« December 11, 2005 - December 17, 2005 | Main | December 25, 2005 - December 31, 2005 »
December 24, 2005
Voice of Reality 2005: Keith Olbermann
For being the only cable news reporter to cover what's truly important and to do so with a depth which is in short supply elsewhere on televison. For being the only reporter to cover the irregularities of the 2004 election; for standing his ground against his corporate bosses; for taking on Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, and Rush Limbaugh; and for delivering what was a truly historic commentary about the Katrina disaster.
Countdown with Keith Olbermann isn't the highest rated cable news show. But it should be. Keith doesn't tow any party line and rarely mixes news reporting with commentary in a single segment. In an era in which punditry rules the day, Keith opts for a show in which the news speaks for itself. And when watchdogging is needed, Keith dives in with both feet, but without beating us over the head with self-important demagoguery. He's smarter than that and refuses to patronize his audience by overemphasizing what needs to be said. The Fox News slogan "we report, you decide" actually applies to Countdown more so than anything actually on Fox News.
Keith is old school in the spirit of Edward R. Murrow -- yet, at the same time, his show is way ahead of the news curve. Signing off with, "Good night, and good luck," Keith reminds us what news used to be as well as what it can be. It can be fun without being moronic. It can be muckraking without being biased. It can be insightful without being boring. It can infuse new technologies of information gathering (blogs, for example) without excluding those who aren't tech savvy.
For all these reasons and many more, Reality Based Nation names Countdown anchor Keith Olbermann our Voice of Reality for 2005.
10:50 AM | Comments (6) | Posted By Bob Cesca
December 23, 2005
Assholes Say the Darndest Things
Media Matters has compiled their list of the most outrageous statements of the year (in the media):
Former Reagan administration Secretary of Education Bill Bennett: "[Y]ou could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down." [Salem Radio Network's Bill Bennett's Morning in America, 9/28/05]Bill O'Reilly, agreeing with caller that illegal immigrants are "biological weapon[s]": "I think you could probably make an absolutely airtight case that more than 3,000 Americans have been either killed or injured, based upon the 11 million illegals who are here." [Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly, 4/15/05]
Rush Limbaugh: "Feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of society." [The Rush Limbaugh Show, 8/12/05]
Rush Limbaugh on the kidnapping of peace activists in Iraq: "I'm telling you, folks, there's a part of me that likes this." [The Rush Limbaugh Show, 11/29/05]
Radio host Glenn Beck: "[Y]ou know it took me about a year to start hating the 9-11 victims' families? Took me about a year." [Premiere Radio Networks' The Glenn Beck Program, 9/9/05]
Radio host Neal Boortz on the execution of Stanley "Tookie" Williams: "[T]here will be riots in South Central Los Angeles and elsewhere. ... The rioting, of course, will lead to wide scale looting. There are a lot of aspiring rappers and NBA superstars who could really use a nice flat-screen television right now." [Boortz.com, 12/12/05]
Pat Buchanan: "Our guys" in Iraq "have got every right to have good news put into the media and get to the people of Iraq, even if it's got to be planted or bought." [MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, 12/1/05]
Accuracy in Media editor Cliff Kincaid: "Have you noticed that many news organizations, in honor of former ABC News anchorman Peter Jennings, have embarked on a quit smoking campaign? So why don't our media launch a campaign advising people to quit engaging in the dangerous and addictive homosexual lifestyle? ... It appears that the homosexual lifestyle is as addictive as smoking." [Accuracy in Media column, 12/14/05]
And their Misinformer of the Year is... Gotta disagree with MM for a change... Chris Matthews? That's a bit of a stretch considering we live in a world occupied by O'Reilly, Hannity, Hume, Gibson, Limbaugh, Carlson, and Scarborough.
11:20 PM | Comments (1) | Posted By Bob Cesca
December 22, 2005
Allawi breaks out his tin foil hat
Funny how when a Bush ally cries electoral fraud, he's acting in the best interest of democracy. But when progressives here do it, we're all loony and sour-grapes.
Nevertheless, all hell is about to break loose in Iraq. The secular Shi'ites are teaming up with the Sunnis to contest the election -- threatening to take to the streets and boycott parlaiment -- unless there's a re-vote. Meanwhile, the champeeens in Bush's bloody experiment are allied with Iran, the insurgents (al-Sadr), and are anti-Israel.
Iraq's Sunni Arab and secular parties threatened on Wednesday to boycott the new parliament after alleging massive fraud in last week's election, ramping up pressure on the triumphant Shi'ite Islamists to share power.Sunni rebels, whose informal truce helped push turnout to 70 percent as insurgents pitched for a voice in the new, full-term legislature, warned they would intensify attacks if the Shi'ite Alliance held on to the lion's share of power.
The Electoral Commission, which opposition groups demanded be dissolved accusing it of bias, rejected calls for a rerun of the vote, saying complaints were numerous but unlikely to affect the overall result [sound familiar? -Bob] -- a view held by U.S. and U.N. officials.
. . .
Representatives of secular Shi'ite former prime minister Iyad Allawi and two major Sunni Arab groups, the Islamist-led Iraqi Accordance Front and the secular Iraqi Unified Front, along with other groupings, met on Wednesday to coordinate.
"We all agreed to contest and reject the results of the election," said Allawi aide Thaer al-Naqib. "We want the Electoral Commission dissolved and the election rerun."
"We will take to the streets if necessary," he told Reuters. "We might even not take up our seats in the new parliament and so any new government would be illegitimate."
Heckuva job, Bushie.
And mcjoan at Kos reminds us:
Meanwhile, let's not forget that the total number of Coalition fighters dead is 2360. Iraqi civilians dead as a result of the war are likely 100,000+. 80 journalists, mostly Arab, have been killed. And there have been, by the DOD's count, 16,000 G.I.s wounded.
10:16 AM | Comments (0) | Posted By Bob Cesca
December 21, 2005
Meanwhile, results in the Iraq election
Soon after Bush spoke of the Iraqi election as "a landmark day in the history of liberty," early returns representing 90 percent of the ballots cast in the Iraq election established that the clear winners were Shiite and Sunni religious parties not the least bit interested in Western-style democracy or individual freedom -- including such extremists as Muqtada al-Sadr, whose fanatical followers have fought pitched battles with U.S. troops.
It gets worse:
It is absurd for Bush to assert that the election "means that America has an ally of growing strength in the fight against terror," ignoring how he has "lost" Iraq to the influence and model of "Axis of Evil" Iran. Tehran's rogue regime, which has bedeviled every U.S. president since Jimmy Carter, now looms larger than ever over the region and most definitely over its oil. "Iran wins big in Iraq's election," reads an Asia Times headline, speaking a truth that American policy makers and much of the media is bent on ignoring: "The Shiite religious coalition, the United Iraqi Alliance (UIA), not only held together, but also can be expected to dominate the new 275-member National Assembly for the next four years," the paper predicts based on the returns to date. "Former premier Ayad Allawi's prospects of leading the new government seem virtually nil. And Ahmed Chalabi's Iraqi National Accord suffered a shattering defeat."
Awesome isn't it? Our bravest men and women died to create an Iranian ally in the Middle East.
And Bushie -- you're doing a heckuva job.
12:00 PM | Comments (2) | Posted By Bob Cesca
Bamford nails Bush apologists on CSPAN
There's one man outside of the NSA who knows more about the agency than a lot of people inside of it. James Bamford, author of The Puzzle Palace and Pretext for War.
Watch him calmly and plainly summarize Bush's illegal wiretaps here.
11:19 AM | Comments (0) | Posted By Bob Cesca
Say it with me: ILLEGAL!
It's always with a sense of aggravation that I routinely watch cable news. The lack of the use of the word ILLEGAL in the context of "illegal wiretapping" is staggering. I've seen "wiretap flap" on CNN; "spies like U.S." on MSNBC; and raving cult followers on Fox trying to attack anyone and everyone who ISN'T the president.
Of course we all want to thwart terrorist plots against us and our allies. But there's a process of attaining a go-ahead from the secret FISA court in order to do so. It's the law. Plain and simple. That process has been ignored by Bushie due to his imperial and dictatorial hubris.
So I urge you... As you wind your way through various holiday gatherings, when this topic comes up, the word is "illegal". Use it, know it, embrace it. ILLEGAL wiretaps. ILLEGAL spying. The president broke the law and violated the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution and should be impeached immediately for these actions. If he's allowed to continue this behavior without penalty, the consequences for our democratic-republic will be dire.
What if, for the sake of national security, Bush decided to cancel the midterm elections? If the Democrats appear to have the poll numbers to take back the House, Bush could argue that a change in leadership might embolden the terrorists to attack us. He could claim that a political shift here might prevent him from doing what needs to in order to fight his war on terror.
Executive power is designed to be checked by two other branches of government. The framers had a reason for detailing the role of the Executive Branch in Article II -- with the Legislative placed in the prioritized Article I. It's because they valued the Legislative over the Executive. They fought a harrowing revolutionary war in order to combat an overzealous executive leader.
10:42 AM | Comments (0) | Posted By Bob Cesca
More debunking of Drudge's propaganda
Again, I ask you... Does the president have to eat a baby for his cult worshippers to see the light?
09:03 AM | Comments (1) | Posted By Bob Cesca
How merry will Tom DeLay's Christmas be?
It's all falling apart, and so, so quickly.
Jack Abramoff, the ex-crappy movie producer and sleazeballiest lobbyist on K Street, is ready to roll on his "betters," members of Congress like Tom DeLay and Bob Ney and Conrad Burns.
The deadline for "Abraham Jackoff," as his high school classmates dubbed him, to cut a deal is January 9. And, if the NYT's reporting is to be believed, Jackie's gonna cut a deal.
Jack Abramoff, the Republican lobbyist under criminal investigation, has been discussing with prosecutors a deal that would grant him a reduced sentence in exchange for testimony against former political and business associates, people with detailed knowledge of the case say.Mr. Abramoff is believed to have extensive knowledge of what prosecutors suspect is a wider pattern of corruption among lawmakers and Congressional staff members. One participant in the case who insisted on anonymity because of the sensitivity of the negotiations described him as a "unique resource."
Other people involved in the case or who have been officially briefed on it said the talks had reached a tense phase, with each side mindful of the date Jan. 9, when Mr. Abramoff is scheduled to stand trial in Miami in a separate prosecution.
See, real prosecutors (as opposed to pond scum like Alberto Gonzales) don't spend years on a case just to snare a small fry sleaze like Casino Jack. They want to get the real bad guys. And they'll give Jack options that allow him to see his five kids sooner rather than later if he'll give up the goods on his GOP paymasters.
And it appears that Jack is, once again, proving a man willing to screw people to benefit himself.
03:10 AM | Comments (1) | Posted By John Christian Plummer
December 20, 2005
Bush cultists dust off the old, "So did Clinton!"
Drudge and the right-wing blogs are wheeling out their latest ridiculous, weak, and pathetic attempt to dispell the very real fact that Bush is behaving like a dictator.
Their argument according to Drudge:
Bill Clinton Signed Executive Order that allowed Attorney General to do searches without court approvalClinton, February 9, 1995: "The Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches, without a court order"
Jimmy Carter Signed Executive Order on May 23, 1979: "Attorney General is authorized to approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order."
WASH POST, July 15, 1994: Extend not only to searches of the homes of U.S. citizens but also -- in the delicate words of a Justice Department official -- to "places where you wouldn't find or would be unlikely to find information involving a U.S. citizen... would allow the government to use classified electronic surveillance techniques, such as infrared sensors to observe people inside their homes, without a court order."
Deputy Attorney General Jamie S. Gorelick, the Clinton administration believes the president "has inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches for foreign intelligence purposes."
Secret searches and wiretaps of Aldrich Ames's office and home in June and October 1993, both without a federal warrant.
Never mind that neither of them are president now -- and neither had a track record of imperial hubris. Think Progress brings us this refutation:
The right-wing outlet NewsMax sums up the basic argument:During the 1990’s under President Clinton, the National Security Agency monitored millions of private phone calls placed by U.S. citizens and citizens of other countries under a super secret program code-named Echelon…all of it done without a court order, let alone a catalyst like the 9/11 attacks.That’s flatly false. The Clinton administration program, code-named Echelon, complied with FISA. Before any conversations of U.S. persons were targeted, a FISA warrant was obtained. CIA director George Tenet testified to this before Congress on 4/12/00:
I’m here today to discuss specific issues about and allegations regarding Signals Intelligence activities and the so-called Echelon Program of the National Security Agency…There is a rigorous regime of checks and balances which we, the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency and the FBI scrupulously adhere to whenever conversations of U.S. persons are involved, whether directly or indirectly. We do not collect against U.S. persons unless they are agents of a foreign power as that term is defined in the law. We do not target their conversations for collection in the United States unless a FISA warrant has been obtained from the FISA court by the Justice Department.
Meanwhile, the position of the Bush administration is that they can bypass the FISA court and every other court, even when they are monitoring the communications of U.S. persons. It is the difference between following the law and breaking it.
Bush apologists astound me. They're a cult. Hell, when Bill Clinton perjured himself over a blow job -- he broke the law. Why can't the Bushies admit that their cult leader has done something a billion times more heinous and unconstitutional?
09:23 PM | Comments (1) | Posted By Bob Cesca
King George: A "uniter" at long last...
Who would've thunk it... Bush had the capacity to be a uniter after all.
BRUCE FEIN, constitutional scholar and former deputy attorney general in the Reagan Administration: I think the answer requires at least in part considering what the occupant of the presidency says in the aftermath of wrongdoing or rectification. On its face, if President Bush is totally unapologetic and says I continue to maintain that as a war-time President I can do anything I want – I don’t need to consult any other branches – that is an impeachable offense. It’s more dangerous than Clinton’s lying under oath because it jeopardizes our democratic dispensation and civil liberties for the ages. It would set a precedent that … would lie around like a loaded gun, able to be used indefinitely for any future occupant.
NORM ORNSTEIN, AEI scholar: I think if we’re going to be intellectually honest here, this really is the kind of thing that Alexander Hamilton was referring to when impeachment was discussed.
Maybe there are some Republicans with the capacity to understand that the precedents established under Bush could turn around to bite them if and when a Democrat takes over. To these Republicans, I say: you FINALLY understand the progressive movement. It's not about party affiliation -- it's about accountability! For all elected officials (and corporations, too, by the way)!
03:56 PM | Comments (0) | Posted By Bob Cesca
'Don't fuck with your own people.'
"It's drilled into you from minute one that you should not ever, ever, ever, under any fucking circumstances turn this massive apparatus [the NSA] on an American citizen," one source says. "You do a lot of weird shit. But at least you don't fuck with your own people."
03:48 PM | Comments (0) | Posted By Bob Cesca
Pants on fire!
Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.
Via Atrios.
09:08 AM | Comments (0) | Posted By Bob Cesca
Suddenly speedy
The unelected-president at the press conference yesterday:
BUSH: We used the process to monitor. But also, this is a different era, different war. It's a war where people are changing phone numbers and phone calls, and they're moving quick. And we've got to be able to detect and prevent. I keep saying that. But this is -- it requires quick action.
Now, I have to ask: what's with all the sudden urgency, Li'l George? I mean, where was all that urgency in August of 2001? You, Li'l George, you love to talk about September of 2001. You can't get your shoes shined without invoking September 2001. But turning the calendar back a month to August...remember that month? It's the month you got a PDB entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike Within US."
But back then, you weren't so good at "quick action," were you Li'l Mr. American-Getter? See, your FBI and your CIA guys had "detected" but you just, well, you didn't "prevent." And you didn't take "quick action."
Li'l George: you really blow chunks.
01:49 AM | Comments (0) | Posted By John Christian Plummer
Recipe for victory: run against Bush
You may not have noticed that Bolivia has a new president. See, the mainstream media has spent so much ink covering the same old "freedom marching all over Iraq" speech from our fake president whose never been truly elected that they tend not to put things like real presidents being really elected. Especially when those presidents are elected in Latin America.
But elected he was. The Times of London highlights the key points in the story:
FIVE centuries of white rule in Bolivia have ended with the election of the country’s first indigenous head of state.Evo Morales, of the Movement towards Socialism (MAS), won more than 50 per cent of the vote in Sunday’s election, far outstripping all predictions. In his unprecedented first-round victory he left his nearest rival for the presidency, the pro-US Jorge “Tuto” Quiroga, more than 20 percentage points behind. Addressing Bolivia’s main indigenous groups during his acceptance speech, Señor Morales, who is an Aymaran Indian, said: “I want to say to the Aymaras, Quechuas, Guaraníes and Chiriguanos that for the first time we are going to be President.” Thousands took to the streets to celebrate. Su pporters crammed into trucks and drove around La Paz chanting “Evo to the palace, Tuto to Washington”.
That last line is the grabber. Because part of the victory campaign involved running against Bush and the USA.
Sound familiar? Yes, freedom from the USA is on the march around the world. And Bush is, true to his campaign promise of 1999, a uniter. He's bringing nations together...against him.
Señor Morales has pledged to nationalise the country’s huge gas reserves and call a constituent assembly to write a new constitution that will reflect the indigenous majority. Ethnic Aymara and Quechua people make up a majority of the 9.3 million population.He has also promised to ally Bolivia with other regional left-wing leaders such as Presidents Chávez of Venezuela and Castro of Cuba. Señor Chávez was one of the first to telephone to congratulate Señor Morales, whose victory continues Latin America’s shift to the Left. The outcome of the election will be closely watched in Peru, which is to vote for a new president in April. Ollanta Humala, a nationalistic former army officer, has made strong progress in opinion polls there by appealing to the country’s indigenous majority.
See, those leaders coming together? That's called a coalition. It's a word Bush misuses a lot.
01:40 AM | Comments (0) | Posted By John Christian Plummer
December 19, 2005
Jon Alter: Bush was scared!
I learned this week that on December 6, Bush summoned Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger and executive editor Bill Keller to the Oval Office in a futile attempt to talk them out of running the story. The Times will not comment on the meeting, but one can only imagine the president’s desperation.
Via TPM. Marshall is killing on this issue, by the way.
09:26 PM | Comments (0) | Posted By Bob Cesca
It's impeachment or dictatorship
These are our options. Bush's talking points today hold no water whatsoever.
"Speed" was one of his arguments. They didn't get warrants in these at-issue cases because they were so time sensitive and they couldn't wait for court approval. Turns out that that the warrants could be petitioned retroactively for up to 72 hours! TPM:
It turns out that FISA specifically empowers the Attorney General or his designee to start wiretapping on an emergency basis even without a warrant so long as a retroactive application is made for one "as soon as practicable, but not more than 72 hours after the Attorney General authorizes such surveillance."
My dear RBN readers... This administration and its allies in Congress and in the media have done a lot of egregious things in the last five years. But this... This is probably the most brazen and heinous trespass against the Constitution and our rights as Americans. If the president isn't punished for this and is allowed to get away with this, there's no telling what else he'll do in the name of building his dictatorship under the guise of "protecting us from evil-doers" (recall, by the way, that statistically you're more likely to commit suicide than you are of being killed by a terrorist).
I reiterate. Why did the White House seek warrants in so many cases -- but not these? What were they trying to get away with?
09:14 PM | Comments (0) | Posted By Bob Cesca
December 18, 2005
Why the frig hasn't he been arrested yet?
Cindy Sheehan was arrested and hauled away the instant she stepped onto a forbidden sidewalk near the White House.
A friend of mine was arrested, jailed, and lost his driver's license in New Jersey. For having a marijuana roach in his car.
George W. Bush admitted to violating the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution and the very well-defined FISA law... And he's still walking around?
Someone notify federal agents that he's going to be on TV! He should be easy to track down! Go, go, go!
I guess I'm allowed to start tapping the phones of my career competitors -- without a warrant or permission and without fear of reprisal -- if it means helping and protecting my family. If the president can do it...
07:11 PM | Comments (1) | Posted By Bob Cesca
Five years in prison
The law via Atrios:
* FISA makes it a crime, punishable by up to five years in prison, to conduct electronic surveillance except as provided for by statute. The only defense is for law government agents engaged in official duties conducting “surveillance authorized by and conducted pursuant to a search warrant or court order.” [50 U.S.C. § 1809]* Congress has specifically stated, in statute, that the criminal wiretap statute and FISA “shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance . . . and the interception of domestic wire, oral, and electronic communications may be conducted.” [18 U.S.C. § 2518(f)]
* The target of a FISA wiretap is never given notice that he or she was subject to surveillance, unless the evidence obtained through the electronic surveillance is ultimately used against the target in a criminal trial.
11:22 AM | Comments (0) | Posted By Bob Cesca
