Archives for November, 2007
I wasn't going to post about this, but what the heck. It's too funny ...Apparently, there's a "Save Tucker" movement trying to flourish and they have a website to prove it. And a three-time Democratic office seeker is helping out...I wonder how long it will take Howard Kurtz to do a feature on it, but I digress. Here's where the fun begins...
MSNBC executives are considering cancelling 'Tucker' with Tucker Carlson which airs on MSNBC at 6:00pm EST weekdays. This decision by MSNBC will silence a [bleating, whiny, intensely irritating-ed.] conservative voice, part of a move by MSNBC to swing left and become "FOX for the Liberals," dropping any pretense of objectivity or balance.
Any guy willing to go on "Dancing with the Stars" and treat guests both left and right with spirited but congenial debate should not be purged in some ideological marketing plan. We respectfully urge NBC to reconsider this decision and save TUCKER!
I think all his problems are essentially illustrated in this pesky little ratings graphic below....
Bill O'Reilly opened his show by telling his viewers that the "surge" has worked and now Iraq is probably a non issue for the Democratic candidates in the upcoming election. He was so jazzed about his "talking point memo" that he had on not one, but two Democrats to debate him on this.
Unfortunately for Bill, Rep. Jan Schakowsky would have none of it and made Bill stop and then spin what she said. Any person that has followed the war knows that the surge was sold as hopefully bringing down the sectarian violence in Iraq long enough for the Iraqi government to pas meaningful legislation. Well, as we know the central government has done nothing at all and Schakowsky broke O'Reilly's claim instantly. Notice that in Bill's twisted logic, we have to be "loyal Americans." WTF does he mean? OK, OK, we know what he means. If you have a differing opinion about the war and take a strong position, you're a commie---hippie-freak who's disloyal to the flag so wake the f*&k up or you'll be tazed, bro! O'Reilly gets back on message and says he was right and she was wrong.
Schakowsky: Bill, Bill, you can say that over and over, no, Bill, you can say over and over again 'the surge" has worked,
Schakowsky: ...but defined by Petraeus and Croker at the start of the surge which was to create political reconciliation---we are as far from that as we have ever been.
O'Reilly: You're spinning..
Schakowsky: So you can repeat it and repeat it as often as you want. It's not the case.
O'Reilly: I have to define something because the Congresswoman is spinning the issue.
Can someone please look up the Crocker and Petraeus testimony and post it in the comment section and I'll update the post. To O'Reilly, the Iraqi government are a bunch of clowns anyway. I mean it wasn't like we went over there and invaded Iraq or anything, right? Oh, wait.
That's right, kids. We're in an seemingly endless occupation of a foreign nation that wants us out and our civil liberties are eroded every day. Our great-grandchildren will still be grappling with the debts accrued during this administration. As horror author Stephen King points out, we're still debating whether waterboarding is torture. But what we all want to know about, according to our incisive media, is what the presidential contenders watch on TV. Here's Chris "Life is a Campaign" Matthews' take, but keep in mind he was joined by every other outlet as well.
I actually heard a talking head on a morning talk show call Hillary Clinton "elitist" for saying that she likes to watch HGTV and Obama "safe and kind of gutless" for saying he liked to watch SpongeBob with his kids. But they left the obvious jokes of Mitt Romney's choice of Lost and McCain's Prison Break alone. Talk about safe and kind of gutless.
I have to say that the thought that anyone might be swayed in their vote by this information sickens--but does not surprise--me.
Picture and article via The Village Voice:
Three weeks after 9/11, when the roar of fighter jets still haunted the city's skyline, the emir of gas-rich Qatar, Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifah al-Thani, toured Ground Zero. Although a member of the emir's own royal family had harbored the man who would later be identified as the mastermind of the attack—a man named Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, often referred to in intelligence circles by his initials, KSM—al-Thani rushed to New York in its aftermath, offering to make a $3 million donation, principally to the families of its victims. Rudy Giuliani, apparently unaware of what the FBI and CIA had long known about Qatari links to Al Qaeda, appeared on CNN with al-Thani that night and vouched for the emir when Larry King asked the mayor: "You are a friend of his, are you not?"
Abdallah al-Thani remains a named defendant in the 9/11 lawsuits that are still proceeding in Manhattan federal court, but his Washington lawyers declined to address the charges that he shielded KSM, insisting only that he never "supported" any "terrorist acts." Asked if Abdallah al-Thani ever supported any terrorists rather than their acts, his lawyer David Nachman declined to comment further. The Congressional Research Service report summarized the evidence against him: "According to the 9/11 Commission Report and former U.S. government officials, royal family member and current Qatari Interior Minister, Sheikh Abdullah (Abdallah) bin Khalid Al Thani, provided safe harbor and assistance to Al Qaeda leaders during the 1990s," including KSM. While numerous accounts have named Abdallah as the KSM tipster, the report simply says that "a high ranking member of the Qatari government" is believed to have "alerted" KSM "to the impending raid."
In other words, as incredible as it might seem, Rudy Giuliani—whose presidential candidacy is steeped in 9/11 iconography—has been doing business with a government agency run by the very man who made the attacks on 9/11 possible. Read on...
(AP) — NBC's "Last Call with Carson Daly" is about to become the first late-night talk show to defy the writers strike and resume production. ...(read on)
That's just so not cool. Get to know some of the writers who Carson Daly is planning on dissing in this mini-documentary Who’s On The Line by Peter Hyoguchi, and if you want to know what this writer's strike is all about summed up nicely, check out the video Voices of Uncertainty from the "good guys at United Hollywood."
Jesse Jackson published an op-ed in the Chicago Sun-Times blasting the Democratic presidential candidates--with the exception of John Edwards--for ignoring African-American voters and issues of their community. Lou Dobbs brings on radio talk show hosts Joe Madison, Peter Boyles and Rachel Maddow on to discuss. Unfortunately, none of the guests really had a problem with the statement, which makes for boring TV. But Peter Boyles (who has a history of controversial and factually-challenged statements) had a problem with the messenger, and that's what makes hopping TV. His dismissal of Jackson as irrelevant gets Madison angry enough to hijack the segment until Lou Dobbs is forced to beg Rachel Maddow to be the voice of reason.
The Bush administration has been using the "state secrets" defense in order to have federal law suits challenging their illegal eavesdropping programs thrown out of court. So far, they have been successful; thanks, in most cases, to lazy or partisan judges who have given little or no scrutiny of the validity of their claims which, according to Constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley on Tuesday's Countdown, are nothing more than unconstitutional attempts to cover up their own federal crimes.
Olbermann: "With or without this new law, suppose one of the anti-wiretapping civil lawsuits succeeds, what does that legal victory actually mean then in terms of stopping the government or punishing Alberto Gonzales or any other top officials who were responsible for this?"
Turley: "Well, it can mean a lot and that's one of the reasons there's a lot of people, both Democrats and Republicans, who don't want to see it happen. They don't want a court to say that the president did something that is a federal crime. That's why they're trying to get all these cases thrown out of court because it is rather clear that what the president ordered was a federal crime, clearly defined in federal law. But that causes a problem because many of the Democratic leaders and Republican leaders have promised each other that they would not start impeachment proceedings, but when a federal judge says the president committed a crime, it's pretty darn hard to ignore that."
More blog links from Bob Morris of Politics in the Zeros (where I blog about antiwar, global warming, Left politics, etc.)
Subtopia, the amazing "field guide to military urbanism," has the scoop on the migrant detention center being built at Gitmo to house 10,000 people in case, y'know, there's a boat crisis or something.
Hawaii activists convinced a sugar plantation to burn sugar cane scrap to fuel an ethanol plant rather than coal. Using local biomass is way more carbon-friendly as it eliminates shipping coal from the mainland and the traditional burning of cane in the fields - and also saves the owner money. So, everyone wins. We need more solutions like this.
Ecosocialism joins green with red, saying we need new economic structures to deal with global warming and peak oil.
4th Generation Warfare is the military doctrine that says small, non-state players can damage and sometimes defeat much larger, more powerful forces - something with direct relevance to all manner of conflicts today.
And who would have guessed My Boyfriend is a Twat, her hilarious (and totally workplace safe) blog, would turn into a book?
Send tips to bob (at) polizeros (dot) com.
Oy. For reasons known only to them, Hannity & Colmes decided to feature this "rare" interview of internet gossip maven and Republican smear mouthpiece Matt Drudge did with SkyNews in the UK. Maybe it's because Drudge didn't cite FOXNews' oft-documented issues with accuracy when discussing the importance of getting information from varied sources. But then again, we all know the issues that the Eggman has with accuracy himself.
However, my irony meter redlined at this point:
Q: Big election next year. How big a role do you think the internet and websites will play in the way people make their decision of who to vote for?
DRUDGE: Well, it depends what the broadcast outlets do and don't do. Back in the last Clinton administration, during Lewinsky, for instance, which I had to break on the internet, because the other people wouldn't. If we're again faced with a corporations (sic) who don't want to report real news, the internet will play a very valuable role in the underground, catching real stories that are in spite. (sic)
Is that what you think you're doing, Drudge? REAL stories? Huh. I would have categorized it as hit-pieces-as-blind-items supplied to you as the useful tool of Republican operatives, but that's just me.