Robert Parry
February 11, 2011
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2011/021111.html
U.S. progressive media has had a tough few weeks. First, Keith Olbermann, the pioneer for liberal programming during MSNBC’s evening hours, was sent packing. Then, Arianna Huffington allowed AOL to subsume her Huffington Post into AOL’s right-of-center content for the price tag of $315 million.
Leftist bloggers who had provided free content to Huffington Post, enabling it to become a valuable property, found themselves quite literally sold out, with Huffington pocketing $18 million while making clear that she won’t battle for the liberal banner inside AOL.
Huffington joined with her new boss, AOL Chairman Tim Armstrong, to declare that their focus will be on how many eyeballs can be drawn to AOL, not in pushing progressive causes.
"Arianna has the same interest we do, which is serving consumers' needs and going beyond the just straight political needs of people," Armstrong said.
For her part, Huffington noted that her Web site was already shedding its political identity, providing more celebrity news and scandal stories, including a new section devoted to divorces. While about half of the traffic was on politics a couple of years ago, she said, that is now down to about 15 percent with only one of two dozen “sections” centered on politics.
Huffington, who burst onto the national stage in the 1990s as a right-wing talker denouncing President Bill Clinton, indicated in the wake of the sale to AOL that she may be shifting her ideology again.
"It's time for all of us in journalism to move beyond left and right," Huffington told PBS's "NewsHour." "Truly, it is an obsolete way of looking at the problems America is facing."
As Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank noted, Huffington used almost the same words when she changed her political colorations a decade ago. In 2000, she told Fox News, "The old distinctions of right and left, Democrat, Republican, are pretty obsolete."
Milbank wrote: “Anybody who expects her to continue as a reliable voice of the left is a poor student of Huffington history. I first came across Huffington in 1995, when she was working at [Newt] Gingrich's Progress and Freedom Foundation, preaching social consciousness to fellow conservatives.
“She railed against ‘big government’ and pronounced: ‘We do our part and God meets us halfway. That's why I'm a conservative.’ That version of Huffington called for strict immigration restrictions. She favored Bill Clinton's resignation and floated the rumor that a former ambassador had been buried in Arlington because Clinton had slept with his wife.”
She thrived as a rightist talking-head during the height of the Clinton-bashing in the 1990s, decrying his marital infidelity even as her own marriage to Rep. Michael Huffington, R-California, had the look of a political arrangement. She divorced the multimillionaire Huffington in 1997, shortly before he disclosed that he was bisexual.
A Second Divorce
Emerging from the divorce with a sizeable settlement, Arianna Huffington also separated from her right-wing ideological family. She moved leftward, filling what turned out to be a lucrative void as an outspoken leader of Hollywood's liberal community.
While many on the Left embraced Huffington’s ideological transformation then – with some wealthy progressives contributing substantial sums to her liberal projects – others remained skeptical, in part, because she never fully explained the reasons for her political shift.
She spoke only generally about how the Right had "seduced, fooled, blinded, bamboozled" her. But some of her critics saw instead an opportunistic calculation in her chameleon-like approach to politics.
In 2005, Huffington founded Huffington Post, which operated with a business model that relied on activists, politicians and entertainers contributing free content. The Web site soon became an important center for progressives critical of George W. Bush’s presidency.
Over time, Huffington Post also featured gossipy articles about popular celebrities. Like other left-of-center sites, such as Salon.com, those stories often emerged as the best-read, encouraging a further drift in that direction as a means of securing advertising dollars.
The commercial success of Huffington Post – resulting from its low overhead due to the work of some 3,000 bloggers writing for free and from Huffington’s effective self-promotion – caught the eye of Wall Street investors and obviously AOL.
Though AOL generally provides right-of-center news content to subscribers – for instance, AOL joined in last week’s hagiography of Ronald Reagan – its management concluded that it could do business with Arianna Huffington.
The sale of Huffington Post to a corporation that positions itself in the right branch of the mainstream media – what many on the Left deride as the MSM – upset a number of the site’s bloggers, including some who vowed to withdraw their work.
A Twitter account, called #HUFFPUFF, urged “jammers, creatives and revolutionaries” to strike back at Huffington’s sell-out. “Arianna Huffington has betrayed us,” the message declared, “so let’s huff and puff her house down.”
The broadside continued: “Socialite Arianna Huffington built a blog-empire on the backs of thousands of citizen journalists. She exploited our idealism and let us labor under the illusion that the Huffington Post was different, independent and leftist. Now she's cashed in and three thousand indie bloggers find themselves working for a megacorp.
“But the Huffington Post is not Arianna's to sell. It is ours: the lefty writers and readers, environmentalism activists and anti-corporate organizers who flooded the site with 25 million visits a month. So we're going to take it back. We'll stop going to her site. And we'll stop blogging for her too.”
In another big disappointment to progressives, Olbermann abruptly left MSNBC last month, announcing his departure in a brief signoff at the end his regular Friday broadcast of his “Countdown” program. Olbermann’s unceremonious push out the door would never have been matched by Rupert Murdoch’s right-wing Fox News toward its media stars.
In that way, Olbermann’s treatment was a reminder to the surviving liberal hosts on MSNBC – the likes of Rachel Maddow and Ed Schultz – that they are expendable, too, and that MSNBC experimented with liberal-oriented programming only after its attempts to out-Fox Fox had failed.
In his nearly eight years at “Countdown,” Olbermann was the brave soul who charted the course for other mainstream media types to even mildly criticize Bush. More typical of NBC Universal’s cable shows was the fawning treatment that Chris Matthews afforded Bush in 2003 during the heady days of what was viewed as the victorious invasion of Iraq.
Fish to Fry
NBC’s owner, General Electric, was a charter member of the military-industrial complex and – as a major international conglomerate – had more corporate fish to fry than the modestly higher ratings that Olbermann provided MSNBC. Comcast, the cable giant which is assuming a majority stake in NBC Universal, similarly has more lucrative interests amid the regulatory world of Washington.
This week, Olbermann announced that he would become “chief news officer” at former Vice President Al Gore’s “Current Media,” a struggling media operation that is available mostly over the Internet and in households with digital cable connections.
“Nothing is more vital to a free America than a free media, and nothing is more vital to my concept of a free media than news produced independently of corporate interference,” Olbermann told reporters. “In Current Media, Al Gore and Joel Hyatt have created the model truth-seeking entity.”
Though Olbermann may draw new attention and more viewers to Current, the overall impact of his departure from MSNBC is that far fewer Americans will have access to Olbermann’s influential commentaries which were important in rallying progressives especially during the peak of Bush’s power.
A lesson for progressives from AOL’s purchase of Huffington Post may be that they should be a bit more leery of converts from the Right, especially those who don’t explain adequately what led to their ideological switch.
While liberals seem especially eager to reward ex-conservatives by lavishing them with financial and other support, progressives might consider showing their generosity more to people who have proven their commitment to worthy causes or honest journalism with years of hard work.
All these points, however, go back to the overall weakness of progressives in the field of media. If a powerful liberal cable network did exist, MSNBC might have had second thoughts about treating someone like Olbermann so high-handedly, since he could jump to a competing channel that could badly dent MSNBC’s ratings.
Similarly, progressives behaved in an overly credulous manner toward Arianna Huffington, thrilled that someone with such an outsized media profile – gained from her service as a foot soldier in the right-wing war on Clinton – would turn the bright light of her celebrity on liberal causes and create a home for progressive content.
Having suffered these recent painful reminders of where they really stand in the thinking of corporate media, progressives may want to rethink their own media strategies, forgoing shortcuts and returning to the difficult work of building an effective media infrastructure.
For more on these topics, see Robert Parry’s Lost History and Secrecy & Privilege, which are now available with Neck Deep, in a three-book set for the discount price of only $29.
Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Neck Deep: The Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush, was written with two of his sons, Sam and Nat, and can be ordered at neckdeepbook.com. His two previous books, Secrecy & Privilege: The Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq and Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth' are also available there.
Showing posts with label Keith Olbermann. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Keith Olbermann. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Farewell to Countdown
Keith Olbermann, whether you love him or hate him, is a winner. At his worst, he is as pompous of a gasbag as they come, and he certainly was a key player in the smearing of Hillary during the 2008 election, leading to the victory of a Wall Street tool. Which is besides the point, because he's also easily the biggest draw that MSNBC has. To dump him would be as foolish as if Fox News dumped Bill O'Reilly or Glenn Beck.
But dump him they did. Rachel Maddow, showing what a good korporate team player liberal she is, declared on Bill Maher's Real Time that "he and the company made a mutual decision that 'Countdown' is done." To which Maher, with his usual sharp wit, replied: "That's always bullshit."
Bullshit indeed. As Olbermann said on his surprise final show, he thought about ranting against management after he was "told that this is going to be the last edition." So that settles it, contrary to Maddow's claim, this was a unilateral decision, not a mutual one.
Most theories as to why Olbermann was dumped focus on the takeover of NBC by Comcast, and it's hard to ignore that as the explanation. Olbermann was one of the few media voices to question if electronic voting fraud was behind the 2004 election results, report with outrage on the illegal torture done on war prisoners, report with outrage on the illegal spying on Americans done by both the Bush and Obama Administrations, report with outrage on the Hurricane Katrina failures, and perhaps his greatest sin of all, rail against the War in Iraq.
Simply put, Keith Olbermann, love him or hate him, has balls and sticks his neck out, and that's not what Comcast wants. They want someone they can control, preferring the face of MSNBC to be someone like Maddow, a cute, snuggly lesbian who rarely speaks out on economic injustice or other issues challenging the status quo. As her cowardly boilerplate response on Maher reveals, she already knows her place.
Why did Keith Olbermann leave MSNBC?
Michael Calderone
Sat Jan 22, 2011
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thecutline/20110122/ts_yblog_thecutline/why-is-keith-olbermann-out-of-msnbc
But dump him they did. Rachel Maddow, showing what a good korporate team player liberal she is, declared on Bill Maher's Real Time that "he and the company made a mutual decision that 'Countdown' is done." To which Maher, with his usual sharp wit, replied: "That's always bullshit."
Bullshit indeed. As Olbermann said on his surprise final show, he thought about ranting against management after he was "told that this is going to be the last edition." So that settles it, contrary to Maddow's claim, this was a unilateral decision, not a mutual one.
Most theories as to why Olbermann was dumped focus on the takeover of NBC by Comcast, and it's hard to ignore that as the explanation. Olbermann was one of the few media voices to question if electronic voting fraud was behind the 2004 election results, report with outrage on the illegal torture done on war prisoners, report with outrage on the illegal spying on Americans done by both the Bush and Obama Administrations, report with outrage on the Hurricane Katrina failures, and perhaps his greatest sin of all, rail against the War in Iraq.
Simply put, Keith Olbermann, love him or hate him, has balls and sticks his neck out, and that's not what Comcast wants. They want someone they can control, preferring the face of MSNBC to be someone like Maddow, a cute, snuggly lesbian who rarely speaks out on economic injustice or other issues challenging the status quo. As her cowardly boilerplate response on Maher reveals, she already knows her place.
Why did Keith Olbermann leave MSNBC?
Michael Calderone
Sat Jan 22, 2011
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_thecutline/20110122/ts_yblog_thecutline/why-is-keith-olbermann-out-of-msnbc
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
New Big Screen Documentary Exposes Pat Tillman Cover-Up
http://www.prisonplanet.com/new-big-screen-documentary-exposes-pat-tillman-cover-up.html
New Big Screen Documentary Exposes Pat Tillman Cover-Up
Evidence strongly indicates Tillman was murdered to prevent him from becoming an anti-war icon
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
A new documentary set to hit the big screen this summer lifts the lid on the cover-up behind the death of Pat Tillman, the pro-football star who gave up a lucrative career to fight in Afghanistan and Iraq before preparing to return to the U.S. as an anti-war icon, at which point he was killed in a so-called friendly fire incident that more closely resembled a deliberate assassination.
Whether or not the documentary delves into the question of whether Tillman’s death was a targeted act of murder remains to be seen, but the evidence strongly indicates that Tillman was deliberately assassinated in order to prevent him from becoming an anti-war icon and derailing public support in the United States for the ongoing occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Tillman sacrificed the good life and a multi-million dollar football career in the belief that he was defending his country from outside enemies, and soon after 9/11 turned down a contract offer of $3.6 million over three years from the Cardinals to enlist in the U.S. Army.
It was during Tillman’s second deployment to Afghanistan, after previously serving in Iraq, that he was killed by what the U.S. military initially claimed was a Taliban ambush. It later emerged that the ambush story had been concocted by the Pentagon in an attempt to exploit Tillman’s death for pro-war propaganda. Subsequent investigations claimed that Tillman was killed as a result of a friendly fire accident.
However, in July 2007, the results of an Army medical report found that Tillman had been shot three times in the head with an M16 from a mere 10 yards away, clearly suggesting that the incident was a targeted assassination.
“Army medical examiners were suspicious about the close proximity of the three bullet holes in Pat Tillman’s forehead and tried without success to get authorities to investigate whether the former NFL player’s death amounted to a crime,” reported the Associated Press.
“The medical evidence did not match up with the, with the scenario as described,” a doctor who examined Tillman’s body after he was killed on the battlefield in Afghanistan in 2004 told investigators. “The doctors – whose names were blacked out – said that the bullet holes were so close together that it appeared the Army Ranger was cut down by an M-16 fired from a mere 10 yards or so away.”
The report also states that “No evidence at all of enemy fire was found at the scene – no one was hit by enemy fire, nor was any government equipment struck.”
The article also reveals that “Army attorneys sent each other congratulatory e-mails for keeping criminal investigators at bay as the Army conducted an internal friendly-fire investigation that resulted in administrative, or non-criminal, punishments.”
The doctor who autopsied Tillman’s body tried to pursue an investigation into the question of whether Tillman was murdered but was prevented from doing so by higher-ups at the Army’s Criminal Investigation Division.
The motive for the murder would undoubtedly have been Tillman’s plans to return to the U.S. and a vocal critic of the Afghanistan and Iraq invasions.
The evidence points directly to it and the motivation is clear – Tillman abandoned a lucrative career in pro-football immediately after 9/11 because he felt a rampaging patriotic urge to defend his country, and became a poster child for the war on terror as a result. But when he discovered that the invasion of Iraq was based on a mountain of lies and deceit and had nothing to do with defending America, he became infuriated and was ready to return home to become an anti-war hero.
In September 2005, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that a friend of Tillman had set up a meeting with author and prominent war critic Noam Chomsky, which was scheduled to take place after Tillman’s return from Afghanistan. Chomsky confirmed that the meeting was arranged.
As far back as March 2003, immediately after the invasion of Iraq, Tillman famously told his comrade Spc. Russell Baer, “You know, this war is so fucking illegal,” and urged his entire platoon to vote against Bush in the 2004 election.
During a July 2007 appearance on Keith Olbermann’s MSNBC show, four star General Wesley Clark stated that “the orders came from the very top” to cover-up the nature of Tillman’s death as he was a political symbol and his opposition to the war in Iraq would have rallied the population around supporting immediate withdrawal.
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Blackwater pimped out young Iraqi girls?
http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/08/07/blackwater-provided-child-prostitutes/
Ex-employees claim Blackwater pimped out young Iraqi girls
David Edwards and Muriel Kane
August 7, 2009
Since the revelation earlier this week of allegations by two former employees of security firm Blackwater that its owner was complicit in murder in order to cover up the deliberate killing of Iraqi civilians, explosive charges have continued to emerge.
Perhaps the most shocking of those charges — quoted by MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann on Thursday from the employees’ sworn declarations — is that Blackwater was guilty of using child prostitutes at its compound in Baghdad’s fortified Green Zone and that owner Erik Prince knew of this activity and did nothing to stop it.
The declarations describe Blackwater as “having young girls provide oral sex to Enterprise members in the ‘Blackwater Man Camp’ in exchange for one American dollar.” They add even though Prince frequently visited this camp, he “failed to stop the ongoing use of prostitutes, including child prostitutes, by his men.”
One of the statements also charges that “Prince’s North Carolina operations had an ongoing wife-swapping and sex ring, which was participated in by many of Mr. Prince’s top executives.”
According to the two former employees, Blackwater supervisors in Iraq sometimes sent men back to the United States for wanting to “kill ragheads,” excessive drinking, steroid use, or failure to follow weapon safety procedures, but “Mr. Prince and his executives would send them back” with a reprimand to the supervisor for costing the firm money. Blackwater even fired “those mental health professionals who were not willing to endorse deployments of unfit men.”
The former employees additionally state that Prince was engaged in illegal arms dealing, money laundering, and tax evasion, that he created “a web of companies in order to obscure wrong-doing, fraud, and other crimes,” and that Blackwater’s chief financial officer had “resigned … stating he was not willing to go to jail for Erik Prince.”
Prince has repeatedly insisted his company has done nothing wrong and Blackwater — now renamed Xe — continues to fulfill its contracts with the United States government.
Ex-employees claim Blackwater pimped out young Iraqi girls
David Edwards and Muriel Kane
August 7, 2009
Since the revelation earlier this week of allegations by two former employees of security firm Blackwater that its owner was complicit in murder in order to cover up the deliberate killing of Iraqi civilians, explosive charges have continued to emerge.
Perhaps the most shocking of those charges — quoted by MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann on Thursday from the employees’ sworn declarations — is that Blackwater was guilty of using child prostitutes at its compound in Baghdad’s fortified Green Zone and that owner Erik Prince knew of this activity and did nothing to stop it.
The declarations describe Blackwater as “having young girls provide oral sex to Enterprise members in the ‘Blackwater Man Camp’ in exchange for one American dollar.” They add even though Prince frequently visited this camp, he “failed to stop the ongoing use of prostitutes, including child prostitutes, by his men.”
One of the statements also charges that “Prince’s North Carolina operations had an ongoing wife-swapping and sex ring, which was participated in by many of Mr. Prince’s top executives.”
According to the two former employees, Blackwater supervisors in Iraq sometimes sent men back to the United States for wanting to “kill ragheads,” excessive drinking, steroid use, or failure to follow weapon safety procedures, but “Mr. Prince and his executives would send them back” with a reprimand to the supervisor for costing the firm money. Blackwater even fired “those mental health professionals who were not willing to endorse deployments of unfit men.”
The former employees additionally state that Prince was engaged in illegal arms dealing, money laundering, and tax evasion, that he created “a web of companies in order to obscure wrong-doing, fraud, and other crimes,” and that Blackwater’s chief financial officer had “resigned … stating he was not willing to go to jail for Erik Prince.”
Prince has repeatedly insisted his company has done nothing wrong and Blackwater — now renamed Xe — continues to fulfill its contracts with the United States government.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Cheney is guilty of 'murder' if Hersh claims are true
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/John_Dean_Bush_and_Cheney_neutered_0313.html
John Dean: Cheney is guilty of 'murder' if Hersh claims are true
David Edwards and Rachel Oswald
Friday March 13, 2009
Investigative reporter Seymour Hersh’s bombshell earlier this week that Vice President Dick Cheney controlled an “executive assassination ring” continues to reverberate throughout Washington, with Nixon aide John Dean going so far as to accuse the former VP of murder if the charges are true.
MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann visited the issue on his show Countdown Thursday night where he discussed the legal implications of Hersh's allegations with Dean, who was White House legal counsel under President Richard Nixon.
“It’s potentially a war crime,” Dean said of the reported assassination ring. “It’s potentially just outright murder and it’s clearly in violation of the Ford Executive Order.”
Hersh told the students at the University of Minnesota on Tuesday that the assassination squad was “a special wing of our special operations community that is set up independently. In the Bush-Cheney Days, they reported directly to the Cheney, Cheney office. They do not report to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff or to Mr. Gates, the secretary of defense. They report directly to him. Congress has no oversight of it. It’s an executive assassination ring, essentially.”
“If this is true you have to prosecute this. There is no way around this,” said Olbermann, noting the 1976 executive order of President Gerald Ford which explicitly outlawed the engagement of political employees in political assassination. Cheney was Ford’s chief of staff at the time the order was issued.
“By the time Cheney was back in the West Wing it appears that Cheney had forgotten his own boss’s executive order, or worse, he had decided to ignore it,” Olbermann said.
Dean told Olbermann that “the President’s the only one you can argue who may have the authority to engage in assassinations.
Newsweek editor Howard Fineman shared with Olbermann his own investigation into the veracity of Hersh's claims. Fineman said his talks Thursday with sources in the intelligence community had revealed that while they are skeptical of the existence of any assassination ring, they had too much respect in Hersh's reporting to dismiss the allegations outright and that they warranted further study.
However, not everyone is buying the claims made by Hersh. The Weekly Standard's Bill Roggio writes, "Hersh has made a living of making fantastic claims that don't quite live up to the hype. Chalk this one up as another Hersh fantasy."
Claims by the CIA that the Hersh allegations were “utter nonsense,” are not surprising, said Fineman.
“If there is in fact such a thing... and the CIA was kept in the dark about it, the last thing they would want to do right now is to admit it,” Fineman said.
Fineman said he has been told by aides to Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee who has proposed forming an independent ‘Truth Commission’ to investigate abuses of the Bush administration, that not many members of the Senate have signed on to the proposal as of yet.
However, the new allegations by Hersh may be shocking enough to push more senators over to Leahy’s side, Fineman said.
“This could be that thing, depending on how much it pans out,” Fineman said. “One more really serious allegation…I think you’re going to see a lot of senators wanting to join Sen. Leahy’s side on this.”
John Dean: Cheney is guilty of 'murder' if Hersh claims are true
David Edwards and Rachel Oswald
Friday March 13, 2009
Investigative reporter Seymour Hersh’s bombshell earlier this week that Vice President Dick Cheney controlled an “executive assassination ring” continues to reverberate throughout Washington, with Nixon aide John Dean going so far as to accuse the former VP of murder if the charges are true.
MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann visited the issue on his show Countdown Thursday night where he discussed the legal implications of Hersh's allegations with Dean, who was White House legal counsel under President Richard Nixon.
“It’s potentially a war crime,” Dean said of the reported assassination ring. “It’s potentially just outright murder and it’s clearly in violation of the Ford Executive Order.”
Hersh told the students at the University of Minnesota on Tuesday that the assassination squad was “a special wing of our special operations community that is set up independently. In the Bush-Cheney Days, they reported directly to the Cheney, Cheney office. They do not report to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff or to Mr. Gates, the secretary of defense. They report directly to him. Congress has no oversight of it. It’s an executive assassination ring, essentially.”
“If this is true you have to prosecute this. There is no way around this,” said Olbermann, noting the 1976 executive order of President Gerald Ford which explicitly outlawed the engagement of political employees in political assassination. Cheney was Ford’s chief of staff at the time the order was issued.
“By the time Cheney was back in the West Wing it appears that Cheney had forgotten his own boss’s executive order, or worse, he had decided to ignore it,” Olbermann said.
Dean told Olbermann that “the President’s the only one you can argue who may have the authority to engage in assassinations.
Newsweek editor Howard Fineman shared with Olbermann his own investigation into the veracity of Hersh's claims. Fineman said his talks Thursday with sources in the intelligence community had revealed that while they are skeptical of the existence of any assassination ring, they had too much respect in Hersh's reporting to dismiss the allegations outright and that they warranted further study.
However, not everyone is buying the claims made by Hersh. The Weekly Standard's Bill Roggio writes, "Hersh has made a living of making fantastic claims that don't quite live up to the hype. Chalk this one up as another Hersh fantasy."
Claims by the CIA that the Hersh allegations were “utter nonsense,” are not surprising, said Fineman.
“If there is in fact such a thing... and the CIA was kept in the dark about it, the last thing they would want to do right now is to admit it,” Fineman said.
Fineman said he has been told by aides to Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee who has proposed forming an independent ‘Truth Commission’ to investigate abuses of the Bush administration, that not many members of the Senate have signed on to the proposal as of yet.
However, the new allegations by Hersh may be shocking enough to push more senators over to Leahy’s side, Fineman said.
“This could be that thing, depending on how much it pans out,” Fineman said. “One more really serious allegation…I think you’re going to see a lot of senators wanting to join Sen. Leahy’s side on this.”
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
NSA Monitored All Communications
http://www.prisonplanet.com/nsa-monitored-all-communications.html
NSA Monitored All Communications
Kurt Nimmo
Prison Planet.com
Thursday, January 22, 2009
On January 21, former National Security Agency analyst Russell Tice appeared Keith Olbermann’s MSNBC show. Tice, who helped expose the NSA’s warrantless wiretapping in December 2005, told Olbermann government programs designed to spy on the American people are more extensive and far reaching than previously admitted. “The National Security Agency had access to all Americans’ communications — faxes, phone calls, and their computer communications,” Tice said. “It didn’t matter whether you were in Kansas, in the middle of the country, and you never made foreign communications at all. They monitored all communications.”
During the Bush administration, it was claimed the intercepts involved foreign communications and the intelligence gathered was integral to the conduct of the so-called global war on terrorism. In order to get around the warrant requirements of FISA, a bill authorizing the use of United States Armed Forces against those supposedly responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001, was passed (Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists). The authorization granted Bush the authority to use all “necessary and appropriate force” against those whom he determined “planned, authorized, committed or aided” the September 11th attacks, or those who harbored said persons or groups. AUMF allowed the Bush administration to avoid FISA and Wiretap Act restrictions.
But according to Tice, the NSA program was not limited to alleged al-Qaeda members, as Attorney General Alberto Gonzales claimed at the time, but included “news organizations and reporters and journalists” in the United States. The data “was digitized and put on databases somewhere.” It was not simply journalists, however, the NSA spied on and likely continues to spy now.
“Spying on Americans by the super-secret National Security Agency is not only more widespread than President George W. Bush admits but is part of a concentrated, government-wide effort to gather and catalog information on U.S. citizens, sources close to the administration say,” Doug Thompson wrote for Capitol Hill Blue on December 27, 2005. “Besides the NSA, the Pentagon, Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Department of Homeland Security and dozens of private contractors are spying on millions of Americans 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year.”
According to Thompson and his sources in the government, the “Pentagon has built a massive database of Americans it considers threats, including members of antiwar groups, peace activists and writers opposed to the war in Iraq.” In response to publicity, the Pentagon claimed it was “reviewing the files” to determine if the information was necessary to the conduct of the putative war on terrorism. “Given the military’s legacy of privacy abuses, such vague assurances are cold comfort,” Gene Healy of the CATO Institute told Thompson. “There’s a long and troubling history of military surveillance in this country,” added Healy. “That history suggests that we should loathe allowing the Pentagon access to our personal information.”
In addition to spying by the NSA and the Pentagon, documents released in 2006 revealed the FBI and its Joint Terrorism Task Force monitored and infiltrated several nonviolent activist groups. “Labeling law abiding groups and their members ‘domestic terrorists’ is not only irresponsible, it has a chilling effect on the vibrant tradition of political dissent in this country,” Ann Beeson, Associate Legal Director of the ACLU, said at the time.
According to a Washington Post report, the NSA has turned over information to the Defense Intelligence Agency, FBI, CIA and Department of Homeland Security.
Although the NSA monitors all communications — faxes, phone calls, and computer communications — it is impossible to collect all of this data, according to Tice. “What was done was sort of an ability to look at the metadata … and ferret that information to determine what communications would ultimately be collected,” he told Olbermann.
Obviously, the NSA, FBI, CIA, DIA, and the Department of Homeland Security are not interested in “every conversation I had with my little nephew in upstate New York,” as Olbermann sarcastically put it. They are primarily interested in the communications of “domestic terrorists,” or those opposed to government policies.
Well before president Truman established the NSA in 1952, government cryptologists were spying on Americans under the Armed Forces Security Agency’s Project Shamrock, a program that worked with telegraphic companies to turn over the telegraphic correspondence of Americans to the government. “The NSA kicked its spy campaign into high gear in the 1960s,” writes Earl Ofari Hutchinson. “The FBI demanded that the NSA monitor antiwar activists, civil rights leaders, and drug peddlers. The Senate Select Committee that investigated government domestic spying in 1976 pried open a tiny public window into the scope of NSA spying,” but this window was slammed shut in the name of national security. “The few feeble Congressional attempts over the years to probe NSA domestic spying have gone nowhere. Even though rumors swirled that NSA eyes were riveted on more than a few Americans, Congressional investigators showed no stomach to fight the NSA’s entrenched code of silence.”
More recently, Congress has not only “showed no stomach” when it comes to illegal and unconstitutional spying of Americans, it has worked hand-in-hand with the executive and intelligence agencies to facilitate this process. In essence, the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security serve as a domestic political police force little different than the NKVD of the former Soviet Union. The domestic political police force in the United States, like the NKVD’s Special Board, is interested in “socially dangerous” people, that is to say people opposed to the government.
Unlike Stalin’s NKVD, the FBI and Homeland Security have yet to engage in a Great Purge of arrests, interrogation, torture, imprisonment, and deportation. Bush, however, through the Military Commissions Act and other draconian legislation, has set the stage for a political purge, especially if another false flag attack occurs in the United States. Executive Orders associated with FEMA stand ready to suspend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and round up “socially dangerous” people and send them to newly constructed KBR concentration camps.
Unfortunately, far too many people naively believe all of this will change under Barack Obama. Mr. Obama, however, is merely a figurehead and window dressing packaged for public consumption, a friendly and smiling face slapped as a deceptive cover on the secret government of the bankers. If and when push comes to shove — another manufactured terrorist attack or civil disturbances related to an economic depression — Obama will pen an executive order sending “socially dangerous” people to concentration camps.
NSA Monitored All Communications
Kurt Nimmo
Prison Planet.com
Thursday, January 22, 2009
On January 21, former National Security Agency analyst Russell Tice appeared Keith Olbermann’s MSNBC show. Tice, who helped expose the NSA’s warrantless wiretapping in December 2005, told Olbermann government programs designed to spy on the American people are more extensive and far reaching than previously admitted. “The National Security Agency had access to all Americans’ communications — faxes, phone calls, and their computer communications,” Tice said. “It didn’t matter whether you were in Kansas, in the middle of the country, and you never made foreign communications at all. They monitored all communications.”
During the Bush administration, it was claimed the intercepts involved foreign communications and the intelligence gathered was integral to the conduct of the so-called global war on terrorism. In order to get around the warrant requirements of FISA, a bill authorizing the use of United States Armed Forces against those supposedly responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001, was passed (Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists). The authorization granted Bush the authority to use all “necessary and appropriate force” against those whom he determined “planned, authorized, committed or aided” the September 11th attacks, or those who harbored said persons or groups. AUMF allowed the Bush administration to avoid FISA and Wiretap Act restrictions.
But according to Tice, the NSA program was not limited to alleged al-Qaeda members, as Attorney General Alberto Gonzales claimed at the time, but included “news organizations and reporters and journalists” in the United States. The data “was digitized and put on databases somewhere.” It was not simply journalists, however, the NSA spied on and likely continues to spy now.
“Spying on Americans by the super-secret National Security Agency is not only more widespread than President George W. Bush admits but is part of a concentrated, government-wide effort to gather and catalog information on U.S. citizens, sources close to the administration say,” Doug Thompson wrote for Capitol Hill Blue on December 27, 2005. “Besides the NSA, the Pentagon, Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Department of Homeland Security and dozens of private contractors are spying on millions of Americans 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year.”
According to Thompson and his sources in the government, the “Pentagon has built a massive database of Americans it considers threats, including members of antiwar groups, peace activists and writers opposed to the war in Iraq.” In response to publicity, the Pentagon claimed it was “reviewing the files” to determine if the information was necessary to the conduct of the putative war on terrorism. “Given the military’s legacy of privacy abuses, such vague assurances are cold comfort,” Gene Healy of the CATO Institute told Thompson. “There’s a long and troubling history of military surveillance in this country,” added Healy. “That history suggests that we should loathe allowing the Pentagon access to our personal information.”
In addition to spying by the NSA and the Pentagon, documents released in 2006 revealed the FBI and its Joint Terrorism Task Force monitored and infiltrated several nonviolent activist groups. “Labeling law abiding groups and their members ‘domestic terrorists’ is not only irresponsible, it has a chilling effect on the vibrant tradition of political dissent in this country,” Ann Beeson, Associate Legal Director of the ACLU, said at the time.
According to a Washington Post report, the NSA has turned over information to the Defense Intelligence Agency, FBI, CIA and Department of Homeland Security.
Although the NSA monitors all communications — faxes, phone calls, and computer communications — it is impossible to collect all of this data, according to Tice. “What was done was sort of an ability to look at the metadata … and ferret that information to determine what communications would ultimately be collected,” he told Olbermann.
Obviously, the NSA, FBI, CIA, DIA, and the Department of Homeland Security are not interested in “every conversation I had with my little nephew in upstate New York,” as Olbermann sarcastically put it. They are primarily interested in the communications of “domestic terrorists,” or those opposed to government policies.
Well before president Truman established the NSA in 1952, government cryptologists were spying on Americans under the Armed Forces Security Agency’s Project Shamrock, a program that worked with telegraphic companies to turn over the telegraphic correspondence of Americans to the government. “The NSA kicked its spy campaign into high gear in the 1960s,” writes Earl Ofari Hutchinson. “The FBI demanded that the NSA monitor antiwar activists, civil rights leaders, and drug peddlers. The Senate Select Committee that investigated government domestic spying in 1976 pried open a tiny public window into the scope of NSA spying,” but this window was slammed shut in the name of national security. “The few feeble Congressional attempts over the years to probe NSA domestic spying have gone nowhere. Even though rumors swirled that NSA eyes were riveted on more than a few Americans, Congressional investigators showed no stomach to fight the NSA’s entrenched code of silence.”
More recently, Congress has not only “showed no stomach” when it comes to illegal and unconstitutional spying of Americans, it has worked hand-in-hand with the executive and intelligence agencies to facilitate this process. In essence, the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security serve as a domestic political police force little different than the NKVD of the former Soviet Union. The domestic political police force in the United States, like the NKVD’s Special Board, is interested in “socially dangerous” people, that is to say people opposed to the government.
Unlike Stalin’s NKVD, the FBI and Homeland Security have yet to engage in a Great Purge of arrests, interrogation, torture, imprisonment, and deportation. Bush, however, through the Military Commissions Act and other draconian legislation, has set the stage for a political purge, especially if another false flag attack occurs in the United States. Executive Orders associated with FEMA stand ready to suspend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and round up “socially dangerous” people and send them to newly constructed KBR concentration camps.
Unfortunately, far too many people naively believe all of this will change under Barack Obama. Mr. Obama, however, is merely a figurehead and window dressing packaged for public consumption, a friendly and smiling face slapped as a deceptive cover on the secret government of the bankers. If and when push comes to shove — another manufactured terrorist attack or civil disturbances related to an economic depression — Obama will pen an executive order sending “socially dangerous” people to concentration camps.
Sen. Rockefeller: NSA may have spied on me
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Rockefeller_NSA_may_have_spied_on_0122.html
Sen. Rockefeller: NSA may have spied on me
David Edwards and Stephen C. Webster
Thursday January 22, 2009
Russell Tice has been heard. Loud and Clear.
Following Wednesday's revelation by the former National Security Agency analyst that President Bush's warrantless wiretapping program had spied on everyone, quite contrary to what the administration had claimed, Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) told MSNBC's Chris Matthews on Thursday that he was "quite prepared to believe" the allegations.
He added: "I think they went after anyone they could get -- including me."
Tice, during an appearance on MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann the prior evening, proclaimed, "The National Security Agency had access to all Americans' communications -- faxes, phone calls, and their computer communications. It didn't matter whether you were in Kansas, in the middle of the country, and you never made foreign communications at all. They monitored all communications."
"In one of the operations that I was in, we looked at organizations, just supposedly so that we would not target them," Tice told Olbermann. "What I was finding out, though, is that the collection on those organizations was 24/7 and 365 days a year -- and it made no sense. ... I started to investigate that. That's about the time when they came after me to fire me."
When Olbermann pressed him for specifics, Tice offered, "An organization that was collected on were US news organizations and reporters and journalists."
The allegation essentially changes America's debate about domestic spying by the government, from one of listening to terrorists, as the Bush administration had framed it, to that of an intelligence operation beyond President Nixon's greatest aspirations, if it's true.
It should also raise new questions about a 2004 revelation in the New York Times that the paper had withheld a story for over a year, at the administration's request, which described scant few, albeit now-known false details of the program.
"While many details about the program remain secret, officials familiar with it said the N.S.A. eavesdropped without warrants on up to 500 people in the United States at any given time," the Times wrote, shortly after the 2004 election. "The list changes as some names are added and others dropped, so the number monitored in this country may have reached into the thousands over the past three years, several officials said. Overseas, about 5,000 to 7,000 people suspected of terrorist ties are monitored at one time, according to those officials."
The paper also notes that additional information was omitted, again at the request of the Bush administration. The allegations at hand would seem to quickly dovetail into, 'Why?'
Make that, Senators too?
On July 9, 2008, the US Senate passed a bill expanding legal authority for electronic wiretaps by spy agencies, handing victory to President George W. Bush after a standoff over anti-terror strategy. Then-Senator Obama, along with newly appointed Secretary of State Clinton, said they would support Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn) in filibustering the GOP effort, specifically when it came to immunity for the private telecom companies which allowed the NSA to conduct warrantless spying.
Obama ultimately "compromised," saying: "The President's illegal program of warrantless surveillance will be over. It restores FISA and existing criminal wiretap statutes as the exclusive means to conduct surveillance – making it clear that the President cannot circumvent the law and disregard the civil liberties of the American people."
Clinton maintained her position, voting against the majority.
"I've never seen contempt for the rule of law such as this," said Sen. Dodd in Dec. 2007.
With this latest round of revelations, perhaps another new question should be, 'Has Obama?'
Tice reappeared on Countdown the following night, bearing new allegations against the NSA.
Sen. Rockefeller: NSA may have spied on me
David Edwards and Stephen C. Webster
Thursday January 22, 2009
Russell Tice has been heard. Loud and Clear.
Following Wednesday's revelation by the former National Security Agency analyst that President Bush's warrantless wiretapping program had spied on everyone, quite contrary to what the administration had claimed, Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) told MSNBC's Chris Matthews on Thursday that he was "quite prepared to believe" the allegations.
He added: "I think they went after anyone they could get -- including me."
Tice, during an appearance on MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann the prior evening, proclaimed, "The National Security Agency had access to all Americans' communications -- faxes, phone calls, and their computer communications. It didn't matter whether you were in Kansas, in the middle of the country, and you never made foreign communications at all. They monitored all communications."
"In one of the operations that I was in, we looked at organizations, just supposedly so that we would not target them," Tice told Olbermann. "What I was finding out, though, is that the collection on those organizations was 24/7 and 365 days a year -- and it made no sense. ... I started to investigate that. That's about the time when they came after me to fire me."
When Olbermann pressed him for specifics, Tice offered, "An organization that was collected on were US news organizations and reporters and journalists."
The allegation essentially changes America's debate about domestic spying by the government, from one of listening to terrorists, as the Bush administration had framed it, to that of an intelligence operation beyond President Nixon's greatest aspirations, if it's true.
It should also raise new questions about a 2004 revelation in the New York Times that the paper had withheld a story for over a year, at the administration's request, which described scant few, albeit now-known false details of the program.
"While many details about the program remain secret, officials familiar with it said the N.S.A. eavesdropped without warrants on up to 500 people in the United States at any given time," the Times wrote, shortly after the 2004 election. "The list changes as some names are added and others dropped, so the number monitored in this country may have reached into the thousands over the past three years, several officials said. Overseas, about 5,000 to 7,000 people suspected of terrorist ties are monitored at one time, according to those officials."
The paper also notes that additional information was omitted, again at the request of the Bush administration. The allegations at hand would seem to quickly dovetail into, 'Why?'
Make that, Senators too?
On July 9, 2008, the US Senate passed a bill expanding legal authority for electronic wiretaps by spy agencies, handing victory to President George W. Bush after a standoff over anti-terror strategy. Then-Senator Obama, along with newly appointed Secretary of State Clinton, said they would support Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn) in filibustering the GOP effort, specifically when it came to immunity for the private telecom companies which allowed the NSA to conduct warrantless spying.
Obama ultimately "compromised," saying: "The President's illegal program of warrantless surveillance will be over. It restores FISA and existing criminal wiretap statutes as the exclusive means to conduct surveillance – making it clear that the President cannot circumvent the law and disregard the civil liberties of the American people."
Clinton maintained her position, voting against the majority.
"I've never seen contempt for the rule of law such as this," said Sen. Dodd in Dec. 2007.
With this latest round of revelations, perhaps another new question should be, 'Has Obama?'
Tice reappeared on Countdown the following night, bearing new allegations against the NSA.
NSA even collected credit card records
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Whistleblower_NSA_collected_credit_card_records_0122.html
Whistleblower: NSA even collected credit card records
David Edwards and Stephen C. Webster
Published: Thursday January 22, 2009
Ex-analyst believes program actually the remnants of 'Total Information Awareness,' shut down by Congress in 2003
On Wednesday night, when former NSA analyst Russell Tice told MSNBC's Keith Olbermann that the Bush administration's National Security Agency spied on everyone in the United States, specifically targeting journalists, the Countdown host was so flabbergasted that Tice was invited back for a second interview.
On Thursday, he returned to the airwaves with expanded allegations against the NSA, claiming the agency collected Americans' credit card records, and adding that he believes the massive, warrantless data vacuum to be the remnants of the Total Information Awareness program, shut down by Congress in 2003.
Asked for comment by Olbermann's staff, the agency responded, "NSA considers the constitutional rights of US citizens to be sacrosanct. The intelligence community faces immense challenges in protecting our nation. No matter the challenges, NSA remains dedicated to performing its mission under the rule of law."
Olbermann ran the quote under a banner which read, "Non-denial denial."
"As far as the wiretap information that made it though NSA, there was also data-mining that was involved," Tice told Olbermann during the pair's second interview. "At some point, information from credit card records and financial transactions was married in with that information."
At this point on the audio track, Olbermann can be heard taking a deep breath.
"So, lucky American citizens, tens of thousands of whom are now on digital databases at NSA, who have no idea of this, also have that information included in those digital files that have been warehoused," said Tice.
"... Do you have any idea what all this stuff was used for?" asked the stunned host.
"The obvious explanation would be, if you did have a potential terrorist, you'd want to know where they're spending money, whether they purchased an airline ticket, that sort of thing," said Tice. "But, once again, we're talking about tens of thousands of innocent US citizens that have been caught up into this trap. They have no clue.
"This thing could sit there for 10 years, then all the sudden it marries up with something else 10 years from now, and 10 years from now they get put on a no-fly list and they of course won't have a clue why."
Tice added that "in most cases," spied-upon Americans didn't have to do anything suspicious in order to trigger the surveillance.
"This is garnered from algorithms that have been put together to try to just dream up scenarios that might be information that is associated with how a terrorist could operate," he said.
Ultimately, the technical explanation boils down to this: "If someone just talked about the daily news and mentioned something about the Middle East, they could easily be brought to the forefront of having that little flag put by their name that says potential terrorist," said Tice.
"Do you know, or do you have an educated guess, as to who authorized this? Who developed this?" asked Olbermann.
"I have a guess, where it was developed," he replied. "I think it was probably developed out of the Department of Defense, and this is probably the remnants of Total Information Awareness, that came out of DARPA. That's my guess, I don't know that for sure."
Olbermann then asked if Tice knows who had access to the data.
"I started looking into this, and that's when ultimately they came after me to fire me," said Tice. "They must have realized that I'd stumbled onto something, and after that point I of course had no ability to find anything else out."
Tice concluded that he does not know if the program, as he understands it, continues to this day, and he refused to specifically state which media organizations the Bush administration's NSA had targeted for surveillance.
Whistleblower: NSA even collected credit card records
David Edwards and Stephen C. Webster
Published: Thursday January 22, 2009
Ex-analyst believes program actually the remnants of 'Total Information Awareness,' shut down by Congress in 2003
On Wednesday night, when former NSA analyst Russell Tice told MSNBC's Keith Olbermann that the Bush administration's National Security Agency spied on everyone in the United States, specifically targeting journalists, the Countdown host was so flabbergasted that Tice was invited back for a second interview.
On Thursday, he returned to the airwaves with expanded allegations against the NSA, claiming the agency collected Americans' credit card records, and adding that he believes the massive, warrantless data vacuum to be the remnants of the Total Information Awareness program, shut down by Congress in 2003.
Asked for comment by Olbermann's staff, the agency responded, "NSA considers the constitutional rights of US citizens to be sacrosanct. The intelligence community faces immense challenges in protecting our nation. No matter the challenges, NSA remains dedicated to performing its mission under the rule of law."
Olbermann ran the quote under a banner which read, "Non-denial denial."
"As far as the wiretap information that made it though NSA, there was also data-mining that was involved," Tice told Olbermann during the pair's second interview. "At some point, information from credit card records and financial transactions was married in with that information."
At this point on the audio track, Olbermann can be heard taking a deep breath.
"So, lucky American citizens, tens of thousands of whom are now on digital databases at NSA, who have no idea of this, also have that information included in those digital files that have been warehoused," said Tice.
"... Do you have any idea what all this stuff was used for?" asked the stunned host.
"The obvious explanation would be, if you did have a potential terrorist, you'd want to know where they're spending money, whether they purchased an airline ticket, that sort of thing," said Tice. "But, once again, we're talking about tens of thousands of innocent US citizens that have been caught up into this trap. They have no clue.
"This thing could sit there for 10 years, then all the sudden it marries up with something else 10 years from now, and 10 years from now they get put on a no-fly list and they of course won't have a clue why."
Tice added that "in most cases," spied-upon Americans didn't have to do anything suspicious in order to trigger the surveillance.
"This is garnered from algorithms that have been put together to try to just dream up scenarios that might be information that is associated with how a terrorist could operate," he said.
Ultimately, the technical explanation boils down to this: "If someone just talked about the daily news and mentioned something about the Middle East, they could easily be brought to the forefront of having that little flag put by their name that says potential terrorist," said Tice.
"Do you know, or do you have an educated guess, as to who authorized this? Who developed this?" asked Olbermann.
"I have a guess, where it was developed," he replied. "I think it was probably developed out of the Department of Defense, and this is probably the remnants of Total Information Awareness, that came out of DARPA. That's my guess, I don't know that for sure."
Olbermann then asked if Tice knows who had access to the data.
"I started looking into this, and that's when ultimately they came after me to fire me," said Tice. "They must have realized that I'd stumbled onto something, and after that point I of course had no ability to find anything else out."
Tice concluded that he does not know if the program, as he understands it, continues to this day, and he refused to specifically state which media organizations the Bush administration's NSA had targeted for surveillance.
NSA spied on everyone, targeted journalists
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Whistleblower_Bushs_NSA_targeted_reporters_0121.html
Whistleblower: NSA spied on everyone, targeted journalists
David Edwards and Muriel Kane
Wednesday January 21, 2009
Former National Security Agency analyst Russell Tice, who helped expose the NSA's warrantless wiretapping in December 2005, has now come forward with even more startling allegations. Tice told MSNBC's Keith Olbermann on Wednesday that the programs that spied on Americans were not only much broader than previously acknowledged but specifically targeted journalists.
"The National Security Agency had access to all Americans' communications -- faxes, phone calls, and their computer communications," Tice claimed. "It didn't matter whether you were in Kansas, in the middle of the country, and you never made foreign communications at all. They monitored all communications."
Tice further explained that "even for the NSA it's impossible to literally collect all communications. ... What was done was sort of an ability to look at the metadata ... and ferret that information to determine what communications would ultimately be collected."
According to Tice, in addition to this "low-tech, dragnet" approach, the NSA also had the ability to hone in on specific groups, and that was the aspect he himself was involved with. However, even within the NSA there was a cover story meant to prevent people like Tice from realizing what they were doing.
"In one of the operations that I was in, we looked at organizations, just supposedly so that we would not target them," Tice told Olbermann. "What I was finding out, though, is that the collection on those organizations was 24/7 and 365 days a year -- and it made no sense. ... I started to investigate that. That's about the time when they came after me to fire me."
When Olbermann pressed him for specifics, Tice offered, "An organization that was collected on were US news organizations and reporters and journalists."
"To what purpose?" Olbermann asked. "I mean, is there a file somewhere full of every email sent by all the reporters at the New York Times? Is there a recording somewhere of every conversation I had with my little nephew in upstate New York?"
Tice did not answer directly, but simply stated, "If it was involved in this specific avenue of collection, it would be everything." He added, however, that he had no idea what was ultimately done with the information, except that he was sure it "was digitized and put on databases somewhere."
Tice first began alleging that there were illegal activities going on at both the NSA and the Defense Intelligence Agency in December 2005, several months after being fired by the NSA. He also served at that time as a source for the New York Times story which revealed the existence of the NSA's warrantless wiretapping program.
Over the next several months, however, Tice was frustrated in his attempts to testify before Congress, had his credibility attacked by Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh, and was subpoenaed by a federal grand jury in an apparent attempt at intimidation.
Tice is now coming forward again now because George Bush is finally out of office. He told Olbermann that the Obama administration has not been in touch with him about his latest revelations, but, "I did send a letter to, I think it's [Obama intelligence adviser John] Brennan -- a handwritten letter, because I knew all my communications were tapped, my phones, my computer, and I've had the FBI on me like flies on you-know-what ... and I'm assuming that he gave the note to our current president -- that I intended to say a little bit more than I had in the past."
Whistleblower: NSA spied on everyone, targeted journalists
David Edwards and Muriel Kane
Wednesday January 21, 2009
Former National Security Agency analyst Russell Tice, who helped expose the NSA's warrantless wiretapping in December 2005, has now come forward with even more startling allegations. Tice told MSNBC's Keith Olbermann on Wednesday that the programs that spied on Americans were not only much broader than previously acknowledged but specifically targeted journalists.
"The National Security Agency had access to all Americans' communications -- faxes, phone calls, and their computer communications," Tice claimed. "It didn't matter whether you were in Kansas, in the middle of the country, and you never made foreign communications at all. They monitored all communications."
Tice further explained that "even for the NSA it's impossible to literally collect all communications. ... What was done was sort of an ability to look at the metadata ... and ferret that information to determine what communications would ultimately be collected."
According to Tice, in addition to this "low-tech, dragnet" approach, the NSA also had the ability to hone in on specific groups, and that was the aspect he himself was involved with. However, even within the NSA there was a cover story meant to prevent people like Tice from realizing what they were doing.
"In one of the operations that I was in, we looked at organizations, just supposedly so that we would not target them," Tice told Olbermann. "What I was finding out, though, is that the collection on those organizations was 24/7 and 365 days a year -- and it made no sense. ... I started to investigate that. That's about the time when they came after me to fire me."
When Olbermann pressed him for specifics, Tice offered, "An organization that was collected on were US news organizations and reporters and journalists."
"To what purpose?" Olbermann asked. "I mean, is there a file somewhere full of every email sent by all the reporters at the New York Times? Is there a recording somewhere of every conversation I had with my little nephew in upstate New York?"
Tice did not answer directly, but simply stated, "If it was involved in this specific avenue of collection, it would be everything." He added, however, that he had no idea what was ultimately done with the information, except that he was sure it "was digitized and put on databases somewhere."
Tice first began alleging that there were illegal activities going on at both the NSA and the Defense Intelligence Agency in December 2005, several months after being fired by the NSA. He also served at that time as a source for the New York Times story which revealed the existence of the NSA's warrantless wiretapping program.
Over the next several months, however, Tice was frustrated in his attempts to testify before Congress, had his credibility attacked by Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh, and was subpoenaed by a federal grand jury in an apparent attempt at intimidation.
Tice is now coming forward again now because George Bush is finally out of office. He told Olbermann that the Obama administration has not been in touch with him about his latest revelations, but, "I did send a letter to, I think it's [Obama intelligence adviser John] Brennan -- a handwritten letter, because I knew all my communications were tapped, my phones, my computer, and I've had the FBI on me like flies on you-know-what ... and I'm assuming that he gave the note to our current president -- that I intended to say a little bit more than I had in the past."
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Scholar: Cheney confessed to war crime
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Turley_Cheney_actions_unambiguously_war_crime_1217.html
Scholar: Cheney confessed to war crime
David Edwards and Muriel Kane
Raw Story
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley believes that not only did Vice President Dick Cheney “unambiguously” confess to a war crime during an ABC interview on Monday, but the US’ future as a nation may depend on taking action.
Asked by MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann whether Cheney had just confessed to a war crime on national television, Turley at first replied wryly, “It’s an interesting question, isn’t it? … If someone commits a crime and everyone’s around to see it and does nothing, is it still a crime?”
“It most certainly is a crime to participate, to create, to in many ways monitor a torture program,” he added. “What [Cheney] is describing is most certainly and unambiguously a war crime.”
During Monday’s interview, Cheney was asked, “Did you authorize the tactics that were used against Khalid Sheikh Mohamed?” and replied, “I was aware of the program, certainly, and involved in helping get the process cleared.”
“What happens if the next administration does not press this?” Olbermann asked. “Do we let the International Court at the Hague come in and take over all our responsibilities for policing our own act here?”
“That’s what worries me the most,” Turley replied, “is that you can’t talk about change without having some moral component to it. It’s not just about creating jobs or lowering the price of gasoline.”
“What occurred in the last eight years was an assault on who we are,” Turley said. “I think that President-elect Obama’s going to have to decide whether he wants power without principle or whether he wants to start with a true change, to say that no matter where an investigation will take us, if there are crimes to be found they will be prosecuted.”
“It will ultimately depend on citizens, and whether they will remain silent in the face of a crime that’s been committed in plain view,” Turley concluded. “It is equally immoral to stand silent in the face of a war crime and do nothing, and that is what the citizens are doing. There’s this gigantic yawn.”
Scholar: Cheney confessed to war crime
David Edwards and Muriel Kane
Raw Story
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley believes that not only did Vice President Dick Cheney “unambiguously” confess to a war crime during an ABC interview on Monday, but the US’ future as a nation may depend on taking action.
Asked by MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann whether Cheney had just confessed to a war crime on national television, Turley at first replied wryly, “It’s an interesting question, isn’t it? … If someone commits a crime and everyone’s around to see it and does nothing, is it still a crime?”
“It most certainly is a crime to participate, to create, to in many ways monitor a torture program,” he added. “What [Cheney] is describing is most certainly and unambiguously a war crime.”
During Monday’s interview, Cheney was asked, “Did you authorize the tactics that were used against Khalid Sheikh Mohamed?” and replied, “I was aware of the program, certainly, and involved in helping get the process cleared.”
“What happens if the next administration does not press this?” Olbermann asked. “Do we let the International Court at the Hague come in and take over all our responsibilities for policing our own act here?”
“That’s what worries me the most,” Turley replied, “is that you can’t talk about change without having some moral component to it. It’s not just about creating jobs or lowering the price of gasoline.”
“What occurred in the last eight years was an assault on who we are,” Turley said. “I think that President-elect Obama’s going to have to decide whether he wants power without principle or whether he wants to start with a true change, to say that no matter where an investigation will take us, if there are crimes to be found they will be prosecuted.”
“It will ultimately depend on citizens, and whether they will remain silent in the face of a crime that’s been committed in plain view,” Turley concluded. “It is equally immoral to stand silent in the face of a war crime and do nothing, and that is what the citizens are doing. There’s this gigantic yawn.”
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Sadly, one play defined Merkle's career, life
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3604289
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Sadly, one play defined Merkle's career, life
By Ed Sherman
Special to ESPN.com
WATERTOWN, Wis. -- Fred Merkle was born in Watertown, Wis., in 1888, but he spent only one year there before his family moved to Toledo, Ohio.
Still, that didn't prevent Watertown resident David Stalker from claiming Merkle as the town's very own. He spearheaded an effort to erect a monument in Merkle's honor.
Set in black marble with a baseball perched on top, the monument notes that Merkle was a "potent line-drive hitter and agile first-baseman." It says he was a member of six World Series teams.
However, there is no mention on the monument of the play that earned Merkle a spot in baseball infamy. The inscription boasts of Merkle's "intelligence" on the field, seemingly a contradiction for a player whose nickname was "Bonehead."
"We want the average person to see Fred Merkle for who he really was," Stalker said. "There was much more to his career than just one play."
Yet as Bill Buckner discovered in the cruelest way possible, one play can define a career. Prior to Buckner and the ball-between-the-legs grounder that ended Game 6 of the 1986 World Series, there was Merkle, the goat of goats.
Tuesday marks the 100th anniversary of the play that forever cemented Merkle's legacy in baseball. The Chicago Cubs and New York Giants were locked in a dramatic pennant race when they met on Sept. 23, 1908.
With the game tied 1-1 in the bottom of the ninth, Merkle, who had singled, was on first base and Moose McCormick was on third. With two outs, Al Bridwell then hit an apparent single to drive in McCormick with what seemed the winning run.
It looked to be a huge victory for the Giants, and jubilant fans mobbed the field at the Polo Grounds. But in the commotion, Cubs second baseman Johnny Evers noticed Merkle never touched second base.
Evers frantically waved for the ball, and there's considerable dispute about whether he actually got the game ball. Evers then stepped on second and umpire Hank O'Day called Merkle out on a force, thus nullifying the Giants' run. Keep in mind, this was the same umpire who let a similar play stand up when a base runner didn't touch second at the conclusion of a game earlier in the month.
Despite O'Day's ruling, the game couldn't go on because of all the fans on the field, and it was declared a 1-1 tie. Merkle's nightmare then was compounded when the Cubs and Giants finished the regular season tied. The Cubs won the one-game playoff to win the pennant, propelling them to their last World Series title.
Merkle, who was only 19 at the time, was vilified. The Sporting News, the game's official bible back then, wrote of "the stupidity of Fred Merkle." Newspapers quickly labeled him "Bonehead."
Merkle went on to become a decent player during a 16-year career, finishing with a .273 average. He had 49 stolen bases in 1911, an impressive total considering he was 6-foot and 190 pounds.
Yet Merkle never seemed to get over the top. He was on the losing side of six World Series. When he was blamed for a botched popup that helped cost the Giants the 1912 World Series, the headlines blared, "Bonehead Merkle does it again."
"Sometimes it looks like the Cubs and Merkle got jinxed at the same time," Stalker said.
That day in 1908 forever haunted Merkle and his family. After he retired and moved the family to Daytona Beach, Fla., his daughter came home from school and asked why the kids were calling her "Bonehead."
Once a visiting minister in his church began by saying, "I want to begin by admitting an ugly secret. I am from Toledo, Ohio, birthplace of the infamous Fred 'Bonehead' Merkle."
Merkle promptly walked out.
The pain ran deep for Merkle. Stalker has a collection of photos of Merkle on display in his basement.
"Look, you can see the torture in his eyes," Stalker said. "Right after it happened, he lost his hair and weight. [During the playoff game] he was sitting in the dugout saying 'I'm sorry. It's my fault.'"
But was Merkle truly at fault? Keith Olbermann is among those who say no.
Olbermann, formerly of ESPN and now the host of "Countdown" on MSNBC, has been interested in Merkle's case for more than 30 years. He has proposed Sept. 23 be a national day of amnesty in Merkle's memory, but not because he did something wrong.
"I was struck by the finality of it," Olbermann said. "He does something everybody did, for their own safety, as a game ended. He was the first player on whom the rule was ever enforced and he never lived it down."
Indeed, the real goat might have been O'Day, the umpire. No less than Hall of Fame umpire Bill Klem delivered a stinging indictment.
"Evers talked a great umpire into making the rottenest decision in the history of baseball," Klem said.
The damage, though, was done. Olbermann doubts Merkle will ever be vindicated.
"The goat story is still easier, and more compelling, than the story of the poor rookie victimized by a rule that was never enforced," Olbermann said.
As fate would have it, the Cubs will be in New York on Tuesday to play the Mets. Olbermann plans to attend the game.
"I have to be there," Olbermann said. "I've never believed the Cubs didn't curse themselves by playing that rule on poor Fred. [The Cubs have had] a century of bad luck, meaning something abysmal is likely to happen to the Cubs [on Tuesday], especially since somebody scheduled them to be in New York."
When Merkle retired in 1926, he was so bitter he wanted nothing to do with baseball. It wasn't until 1950 that he returned to a big league park.
Merkle had to be talked into attending an Old-Timers' Game at the Polo Grounds. Even after all these years, he was fearful of how the fans would treat him.
Perhaps the fans remembered the good things he did for the Giants, or perhaps they felt sorry for his plight, but they gave him a loud ovation.
"He had an impressive career," Stalker said. "That's what he should be remembered for."
Oh, if that were only the case. What happened 100 years ago Tuesday even had an impact on his final resting place.
Merkle once cracked, "I suppose when I die, they'll put on my tombstone, 'Here lies Bonehead Merkle.'"
They never got the chance. When he died in 1956 at the age of 67, he was buried in an unmarked grave.
Ed Sherman was a longtime sportswriter for the Chicago Tribune.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Sadly, one play defined Merkle's career, life
By Ed Sherman
Special to ESPN.com
WATERTOWN, Wis. -- Fred Merkle was born in Watertown, Wis., in 1888, but he spent only one year there before his family moved to Toledo, Ohio.
Still, that didn't prevent Watertown resident David Stalker from claiming Merkle as the town's very own. He spearheaded an effort to erect a monument in Merkle's honor.
Set in black marble with a baseball perched on top, the monument notes that Merkle was a "potent line-drive hitter and agile first-baseman." It says he was a member of six World Series teams.
However, there is no mention on the monument of the play that earned Merkle a spot in baseball infamy. The inscription boasts of Merkle's "intelligence" on the field, seemingly a contradiction for a player whose nickname was "Bonehead."
"We want the average person to see Fred Merkle for who he really was," Stalker said. "There was much more to his career than just one play."
Yet as Bill Buckner discovered in the cruelest way possible, one play can define a career. Prior to Buckner and the ball-between-the-legs grounder that ended Game 6 of the 1986 World Series, there was Merkle, the goat of goats.
Tuesday marks the 100th anniversary of the play that forever cemented Merkle's legacy in baseball. The Chicago Cubs and New York Giants were locked in a dramatic pennant race when they met on Sept. 23, 1908.
With the game tied 1-1 in the bottom of the ninth, Merkle, who had singled, was on first base and Moose McCormick was on third. With two outs, Al Bridwell then hit an apparent single to drive in McCormick with what seemed the winning run.
It looked to be a huge victory for the Giants, and jubilant fans mobbed the field at the Polo Grounds. But in the commotion, Cubs second baseman Johnny Evers noticed Merkle never touched second base.
Evers frantically waved for the ball, and there's considerable dispute about whether he actually got the game ball. Evers then stepped on second and umpire Hank O'Day called Merkle out on a force, thus nullifying the Giants' run. Keep in mind, this was the same umpire who let a similar play stand up when a base runner didn't touch second at the conclusion of a game earlier in the month.
Despite O'Day's ruling, the game couldn't go on because of all the fans on the field, and it was declared a 1-1 tie. Merkle's nightmare then was compounded when the Cubs and Giants finished the regular season tied. The Cubs won the one-game playoff to win the pennant, propelling them to their last World Series title.
Merkle, who was only 19 at the time, was vilified. The Sporting News, the game's official bible back then, wrote of "the stupidity of Fred Merkle." Newspapers quickly labeled him "Bonehead."
Merkle went on to become a decent player during a 16-year career, finishing with a .273 average. He had 49 stolen bases in 1911, an impressive total considering he was 6-foot and 190 pounds.
Yet Merkle never seemed to get over the top. He was on the losing side of six World Series. When he was blamed for a botched popup that helped cost the Giants the 1912 World Series, the headlines blared, "Bonehead Merkle does it again."
"Sometimes it looks like the Cubs and Merkle got jinxed at the same time," Stalker said.
That day in 1908 forever haunted Merkle and his family. After he retired and moved the family to Daytona Beach, Fla., his daughter came home from school and asked why the kids were calling her "Bonehead."
Once a visiting minister in his church began by saying, "I want to begin by admitting an ugly secret. I am from Toledo, Ohio, birthplace of the infamous Fred 'Bonehead' Merkle."
Merkle promptly walked out.
The pain ran deep for Merkle. Stalker has a collection of photos of Merkle on display in his basement.
"Look, you can see the torture in his eyes," Stalker said. "Right after it happened, he lost his hair and weight. [During the playoff game] he was sitting in the dugout saying 'I'm sorry. It's my fault.'"
But was Merkle truly at fault? Keith Olbermann is among those who say no.
Olbermann, formerly of ESPN and now the host of "Countdown" on MSNBC, has been interested in Merkle's case for more than 30 years. He has proposed Sept. 23 be a national day of amnesty in Merkle's memory, but not because he did something wrong.
"I was struck by the finality of it," Olbermann said. "He does something everybody did, for their own safety, as a game ended. He was the first player on whom the rule was ever enforced and he never lived it down."
Indeed, the real goat might have been O'Day, the umpire. No less than Hall of Fame umpire Bill Klem delivered a stinging indictment.
"Evers talked a great umpire into making the rottenest decision in the history of baseball," Klem said.
The damage, though, was done. Olbermann doubts Merkle will ever be vindicated.
"The goat story is still easier, and more compelling, than the story of the poor rookie victimized by a rule that was never enforced," Olbermann said.
As fate would have it, the Cubs will be in New York on Tuesday to play the Mets. Olbermann plans to attend the game.
"I have to be there," Olbermann said. "I've never believed the Cubs didn't curse themselves by playing that rule on poor Fred. [The Cubs have had] a century of bad luck, meaning something abysmal is likely to happen to the Cubs [on Tuesday], especially since somebody scheduled them to be in New York."
When Merkle retired in 1926, he was so bitter he wanted nothing to do with baseball. It wasn't until 1950 that he returned to a big league park.
Merkle had to be talked into attending an Old-Timers' Game at the Polo Grounds. Even after all these years, he was fearful of how the fans would treat him.
Perhaps the fans remembered the good things he did for the Giants, or perhaps they felt sorry for his plight, but they gave him a loud ovation.
"He had an impressive career," Stalker said. "That's what he should be remembered for."
Oh, if that were only the case. What happened 100 years ago Tuesday even had an impact on his final resting place.
Merkle once cracked, "I suppose when I die, they'll put on my tombstone, 'Here lies Bonehead Merkle.'"
They never got the chance. When he died in 1956 at the age of 67, he was buried in an unmarked grave.
Ed Sherman was a longtime sportswriter for the Chicago Tribune.
Friday, May 9, 2008
Tortured Logic
http://www.pensitoreview.com/2008/04/30/tortured-logic-scalia-torture-is-not-punishment/
Tortured Logic: Scalia Says ‘Torture’ Is Not Unconstitutional Because It Is Not ‘Punishment’
Jon Ponder Apr. 30, 2008
The meaning of the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution could not be clearer:
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
And yet, beginning in 2002, the most senior members of the Bush administration, including Dick Cheney, Sec. of State Colin Powell, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, Attorney Gen. John Ashcroft and others, met dozens of times to draft a set of torture guidelines for use by CIA interrogators. It’s no wonder that Jonathan Turley, a strong advocate of impeaching Pres. Clinton, called their actions a war crime and compared their sessions to a meeting of gangster Tony Soprano’s Bada Bing Club.
On “60 Minutes” Last Sunday, Supreme Court Justice Antonin “Nino” Scalia offered a new and, well, tortured rationale for the legality of what Bush has euphemistically called “advanced interrogation techniques”:
STAHL: If someone’s in custody, as in Abu Ghraib, and they are brutalized, by a law enforcement person — if you listen to the expression “cruel and unusual punishment,” doesn’t that apply?
SCALIA: No. To the contrary. You think — Has anybody ever referred to torture as punishment? I don’t think so.
STAHL: Well I think if you’re in custody, and you have a policeman who’s taken you into custody–
SCALIA: And you say he’s punishing you? What’s he punishing you for? … When he’s hurting you in order to get information from you, you wouldn’t say he’s punishing you. What is he punishing you for?
As often happens, Keith Olbermann speaks for every sane American:
The second most senior associate justice on Mr. Bush‘s Supreme Court, Antonin Scalia, on TV now repeating in essence what he said earlier, that torture is not really as the Constitution prohibits, cruel and unusual punishment…
So you can torture the innocent or not yet proved guilty but you can‘t punish the guilty with torture? You don‘t see any logical inconsistency in that idea? The concept of punishment being in and of itself, torture or vice versa, that isn’t very pretty obvious to you? You, still there, Justice buddy? OK. Not only do I want to see your diploma, now, I want to see your grade point average.
Media types and conservatives still deride Bill Clinton for saying in a deposition in a civil lawsuit a decade ago, “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.” And yet, here we have a Supreme Court justice playing semantics over the definition of torture — and the media has barely taken notice.
Tortured Logic: Scalia Says ‘Torture’ Is Not Unconstitutional Because It Is Not ‘Punishment’
Jon Ponder Apr. 30, 2008
The meaning of the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution could not be clearer:
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
And yet, beginning in 2002, the most senior members of the Bush administration, including Dick Cheney, Sec. of State Colin Powell, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, Attorney Gen. John Ashcroft and others, met dozens of times to draft a set of torture guidelines for use by CIA interrogators. It’s no wonder that Jonathan Turley, a strong advocate of impeaching Pres. Clinton, called their actions a war crime and compared their sessions to a meeting of gangster Tony Soprano’s Bada Bing Club.
On “60 Minutes” Last Sunday, Supreme Court Justice Antonin “Nino” Scalia offered a new and, well, tortured rationale for the legality of what Bush has euphemistically called “advanced interrogation techniques”:
STAHL: If someone’s in custody, as in Abu Ghraib, and they are brutalized, by a law enforcement person — if you listen to the expression “cruel and unusual punishment,” doesn’t that apply?
SCALIA: No. To the contrary. You think — Has anybody ever referred to torture as punishment? I don’t think so.
STAHL: Well I think if you’re in custody, and you have a policeman who’s taken you into custody–
SCALIA: And you say he’s punishing you? What’s he punishing you for? … When he’s hurting you in order to get information from you, you wouldn’t say he’s punishing you. What is he punishing you for?
As often happens, Keith Olbermann speaks for every sane American:
The second most senior associate justice on Mr. Bush‘s Supreme Court, Antonin Scalia, on TV now repeating in essence what he said earlier, that torture is not really as the Constitution prohibits, cruel and unusual punishment…
So you can torture the innocent or not yet proved guilty but you can‘t punish the guilty with torture? You don‘t see any logical inconsistency in that idea? The concept of punishment being in and of itself, torture or vice versa, that isn’t very pretty obvious to you? You, still there, Justice buddy? OK. Not only do I want to see your diploma, now, I want to see your grade point average.
Media types and conservatives still deride Bill Clinton for saying in a deposition in a civil lawsuit a decade ago, “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.” And yet, here we have a Supreme Court justice playing semantics over the definition of torture — and the media has barely taken notice.
Sunday, May 13, 2007
Now Yahoo! Censor Popular Support For Ron Paul
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2007/080507yahoocensor.htm
Now Yahoo! Censor Popular Support For Ron Paul
ABC forced to address Texas Congressman's campaign, but remain silent on why they scrubbed him from online poll
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Tuesday, May 8, 2007
Yahoo! News have become the latest establishment media outlet to ignore and censor Ron Paul's presidential campaign, despite the fact that he won Thursday night's GOP debate hands down, according to an overwhelming majority that voted for him in online polls.
Yahoo! News' 2008 Presidential election coverage page features a list of candidates from both Democrat and Republican parties, but fails to list Ron Paul, despite the fact that he easily trounced the likes of Sam Brownback, Mike Huckabee and Duncan Hunter - who are featured, in every online poll since Thursday's debate.
No room for Ron Paul at Yahoo! Only establishment shill Republicrats and Democons allowed.
MySpace users are also claiming that bulletins expressing support for Ron Paul are being blocked and that prominent supporters of Paul's campaign are having their accounts suspended.
ABC News were swamped with furious e mails and calls over the weekend after they deliberately scrubbed Ron Paul from their online poll, ensuring no one could vote for him. After he was reinstated, the Congressman received thousands of votes and won the poll at a canter.
In a simpering puff piece released last night, ABC News correspondent Rick Klein claims that Paul's popularity is not reflected nationwide and is merely the result of "viral marketing" on behalf of the Congressman's online supporters.
Apologists for the establishment press have tried to argue that popular support for Ron Paul is skewed by activist voting, but the fact remains that Paul had topped the MSNBC online vote before it had even been widely publicized, as Keith Olbermann stated during live coverage of the debate.
If we accept this to be the case are we to then assume that Giuliani, Romney and the other gaggle of shill candidates don't have any online support? If so, who is going to vote for them? Do Giuliani and McCain supporters not have access to the Internet?
Klein also erroneously claims that Paul's online votes in the MSNBC poll were artificially inflated because users were voting multiple times. This isn't possible, since the website only affords one vote to one IP address - there is no option to vote again if you have already voted. Klein obviously didn't even bother to check whether his statement was correct before including it in the article.
The fact that ABC deliberately tried to censor Paul by not including him in the original poll is not addressed in the article.
What we are witnessing is a deliberate effort to poo-poo Ron Paul's chances to ensure that he has no chance - this is a chicken and egg scenario. If Ron Paul was afforded as much coverage as Giuliani and Romney he would have a real shot of becoming President - but the military-industrial complex that owns the media are loathe to allow that because Paul is a true anti-war Jeffersonian paleoconservative and he represents the people.
We couldn't possibly have a President that represented the people now could we! Only a compromised slimeball shill pre-approved and selected by the anointed ones and their mouthpiece hacks in the corporate media.
Now Yahoo! Censor Popular Support For Ron Paul
ABC forced to address Texas Congressman's campaign, but remain silent on why they scrubbed him from online poll
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Tuesday, May 8, 2007
Yahoo! News have become the latest establishment media outlet to ignore and censor Ron Paul's presidential campaign, despite the fact that he won Thursday night's GOP debate hands down, according to an overwhelming majority that voted for him in online polls.
Yahoo! News' 2008 Presidential election coverage page features a list of candidates from both Democrat and Republican parties, but fails to list Ron Paul, despite the fact that he easily trounced the likes of Sam Brownback, Mike Huckabee and Duncan Hunter - who are featured, in every online poll since Thursday's debate.
No room for Ron Paul at Yahoo! Only establishment shill Republicrats and Democons allowed.
MySpace users are also claiming that bulletins expressing support for Ron Paul are being blocked and that prominent supporters of Paul's campaign are having their accounts suspended.
ABC News were swamped with furious e mails and calls over the weekend after they deliberately scrubbed Ron Paul from their online poll, ensuring no one could vote for him. After he was reinstated, the Congressman received thousands of votes and won the poll at a canter.
In a simpering puff piece released last night, ABC News correspondent Rick Klein claims that Paul's popularity is not reflected nationwide and is merely the result of "viral marketing" on behalf of the Congressman's online supporters.
Apologists for the establishment press have tried to argue that popular support for Ron Paul is skewed by activist voting, but the fact remains that Paul had topped the MSNBC online vote before it had even been widely publicized, as Keith Olbermann stated during live coverage of the debate.
If we accept this to be the case are we to then assume that Giuliani, Romney and the other gaggle of shill candidates don't have any online support? If so, who is going to vote for them? Do Giuliani and McCain supporters not have access to the Internet?
Klein also erroneously claims that Paul's online votes in the MSNBC poll were artificially inflated because users were voting multiple times. This isn't possible, since the website only affords one vote to one IP address - there is no option to vote again if you have already voted. Klein obviously didn't even bother to check whether his statement was correct before including it in the article.
The fact that ABC deliberately tried to censor Paul by not including him in the original poll is not addressed in the article.
What we are witnessing is a deliberate effort to poo-poo Ron Paul's chances to ensure that he has no chance - this is a chicken and egg scenario. If Ron Paul was afforded as much coverage as Giuliani and Romney he would have a real shot of becoming President - but the military-industrial complex that owns the media are loathe to allow that because Paul is a true anti-war Jeffersonian paleoconservative and he represents the people.
We couldn't possibly have a President that represented the people now could we! Only a compromised slimeball shill pre-approved and selected by the anointed ones and their mouthpiece hacks in the corporate media.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
