In the midst of a fairly damning conversation about the media and their ego-driven obsession with 'access' as demonstrated by the Tiger Woods nontroversy, UP with Chris Hayes got an amazing admission from former Press Secretary Robert Gibbs: when he stepped into the role, he was told to not even acknowledge the existence of a drone program.

“When I went through the process of becoming press secretary, one of the first things they told me was, ‘You’re not even to acknowledge the drone program. You’re not even to discuss that it exists,” said Gibbs, now an MSNBC contributor. That policy of secrecy, Gibbs said, made it difficult to deal with reporters asking about the program. Describing one such notable exchange in 2009 with Major Garrett, then of Fox News, Gibbs said, “I would get a question like that and literally I couldn’t tell you what Major asked, because once I figured out it was about the drone program, I realize I’m not supposed to talk about it.”

Gibbs added: “Here’s what’s inherently crazy about that proposition: you’re being asked a question based on reporting of a program that exists. So you’re the official government spokesperson acting as if the entire program…pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.”

The Obama administration has vastly stepped up the use of drones and targeted killings of suspected terrorists in countries like Pakistan and Yemen over the past four years, even targeting American citizens, a policy that has come under intense criticism from civil liberties advocates. For most of the president’s first term the administration steadfastly refused to acknowledge the program’s existence.

Now let's be clear: the drone program did not begin with the Obama administration, nor did the official secrecy about them. But it is this denial of a program we all knew existed that actually makes things less safe for Americans and antagonizes even more into terrorist acts in retaliation.

Ana Marie Cox reels from this information, although I'm not sure why she should be so shocked. Center for American Progress President Neera Tandem acknowledges that while there was probably a reasonable justification for keeping the program classified, it does make the administration look hypocritical after posturing itself as a more transparent and more willing to live up to the ideals of America than the Bush administration. Certainly, we've seen that cynicism permeate the liberal blogosphere.

Robert Gibbs blames the death of a teenage American boy on his not choosing a better father.

I'm surprised at how many people I know who don't have a problem with the U.S. relying on armed drones. "Hey, they save American lives," one friend said. "If they kill a few other people, that's too bad. So do regular bombs." Would I be exaggerating to say that Americans are now largely desensitized to our video-game wars?

To me, this issue is no less than a fight for the heart and soul of America. Now, we certainly have gotten used to the erosion of due process and civil rights since 9/11, but it strikes me that we have largely ignored it for far too long, and that this is something worth fighting for.

I'm often accused by his fans of "hating" President Obama and attacking his policies out of some imagined spite. Really, it's just that I remember the alarms raised by the progressive blogosphere when George W. Bush started the war on terror, and I simply can't bring myself to excuse the same excesses of power and empire just because it's a Democrat in the White House. We've switched from torture to assassination -- is that supposed to be moral progress?

I am deeply and profoundly disturbed by the story of Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, who was killed by a U.S. drone two weeks after his jihadist father was killed. It seems clear to me that this attack was meant as a symbolic warning. Why else would the United States of America blow up a 16-year-old American boy and then announce his death to the world as that of a military combatant? Why else was he targeted?

For the sins of his father?

Glenn Greenwald is right when he describes moral indifference toward drone attacks as sociopathic. And sadly, we won't really cry out full-force against such depravity until it is a Republican president who's ordering those deaths. And that Republican president will say, "But President Obama did it, and no one said a thing."

A U.N. investigative group is set to examine whether the civilian casualties caused by America’s covert targeted killing campaign are violating international law, according to an official at the organization reported by the Guardian.

Continue reading »

Awkward! Outgoing WH Spokesperson Robert Gibbs had an uncomfortable moment when a Russian journalist suggested that gun violence is also an American freedom.

Was the Arizona shooting rampage an inevitable byproduct of Americans having too much freedom?

Andrei Sitov, a reporter for official Russia news agency ITAR-TASS, argued that the "quote-unquote freedom of the deranged mind to react violently: It is also America."

Gibbs told Sitov he "vehemently" disagreed. "That is not America," Gibbs said

Oh really? Far be it for me to go against the disinformation of the right wing noise machine and the NRA, but Sitov has a pretty apt point. The US leads by a huge margin the number of gun-related acts of violence among the industrialized nations.

Sadly, sensible gun control seems to have replaced Social Security and Medicare as the untouchable "third rail" in politics today. I can't believe that there is a credible argument for keeping extended magazines, allowing semi-automatic weapons 30 or more shots, or as Rachel Maddow showed on Friday, make automatic weapons a little less easy to get.

So unfortunately, Mr. Gibbs, until we start having a truly honest discussion about gun control, the right for a deranged mind to act violently with guns IS an American freedom.

The Legal Community Against Violence has published Ten Myths About Gun Violence(.pdf) for more information.

Robert Gibbs announced his departure as White House press secretary today. As one who is not really a fan of how he has handled the press for the past two years (or the message), I wish him well and hope the next Press Secretary masters communications better. This would include a focus on aiming at the right wing and leaving the left alone.

Here are some excerpts from his press conference today:

Q Can you tell us a bit more -- in a bit more detail about what you're going to be doing next? You're not going to be lobbying or consulting. How would you define your next job?

MR. GIBBS: Well, let me start by saying a few things, Ben. It is -- and you all know this because you do this as well, and that is it is an honor and a privilege to stand here, to work inside this building, to serve your country, to work for a President that I admire as much as President Barack Obama.

I've been a member of his staff for almost seven years, and it’s -- again, it’s a remarkable privilege. It is in many ways the opportunity of a lifetime, one that I will be forever thankful and grateful for.

What I'm going to do next is step back a little bit, recharge some. We've been going at this pace for at least four years. I will have an opportunity I hope to give some speeches. I will continue to provide advice and counsel to this building and to this President. And I look forward to continuing to do that.

Q In terms of advocacy for the President, are you looking forward to the potential freedom that will come with speaking for him and not being behind that podium?

MR. GIBBS: No, look, we -- we're in a very different political environment than we've been in a number of years in this country and I think whoever stands here or whoever goes on television to make the case for this administration should be an advocate of the decisions and the policies that are coming from this building. You certainly have to play that role.

I'm not going in order to be freed up to say a series of things that I might not otherwise say. I've enjoyed every time I've come out here and even on days when you -- even every day, even when you wake up at 4:00 a.m. and pick up the paper and groan that you have a sense of what the first several questions might be. But I think it’s important for this country and for an administration to come out here and advocate on behalf of and -- on behalf of its policies and answer your questions.

Q And you’ve talked about how long you’ve been next to now President Obama. Can you talk about the impact that you think your leaving will have in concert with David Axelrod and already Rahm Emanuel?

MR. GIBBS: I will say this. One of the things you learn very quickly as you walk into this building each day, you’re struck by the sense that -- of the history of this place, and you realize that whatever your length of service here, it is temporary in the long and wonderful history of our country. And I think it does an administration good -- and I think it will do this administration good -- to have people like David Plouffe and others come into an administration who haven’t been here, who have been able to watch a little bit from the outside.

We all admit there’s -- you have to admit there’s a bubble in here, to some degree. So I think having new voices and having fresh voices, some of those voices that are coming back from having taken a couple of years off, are an important part of this process. I think they will serve the President well, even as people like David Axelrod and I go outside of the building and have a chance to talk to the President and people here with a slightly different perspective of not driving in here each morning.

So I think it’s unique. I think it’s -- but the truth is you walk around here and you see the history and such, and I'd just reiterate again, you realize that for however long you’re here, it’s temporary. But what endures is our government. What endures is the great experiment of democracy that’s proved to be such a wonderful thing for the world.

Suggestion for the next Press Secretary: Bring someone in from the outside who has watched the travesty unfold for the last two years. And make sure they've got sharp teeth and a sharper tongue.

This is a bit of a shock, but I guess it's predictable. People who have political and policy jobs tend to see things through the wrong end of the telescope, because they're so proud of the work they did, they can't see the big picture. What continued to astound me was that the White House staffers seemed completely out of touch with the depths of the economic devastation out here, so if any of these staffers are responsible for that blind spot, a change will serve the president well:

Some high-level Democrats are calling for President Barack Obama to remake his inner circle or even fire top advisers in response to what many party strategists expect to be a decisive defeat on Tuesday.

Tensions have come to the surface after meetings over the past few weeks in which Obama senior adviser David Axelrod discussed communications strategy with senior Democratic strategists and party officials. Some Democrats were so unhappy with the White House meetings, they started their own.

The strategy sessions aired a range of disagreements over how to help Democrats forestall an electoral drubbing at the polls—a defeat party strategists believe could have been minimized with a different White House playbook.

Among the complaints: Mr. Obama conveyed an incoherent message that didn't express what Democrats would do over the next two years if they retain power; he focused more on his own image than helping Democratic candidates; and the White House picked the wrong battle when it attacked Republicans for using "outside" money to pay for campaigns, an issue disconnected from voters' real-world anxieties.

The latest strategy session took place Monday afternoon.

"The money thing could work, but there's never been a larger frame around it to connect it to people's lives," said Dee Dee Myers, a consultant who worked for the Clinton White House when Republicans swept the 1994 elections. She said she participated in an Oct. 8 meeting with Mr. Axelrod and about 15 Democratic strategists at the White House.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (665)

PLAYS: (649)

Embed

Bill O'Reilly was all giddy last night about the news that in the wake of the seat-shuffling that followed Helen Thomas' departure from her front-row seat at White House press conferences, Fox News has managed to nab a front-row slot (the AP was awarded Thomas' coveted spot).

BillO even implied that he'd be coming down and making things rough on Press Secretary Robert Gibbs. Ho ho ho ho hah.

But as Lynn Sweet's report notes, Fox was awarded the spot over two other superb news organizations: NPR and Bloomberg. Indeed, both are at least legitimate news organizations and not the brazen propaganda outlet that Fox News has become.

If you want a clear example of just how openly Fox now propagandizes, check out the house ad it was running all day yesterday, touting speculation about what strategy is most likely to hurt Democrats and help the GOP:

DOWNLOADS: (467)

PLAYS: (926)

Embed

Fox has been able to get away with being a propaganda organ while pretending to do real "news" because of the cowardice of real working journalists, who have simply failed in their supposed role as the profession's "internal policing" mechanism.

This was exemplified, really, by the White House press corps' craven surrender to Fox's campaign to get that front-row seat, even though every working journalist in that room knows that at the end of the day, even a semi-decent guy like Major Garrett has to answer to Roger Ailes. Every one of them knows, too, that Fox churns out right-wing propaganda as a 24/7 operation.

But they will never do anything about it.

Continue reading »

DOWNLOADS: (836)

PLAYS: (992)

Embed

Anderson Cooper needs to stick to oil spills and hurricanes because when it comes to political commentary he's as lame as the Fox journalists. There's only one story to be told when it comes to the Shirley Sherrod fiasco: Andrew Breitbart lied. That's all. Andrew. Breitbart. lied.

But this is what journalism is today. There is no one with enough of a moral compass to just come out and say that in the media. This is why, by the way, Robert Gibbs and the Obama Administration won't say it either. I'll get to that toward the end of this post, but first let's have a look at Anderson Cooper's Invented America.

COOPER: But we begin with a political storm that nearly destroyed Shirley Sherrod. President Obama spoke with her on the phone today. And we will speak to her in a moment about that conversation.

But first the blogger who slammed Shirley Sherrod, we're "Keeping Them Honest." He is the only actor in this dismal drama that has not apologized to Ms. Sherrod. And, in fact, he says he is the victim and that the Obama administration and mainstream media are out to destroy him.

He told Politico today -- quote -- "I am public enemy number one or two to the Democratic Party, the progressive movement and the Obama administration based upon the successes my journalism has had."

Now, calling what Mr. Breitbart does journalism is hard for those of us who actually check and try to be fair. I'm certainly not perfect, and have made mistakes, and have apologized for them. But journalism shouldn't be about left and right. It should be about the truth.

Up to this point, I'm right there with him. Yes, journalism shouldn't be about left and right. It should be about truth. And facts. And full telling of the truth and facts. If Anderson Cooper had stopped here, I'd be applauding. Andrew Breitbart wouldn't know the truth if it reared up and breathed hot fire in his face.

But this is not what journalists do. We don't live in an age where they actually call it what it is and move on to the next story. No, instead they have to create that false "balance", or equivalence that just doesn't exist.

The single reason that Robert Gibbs and other Obama administration officials, including the President himself, will not call out Fox News and Breitbart is because of stupid assertions like the ones Cooper is about to make. If Gibbs had pointed out that the entire story was the product of a lie manufactured by Andrew Breitbart for attention and giggles, the narrative would have shifted to "Mean President Obama Whines and Picks on Andrew Breitbart".

The administration would have been painted as "petty", "blaming", "ducking the issue". It would have just obfuscated the truth of the matter, which is simple, and which I will repeat a few more times: Andrew Breitbart lied.

What Mr. Breitbart does and what others on the left and the right do may very well be what journalism has become, but it isn't certainly not what it should be. Mr. Breitbart also Politico -- quote -- "The desire here is to make it about me and not the Democratic establishment and the NAACP vs. the Tea Party."

That's been Mr. Breitbart's excuse since it was revealed that his video was not what he said it was. He claims this was never about Shirley Sherrod. In fact, he said to Sean Hannity -- quote -- "I could care less about Shirley Sherrod, to be honest with you."

That is the one thing he has said that is indisputable. He does not care about Shirley Sherrod, doesn't care about making false allegations against her or ruining her career. Andrew Breitbart has his ideology. He believes he is right. And in his mind that justifies any action he takes.

I'm still good with it through this point, even. Cooper has clearly named the villain in the plot and called it non-journalism, which it is. He could have even said Andrew Breitbart just lied, but we all know that would be too good to be true. His next segment is where he falls off the edge of the planet into Outer Journo space:

And that's how ideologues think on the left and on the right. Post a video clip that's misleading? No problem if it helps you make your argument, if it helps boost visitors to your Web site. Make false claims about a person? Why not, if it gets you more Web traffic?

That is where we are today. Andrew Breitbart is conservative. But, as I said, there are liberals online and on TV who do the exact same things. They cherry-pick the facts that prove their arguments, not the facts that reveal the truth.

Oh, really? If you know of any liberal blogger who has intentionally edited a video clip to mislead and cause entire organizations serving poor folks to crumble, post a comment with a link, please. Anderson Cooper's equivalence sounds oh, so lofty until you sit down and ask yourself where exactly are these misleading video clips posted from the left that destroy people?

Where are they? Where is the left saying that an entire organization on the right loaded up voter registrations with bogus Republicans? I've only seen proven allegations with a criminal record to back them up.

Where ARE those lefty videos? Please, show them to me.

Of course, you can't. Because there are none. Huffington Post, which is probably the closest thing to Breitbart's sites, has nothing like that video. This site doesn't. Daily Kos? FireDogLake? I don't see any there. So please, tell me where are these videos?

Of course, Anderson doesn't stop with that. He invokes one of the 'reasonable right' (and I use the term guardedly) to back his assertions.

David Frum, a conservative, said on this program last night the problem is not liberalism or conservatism. It's factionalism, seeing the world through your own limited political lens and never admitting when you have made a mistake, never admitting the other side may be right some of the time, never doing anything that damages your faction.

Funny, I've been known to hammer on those to the left of me about hammering on our own, because they are all too willing sometimes to flog OUR side at the expense of the bigger picture, in my opinion. Whether I hammer or not, there's always someone in the liberal blogosphere willing to take OUR side to task without regard to what the rotten Right might be up to. So again, I'd really like to see the evidence of that. Show us. Quit saying it and show me the goods.

It's a game for people like Mr. Breitbart and others. They don't go out into the field and meet the people they're supposedly reporting on. They don't go out and challenge their assumptions. They stay behind a desk and see the world as black or white, left or right. And it's a lot more complex than that.

Actually, Anderson, here's a news flash for you. I've met Andrew Breitbart and he doesn't sit behind a desk all day. He sits in a bottle a lot, though. Why not call him what he is? A bully, an idealogue, a liar and a likely lush.

This isn't a question of "both sides do it." What Breitbart did, by his own admission, was use a government employee as a weapon to stir racial tension. The fact that it worked at first is another issue entirely. He lied to get a reaction. Andrew Breitbart lied. Repeat after me: Andrew Breitbart lied.

Where I come from, that's dishonest antagonism. Not journalism.

Robert Gibbs opened up his daily briefing today with a frank confession that the administration had made a decision on Shirley Sherrod's speech without all of the facts, and offered an apology to her directly.

QUESTION: And to a lot of people trying to follow this story, they see a government employee who ends up losing her job because of comments posted on a videotape that appears to be taken out of context. It just looks bungled. Is that a fair way to put it?

GIBBS: Well, Ben, I think this is one -- I think this is a fair way to put it: members of this administration, members of the media, members of different political factions on this, have all made determinations and judgments without a full set of facts. I think that is -- that is wholly and completely accurate.

I think, without a doubt, Ms. Sherrod is owed an apology. I would do so certainly on behalf of this administration.

I think if we learn -- if we look back and decide what we want to learn out of this, I think it is, as I said, everybody involved made determinations without knowing all the facts and all of the events.

When pressed on the reason for the rapid-fire response, Gibbs had a reply that should have made everyone in the room step back and offer their own apology, but instead it just fired up the machine louder, because if there's anything the mainstream White House press hates, it's being held accountable.

GIBBS: I can't speak for everybody involved. But I think we live in a -- I think we live in a culture that things whip around, people want fast responses, we want to give fast responses and I don't think there's any doubt that if we all look at this, I think the lesson -- one of the great lessons you take away from this is to ask all of the questions first and to come to that fuller understanding. I say that, again, from the perspective of this administration, I say that from the perspective of those that cover this administration, and those that are involved in the back-and-forth in the political theater of this country.

And more:

QUESTION: It does sound like you've spoken to the president about this. If so, does he think she was a victim of a rush to judgment?

GIBBS: Again, I don't think I'd be out here, Matt, giving you the answers that I just gave to Ben without having those reflect the feelings of the president and the feelings of the members of this administration.

True to form, questions revert back to the horserace mentality so pervasive in Washington DC:

QUESTION: What if any concern is there within the administration that this handling of Ms. Sherrod could hurt the president and the Democrats as well in the elections?

GIBBS: Your question encapsulates a little bit of what I was talking about a minute ago. I know there is a -- we have this society and this culture now that's pervasive in this town where everything is viewed through the lens of who wins, who loses, how fast, by what margin?

You know -- look, a disservice was done, an apology is owed. That's what we've done. This administration has never looked at -- I think if you go well back into the campaign -- never looked at a scoreboard at the end of each day to figure out where we stood.

I'm no Robert Gibbs fan, but I don't think he could have done a better job keeping the message focused on the wrong done to Shirley Sherrod and the White House message of apology and conciliation, despite every effort to deflect it.

Continue reading »

Who knew Fox News Sunday mashes up so well with Monty Python? (via yours truly) It's always a trip to see what Jon Kyl gets away with on Fox News Sunday. That said, I'm looking forward even more to seeing what everyone else will NOT get away with on Meet The Press, given that Rachel Maddow is on the panel this morning:

The Chris Matthews Show: Panel with Joe Klein, Time magazine; Trish Regan, CNBC; Katty Kay, BBC; Clarence Page, Chicago Tribune.

Meet the Press: White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs. Panel: David Brooks, New York Times; former Rep. Harold Ford Jr. (D-Tenn.); Ed Gillespie; Rachel Maddow.

ABC's This Week: White House advisor David Axelrod; Rep. Arizona immigration law: Brian Bilbray (R-Ca.); Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.). Panel: Ron Brownstein; Ruth Marcus; the Washington Post; Reihan Salam, National Review; George Will.

Fox News Sunday With Chris Wallace: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Senator Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.); David Axelrod, White House Senior Adviser.

What's catching your eyes and ears this morning?

CNN is reporting that General McChrystal has submitted his resignation. The President wants to meet with him before deciding to accept it.

Yes, General McChrystal snarked and growled in front of a Rolling Stone reporter about foreign officials, the Obama administration, President Obama and Vice President Biden. About the only official to get a pass from McChrystal was Hillary Clinton, largely because she supports whatever the military wants in Afghanistan. And as Jason argues, all of this is a reason for the President to accept his resignation.

I've watched this story unfold all day, and while I believe the remarks McChrystal made about the administration and the President reflect poorly on him and are insubordinate, I'm surprised that the focus has been so sharply laid upon that angle. No matter what the good general has to say about his conduct in an apologetic tone, he knew exactly what he said and who he said it to. He also received the article in advance.

Robert Gibbs laid out the real reason for why the President should accept McChrystal's resignation in his daily briefing.

MR. GIBBS: Well, let me say, first and foremost, there are more than 90,000 of our bravest men and women in Afghanistan, and what we owe them is nothing short of our full support and our best efforts to get a new strategy in that country right. That’s the president’s focus. That should be everybody’s focus.

It was a strategy, as you all know, that was worked out in long consultation last fall and last winter. And the president went around to many of the people that will be in the Situation Room tomorrow, asking them if they agreed with this new strategy and asked for their commitment to implement it. That’s — again, that’s what we owe the men and women that are — that are fighting each and every day over there.

According to the Rolling Stone article, the rank and file has lost faith in McChrystal's strategy and believe it places them at a greater risk of injury and death.

But however strategic they may be, McChrystal’s new marching orders have caused an intense backlash among his own troops. Being told to hold their fire, soldiers complain, puts them in greater danger. “Bottom line?” says a former Special Forces operator who has spent years in Iraq and Afghanistan. “I would love to kick McChrystal in the nuts. His rules of engagement put soldiers’ lives in even greater danger. Every real soldier will tell you the same thing.”

This is why McChrystal must resign. The President will survive petty snark about whether he was sufficiently deferential to the general at their first meeting. He will survive the hysterical flappings of the right about how he's unqualified to lead, and how the military doesn't respect him. This is not about President Obama. It's about the troops who are putting their lives on the line every single day in Afghanistan.

Everyone who has a clue about leadership understands what happens when the rank and file loses faith. There can be no question that the troops in Afghanistan do not believe in their ability to successfully carry out the mission McChrystal has defined, nor do they believe in the mission itself. That is a very large red flag that must not be ignored.

Just as McChrystal has expressed his lack of faith and trust in the President, so too have the troops expressed similar sentiments toward him. For that reason, it is time for General McChrystal to hand his letter of resignation to the President when he reports tomorrow. He should then apologize not to the President, but to the troops under his command whose concerns he so cavalierly dismissed.

So forgive me if I don't buy the "I'm so sorry, I used poor judgment" apology. I don't. He knew what he said and why he said it.

What Gibbs said is far more important. This is about those 90,000 men and women over there. And what that article said is far more important. Those 90,000 men and women doubt this general's strategy and believe they are being put in more danger than necessary. When the President accepts McChrystal's resignation, effective immediately, he should make this clear to the country.

It really isn't about the President. Or even about tension between civilian/military leadership. It is about McChrystal's failure to lead those troops in that region with full conviction and belief in their success. Don't be fooled by all the right wing spew about to gush forth. For this administration, the troops are what matter, not a general's petulance about not being properly admired by a sitting President.