Our media institutions are broken and dysfunctional and the public knows it.
According to a new poll conducted by the Pew Research Center, more than half of Americans say US news organizations are politically biased, inaccurate, and don't care about the people they cover.
The poll indicates an across the board fall in the public's opinion on the news media since 1985, when a similar survey was conducted by Times Mirror, Pew Research said.
Friday, August 10, 2007
Attacking Obama on Terrorism
What is behind all of the faux outrage, hyper-ventilation, and poor reporting about Obama's remarks that as President he would go after high value al Qaeda targets in remote regions inside Pakistan if we had actionable intelligence and Pakistan would not act?
Josh Marshall has an answer:
The unspoken truth here, I suspect, is that Obama has struck on the central folly of our post-9/11 counter-terrorism
defense policy -- strike hard where they aren't and go easy where they are. I think everyone can see this. But Obama got
there first. So they need to attack him for saying it.
Sounds about right.
Josh Marshall has an answer:
The unspoken truth here, I suspect, is that Obama has struck on the central folly of our post-9/11 counter-terrorism
defense policy -- strike hard where they aren't and go easy where they are. I think everyone can see this. But Obama got
there first. So they need to attack him for saying it.
Sounds about right.
Thursday, August 9, 2007
Simple Questions
Has anyone heard anything from or about the War Czar lately?
Where is this guy? What is he doing?
We were told the nation needed a full-time director of both wars, who was to have purview over and responsibility for the US war in Afghanistan and the occupation of Iraq.
Lt. General David Lute was appointed back in May. However, since June everyone---the administration, the media, Republicans, and Democrats---has put the onus for determining our next next move in Iraq on General David Petraeus? No one has even mentioned Lute or what role will he play in the decision-making when Petraeus submits his report.
Why was Lute appointed only to play no public role in defending Bush’s policy in Iraq?
It would appear that the skepticism which greeted the announcement of Bush's search for a War Czar was warranted. This desperate PR stunt designed to reassure the American people that Bush was on top of things, that he had a plan to win in Afghanistan and Iraq, has clearly failed.
Having no shame and an affinity for steadfastly relying on failed strategies, however, it would not surprise me if the Administration trotted out Lt. General Lute---War Czar---to argue that Petraeus’ report shows that the “surge” is being effective and the US should remain committed to the current strategy in Iraq, at least for another 6-9 months.
If you see this guy on the TV in late September or October arguing that the Petraeus report indicates that large numbers of US troops should remain in Iraq, remember----you heard it here first.
Where is this guy? What is he doing?
We were told the nation needed a full-time director of both wars, who was to have purview over and responsibility for the US war in Afghanistan and the occupation of Iraq.
Lt. General David Lute was appointed back in May. However, since June everyone---the administration, the media, Republicans, and Democrats---has put the onus for determining our next next move in Iraq on General David Petraeus? No one has even mentioned Lute or what role will he play in the decision-making when Petraeus submits his report.
Why was Lute appointed only to play no public role in defending Bush’s policy in Iraq?
It would appear that the skepticism which greeted the announcement of Bush's search for a War Czar was warranted. This desperate PR stunt designed to reassure the American people that Bush was on top of things, that he had a plan to win in Afghanistan and Iraq, has clearly failed.
Having no shame and an affinity for steadfastly relying on failed strategies, however, it would not surprise me if the Administration trotted out Lt. General Lute---War Czar---to argue that Petraeus’ report shows that the “surge” is being effective and the US should remain committed to the current strategy in Iraq, at least for another 6-9 months.
If you see this guy on the TV in late September or October arguing that the Petraeus report indicates that large numbers of US troops should remain in Iraq, remember----you heard it here first.
Wednesday, August 8, 2007
Nation's Editorial Pages Slam Dems For FISA Vote
Think Progress has compiled excerpts from and links to editorials from nine newspapers around the country condemning Democrat's vote on FISA.
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/08/07/fisa-editorials/
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/08/07/fisa-editorials/
An Exception To The Rule
Holy Scrizz! An actual example of a journalist subjecting a claim from the President to factual scrutiny---in the lede paragraph no less. From the AFP,
"US President George W. Bush charged Monday that Iran has openly declared that it seeks nuclear weapons -- an inaccurate accusation at a time of sharp tensions between Washington and Tehran."
And the headline on Yahoo! News:
Bush levels dubious Iran nuclear arms charge
Clearly some have learned the lessons from the Iraq war propaganda campaign. There may be hope yet.
"US President George W. Bush charged Monday that Iran has openly declared that it seeks nuclear weapons -- an inaccurate accusation at a time of sharp tensions between Washington and Tehran."
And the headline on Yahoo! News:
Bush levels dubious Iran nuclear arms charge
Clearly some have learned the lessons from the Iraq war propaganda campaign. There may be hope yet.
What Is It About Go F*ck Yourself That The Dems Don't Understand?
The Dems are at it again, expecting the Bush Administration to comply with subpeonas after they have already invoked executive privilege.
Today, Senator Leahy sent the White House a letter setting a new date of August 20 for subpoenas served to the executive branch in June.
Here's Leahy:
Despite my patience and flexibility, you have rejected every proposal, produced none of the responsive documents,
provided no basis for any claim of privilege and no accompanying log of withheld documents. I had been requesting this
information for an extended time before issuing the subpeonas.
I am setting as the new return date for these four subpoenas August 20,2007, at 2:30 p.m. I look forward to compliance
with the Judiciary Committee’s June 27, 2007 subpoenas to the White House Office, the Office of the Vice President, the
National Security Council, and the Department of Justice.
What on earth makes Leahy think that Bush and Cheney are going to comply with this new deadline? The White House had previously ignored the original due date of July 18, after which Leahy extended the due date until August 1, which they have also ignored.
Leahy and others Dems don't seem to understand that they are quite simply wasting their time if they think that this White House is going to make any employees (current or former) available for testimony or turn over any documents that they do not want to. This is about the raw exercise of power. Please tell me Democrats realize this by now. The only real question is whether they are truly committed to trying to do something about it. I have serious doubts that they are.
Today, Senator Leahy sent the White House a letter setting a new date of August 20 for subpoenas served to the executive branch in June.
Here's Leahy:
Despite my patience and flexibility, you have rejected every proposal, produced none of the responsive documents,
provided no basis for any claim of privilege and no accompanying log of withheld documents. I had been requesting this
information for an extended time before issuing the subpeonas.
I am setting as the new return date for these four subpoenas August 20,2007, at 2:30 p.m. I look forward to compliance
with the Judiciary Committee’s June 27, 2007 subpoenas to the White House Office, the Office of the Vice President, the
National Security Council, and the Department of Justice.
What on earth makes Leahy think that Bush and Cheney are going to comply with this new deadline? The White House had previously ignored the original due date of July 18, after which Leahy extended the due date until August 1, which they have also ignored.
Leahy and others Dems don't seem to understand that they are quite simply wasting their time if they think that this White House is going to make any employees (current or former) available for testimony or turn over any documents that they do not want to. This is about the raw exercise of power. Please tell me Democrats realize this by now. The only real question is whether they are truly committed to trying to do something about it. I have serious doubts that they are.
Shameful, Outrageous, and Pathetic: Dems Cave on FISA
It was quite a performance. Running out the door on their way home for the summer recess, Congressional Dems---16 in the Senate and 41 in the House--- authorized the Bush Administration’s expanded authority to spy on Americans. As Glenn Greenwald noted, “there is no requirement in this law -- literally none -- that the person being surveilled be connected to terrorism in any way or even by an agent of a foreign state or terrorist group. Any person -- even the most innocent -- can be subjected to warrantless surveillance under this new law.” The legislation, which many members did not have the time to and did not read, essentially legalizes the Administration’s previously illegal warrantless spying.
The fact that elected officials sworn to uphold the Constitution would vote for legislation that poses a serious threat to our fundamental liberties and would not stand on principle against this affront to democracy is shameful.
The fact that this legislation gives a discredited and dishonest Attorney General the authority, along with DNI Director McConnell, for creating the broad procedures determining whose telephone calls and e-mails are collected and the responsibility for assessing compliance with those procedures is absolutely outrageous.
The fact that most Dems who voted for this did so out of fear of being branded as “soft on terrorism” is pathetic.
Did Dems forget that voters expect them to vote on principle and respect them when they do?
Did they forget this President is thoroughly discredited and disliked, that the American people do not trust him to fight the war on terror and to protect Americans from terrorists and that they instead believe the Dems have better strategies for handling terrorism?
Did they forget that the President and Rove and his minions demonized Dems as soft on terrorism in the 06 mid-term elections and lost, overwhelmingly?
Did they forget that they are now in the majority, could have defeated this legislation, and could have stuck to their guns on the agreement the leadership had worked out with DNI Director McConnell to revise the FISA legislation in a manner that gave him everything he said he needed to effectively conduct surveillance against potential terrorists?
The fact that elected officials sworn to uphold the Constitution would vote for legislation that poses a serious threat to our fundamental liberties and would not stand on principle against this affront to democracy is shameful.
The fact that this legislation gives a discredited and dishonest Attorney General the authority, along with DNI Director McConnell, for creating the broad procedures determining whose telephone calls and e-mails are collected and the responsibility for assessing compliance with those procedures is absolutely outrageous.
The fact that most Dems who voted for this did so out of fear of being branded as “soft on terrorism” is pathetic.
Did Dems forget that voters expect them to vote on principle and respect them when they do?
Did they forget this President is thoroughly discredited and disliked, that the American people do not trust him to fight the war on terror and to protect Americans from terrorists and that they instead believe the Dems have better strategies for handling terrorism?
Did they forget that the President and Rove and his minions demonized Dems as soft on terrorism in the 06 mid-term elections and lost, overwhelmingly?
Did they forget that they are now in the majority, could have defeated this legislation, and could have stuck to their guns on the agreement the leadership had worked out with DNI Director McConnell to revise the FISA legislation in a manner that gave him everything he said he needed to effectively conduct surveillance against potential terrorists?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)