Calling Out Journos Who Fail To Call Out FoxNews

Howard Raines calls out his colleagues who keep sticking their heads in the sand about FoxNews and their obvious political agenda.

Why has our profession, through its general silence -- or only spasmodic protest -- helped Fox legitimize a style of journalism that is dishonest in its intellectual process, untrustworthy in its conclusions and biased in its gestalt? The standard answer is economics, as represented by the collapse of print newspapers and of audience share at CBS, NBC and ABC. Some prominent print journalists are now cheering Rupert Murdoch, the head of News Corp. (which owns the Fox network) for his alleged commitment to print, as evidenced by his willingness to lose money on the New York Post and gamble the overall profitability of his company on the survival of the Wall Street Journal. This is like congratulating museums for preserving antique masterpieces while ignoring their predatory methods of collecting.

Why can't American journalists steeped in the traditional values of their profession be loud and candid about the fact that Murdoch does not belong to our team? His importation of the loose rules of British tabloid journalism, including blatant political alliances, started our slide to quasi-news. His British papers famously promoted Margaret Thatcher's political career, with the expectation that she would open the nation's airwaves to Murdoch's cable channels. Ed Koch once told me he could not have been elected mayor of New York without the boosterism of the New York Post.

snip

For the first time since the yellow journalism of a century ago, the United States has a major news organization devoted to the promotion of one political party. And let no one be misled by occasional spurts of criticism of the GOP on Fox. In a bygone era of fact-based commentary typified, left to right, by my late colleagues Scotty Reston and Bill Safire, these deceptions would have been given their proper label: disinformation.

Under the pretense of correcting a Democratic bias in news reporting, Fox has accomplished something that seemed impossible before Ailes imported to the news studio the tricks he learned in Richard Nixon's campaign think tank: He and his video ferrets have intimidated center-right and center-left journalists into suppressing conclusions -- whether on health-care reform or other issues -- they once would have stated as demonstrably proven by their reporting. I try not to believe that this kid-gloves handling amounts to self-censorship, but it's hard to ignore the evidence. News Corp., with 64,000 employees worldwide, receives the tender treatment accorded a future employer.

The REAL Reason People Aren't Behind Health Care Reform

Its because our media refuses to do its fucking job. Prime example, earlier this week ABC News investigates Bart Stupak's claim that the Senate health care reform bill requires the government to subsidize abortion with tax dollars. The investigation came to a clear cut answer, the claim is FALSE as its typed in red across the screen during the piece.



Fast forward to today and you have the very same network hosting a debate about health care reform. George Stephanopolous is hosting both HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and the aforementioned pro life Democrat Bart Stupak. Now it would be different if this conversation was supposed to be about the bill as a whole, then MAYBE I could understand Stephanopolous being so unprepared for Stupak's argument. But being that this WHOLE segment was supposed to be about Stupak's opposition to the bill over abortion rights and his own network had already investigated Stupak's claim about the bill, you might think Stephanopolous would have been ready to step in and call him out for being wrong, lying or both over the language in the Senate bill.

And you'd be wrong.



So to recap, even thought ABC News did an investigation and found that Bart Stupak was wrong about the language in the Senate bill when it comes to government funding of abortion, the same network's host of "This Week" framed the whole debate on if they would be able to change the language of the bill so as to placate Stupak on something that he is totally wrong about......according to ABC News.

I swear I wanted to type this whole post in all caps because I just noticed this right after I left a comment about how the White House needs to take on the media more if they want to do better with their agenda but there is no way that anything I type on this blog whether it be in bold, in red, more cuss words or whatever could truly convey the contempt I am feeling at this moment for our media. Contempt and righteous anger. They are playing around with people's lives and instead of taking that seriously they just keep doing the same shit every day either more concerned with ratings than substance, or so cowed by right wingers that they have decided to just not do their job rather than be accused of "liberal bias".

I certainly hope that there is a hell and there is a special place carved out for journalists who allow harm to be done to their readers because they don't have the guts or the conscious to do their damn job.

Do Mainstream Media Journalists Know The Meaning Of The Word Hypocrite?

Witness this post on the Virginia politics blog at the Washington Post.

For months, Democrats have dubbed U.S. Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia a hypocrite for strongly opposing the federal stimulus package only to promote aspects of it later.
Here's the latest example:

Nearly half of the 30 organizations participating in a job fair Cantor is holding Monday in Culpeper were recipients of the stimulus.

The list includes a slew of government agencies and schools that have directly benefited from the package and may be using stimulus money to hire people (as the money was originally designed to do), including the Orange County public schools, the Transportation Security Administration and Virginia Department of Labor, and some companies that may have indirectly benefited such as Comcast and Terremark.

Cantor, a Richmond area congressman and the No. 2 Republican in the House, was one of the most vocal critics of the $787 billion economic stimulus bill that Congress passed in February. He has since said the package was a failure.

Now its all fine and good that this blog published what the Democrats "said" about Cantor, but how much damn evidence does the writer need in order to confirm or deny that Cantor is being a hypocrite over the stimulus? Its pretty fucking obvious to most folks that this isn't a matter of opposing opinions. You can't call something a failure then show up at a damn jobs fair skinning and grinning when half the folks there wouldn't be able to participate if not for the stimulus.

Its the same thing with the word liar. I wonder if for just one week American journalists used the words hypocrite and liar when talking about politicians who on a factual basis were hypocrites and liars. Maybe, just maybe they would knock that bullshit off.

Unfortunately nobody in the mainstream media has the balls to do that, so I guess we will never know.

The Very Definition of "Real Talk"

Matt Taibbi takes out a hatchet and absolutely annihilates the political press in this country. I can't exerpt this, you gotta read the whole damn thing

Cut The Bullshit!

Why in the hell is Spencer Ackerman seemingly the only journalist pointing out the fact that General Stanley McChrystal did not try to call out President Obama in London which has now become conventional wisdom in the Village?!

For goodness sake PLEASE spread this link around so people aren't fooled by the mainstream media promoting a civilian/military split!

On Iran

Glenzilla has a very provocative and thought provoking post on how the media's coverage of the new revelations about Iran's previously undisclosed nuclear facilty near Qom and their coverage during the run up to the Iraq War. If nothing else he raises questions about things that are being reported and repeated as fact which may not be based on anything more than conjecture from anonymous sources. I think you owe it to yourself to give it a read.

Time Magazine Crashed And Burned Edition

There is so much to like about this post from Jamison Foser about the puff piece on Glenn Beck which makes the cover of the new edition of Time magazine. But the ending is really what sums up everything that is wrong with the piece and is wrong with our mainstream media in general now:

At this point, you have to wonder if the article was some kind of performance art, designed to prove the very skepticism about the media it seems to lament. See, this very Time article was the product of a "dishonest, incompetent, conniving media, which refuse to tell the truth." And not because I happen to despise Glenn Beck, but because there simply were not 1.7 million people at last week's protest. Because Time damn well knows there were not 1.7 million people at last week's protest. And because Time refused to say there were not 1.7 million people there. Not only that -- Time also insisted on pretending that only "liberal sources" say there were 70,000 people there, when, in fact, the D.C. Fire Department said there were 70,000 people. That's a dishonest and incompetent refusal to tell the truth. Actually, it's worse than a refusal to tell the truth: It's a dishonest and incompetent false claim.

At the beginning of his article, Von Drehle referred to a recent poll that found "record-low levels of public trust of the mainstream media." Guess what? Articles like this are why nobody trusts the media. When you pretend that obviously false claims about crowd sizes are valid, people won't trust you. When you pretend that only liberals say 70,000 people actually attended last week's protest, people won't trust you. They shouldn't trust you. You aren't trustworthy. You are doing your job dishonestly and incompetently.

And that dishonesty, that incompetence, is what enables Glenn Beck. When Glenn Beck says 1.7 million people were at the protest, and the Washington, D.C., Fire Department says 70,000, and Time runs an article saying conservatives and liberals disagree about the crowd size, that enables Glenn Beck's lies.

No wonder Beck liked the article so much.

Its worth your time to click on the link and read the whole thing because it is as thorough a take down of this kind of he said she said article as you will find anywhere. But the end result still ends up being the same as so eloquently put by Mr Foser. Its not just that this is a bad piece of journalism, its that it actually harms the readers of Time magazine when they will not call a lie a lie. And it also harms them in that by not calling a lie a lie it could possibly legitimize the lie and needlessly misinform them. It seems that good Villager outlets like Time magazine just will not figure that out until they go out of business, and I am cheering that day on every single day.

Politico Leading Them Off A Cliff

Check out all the lemmings falling for this Politico non story story entitled "Under Fire, Obama Shifts Strategy". And you have just GOT to love their lede.

Aides to President Barack Obama are putting the final touches on a new strategy to help Democrats recover from a brutal August recess by specifying what Obama wants to see in a compromise health care deal and directly confronting other trouble spots, West Wing officials tell POLITICO.

Now you might think what follows would be kinda like a game changer, especially considering how many people jumped all over the story last night when it broke.

You would be wrong.

What exactly is the "new" news in the article? Well there really isn't any. The "new" approach seems strikingly different to the old approach.

Pretty much the only area of a health care reform bill that President Obama has been teh slightest bit shaky on is the public option. So will he finally draw a line in the sand?

Obama is considering detailing his health-care demands in a major speech as soon as next week, when Congress returns from the August recess. And although House leaders have said their members will demand the inclusion of a public insurance option, Obama has no plans to insist on it himself, the officials said.

Uhmm no.

And how exactly will this speech be any different from his previous speeches? They don't say.

Ok well will he at least set another deadline?

The timing, format, venue and content of Obama's presentation are still being debated in the West Wing. Aides have discussed whether to stick to broad principles, or to send specific legislative language to Capitol Hill. Some hybrid is likely, the officials said.

“I’m not going to put a date on any of this,” Axelrod said. “But I think it’s fairly obvious that we’re not in the second inning. We’re not in the fourth inning. We’re in the eighth or ninth inning here, and so there’s not a lot of time to waste.”

Ummm no.

Well at least maybe his specifics will be more specific.

Obama's specifics will include many of the principles he has spelled out before, and aides did not want to telegraph make-or-break demands.

Sigh...

Of course Politico doesn't waste an opportunity to frame the debate through their own wingnut lens:

White House officials say they are looking forward to "a break from the August break" -- a chance to take back control of the debate after a grim month where news coverage of the issue was dominated by vocal, emotional opponents at lawmakers’ town meetings, railing against the cost and complexity of the plans being debated.

So Obama and Democrats will return from vacation wounded, divided and uncertain of the best way to turn things around. Many Democrats, especially in the House, were spooked over break by the rowdy town hall meetings and flurry of polls showing independent voters skeptical of their leadership and spending plans.

Really Politico? Many Democrats were "spooked"? Hmmm well that's just funny because see I saw this other report about some Blue Dog Democrats in the House that said:

Even after the tough town-hall-style meetings, unrelenting Republican assaults and a steady stream of questions from anxious voters, interviews with more than a dozen Blue Dogs and their top aides indicate that many of the lawmakers still believe approval of some form of health care plan is achievable and far preferable to not acting at all.

“I can’t tell you how comprehensive it will be, but I do believe something will get passed,” said Representative Michael Arcuri, a second-term Blue Dog Democrat from New York.

The political temperature of the Blue Dogs — and their ideological counterparts in the Senate — after the five-week recess is crucial. As representatives of some of the nation’s most conservative territory represented by Democrats, they potentially have the most to lose if a Democratic bill spurs a backlash. Even with healthy majorities in Congress, every Democratic vote is critical given the reluctance by some Democrats to consider a major overhaul and near blanket Republican opposition.

One lawmaker in the group, Representative David Scott of Georgia, said his determination to enact a health care overhaul had been increased over the recess because of what he called the spread of misinformation and other unfair tactics engaged in by the opposition.

“I think now more than ever we must get strong in our resolve to pass health care insurance reform legislation,” Mr. Scott said.

Another coalition member, Representative Adam B. Schiff of California, said that despite the intensity of the health care fight over the last month, he was not sure the Democratic landscape had changed all that much from when House members left Washington in early August.

“The members that were skeptical of the public option going into the recess are still skeptical,” Mr. Schiff said. “Those who were supportive are still supportive.” He suggested the major transformation was among Republicans, who seem far less open to any health care proposals given the heated sentiments aired by conservative voters.

Of course the New York Times actually went and actually asked some Democrats how they were affected by the astroturfed townhalls rather than try to speak for them. That's what journalism is all about, something Politico has no time for.

Now I guess there was at least one piece of quasi news in the piece. It seems some unknown unnamed aide to President Obama wants to "take on the left":

On health care, Obama’s willingness to forgo the public option is sure to anger his party’s liberal base. But some administration officials welcome a showdown with liberal lawmakers if they argue they would rather have no health care law than an incremental one. The confrontation would allow Obama to show he is willing to stare down his own party to get things done.

Politico doesn't tell us who these unnamed "administration officials" who want President Obama to stare down the left are. I am sure Jane Hamsher over at FireDogLake will say its Rahmbo, and for once she is probably right. But on this subject, if there are officials who think this is a winning strategy for President Obama, I don't think there is a chance in hell of that.

There is no "Sistah Soulja" moment available to the Obama Administration with respect to health care reform. This isn't just about ideology. Its about whether healh care reform will actually BE reform or not or whether it will end up being a giveaway to the health insurance companies. Whether pundits like it or not a public option is the only way to bring down costs and premiums from the private insurers. A health care exchange all on its own doesn't inherently insure that. In fact what it will probably do is just push the insurers to engage in more collusion than they have in the past so that they all continue to make record profits.

So what exactly would "standing up to the left" accomplish for President Obama? Well I can tell you, and it won't just affect him, it will also affect progressives and liberals in the midterm elections. You see when you look at polling right now its true that President Obama's numbers are coming down. But who is keeping them up even at the lower level? Democrats that's who.

Right now, according to Pollster, President Obama's aggregate approval rating has dropped below 50% (almost entirely due to the inclusion of wingnut pollsters Zogby and Rassmussen). But what is it by party ID?

Democrats: 85%

Independents: 48.5%

Republicans: 13.9%

Now here is the thing, if President Obama intends to get his numbers up above water he won't do it by attracting Republicans because they aren't going to come around for anything. And if he wants to attract more independents then what he had better understand is that not every independent is conservative. Many of them are liberals and progressives who simply no longer trust the Democratic party. And evidently that's with good reason.

The point is "standing up to the left" will help him to lose some of that high approval rating from the Democrats and probably won't do much to raise his approval with independents. And its also important for him to remember that its the face painters, the liberals and progressives, who do the grunt work come election time. Its us who are manning phone banks. Its us who are doing the fact checking on blogs. Its us who go door to door for GOTV campaigns. So losing the face painters not only won't win you many new friends in the middle or on the right, it will also lose a lot of the grassroots support that the Democratic party will need in the midterms and for his reelection. Simply put, if you lose the face painters, you lose elections.

Now for all we know it might have been the White House chef who was talking about "standing up to the left" since whomever said it was too chickenshit to put their names on it. But no matter who it was, its not sound political advice that much is for sure. Still if that was the best Politico could do in this overhyped piece that is still sad as hell.

At some point GOPolitico will have to ruin its brand so much that people refuse to pay attention anymore. I am hoping its soon.

Some Things Just Never Get Old

Like Dan Froomkin calling bullshit on Dick Cheney and the media coverage of him.

Beautiful!

WaPo Is A Safe Haven For Neo Cons And Pro Torturists

When Politico is fact checking you then you know that you have jumped the shark, the whale and the giant octopus!

For a more complete debunking of the Washington Post article yesterday and the new one today which reported that torture "worked" on Khalid Sheik Muhammed despite tons of evidence to the contrary I would recommend emptywheel's posts here and here.

How screwed up is it that in 2009 we are even having to prosecute the argument against torture in the court of public opinion?

Give Us The Truth

I highly recommend this op-ed from Neal Gabler in the LA Times entitled 'Truth' vs. 'facts' from America's media

I am just going to excerpt the ending:

Why don't we get the truth? Part of it, as I've said, is fear -- fear that if journalists dispel the rumors they will be bashed by the right, which is implacably against the president's reforms no matter how much sense they make. Part of it is a lack of expertise. Most reporters are not equipped to quickly and authoritatively tell truth from spin on an issue such as healthcare. And part of it, frankly, is sheer laziness.

Telling the truth requires shoe leather. It requires digging up facts that aren't being handed to you, talking to experts, thinking hard about what you find. This isn't easy. It takes time and energy as well as guts, especially when there are conflicting studies, as there are on healthcare. But finally, we may not have a journalism of truth because we haven't demanded one. Many of us are invested in one side of the story; we are for Obama or against him, for healthcare reform or against it. These are a priori positions. Truth won't change them.

Yet the danger of not insisting on the truth in a brave new world of constant lies is that it subjects our policies to whichever side shouts the loudest or has the most money to spend to mislead us. That is likely to lead to disastrous governance: a needless war, a great recession, a continuation of a failing healthcare system.

What it comes down to is that sometimes the media have to tell the truth not because anyone really wants them to but because it is the right thing to do -- the essential thing to do -- for the sake of our democracy.

Will The Media Ever Notice That Kent Conrad Is Lying?

Senator Kent Conrad appeared on "Face The Nation" this morning to peddle his lame co-op alternative to a public option in health care reform. Now I get that he is a ConservaDem and that he supposedly want to be seen as a big time deficit cutter so he has some ideological objections to health care reform. I have already explained yesterday where I thought he could shove those concerns when it comes to voting for cloture. However there is one thing he said today that he has said several times that nobody has called him out on. Here goes:

CONRAD: Well, I would say this. It is very clear that in the United States Senate, the public option does not have the votes. If we have to get to 60 votes, you cannot get there with public option. That’s why I was asked to come up with an alternative, and the alternative I came up with was this cooperative approach that, as Senator Grassley correctly describes, is not government run or government controlled, it’s controlled by its membership. But it does provide not-for-profit competition to insurance companies, so it has appeal on both sides. It’s the only proposal that has bipartisan support and if we’re going to get 60 votes we’re going to need bipartisan support

.

According to Conrad there is bipartisan support for co-ops but that is simply a lie. So far at best a handful Republicans have said that they would "look into" his proposal for co-ops but many of them have already come out and slammed it as just a public option by another name. The RNC fits into that category and Senator John Kyl the Minority Whip has said that no Republicans would vote for a health care reform bill anyway. So where does Conrad get this notion that he has bipartisan support fo co-ops?

Your guess is as good as mine.

Of course if just one journalist would dare ask him WHO in the Republican Party endorses co-ops we might just get the answer to that question. But our mainstream media does not seem to be in the questioning business anymore.

Fringe News Network

Following up on my earlier blurb about Chuck Todd lamenting the amount of people believing lies about health care reform that have been propogated by right wingers, of course the devil is in the details:

FOX vs. CNN/MSNBC: Here’s another way to look at the misinformation: In our poll, 72% of self-identified FOX News viewers believe the health-care plan will give coverage to illegal immigrants, 79% of them say it will lead to a government takeover, 69% think that it will use taxpayer dollars to pay for abortions, and 75% believe that it will allow the government to make decisions about when to stop providing care for the elderly. But it would be incorrect to suggest that this is ONLY coming from conservative viewers who tune in to FOX. In fact, 41% of CNN/MSNBC viewers believe the misinformation about illegal immigrants, 39% believe the government takeover stuff, 40% believe the abortion misperception, and 30% believe the stuff about pulling the plug on grandma. What’s more, a good chunk of folks who get their news from broadcast TV (NBC, ABC, CBS) believe these things, too. This is about credible messengers using the media to get some of this misinformation out there, not as much about the filter itself. These numbers should worry Democratic operatives, as well as the news media that have been covering this story.

Its great to see the acknowledgement at the end of the role the media has played in allowing this kind of misinformation to get out there. But the bigger point is that while just about every news outlet has done a shitty job of covering health care reform and pushing back against the lies, its also obvious that FoxNews has to be not only not pushing back but PROMOTING these lies meant to scare people over health care reform. You would be hard pressed to find the kind of consensus that their viewers have believing lies compared with people believing the Earth revolves around the Sun. I am beginning to believe that they are brainwashing people or something because at this point I can't believe anybody can call them fair and balanced with a straight face. And its disgusting that they are doing this over one of the major issues of our times just so the GOP can get some kind of political advantage.

Then again, they are who we thought they were...

Irony Alerty

Chuck Todd is on MSNBC right now talking about all of the false things about health care reform people believe according to a new NBC poll without taking even a second to reflect journalism's role in that.

We should demand better.

CNBC Goes Looking For Trouble

Its bad enough that CNBC is peddling bullshit financial commentary, but now they are trying to frame the news on townhalls to portray health care reform as unpopular.

CNBC approached Tea Party activists, looking for angry protest events that would make good television, according to a leaked email from a Tea Party discussion group. And one Tea Bagger responded by flagging an upcoming event that, he said, "should be a riot ... literally."

Yesterday, Tea Party Patriots national coordinator Jenny Beth Martin sent an email, obtained by TPMmuckraker, to a Tea Party google group. Martin told the group: "We have a media request for an event this week that will have lots of energy and lots of anger. This is for CNBC."

She then asked: "So, where are the big events this week and where can TPP best be represented on the news?"

snip

Late Update: Martin tells TPMmuckraker that she did not forward the Scott event -- or, in fact, any event -- on to CNBC as a candidate for coverage. She stressed that her group "does not endorse anything that incites violence of any kind," adding that the email list is un-moderated. "I can't moderate every single comment," she said.

Asked whether CNBC had specifically told her they were looking for an event with "lots of energy and lots of anger," Martin replied: "That was the impression that I received from them." She declined to elaborate.

Now lets see if the media will call out these cretins or if they will cover for them each other as usual. Major props to TPM for breaking the story!

Everything That's Wrong With The Beltway Media

Glenzilla does an excellent job of summing it all up here.

Sorry to much good stuff to excerpt.

Who Said What And Why?

There is a new Washington Post story up about the torture of Abu Zubaydah at GITMO. Now I am not quite sure who gets to make these kinds of decisions but, and I bullshit you not, the overwhelming bulk of the story is derived from "anonymous" sources. Mind you WaPo allows these former Bushies to contradict Ali Soufan, a decorated FBI agent whom is still in the field trying to keep us all safe and who has testfied under oath to Congress and still enjoy the freedom to lie that comes with being an "anonymous" source. Its really ironic that on the weekend that we lose an icon in journalism, Walter Cronkite, that the Post would publish such an antithesis to journalism excellence and integrity.

Now ostensibly I guess the article is an attempt by some former Bush officials to push back on the notion that Abu Zubaydah didn't yield any useful information as a result of torture. To wit I think that this part of the article comes the closest to trying to substantiate this claim.

Soufan testified to Congress in May that Abu Zubaida went silent once Mitchell took charge. Within days of the CIA team's arrival, the cables between Bangkok and Langley became devoid of new revelations. Agency officials decided to let the FBI back into the interrogations, but on the condition that forced nudity and sleep deprivation be allowed to continue.

The CIA team lowered the temperature in Abu Zubaida's cell until the detainee turned blue. The FBI turned it back up, setting off a clash over tactics.

Under FBI questioning, Abu Zubaida identified an operative he knew as Abdullah al-Mujahir, the alias, he said, of an American citizen with a Latino name. An investigation involving multiple agencies identified the suspect as Jose Padilla, the al-Qaeda operative later convicted of providing material support for terrorism.

"In two different bits, after sleep deprivation, is when Abu Zubaida gave clues about who Padilla might be," the former U.S. official said. "When that was put together with other CIA sources, they were able to identify who he was. . . . The cables will not show that the FBI just asked friendly questions and got information about Padilla."

This is such a blatant attempt at sleight of hand that the Washington Post should be held in contempt by all of its readers for insulting our intelligence in this fashion. Now mind you supposedly this article was put together based on anonymous sources as well as information already out in the public domain. Well lets examine Ali Soufan's account of how they came to glean information about Jose Padilla from Abu Zubaydah.

Only weeks later, this clash of cultures played out in the heated dispute over how to handle Abu Zubaydah. A Palestinian who is believed to have served as logistics chief for Afghan terrorist-training camps, Abu Zubaydah was captured after a bloody gunfight. He was transferred from Pakistan to Thailand, where Soufan and Gaudin immediately sought to gain his trust by nursing his wounds. (Soufan would not comment on the location of the interrogation; sources, who like others interviewed for this story didn't want to be named discussing sensitive information, have placed him in Thailand at this time. An FBI spokesman says Gaudin, who is still in the bureau, would not comment on his role in the Abu Zubaydah interrogations.) "We kept him alive," Soufan says. "It wasn't easy, he couldn't drink, he had a fever. I was holding ice to his lips." Gaudin, for his part, cleaned Abu Zubaydah's buttocks. During this time, Soufan and Gaudin also began the questioning; it became a "mental poker game." At first, Abu Zubaydah even denied his identity, insisting that his name was "Daoud."

But Soufan had poured through the bureau's intelligence files and stunned Abu Zubaydah when he called him "Hani"—the nickname that his mother used for him. Soufan also showed him photos of a number of terror suspects who were high on the bureau's priority list. Abu Zubaydah looked at one of them and said, "That's Mukhtar."

Now it was Soufan who was stunned. The FBI had been trying to determine the identity of a mysterious "Mukhtar," whom bin Laden kept referring to on a tape he made after 9/11. Now Soufan knew: Mukhtar was the man in the photo, terror fugitive Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and, as Abu Zubaydah blurted out, " the one behind 9/11."

As the sessions continued, Soufan engaged Abu Zubaydah in long discussions about his world view, which included a tinge of socialism. After Abu Zubaydah railed one day about the influence of American imperialist corporations, he asked Soufan to get him a Coca-Cola—a request that prompted the two of them to laugh. Soon enough, Abu Zubaydah offered up more information—about the bizarre plans of a jihadist from Puerto Rico to set off a "dirty bomb" inside the country. This information led to Padilla's arrest in Chicago by the FBI in early May.

But the tenor of the Abu Zubaydah interrogations changed a few days later, when a CIA contractor showed up. Although Soufan declined to identify the contractor by name, other sources (and media accounts) identify him as James Mitchell, a former Air Force psychologist who had worked on the U.S. military's Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape training—a program to teach officers how to resist the abusive interrogation methods used by Chinese communists during the Korean War. Within days of his arrival, Mitchell—an architect of the CIA interrogation program—took charge of the questioning of Abu Zubaydah. He directed that Abu Zubaydah be ordered to answer questions or face a gradual increase in aggressive techniques. One day Soufan entered Abu Zubadyah's room and saw that he had been stripped naked; he covered him with a towel.

So you have Ali Soufan putting his name on it when he says that Mitchell wasn't even at GITMO when Zubaydah gave up Jose Padilla and thus there is no way the information could have come from torture. And on the other hand you have an anonymous former Bush official (probably a Dick Cheney lackey or Cheney himself) anonymously lying about the very timeline of events and the Washington Post doesn't even take the time out to acknowledge that the timeline is even in dispute. Are we really supposed to be that stupid or maybe that woefully under informed that we just accept this anonymous sources' word over a man who has testifed under oath about what went down with Zubaydah and continues to put his life on the line battling terrorist all over the world?

The Washington Post is quickly hastening its own demise with this kind of slppy and lazy, intellectually dishonest work.

But even with all of the misdirection thrown around in the article there is still one major takeaway. There is no way these people can claim that what was done to Zubaydah was not torture.

Abu Zubaida was waterboarded 83 times over four or five days, and Mitchell and Jessen concluded that the prisoner was broken, the former U.S. official said. "They became convinced that he was cooperating. There was unanimity within the team."

One More Time

CIA officials at the Counterterrorist Center were not convinced.

"Headquarters was sending daily harangues, cables, e-mails insisting that waterboarding continue for 30 days because another attack was believed to be imminent," the former official said. "Headquarters said it would be on the team's back if an attack happened. They said to the interrogation team, 'You've lost your spine.' "

Mitchell and Jessen now found themselves in the same position as Soufan, Shumate and others.

"It was hard on them, too," the former U.S. official said. "They are psychologists. They didn't enjoy this at all."

The two men threatened to quit if the waterboarding continued and insisted that officials from Langley come to Thailand to watch the procedure, the former official said.

After a CIA delegation arrived, Abu Zubaida was strapped down one more time. As water poured over his cloth-covered mouth, he gasped for breath. "They all watched, and then they all agreed to stop," the former official said.

A 2005 Justice Department memo released this year confirmed the visit. "These officials," the memo said, "reported that enhanced techniques were no longer needed."

It is apparent that the chickenhawks inhabiting the White House were so afraid of their own shaddow that they didn't give a shit about whether Abu Zubaydah or any other prisoner they used torture on was giving them good information. All they cared about was torturing the guy over and over again so there was at least the appearance of intelligence coming in so they could cover their ass in case another attack happened. What a joke it is to hear them now try to claim they kept this country safe and beat their chests as if they are some kind of heros.

They truth is every single one of them were and are cowards and that torture is the tool of cowards. Its the brave man who sticks to his values and morals in the face of grave consequences, the coward is the one who gives them up in the interest of cutting corners.

If there is any justice in the world these people who ordered torture will be held accountable for their crimes, sooner rather than later.

Where Are The Cronkites Of Our Generation?

Glenzilla thinks all of the journalists celebrating the life of Walter Cronkite should take a few moments out for self reflection on why they suck so bad in comparison.

I agree.

The sad thing is if Cronkite was just coming into journalism in this day and age he would probably never even reach the heights he enjoyed because of the adversarial stances he took with the powers that be. No doubt he would be "Froomkined" and banned from polite company in the Village, while unscrupulous asshats like David Gregory continue to fail upward and insure that the populous is kept in the dark "for their own good".

I really believe that our only hope at this point is the blogosphere. Only when we the people take back the adversarial role that our press SHOULD be taking with our political leaders, will we as a nation truly be able to guard against the tyranny of men. Otherwise we allow ourselves to be manipulted by "journalists" who are really just the mouthpieces of political parties and special interests. Which is how you end up with things like illegal wireless wiretapping and the Iraq War.

But my hope is that maybe one of the heavy hitters will take this time in the aftermath of Walter Cronkite's death to reexamine their role as a journalist and strive to do better. That would do more to honor Walter Cronkite's history than any number of tribute specials or moments of silence.

Meet The Softballs

If you had any question in your mind that David Gregory wasn't a wingnut sympathizer then I think the emails he sent to Governor Sanford's office trying to get him to come on Meet The Press.

Gregory's first email to Sawyer was sent at 12:24 p.m. on Wednesday June 24 -- that is, after Sanford had admitted to The State that he had actually been in Argentina, but before the famed stream-of-consciousness press conference where he admitted to an affair. Gregory wrote:

Hey Joel ...
Left you a message. Wanted you to hear directly from me that I want to have the Gov on Sunday on Meet The Press. I think it's exactly the right forum to answer the questions about his trip as well as giving him a platform to discuss the economy/stimulus and the future of the party. You know he will get a fair shake from me and coming on MTP puts all of this to rest.

Let's talk when you can.

Gregory left two different phone numbers.

After the press conference, Sawyer replied:

David --

Thank you very much for taking the time to personally reach out to us. For the time being, we're just going to let what the governor said today stand on its own. If we do some interviews in the future, I'll let you know as soon as possible.

Gregory followed up quickly: "You aren't doing anything at all this week...no other intvus anywhere?" Sawyer replied that they weren't.

Gregory gave it one last shot:

Look, you guys have a lot of pitches .. I get it and I know this is a tough situation ... Let me just say this is the place to have a wider conversation with some context about not just the personal but also the future for him and the party ... This situation only exacerbates the issue of how the GOP recovers when another national leader suffers a setback like this. So coming on Meet The Press allows you to frame the conversation how you really want to...and then move on. You can see (sic) you have done your interview and then move on. Consider it

.

We can only wonder what "hard hitting" questions David Gregory planned on asking of Governor Sanford....

What a joke.

NYTimes Framing Fail

The New York Times' Brian Knowlton has a story up which makes it seems as if Vice President Joe Biden said something controversial on "This Week With George Stephanopolous" this morning about the U.S. giving Israel the green light to bomb Iran. This story has now spawned posts on at least two major left leaning blogs concerned that Biden may have been sending the wrong signal today. We know its Joe Biden so most people will just assume he made another gaffe, but did he really?

No he didn't. He repeated basically the same thing President Obama has said over and over and that is that the United States can't dictate to Israel what Israel does with respect to Iran. That is the stance any American president and or Vice President HAS to take publicly. Israel is a soverign nation and we can't go admitting that we can control their actions. That doesn't mean they won't put pressure on Israel behind the scenes to deter them from coming to the conclusion that they "need" to bomb Iran anymore than it means we will allow them to fly over Iraq's airspace to attack Iran. It just means the administration won't give Republicans a target to shoot at by saying anything the GOP can twist into "they don't care about Israel's safety".

For anyone concerned that this was some kind of "gaffe" I would suggest you go and just read the transcript, which unsurprisngly the NYTimes guy didn't link to, and see for yourself in full context if what Biden said was REALLY so earth shattering compared to what Obama has said repeaedly.

Check out the full exchange and see if you come away with the same feeling as you got from reading the NYTimes article

BIDEN: If the Iranians respond to the offer of engagement, we will engage.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But the offer is on the table?

BIDEN: The offer's on the table.

STEPHANOPOULOS: And meanwhile, Prime Minister Netanyahu has made it pretty clear that he agreed with President Obama to give until the end of the year for this whole process of engagement to work. After that, he's prepared to make matters into his own hands.

Is that the right approach?

BIDEN: Look, Israel can determine for itself -- it's a sovereign nation -- what's in their interest and what they decide to do relative to Iran and anyone else.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Whether we agree or not?

BIDEN: Whether we agree or not. They're entitled to do that. Any sovereign nation is entitled to do that. But there is no pressure from any nation that's going to alter our behavior as to how to proceed.

What we believe is in the national interest of the United States, which we, coincidentally, believe is also in the interest of Israel and the whole world. And so there are separate issues.

If the Netanyahu government decides to take a course of action different than the one being pursued now, that is their sovereign right to do that. That is not our choice.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But just to be clear here, if the Israelis decide Iran is an existential threat, they have to take out the nuclear program, militarily the United States will not stand in the way?

BIDEN: Look, we cannot dictate to another sovereign nation what they can and cannot do when they make a determination, if they make a determination that they're existentially threatened and their survival is threatened by another country.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You say we can't dictate, but we can, if we choose to, deny over-flight rights here in Iraq. We can stand in the way of a military strike.

BIDEN: I'm not going to speculate, George, on those issues, other than to say Israel has a right to determine what's in its interests, and we have a right and we will determine what's in our interests.

Just as a reminder here is what President Obama has said about the same issue.

With respect to concerns Israel might carry out an air strike against Iranian nuclear facilities, the US president said that since Israel is "right there in the range" of Iranian missiles, "their calculation of costs and benefits are going to be more acute."

Obama remarked that he did not think it was his place to "determine for the Israelis what their security needs are."

Can you find any space between the two statements? Because I can't. Biden really is just toeing the company line here. Shame on the New York Times for trying to invent a controversy.