The Justice Department doesn’t like the First Amendment. Specifically that whole part about abridging the freedom of the press. They think that if journalists can *gasp* keep their sources secret, then the terrorists will have won.
Fuh real. I’m not kidding.
“The Bush administration, which opposes legislation to shield journalists from revealing their confidential sources, warned lawmakers Thursday that the measure’s broad definition of journalists could protect the media wings of terrorist groups.”
Keith Ellison (Scourge of the Republican Party — MN) thinks that is boobery of a most uncharming sort.
“Is it legitimate to say, ‘The terrorists are going to get us so we shouldn’t have this law’?” Ellison asked. “That strikes me as kind of hyperbole.”
In this case “hyperbole” = “booberbole”
Republicans in the Judicial Committee and William Safire, bed wetting liberal that he is (thats sarcasm for you Chris), rush to echo Keith’s sentiments, after the jump.
The Justice Department feels that the media operations of terrorist organizations, based abroad could use the bill HR 2102 to hide their sources.
And I’m sure you’re scratching your head, “Isn’t that the opposite of the logic being used against terrorists now?”
Indeed it is intrepid reader! As terrorists, and as they aren’t American citizens, the Bush Administration argues that the unhappy campers of Guantanamo Bay aren’t entitled to a trial in an American court of law. Somehow a terrorist website based in some other country would be subject to a law protecting journalists in America?
Yeah, I think it’s kind of silly too. Something else has to be up here.
Shazam!
Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press thinks there is too!
“What they’re really worried about is Al-Jazeera,” she said, referring to the Qatar-based news network… “They use the examples of the really extreme groups, but I think what they’re really concerned about is Al-Jazeera.”
The good news is, this hacktacular ruse has opponents on both sides of the aisle, Nixon speachwriter William Safire has this to say about the bill;
“The movement to force journalists to reveal their sources is an attempt to turn the press into an arm of the law,” Safire said. “Believe me, when a journalist is threatened with jail … he or she feels a coercive chill.”
Safire also says that the “Justice Department, federal prosecutors and judges were coercing journalists to reveal their sources — with subpoenas, fines and the threat of jail time — at an unprecedented rate.”
Mike Pence (“Like Rush Limbaugh on decaf” — IN) ; feels that this bill will stifle whistle-blowers attempts to unearth fraud and corruption in the government. “We face the real danger that there may never be another ‘Deep Throat.’”
Wise words coming at the 35th anniversary of Watergate.
Contact Representative Ellison here to thank him for standing up for our First Amendment rights.
This is another step in the further emasculation of our free press. Not at all shocking. I’ve been wondering where today’s Woodward and Berstein are. I guess working for the BBC.
Um, I think this title may be a little racist. I’m not sure how I feel about you having Keith Ellison speak jive in the title. I know that this was probably just a silly joke that the author didn’t think about, but just to let you know that it could be taken that way.
Sean:
Can you explain the headline of this post? Your word choice is interesting.
I made it up.
It should be noted that Keith Ellison didn’t actually say “You So Silly DoJ.”
By the way, I just checked and I don’t see you thanking Representative Ellison anywhere for standing up and protecting your first amendment rights to free press. Sean
Sean:
Would you have used this headline with Senator Klobuchar or Congressman Oberstar or Peterson?
Yes I would have. I might have even done it for Congressman Walz.
Funny thing…the only other time I can find MN Publius using the phrase “you so” in headline was in a post about the 5th:
http://www.mnpublius.com/2006/06/05/minvolvedcom-you-so-cray-zay-gop-in-the-5th/ Coincident?
Or as I should have wrote: coincidence?
Mike — a couple of things.
1. That wasn’t me. That was another MNPublius blogger. His name was JD. JD and I are not the same. Surprisingly enough.
2. Are you going anywhere with this, or are you done now? If you’d like to accuse me of racism, please go ahead, it wouldn’t be the lowest you’ve stooped this week. Sean
Shawn:
Yes, I’m aware you didn’t write the post. Also, I’m not accusing you of anything…yet
Then if you have any further questions, comments, concerns, probosculations, ideas you’d like to flesh out, off the cuff remarks or tomfoolery please direct them to my email.
Oh, and by the way, I’ve yet to see you thank Congressman Ellison for his courageous stand in support of your First Amendment rights. Sean
Unfortunately, Mr.MDE would rather put this headline on his blog as..”Keith Ellison Abuses the English Language”….Stay tuned for updates and then have 3 or 4 threads on the subject.
Sorry, Michael, but you would.
Given the irrational criticisms MDE has levied against Representative Ellison, I find it really hard to understand Mr. Brodkorb’s point here. Complaining that someone else does what you do is, at best, disingenuous.
Brodkorb is a has-been. Irrelevant, pathetic, and representative of dirty politics that help his party lose elections. Keep up the good work, Mikey.
On the issue of the post I do worry about creating a legal standard for reporters that is different than other citizens. If “reporters” can refuse to testify why shouldn’t everybody have that right? This is especially true as the lines that define reporters are blurred with media such as blogs. The current justice department scares the hell out of me with their lax adherence to the constitution and their politically driven focus but I don’t know if we should combat it by creating special category of employee that is impossible to define.
I make no claims about the intent but on my first read of the headline I thought it sounded racist.
I do not think the headline is racist, at least not in a bigoted way. People are very sensitive, aren’t they?
I suggest using a similar vernacular next time Bachmann is the subject, that should square the whole thing.
As for the shield law, Reporters need one badly. Thank you Rep. Ellison.
An interesting point about whether bloggers should qualify for the protections. A logical next step would be to say that reporters are an unnecessary middle-man as would be wistle blowers could simply post their comments online with or without identifying themselves.
It seems to me the practical difference is the size of the audience. If you posted a smashing revilation and no one saw it, that would be ineffective, no? The reporter’s usefullness is his professional network, his ability to get the information to more people than your run of the mill blogger. While the 1st amendment doesn’t seem to permit the federal government to regulate credentials for the press on this basis, perhaps the federal government could compell the states to enact such regulation (by granting privileges like the whitehouse briefing room only to state-issued credential barers?)
Maybe not the best idea, as a regulated press isn’t free, but the idea is to avoid being like Russia, right, who’s problem is an overbearing executive who finds the press a burdensome check on his power.
There would at least be other overbearing executives to whom the reporter could appeal if the regulation were done by states.
Come on now. I read the headline and thought “Oh, that sounds like a Sean-ism”. In no way did I detect any racist undertones. Brodkorb can pick at the scab all he wants, but he ain’t gettin’ any blood.
All of the muckraking garbage that was thrown at Keith on MDE during the last campaign - now THAT is despicable.
I sincerly doubt that a story about Walz or Klobuchar would be titled “you so silly,” and I think that Ellison’s race subconsciously may have played a part in naming the diary. But so what? It was mild sterotyping in a positive piece about Ellison. I am sure that Ellison, who has weathered non-stop abuse basically since he announced hs was running, won’t be too upset.
The ridiculous thing is that this is being pointed out by Brodkorb. Did I miss it and the Republican party had taken up the cause of racial sensitivity? This is like the criticism of Franken’s anti-gay statements or of Lori Swanson’s union issues. One would have thought that the Republicans would then have come out in support of gay rights and union protection. Not so much, though.
So anybody have any thoughts on the post other than the headline?
The distinction between a reporter and other witnesses who might refuse to testify is based more on what is said than anything else. A reporter passes along information that he received from a third-party, having received that information with the intention of passing it along. The ordinary witness is being asked to testify as to information within his or her direct knowledge. That information was not obtained or solicited with the idea that it would be passed along to the public.
I don’t see a real useful distinction between bloggers and traditional journalists. The size of the audience shouldn’t matter (although it might make a difference to the source). After all, anyone can put together a “newspaper” with a little effort (or, as we have seen lately, a lot of cash). Why should a blog be any different?
I’ve been away from the computer for a day or so and didn’t catch this post until just now. Let me begin by saying that Judith Miller was held in jail for months by a federal judge for not disclosing her source in the Valerie Plame investigation. That was a case where the journalist was held in jail - not the source. So there is precedence for this bill.
I don’t know of anybody who thinks that the propaganda wing of Hamas or Hezbollah or Islamic Jihad should have the same protections of American Journalists. If you do, I’m shocked. Moreover, I’d point out there are no absolute rights to free speech or press. See, e.g. New York Times v. Sullivan, et seq.
Moreover, I think that under certain circumstances, journalists should be compelled to disclose their sources when matters of national security, such as war plans, methods, intelligence information, etc. are leaked to and published by the press. I do not think the press should be prosecuted for publishing classified information or state secrets. But I do think the people who unlawfully disclose that information should not be able to hide behind the first amendment. Even though all of you folks seem to hate the guy, there is only one person who can declassify information for the purposes of publication and that is the President.
Chris — HR 2102 would make exceptions to the non-disclosure rule for (among other things) the prevention of “imminent and actual harm to national security, with the objective to [sic] prevent such harm”. There is also an exception when disclosure is necessary to prevent imminent death or significant bodily harm.
There has to be limits to the ability of the President to classify information. The temptation to keep the citizenry in the dark is in politicians of every stripe, but an open government is the best defense we have against authoritarianism. The last thing we need in the U.S. is an Official Secrets Act like the one in the U.K., which criminalizes publishing the menu from the House of Commons dining room.
Randy,
What evidence is there that the President has been over-classifying information? I certainly have heard a lot of criticisms of Bush, but that would be a new one. Every President has classified information much to the consternation of the press. But we don’t elect the press, we do elect Presidents. It’s a fine line but one that isn’t any different today than it was eight years or eighty years ago.
http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/28733
http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/28733
http://www.house.gov/list/hearing/il02_jackson/060511SecretGovtDoesItAgain.html
There’s three links. It took about 3 minutes to track this evidence down.
Richard,
How is this any different than when Hillary had meetings about health care in secret when Bill was President in 1993-94? And let’s not forget about all of the documents that went missing during the Clinton administration as well as the documents (like the 1,100 FBI files on Republicans) they weren’t supposed to have. There were many complaints about Clinton doing things in secret during his eight years. My point is, except for the fact that you are a known Bush-hater, all administrations have classified documents and had meetings unknown to the public. The difference is that you will defend anything Clinton did and attack everything Bush does. I also love how you people site to left-wing web sites and groups like that’s an objective source. Try reading the news and not just the propaganda put out by George Soros.
“known Bush-hater”
“propaganda put out by George Soros”
“site left-wing web sites and groups like that’s an objective source”
Wow…great examples of your objective journalism prowess, Chris.
In my opinion, you are living in a right wing fantasyland. I’m sure you love living there, but theres a majority of Americans who don’t. I think your talking points are predictable, worn out, and ineffective. Who the hell cares what the hell George Soros does, only you O’Reilly-esque “independent thinkers” do, from what I can tell.
As if we need god-damn George Soros, let me tell you something, the Republican “party” is over, look forward to a large democratic veto proof majority in 2008. What you righties need is another 9/11 to prop the fake-assed Republican party up, right?
Facts about the state of our Country, especially the continuing trend of choosing the interests of those who ALREADY have Pawlenty, that’s what we’re talking about. Productivity is up, wages are down, the average American has negative savings, CEO’s of failed companies get 24 million dollar bonuses as their labor force has their retirement benefits cut, their health care rates skyrocket, and their jobs outsourced. There’s a culture that has grown where all that matters is the almighty dollar, and American workers and middle class families have paid a heavy price for it. THAT’s what we liberals are talking about, and we are organized, energized, and ready to get out the vote.
When middle class working families have gotten fed up, and they put their foot down and say ENOUGH!!, look out Chris. I believe we’ve reached that point in America. The bottom line: there will be no permanent Republican majority, and there’s nothing you can do about it. Its over. There’s a liberal/progressive tidal wave headed to a polling place near you.
http://www.house.gov/list/hearing/il02_jackson/060511SecretGovtDoesItAgain.html
You asked for evidence. I listed the the top three sites. There was plenty more. Can you please provide a link proving a connection between George Soros and Citizens for Ethics? If you need a link for Rupert Murdoch and Fox News, I can probably track that down for you. Also, if you need a connection between Sung Yung Moon and the Washington Post, I’ll provide that as well. The press has been thoroughly cowed by this administration and has not done it’s job reporting the illegal and unethical behavior of our beloved leader.
Nitro,
Tried talking about what the original post is about instead of getting into a rhetoric shouting contest. Last time I checked the “progressive” wave that washed into congress last election has a lower approval rating than Bush.
Seriously though, what is your thoughts on the potential of the law shielding journalists from being compelled to disclose their sources?
the “Justice Department, federal prosecutors and judges were coercing journalists to reveal their sources — with subpoenas, fines and the threat of jail time — at an unprecedented rate.”
Here’s the result of no law sheilding reporters. Government and Corporate control of all media. Let’s see, when has that happened before and what was the consequence?
Richard are you fishing for a Nazi tie in? As I recall the government ended up with all the control in that scenario even if they executed some of it through strict control of some “corporations”. Hitler was a dictator and killed just about anybody who didn’t follow his party line.
Should though journalists be given a special protection or all citizens be given the protection? I’d vote for the latter but it does make many prosecutions very difficult.
Richard,
So I guess you believe anything a politician says as long as they have a D behind their name??? What about the things I mentioned Clinton did? You don’t care. Clinton was a Democrat.
As for you, Nitro, you better get back on your meds. Your latest screed is about one step away from a Jack Nickelson movie (circa 1975) if you catch my drift.
In my opinion, Chris, every time you post here, your purpose is to poison the well. I’m pretty sure I’m right about that.
If you think I’m crazy, you must think the same about the very very large majority of Americans who are sick and tired of the direction the Republican “party” has taken us.
Chris — I specifically did not mention President Bush in my post. Why do you think I was accusing him of overclassifying information?
The Gentleman doth protest too much.
Randy,
You did say, “There has to be limits to the ability of the President to classify information.” I only made an observation about that subject. I wasn’t accusing you of any kind of bad motives or anything like that. It’s just that we’ve apparently set off Nitro (pun intended).
Nitro,
I’m not trying to be unkind, but you accuse me of poisoning the well while you’re spewing poison. Enough said.
Chris — I was referring to Presidents generally. The temptation to classify inconveient information is sometthing that is going to be there no matter who is in the White House.
Have you read John Dean’s book on the Bush administration’s secrecy?
I would like specifics about what in my post seems so crazy to you anyone here. No reason to mince words Chris, with references to a movie, etc. If you think I’m ‘crazy” because of my post, maybe you should actually read the body of text, especially concerning the war on the middle class that’s reached critical mass, and post an intelligent, non insulting reply that uses some non-fallous arguement.
If your reply to me is simply “you’re crazy”, well then I simply won’t reply to your drivel anymore. My opinion of you is certainly much much lower than you might think, and sure, it would be easy for me to resort to the kind of back and forth name calling. I have a rather long list of names and insults I could throw at you, but that doesn’t really add to the conversation about the realities of life and politics in America.
Let me take it to your level, for example,
~Saying “As for you, Nitro, you better get back on your meds. Your latest screed is about one step away from a Jack Nickelson movie (circa 1975) if you catch my drift.” sure makes you look like a big man, doesn’t it. Wow, a movie reference that entertains you as you insult people at your computer, with no face to face debate, that sure is easy, huh, big man.~ (lols)
But that is just an example. I really don’t mean that.
In the future, I would appreciate it if you wouldn’t just lob insults at me, and I will try to do the same in return.
Certainly, people here like Kerosene, although I disagree with most of what he says, I respect more because he posts intelligent thoughts and does consider alternative points of view. He can insult at a higher level.
Randy,
No I don’t care much for John Dean. Dean was one of the crooks during the Watergate scandal who spent time in jail. After he got out, he became a partisan on the other side of the aisle launching nothing but biterness toward everyone in the GOP. I find it laughable that someone who did the things he did to shred the Constitution during Watergate would try to cast stones at anyone.
I simply think the complaints about this administration over classifying things are a little bit overblown, when we have leaks almost weekly in the New York Times, Washington Post, and other national media outlets about things that are really matters of national security.
Nitro,
The movie is “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest.” Beyond that, I’m not going to respond. You’ve been one of the most vitriolic people on this site. Randy and kathy respond with interesting questions and arguments. I don’t remember getting over heated with either one. Start offering some arguments to debate and we’ll do just fine. Otherwise, it ends up as just a big pissing match.
“One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest?” That was a movie?
Come on now, I find that hard to believe. Who would make a movie with a title like that!? Good grief!!
Maybe “One Threw a Sink Out of a Window” would be a good title for a movie. I’m just sayin’ what everyones thinkin’.
OK, Nitro, fair enough!
Hat, the founders purposefully made prosecutions difficult in this country precisely for the reasons you imply. Innocent until proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt is a unique American invention and it is beautiful in it’s elegance. It protects the average citizen against the whims of hisory and puts the burden on the state for prosecution. Do away with this and we are vulnerable to the vacarities of public opinion which recent history, look at the above posts, will show are all to easily manipulated. There is a woefull ignorance of this countries founding principles that irritate the living piss out of me. I maintain, and let me iterate I accuse no one specifically or willfully holding this beliefs, there is a creeping fascism growing in this country that threatens our republic as nothing has in the past. Control of media is part of that. Our worship of the military and the corporate/military machine is another part of it. I believe it’s time we called it what it is but that would be unacceptable to the sponsers of this most excellent forum so I will not fly in the face of the brilliant and what I can only imagine as exceedingly good looking administrators of this site.
Richard,
I agree that this country is creeping toward a authoritarianism and it includes many of the factors you mention. My only issue really with what you said is the over generalization of and following implication that all corporations are part of this and that Republicans are significantly worse than the Democrats. I think we have many of the same concerns but believe that increasing state/government control of more of our economy by either party is significant part of the problem. Decentralized and diverse areas of power is a protection against the things you are rightly concerned with. That, I think is part of what this country was founded on.
Richard,
Check your founding fathers again. They did not say, “Innocent until proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt.” They did say you were innocent until proven guilty beyond a “reasonable” doubt. There is a huge difference between the two. I don’t disagree with your other comments - just wanted to make the correction.
Hat, I didn’t mean to paint, with that wide brush, all corporations are bad. Many, behave responsibly but I would argue that without government, aggressively promoting independent and diverse ownership of media outlets, the present situation of one voice on the radio will continue. At this moment, for every one hour of progressive radio, there is nine hours of right wing, dare I say it, fascist radio. This is way out of sync with the listening public and it’s views so where does this come from. Board rooms at Clear Channel, GE, ABC are making these decisions for purely business and control reasons. Corporations like big Pharma and the insurance industry spend billions every year trying to convince us that government sponsored medical coverage would be a bad thing. They spend billions trying to convince us that lower drug prices are impossible and buying them elsewhere presents a danger. This is the corporate line from Rush and Sean and Bill and the Savage Weiner. Meanwhile there’s no opposition viewpoint presented. Look at Phil Donohue’s experiance at MSNBC. When he had a progressive guest, he was required to have two right wing guests at the same table. No such requirement for right wing guests. He had one of the highest rated shows on MSNBC and he was fired. Why? Big Ed Schultz beats Sean Hannity head to head in many markets. So why aren’t more stations picking him up? Corporate control and corporation’s need to control the message. Hat, you often, and by the way, it’s getting annoying, complain the Democratic party is no better then the GOP. Why do you suppose that is? These are people we have elected. Government is us. Why is the GOP are no better then the Democratic party? Why are Keith Ellison, Amy Klobachar, and Paul Wellstone, the exceptions and not the rule? Corporate control of media is driving us to a fascist state where the vast majority of resources will be controlled by an elite minority. Sean, Matt, Zack, I hope I didn’t cross the line and offend your delicate sensibilities.
I listen to Big Ed every day. He’s very very good.
He said just the other day ” I (Ed) beat Sean Hannity in Denver. I beat him in Seattle. I beat him in Portland. I beat in San Diego. How many markets do I have to beat Hannity in before I get 200 or 300 stations? It’s an ownership issue. Salem Radio, Infinity does one, ABC owns Hannity.”
San Diego, for example, is right in the heart of a traditionally conservative marketplace, and Big Eddies doing very very well there.
Why does, as another example, Philadelphia have no progressive radio? Are there no Democrats, Progressives, or Liberals there? Theres nothing but conservative talk.
Ownership has it’s privelege, and these dinosaur radio owners don’t want anything to do with Progressive talk, no matter how good it is. That’s Big Ed’s problem, and the problem of explaining this by saying this is “market driven”. It simply is not. I remember a long time ago when Conservative talk had it’s troubles. They didn’t give up, and neither will we.
Look it up in the Twin Cities and you’ll find Stephanie Miller and Ed Schultz doing pretty well in the ratings, and they’re growing. They are not Air America, they are syndicated Progressive talk. Minnesota Matters is pretty good too, I enjoy that show.
Richard,
First, can we try to disabuse ourselves of the notion that anyone you disagree with is a fascist? Seriously, that line wore thin a long time ago.
Second, you talk about how great government is and how we need government to regulate everything. Did you know that government does bad things in the marketplace too? Let me give you a couple of examples. Government artificially props up the price of U.S. grown sugar. That’s why the main ingredients of candy and soda pop and other things made with large quantities of sweetners are made out of high fructose corn syrup. Now, government is requiring the use of ethanol in most gasoline sold in the U.S. The price of corn has doubled in the last couple of years and now farmers are selling corn to make ethanol instead of feeding cattle and making sugar. As a result, the price of everything sold with high fructose corn syrup as well as most beef and pork is going up. That’s just one example of negative consequences of government meddling in the markeplace.
Third, you rail against corporations — especially drug companies. This is crazy. We have the best medicines available in the world. Here you are trying to punish corporations for making drugs which save lives and improve the quality of life of millions of Americans. You act like these drug companies are pushing crack on children or something. Give me a break. Without so-called “big pharma” we wouldn’t be saving lives.
Fourth, your comments about talk radio and media ownership are a non starter. The biggest networks in the U.S. are all anchored by liberals: ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR, etc. If you don’t believe me, look at the MSNBC article from the other day showing that journalists give nine times the money to Democrats and liberal groups as they give to Republicans and conservatives. This backs up a study done in the 1990s that showed 89% of journalists vote for Democrats. All of these networks with liberal journalists are owned by big corporations ran by more liberals. Just look at the heads of the news divisions of each of the major networks. The thing that really bothers me is that you people on the left, ala true fascism, are trying to silence anyone who disagrees with you. It’s not enough to have 80% of the media, the 20% that is conservative you want to silence. Rush Limbaugh is the most listened to radio show in the country by single audience. But if you take the all day audience of NPR, they have more listeners. Bill O’Reilly has the most watched show on cable (in fact his audience is more than the other cable shows combined). But if you compare his audience of four million to the thirty million that watch CBSABCNBC, you get a little bit of perspective. We don’t need diverse ownership. We need more diversity in the newsrooms.
Chris,
The MSNBC study really does not prova a thing. The sample was of an incomplete list of journalists. Why should I care what the editor of the food section for a newspaper gave for campaign contributions?
If there was a Liberal bias in the media, those liberals have failed the people.
Why were there no mainstream news investigationss about the eveidence against Bush’s so-called evidence to go to war?
Why has there been no large mainstream news investigations about Defense Contractor fraud and abuse in Iraq?
Why has there been no major coverage of the Republicans use of “caging” and other voter suppression techniques in the 2004 election?
How does a story about Kerry’s botched joke end up all over the mainstream media 2 weeks before the 2006 election?
These are but a few examples. The nightly news and Sunday morning talk shows have been quite the tool for Republicans to push their talking points to the American people virtually unopposed. That doesn’t sound very Liberal to me.
If there was truly a liberal bias in the media, the media would be quite, quite different than it is now Chris, and that’s a fact.
Nitro,
For each example you cite (and I do not believe the stuff about caging and voter suppression no more than you believe in roving vehicles with stuffed ballot boxes in Florida in 2000) I can site twenty on the other side. For example, why did NBC News do two minutes (more than 10% of their total evening coverage) on how a few children were killed when the U.S. bombed an al qaeda hide out in Afghanistan? Two minutes! Or how about Dan Rather’s forged documents days before the 2004 election? Or how about Fox News coming out with Bush’s DWI three days before the 2000 election? Or what about the fact that every Sunday morning host (excluding Chris Wallace who is also a liberal) has worked for Democrat politicians (Tim Russert for Daniel P. Moynihan, Chris Matthews for Tip O’Neil and George Stephanopolous for Bill and Hillary Clinton)? Come on, Nitro get with the program!
As for the evidence of Saddam and WMDs, why hasn’t the mainstream press asked Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, Madeline Albright, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Sandy Berger, Bill Richardson, et al. about their statements regarding WMDs, Saddam and terrorism which were made pre-Bush administration? The same people calling Bush a liar today were saying Bush’s argument - but before he was even elected President. I’ve cited the quotes and the You Tube video in the past.
Wow, Chris Wallace a Liberal? Chris Matthews a liberal??…Good grief!?
LOLS “how few children were killed”… How about hearing about how many Iraqi children have been killed overall? Where’s that story? How many Iraqi children who are refugees have we helped by allowing them to move to the US? There are millions of refugees from Iraq in Syria, who’s responsible for that? Why don’t we help them?
Caging? Check Monica Goodlings testimony before Congress. Check some of the recently released e-mails in the Justice Department. Why did Noe go to jail? What was going on in Ohio anyway in 2004, especially concerning Ken Blackwell? Look some of that stuff up and decide for yourself.
Have you ever seen the movie “Bush’s Brain” about Karl Rove? The Dan Rather thing is a classic false flag attack, Chris. Nobody at CBS ever revealed source for the documents. What’s the source on those forged documents, where did they come from? Ever hear about Karl Rove’s planting a bug in his own candidates office, and then blaming the Democrat for it? Rove has bragged about that one, talk about hubris. I’m curious, what did Bush do in the National Guard anyway? Can you summarize what he did there?
None of you people gave a rat’s ass about Bush’s DWI and you know it. That’s why the story died. That was a true story, however.
As far as Tim Russert is concerned, there are plenty of documents concerning the Bush administrations opinion of him. You should look that up. They really like him a lot. Zell Miller used to be a Democrat.
Not every single Liberal supported that lie about WMD’s and you know it. I don’t care what the hell Clintons or Gores said about that. They have some explaining to do on that one. Did they believe their sources who lied to them? Were they lying? WTF!? Why do you think so many liberals give Congress a thumbs down? Because of issues like that…well they gave in to Bush on Iraq recently too. That’s not what we want, not from any of them, not at all. I had some harsh words for Amy and Keith.
We live in an information highway, and if I was a Republican right now I’d be worrying about that. All the liberal blogs and websites are growing and growing. All the ones I frequent on the left have plenty of links to sources and cross references.
I’ve seen the web sites of the right, sometimes I spend a lot of time there. Frankly, I’m not impressed.
The media is mostly incompetent and presents what sells it’s newspapers and ad space. Bad jokes by Kerry and the like don’t take any time to research and get a lot of viewers. Taking months to research a story that bores people because it is too complicated to understand in 2 minutes is one reason we don’t get the information we need. Look at how much time was spent on Paris going to jail, no money to research and a lot of viewers.
In the end there is a cozy relationship between the two major parties and the press is born out of decades of each side knowing it is easier and more profitable to play along than to rock the boat. Hopefully blogs and other media, from multiple viewpoints, will shake things up enough to change that.
I still think that everybody should not have to testify or everybody should. I don’t like the artificial designation between “reporter” and non reporter.
Ultimately it’s not about who testifys, it’s about the control and manipulation of public opinion. At the start of the Iraq invasion, 70% of the American public believed Saddam had been actively involved in the planning and execution of World Trade Center attacks. This was no accident. There were only two messages at the lead up to war. Saddam/9/11 and WMD. The media has been a valuble tool in Bush’s tool box to get people people to think what he needs thme to think. Finally, with Bush’s poll numbers down to 30% and numbers for the “right direction” of the country are down to 20%, the press still is not reporting the criminal behavior.
Nitro,
Where was your outrage when Saddam was killing the Iraqi children with WMDs you claim he never had? That’s what I would like to know. Anyone who equates our actions in Iraq with the mass slaughter of Iraqis under Saddam’s reign of terror is being anti-American for the sake of being anti-American.
I just love how you cite propaganda movies, like “Bush’s Brain” to support your thesis about the administration you hate. CBS hired forensic investigators to look at the documents Dan Rather aired. They told CBS they could not support that the documents were authentic. Dan Rather was fired from CBS over the incident. How much more blatant can you be?
And so the question of whether or not Bush was a deserter or not was proven how? The story became about Dan Rather and no reporter talked about the very questionable behavior of Bush and his “service”.
Oh yeah, and Richard Mellon Scaife’s swift boaters told outrageous lies concerning Kerry’s service with impunity.
Your argument is false, Chris. You are assuming I was not outraged about Saddam. There is plenty of outrage to go around, pal. Your assumption about me is wrong.
Also
“CBS hired forensic investigators to look at the documents Dan Rather aired. They told CBS they could not support that the documents were authentic. Dan Rather was fired from CBS over the incident. How much more blatant can you be?”
My question was “What was the source of the documents?”
Thiiiink Chris, try hard….Where did the Rather documents come from, since they were false?…….C’mon pal, I know you can do this. Some Liberal group gave them to Rather?….Who did? Why has nobody looked for the source?
You seem to have a bad habit of not answering my specific questions, Chris. Why is it ALWAYS a sort of “yea, well Democrats do it too” response from you. You have some serious problems having an honest discussion about specific issues. This isn’t “crossfire” pal, nor is it The Factor.
Please try to answer my questions with more than evade and stab.
Nitro,
Read this article from the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18982-2004Sep13.html
The source of the documents is a guy named Bill Burkett, who was a long time opponent of George W. Bush going back to the days when Bush was Governor of Texas. So what’s your point?
Nitro,
I re-read your comment and you are seriously uninformed. Bill Burkett is the source of the forged Dan Rather documents. There have been numerous articles - including an interview with Burkett in USA Today. I don’t know where you are reading your information, but I would urge you to read the WaPo article I linked to.
Ah… so the documents have nothing to do with Roger Stone then. I see. Wasn’t Roger Stone involved in the Florida Recount?…Anyhoo how was your bestest buddy, “male prostitute with a Whitehouse pass” Jeff Gannon involved in the story? Maybe give Jeffy a phone call, it’s on your speeddial. What about Dan Bartlett, how did he get in the middle of all this? I’m just sayin, there’s a lot of data available on these questions, look it up.
Again, the interesting thing about the documents, they are well proven forgeries, however they are fairly accurately describing Bush’s record. Can you summarize what Bush’s record in the National Guard is for me?
You cite a well read, well circulated story I’ve seen cited over and over again. It mostly proved the documents are forged, and I do not dispute that. My point is the story goes a bit further than “Bill Burkett, case closed”.
Nitro,
Again, we’re at an impasse. You look for the far left spin on things and I look to see what the facts are. This has been debunked by every decent news outlet around.
If you want to read a study on President Bush’s military service and record, read this article. It’s a little bit lengthy but seems well researched.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=15039
I am not saying this is mainstream news any more than what you link to, but if you’re open minded, you might learn something.
Also, Nitro,
I don’t appreciate you saying that I have a male prostitute named Jeff Gannon on my speed dial. This is where once again I say you are more interested in crazy talk than you are intelligent discourse. This is why I commended you to get back on your medication and not fly over the cuckoo’s nest.
“debunked by every decent news outlet around”…what that Liberal media you talk about here? Good Lord!
Well weather I’m wrong, or you’re wrong, for some reason the Republican party is in the toilet. Seems you’re on the wrong side.
I havn’t linked to anything, BTW.
Jeff Gannon parroted and continues to replicate the same talking points you site here often. He is a very active member of the Conservative media to this day. That was a funny rip on you, pally.
I don’t think that you look very hard to see what the facts are. I see a lot of truthiness in that set of talking points you parrot here, those things I’ve heard over and over and over again. There’s a reason I spend hours surfing blogs of the righties. I read what they say. I just happen to disagree. Me thinks you don’t go to Think Progress and read what they have posted. Just a hunch.
In the end, we’ll see how this all plays out next fall. Whom are the American people going to believe? That’s what this is boiling down to.
It is also hilarious and tragic at the same time to me, considering the lengths the Republicans went to in order to re-elect Bush, what the fruit of their efforts was……
They Re-elected Bush!!! Great Job! I don’t see America thanking you.
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/roane040908.htm
frontpage news seems to have gotten a vast majority of the story wrong. Bush simply was a deserter and those are the facts though I suppose it’s not his fault. I mean, the Texas National Guard has such unreasonable rules about pilots with raging cocaine habits. Bush can’t be blamed for ditching his service. Right wing propaganda sites are not very dependible these days.
Richard,
With respect to the cocaine crap, go BLOW it out your… Well, you get the drift.
So is the President a deserter or not?