, competing for top jobs and making a difference in an often pagan world.
...and, check out the lovely work of Lynde here. Fair and balanced journalism at its finest.
Rivenburg
It's hard to know how all this fits into some grand agenda, but LA Times staff writer and WJI teacher Roy Rivenburg once was on the receiving end of a defamation lawsuit (specifically, the LA Times was for something he had written). This website tells all about it. It's pretty interesting, and also quite creepy.
...It looks like we have a bit of sock puppetry of sorts going on. I just noticed that there was this whole discussion in the comments to this post here between someone named "Saxophone" and the operator of the Michel Thomas website linked above. The latter repeatedly asks Saxophone if s/he's actually Roy Rivenburg. I don't know who it is, but the posts were coming from the LA Times server...
...It looks like we have a bit of sock puppetry of sorts going on. I just noticed that there was this whole discussion in the comments to this post here between someone named "Saxophone" and the operator of the Michel Thomas website linked above. The latter repeatedly asks Saxophone if s/he's actually Roy Rivenburg. I don't know who it is, but the posts were coming from the LA Times server...
Popular War, Popular President
No longer:
Don't forget to take the poll while you're there.
-
Bush saw drops in his approval ratings on both terrorism and Iraq. According to the poll, 44 percent of all voters approve of his handling of the war, whereas 50 percent disapprove (up from 39 percent disapproving at the end of last year). And more voters say Bush?s handling of postwar Iraq makes them less likely to vote for him (42 percent) than say it makes them more likely to support him (34 percent).
Don't forget to take the poll while you're there.
Time to Revoke Tax-Exempt Status
When the Catholic Church is conducting political purges within its ranks, they shoudn't be allowed to maintain their tax-exempt status. This stuff is ridiculous:
Such litmus tests only ever seem to apply to Republican party policy positions which are aligned with the positions of the Church, and not, say, the death penalty. I'm not Catholic, so to a great degree what happens within the Church is none of my business. But, once they align themselves with a political party while retaining their tax-exempt status, it is my business.
-
Message to church employees who support John Kerry's presidential bid: public endorsement of the pro-choice Catholic senator could cost you your job.
Just ask Ono Ekeh, founder and moderator of the Catholics for Kerry e-mail discussion list and, until March 9, program coordinator at the U.S. bishops' Secretariat for African-American Catholics. The 33-year-old father of two is now looking for work.
It all started in late February when Deal Hudson, publisher of Crisis magazine and a key player in the Bush campaign outreach to Catholic voters, revealed in his widely distributed weekly "e-letter" that Ekeh hosted the pro-Kerry site. Hudson is a leader of efforts to get U.S. bishops to publicly confront pro-choice Catholic elected officials.
"Look," wrote Hudson, "it's one thing for a Catholic to be a pro-life Democrat -- that in itself is a perfectly legitimate position and consistent with our Catholic Faith. However, it's completely unacceptable to follow Ekeh and trade away our pro-life responsibilities."
Such litmus tests only ever seem to apply to Republican party policy positions which are aligned with the positions of the Church, and not, say, the death penalty. I'm not Catholic, so to a great degree what happens within the Church is none of my business. But, once they align themselves with a political party while retaining their tax-exempt status, it is my business.
Gorenfeld on Counterspin
John Gorenfeld is the guest on this week's Counterspin show. He's discussing the Jack Kelley affair, and kindly credits the readers of this blog for digging up the connection between Kelley and the World Journalism Institute. You can download an .mp3 of the show and listen.
Mr. Blotchy
Rarely is the question asked, just what the hell kind of skin condition does Bush have?
(via Corrente)
(via Corrente)
Lies and the Lying Liars
Just thought it should be repeated:
...just wanted to add something for our journalists. We can now add "confirmed liar" to the list of acceptable descriptions of both Bill Frist and Condi Rice. This list of course includes George Bush and Dick Cheney as well. From Frank Rich:
-
Without mentioning specifics, Frist said on the Senate floor that Clarke "has told two entirely different stories." But in later interviews, Frist seemed to be the one contradicting himself: "Frist later retreated from directly accusing Clarke of perjury, telling reporters that he personally had no knowledge that there were any discrepancies between Clarke's two appearances.
...just wanted to add something for our journalists. We can now add "confirmed liar" to the list of acceptable descriptions of both Bill Frist and Condi Rice. This list of course includes George Bush and Dick Cheney as well. From Frank Rich:
-
There is no point in bothering with actual news people anyway, when you can make up your own story and make it stick. No fake news story has become more embedded in our culture than the administration's account of its actions on Sept. 11. As The Wall Street Journal reported on its front page this week - just as the former counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke was going public with his parallel account - many of this story's most familiar details are utter fiction. Bush's repeated claim that one of his "first acts" of that morning was to put the military on alert is false. So are the president's claims that he watched the first airplane hit the World Trade Center on television that morning. (No such video yet existed.) Nor was Air Force One under threat as Bush flew around the country, delaying his return to Washington.
Yet the fake narrative of Sept. 11 has been scrupulously maintained by the White House for more than two years. Although the administration has tried at every juncture to stonewall the Sept. 11 investigative commission, its personnel, including the president, had all the time in the world for the producer of a TV movie, Showtime's "DC 9/11: Time of Crisis" The result was a scenario that further rewrote the history of that day, stirring steroids into false tales of presidential derring-do. To shore up the Karl Rove version of Sept. 11 once Richard Clarke went public with his alternative tale on last Sunday's "60 Minutes," the White House placed Condoleezza Rice on all five morning news shows the next day. The administration is confident that it can reinstate its bogus scenario - particularly given that Rice, unlike Clarke, is refusing to take the risk of reciting it under oath to the Sept. 11 commission.
Eastercrap
War Liberal catches him just making stuff up again.
Easterbrook is one of those guys who never learned to distinguish between "what is true" and "what he believes is true." Ditto for David Brooks. Peas in a pod.
Easterbrook is one of those guys who never learned to distinguish between "what is true" and "what he believes is true." Ditto for David Brooks. Peas in a pod.
Burning Down His Pastor's House
This Christianity Today article on Jack Kelley is really quite interesting for a variety of reasons. Just go read it.
Friday, March 26, 2004
Shameless
Josh has the latest on the Clarke smears, and it's really pretty pathetic. Short version - Frist explicitly accused him of perjury on the Senate floor, and then later retracted and said he didn't actually know. And, second, the Bushies had been denying that Bush and Clarke had ever met as Clarke had claimed, but are now backpedalling from that as well.
All together now, Cokie and Tim and Margaret and Brit and David... They LIED to the AMERICAN PEOPLE.... What WILL we tell the CHILDREN?
All together now, Cokie and Tim and Margaret and Brit and David... They LIED to the AMERICAN PEOPLE.... What WILL we tell the CHILDREN?
Balkin on Unborn Victims of Life Act
I'm a bit less sanguine about it than him, but he nonetheless makes some interesting points about how the Act actually works against the desires of anti-choice people in some substantial ways.
All Class
From Wonkette:
-
To our minds, the biggest scandal to come out of Wednesday's RTCA dinner are the desperate tactics deployed by CNN to, well, sex up its after party. We hear that the ratings-desperate net flew up a passel of anchor-babes-in-training from Atlanta for the specific purpose of decorating their post-dinner disco inferno and finally beating out rival Fox for the best party prize.
Says our informant, who talked to one of the attractive accessories: "I felt bad for them. They didn't have tickets to the dinner and stood outside in the smoking lounge [until the party started]. They didn't seem to know why they were there."
Way to recreate the '70s, CNN -- at least in terms of prefeminist partying. Very classy!
Go Daschle
He's obviously been eating his wheaties:
Reward good behavior.
-
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Senate Democrats on Friday threatened to stop all of President Bush's judicial nominees until the White House agrees not to appoint any more judges while Congress is out of town.
Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota said Democrats had decided to block all judicial nominees on the Senate floor until ``the White House gives us the assurance that they will no longer abuse the process.''
Reward good behavior.
Loser
He's got nothing on us.
50 grand? chump change.
(joke)
-
"I've never seen a time when Democrats and many independents are more galvanized and interested in helping," said state Treasurer Phil Angelides, who has raised more than $50,000 for Kerry. "I believe there is greater intensity and widespread willingness to give than in any previous election I can remember."
50 grand? chump change.
(joke)
Presidential Election
It really is pretty hard to imagine that Kerry can't win every state that Gore won plus a state like Ohio. And, right now Ohio is leaning towards him. Even Bob "Screw National Security" Novak is getting worried:
Ohio's enough to take it.
-
ROBERT NOVAK, CNN "CROSSFIRE": Our running poll in the Evans- Novak political report now shows that if the election were held today, Kerry would win big over Bush, 306 electoral votes to 232. And that's because since the last time we looked at it, we see two states that, if the election were held today, Florida and Ohio would go to Kerry, that we previously had for Bush.
Now, remember, this is a snapshot, not a prediction. And it's very close in Ohio. But it's also true, Judy, that if President Bush does not win both those states, Florida and Ohio, it's hard to see how he can be reelected.
Ohio's enough to take it.
Did the War On Iraq Divert Resources from the War on al Qaeda?
The answer, apparently, is yes.
They promised they could walk and chew gum at the same time. And, now we know they haven't been able to either of them.
-
The fact that the Pentagon pulled the fighting force most equipped for hunting down Osama bin Laden from Afghanistan in March 2002 in order to pre- position it for Iraq cannot be denied.
Fifth Group Special Forces were a rare breed in the US military: they spoke Arabic, Pastun and Dari. They had been in Afghanistan for half a year, had developed a network of local sources and alliances, and believed that they were closing in on bin Laden.
Without warning, they were then given the task of tracking down Saddam. "We were going nuts on the ground about that decision," one of them recalls.
"In spite of the fact that it had taken five months to establish trust, suddenly there were two days to hand over to people who spoke no Dari, Pastun or Arabic, and had no rapport."
Along with the redeployment of human assets came a reallocation of sophisticated hardware. The US air force has only two specially-equipped RC135 U spy planes. They had successfully vectored in on al-Qaida leadership radio transmissions and cellphone calls, but they would no longer circle over the mountains of the Pakistan/Afghanistan border.
They promised they could walk and chew gum at the same time. And, now we know they haven't been able to either of them.
The Games Continue
Link:
...stick to killing cats.
...story changed. That last paragraph is gone now. Lovely.
...the original paragraph is still here. Save a copy before it's gone...
... now apparently Frist is telling reporters what's in the classified documents that haven't been declassified.
...Frist himself has problems telling the truth.
-
In a highly unusual move, key Republicans in Congress are seeking to declassify testimony that former terrorism adviser Richard Clarke gave in 2002 about the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attack, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said Friday. Frist said the intent was to determine whether Clarke lied under oath - either in 2002 or this week - when he appeared before a bipartisan Sept. 11 commission and sharply criticized President Bush's handling of the war on terror.
...
Frist disclosed the effort to declassify Clarke's testimony in remarks on the Senate floor, then talked with reporter. He said he personally didn't know whether there were any discrepancies between Clarke's two appearances.
...stick to killing cats.
...story changed. That last paragraph is gone now. Lovely.
...the original paragraph is still here. Save a copy before it's gone...
... now apparently Frist is telling reporters what's in the classified documents that haven't been declassified.
...Frist himself has problems telling the truth.
Liar
It's clear that this administration has a few problems with telling the truth, but for years now it's been clear that Rice is the worst of the lot. Her first instinct seems to be to lie - she frequently seems to do it when it isn't even necessary. Or, maybe, she just isn't any good at it. But, in any case it's long past the time when anyone should give her the benefit the doubt about anything she says or does.
-
At the same time, some of Rice's rebuttals of Clarke's broadside against Bush, which she delivered in a flurry of media interviews and statements rather than in testimony, contradicted other administration officials and her own previous statements.
Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage contradicted Rice's claim that the White House had a strategy before 9/11 for military operations against al Qaeda and the Taliban; the CIA contradicted Rice's earlier assertion that Bush had requested a CIA briefing in the summer of 2001 because of elevated terrorist threats; and Rice's assertion this week that Bush told her on Sept. 16, 2001, that "Iraq is to the side" appeared to be contradicted by an order signed by Bush on Sept. 17 directing the Pentagon to begin planning military options for an invasion of Iraq.
Rice, in turn, has contradicted Vice President Cheney's assertion that Clarke was "out of the loop" and his intimation that Clarke had been demoted. Rice has also given various conflicting accounts. She criticized Clarke for being the architect of failed Clinton administration policies, but also said she retained Clarke so the Bush administration could continue to pursue Clinton's terrorism policies.
WJI Update
LA Observed asked LA Times journalist Roy Rivenburg about his assocation with the World Journalism Institute.
His response is fair, and I'm not going to argue that such an association as he characterized it should necessarily disqualify someone from being a straight reporter, but clearly the news biz has double (or no) standards when it comes to conflicts of interest.
His response is fair, and I'm not going to argue that such an association as he characterized it should necessarily disqualify someone from being a straight reporter, but clearly the news biz has double (or no) standards when it comes to conflicts of interest.
Stupid Republicans
Idiots. But, at least they're scared. Bow down before the power of the mighty blogs.
Memories....
How they fade so fast...
(quote changed, I'll explain why later. apologies)
..okay, here's the story which contained the original quote. Sorry, I didn't have a chance to track down the correct link just then:
Thanks, as is often the case these days, to David Sirota of the Center for American Progress.
-
"Unlike last year's report, bin Laden's al Qaeda organization is mentioned, but the 2000 report does not contain a photograph of bin Laden or a lengthy description of him and the group. A senior State Department official told CNN that the U.S. government made a mistake last year by focusing too tightly on bin Laden and "personalizing terrorism ... describing parts of the elephant and not the whole beast."
- CNN, 4/30/2001
(quote changed, I'll explain why later. apologies)
..okay, here's the story which contained the original quote. Sorry, I didn't have a chance to track down the correct link just then:
-
The State Department officially released its annual terrorism report just a little more than an hour ago, but unlike last year, there's no extensive mention of alleged terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden. A senior State Department official tells CNN the U.S. government made a mistake in focusing so much energy on bin Laden and 'personalizing terrorism.
Thanks, as is often the case these days, to David Sirota of the Center for American Progress.
John Kerry Day a Great Success
Hey all, had to take a little trip yesterday afternoon. Thanks to Tena for helping out while I was away.
Here we have the amounts raised:
Total Donations: 1194
Total Dollars: $102993.41
Which is about $19K yesterday alone.
More later once I wade through 175 emails.
Here we have the amounts raised:
Total Donations: 1194
Total Dollars: $102993.41
Which is about $19K yesterday alone.
More later once I wade through 175 emails.
Thursday, March 25, 2004
Senate passes the Unborn Victims of Violence Bill
link here. The Senate passed the bill today. It takes another huge bite out of the right to choose, and is a set-up for the Supreme Court to overrule Roe v. Wade.
They never rest.
They never rest.
Bush jokes about dead soldiers; Kerry responds.
Drudge has the story, with the link to Kerry's remarks. I know everyone has been talking about it. Bush made some crass, tasteless jokes last night at a gathering, which tickled the funny bones of the press, and Joe Lieberman, so I've read. He was pretending to look under furniture for WMDs, and laughing about their absence. Kerry has released a statement on this incident that begins this way:
585 American soldiers dead, 3,354 wounded and no end in sight...
More on Pakistan
"If we do not shift attention back to where it should have been after September 11, we face the prospect of the following scenario by 2007: a Taliban-like government in Pakistan armed with nuclear weapons." -Richard Clarke, Against All Enemies, page 284. (thanks to reader terry)
Update: Here's what they've shifted their attention to in the administration. "we're all on Clarke patrol," said a senior Bush strategist.
Update: Here's what they've shifted their attention to in the administration. "we're all on Clarke patrol," said a senior Bush strategist.
Why am I not surprised?
Josh Marshall has a nice discussion of the historical precedents for Condi Rice's refusal to testify Apparently, there is precedent. In the past at least 5 presidential aides have refused to testify under oath. Guess which administration 4 of those aides were from?
Possible new al-Qaeda recording
the BBC is reporting that Al Jazeera has broadcast an audio tape that was purportedly made by al-Zawahri. In it, the speaker is calling on the citizens of Pakistan to rise up and overthrow their pro-American government.
I guess this is more evidence that we're winning the war on terra. You know how that works...
here is an update on the fighting in Pakistan. The report reads, in part:
I guess this is more evidence that we're winning the war on terra. You know how that works...
here is an update on the fighting in Pakistan. The report reads, in part:
Amid reports of escalation of resistance and even foreign complicity, fighting continues between the army and suspected al-Qaeda militants in Pakistan's tribal region of South Waziristan on the border with Afghanistan.
[snip]
More disturbingly, there have been reports of dissent among the ranks of the Pakistani para-military troops and the army.
Nooners lets us know that we are at war, dammit!
link here
Well, this is cute. First Peggy talks about how she was shocked, shocked I tell you, to learn from an insider from the Clinton administration that Clinton was a "creature of polls." So she gets in a paragraph of Clinton digs, before starting in on the 9/11 commission, about which she says this:
Exactly, Peggy, and that's why we need to know if what has been done so far has been effective or not, and make some changes if it hasn't - capice? (Hey, Wall Street Journal, supposedly, intelligent people read you - how can you let this woman continue to write for you?)
Well, this is cute. First Peggy talks about how she was shocked, shocked I tell you, to learn from an insider from the Clinton administration that Clinton was a "creature of polls." So she gets in a paragraph of Clinton digs, before starting in on the 9/11 commission, about which she says this:
The hearings should not have been held for one reason: our country at this moment in history should not be focusing attention on who made mistakes and why and when...But we have a war to fight, a country to protect, and that is what should have precedence.
Exactly, Peggy, and that's why we need to know if what has been done so far has been effective or not, and make some changes if it hasn't - capice? (Hey, Wall Street Journal, supposedly, intelligent people read you - how can you let this woman continue to write for you?)
John Kerry Day Continues
Total you've given since we started:
Total Donations: 1054
Total Dollars: $92211.51
Which is almost $9K today alone...
Only about 12 hours left!
Total Donations: 1054
Total Dollars: $92211.51
Which is almost $9K today alone...
Only about 12 hours left!
Squish Him
I know there's a lot in the news right now, but it's a bit shocking that the GOP's number one guy (in practice, if not in title) in Congress is probably going to be indicted and it isn't getting any play at all
AP 6/28/02
Link:
(thanks to ensley)
-
WASHINGTON - President Bush's national security leadership met formally nearly 100 times in the months prior to the Sept. 11 attacks yet terrorism was the topic during only two of those sessions, officials say.
(thanks to ensley)
God I'm Confused
I really just can't even follow all of the Bush admin lies about this stuff. First we have this:
Then we have this:
Which is it? In the immortal words of Howard Dean......... YEEEEAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRGH
-
Ms. Rice painted a distinctly different picture of the involvement of Mr. Clarke, who has prompted furious responses since he asserted in a new book and in testimony on Capitol Hill that President Bush did not heed warnings before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
"He was in every meeting that was held on terrorism," Ms. Rice said. "All the deputies' meetings, the principals' meeting that was held and so forth, the early meetings after Sept. 11."
Then we have this:
-
"Dr. Rice, early on in the administration," McClellan said yesterday, "started holding daily briefings with the senior directors of the National Security Council, of which he was one. But he refused to attend those meetings, and he was later asked to attend those meetings and he continued to refuse to attend those meetings." Apparently, some meetings are more important than others.
Which is it? In the immortal words of Howard Dean......... YEEEEAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRGH
Finally
I've been tired of Democrats treading lightly around Zell Miller. Long ago Miller stopped being anything that even came close to being a "principled moderate." Chuck him out. I look forward to the media discussing Miller's flip-flopping:
-
Just two years ago, Zell Miller sang John Kerry's praises in his home state of Georgia. Miller pointed out some of very same the traits that have inspired millions of Democrats, Independents, and Republicans to rally behind John Kerry's campaign to get America back on track and bring back jobs.
"As Senator Miller himself said, John Kerry is an 'authentic hero.' He has fought for his country on the battlefield and in the public arena. He has been a champion of balanced budgets, a leader in education reform, and powerful advocate for affordable health care and an economy that works for working Americans.
"Zell Miller's new leadership role will be a lonely post. Democrats, and Americans of all stripes, are tired of George Bush's failed policies and broken promises. The nearly 3 million Americans who have lost their jobs since George Bush took office are members of both parties. The millions of families who are struggling to pay for the rising costs of health insurance and the seniors who can't afford needed prescription drugs are both Democrats and Republicans. And the families of U.S. troops who were sent to Iraq without body armor to protect them are members of both parties.
"This November, millions of Americans of every political persuasion will unite in a powerful call for change, and they'll stand with 'an authentic American hero' -- John Kerry."
Rebut
Memo to journalists: If person X says something and then person Y responds, you shouldn't report it as 'Person Y rebuts person X.' Rebut implies an actual refutation, rather than just a response, and thus communicates the idea that Y actually undercut whatever X had said.
Now, such responses could be an actual refutation, but that requires analysis and not simply reporting.
Now, such responses could be an actual refutation, but that requires analysis and not simply reporting.
Roll the Tapes
Hesiod catches something:
18 minute gap?
-
TENET: Well, the CIA is in the CSG meeting as well. I mean, everybody's at the table. The FBI is there, the NCS is there, CIA is there, domestic agencies are there.
Throughout this time period -- I don't have access to the minutes and recordings of what happened -- what actions were they tasking, how were they thinking about this?
18 minute gap?
They Get Letters II
to Romenesko:
-
Did I read this quote from Elisabeth Bumiller correctly?
Elisabeth Bumiller, The New York Times White House correspondent, on criticism that reporters were too easy on Bush on the eve of the Iraq war: "I think we were very deferential because ... it's live, it's very intense, it's frightening to stand up there. Think about it, you're standing up on prime-time live TV asking the president of the United States a question when the country's about to go to war. There was a very serious, somber tone that evening, and no one wanted to get into an argument with the president at this very serious time."
This is a joke, right? The White House correspondent from the New York Times didn't ask a tough question because the atmosphere was too "frightening"? Has there been a more tacit and, yes, frightening, admission by a reporter -- from the nation's most important newspaper no less -- that the national press is cowed by this administration? Is there any stronger inducement for its continued bullying?
I grant that "standing up on prime-time live TV" might be nerve-wracking for some people. But I would assume that the person assigned to cover the White House for the NEW YORK TIMES would be a little less prone to stage-fright and a little less in awe of the moment. I mean, is there a more important -- nay critical -- time for a reporter to stand up and ask the tough question than on the eve of war?
Thank goodness for people like Joseph Welch, who wasn't too intimidated to stand up to Joseph McCarthy and ask -- on "prime-time, live TV" -- "At long last, sir, have you no shame?" Thank God, he didn't find the moment too "frightening" and "somber."
Bryan Smith
Chicago Magazine
They Get Letters
to Romenesko:
Indeed.
-
From JOHN ROYAL: Excuse me, but I've got a question, and not being a reporter, I'm hoping that someone out there can answer this. Fox News today released the transcript of an interview that it conducted with Richard Clarke in 2002 when he was still with the Bush White House. The interview was conducted on background.
Well, Fox remembers the interview and asks the White House for permission to identify Clarke's name, which the White House gave. Here's my question: I thought that the privilege was between the reporter and the person interviewed, i.e., Clark, and not the person's employer? If that's so, did the White House and Fox break some ethical rules? If it's not so, doesn't this mean that Robert Novak or one of the other Valerie Plame reporters contacted by the White House can get permission from the White House to release the name instead of having to get the permission from the actual person?
Indeed.
GOP Funnies
First we have Governor Mitt "Spit On The Faggots!" Romney cracking "jokes":
Ah, that GOP. Such "lighthearted" humor. Next week we can expect Romney to bring the house down by quipping "There's nothing wrong with John Lewis that James Earl Ray couldn't take care of!" Ha Ha!
If I made lighthearted jokes like that about Romney the FBI would be at my house rather quickly.
And, then of course, we have the joker-in-chief. This guy's hilarious!
Haha! The families of all of these people think that was a real goddamn knee-slapper!
It's too early for this crap.
-
About a minute after stepping up to the podium inside Local 7 Ironworkers Hall, Romney delivered this gem: "There’s nothing wrong with our supreme court in Massachusetts that having Wacko Hurley as chief justice wouldn’t cure!" Quick history lesson for those whose knowledge of Boston doesn’t extend back a decade (a group that, judging from the aforementioned one-liner, may include the governor): in March 1992, South Boston’s Allied War Veterans Council, the long-time sponsor of Southie’s St. Patrick’s Day Parade, denied the Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston (GLIB) permission to enter the event. GLIB, an organization largely made up of Irish émigrés, went to court, won the right to participate, and marched in 1992 and 1993. In 1994, when the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court upheld GLIB’s right to march, organizers cancelled the parade. In 1995, the US Supreme Court reversed the SJC’s decision, ruling that — as a private group — the Allied War Veterans Council had a First Amendment right to determine the parade’s composition. (Public sponsorship of the event had been scaled back as the controversy dragged on.)
As the parade’s chief organizer, John J. "Wacko" Hurley embodied the veterans’ determination to keep gays out — which, of course, helped pave the way for the ugliness that ensued. In 1992, smoke bombs and beer cans were thrown at some of the gay marchers as bystanders shouted, "You bunch of fags, get out of Southie" and "I hope you all die of AIDS, homos." In 1993, when Hurley promised to continue the legal fight ("We’ll go on until we have a parade of a family nature," he vowed), gay marchers were spat upon and pelted with snowballs as sharpshooters watched from rooftops. In 1994, Hurley explained the parade’s cancellation by saying, "They’re not going to shove something down our face that’s not our traditional values."
Whatever one thinks of the US Supreme Court’s 1995 decision, the nastiness directed at GLIB on the streets of South Boston was an overt display of homophobia. And there was a clear subtext of intolerance lingering behind Hurley’s — and the veterans’ — determination to keep gay and lesbian people from participating in the parade. On Tuesday, Romney spokesperson Nicole St. Peter told the Phoenix that Romney’s quip "was in the lighthearted spirit of the breakfast." Maybe so. But would anyone direct a comparable joke at blacks or Jews — or Mormons, for that matter — at the "lighthearted" St. Patrick’s Day Breakfast?
Ah, that GOP. Such "lighthearted" humor. Next week we can expect Romney to bring the house down by quipping "There's nothing wrong with John Lewis that James Earl Ray couldn't take care of!" Ha Ha!
If I made lighthearted jokes like that about Romney the FBI would be at my house rather quickly.
And, then of course, we have the joker-in-chief. This guy's hilarious!
-
Bush put on a slide show, calling it the "White House Election-Year Album" at the Radio and Television Correspondents' Association 60th annual dinner, showing himself and his staff in some decidedly unflattering poses.
There was Bush looking under furniture in a fruitless, frustrating search. "Those weapons of mass destruction have got to be somewhere," he said.
Haha! The families of all of these people think that was a real goddamn knee-slapper!
It's too early for this crap.
A GOP Plan for Jobs
A few people sent this to me. The WaPo had a wee little bug last night and this was posted up.
Of course, it's preferable to the real thing. Newt thinks we need to export our health care model to the world. However, he wants to make it more "consumer based" first - meaning, removing the employer risk pools so none of us will be able to ever afford it again, at least not after we get sick once. You can't make this stuff up. I think Newt's been smoking dope and watching the Jetsons again.
Of course, it's preferable to the real thing. Newt thinks we need to export our health care model to the world. However, he wants to make it more "consumer based" first - meaning, removing the employer risk pools so none of us will be able to ever afford it again, at least not after we get sick once. You can't make this stuff up. I think Newt's been smoking dope and watching the Jetsons again.
Go Pelosi!
It's John Kerry day, so we can reward her for her good behavior tomorrow.
Leaders lead.
-
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi Wednesday said she supports same-sex marriage and approves of San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom's decision to issue marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples.
The remarks put her at odds with her party's presumed presidential nominee John Kerry but were welcomed in San Francisco, her home district.
It is the first time she has directly voiced her support for gay marriage and for Newsome. It came during an interview on Fox News. In the past Pelosi has stated her opposition to amending the US Constitution but has evaded questions on gay marriage.
As Democratic Party leader in the House, Pelosi is the highest ranking politician in the US to endorse gay marriage. Kerry believes marriage should be limited to heterosexual relationships, supports civil unions, opposes amending the US Constitution but supports an amendment to the constitution of his home state, Massachusetts.
Leaders lead.
Happy John Kerry Day!
It's Thursday again. It's also the final day of the $10 million fundraiser. And, it's the day of the big Unity Dinner in DC. So, giv some turkee to Jon Keree!
Wednesday, March 24, 2004
Another Statement from Daschle
Excerpt:
Reward good behavior.
-
What did the Bush Administration do before September 11 to defeat Al Qaeda?
During the nearly nine months it took the Administration to develop and sign off on its terrorism strategy, it does not appear the Bush Administration took any decisive or effective action to cripple Al Qaeda. Perhaps the most potentially significant action the Administration took prior to September 11 was in May 2001. At that time, reportedly in response to an increase in "chatter" about a potential Al Qaeda attack, President Bush appointed Vice President Cheney to head a task force "to combat terrorist attacks on the United States." But, according to The Washington Post and Newsweek, the Cheney Terrorism Task Force never met. The American people need to know whether this is true.
Did the Bush Administration commit adequate resources necessary to defeat Al Qaeda prior to September 11?
In the months before September 11, Attorney General Ashcroft listed the Justice Department's top objectives. According to this document, the Attorney General listed at least a dozen objectives that were more important than fighting Al Qaeda and terrorism. And in his September 10, 2001 submission to OMB, Attorney General Ashcroft did not endorse FBI requests for $58 million for 149 new counter-terrorism agents, 200 intelligence analysts, and 54 translators even while he approved spending increases for 68 programs not related to counter-terrorism. Even in the immediate aftermath of September 11, press reports indicate the White House budget office cut the Department of Justice?s funding requests by nearly two-thirds.
It might be that the Attorney General has a good explanation for why the other items on his list where higher priorities than terrorism. There might be a good explanation why the Attorney General did not support the FBI request for these funds. The American people need to know why this happened.
Finally, did the Bush Administration's apparent focus on Saddam Hussein detract from efforts to defeat Al Qaeda and leave America less secure?
Paul O'Neill and Richard Clarke are very different people with different backgrounds and experiences. Yet both have spent the majority of their public lives serving Republican Presidents and both had an insider?s vantage point on the current Administration?s security policies and priorities. And both agree that from the very beginning of this Administration through the terrible events of September 11 and beyond, President Bush and his senior advisors were fixated on Iraq.
O?Neill revealed that at the very first meeting in January 2001 of the President and his senior national security advisors, these officials discussed what to do about Iraq ? not terrorism. Mr. Clarke?s observations confirm Secretary O'Neill's assessment. According to Clarke, after failing to get a cabinet level meeting to discuss terrorism, Administration officials relented a permitted a deputies meeting in April 2001. At this meeting, Deputy Defense Secretary Wolfowitz argued that Iraq posed a terrorist threat at least as grave as Al Qaeda.
Even after September 11, both Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz reportedly made the case that the Administration should use the attacks of September 11 as a reason to invade Iraq. In Secretary Rumsfeld?s case, the reason was that there were no good targets in Afghanistan.
If the Administration's focus on Iraq appears to be coming clearer, so too are the consequences - for our troops, their families, and our security. In the debate leading up to the authorization of the use of force against Iraq, a number of us sought Administration assurances that action against Iraq would not harm our efforts to capture Bin Laden and destroy Al Qaeda; would not shift the focus from those responsible for September 11 to a less immediate threat; would not drain away much needed intelligence analysts, translators, and certain military assets in short supply; would not inflame the Arab world and alienate our allies and others whose cooperation was essential if we were to prevail in the war on terrorism.
Even at the time, we were amazed at the swiftness and certainty of the Administration?s response. Far from harming our efforts in the war on terrorism, the Administration repeatedly insisted that attacking Iraq would help them.
Unfortunately, like so many other predictions advanced by the Administration as it made the case for invading Iraq, these assertions have not been borne out. Osama Bin Laden is still at large. No one can deny that vital intelligence collection, intelligence analysts and special forces were shifted away from Afghanistan and directed to Iraq. And no one can deny that our credibility and standing in the Arab world and with our allies and others have suffered greatly as a result of the decision to attack Iraq based on an apparently false claim that it possessed weapons of mass destruction.
Reward good behavior.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)