A tribute to Condoleeza Rice and George W. Bush who, despite voluminious evidence to the contrary, said, "I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon, that they would try to use an airplane as a missile," adding that "even in retrospect" there was "nothing" to suggest that" and "I don't think anyone anticipated the breach of the levees," respectively.

Monday, January 31, 2005

Quid Pro Quo (Scroll Down)


By now, you've seen the pictures of Iraqis dancing in the streets or at least have heard that reported; there must be at least 20 people in the picture I saw. Defying the "terrorists," they voted and dipped their fingers in ink. Amazingly, I can't seem to find any pictures of the throngs who were "dancing in the streets." Perhaps the "throngs" were another example of "differential framing" which makes a crowd appear much larger than it actually is.

By now, you've also heard the word "historic" by those in media hyping the success of the election. One can only hope that this debacle will end soon and our troops can return home to their families. But, it's been the practice of this administration to "stage" feel good stories. The toppling of Saddam's statue, shown above, is a prime example.

Are we getting the truth this time or just another propaganda piece to influence our perceptions?

There's a reason why there is no exit strategy; there's no plan to leave. Otherwise, why build the largest embassy in the world and 14 permanent military bases?

Local Clear Channel talk jocks are promoting the idea that if you're not elated about the Iraqi election or question its "historic" importance, you must really hate George Bush. I guess they're the kind of people who are so blinded by political partisanship that they believe others lose all objectivity as they do.


The American Politics Journal offers an invaluable free service called “Pundit Pap” where they review the Sunday talk shows and offer biting commentary. You can sign up for free at http://www.americanpolitics.com/

I tried to watch "This Week" yesterday, but the first segment had CONdi and the roundtable had the insufferable Cokie Roberts. Displaying true balance, the roundtable included George Will, master of the obscure and irrelevant historical reference, and Cokie Roberts, who could do us all a favor by staying in retirement.

Sunday, January 30, 2005

In the spirit of rewarding abject failure, I am going to give my hair stylist a cash bonus of $10,000. It's not her fault that my head looks phallic from behind. Anyone seen my integrity. Maybe it's with the 9 billion dollars pretty-boy Bremer lost. I wonder how he'll be rewarded for that! Posted by Hello

Dick Cheney to discuss the "Ownership Society" Rules of Acquisition under the Crony Capitalism economic system. Posted by Hello
QUID PRO QUO: Talon News and the White House


See http://www.talonnews.com/
See www.mediamatters.org

I am sure this is just a coincidence but one of the “Talon News Team” wrote the following article about John Kerry in October which villified Kerry by calling him a "traitor" without any pretense of objectivity. If this isn’t a cut and paste job from some Swiftboat Liars for War Profiteers piece, I’d really be surprised. Reputable news organizations had already proven that the SLWP attacks were blatantly false, but here it is in print from a part of the Talon News Team.

I have to conclude that access is a quid pro quo from Rove to Talon News. Seriously, the White House press corp. is a fairly exclusive club and it must really grate them to have a clown like Jeff Gannon in their midst; someone who completed an “intensive” two day seminar and calls it “graduating.” The “intensive” part cracks me up...

(Begin Article)
The Barbarian And The Traitor

October 4, 2004

By Doug Patton (Talon News Team Member)
Graphic video showing evil Islamist monsters beheading innocent human beings, most of them Americans, is readily available on the Internet. My best friend won’t watch it. My wife can’t even stand to hear me describe it. I understand why they feel the way they do, but I make it a point to watch each and every one of these barbaric executions.

When Daniel Pearl, the young Jewish journalist, was kidnapped and murdered, his death was accomplished with what appeared to be a razor-sharp scimitar. It was quick, and I imagine he suffered very little.

That is not the modus operandi of Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi, the self-appointed executioner who now operates in Iraq, personally carrying out deeds Osama bin Laden only experiences vicariously through the acts of others. Al-Zarqawi likes to maximize his inflicted terror — for both victim and viewer — by using what appears to be a relatively dull butcher knife.
The video of al-Zarqawi’s latest cold-blooded murder is the most graphic thing I have ever seen. It is a stomach-wrenching sight I will refrain from describing in detail.

Why do I subject myself to images of such vicious cruelty? Because I want my anger to remain white hot toward the vermin who would do such things to innocent people. I want to be aware that every Islamic terrorist in the world would like to do to every man, woman and child in America what al-Zarqawi did to Nick Berg, Paul Johnson and Eugene Armstrong.

Now, along with all his other ridiculous accusations, John Kerry chooses to blame George W. Bush for these beheadings. Having failed to get traction on any other issue, John Kerry has settled on a plan to use America’s war on terrorists in Iraq to play on the fears and emotions of voters. With James Carville, Paul Begala and other Clinton hatchet men now in full control, the Kerry campaign hit a desperate new low last week with demeaning remarks toward Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi immediately following his historic address to a joint session of Congress (which neither Kerry nor his running mate, both members of the U.S. Senate, bothered to attend).

The same John Kerry who keeps telling us he has a plan to get our estranged allies involved in Iraq cannot even act respectfully toward a courageous Iraqi patriot struggling to bring democracy to his embattled nation after decades of tyranny.

The same John Kerry, who served four months in Vietnam, coming home with three purple hearts for superficial wounds, now belittles the president’s service in the National Guard, thereby demeaning the service of 100,000-plus Guard and Reserve troops now serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The same John Kerry who betrayed the men with whom he served, publicly calling them war criminals, traveled to Paris while still a member of the Navy Reserves and met with the enemy while Americans were still dying on the battlefield and suffering torture in North Vietnamese prison camps.

The same John Kerry who threw away the medals awarded to him by a grateful nation now wants us to believe he is a war hero.

The same John Kerry who spent twenty years in the United States Senate doing all in his power to erode the security of America now asks to be the Commander-in-Chief of its Armed Forces.

And the same John Kerry who admitted to personally committing atrocities in Vietnam is now running sleazy, self-serving campaign commercials blaming the beheading of innocent Americans not on Islamic terrorists who commit such vile acts but rather on — you guessed it — George W. Bush.

The contempt I feel toward John Kerry is not quite as great as the revulsion I feel toward Abu Mussab al-Zarqawi, but it is close. Al-Zarqawi is a barbarian. Kerry is a traitor. I tremble for my country as I contemplate which is worse.
(End Article)

Payola, propaganda backdrops, fake news stories, fabricated stories about Jessica Lynch and Pat Tillman, staged events like the toppling of the statue, the carrier landing and the Thanksgiving breakfast and the think tank circle jerk are all interrelated. Seriously, this shaky house of cards built on a foundation of lies, character assassination, and deception has got to be about to collapse from its own weight!!
This is another example of the tangled web that the right-wing has developed to gain and keep power and to keep the public misinformed.

Thursday, January 27, 2005


Professional Training: An intense two-day seminar, the Broadcast Journalism School... (See Below)

(Did Bush call on him knowing he’d get a bailout question? Explain why he wasn’t interrupted during his question like so many of the other reporters. I have to conclude that this guy is a planted shill and that the CIC went into hiding behind Gannon’s partisan question.)

Take one look at Talon News’ website and you’ll see that it’s just a rudimentary website with links to other right-wing websites. Are they even a news organization?

If you don’t know by now, Jeff Gannon asked the following question at the recent Presidential lie fest:

Q. Thank you. Senate Democrats have painted a very bleak picture of the U.S. economy. Harry Reid was talking about soup lines and Hillary Clinton was talking about the economy being on the verge of collapse. Yet, in the same breath, they say that Social Security is rock-solid and there’s no crisis there. How are you going to work – you said you’re going to reach out to these people – how are you going to work with people who seem to have divorced themselves from reality?

Rush Limbaugh questioned the accuracy of the statements within the question. Limbaugh contends Reid never said "soup lines" and Gannon must have gotten it from listening to Rush's radio show. Nice vetting, dildo. BTW, Gannon is a major critic of CBS and routinely refers to the disputed memos as fakes or fraudulent like a good, little whore.

Limbaugh bragged that his show inspired Talon News "reporter's" erroneous question to Bush


Jeff Gannon’s Resume as seen at the Talon News website:

Jeff GannonWashington Bureau Chief

Jeff lives on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC and covers the White House for Talon News. He writes a syndicated column, "Jeff Gannon's Washington," that appears on his website: www.jeffgannon.com.

He is a frequent guest on talk radio appearing on nationally syndicated and local shows.

Jeff is a graduate of the Pennsylvania State University System and holds a Bachelor of Science in Education. He is also a graduate of the Leadership Institute Broadcast School of Journalism.


Sounds impressive. Here is the course description from which he graduated. Looks to me like a friggin two day, $50 seminar and this asshole lists it as one of his major professional accomplishments.

The Broadcast Journalism School is a one-stop, full-service seminar for conservatives who want a career in journalism. You'll learn information you won't receive anywhere else and get personalized advice from our expert faculty:

Learn how to find good internships and make the most of them

Gain networking skills to help you land your job and increase your effectiveness

Develop a top-notch resume and learn how to make yourself stand out in an interview

Learn a proven, step-by-step job hunting strategy and much more
An intense two-day seminar, the Broadcast Journalism School is designed to give aspiring journalists the skills necessary to bring balance to the media and succeed in this highly competitive field.

For $50, you'll receive two days of instruction, meals on Saturday and Sunday and all course materials. Limited free housing is available on a first-come, first-served basis.


BTW, this is how they promote themselves: “Talon News is your source for unbiased news coverage and no-spin reporting.”

So, this guy has no credentials other than his perverted, right-wing viewpoint yet he is part of the White House press corps and is routinely called upon by Scott McClellan. Bush calls upon him during a “rare” press conference when there are real journalists there with real questions.

This propaganda machine is very, very scary!


Wednesday, January 26, 2005

LET ME FINISH!! A courtesy I don't intend is mutual.

Wow, what a performance. I don't have a "freedom" count, but it has to be in double digits. Anyway, I did notice that at least two questions were carefully worded in a way to denounce Reid, H. Clinton and Kennedy.

Oddly enough, these two "reporters" were called upon and were not interrupted during their questions like so many of the others were. So, who were they and who do they work for? I see the hand of Rove in the posing of their questions.

As usual, this was a difficult exercise to watch as GWB had some difficulty controlling his emotions and demanded that questions be in a "orderly" fashion. Also, true to form, many questions posed went unanswered.Posted by Hello

Here are the questions. You decide whether they are planted or reflect a biased, politcal viewpoint.


Q Thank you. Senate Democratic leaders have painted a very bleak picture of the U.S. economy. Harry Reid was talking about soup lines, and Hillary Clinton was talking about the economy being on the verge of collapse. Yet, in the same breath, they say that Social Security is rock-solid and there's no crisis there. How are you going to work -- you said you're going to reach out to these people -- how are you going to work with people who seem to have divorced themselves from reality?

Q Mr. President, Senator Ted Kennedy recently repeated his characterization of Iraq as a "quagmire" and has called it your Vietnam. And the questioning of Alberto Gonzales and Condi Rice in the Senate has been largely used by Democrats to criticize your entire Iraq program, especially what you're trying to do postwar. I wonder if you have any response to those criticisms. And what kind of an effect do you think these statements have on the morale of our troops and on the confidence of the Iraqi people that what you're trying to do over there is going to succeed?

NOTE: The White House transcript does not identify those posing these questions even though they have to know who they are. One has to wonder if this a personal agenda of the reporters or are they getting a stipend from some "Department." Also, I don't recall anyone saying SS was rock-solid, but they did question the "crisis" nature of the problem. Really, who were these reporters?

Update: Media Matters identifies one of the posers:


Monday, January 24, 2005

Donald Rumsfeld reprises his role as the evil Nazi Major Toht in the movie Raiders of the Lost Ark. Posted by Hello

Sunday, January 23, 2005


Barbara, Jeb, Jenna and Laura display inappropriate emotions when learning about the family shot up at an Iraqi checkpoint. Posted by Hello

Saturday, January 22, 2005

Why yes, I am a consummate liar! To suggest otherwise is to not recognize the intellect it takes to keep all the lies straight. So there, Barbara, you left-coast elitist. Sure, I pretty much FUBARed the office of NSC, but what the heck, I can play the piano and ice skate. And yes, I can lie in four languages. Posted by Hello

Friday, January 21, 2005

The time for diplomacy is now unless of course you're talking about going to war with Iran!

Even I can't believe I'm not in jail... Posted by Hello
Hey Nightline, Thanks for Nothing

According to Ted Koppel, Nightline has been receiving numerous communications since the November election suggesting that an investigation of voting irregularities should be initiated by Nightline. So, to answer their critics, Nightline purported to do just that last night.

I must say, they have managed to bring new meaning to the word “superficial.” The conclusion of a couple of pollster basically boils down to “more Kerry voters responded to polltakers than Bush voters.” Wow! Could the answer be any more simple or any less impossible to verify?

The main question that Nightline elected to ignore is the charge that there was a direct correlation between the voting apparatus employed with an auditable paper trail and the reported discrepancy between the poll numbers and the vote count, This is the crux of the issue because if true, it is difficult to explain away. Of course, no mention of this particular issue made its way into the report.

For half the program, Koppel interviewed Cokie Roberts and some guy whose name I didn’t catch, purportedly to talk about the election. Naturally, they talked about past times when elections actually were stolen, like say in 1960. We even heard talk about Richard Daley in Chicago influencing or stealing the vote. Exactly how any of this “history” was relevant to the widespread problems in Ohio is beyond reason.

Curiously omitted was any discussion about the election of 2000 which Bush won with 56% of the vote. You know, 5 out of 9.

A side note to ABC: Please let Cokie enjoy her retirement and stop putting her to work. I still remember her outrage about Clinton’s staff trashing their office and of stealing from Air Force One. Did she ever apologize when those charges were found to be false. Where was her outrage with Ari Fleischer who allowed the charges to fester when he had to know the truth. She’s just another GOP talking headache.

So anyway, thanks for nothing, Ted!

Thursday, January 20, 2005

Don't Impugn My Character, That's My Job Posted by Hello

On second thought, he probably applauds it when it serves his purpose. Anyway, why these fools in the Senate, especially Diane Feinstein, go on about how qualified Rice is and how well she’s performed as the National Security Advisor. The worst attack since Pearl Harbor occurred on her watch. Oops! Her testimony before the 9/11 Commission with her arrogance and obvious plan to “run out the clock” was disturbing. She speaks about how and what Bush thinks as if she’s channeling his thoughts, or perhaps just providing them. Her credibility has been completely shredded.

Okay, so now she’s going to be Secretary of State. Now we’re going to use diplomacy. My guess is that the administration’s idea of diplomacy is to use more bribes and less coercion when trying to form a coalition. Or perhaps there will be less emphasis on punitive actions against our traditional allies.

In the confirmation hearings yesterday, Barbara Boxer leveled some shots squarely at Condi’s veracity and hit the target dead center. In one part of the exchange, Rice continued with the refrain that Saddam did not account for his weapons.

That was the context that frankly made us awfully suspicious when he refused to account for his weapons-of-mass-destruction programs despite repeated Security Council resolutions and despite the fact that he was given one last chance to comply with Resolution 1441.

However, before the war, Iraq had produced a 12,000 page report that has never, as far as I know, seen the light of day. In fact, 8000 pages were redacted by the White House. So, we only have their word for it that Saddam did not provide a credible declaration.

From CNN Article:

A top Iraqi official has challenged the United States and Britain to refute Baghdad's declaration of its weapons programs, saying the report is accurate "as they have asked for."

The declaration was issued to U.N. inspectors in Baghdad Saturday. A complete copy of the nearly 12,000-page report was packed in two black suitcases and sent to the United Nations in New York along with a partial copy for UNMOVIC. A second, partial report was packed in a green suitcase and sent to the IAEA in Vienna.

U.S. and British officials say Iraq is violating U.N. resolutions requiring it to give up weapons of mass destruction. Iraq has denied the allegations.
"If they have anything to the contrary, let them forthwith come up with it. Give it to the IAEA, give it to UNMOVIC," said Gen. Amer al-Saadi, the Iraqi government's science adviser, referring to the U.N. agencies conducting weapons inspections.

But U.S. intelligence officials expressed deep skepticism about the Iraqi weapons declaration, saying the United States has its own "clear evidence" that Iraq has an extensive weapons program.

A Bush administration official said Saturday the United States will provide some intelligence information to U.N. inspection teams following Iraq's submission. If so, al-Saadi said, "They should come up with it forthwith. The sooner they do it, the better it is for all concerned."

The Bush administration has threatened to use force to disarm Iraq if it does not comply with U.N. weapons inspectors. If Baghdad's declaration is found to include false information or omit pertinent information, it may constitute a "material breach" of the U.N. resolution sending inspectors back to Iraq.

Circle Jerk

So let me get this straight. We had faulty intelligence about Iraq’s WMD capability. We use the faulty intelligence to challenge the credibility and completeness of the Iraqi Weapons Declaration. We then claim Saddam has failed to account for the WMD after redacting 2/3 of information and is therefore not in compliance with the UN Resolutions. Off to war we go.

Now Rice stands before the Senate and says Saddam did not account for his weapons.

Transcript of Testimony

CNN Article

Wednesday, January 19, 2005


Having watched Condoleeza Rice lie so often and display her uncanny ability to channel the thoughts of gwb, I thought I would revisit some of the claims made about WMD and the intelligence used to justify an invasion of a sovereign nation without provocation. This woman is absolutely disgusting. Now is the time for diplomacy, she said today. Good call, bitch! Where were you when we needed you to promote diplomacy over military action? Anyway, here's what the perennial failure had to say in July '03:

"I think the intelligence I get is darn good intelligence, and the speeches I have given were backed by good intelligence," Bush said. "And I am absolutely confident today, like I was when I gave the speeches, that Saddam Hussein developed a program of weapons of mass destruction."

"The larger point is and the fundamental question is, 'Did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program?' And the answer is, 'Absolutely,' " Bush told reporters after a meeting with U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan.

Now, it’s the everybody thought he had the weapons so don’t blame me for making such a gawd-awful blunder by invading Iraq defense. Truly, if this guy was employed in any sort of professional capacity, the trial lawyers would be on his ass for negligence. As an example, suppose a surgeon ordered x-rays before performing surgery to remove a tumor. The x-rays were inconclusive if there even was a tumor but the doctor performed the surgery anyway without ordering a new set of x-rays or additional diagnostic tests. Assume further, that the patient died. Do you think there’s any jury in the land that would not find the doctor guilty of professional negligence or malpractice? So why does the Boy Blunder get away with it. Perhaps some enterprising lawyer can commence a civil suit for malpractice on the Bush Administration.

Damn Good Intelligence and Damn Piss Poor Reporting by CNN



Compare these two articles and you’ll find that CNN neglected to put to print this obviously false statement:

[Defending the broader decision to go to war with Iraq, the president said the decision was made after he gave Saddam Hussein "a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in."]

One has to wonder why CNN elected to not print a blatantly false statement made by the leader of the free world. How can we trust any mainstream media when they won’t tell the whole truth. This is dishonest and par for the course when keeping negative information from reaching the public.

Monday, January 17, 2005


One would think not since he’s NBC’s Chief Political Correspondent. However, his recent appearance on the Chris Matthews Show and the following quote make me wonder:

“Were Dan Rather and Mary Mapes after the truth or victory when they broadcast their egregiously sloppy story about Bush's National Guard Service? The moment it made air it began to fall apart, and eventually was shredded by factions within the AMMP itself, conservative national outlets and by the new opposition party that is emerging: The Blogger Nation. It's hard to know now who, if anyone, in the "media" has any credibility.” I hope he includes himself in this denunciation.

Was the story actually shredded or was there a collective, illogical jump from the disputed documents, which were collateral to the overall issue, and discounting the veracity of the story as a whole? Apparently, this is the conventional wisdom these days.

Paraphrasing from the recent Chris Matthew Show, Fineman said that because of technology and the internet, bloggers were able to, within in hours of the broadcast of the Bush National Guard story, sense that the documents were forgeries.

Should I say it again that the documents have not been proven to be authentic or forgeries and there are opinions going both ways? Why can’t Fineman see that the nearly immediate challenge to the documents should raise red flags since the bloggers were able to look at a scanned copy of a photocopy displayed on a computer screen and immediately sense they were forgeries. Not only did they sense it, they had complicated analysis about font, proportional spacing and available typewriter characters to bolster what they “sensed.” Experts state that without the original document for inspection, authenticity is nearly impossible to determine. Here, they used a scanned copy of a photocopy on a computer screen or printed on their home computer. Seems to be 3 copies removed from the original yet they "sensed" they were fake. Someone should have hired these guys to look into the Niger document and the photos Powell used during his UN prevarication.

Of course, if they’ve all agreed to call them fakes, I guess there’s not much we can do about it. Since the media blackout of the Ohio recount, there seems to be a tacit agreement amongst the media about certain stories.

BTW, why does the media give so much credence to reports from commissions? As with the 9/11 Commission, the commission designated to investigate the CBS pseudo-scandal comes up with a conclusion that no one bothers to question and treats it as gospel.

Protecting the Royal Family in these here United States

The Bush Rule of Journalism
By Robert Parry
January 17, 2005


This is an excellent article which I recommend reading. Consortium News continues to be a premiere site for news.

Sunday, January 16, 2005


Is the Armstrong Williams payola scandal an isolated incident or just the tip of the viceberg in a well-orchestrated pattern of deception?


We Need Better Friends

Dateline NBC reported that during the 1980’s the U.S. government ignored the activities of A.Q. Kahn because of its focus on the Soviet Union and the proxy-war in Afghanistan.
Who was President during the 1980’s? Who was the Secretary of Defense? Who was Secretary of State?


Fake News:

Because many countries cannot afford to devote so much of their wealth to their military, they have concluded that a way to diminish the threat of invasion from a foreign power is to discontinue all oil exploration activities.

When asked by Barbara Walters whether the Iraq war was worth it, President Bush responded, “Sure it was worth. Other than a drop in the polls, so far, it hasn’t cost me a thing I care about!”

When asked to comment about Prince Harry’s recent faux pas of wearing a Nazi uniform to a party, Mr. Bush said that his staff had reviewed the incident to formulate a response, but probably would not award him any sort of medal.

Saturday, January 15, 2005


Henry Waxman has requested an investigation into the use of covert propaganda by various agencies of the Bush Administration.


In addition to the use of fake news stories and the payment of payola to promote NCLB, there is the little matter of the rating system devised to evaluate various newspapers and their articles on NCLB determining whether reportage was positive, negative or somewhere in between. One has to wonder what the purpose of this rating system was. Was it to reward those that fell in line or to somehow punish those that did not.

What I’d like to see is how the government’s procurement of advertising in various media breaks down. For instance, does Faux get more revenue from the DOD than say CBS. How do Clear Channel and Sinclair Broadcasting fair in the so-called free market when it comes to advertising revenue derived from government agencies? Does the administration practice economic retribution? We are all painfully aware how detractors are dealt with and loyal incompetence is rewarded. There’s really no reason not to suspect that this practice is far more widespread.

Wednesday, January 12, 2005


Because their incompetence killed the story, that’s why! Now all the right-wing blowhards are claiming that CBS tried to slander a sitting president [sic] as if the disputed documents were the only evidence about gwb’s time in the TANG and how he happened to get there. They contend the substance of the documents now carries the taint from questions about the legitimacy of the documents themselves, a matter which is still disputed.

As any first year law student can tell you, the truth is an absolute defense to a claim of slander. Perhaps someone with the investigative resources of a major network should finally lay all the questions to rest (holding your breath is ill-advised). We still have disputed facts but no main stream media outlet will touch it.

For Katie Couric. The next time you want to lecture Michael Moore about showing more respect for gwb because he called him “Gilligan,” remember that he didn’t accuse gwb of killing Vince Foster or purposefully selling missile secrets to the Chinese.

The media double-standard and moral relativism is metastasizing in our political discourse.

Monday, January 10, 2005


Amazingly, no matter what sort of chicanery the Bush administration indulges in and gets caught, somebody, somewhere will attempt to mitigate and defend by invoking the Clinton Defense.

The recent escapade, which now comes to light about our government using our money to promote gwb’s image with the Black community is no exception.

For example, Byron York from the National Review on Meet the Press this last Sunday.

But, you know, The New York Times actually quoted the head of Medialink which is the company that does a lot of these video news releases, saying, you know, "The Clinton administration did more of this." This is something that's been going on for quite a while. And you can argue back and forth whether it's an appropriate expenditure of taxpayer funds, but the key question with the video news releases is you've got to know in the actual product, in this story, this was something produced and paid for by the government.

For example, this sorry bit of “well he did it too” from the New York Times

"The Clinton administration was probably even more active than the Bush administration" in distributing news segments promoting its policies, said Laurence Moskowitz, chairman and chief executive of Medialink, a major producer of promotional news segments. After the Government Accountability Office decision last spring, he said, his firm began advising government clients to disclose each tape's nature in its script.

How about an example to prove your assertion, dimwit?

How about not equating the production of “news segments” with cash payments tantamount to payola?

How about just once not providing weasel room for gwb and his minions when they're caught red-handed?

So, we’re to believe that the Republican hit squads in the media and in Congress would have not screamed to high heaven if Clinton had pulled this sort of trick. Give John Stossel a break!

Sunday, January 09, 2005

Just Another Coincidence I suppose!

Armstrong Williams paid to promote No Child Left Behind with the black community during 2004.

Just a coincidence that 2004 is an election year.

Just a coincidence that the target of this electioneering were Black Americans, a traditional constituency of the Democratic Party.

Just a coincidence that promoting NCLB just happens to suggest an accomplishment of the Bush Administration which benefits the Black community.

If this wasn’t electioneering at the taxpayer’s expense, I don’t know what is! Of course, the pundits claim it was government propaganda, but this law had already been passed and partially implemented. The only conceivable reason to promote NCLB was to aid gwb in his bid to be elected by taking votes away from his Democratic opponent.


U.S Nuclear Submarine Runs Aground

HONOLULU Jan 8, 2005 — A nuclear submarine ran aground about 350 miles south of Guam, injuring several sailors, one of them critically, the Navy said.

When reached for comment, Scott McClellan, White House spokesman said that the matter was under investigation but unlike the sinking of the Ehime Maru by the USS Greenville, no major Bush or GOP contributors were at the controls at the time of the accident.

Armstrong Williams Paid by Bush Administration to Promote NCLB

Armstrong Williams, admitted that he was paid $240,000 to promote the No Child Left Behind program by the Department of Education. This is by far one of the most egregious examples of current GOP propaganda revealed to date, but it is just part of a pattern of self-promotion at taxpayer expense. Further, are we to assume that Williams was the only pundit to sacrifice his integrity for a cash payment or are there others?

The favorable, paid commentary by Williams to directly promote NCLB also has the effect of indirectly promoting gwb and the history of use of taxpayer money to promote the Bush administration is long and varied.

The Bush administration and the executive agencies have demonstrated a pattern of shameless promotion of gwb and his agenda at our expense.

For example:

  • We paid for all the propaganda backdrops including the “Mission Accomplished” banner.

  • We paid for the billion dollar bribe to churches through “faith based initiatives.”

  • We paid for the Top Gun stunt on the USS Lincoln.

  • We paid for the Thanksgiving breakfast in Iraq.

  • We paid the travel expenses when gwb and dick were campaigning and fundraising but managed to combine it with some “official duty.”

  • We paid for the illegal commercials masquerading as news segments touting the Medicare Prescription Drug Program.

The $240,000 is a drop in the bucket compared to all the other expenditures with which the American taxpayer has been saddled in partisan promotion.

Saturday, January 08, 2005


Legal Disclaimer: This is an opinion based blog and its original content are commentary. Any references or links to outside sources have been used in the good faith belief that the information contained therein is not knowingly false or malicious. Accordingly, using Sinclair’s line of reasoning, I am free to say anything I damn-well please.

The right to free speech represents an integral part of the foundation upon which the United States of America was built. The chief complaint of the organizations which have targeted Sinclair is the nightly presentation of an editorial called "The Point." This section of the news is clearly labeled as opinion and represents nothing more than the legal exercise by Sinclair of its First Amendment right to broadcast commentary both within and outside its newscasts. Contrary to the impression being provided by those complaining about Sinclair's programming, in no way does Sinclair attempt to disguise opinion as news.

How about Sinclair’s attempt to disguise questionable facts, propaganda and promotion of the a radical right-wing agenda as opinion?

Sinclair Broadcasting says that it will use intimidation to keep American citizens from exercising their First Amendment rights under the guise of protecting their own. As a public relations move, this is brilliant (not). I wonder how their shareholders will react to the negative press that will be generated by their lawsuits against ordinary citizens expressing a point of view.

Moreover, the continued misrepresentation of the facts surrounding any company's advertising practices regarding Sinclair stations constitutes "trade defamation" which would entitle Sinclair to seek damages in a court of law. Sinclair will aggressively pursue any organization or any individual which engages in such defamation, including individuals who lend their names to mass e-mail campaigns spreading such misinformation.

Apparently, irony is lost on Sinclair since they plan to file frivolous lawsuits against organizations and individuals that target Sinclair’s advertisers. I guess there’s some use for “trial lawyers” after all.

I will fight for my right of free speech even if it means defending against an unethical corporation such as Sinclair in a court of law. The airways are public, not private. Their use of our airways is licensed. Don’t assume their will always be a Michael Powell at the FCC to protect your sorry asses. Further, there are legal remedies which a defendant can avail himself in the event a frivolous, malicious, venal lawsuit is commenced.

Blatant Hypocrisy

We express our appreciation to all of our advertisers who have not been swayed by the actions of a few people who want to stifle the legal presentation of different points of views.

It’s okay then to stifle legal presentation of different points of views with the threat of lawsuits for defamation and/or trade libel.

We Will Fight Back!

Any attempts by Sinclair to deny the rights of American citizens to express their own opinions will be met with organized opposition. Any group or individual targeted by Sinclair to be victimized by Sinclair’s dubious claims will be defended to the fullest extent in a court of law, if necessary, and loudly in the court of public opinion, The progressive individuals and groups who still believe in the Constitution will band together to fight this obvious attempt at intimidation more reminiscent of oppressive regimes. Counter claims for malicious prosecution and abuse of process are virtually guaranteed as is complete use of discovery tools provided by federal and state laws. Plan on long, drawn-out litigation and negative press the likes of which you can only have nightmares about. You think there’s been a negative backlash against “The Point,” wait till you see what happens when you go after proud, patriotic Americans exercising their Constitutional rights.

More Commentary
Whether or not one chooses to contact an advertiser regarding Sinclair is their right. A more direct approach is to just boycott the news programs if they are broadcast in your area and let advertisers know that their advertising dollars are being wasted.

Sinclair Broadcasting is a boil on the backside of today’s mainstream mass media which is itself a diseased body infected by greed.

Advertisers should take it upon themselves to determine whether to advertise with an organization that has such little regard for the rights guaranteed in the Constitution in order to protect their own bottom line.

A reputable organization would broadcast opposing viewpoints. Media ownership and consolidation are issues that affect the very fabric of our representative form of democracy.

Tuesday, January 04, 2005


Sensing America’s need to fill the void left by the conclusion of the Scott Peterson trial and the apparent nation-wide media blackout concerning “irregularities” in the Ohio presidential vote, the national and local media have now brought us Amber Frey. Proving once again that no human tragedy is so heinous that someone will not try to make a buck off of it. Sure, let’s keep putting collateral individuals into the spotlight for their 15 minutes so they can promote their books. Amber is being interviewed by Matt Lauer and Oprah today and the local news is reporting her book being now available, possibly even at Walmart. Maybe she’ll start dating Kato Kaelin and we’d really have a story.

Speaking of local news, why is it that they run promotions trying to differentiate themselves from other local news organizations and all they do is imitate each other? There’s hardly a lick of difference in the stories they run and it’s almost as if the news crews have the same dispatcher. Their live-remotes from where something happened hours before is laughable. I wrote to a local station and questioned this practice. The response I got back, from someone not on the news team, indicated that the live-remotes were a running joke. Apparently, they’ve spent so much money on the equipment they are not inclined to have it sit idle so we get to see reporters standing in front of empty, darkened buildings at 11:00 at night.

As for the reporters, the primary qualification to be a news reporter these days seems to be the ability to use a story-appropriate facial expression and tone of voice and to be able to switch them up at will.

Tomorrow: Stupid Sports Analogy

Monday, January 03, 2005


Mark Hyman (GOP Attack Weasel), came on New Year’s Day with 12 issues he would like resolved in 2005. Of course there was the obligatory reference to the faux crisis in Social Security. There were the obligatory negative references to lawyers, the cultural and media elite and the “rift-raft” who come into this country illegally.

The most outrageous thing he said should be resolved was, “The partisan press will report only facts in the news and keep opinion in the editorial and commentary sections of their papers and newscasts.” There were several pictures of newscasters behind him who were evidently the target of this charge. Funny, not a single picture of anyone from Faux News.

This the same Sinclair Broadcasting that refused to allow its affiliate stations to carry the Nightline tribute to those killed in Iraq.

This the same Sinclair Broadcasting that proposed to air an anti-Kerry documentary just before the election.

This is the same Sinclair Broadcasting that uses the public airways to promote its narrow, radical right-wing agenda.

How about a resolution that gwb will only use facts in his speeches?

Hyman, apparently believes that as long as you call it “commentary,” it’s okay to make false accusations. It’s okay to draw spurious conclusions if they support your point of view.

Hyman also attacked the implementation of McCain/Feingold and said that there should be no “gag orders” on political speech. I refer again to the Nightline episode and the excuse given by Sinclair is that they deemed it political speech. Further, if this is the case, why does he not denounced Clear Channel for refusing to air political commercials that are not supportive of the GOP or gwb? Or the refusal by stations to carry the Moveon.org commercials. Why do they not provide air time for countervailing views to their so-called commentaries?


When Jan Egeland from the U.N. offered a mild criticism of rich countries and their response to world-wide disasters, the GOP attack machine, primed and oiled, came out with a vengeance to spin on all the Sunday talk shows.

The most egregious defense I heard had to be from Kate Snow on Good Morning America. She contended that the money spent based on the number of dead in the Sudan contrasted with money pledged based on the number of estimated dead from the tsunami showed that we were being more generous now than before. Contributions based on a per capita of the deceased? It’s the living that need the help!


Saturday, January 01, 2005


Mark Hyman (GOP Attack Weasel), used his New Year’s Eve “The Point” propaganda commentary to take another potshot at John Kerry. Apparently, there was a bill being voted on in the Senate to extend unemployment benefits to victims of the Bush Recovery which failed to pass by one vote. Hyman went on to state that Kerry had supported the bill yet was absent from the voting and suggested that Kerry should have been there to vote if he seriously supported the legislation. Of course he doesn’t say who voted against the bill. Any guesses? He doesn’t say when this bill was before the Senate. I checked the recent roll call votes and could not find it. If it wasn’t a roll call vote, why does Hyman have such an interest in how Kerry voted; a personal vendetta perhaps. Finally, he doesn’t say what the vote count was, only that it lost by one vote. In that case, Kerry’s vote would have made it a tie and therefore inconsequential knowing who breaks the ties in the Senate. The bigger story is who opposed extending the benefits. Further, since Mr. Hyman did not provide the actual vote count, it is not possible to determine from his ranting whether any other absent Senators could have provided the deciding vote margin.

Why waste any energy in belittling Kerry as the election is over unless there’s a miracle in the outcome of the disputed Ohio vote? We know that Hyman and Sinclair Broadcasting will use the public airways to promote the GOP agenda. Is it possible that they will also use the public airways for what could be considered a personal assault with personal motivations? Maybe they’re worried that the public has buyer’s remorse with gwb and want to boost junior by deriding Kerry. Or, just another diversion to keep the focus off of Bush's handling of the Asian disaster.

Opinion: Some commentators have suggested that the Bush administration has squandered a good opportunity to “mend bridges” with the Muslim world by not coming out with a bold, steadfast plan of action to aid the victims of the tsunami. The administration has sent Colin Powell (lame duck) out to try to quell the criticism and defend Bush’s action, or inaction, as the case may be. Even with his diminished credibility, Powell is still the most credible spokesperson in the administration. The point I want to make here is that I don’t believe they care one bit about “mending bridges” any more than they want to find bi-partisan solutions to our nation’s problems. Their actions to date show a contempt for compromise and diplomacy and likely consider them signs of weakness. Foreign policy seems to be a new “manifest destiny” with help from BALCO.

Observation: After much criticism about the delay in speaking out about the devastation caused by the tsunami, gwb has now personally appeared twice and the amount of relief aid pledged has increased to $350 million. The main stream media (MSM) reports that I’ve seen then go on to list the pledges of other nations such as Great Britain, Japan, Germany and France. Not once has the list included a Muslim nation. Not once has the list included Russia, China or North Korea. Not once has the list included our good friends the Saudis. So what gives? Are these nations not joining in the world-wide relief effort or is their contribution just not being reported? If it’s the latter, is this to prevent further embarrassment? Would the MSM slant the news to protect gwb? Caveat: It’s quite possible I just haven’t seen the reports naming all the countries providing assistance. I guess it’s one of those known unknowns which Rummy likes to talk about.

Other Thoughts: Instead of sending Jeb to view the destruction, gwb should go himself because from the pictures I've seen so far, they could really use his "brush clearing" prowess.

Other Points to Ponder: Why is Colin Powell the face of the administration in dealing with the tsunami tragedy? Why haven't we been seeing much of Condoleeza Rice's lying mug much lately? Will Kerry stand up for America one more time and contest the electors from Ohio? Is Tucker Carlson light in the loafers? Will there ever be any justice in the Valerie Plame affair? What's going on in the Katrina Leung case? Why is Robert Novak a free man?

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?