BULLETIN: MSNBC TV NEWS MANAGERS AND KEITH OLBERMANN CLASSIFIED INVERTEBRATES.
I watched all of MSNBC’s “Countdown with Keith Olbermann” last night, and quite a bit of “Scarborough Country”. Not one word was said about the big story of the day, which I quoted and discussed in my previous post.
Yesterday MSNBC online reported that the Democrats had eliminated from proposed legislation the requirement that Congress approve an attack on Iran before Bush could launch such a war. Politicians said that the reason for the elimination of any restraint on Bush was Israel’s fear of Iran. What could be a bigger story than that? “Democrats Clear Way for Bush Attack on Iran Due to Israeli Concerns”.
Please read the full story I posted yesterday if you haven’t. The big point now is that last night Olbermann/MSNBC TV avoided the most important story altogether and found the US Attorney General scandal so fascinating (even though no laws were broken) that virtually the entire hour-long program was filled with Attorney General Gonzales and the usual “celebrity” sewage.
It seems that every time I stray from my original announced aim in VIEW FROM THE MOON – to provide important facts that are missing from mainstream news coverage in the United States – events bring me back on track. It also seems that those events are almost always related to Israel and its supporters – whether it’s a Zionist Harvard law professor attacking Jimmy Carter for supporting Palestinian rights or the present case, in which the United States Congress, incredibly, has abdicated all responsibility for preventing Bush & Co. from starting a war with Iran.
If you think about it, this is one of the worst things that has happened in a long time. If our politicians are going to throw us to the war dogs for Israel’s sake, isn’t it time to analyze and ask questions?
First, why should “Israel’s fears of Iran” have any impact on the U.S. Congress at all? In case you haven’t looked lately, Pennsylvania, Florida, Maine, Iowa, and Arizona are on the North American continent, not in Palestine.
Second, Israeli concerns about Iran are childish anyway. Even if Iran does try to develop atomic weapons it would take at least ten and probably fifteen years to do so. Besides, Israel already has its own nuclear arsenal, as well as a much more powerful military than Iran, courtesy of the U.S.A. It's as if the United States were quaking and wringing its hands today because Gautemala began a nuclear power program.
Third, why would the Israeli Lobby strive so hard to eliminate the requirement of a congressional green light for a Bush attack on Iran if it weren’t to guarantee that widespread American public opposition to such an attack could find no expression in Washington? Bush can be trusted to start any war that Israel wants, but if congressional approval were required, there would be just a tiny chance that Congress would flash a red light. A tiny chance indeed, considering the Israel Lobby’s power over Congress, but perhaps a chance.
Democrats are still trying to lie their way out of the quicksand of their advance approval of the Iraq war. What possible excuse will they invent for having let Bush know that he has a free hand to attack Iran?
Showing posts with label Olbermann. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Olbermann. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 14, 2007
Monday, March 12, 2007
Antidote to "Pardon Libby" Headlines
If the concerted pleas for a presidential pardon for poor little “Scooter” Libby tug at your heartstrings, you need an antidote quickly. Read these interviews immediately and see your mental health care professional the next morning if you continue to feel any sympathy for Libby.
'Countdown with Keith Olbermann' March 6, 2007
FORMER ACTING U.S. AMBASSADOR TO IRAQ, JOSEPH WILSON
‘I think that the idea of a senior White House official [I. Lewis Libby] being convicted of obstruction of justice and perjury is something that ought to sadden everybody who believes in public service. The responsibility of a public servant to uphold and defend the Constitution is besmirched when they‘re convicted of crimes like this.
‘On the other hand, of course, I think it reconfirms that this is, in fact, a nation of laws, and that no man is above the law. And I think we can take some satisfaction that the Constitution has been defended by the prosecution, by the system of justice, and by the jury of peers that decided Mr. Libby‘s guilt today.
‘I think there‘s an implicit and explicit conflict of interest in the president exercising his pardon authority on behalf of somebody who worked for him.’
‘Whatever the last four or five years have been like for us [Ambassador Wilson and his wife, whose secret CIA status was exposed by her own government, primarily by Libby and Cheney] it‘s been mere inconvenience compared to what this administration has done to our service people and their families in the prosecution of a war that was justified on misinformation and lies, and was really undertaken not for the national security of the United States, but to prove an academic theory, which wasn‘t a very good academic theory at that.
[Comment by Fleming: Libby had a hand in creating the neocon “academic theory” of which Wilson speaks and Olbermann ignores. More about that in another post.]
WILSON CONTINUES: ‘And I would have appreciated the president acknowledging some sadness for the fate of his covert CIA officer [Ms. Wilson], who spent 20 years serving her country, many of those overseas, many of those in what‘s known as nonofficial cover, where she didn‘t even have the benefit of diplomatic protections if she‘d been picked up for espionage.
‘Yes, I would have welcomed that. But I would also welcome from the president of the United States some acknowledgement of what he‘s put our military through in the prosecution of this war in Iraq.
'Countdown with Keith Olbermann' March 9
JONATHAN TURLEY, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW PROFESSOR.
(Professor of Constitutional Law at The George Washington University Law School --
a nationally renowned legal scholar who has written extensively in areas ranging from constitutional law to legal theory.}
‘Lying under oath is the same creature, no matter what the subject is. As you know, I testified in Congress in support of the Clinton impeachment, even though I voted for him. I thought he should be impeached because he lied under oath. He wasn‘t impeached because he had an affair.
‘The same could be said about Scooter Libby. And it‘s very distressing to see some of the people that, frankly, were on that same side during impeachment coming to a different view.
‘You know, perjury, you lift your hand and you take an oath to God. When you go into a courtroom and you lie, and you‘re a high-level official, who either makes the laws or enforces them, our system treats that very, very harshly, because we must. You cannot have that, you can‘t tolerate that, in a system committed to the rule of law.
‘Well, I‘m not too sure how honorable a pardon would be for Scooter Libby. First of all, he doesn‘t meet the criteria and the guidelines for a pardon. This is a president who‘s always said he‘s gone by the book. Well, the book [the U.S. Justice Department pardon guidelines] says that you should wait five years after a conviction. It says it‘s much harder to get a pardon if you‘re a high-ranking official. And you have to accept guilt. All three of those go against Scooter Libby.
INTERVIEWER: . . . list of things that people have been pardoned for, everything from bank fraud to submitting false statements to federal housing administration, to one guy‘s sentence in ‘47 for possessing an unregistered whiskey still.
TURLEY: I agree with that one. But there are some offenses that are a lot more sort of dangerous for society than a whiskey still. And while people in this country seem to think perjury is a minor crime, it‘s not. In my view, it‘s one of the most serious crimes, because it undermines the entire legal system. That‘s why prosecutors hate it, because you can‘t have a legal system, particularly with high officials who engage in that conduct.
‘You can live with a few more whiskey stills, but it‘s much, much more difficult to live with high-ranking officials who lie under oath and get away with it. Prominent officials, public officials, generally get longer sentences, because they betray a public trust. And it‘s important to tell the public that we don‘t have two systems. There aren‘t untouchables in our system, even if you are Scooter Libby, and the next guy above you in the pay grade is the vice president of the United States.
INTERVIEWER: The pardon guidelines also say that for serious crimes such as breach of public trust, a, quote, “suitable length of time should elapse before granting the pardon in order to avoid undermining the conviction‘s deterrent effect.”
TURLEY: Well, you know, because this is a real problem with Scooter Libby, because if he waits the five years, he‘ll be out of jail, simply because he‘s likely to get, under the sentencing guidelines, between one and a half and three years. You‘re supposed to go to jail for some time to taste the penalty. But for Scooter Libby, he‘d have to be pardoned at some point before the president leaves office. And there are many people that say he should (INAUDIBLE) be pardoned right after sentencing. That would be almost unprecedented in our system, and it would send a very clear message.
‘In my view, it would be an great abuse of the pardon power, because he‘s accused of covering up, obstructing justice, to protect the administration. For the president to use his unique authority to give a pardon to such a person before jail, in my view, would be disgraceful.’
'Countdown with Keith Olbermann' March 6, 2007
FORMER ACTING U.S. AMBASSADOR TO IRAQ, JOSEPH WILSON
‘I think that the idea of a senior White House official [I. Lewis Libby] being convicted of obstruction of justice and perjury is something that ought to sadden everybody who believes in public service. The responsibility of a public servant to uphold and defend the Constitution is besmirched when they‘re convicted of crimes like this.
‘On the other hand, of course, I think it reconfirms that this is, in fact, a nation of laws, and that no man is above the law. And I think we can take some satisfaction that the Constitution has been defended by the prosecution, by the system of justice, and by the jury of peers that decided Mr. Libby‘s guilt today.
‘I think there‘s an implicit and explicit conflict of interest in the president exercising his pardon authority on behalf of somebody who worked for him.’
‘Whatever the last four or five years have been like for us [Ambassador Wilson and his wife, whose secret CIA status was exposed by her own government, primarily by Libby and Cheney] it‘s been mere inconvenience compared to what this administration has done to our service people and their families in the prosecution of a war that was justified on misinformation and lies, and was really undertaken not for the national security of the United States, but to prove an academic theory, which wasn‘t a very good academic theory at that.
[Comment by Fleming: Libby had a hand in creating the neocon “academic theory” of which Wilson speaks and Olbermann ignores. More about that in another post.]
WILSON CONTINUES: ‘And I would have appreciated the president acknowledging some sadness for the fate of his covert CIA officer [Ms. Wilson], who spent 20 years serving her country, many of those overseas, many of those in what‘s known as nonofficial cover, where she didn‘t even have the benefit of diplomatic protections if she‘d been picked up for espionage.
‘Yes, I would have welcomed that. But I would also welcome from the president of the United States some acknowledgement of what he‘s put our military through in the prosecution of this war in Iraq.
'Countdown with Keith Olbermann' March 9
JONATHAN TURLEY, CONSTITUTIONAL LAW PROFESSOR.
(Professor of Constitutional Law at The George Washington University Law School --
a nationally renowned legal scholar who has written extensively in areas ranging from constitutional law to legal theory.}
‘Lying under oath is the same creature, no matter what the subject is. As you know, I testified in Congress in support of the Clinton impeachment, even though I voted for him. I thought he should be impeached because he lied under oath. He wasn‘t impeached because he had an affair.
‘The same could be said about Scooter Libby. And it‘s very distressing to see some of the people that, frankly, were on that same side during impeachment coming to a different view.
‘You know, perjury, you lift your hand and you take an oath to God. When you go into a courtroom and you lie, and you‘re a high-level official, who either makes the laws or enforces them, our system treats that very, very harshly, because we must. You cannot have that, you can‘t tolerate that, in a system committed to the rule of law.
‘Well, I‘m not too sure how honorable a pardon would be for Scooter Libby. First of all, he doesn‘t meet the criteria and the guidelines for a pardon. This is a president who‘s always said he‘s gone by the book. Well, the book [the U.S. Justice Department pardon guidelines] says that you should wait five years after a conviction. It says it‘s much harder to get a pardon if you‘re a high-ranking official. And you have to accept guilt. All three of those go against Scooter Libby.
INTERVIEWER: . . . list of things that people have been pardoned for, everything from bank fraud to submitting false statements to federal housing administration, to one guy‘s sentence in ‘47 for possessing an unregistered whiskey still.
TURLEY: I agree with that one. But there are some offenses that are a lot more sort of dangerous for society than a whiskey still. And while people in this country seem to think perjury is a minor crime, it‘s not. In my view, it‘s one of the most serious crimes, because it undermines the entire legal system. That‘s why prosecutors hate it, because you can‘t have a legal system, particularly with high officials who engage in that conduct.
‘You can live with a few more whiskey stills, but it‘s much, much more difficult to live with high-ranking officials who lie under oath and get away with it. Prominent officials, public officials, generally get longer sentences, because they betray a public trust. And it‘s important to tell the public that we don‘t have two systems. There aren‘t untouchables in our system, even if you are Scooter Libby, and the next guy above you in the pay grade is the vice president of the United States.
INTERVIEWER: The pardon guidelines also say that for serious crimes such as breach of public trust, a, quote, “suitable length of time should elapse before granting the pardon in order to avoid undermining the conviction‘s deterrent effect.”
TURLEY: Well, you know, because this is a real problem with Scooter Libby, because if he waits the five years, he‘ll be out of jail, simply because he‘s likely to get, under the sentencing guidelines, between one and a half and three years. You‘re supposed to go to jail for some time to taste the penalty. But for Scooter Libby, he‘d have to be pardoned at some point before the president leaves office. And there are many people that say he should (INAUDIBLE) be pardoned right after sentencing. That would be almost unprecedented in our system, and it would send a very clear message.
‘In my view, it would be an great abuse of the pardon power, because he‘s accused of covering up, obstructing justice, to protect the administration. For the president to use his unique authority to give a pardon to such a person before jail, in my view, would be disgraceful.’
Wednesday, November 29, 2006
Omissions and Admissions
Missing in Inaction:
1. Space Tourist: On the first day of this blog I mentioned that the “Malaysia Star” reported that Anousheh Ansari, the first female space tourist, would appear on “CNN Future Summit: World in Motion” on November 23. I’ve searched for that program on CNN television but have not been able to find it – although if you Google the name of the show you’ll find that CNN promotes it. I’m all too aware that one person can’t follow as many things on television for the sake of this blog as I’d like to, and so I can easily miss things. If anyone reading this knows if the show has aired, and when and where, please post a Comment. Naturally my inability to find the program reinforced my belief that the U.S. media are trying to keep the attractive Iranian-born Anousheh from public view. Maybe “CNN Future Summit” can be seen only outside the Fifty States. Maybe it can be viewed only from the Moon.
2. Al Jazeera English TV: Shortly before this blog was born, Al Jazeera began its worldwide English television service. There is no better place to get an intelligent and professionally presented viewpoint different from U.S. news coverage – which explains why Al Jazeera English, with its Middle Eastern perspective, can be easily seen almost everywhere except in the U.S., where as of last report all cable or satellite television providers had refused to carry it. I had to subscribe to VDC in order to watch it. Thank you, VDC.
Admission in Action:
I was impressed with an admission I heard on “Countdown with Keith Olbermann” on Nov. 27, 2006. Mr. Olbermann was discussing the new label for the Iraq war, “civil war”. Speaking of media companies which had not yet adopted the term, he asked, “Do you not have to just let enough time pass, and then adopt the language, ‘civil war’ too, or you wind up looking like shills for the government?”
CRAIG CRAWFORD (MSNBC and “Congressional Quarterly”): “I think so. I mean, at some point. Someone argued the mainstream media‘s been very slow at doing this. But they bent over backwards for a long time to try to give the administration its due in how they wanted things characterized. And, you know, even on things like the “coalition”, calling it a coalition instead of U.S. forces in Iraq. You know, there are so many, so many things (INAUDIBLE) the media‘s tried to do to give the administration what they wanted, and I think now it‘s just changing, and it‘s long overdue. At some point, you know, the media has to remember, we serve the, you know, the reading and viewing public, and not the politicians.“
Isn’t that remarkable? An insider points out that the mainstream media bend over backwards to use the slanted terms the government wants them to use, and “to give the administration what they wanted”. I was taught that an independent free press was an essential pillar of democracy, but here we hear of media which lick the boots of the politicians rather than honestly serving the reading and viewing public.
How did we arrive at a government controlled press? What leverage does the Bush or any other administration have on reporters and editors to make them more interested in pleasing the politicians than in being truthful?
The answer would be very easy if we were talking specifically about pleasing the Israel Lobby or the Holocaust Industry. Any journalist who goes up against them is butting heads with the equivalent of the Mafia, a bigger and richer Mafia, and knows in advance whose head will get cracked. On the other hand, if he glorifies Israel and piously promotes the Holocaust Industry he’ll not only keep his job but also receive public praise and awards from various Jewish groups, and perhaps retire with the honorary title, “dean” of something.
Of course the government in Washington mirrors the Israel Lobby, but it isn’t in the Lobby’s vital interests to maintain a particular label for the war they instigated now that they’ve achieved the crushed Iraq they wanted. So the general question remains, “Why should journalists want to please the politicians?”
At the moment I have only my own common sense answer: A lot of “news” emanates from a presidential administration and politicians generally. If a journalist is in the good graces of the administration, doors open, audiences and interviews are granted, leaks are made available. A reporter who angers a president may not get her name called at a press conference, or may not even get into the press conference. If a compliant journalist like Barbara Walters or Larry King wants to interview a Secretary of State or the First Lady they will stand a much better chance than a reporter who has made himself an outspoken nuisance to the administration.
If the politicians approve of you, and you use the terminology they like, you will make money, money, money. Take a different tack, and you may wish you still worked in the mail room.
1. Space Tourist: On the first day of this blog I mentioned that the “Malaysia Star” reported that Anousheh Ansari, the first female space tourist, would appear on “CNN Future Summit: World in Motion” on November 23. I’ve searched for that program on CNN television but have not been able to find it – although if you Google the name of the show you’ll find that CNN promotes it. I’m all too aware that one person can’t follow as many things on television for the sake of this blog as I’d like to, and so I can easily miss things. If anyone reading this knows if the show has aired, and when and where, please post a Comment. Naturally my inability to find the program reinforced my belief that the U.S. media are trying to keep the attractive Iranian-born Anousheh from public view. Maybe “CNN Future Summit” can be seen only outside the Fifty States. Maybe it can be viewed only from the Moon.
2. Al Jazeera English TV: Shortly before this blog was born, Al Jazeera began its worldwide English television service. There is no better place to get an intelligent and professionally presented viewpoint different from U.S. news coverage – which explains why Al Jazeera English, with its Middle Eastern perspective, can be easily seen almost everywhere except in the U.S., where as of last report all cable or satellite television providers had refused to carry it. I had to subscribe to VDC in order to watch it. Thank you, VDC.
Admission in Action:
I was impressed with an admission I heard on “Countdown with Keith Olbermann” on Nov. 27, 2006. Mr. Olbermann was discussing the new label for the Iraq war, “civil war”. Speaking of media companies which had not yet adopted the term, he asked, “Do you not have to just let enough time pass, and then adopt the language, ‘civil war’ too, or you wind up looking like shills for the government?”
CRAIG CRAWFORD (MSNBC and “Congressional Quarterly”): “I think so. I mean, at some point. Someone argued the mainstream media‘s been very slow at doing this. But they bent over backwards for a long time to try to give the administration its due in how they wanted things characterized. And, you know, even on things like the “coalition”, calling it a coalition instead of U.S. forces in Iraq. You know, there are so many, so many things (INAUDIBLE) the media‘s tried to do to give the administration what they wanted, and I think now it‘s just changing, and it‘s long overdue. At some point, you know, the media has to remember, we serve the, you know, the reading and viewing public, and not the politicians.“
Isn’t that remarkable? An insider points out that the mainstream media bend over backwards to use the slanted terms the government wants them to use, and “to give the administration what they wanted”. I was taught that an independent free press was an essential pillar of democracy, but here we hear of media which lick the boots of the politicians rather than honestly serving the reading and viewing public.
How did we arrive at a government controlled press? What leverage does the Bush or any other administration have on reporters and editors to make them more interested in pleasing the politicians than in being truthful?
The answer would be very easy if we were talking specifically about pleasing the Israel Lobby or the Holocaust Industry. Any journalist who goes up against them is butting heads with the equivalent of the Mafia, a bigger and richer Mafia, and knows in advance whose head will get cracked. On the other hand, if he glorifies Israel and piously promotes the Holocaust Industry he’ll not only keep his job but also receive public praise and awards from various Jewish groups, and perhaps retire with the honorary title, “dean” of something.
Of course the government in Washington mirrors the Israel Lobby, but it isn’t in the Lobby’s vital interests to maintain a particular label for the war they instigated now that they’ve achieved the crushed Iraq they wanted. So the general question remains, “Why should journalists want to please the politicians?”
At the moment I have only my own common sense answer: A lot of “news” emanates from a presidential administration and politicians generally. If a journalist is in the good graces of the administration, doors open, audiences and interviews are granted, leaks are made available. A reporter who angers a president may not get her name called at a press conference, or may not even get into the press conference. If a compliant journalist like Barbara Walters or Larry King wants to interview a Secretary of State or the First Lady they will stand a much better chance than a reporter who has made himself an outspoken nuisance to the administration.
If the politicians approve of you, and you use the terminology they like, you will make money, money, money. Take a different tack, and you may wish you still worked in the mail room.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)