NewsBusters.org - Exposing Liberal Media Bias

WaPo: EPA Forces Employees to Pull Down YouTube Video Critical of Cap-and-Trade

Ken Shepherd — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 18:10:56 -0500

Imagine if you will, that during the prior presidential administration two EPA employees put up a video on YouTube that criticized environmental and energy policies supported by Republicans in Congress and President Bush, only to be told by EPA officials that they need to take down the video.

Given the media's consternation about the Bush administration's alleged efforts to squelch proponents of the theory of manmade global warming, such a story would likely be front page news in many newspapers, including the Washington Post.

But in this instance, the administration in question is Obama's, and the EPA employees are going at the president from his left flank, arguing the so called "cap-and-trade" plan would "lock in climate degradation."

Despite this, the Washington Post placed David Fahrenthold's November 11 story, "EPA tells workers to tone down YouTube clip about climate bill" on page A8:

Two Environmental Protection Agency lawyers who made a YouTube video calling current climate legislation a "huge mistake" were told by the agency to remove the clip and edit out some references to their employer, one of them said.

Allan Zabel and Laurie Williams, a husband and wife who have worked in the EPA's San Francisco office for more than 20 years, have been outspoken in their opposition to a "cap and trade" system for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

That system -- in which companies may buy and sell the right to pollute -- is at the heart of a climate bill passed by the House this summer, and another under consideration in the Senate.

On Oct. 31, the two made their case in an opinion piece in The Washington Post, saying the bill was fatally flawed by the inclusion of unreliable "carbon offsets," and would "lock in climate degradation" instead of solving it.

A few days later, Williams said, they were approached by EPA ethics officials. She said the officials demanded they take down a YouTube video they had posted in September that made many of the same points.

In the video, Zabel says none of their statements should be construed as an official position of the EPA or the Obama administration. But Williams said the EPA wanted them to further play down their federal connections. The officials said they could repost the video, she said, if they removed a mention of the length of their experience at EPA.

Another comment, in which Zabel said he oversees a cap-and-trade system for smog-causing pollutants in California, also had to go, she said. In addition, the agency said they had to take out a photo of the EPA's San Francisco office building.

Al Gore's Current TV To Cut 80 Jobs

Noel Sheppard — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 16:43:03 -0500

Nobel Laureate Al Gore's cable news channel Current TV announced Wednesday it's reducing its staffing by 80 people.

The company said in a press release that these layoffs weren't about cutting costs, but instead a reshifting of priorities.

The website Gawker exposed the foolishness of such a claim:

Which means everything is totally awesome and on track, according to a Current press release:

This re-organization was not the result of a need to cut costs. Current Media will have its most profitable year. This financial stability will allow the company to re-allocate resources in order to put further emphasis on areas of the business believed to best position Current Media for continued long-term growth.

Financial stability leads to sad job layoffs glorious resource re-allocation, gotcha.

Exactly. I mean, when a company cuts 80 employees from a total staff of 380, it's pretty absurd to claim this 21 percent payroll decrease isn't about reducing costs, especially after the network cut 60 jobs a year ago.

On the other hand, maybe Gore's accountants use the same precarious mathematics employed by those advising the Global Warmingist-in-Chief on the connection between carbon dioxide and rising temperatures.

Where's Leo Bloom when you need him?

NPR Promotes 'We Need Health Reform Now' Mural In DC; Artist Paints Opponents As Abused Little Girl

Tim Graham — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 15:25:53 -0500

On Monday night’s All Things Considered newscast on National Public Radio, reporter Joseph Shapiro recounted the sympathetic story of Regina Holliday, who lost her 39-year-old husband Fred to kidney cancer. Holliday painted a mural in Washington demanding "We Need Health Reform Now." (It’s headlined "A Widow Paints a Health Care Protest" and it's the most popular story on Wednesday at NPR.org.)

But Shapiro’s story actually skimmed over just how passionately ideological Holliday’s mural is. She's amazed anyone could possibly be against health reform. On her blog she explained that she painted her opponents as a little girl in a red, white, and blue outfit: "I wondered 'How can you be against this?' Then I realized they were acting like people who have been abused. She is a pretty little girl with welts on her legs..." [Italics hers.]

On air, NPR stuck to the heart-tugging narrative. The politics emerged late in the story:

SHAPIRO: Over the next two months, Regina would see her husband go in and out of hospitals. But there was nothing doctors could do to save his life. Six days after Fred died, Regina picked up her paintbrushes and started the mural. The brick wall is tucked off of a busy avenue. Important players in the health care debate drive by every day.

HOLLIDAY: Well, I mean, of course, it's a wonderful therapy and release to get to paint. To get to do this has been a wonderful dialogue with the public. I mean, people often come over here. They look at the mural. They want to talk about it, and they often share their health stories.

SHAPIRO: She climbed down from her scaffold to hear other people speak with anger and sadness about their own run-ins with doctors, hospitals and insurance companies. As summer turned to fall and the battle over health care heated up, Regina's mural got more political. She added details, like a doctor holding a sign that says: Health Reform Now. [music]

The other day with the last paint dry, there was a nighttime dedication of the mural. A few dozen friends and lots of kids gathered in the parking lot. They held flashlights to shine on the painting. People sang. And Regina answered questions about all the symbolism in her mural.

The clock with no hands: because normal time seems suspended in a health emergency. The nurse at a computer with the dark screen: because records aren't shared with patients. The doctor with her hands tied: because one part of the health care system doesn't communicate with others. [Soundbite of applause]

Ms. HOLLIDAY: Okay, that's my question for all of you, is what do we do next? Thank you so much for coming tonight. Thank you so much for being part of Fred's life and my life, and spreading the word. And please, go out tonight and Facebook and blog, and post and tweet, and do not stop! Do not give up until we get change in this nation! Until people get taken care of, and we all have the right to see our own information! Thank you guys.

SHAPIRO: Regina Holliday is looking for new walls to paint, but not now. The cold makes the paint too brittle. In the springtime, she'll take out her colors again. Maybe by then, there'll be health care change signed into law. But there will still be stories to tell. This time, she will paint the stories of others, of the people who watched her work and told her about their own struggles as caregivers and patients.

The promotional video at NPR.org is also more openly political than the radio story. On her blog Regina Holliday's Medical Advocacy Blog, she explains her abused little girl:

The little girl America stands to his right. This image came into the mural as the health care debates began and I saw kind, well-meaning people oppose health reform. I wondered "How can you be against this?" Then I realized they were acting like people who have been abused. She is a pretty little girl with welts on her legs, and she is standing next to a switch. She clutches the caduceus. Most Americans equate this symbol with medicine, but it the staff of the god of profit, thievery, and death. In using this symbol I am pointing out that little girl America is clutching that which is abusing her. She stares out at you with a sad countenance. It seems as if her eyes are asking "Do you see what is happening to me? Can you make this right?"

She also explained the doctor in a turban holding the "We Need Health Reform Now" sign:

To her left is a physician holding a sign for reform. He wears a turban. He looks out at us with kind eyes. He is the other, the foreigner who embraces reform as a right.

She pointed out the figures in private industry who are evil (again, italics are hers):

To his left are three figures at a desk. First we have see no evil (insurance). She is an angel/Roman god wearing a blindfold and carrying a blue cross and blue shield. Money pools at her feet. Next is hear no evil, a man representing small business with his hands over his ears and his posture in defeat. His desk is strewn with papers while time is running out. Finally we have speak no evil, a pharmacist figure who talks into a phone with a mask over her mouth. Pills pool at her feet.

Oh, but National Public Radio doesn't have a liberal bias, we're told.

NYT: Lindsey Graham 'Slammed Back Home' for Being a RINO

Noel Sheppard — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 15:23:17 -0500

The New York Times Caucus blog reported moments ago that Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) has been censured by the local Republican Party in his home state "for many of the positions he has taken that do not represent the wishes of the people of South Carolina."

In essence, he's getting slammed for being what conservatives call a RINO -- Republican in name only.

As the Times' Bernie Becker reported:

The executive committee of the Charleston County Republican Party voted unanimously on Monday to rebuke Mr. Graham “for many of the positions he has taken that do not represent the wishes of the people of South Carolina, such as: passing a ‘cap and trade’ energy bill, bailing out banks and granting amnesty for illegal aliens.”

Lin Bennett, the chairwoman of the local party, told the Charleston Post and Courier that party leaders were “fed up.”

“The feeling is if you’re not going to uphold the platform, then why bother to run as a Republican?” she said. Ms. Bennett also said that about 50 members of the executive committee voted on the censure, according to the Post and Courier. But the move closely follows the fallout from the November elections, where conservatives pushed hard against centrist Republicans over candidates who don’t adhere to a narrow base of core principles.

Like that line? "But the move closely follows the fallout from the November elections, where conservatives pushed hard against centrist Republicans over candidates who don’t adhere to a narrow base of core principles."

Wow! I guess it's a terrible thing now for citizens to hold their politicians to core principles.

Of course, this goes hand in hand with the media's view of why Dede Scozzafava was forced to pull out of last week's election in New York's 23rd Congressional district.

The fault is with conservatives who want elected officials to share their core principles RATHER than the officials themselves who are leaving the reservation or never possessed such values in the first place.

Ironically, you wouldn't imagine the New York Times chastizing the teeming hordes of liberals who would never consider voting for a Democrat -- regardless of his or her other positions! -- if he or she wasn't pro-abortion.

But what the Times really missed here is that the full resolution was by no means as "narrow" as Becker implied:

Whereas, U.S. Senators Lindsey Graham (SC) and John Kerry (MA) have called for a bipartisan bill dealing with “climate change” via a “Cap & Trade” energy bill;

Whereas, the basis of Cap & Trade – global warming caused by carbon emissions – is still in doubt as evidenced by the past decade of cooling temperatures;

Whereas, the people of South Carolina can ill afford the job-killing Cap & Trade bill’s ripple effects on our state’s economy and on personal energy bills;

Whereas, U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham supported TARP and has shown a willingness to discuss nationalizing U.S. banking institutions;

Whereas, U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham has shown a condescending attitude toward his constituents by calling them “bigots” when they oppose his stance on amnesty for illegal aliens;

Whereas, U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham has stated on many occasions that his primary concern is to “be relevant”;

Whereas, U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham continues to hold the Republican Party hostage and undermines Republican leadership and party solidarity for his own benefit by joining the “Gang of 10″ and the “Gang of 14″;

Whereas, U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham – in the name of bipartisanship – continues to weaken the Republican brand and tarnish the ideals of freedom, rule of law, and fiscal conservatism.

Therefore, let it be resolved: The Charleston County Republican Party Executive Committee respectfully requests, with sincere sadness that the South Carolina Republican Party withdraw their resolution commending U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham and that the Charleston Country Republican Party censure U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham for many of the positions he has taken that do not represent the wishes of the people of Charleston County SC, such as: passing a “Cap & Trade” energy bill, bailing out banks, and granting amnesty for illegal aliens.

Seems like the Charleston County Republican Party has quite a lengthy list of grievances with their senator which were by no means indicative of what the Times called a narrow base of core principles.

Color me unsurprised.

CW’s Teen Threesome Ho-Hum for Entertainment Weekly

Carolyn Plocher — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 14:17:13 -0500

On Nov. 9 CW's teen-targeted "Gossip Girl" featured a threesome, portraying it as a normal, expected event in a college student's life.

The episode depicted three friends completing a list that was supposedly printed in their college newspaper: "The 15 Things Every College Student Must Do Before Graduating." Number 11 was "Have a Threesome."

On Nov. 10, the day after the episode aired, Entertainment Weekly commented on the "Gossip Girl's" threesome, saying, "The whole thing was pretty chaste. Aside from a shot of them all in bed together in the end, it was basically no more risqué than a game of spin the bottle."

What Entertainment Weekly doesn't grasp (or perhaps doesn't want to) is that it's not about how graphic the scene was or wasn't. It's the fact that the show was promoting the idea as normal and even expected.

"Though there was no explicit sex scene on last night's episode," said Tim Winter, the president of the Parents Television Council, "the CW Network's behavior was grossly irresponsible by adding a story line where a sexual threesome was to be celebrated as some sort of ‘rite of passage' for teenagers."

The PTC also noted in its Nov. 10 press release that the content rating of the show deemed it appropriate for 14-year-old children. However, the show is hugely popular among "tweens." In fact, "Gossip Girl" had the highest ratings in September among females ages 12-34. The advertisements surrounding the show also highlight who the show targets. Phrases such as "Every Parent's Nightmare" "clearly appeal to teens, not adult women," the Council noted.

CW has announced that it will be continuing its crass "threesome" storyline into next week's episode.

The NY Times Finds the Democratic Party Simply Crammed with 'Gifted Orators'

Clay Waters — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 14:02:04 -0500

New York Times reporter Peter Baker questioned whether President Obama’s soaring rhetoric ("the most gifted orator of his generation") was still getting through in his Sunday Week in Review piece "The Words That Once Soared," and even let Obama aides suggest the president's Cairo speech "was responsible for Iranians taking to the streets of Tehran to protest a disputed election."

As the most gifted orator of his generation, President Obama finds speechmaking perhaps his most potent political tool. It propelled him to national prominence in 2004 and to the White House in 2008. And whenever he needs to calm economic fears or revive stalled health care legislation, he takes to the lectern.

The Times finds the Democratic party to be a veritable symposium of “gifted orators.” Obama’s already been called that three times before in the Times, the first instance coming all the way back on March 19, 2006 in a story by Anne Kornblut, before he was even running for president.

Mass. Gov. Deval Patrick joined Obama as a “fellow gifted orator” in a March 27, 2008 story by Abby Goodnough.

In a March 1, 2009 Times magazine story, Matt Bai said that unlike conservative Republican Newt Gingrich, Obama was a “gifted orator.”

In fact, a Nexis search and a nytimes.com search suggest that no Republican has earned the Times’s “gifted orator” appellation, not even Ronald Reagan, although the archives get fuzzier pre-1981.

Going back a little, President Bill Clinton was a “gifted orator” in October 1994, less than a month before he orated his party out of the House of Representatives for the first time in 40 years.

It’s no surprise that former New York governor and perpetual Democratic presidential teaser Mario Cuomo was called a “gifted orator” in May 1992.

It may come as more of a surprise that screaming Howard Dean was considered a “gifted orator” in a June 2003 story, again by Matt Bai.

Moving on: Baker wondered if Obama had lost his magic touch and forwarded a familiar comforting argument: That the Democrats who lost last week “had fatal flaws of their own.” (Which somehow didn’t stop the Times editorial page from endorsing the fatally flawed Democratic NJ Gov. Jon Corzine anyway.)

But the limits of rhetoric were on display last week when the president could not rescue two foundering candidates in governor’s races in New Jersey and Virginia. Has Mr. Obama lost his oratorical touch? Is the magic finally beginning to fade? Does the White House rely too heavily on his skills on the stump to advance his priorities?

It may be too soon to reach such conclusions. The Democrats who lost last week, after all, had fatal flaws all their own. But the results do suggest that Mr. Obama’s addresses these days may not resonate quite the way they did. Speeches that once set pulses racing now feel more familiar. And if that remains the case heading into next year, it could make it more difficult for the Democrats’ own Great Communicator to promote his program and carry along allies in crucial midterm elections.

Baker even toyed with the idea that Obama’s speechmaking was responsible for the popular uprising in Iran after dictator Mahmoud Ahmadinejad won a heavily corrupted election.

Unlike Mr. Bush, who recognized his limitations as a public speaker, Mr. Obama and his team have enormous faith in his capacity for communicating with the American people. When he was considering a bailout for the auto industry and advisers warned of a popular backlash, he expressed confidence that he could explain it to the public. After Mr. Obama gave his speech in Cairo reaching out to the Muslim world, some aides argued that the address itself was responsible for Iranians taking to the streets of Tehran to protest a disputed election.

Baker let Obama aides advance that self-serving idea, but left out the inconvenient truth that the administration was mostly silent as the election was stolen, its support for the opposition was muted and reluctant at best. Both the European Union and Britain took a tougher line on the Iranian regime than did Obama, as the Times itself reported in June 2009.

How Will Media Report GOP Beating Democrats in New Gallup Poll?

Noel Sheppard — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 13:59:15 -0500

A rather stunning Gallup poll was released Wednesday showing Republicans moving ahead of Democrats in who registered voters support in next year's Congressional elections.

As Gallup reported in its summary, this is a rare occurrence in the almost sixty years since the polling organization has been tracking generic voter preferences for the House of Representatives.

Given media's downplaying of the significance of last week's election results, it's going to be fascinating to watch how they spin these numbers (h/t Byron York):

Republicans have moved ahead of Democrats by 48% to 44% among registered voters in the latest update on Gallup's generic congressional ballot for the 2010 House elections, after trailing by six points in July and two points last month.

Much as in last week's elections, Independent voters have shown a huge rightward shift:

In the latest poll, independent registered voters favor the Republican candidate by 52% to 30%. Both parties maintain similar loyalty from their bases, with 91% of Democratic registered voters preferring the Democratic candidate and 93% of Republican voters preferring the Republican.
Over the course of the year, independents' preference for the Republican candidate in their districts has grown, from a 1-point advantage in July to the current 22-point gap.

According to Gallup, these numbers are tremendously significant:

The overall results would predict a likely strong Republican showing if the House elections were held today. Though the registered-voter results reported here speak to the preferences of all eligible voters, voter turnout is crucial in determining the final outcome of midterm elections. Gallup will not begin to model likely turnout until much closer to the 2010 elections, but given that Republicans usually have a turnout advantage, if normal turnout patterns prevail in the coming election, prospects for a good Democratic showing appear slim. Of course, the elections are still nearly 12 months away and conditions could shift back in the Democrats' favor over this time.
Since Gallup regularly began using the generic ballot to measure registered voters' preferences for the House of Representatives in 1950, it has been rare for Republicans to have an advantage over Democrats.

The Washington Examiner's Byron York agreed:

It's an extraordinary turnaround for the GOP. Last July, Democrats held a six-point lead. Last December, Democrats held a 15-point lead. At one point in 2007, Democrats held a 23-point lead, and for all of that year, 2007, Democrats held a double-digit lead. [...]

Indeed, for even Gallup concluded:

Roughly a year before the 2010 midterm elections, Republicans seem well-positioned to win back some of their congressional losses in 2006 and 2008. Independents are increasingly coming to prefer the Republican candidate for Congress, and now favor the GOP by 22 points. Political conditions could still shift between now and Election Day to create a more favorable environment for Democratic candidates, but a Republican lead on the generic ballot among registered voters has been a sign of a strong Republican showing at the polls in the coming election.

Quite so as Gallup pointed out earlier in its summary:

Most of the prior Republican registered-voter leads on the generic ballot in Gallup polling occurred in 1994 and 2002, two strong years for the GOP.

Fascinating.

Potentially more so will be seeing how this gets reported in the next 24 hours by the Obama-loving media.

For instance, CBSNews.com's piece on this subject chose to ignore just how rare it is for the Republicans to lead the Democrats in Gallup's generic Congressional poll, and that the last two times they did it meant huge victories for the GOP.

Instead, CBSNews.com offered reasons why the poll might not mean anything:

It should be noted that while this kind of poll shows momentum for Republicans ahead of the 2010 elections, the poll does not take into account specific preferences within a congressional district or for particular candidates. The 2010 elections consist of separate House and Senate campaigns rather than an overall national vote.

In addition, Gallup notes that this poll did not factor in the anticipated voter turnout a year from now. The poll release says turnout models will be included in future polls as the 2010 elections get closer in time.

For his part, ABC's George Stephanopoulos was quick to call the poll an outlier:

Our polling director Gary Langer points out that Gallup is the only national poll in the last month that has the GOP ahead. The others show Democrats holding a 6-12 point lead.

So for now, Gallup is the outlier. Which doesn't mean, of course, that it isn't a harbinger.

Will that be the take of others who bother reporting the surprising results of this poll?

Stay tuned.

WaPo Notes Move to Regulate 'Anti-Abortion Clinics'; Fails to Note Backers' Ties to NARAL

Ken Shepherd — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 13:14:19 -0500

If abortion clinics serve up abortions, do anti-abortion clinics perform anti-abortions?

I couldn't help but muse that as I read the Washington Post's Metro section below-the-fold front-pager "Disclaimer proposed for anti-abortion clinics."

The November 11 story by Michael Laris explained that "Montgomery County [Md.] officials" are considering a "regulation" that "would require pregnancy centers run by abortion opponents to give women a disclaimer so they don't mistake the centers for medical clinics and so they understand the source of the information given to them."

Laris painted these officials -- seven of the county's nine [all of them Democrats] county council members -- as proponents of "consumer protection."So somehow dissuading a woman from having an abortion is an affront to consumer protection?

The Post staffer went on to quote the regulation's author, Councilwoman Duchy Trachtenberg (D-At Large), who insisted her bill was "just a disclosure regulation." Yet Laris failed to give readers details about Trachtenberg's affiliation with pro-abortion rights lobbies like the National Organization for Women (NOW) and NARAL Pro-Choice America.

Trachtenberg's official county council biography notes her affiliation with the NOW, and a quick Google search yielded evidence of her sponsorship of the Maryland NARAL chapter's recent October fundraiser.

At the Maryland Democratic Party's Web site, Trachtenberg is listed as a "Partner of Choice" sponsor for NARAL Pro-Choice Maryland's 20th Annual Evening of Chocolate Gala.

What's more, Montgomery County Executive Ike Legett as well as Councilmen Roger Berliner, George Leventhal, and Nancy Navarro were similarly listed in the "Partner of Choice" sponsorship level, while Councilwoman Valerie Ervin was apparently considered even more dedicated to abortion as a "Protector of Choice" sponsor.

With a majority of the council already behind the regulation and a county executive who is unlikely to throw up a veto, the legislation is a fait accompli. Far from being neutral defenders of the "consumer," the Montgomery County Council is chock full of socially liberal Democrats, but readers of this morning's Post were not afforded that crucial context.

ABC’s Charles Gibson Admits: ‘I Worry About the Lack of Objectivity’ in News Business

Scott Whitlock — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 13:05:54 -0500

World News anchor Charles Gibson admitted on Tuesday, "I worry about the lack of objectivity and the future of the news business." According to the Boston Herald, the ABC host spoke before the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce and said of Fox News and MSNBC: "I don’t like the fact that they’re delivering news based on the conviction of its viewers." He also derided some viewers who "watch news that plays to their own prejudices."

With no sense of irony, Gibson attacked Republicans for being obstructionist on health care: "It’s not being very productive to have an opposition party that simply says, ‘We are going to fight the president no matter what on health-care reform. We are not going to give you a single vote and we are going to march in lock step against you." He added that this is "not good for the country."

Although Gibson did note that "Democrats similarly stood in lock step in opposition to President George W. Bush, and that was a great mistake, too," he’s long had issues with a "lack of objectivity." On September 15, 2009, five days after a massive story about ACORN and corruption broke, the anchor was interviewed on a Chicago radio station and asked about lack of coverage.

He laughingly dismissed, "I didn’t even know about it. Um. So, you’ve got me at a loss. I don’t know. Uh. Uh. But my goodness, if it’s got everything including sleaziness in it, we should talk about it this morning."

When Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize on October 9, Gibson commented on the President’s "humble" tone and extolled, "The Nobel Committee feeling that he has inspired a new sense in the world."

On June 4, 2008, the ABC host famously offered this softball to Obama after he won the Democratic presidential nomination: "When everybody clears out, the staff is gone, you're in the hotel room at night, and you're alone, do you say to yourself, 'Son of a gun, I've done this?"

Instead of worrying just about Fox News and MSNBC, perhaps Gibson, who is retiring in January, should think about the reporting of his own show and network.

CBS’s Smith: Iraq and Afghanistan Wars to Blame for Ft. Hood Shooting

Kyle Drennen — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 12:32:52 -0500

Interviewing Veteran Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki on Wednesday’s CBS Early Show, co-host Harry Smith cited a cause of the shooting at Ft. Hood: “...the Iraq war, the escalation in number of cases of post traumatic stress disorder...the more people go back to these fields, these theaters of war, either in Iraq or Afghanistan, it multiplies the incidence of these kinds of things occurring.”

Smith went on to ask Shinseki: “Is the Army and is the Veterans Administration really equipped to deal with this flood of a problem?” The VA secretary responded: “Veterans Affairs employs 19,000 mental health professionals to address things like PTSD and TBI and depression. And some of the other mental health issues that come up from time to time with exposing people to the high stress, high dangers associated with combat.” The shooter, Major Nidal Malik Hasan, never served in combat nor had post traumatic stress disorder.

Smith’s initial question to Shinseki actually attempted to focus on Hasan: “As a former secretary of the Army, how disturbing is it to you that it looks like various agencies failed to connect the dots on Major Hasan?” Shinseki began by correcting Smith: “Well, first of all, I served as chief of the Army, Harry.” He then shifted away from Hasan’s radicalism to mental health issues: “What I will tell you is that Secretary Gates and I two weeks ago co-hosted something called a national mental health summit to address PTSD, TBI, and other mental health issues that we think – it’s important for us to address at this time.”

Prior to Smith’s interview, correspondent Don Teague reported on evidence of Hasan’s Islamic extremism: “Officials say the government knew Hasan had communicated with radical Cleric Anwar Al Awlaki over the internet....And in 2007, Hasan gave a shocking presentation to colleagues at Walter Reed Medical Center. Using slides, he argued U.S. Muslim soldiers be released as conscientious objectors instead of fighting against other Muslims. And another slide warned ‘we love death more than you love life.’” Those radical comments were left out of a CBS Evening News report on Tuesday.

Here is a full transcript of the segment:

7:00AM TEASE:

HARRY SMITH: Now the blame game. As President Obama pays tribute to the fallen at Ft. Hood, the governmental finger pointing begins over the missed warning signs.

JUAN ZARATE [CBS NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST]: Was somebody looking at the complete picture of Dr. Hasan?

7:00AM SEGMENT:

HARRY SMITH: First, though, President Obama and thousands of others remember the shooting victims at Ft. Hood yesterday. Meanwhile, government officials are pointing fingers over who knew what and when about alleged shooter Nidal Hasan. CBS News correspondent Don Teague is in Ft. Hood with the latest on that. Good morning, Don.

DON TEAGUE: Good morning, Harry. The investigation is moving forward quickly, even as this post and the nation paused to remember the fallen. Five days after the deadly rampage on Ft. Hood that claimed the lives of 13 people, 15,000 soldiers, civilians, and family members gathered together to remember those lost.

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: The Blame Game; As Obama Honors Fallen, Officials Snipe Over Hasan]

BARACK OBAMA: No words can fill the void that’s been left. We knew these men and women as soldiers and care givers. You knew them as mothers and fathers, sons and daughters, sisters and brothers.

TEAGUE: Who knew what, when, and finger pointing overshadows the investigation of alleged shooter, Major Nidal Malik Hasan. Officials say the government knew Hasan had communicated with radical Cleric Anwar Al Awlaki over the internet. But defense officials say no one at the Pentagon or the Army knew of the connection, even though there was a military representative participating in the joint terrorism task force review. And in 2007, Hasan gave a shocking presentation to colleagues at Walter Reed Medical Center. Using slides, he argued U.S. Muslim soldiers be released as conscientious objectors instead of fighting against other Muslims. And another slide warned ‘we love death more than you love life.’

JUAN ZARATE [CBS NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST]: A major question for the Department of Defense, and the Army in particular, is was somebody looking at the complete picture of Dr. Hasan?

TEAGUE: Well, the President has ordered a thorough review to determine if the agencies involved failed to connect the dots that could’ve prevented a tragedy. Harry.

SMITH: Don Teague at Ft. Hood this morning. Thank you very much. Joining us now from Washington is Veteran Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki. General, good morning.

ERIC SHINSEKI: Good morning, Harry.

[ON-SCREEN HEADLINE: Ft. Hood Tragedy; What Could Have Been Done Differently?]

SMITH: Thanks very much for taking the time to speak with us today. First, you were at Ft. Hood with the President yesterday, can you describe what it was like there?

SHINSEKI: Well, yes, it was, as you might expect, heart wrenching, terrible tragedy, unexplainable. But I think the President did what was required yesterday. And that was to bring the community together and begin the healing.

SMITH: As a former secretary of the Army, how disturbing is it to you that it looks like various agencies failed to connect the dots on Major Hasan?

SHINSEKI: Well, first of all, I served as chief of the Army, Harry-

SMITH: Sorry.

SHINSEKI: - but I’m sure that there is – the right – the right people will look at this. What I will tell you is that Secretary Gates and I two weeks ago co-hosted something called a national mental health summit to address PTSD, TBI, and other mental health issues that we think – it’s important for us to address at this time.

SMITH: We know from the beginning of the Iraq war, the escalation in number of cases of post traumatic stress disorder. The other fact is, is that the more people go back to these fields, these theaters of war, either in Iraq or Afghanistan, it multiplies the incidence of these kinds of things occurring.

SHINSEKI: Sure, yes.

SMITH: Is the Army and is the Veterans Administration really equipped to deal with this flood of a problem?

SHINSEKI: Well, we are working diligently to increasing our capabilities here. I will tell you that today the Veterans Affairs employs 19,000 mental health professionals to address things like PTSD and TBI and depression. And some of the other mental health issues that come up from time to time with exposing people to the high stress, high dangers associated with combat.

SMITH: And very quickly, you have an enormous bureaucracy you’re trying to wrestle to the ground and get in some sort of an order. How confident are you that you’ll be able to turn the Veterans Administration into an agency that really does fulfill its – its promise?

SHINSEKI: Well, we’re working at that very hard. We’ve been at it nine months now. First thing – first order of business was to implement a new post-9/11 G.I. bill, that’s underway. We have a large backlog of claims that has been there for years. And that’s the next priority. And we’ve begun taking that down, as well.

SMITH: Secretary Shinseki, we knew that you were the chief of staff of the Army. And we apologize for that. Thank you very much for taking the time to speak with us this morning. Do appreciate it, sir.

SHINSEKI: Well, Harry. Thank you very much. Thanks for having me.

SMITH: Alright, take care.

Fund-raising Update: Over 20k Still Need to Get Moving

Matthew Sheffield — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 11:20:49 -0500

Thanks to everyone's efforts, we are now over the $20,000 mark, just $10k more to go! Please help support our effort to upgrade NB's servers by helping put us over the finish line.

If you have not donated yet, please do so now by clicking this link to our secure server where you can input your credit card information. Every little bit counts. If you can't do a larger donation, please consider doing a reoccurring donation of a small amount which will support NewsBusters consistently.

We greatly appreciate your assistance helping us to upgrade our server performance and ensure that NB will be speedy and always accessible.

Thanks for your help!

Name That Party: Baltimore Mayor Accused of Using Gift Cards Designated for Poor for Herself

Ken Shepherd — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 11:03:15 -0500

It's time once again for our favorite media parlor game, "Name That Party!"

The theft trial of Baltimore Mayor Sheila Dixon (D) began yesterday, but in covering the story, the Baltimore Sun failed to note Dixon's Democratic party affiliation.

The Washington Post, syndicating the story, also failed to note Dixon's affiliation in their caption to an Associated Press photo of the mayor which reads, "Baltimore Mayor Sheila Dixon is accused of buying personal items using gift cards donated to her office."

The unsigned story by the Sun notes that Dixon is alleged to have practically stolen from her city's poorest residents for her own personal gain:

The mayor is accused of buying personal items with at least $1,500 in retail gift cards donated to her office for use by needy families.

It's bad enough to be charged with theft, but theft that afflicts the poor and disadvantaged is even worse, particularly for a member of a political party that prides itself as the champion of the working poor. Fortunately for Dixon, the Baltimore Sun -- whose motto is "Light for All" -- is perfectly fine with keeping readers unaware of her political affiliation in the dark.

For the full NewsBusters archive on media bias relating to Sheila Dixon's dealings with the criminal justice system, click here.

PC News: Networks Downplay Terrorism, Muslim Connection in Ft. Hood Attack

Carolyn Plocher — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 10:54:11 -0500

Networks Decide Attack Wasn't Terror: 85 percent of the broadcast stories didn't mention the word "terror." ABC, CBS, and NBC evening news referenced terrorism connections to the Fort Hood attack just seven times in 48 reports.
ABC, CBS, NBC Follow White House Line: Before Obama's Nov. 10 speech, 93 percent of the stories had ignored any terror connection. But after Obama hinted at what ABC called "Islamic extremist views," all three networks mentioned terrorism.
Alleged Attacker's Muslim Faith Not Important Either: Slightly more than one-fourth (29 percent) of evening news reports mentioned that Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan was a Muslim. Of those, half (7 out of 14) defended the religion or included experts to do so.

Last week, Fort Hood, Texas was the site of the worst mass shooting in history on a U.S. military base. At 2:34 p.m. local time on Nov. 5, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan - one of the military's own - reportedly attacked fellow soldiers, yelling, "Allah Akbar." He then allegedly fired more than 100 rounds into Fort Hood's crowded processing center, killing 13 and wounding 29. This heinous act stunned the nation and captivated the news media.

Rather than call the attack "Islamic terrorism" or just plain "terror," the White House took a careful approach and news reporting did so as well. That all changed during the Fort Hood Memorial service Nov. 10. ABC "World News with Charles Gibson" anchor Charles Gibson said Obama was "unambiguous in judgment" about the attack, but that wasn't accurate. Obama never used the term "terror" and made no mention of Hasan's religion. But he did hint at it and that was enough for the media.

A blog by ABC's Jake Tapper said Obama's remarks "were a tacit acknowledgment of the Islamic extremist views investigators say were held by [Hasan]."

"No faith justifies these murderous and craven acts," Obama told the mourners, "no just and loving god looks upon them with favor."

That night, the evening news programs reflected the president's changed position. The three networks more than doubled their references to terrorism. CBS and NBC mentioned it once, while ABC referred to it twice.

Before the memorial, all three networks had downplayed any mention of terrorism, as well as Hasan's Muslim connections. The media themes reflected the White House position then as well.

Obama addressed the nation at 5 p.m. the day of the shooting, two-and-a-half hours after the attack. His brief remarks were sandwiched in between his speech at the Native American Tribal Nations Conference, Obama spoke about the Fort Hood massacre a total of 2 minutes, 39 seconds. During that time, he cautioned against "jumping to conclusions," about the shooting.

The "conclusions" Obama was hinting at were the facts that Hasan was a Muslim and that he had connections to radical Islamic extremists. The word he avoided saying was "terrorist." The media mirrored Obama's politically correct approach.

It wasn't until Nov. 8, three days after the shooting, that the broadcast network evening news programs even mentioned the word "terror" in relation to this event. But even then the three programs only referred to it once each.

"CBS Evening News" and "ABC World News" mentioned that Hasan had contacted Anwar al-Awlaki, "an outspoken advocate of violent jihad" through e-mail. NBC didn't even address the issue directly. It simply aired a short clip of Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., who warned Hasan was an "Islamic extremist and, therefore, that this was a terrorist act." The network softened that position and followed the quote immediately with NBC's Janet Shamlian cautioning against "focusing on Hasan's Islamic roots."

Until then, the broadcast networks had also downplayed his Islamic connections. From Nov. 5 through Nov. 10, all three evening news programs only identified Hasan as a Muslim one-fourth of the time (14 times out of 48 reports). And out of those 14 times, seven included a defense of the Islamic religion and expressed concern about a "possible backlash against Muslims in the military."

ABC's Bill Weir claimed that "Muslims in uniform today face a challenge not seen since Japanese-Americans fought in World War II." NBC echoed a similar sentiment when it aired a clip by General George Casey, the Army Chief of Staff. "Our diversity, not only in our Army, but in our country, is a strength," Casey said. "And as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that's worse."

So within a day, Hasan went from being portrayed as the suspect in a horrific mass murder to a victim that, as ABC said, was "harassed by other soldiers who he said called him a camel jockey."

The broadcast networks haven't always been this sensitive. In two cases, where the media were quick to blame the right, this politically correct approach went out the window as they used words like "extremist," "hate groups," and "terror." Back in June, George Tiller, "the Kansas doctor notorious for his commitment to performing late-term abortions," was shot and killed. Two weeks later in a separate incident, James von Brunn opened fire at the Holocaust Museum, killing a guard. The result in both cases was a media frenzy that included statements like this by ABC's Pierre Thomas.

"Radicals of the ultra-fringe, filled with rage about illegal immigration, fear of losing their guns, abortion and race making law enforcement increasingly nervous about a potential wave of domestic terror," Thomas said.

CBS also pointed out after the Tiller and Holocaust Museum killings that "the number of hate groups in America has exploded," citing the Internet as the "number one driver for hate groups, for extremist groups on both sides, and even for terrorist organizations."

Paglia on Lib Commentators: Partisan Ideology Desensitizes the Mind

Noel Sheppard — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 10:48:44 -0500

Salon columnist Camille Paglia Wednesday called the recently passed healthcare bill a grotesquely expensive nightmare.

Better still, in her most recent piece, Paglia said the "passive acquiescence of liberal commentators" to ignore how Medicare is being vandalized in order to provide healthcare for the currently uninsured "simply demonstrates how partisan ideology ultimately desensitizes the mind."

Unlike most of the Obama-loving media, Paglia correctly asked, "[W]hy can't my fellow Democrats see that the creation of another huge, inefficient federal bureaucracy would slow and disrupt the delivery of basic healthcare and subject us all to a labyrinthine mass of incompetent, unaccountable petty dictators?"

Readers are strongly advised to prepare themselves for the kind of straight talk on this subject that has been desperately lacking from press members that have clearly allowed partisan ideology to desensitize their minds:

As for the actual content of the House healthcare bill, horrors!...[T]his rigid, intrusive and grotesquely expensive bill is a nightmare. Holy Hygeia, why can't my fellow Democrats see that the creation of another huge, inefficient federal bureaucracy would slow and disrupt the delivery of basic healthcare and subject us all to a labyrinthine mass of incompetent, unaccountable petty dictators? Massively expanding the number of healthcare consumers without making due provision for the production of more healthcare providers means that we're hurtling toward a staggering logjam of de facto rationing. Steel yourself for the deafening screams from the careerist professional class of limousine liberals when they get stranded for hours in the jammed, jostling anterooms of doctors' offices. They'll probably try to hire Caribbean nannies as ringers to do the waiting for them.

A second issue souring me on this bill is its failure to include the most common-sense clause to increase competition and drive down prices: portability of health insurance across state lines. What covert business interests is the Democratic leadership protecting by stopping consumers from shopping for policies nationwide? Finally, no healthcare bill is worth the paper it's printed on when the authors ostentatiously exempt themselves from its rules. The solipsistic members of Congress want us peons to be ground up in the communal machine, while they themselves gambol on in the flowering meadow of their own lavish federal health plan. Hypocrites!

Hypocrites indeed, as are her colleagues that have not only ignored these absurdities, but have aided and abetted the Democrats in hiding them from the electorate:

And why are we even considering so gargantuan a social experiment when the nation is struggling to emerge from a severe recession? It's as if liberals are starry-eyed dreamers lacking the elementary ability to project or predict the chaotic and destabilizing practical consequences of their utopian fantasies. [...]
How dare anyone claim humane aims for this bill anyhow when its funding is based on a slashing of Medicare by over $400 billion? The brutal abandonment of the elderly here is unconscionable. One would have expected a Democratic proposal to include an expansion of Medicare, certainly not its gutting. The passive acquiescence of liberal commentators to this vandalism simply demonstrates how partisan ideology ultimately desensitizes the mind.

Indeed.

On an unrelated note, Paglia took a swipe at how the press reported last week's election results:

Last week's startling gubernatorial victories by Republicans in Virginia and New Jersey were routinely dismissed as local aberrations by the liberal media or inflated as referendums on President Obama by the conservative media. But voters were clearly revolting against the deranged excess spending of government at both state and federal levels. So it was as much a protest against Congress as against the White House.

Honestly, wouldn't it be great if there were more Camille Paglias?

Glamour Flies Liberal Flag with ‘Women of the Year’ List

Colleen Raezler — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 09:58:38 -0500

Women's magazines notoriously promote their ideal woman: thin, stylish, beautiful, sexually adventurous. And after seeing who Glamour named as its annual "Women of the Year," readers can now add "liberal" to the list of ideal qualities.

The women featured in Glamour's 2009 list represent a cross-section of accomplished women from different industries - business, politics, sports, entertainment, fashion and humanitarian efforts to name a few.

Cindi Leive, the magazine's editor-in-chief told NBC's Matt Lauer on Nov. 9, that the "common thread" between the women chosen was that "they're not just achieving for themselves, they're really expanding our understanding of what women can accomplish in this world, and that's a great message for young women."

CMI researchers however, found another "common thread" between a majority of the women - they are liberals in good standing, with a record of support for liberal politicians or causes.

Eight of the 12 women featured have made statements that indicated their support for Barack Obama or had given money to the Democratic Party - the same politician and party that seeks to advance gay rights, allow tax-funded abortions, and nationalize health care. Eight prominent liberals, including Obama, NBC's Tom Brokaw and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, also lent their time to briefly praise these women in the pages of Glamour's December issue.

First Lady Michelle Obama topped the list and graced one of the five covers created for the December issue for becoming "America's instant icon." Maria Shriver, California's first lady and Ted Kennedy's niece, was named "The Dynamo" for her various projects. Poet Maya Angelou (who was also honored with a Lifetime Achievement Award), tennis player Serena Williams, Google vice-president Marissa Mayer, founder of the Worldwide Orphans Foundation Dr. Jane Aronson, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Dr. Susan Rice, comedienne Amy Poehler and pop star Rihanna rounded out the list. Special mention was also made of the One Million Signatures campaign that strives towards equal rights for women in Iran.

And three women, who had not publicly announced support of Obama, are known for contributing to causes of the left. Euna Lee and Laura Ling, the two journalists from Al Gore's cable network Current TV who were detained in North Korea earlier this year appeared on the list. Fashion designer Stella McCartney is also an animal rights activist who does not use fur or leather in her clothing lines.

Nobody denies that these women do send the powerful message about the impact women can have in the world, but the lack of representation of conservative beliefs on the list tells women that to be considered impactful, they'll have to march lock-step with liberal doctrine.

Leftward Slant

Glamour left out blatant mentions of the honored women's political beliefs. However, examples abound of their support for Barack Obama.

Maya Angelou, the poet and author who performed the poem at Bill Clinton's first presidential inauguration in 1993, and initially lent her support to Hillary Clinton in the 2008 campaign. Before recoundting her thoughts on Obama, it's worth revisiting some lines for "On the Pulse of Morning," the Poem she read at the Clinton inauguration:

Your armed struggles for profit
Have left collars of waste upon
My shore, currents of debris upon my breast ...
You, who gave me my first name, you
Pawnee, Apache and Seneca, you
Cherokee Nation, who rested with me, then
Forced on bloody feet, left me to the employment of
Other seekers - desperate for gain,
Starving for gold.

Obviously, she didn't think much of her nation in 1993. But by 2008, when Obama had been elected, she was encouraged. She told CBS's Harry Smith on Nov. 5, Obama's election indicated America was "growing up."

"[Obama] is inclusive, as opposed to exclusive," Angelou gushed. "I know that he knows he is the president of every black person, every white person, he's the president of the bigots and he must remember that."

Maria Shriver famously endorsed Obama over Hillary Clinton in the 2008 campaign. "He's not about himself. He's about the power of us and what we can do if we come together," Shriver told a crowd in Februay 2008. "He's about empowering women, African-Americans, Latinos, old people, young people. He's about empowering all of us."

Tennis star Serena Williams' religion didn't allow her to vote in the 2008 election, but that didn't stop her from talking about Obama. She told the Associated Press in June 2008 that she was "excited to see Obama out there doing his thing" and she would vote for him "if it wasn't for her religion."

Earlier this year comedienne Amy Poehler told GQ magazine that Obama inspired her comedy series, "Parks and Recreation."

"I play Leslie Knope, the head of the parks department in a small town - and her dream is to build a new park. When Obama says, ‘Okay America, let's get to work!' Leslie is the one who responds, ‘Great! I have all these big ideas.'"

In an interview with David Letterman, Poehler bubbled with joy over the presidential fist bump she got grom Obama last spring after the White House Correspondents dinner.

Next day, go the White House. We get a tour of the West Wing. Terrific, and you know our tour guide was amazing ... So we're there, and I say to the tour guide, is there ever a chance when you're touring the West Wing that the President is there? And he says, absolutely not. If the president was here, this place would be shut down, you guys wouldn't be here. Two minutes later, out of just a little door, walks in the President ... so I try to get some cool points so I say hey, uh great job last night Mr. President. You did really well, you know? And he goes oh really, Amy, he knows my name ... he says, Amy you think I did a good job? I said yeah, your jokes were great, great delivery, great material, and he was like, alright, and he just leaned over and gave me a fist bump ... So um yeah, it was really exciting and them my husband and I did that thing when really exciting things happen where you just like pretend you're like really cool and the whole time you're really like, did that really happen?

And naturally, Michelle Obama gushed over her husband as well. "He was always special, you know? And not like, He's gonna be important, he's gonna be president," she told new Glamour columnist Katie Couric. "He was special in terms of his honesty, his sincerity, his compassion for other people."

Other women featured on Glamour's list avoided spoken endorsements of Obama, but they did let their money speak for them. Collectively, Glamour's "Women of the Year" have given over $100,000 toward Democrat politicians.

According to information found on OpenSecrets.org, the bulk of that amount came from Google vice-president Marissa Mayer. She gave the Obama campaign $2,300 in 2007, and the Democratic National Committee over $28,000 in 2008. An undated record showed Mayer gave over $30,000 to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee at another point in time.

Lefty Causes

Glamour's slant showed in ways beyond statements or financial support for Democratic politicians.

"Well before the greening of fashion was in vogue, this lifelong animal activist refused to work in leather or fur," stated a blurb about fashion designer Stella McCartney.

As evidenced by the charity page on McCartney's Web site, she supports the radical environmental group National Resources Defense Council and animal rights group PETA. McCartney has received awards from both organizations for her work in protecting the environment and animals.

Euna Lee and Laura Ling, the journalists who made the list, work for Al Gore's Current TV, a viewer-driven cable network aimed at the 18-34 demographic. The network's Web site revealed a bias in favor of left-wing causes. In 2005, at the time of the network's launch, The Washington Post reported, "Bias and opinions in these ‘citizen' reports will not only be tolerated but desirable." Time magazine reported, also in 2005, that "nearly all" of the investors were "also big Democratic contributors."

Message for Conservative Woman?

Beneath the layers of female empowerment that this list attempted to promote lurked the message that to make an impact, to be a recognized leader among women, also meant supporting the policies and the politicians of the Democratic party, and the fashionable causes of liberal Hollywood.

Glamour failed to understand that conservative women can be role models too. And in a society where diversity is highly prized, the lack of political diversity reflected by who the magazine's editors chose to honor is truly astounding.

Open Thread

NB Staff — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 09:22:07 -0500

For general discussion and debate. Possible talking point: Ft. Hood's implications for gun rights.

Last week’s shootings, which killed 13 people and wounded more than 30, demonstrated once again the folly of “gun-free zones,” which attract and assist people bent on mass murder instead of deterring them.

Judging from the comments of those who support this policy of victim disarmament, Smith’s desire for a gun was irrational. According to Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, “This latest tragedy, at a heavily fortified army base, ought to convince more Americans to reject the argument that the solution to gun violence is to arm more people with more guns in more places.”

Note how the reference to “a heavily fortified army base” obscures the crucial point that the people attacked by Hasan were unarmed as a matter of policy. Also note the breathtaking inanity of Helmke’s assurance that “more guns” are not “the solution to gun violence.” In this case, they assuredly were.

Where guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. Seems pretty straightforward, no?

Liberal Radio Host Blames George Bush, Bullying Muslims As 'Real Reasons' for the Fort Hood Shooting

Tim Graham — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 08:43:48 -0500

Liberal talk-radio hosts are finding other reasons why Major Nidal Hasan would shoot up Fort Hood, other reasons than glorifying Allah. On Tuesday, Stephanie Miller suggested it could be because "George Bush made many people around the world feel like this was a war against Islam by using words like crusade."

Does this accurately reflect the words Bush routinely offered on Islam?

In the first week after September 11, Bush made an off-hand remark that "this crusade, this war against terrorism, is going to take a while." When Europe "cringed" in revulsion, Bush tried to avoid the word going forward. It was much more common for Bush to call Islam a "religion of peace."

Also high on the list, naturally following from Bush's alleged Islamophobia, is the bullying of Hasan and other Muslim soldiers: "the fact that he apparently was taunted for being Muslim because of the attitudes that developed here." Even if this was true and not just hearsay, it doesn't excuse mass murder.

Here's a fuller snippet of Miller's commentary. She quickly realizes she sounds like she's making excuses, and denies it, but then returns to saying we need to find the "real reasons" for the Fort Hood shooting, somehow outside the sphere of Major Hasan:

MILLER: This to me is a perfect storm of what we’re seeing. You know, somebody listed yesterday, there’s been a bunch of these obviously shootings at Army bases that is part of what Senator Webb has come on and talked with us about about Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. How many tours these guys have had to go on you know between the two wars.

You know I think in his (Hasan) particular case since that he’s counseling these guys, hearing about the horrors of these wars he’s now going to be sent into, you know. You add to it obviously the fact that he appeared to be and again, we don’t have all the details yet, but appeared to be getting more radicalized, you know. But also you add in that look, George Bush made many people around the world feel like this was a war against Islam by using words like crusade and all of that.

And so you add to the fact that he apparently was taunted for being Muslim because of the attitudes that developed here. So, and that’s not to excuse him in any way. That’s what I keep hearing on the right is "Oh you people on the left are trying to excuse him. Oh, its politically correct." No. Nobody is saying that this is any kind of excuse at all. I think you've got to get to the real reason if you want to stop this from happening again.

Papers Ignore Bill Clinton Taunting 'The Teabaggers Are Inflamed' Because Dems Are Winning

Tim Graham — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 06:58:44 -0500

The New York Times and The Washington Post both reported on former president Bill Clinton's pep talk with Senate Democrats on Tuesday. But both skipped over what the folks at Politico recounted:

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) said Clinton described the ongoing tea party protests against the Democratic agenda as a sign their party was making progress.

Whitehouse quoted Clinton arguing: "The reason the tea-baggers are so inflamed is because we are winning."

Perhaps the top editors felt this quote was not suitable for a family newspaper. Or perhaps they thought for Bill Clinton to joke about someone else's crotch being inflamed was just too embarrassing (to Clinton fans) to pass along.

The Washington Post hyped another quote on their front page:

"The worst thing to do is nothing."

That's what former president Bill Clinton told Senate Democrats on Tuesday about their upcoming vote on health care legislation. A3

Dobbs Excoriates Obama for Double Standard: Compares President’s Post-Cambridge to Post-Fort Hood Remarks

Jeff Poor — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 01:34:10 -0500

Some of the mainstream media intelligentsia following the Fort Hood, Texas massacre have cautioned people to reserve judgment about the suspect Major Nidal Malik Hasan and have bypassed many key details in order to live up to what could be construed as a politically correct standard. CNN's Lou Dobbs isn't one of them.

Dobbs, on his Nov. 10 radio program, didn't reserve judgment and criticized President Barack Obama for telling people to do so in a speech following the tragic event. Dobbs played a clip from the speech Obama gave last week in which he warned, "We don't know all the answers yet and I would caution against jumping to conclusions until we have all the facts."

"Isn't that remarkable, telling the American people not to jump to any conclusions?" Dobbs said. "Not to speculate, not to be curious about what is happening to our men and women, who should be the center of all of our attention and concern and care. Let's compare that statement by our president to what he said at the end of a press conference about health care shortly after the arrest of Professor Henry Louis Gates, his good friend."

In that press conference, Obama said, "I don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that. But I think it's fair to say, No. 1, any of us would be pretty angry; No. 2, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home."

According to Dobbs, it was just a matter of compare and contrast - the treatment Hasan got from the President versus the treatment the arresting officer in the Cambridge Police situation received.

"So, there are the two Presidents Obama," Dobbs said. "You pick which one is most palatable to you and you try to explain to me if you will how the more recent statement squares with the previous statement."

But then Dobbs showed he was clearly aggravated by Obama's double standard, especially after the casualties of the Fort Hood tragedy.

"How dare he stand up there and sanctimoniously tell the American people not to rush to judgment, to jump to conclusions," an impassioned Dobbs said. "My God - there are 13 people dead, 29 of them wounded, 29 of our troops wounded at Fort Hood and so I'm going to jump to some conclusions here because all we have are eyewitnesses and surveillance tape and that's all I've got to go on."

And Dobbs wasn't afraid to call this an act of terrorism, as so many others have shied away from doing. The CNN host said he would indeed be jumping to conclusions and encouraged others to do so as well.

"Let me tell you - this man carried out an act of terrorism against the United States of America," Dobbs declared. "Was he a troubled and dispirited and deeply conflicted person with all sorts of behavioral issues? Yes. And was the United States Army derelict in its responsibility to care for those who they put in the charge of Major Hasan? Absolutely. I'm jumping to those conclusions, Mr. President. I'm curious and I'm going to speculate just like tens of millions of other Americans. It's a healthy thing, not a bad thing. We're not in a court of law here - that will be administered by the United States Army, thank God."

Bozell Column: Fort Hood Horror

Brent Bozell — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 23:28:38 -0500

Horror spread quickly across America as the story unfolded: an Army psychiatrist went on a shooting rampage at Fort Hood in Texas, killing 13 and wounding 30. But as more information emerged, clearly pointing to an act of terrorism, many in the "news" media simply chose not to report news.

By late afternoon, it emerged that the shooter’s name was Major Nidal Malik Hasan. But that night, CBS and NBC completely avoided mentioning that the shooter was a Muslim. ABC’s Charles Gibson suggested he was a "Muslim convert," which wasn’t right, but at least he wasn’t playing hide-and-seek with the facts. ABC reporter Martha Raddatz spoke for the media in choosing this tidbit: "As for the suspect, Nidal Hasan, as one officer's wife told me, ‘I wish his name was Smith.’"

The coverage grew more factual the next morning, with all the networks noting Hasan was Muslim, and that he shouted "Allahu Akbar" (God is great) as he opened fire. ABC’s Diane Sawyer, though, repeated Raddatz: "We heard Martha Raddatz say last night that the wife of a soldier said ‘I wish his name had been Smith,’ so no one would have a reflexive question about that."

A reflexive question, as in "If a Muslim extremist attacks an Army base shouting ‘Allahu akbar!’ while spraying semi-automatic fire, killing and wounding dozens, is it terrorism?" Ms. Sawyer had nothing to worry about. Here’s how her colleagues covered it.

THEME: The shooting wasn’t just tragic because it killed patriotic Americans who were serving their country. The shooting was "much worse" because it gins up fear-mongering right-wingers.

Newsweek’s Evan Thomas: "I cringe that he's a Muslim. I mean, because it inflames all the fears. I think he's probably just a nut case. But with that label attached to him, it will get the right wing going and it just -- I mean these things are tragic, but that makes it much worse."

THEME: In the Age of Obama (as opposed to those Bush years), American can be expected to behave after terrorist attacks and not overreact.

From USA Today: "‘We haven't heard of anything violent, which is a good thing,’ said Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a Muslim advocacy group. ‘It shows our society has matured in how it responds to these incidents.’"

THEME: Let’s not be too quick to judge these Muslims. After all, we have our Christian nut cases, too.

A Boston Globe op-ed by Harvard professor Harvey Cox: "If some seem ready to die for faith, others are ready to kill for it, gunning down abortion doctors in church, hijacking planes, and exploding bombs at weddings." On CBS, Bob Schieffer energetically sought full moral equivalence: "And you know Islam doesn’t have a majority – or the Christian religion has its full, you know, full helping of nuts, too."

THEME: Blame someone other than the shooter for shooting.

Schieffer grew much more annoying, suggesting that this killing was all the Army’s fault, that "this shows the Army still does not take protecting soldiers' mental health as seriously as it does training them to shoot." It was the Army’s fault for not seeing that this was a radical Muslim who could be a danger to others. This kind of arrogance – sitting on a throne of 20-20 hindsight and demeaning our military – explains why the media’s favorability ratings have gone into the toilet.

If the Army had removed Hasan before his mass murder, Bob Schieffer and the other anchors would have been standing shoulder to shoulder with the ACLU people and the CAIR crowd suggesting anti-Muslim bigotry. These anchormen thought the Constitution was being shredded when the Bush administration attempted to intercept messages between bad guys here and al-Qaeda abroad. That was unhealthy "domestic spying." They have forfeited their right to question the military now. In their idealistic vision, we would have all remained ignorant of Hasan’s phone calls, and completely vulnerable to his rampages.

Even now, some media liberals were astonishing in the aftermath of this Islamic terrorism – and that is precisely what it was. Jaws dropped at the idiocy of Chris Matthews on MSNBC when he proclaimed, "Apparently, he tried to contact al-Qaeda. Is that the point at which you say, ‘This guy is dangerous?' That's not a crime to call up al-Qaeda, is it? Is it? I mean, where do you stop the guy?"

Answer to the well-paid idiot: Before he kills Americans on a military base.

Headline: 'Antarctica's Ice Loss Helps Offset Global Warming'

Noel Sheppard — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 22:21:39 -0500

A British study has found a new area of sea off the coast of Antarctica, supposedly caused by global warming, that is soaking up carbon dioxide climate alarmists like Al Gore and his media minions believe is responsible for -- wait for it! -- global warming.

You really can't make this stuff up!

Professor Lloyd Peck, a near-shore marine biologist from the British Antarctic Survey, marvelously said about the find, "It shows nature's ability to thrive in the face of adversity."

With obviously little fanfare, this supports the view of much-maligned climate realists who maintain that fluctuations in global temperatures are largely cyclical, and that nature typically balances such changes over the course of time.

As Agence France-Presse reported Tuesday:

Scientists led by Lloyd Peck of the British Antarctic Survey (BAS) said that atmospheric and ocean carbon is being gobbled up by microscopic marine plants called phytoplankton, which float near the surface.
After absorbing the carbon through the natural process of photosynthesis, the phytoplankton are eaten, or otherwise die and sink to the ocean floor. [...]
Over the last 50 years, around 24,000 square kilometres (9,200 square miles) of new open water have been created this way, and swathes of it are now colonised by phytoplankton, Peck's team reports in a specialist journal, Global Change Biology.

Despite this being minute in comparison to the supposedly deadly carbon dioxide released by man's awful use of fossil fuels, "it is nevertheless an important discovery" according to Peck:

"It shows nature's ability to thrive in the face of adversity.

"We need to factor this natural carbon absorption into our calculations and models to predict future climate change," he said in a BAS press release.
"So far, we don't know if we will see more events like this around the rest of Antarctica's coast, but it's something we'll be keeping an eye on."

Something else of note was AFP recognizing that ice melting at the poles doesn't result in rising sea levels:

The Antarctic ice shelves do not add to sea levels when they melt. Like the Arctic ice cap, they float on the sea and thus displace their own volume.

Maybe someone should tell Nobel Laureate Al Gore and all his scientifically-challenged sycophants in the media this, although it's doubtful such facts would interfere with them continuing to spread the junk science making the former Vice President a very rich man.

CBS and NBC Skip Hasan's Ominous 'We Love Death More Than You Love Life'

Brent Baker — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 21:25:16 -0500

Tuesday night ABC's Brian Ross highlighted how in a 2007 presentation mass-murdering Army Major Nidal Hasan exposed his radicalism and adherence to Islam over the U.S. Army as he charged “it's getting harder and harder for Muslims in the service to morally justify being in a military that seems constantly engaged against fellow Muslims,” and declared: “We love death more than you love life.”

But neither CBS nor NBC cited those quotes for their viewers as they gave short-shrift to Hasan's remarks in “The Koranic World View As It Relates to Muslims in the U.S. Military,” a slide show disclosed by Dana Priest in Tuesday's Washington Post (click on “Launch Photo Gallery” for Hasan's entire presentation at Walter Reed in June of 2007).

On the NBC Nightly News, Pete Williams just briefly noted how Hasan asserted that “releasing Muslim soldiers as conscientious objectors would increase troop morale and, quote, 'decrease adverse events.'” Bob Orr, on CBS, at least characterized it as “a shocking presentation to colleagues,” and related only how “Hasan argued forcing Muslim soldiers to fight wars in Muslim countries puts them 'at risk to hurting/killing believers unjustly' and he ominously warned of 'adverse events.'”

ABC anchor Charles Gibson set up the Ross story: “There is interest now focused on a presentation written by Hasan two years ago that provides insights into his views about Muslims, like himself, serving in the military.”

Brian Ross reported:

The Washington Post reported today that Hasan presented this PowerPoint presentation at Walter Reed hospital in 2007, saying: “It's getting harder and harder for Muslims in the service to morally justify being in a military that seems constantly engaged against fellow Muslims.” Under comments, he wrote: “We love death more than you love life.” And his conclusion was that Muslim soldiers be given the option of being released from the military, as conscientious objectors, to decrease what he called “adverse events.”

Bob Orr, on the CBS Evening News:

There were reasons to worry. Hasan received poor performance reviews at Walter Reed, frequently criticized the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and in June, 2007, Hasan gave a shocking presentation to colleagues. Using slides, Hasan argued forcing Muslim soldiers to fight wars in Muslim countries puts them “at risk to hurting/killing believers unjustly” and he ominously warned of “adverse events.” Yet it's not clear that anyone inside the military had a complete picture of Hasan's growing radicalization.

Pete Williams, who spent most of his story on ties between Hasan and radical/al Qaeda imam Anwar al-Awlaki, related on the slide show at the Walter Reed Army Hospital:

Hasan formally expressed some of that criticism in a 2007 classroom presentation first obtained by the Washington Post. His conclusion: Releasing Muslim soldiers as conscientious objectors would increase troop morale and, quote, “decrease adverse events.”

Philbin Column: On Ft. Hood, Media and Elites Refuse to Deal with Reality – Again

Matthew Philbin — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 19:16:53 -0500

As we survey the horror of the Ft. Hood massacre, it might be useful to remember that we’ve been here before, with another shooting 16 years ago. The circumstances were very different, but the reaction of the media and other elite – the excusing, the spinning, the slight regard for the victims – has been eerily similar.

On Dec. 7, 1993, aboard a crowded rush hour Long Island Railroad train from Manhattan to Hicksville, N.Y., a Jamaican immigrant named Colin Ferguson pulled a gun and began firing at fellow passengers. He killed six and wounded 19 before being subdued by three passengers.

The story of Ferguson’s trial is bizarre and tragic, played out against the backdrop of a “Bonfire of the Vanities” New York in the pre-Giuliani era. When the Nassau County commissioner quite sensibly called Ferguson “an animal,” Jesse Jackson parachuted in to condemn the comment as racist. Al Sharpton took time out from inciting arson and murder long enough to warn of a backlash against blacks.

On Dec. 13, the New York Times quoted one Doris Perkins, who, when she first heard about the crime, had hoped the shooter wouldn’t turn out to be black. “‘I figured if he was black, there was going to be hell to pay,’ said Mrs. Perkins, a black nurse from Jamaica, Queens. ‘I told my two teen-age sons to stay in the house and off the streets until this thing blows over.’”

Without apparent irony, the article went on to quote Jesse Jackson, saying, “In a sermon at the Cathedral of the Incarnation in Garden City, L.I., yesterday, Mr. Jackson warned against revenge and race-baiting as a result of the incident.”

Meanwhile, the Understand and Excuse engine kicked into high-gear. Leftist attorneys William Kunstler and Ron Kuby, who never met an America-hating psycho they wouldn’t represent, took up the case. With characteristic contempt for the criminal justice system, they invented the “black rage” defense for Ferguson.

Helped by Ferguson’s own lunatic writings uncovered after the crime, Kunstler and Kuby’s “black rage” theory argued that repeated and prolonged exposure to racism drove Ferguson to an act of violence for which he wasn’t responsible, in the same way “battered wife syndrome” exonerated women who killed their abusive husbands.

In the New York Times, Robert D. McFadden recounted Ferguson’s “tormented life” in a world of “unjust laws and universal hostility” where he “brooded over what he saw as the implacable racism of America.” Time magazine’s Anastasia Toufexis and Patrick E. Cole quoted the Ferguson’s landlord in the New York Daily News, saying, "He had the 'American Dream,' and when it fell apart, he looked to blame somebody.”

“In the end,” Toufexis and Cole wrote, “all Ferguson had left was rage.”

Fast forward 16 years. Replace Colin Ferguson with Nidal Hasan, the LIRR with the Fort Hood soldier processing center, “black” with “Muslim,” and “black rage” with “pre-traumatic stress disorder.”

Yes, “pre-traumatic stress.” As the media heroically struggled not to notice that the Ft. Hood gunman was a Muslim (after all, President Obama had warned us all not to jump to conclusions, and his FBI immediately ruled out terrorism), they cast about for ways to excuse Hasan. The war must have done it to him! Unfortunately, Hasan had never left the States. But he was a psychiatrist who had to counsel those who had been in combat. And he was set to ship out for Afghanistan.

On CBS, Bob Scheiffer said, “Sadly, this shows the Army still does not take protecting soldiers’ mental health as seriously as it does training them to shoot.” Well, if you mean that this is the caliber of shrink the army is providing, you may have a point, Bob.

On NPR, Nov. 6, reporter Tom Gjelten said, “There's - almost seems to be a phenomenon that you could maybe call a pre-traumatic stress disorder.”

But eventually, the press could no longer ignore Hasan’s religion. In an echo of Doris Perkins, ABC’s Martha Raddatz said, “As for the suspect, Nadal Hasan, as one officer's wife told me, ‘I wish his name was Smith.’” Newsweek’s Evan Thomas cringed “that he’s a Muslim. I mean, because it inflames all the fears,” while ABC’s Charlie Gibson fought a valiant rear-guard action: “With America fighting Islamic enemies overseas, Muslim troops face a unique burden … not seen since Japanese-Americans fought in World War II.”

It gets really depressing when you consider similar blather from the Army Chief of Staff. On ABC “This Week,” Gen. George Casey said he feared a (you guessed it!) “backlash against some of our Muslim soldiers," said Gen. George W. Casey Jr. on ABC's "This Week."

"I believe it would be an even greater tragedy if our diversity becomes a casualty here," Casey said.

The anti- Muslim backlash won’t occur, just as “Let’s Roll” didn’t roll into mosques after 9-11. Just as the anti-black backlash didn’t occur after the LIRR shooting. But the hand-wringing about backlashes tells us much. Our elites – even some of our elite soldiers – fundamentally distrust this country.

It’s somehow fitting that the Fort Hood massacre took place within days of Obama’s no-show at the Berlin Wall. Our head of state, the man with the bully pulpit who never misses an opportunity to talk (mostly about himself), couldn’t be bothered to commemorate that great moment for human freedom – maybe America’s greatest victory. To his acolytes in the media, the same people who apologize for killers and await phantom backlashes from ordinary Americans, that’s OK. After all, the Cold War was won by people who understood right and wrong and could tell good guys from bad. And as Ferguson and Hasan and so much in between proves, that’s not how our news media roll.

Ed Schultz Ponders Ft. Hood Massacre, Then Gets 'Even More Depressed' Thinking About Lieberman

Jack Coleman — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 19:09:08 -0500

This from the side of the aisle always prattling about sensitivity.

Radio show and MSNBC host Ed Schultz yesterday provided further evidence that deep down he's shallow, talking about the Army missing warning signs of Major Nidal Malik Hasan's radical Islamic views (click here for audio) --

SCHULTZ: When somebody's down at the mouth and when somebody is not with the program, why does the military keep him and expect him to do things? Because you don't do that in private business. Well, (voice turning sarcastic) this is the military, well, wait a second now! You know, if they're absolutely our finest and we support them to the max, it would seem to me that there was a chink in the armor somewhere. Right? That's how I feel about it! That the vetting process of the military personnel was, maybe I'm totally wrong on this one, totally off-base and everything else. But, I don't know.

It just seems to me that if this guy didn't want to go, put him in a place where he can still help out. (pause) I just had to get that off, I've been thinking of that all weekend long. I been thinking about, I been thinking about that all weekend long, about where this is all going and what's happening. And then when I think about Joe Lieberman, I get even more depressed.

Amazingly, Schultz says three things in all of a minute that defy comprehension, a heady feat even for a liberal.

First -- "It just seems to me that if this guy didn't want to go, put him in a place where he can still help out." Like where -- military intelligence? A missile silo? How about Obama's Secret Service detail? Wait, I've got it -- counseling other simmering Islamists in the ranks. Right up his alley.

Second, Schultz tells us -- repeatedly -- he's been "thinking" of this "all weekend long" (having gone hunting over a three-day weekend, Schultz said Monday, after talking about the massacre on his radio show Thursday).

Schultz spends an entire weekend wrestling with the horror of what occurred at Fort Hood -- and this is what he puts on the table afterward?

And third, having furrowed his brow over the worst terrorist attack on our soil since 9/11, Schultz concludes there is something else that makes him "even more depressed" -- the cursed apostate Joe Lieberman. Not many people can made a bloodbath pale by comparison, at least for Schultz, but Lieberman is one of them.

Two words come to mind, Ed -- "psycho talk." You're soaking in it.

ABC, CBS Skip Most of Ft. Hood Memorial, Except for Obama -- Unlike Full Coverage of Jacko Memorial

Tim Graham — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 18:53:21 -0500

Our eagle-eyed archivists at MRC who record live network coverage thought it was curious that ABC and CBS weren't joining in as NBC offered live coverage of today's memorial service for the dead and wounded at Fort Hood. As The Wall Street Journal reported:

Camouflage-clad soldiers snapped to a salute as the national anthem played, and many murmured along when Gen. George Casey uttered the words of the warrior ethos: "I will always place the mission first. I will never accept defeat."

A chaplain also spoke. But ABC and CBS were still running their soaps. When did they start live coverage? Just before President Obama spoke. When did they end? CBS jumped back out shortly after Obama finished. ABC held on for a few bars of "Amazing Grace."

These networks apparently had no concept of how this might look to the people who truly mourned the lost at Fort Hood. No prayers, no hymns, no national anthem, no chaplains, no generals. It's Obama and out.

This is hardly the way ABC and CBS covered the gaudy and overextended Michael Jackson memorial service in July. As the Philadelphia Inquirer reported:

Tuesday's live coverage of Michael Jackson's memorial service was watched by an average audience of more than 30.9 million people over the course of about three hours, reports Nielsen, which counted viewing on ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, Telefutura, Telemundo, Univision, CNN, Fox News Channel, MSNBC, Headline News, BET, E!, MTV, VH1, VH1 Classic, TV Guide Network, TV One and MUN2.

The pattern -- that dead and freakish celebrities are much more newsworthy than American soldiers -- continues. As Brent Bozell noted this summer: "On the night of July 6, ABC, CBS, and NBC, paid twenty times more attention to Jackson (more than a week after his death) than to the deaths of seven brave soldiers in Afghanistan."