Tag Archives: countdown

Olbermann Uses Words of U.S. Soldier to Bolster Anti-War Agenda, Ignores Soldier’s Support for Iraq Mission

On Monday’s Countdown show, MSNBC host Keith Olbermann used a clip of U.S. Army Staff Sergeant Tim Osborn, stationed in Iraq, commenting on how he had previously felt that the war in Iraq “wasn’t ever going to stop,” to fit into the Countdown host’s suggestion that American troops had remained in Iraq too long. But what Olbermann did not show his viewers is that Staff Sergeant Osborn had also expressed strong support for the war effort in a clip which was shown earlier that evening on the NBC Nightly News during a piece which correspondent Richard Engel filed from Iraq: RICHARD ENGEL: He tells me his greatest accomplishment: giving Iraqis a chance. STAFF SERGEANT TIM OSBORN, U.S. ARMY: If what was going on here was going on in America, I wouldn’t want my kids to grow up in that world. I would want somebody else to come in and help. And if it took them doing what we did here, then I would welcome that. But Olbermann was apparently only interested in using a clip of Staff Sergeant Osborn that would fit into the MSNBC host’s characteristic anti-war shtick: KEITH OLBERMANN: One “Mission Accomplished” banner, 4,415 military fatalities, and 7 1/2 years after the previous administration led us into the war under pretenses and intelligence that proved to be undeniably false, the end of the Iraq war now finally in sight, at least from the combat operations standpoint. Our fourth story: the time remaining in a conflict that has dragged on for the better part of a decade, most accurately measured tonight not in months, nor in weeks, but in days At Camp Liberty in Iraq, soldiers lowering the flag of the last combat bridge in that country. One soldier fighting the war since 2003 telling our embedded chief foreign correspondent, Richard Engel, that the conflict he lived for most of his 20s, that appeared to be endless. STAFF SERGEANT TIM OSBORN, U.S. ARMY: I never dreamed I’d be one of the last ones out, sir. In all honesty, when it started up, it felt like it wasn`t ever going to stop. Engel’s piece on the NBC Nightly News also featured a second soldier who voiced support for the war effort in Iraq: SERGEANT FIRST CLASS JOE HUFFMAN, U.S. ARMY: Absolutely, for me and for my country, it was worth it. The sacrifice to the soldiers was worth it and what we came to right now at the end, the sacrifice was worth it.  Below is a complete transcript of the Monday, August 16, NBC Nightly News, followed by a transcript of the relevant portion of the same day’s Countdown show on MSNBC: #From the August 16 NBC Nightly News: BRIAN WILLIAMS: Now we move to Iraq, where a milestone is fast approaching: After more than seven years of war, the end of U.S. combat operations. Our chief foreign correspondent Richard Engel is with the Fourth Stryker Brigade as they carry out one last mission, to get out and come home. RICHARD ENGEL: At Camp Liberty in Baghdad, soldiers lower the flag of the last combat brigade in Iraq. STAFF SERGEANT TIM OSBORN, U.S. ARMY: I never dreamed I’d be one of the last ones out. In all honesty, when it started up, it felt like it wasn’t ever going to stop. ENGEL: For 31-year-old Staff Sergeant Tim Osborn from Ohio, the war has been his twenties. He was here in 2003 to topple a dictator, called back in 2007 to stop a civil war, and now to end combat. He tells me his greatest accomplishment: giving Iraqis a chance. STAFF SERGEANT OSBORN: If what was going on here was going on in America, I wouldn’t want my kids to grow up in that world. I would want somebody else to come in and help. And if it took them doing what we did here, then I would welcome that. ENGEL: But Osborn has had four friends among the more than 4,400 American troops killed in Iraq. STAFF SERGEANT OSBORN: The blue and gold stars for my four brothers that I lost. ENGEL: By an almost impossible coincidence, Osborn has been in the same platoon for three tours with Sergeant First Class Joe Huffman from Batesburg, South Carolina. In his trailer today, Huffman waits for orders home. Everything is already packed except his computer, with pictures of family he’ll soon see. He, too, believes he’s leaving Iraq better than he found it. SERGEANT FIRST CLASS JOE HUFFMAN, U.S. ARMY: Absolutely, for me and for my country, it was worth it. The sacrifice to the soldiers was worth it and what we came to right now at the end, the sacrifice was worth it. ENGEL: Osborn and Huffman, who started the war together, will be leaving together, too. SERGEANT FIRST CLASS HUFFMAN: Let’s go, let’s go, let’s go. STAFF SERGEANT OSBORN: Yo, hurry up! Get the ramp up! ENGEL: A friendship seared in war, ending a combat mission that has defined a generation of the U.S. military. Richard Engel, NBC News, Baghdad. #From the August 16 Countdown: KEITH OLBERMANN: One “Mission Accomplished” banner, 4,415 military fatalities, and 7 1/2 years after the previous administration led us into the war under pretenses and intelligence that proved to be undeniably false, the end of the Iraq war now finally in sight , at least from the combat operations standpoint. Our fourth story: the time remaining in a conflict that has dragged on for the better part of a decade, most accurately measured tonight not in months, nor in weeks, but in days At Camp Liberty in Iraq, soldiers lowering the flag of the last combat bridge in that country. One soldier fighting the war since 2003 telling our embedded chief foreign correspondent, Richard Engel, that the conflict he lived for most of his 20s, that appeared to be endless. STAFF SERGEANT TIM OSBORN, U.S. ARMY: I never dreamed I’d be one of the last ones out, sir. In all honesty, when it started up, it felt like it wasn`t ever going to stop. OLBERMANN: Soldiers from the Fourth Stryker Brigade combat team, Second Infantry Division, departing from Baghdad over the weekend to make that long and long overdue trip home to Fort Lewis, Washington, having spent almost a year in the Iraqi capital. By the end of the month, some 50,000 American troops will be left in Iraq, down from a maximum force strength of around 170,000, reached during the so-called “surge.” Under a security agreement between the U.S. and Iraq, the rest of the troops are to be out of the country by the end of next year, 2011.

Read more:
Olbermann Uses Words of U.S. Soldier to Bolster Anti-War Agenda, Ignores Soldier’s Support for Iraq Mission

Olbermann Hints Moral Equivalence Between U.S. & Islamic Empire, Blocking Mosque May Be First Step to New Holocaust

On Monday’s Countdown show, MSNBC host Keith Olbermann delivered a “Special Comment” in which he invoked Nazi Germany and suggested that blocking construction of a mosque near Ground Zero could be the first of a “thousand steps” toward another holocaust. He also suggested a moral equivalence between the Islamic Empire’s conquests and America’s expansion into the lands of Native Americans as he attempted to discredit former House Speaker Newt Gingrich’s concerns about the choice of “Cordoba House” as the original name planned for the mosque as being intentionally symbolic of a Muslim victory at Ground Zero. After starting his “Special Comment” by quoting Pastor Martin Niemoller’s famous words about the Holocaust of World War II, he at first tried to make his rant sound more moderate and not really a comparison to the Holocaust: “I make no direct comparison between the attempts to suppress the building of a Muslim religious center in downtown Manhattan and the unimaginable nightmare of the Holocaust.” He added: “Such a comparison is ludicrous – at least, it is now.” But the Countdown host was still alarmist enough to fear the mosque controversy could lead in that horrific direction: “Niemoller was not warning of the Holocaust. He was warning of the thousand steps before a holocaust became inevitable. If we are at merely the first of those steps again today, it is one step too close.” Citing Gingrich’s contention that members of the Islamic Empire historically engaged in a practice of building large mosques on the holy sites of their conquests as monuments to their victories – citing the mosque that was built in Cordoba, Spain, as an example – Olbermann at first argued that, because Cordoba was eventually recaptured by Christians, Gingrich’s concerns are somehow undermined. The MSNBC host even sounded as if he were defending the Muslim expansion into Spain as he recounted that Christians continued to fight even though the Muslim conquerors built “multicultural, nondenominational institutions of learning.” Olbermann: Those Muslim conquerors are a figment of Gingrich’s lurid imagination. In Spain, in Cordoba, though the Muslims established multicultural, nondenominational institutions of learning, they were under constant attack from Christian armies and from a series of internal all-Muslim civil wars. The Muslims lost Cordoba and the Christian church they transformed into the world’s third largest mosque complex, that was turned back into a Christian cathedral in the 13th century, and it has been one ever since. But moments later, Olbermann seemed to contradict himself by acknowledging that Gingrich was correct in his reasoning about the historical significance of the name “Cordoba” being provocative, as the MSNBC host gave the Muslim group credit for changing the name in response to the former House Speaker’s criticism. Olbermann: “When the historical implications of Cordoba were made clear to the backers of this project, the property developer, Sharif Gamal, changed the name. They’ve already compromised.” Olbermann did not theorize about why the Muslim group was motivated to choose this provocative name in the first place. The Countdown host also suggested a moral equivalence between America’s history of confiscating land from Native Americans and the Islamic Empire’s conquests. Olbermann: “And is there not a logical extension to Mr. Gingrich’s conclusions about Cordoba and triumphalism? Virtually every church, virtually every synagogue, every mosque built on this continent stands where a Native American lived or died or was buried or saw his world – his religions included – wiped out, by us. What are we, then, Mr. Gingrich?” But, unlike many predominantly Muslim countries, the United States provides full citizenship rights to Native Americans, who are now even greater in number than when Christopher Columbus first visited the New World. By contrast, not only do many countries that are successors to the Islamic Empire sharply restrict the rights of their citizens, but, as recently as the period between 1948 and 1975, in many predominantly Muslim nations, Jewish residents faced so much persecution in the form of violence and confiscation of property that the number of Jewish refugees who fled Muslim countries is estimated to be greater than the number of Palestinian refugees who fled Israel after the Arab states invaded the tiny nation in 1948. Some estimate that the land confiscated from Jewish residents by governments in Muslim countries amounts to several times the total area of the state of Israel. After recounting the story of a mosque that was bombed in Jacksonville, Florida, Olbermann also declared that Muslims in America are more likely to be targeted by terrorism than non-Muslims: “As the Jacksonville mosque bombing shows, since 9/11, Muslims have been at far greater risk of being victims of terrorism in the United States than have non-Muslims.” Below is a complete transcript of the “Special Comment” portion of the Monday, August 16, Countdown show on MSNBC, with critical portions in bold : KEITH OLBERMANN: Finally, tonight, as promised, a “Special Comment” on the inaccurately described “Ground Zero mosque.” “They came first for the communists and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a communist. Then they came for the trade unionists and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew. And then they came for me and by that time, no one was left to speak up.” Pastor Martin Niemoller’s words are well known, but their context is not well understood. Niemoller was not speaking abstractly. He witnessed persecution; he acquiesced to it. He ultimately fell victim to it. He had been a German World War I hero, then a conservative who welcomed the fall of German democracy and the rise of Hitler, and he had few qualms about the beginning of the Holocaust until he himself was arrested for supporting it insufficiently. Niemoller’s confessional warning came first in a speech in Frankfurt in January 1946 – eight months after he had been liberated by American troops. He had been detained at Tyrol, Sachsen-hausen, and Dachau for seven years. He survived the death camps. In quoting him, I make no direct comparison between the attempts to suppress the building of a Muslim religious center in downtown Manhattan and the unimaginable nightmare of the Holocaust. Such a comparison is ludicrous – at least, it is now. But Niemoller was not warning of the Holocaust, he was warning of the willingness of a seemingly rational society to condone the gradual stoking of enmity towards an ethnic or religious group or more than one, warning of the building up of a collective pool of fear and hate, warning of the moment in which the need to purge outstrips the parameters of the original scapegoating, when new victims are needed because a country has begun to run on a horrible field of hatred – magnified, amplified and multiplied by politicians and zealots within government and without. Niemoller was not warning of the Holocaust. He was warning of the thousand steps before a holocaust became inevitable. If we are at merely the first of those steps again today, it is one step too close. Yet in a country dedicated to freedom, forces have gathered to blow out of all proportion the construction of a minor community center to transform it into a training ground for terrorists and an insult to the victims of 9/11 and a tribute to Medieval Muslim subjugation of the West. There is no training ground for terrorists. There is no insult to the victims of 9/11. There is no tribute to Medieval Muslim subjugation of the West. There is, in fact, no “Ground Zero mosque.” It is not mosque. A mosque, technically, is a Muslim holy place in which only worship can be conducted. What is planned for 45 Park Place, New York City, is a community center. It’s supposed to include a basketball court and a culinary school. It is to be 13 stories tall, and the top two stories will be a Muslim prayer space. What a cauldron of terrorism that will be. Terrorist chefs and terrorist point guards. And truly those who will use the center have more to fear from us than us from them, for there has been terrorism connected to a mosque in this country, in this year. May 10, Jacksonville, Florida, a pipe bomb at the Islamic Center of Northeast Florida. The FBI thinks the man in this surveillance video could be the bomber. The bomb went off during evening prayers and it was powerful enough to send shrapnel flying 100 yards. Fortunately, the bomber didn’t know where to place it, so the 60 Muslim worshipers were uninjured. If he had put it inside and not outside, they had been dead and you probably would have heard about it on the news. Or maybe not. Maybe those exploiting 45 Park Place would still shake their fists and decry terrorism by extremists who happen to be Muslim and never faced the shameful truth about our country. As the Jacksonville mosque bombing shows, since 9/11, Muslims have been at far greater risk of being victims of terrorism in the United States than have non-Muslims . But back to this Islamic center. Its name, Cordoba House, is not a tribute to the Medieval Muslim subjugation of Spain. Newt Gingrich has been pushing that nonsense that Cordoba is dog whistle for triumphalism : “It refers to Cordoba, Spain – the capital of Muslim conquerors who symbolized their victory over the Christian Spaniards by transforming a church there into the world’s third largest mosque complex. Today, some of the mosque’s backers insist this term is being used to ‘symbolize interfaith cooperation’ when, in fact, every Islamist in the world recognizes Cordoba as a symbol of Islamic conquest.” Those Muslim conquerors are a figment of Gingrich’s lurid imagination. In Spain, in Cordoba, though the Muslims established multicultural, nondenominational institutions of learning, they were under constant attack from Christian armies and from a series of internal all-Muslim civil wars. The Muslims lost Cordoba and the Christian church they transformed into the world’s third largest mosque complex, that was turned back into a Christian cathedral in the 13th century, and it has been one ever since. And is there not a logical extension to Mr. Gingrich’s conclusions about Cordoba and triumphalism? Virtually every church, virtually every synagogue, every mosque built on this continent stands where a Native American lived or died or was buried or saw his world – his religions included – wiped out, by us. What are we, then, Mr. Gingrich? And by the way, a point Mr. Gingrich has not even whispered as he has shouted fire in a crowded theater: When the historical implications of Cordoba were made clear to the backers of this project, the property developer, Sharif Gamal, changed the name. They’re already compromised. “We are calling it Park 51 because of the backlash to the name Cordoba House,” he told the Financial Times. “It will be a place open to all New Yorkers, and that is a very New York name.” A very New York name. Like Ground Zero. Except that this place, Park 51, is not even at Ground Zero. Not even right across the street. Even the description of it being two blocks away is generous. It is two blocks away from the Northeast corner of the World Trade Center site. From the planned location of the 9/11 memorial, it’s more like four or five blocks, even. You know what is right across the street, though? I went there yesterday to refresh my sense of the World Trade Center, in which I worked nearly 30 years ago. At Church and Veezy Street so close that the barbed wire of Ground Zero obscures its spire is St. Paul’s Chapel. Been there since 1766, where Washington went the day he was inaugurated, where the first responders came for relief nine years ago. You know what’s also closer to Ground Zero than this Muslim community center will be? Church of St. Peter, at Church and Barclay Streets. As the sign says, “New York’s Oldest Catholic parish.” People hear “Ground Zero mosque” and they think Mecca in the backyard and the loud call to prayer and they take umbrage. “We’ve got no more than a few inches of skin and a couple pieces of bone. Ground Zero is the burial place of my son,” said Joyce Boland at the public hearing about this center. “I don’t want to go there and see an overwhelming mosque looking down at me.” I honor her pain and her fear, but Mrs. Boland has nothing to worry about. Unless she walks directly over to it, several blocks away, she’ll never see the thing. This is what you see from where the center will be. Another nondescript building is across the street. This building and others like it would block views of the Trade Center and views from the Trade Center. The community center certainly will stand out on the north side of Park Place, but amid the canyons of lower Manhattan, it will just be a distinctive building that, if you happen to wander down a side street near the Trade Center, you might see it. You know what you’ll see there now? This. The Burlington coat factory, abandoned since 2001, when the landing gear from one of the planes fell 90 stories and went through the roof. For nine years, nobody’s been willing to buy that building, just to knock it down and build a new one. It sold for $4,850,000. In New York City real estate, that is spare change. And you know why it’s spare change? Because walk around Ground Zero any day of the week and it’s packed with tourists and our version of pilgrims. But walk two and three blocks away, and not so packed. Not packed at all. Empty stores, boarded up windows, nine years later, and two and three blocks from the action, it’s a ghost town. What was that about government not getting in the way of private business? What was that about letting the private sector spur new jobs in blighted areas? Oh, and what was that about Iraq? Why did we go into Iraq again? I don’t mean the real versions or the naked vengeful blindness that enabled the forging of a nonexistent connection between Iraq and 9/11, I mean, the official explanation. To free the world, and especially Iraq’s citizens, of the tyranny of Saddam Hussein. That’s its supporters’ defense of the Iraq invasion to this hour. Well, who lives in Iraq? Muslims. I hate to reveal this to anybody on the right who did not know this, but when they say Iraq is 65 percent Shia and 32 percent Sunni, you do know that Shia and Sunni are both forms of the Muslim religion, right? We sacrificed 4,415 of our military personnel in Iraq to save Muslims, and there are thousands of us still here tonight to protect Muslims, but we don’t want Muslims to open a combination culinary school and prayer space in Manhattan? From the beginning of this nation, we have fought prejudice and religious intolerance and our greatest enemy, stupidity, exploited by rapacious politicians. It is only 50 years now, this month, since Americans publicly and urgently warned their countrymen not to support a presidential candidate because he was a Roman Catholic. He would bow to the will, not of the American people, but of the Pope. He would be a papist. He would be the agent of a foreign state! His name was John Fitzgerald Kennedy.

MSNBC’s Harris-Lacewell: 14th Amendment Debate about Eugenics, Xenophobia

Whenever Fox News host Glenn Beck raises the history of progressives and eugenics, or the possibility that eugenics is part of the motivation of a legitimate policy debate, the left-wing has a hissy fit . But when the left introduces it, we’re supposed to accept it as high-minded and scholarly, especially in the case Princeton University’s Melissa Harris-Lacewell.  On MSNBC’s Aug. 12 “Countdown,” liberal blowhard Keith Olbermann asked Harris-Lacewell, an MSNBC contributor, what the motivation was behind the proposition the 14th Amendment of the Constitution should be altered to close a loophole for illegal immigrants to achieve legal status in the United States. As expected, Harris-Lacewell suggested it was motivated racism, but took it even further to say there was some sort of desire for genetic purity pushing it. “It certainly is xenophobia, but it’s got a little eugenics mixed in with it,” Harris-Lacewell said. “Part of what I see going on here is, first, a deep misunderstanding about the 14th Amendment, and for whom the 14th Amendment provided citizenship. And although certainly part of it was about newly freed persons after the Civil War, it was also about all Americans.” Back in March, Harris-Lacewell demonstrated her ability to play the race card in a unique way – by likening the individual backlash to ObamaCare to the causes of the Civil War . This time she proposed this harebrained theory that altering the 14th Amendment would lead to a genetic purity test used to prove American citizenship. “In other words, I want Americans to pause for a moment and ask themselves on what basis would you determine citizenship, if not based on where a child is born?” Harris-Lacewell said. “So are we willing to go to a kind of genetic grandfather clause for American citizenship? Do you have to have two parents who are citizens? How about grandparents? How about great- grandparents? The notion becomes very quickly a racialized one, where the idea of who will count as American becomes genetic rather than location.” The latest left-wing meme has been that the anchor baby issue really isn’t a significant one based on data from the Pew Hispanic Center , so why worry about it? But the a closer look at the Pew study shows it’s based on U.S. Census data , which has historically been fuzzy on its numbers with undocumented immigrants. And rather than scrutinize the report, left-wingers have accepted it as indisputable fact since Pew, as Olbermann put it, is “nonpartisan.” And that’s allowed liberals like Harris-Lacewell to suggest there is a malicious intent to alter the 14th Amendment and try to de-legitimize a component of the illegal immigration. “And I think all of us, white Americans, black Americans, Latinos who are in the country as citizens, and people who are here illegally and without documentation, should all be worried about such a notion,” Harris-Lacewell said.

Read more:
MSNBC’s Harris-Lacewell: 14th Amendment Debate about Eugenics, Xenophobia

Keith Olbermann Revises History to Praise Clinton and Bash Gingrich

Keith Olbermann on Monday revised history to praise former President Bill Clinton and bash former House Speaker Newt Gingrich. In the opening segment of MSNBC’s “Countdown,” the host railed against a proposal by Republicans to once again reintroduce the balanced budget amendment. Olbermann pointed out to his tiny audience that this was “also pushed by then Speaker Newt Gingrich as part of the 1994 Contract With America.” With total disregard for historical facts, the “Countdown” host continued, “Gingrich failed to pass it, President Clinton raised taxes, balanced the budget, created 22 million jobs” (video follows with transcript and commentary): KEITH OLBERMANN: Sick of Democrats accusing them of having nothing to improve the economy but ideas from the Bush era, Republicans are planning to introduce instead a bold new initiative from the Gingrich era. Our fifth story tonight, it’s called the balanced budget amendment, but it’s real objective is to protect the rich from tax cuts, and without those tax cuts, Republicans will not tell us how they would balance the budget, even if they do give us a few hints, as you’ll see. It was Republican Senator Jim Demint telling the newspaper The Hill that when Congress returns after the August recess, he and his colleagues, including John McCain and Lindsey Graham, will introduce a resolution to amend the U. S. Constitution. The balanced budget amendment, also pushed by then Speaker Newt Gingrich as part of the 1994 Contract With America, would prevent the federal government from spending more than it takes in. But, and there is the rub, it also has a clause barring any tax increases without a two-thirds vote in each chamber of Congress. Gingrich failed to pass it, President Clinton raised taxes, balanced the budget, created 22 million jobs. Really? Well, first of all, Clinton’s tax hikes were part of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993. Gingrich didn’t become Speaker until January 1995. Nice try, Keith. But it gets worse, for what Olbermann conveniently omitted – like so many media members are currently doing to misinform the public about the difference between Republican and Democrat tax policies – was that Gingrich and the Republican Congress forced Clinton to sign the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 which cut taxes. This was when the economy really took off as the GDP grew by 4.4 percent in 1997, 4.5 percent in 1998, 4.8 percent in 1999, and 4.1 percent in 2000. During this period, employers added over 12 million workers to their payrolls. As for the budget being balanced, this also occurred after the 1997 tax cuts in years 1998 through 2001. With this in mind, one seriously has to wonder whether the folks at General Electric and NBC consider this kind of shoddy reporting acceptable on their cable news network. Consider that just a few minutes later, a regular guest on MSNBC, Arianna Huffington, showed an absolutely staggering ignorance of business, taxes, and economics. Two hours earlier, MSNBC host Ed Schultz completely misrepresented the causes of the government shutdown in November 1995. Exit question: would any other corporation in America tolerate such negligence from high-profile employees without at least a reprimand? 

Read more from the original source:
Keith Olbermann Revises History to Praise Clinton and Bash Gingrich

Keith Olbermann Calls for Justice Clarence Thomas to Resign

Keith Olbermann on Wednesday called for Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to resign. His complaint? Thomas’s wife Virginia runs a political organization called Liberty Central which at this point has not revealed who its donors are.  “She is a living, breathing, appearance of a conflict of interest,” whined Olbermann during Wednesday’s “Countdown.” “Either she must reveal the names of her donors and everyone employed by, affiliated with or donating to or donated to by Liberty Central, or Justice Thomas must resign from the Supreme Court” (video follows with transcript and commentary): Then there is Washington, D.C. Tea Partier Virginia “Ginny” Thomas. She has the usual stuff, a blind hatred of the president, paranoid use of the word tyranny, endorsing knee jerk candidates, her own little group of Neanderthals called Liberty Central. It’s more financially successful than most. “Politico” now reports she has only two donors, one for 50 grand and one for a whopping 500 grand. But otherwise, Mrs. Thomas’ story is the usual reactionary tripe. It is her right to be wrong and we must protect it. Virginia “Ginny” Thomas is the wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. This probably is really, really obvious. The wife of a Supreme Court justice is soliciting donations to a political organization. The donors are anonymous and one paid her half a million bucks. Even if she tried not to, she cannot help but stand out from a crowd of yelping Tea Partiers because of her husband‘s name and position. She is a living, breathing, appearance of a conflict of interest. The remedies are just as obvious. Either she must reveal the names of her donors and everyone employed by, affiliated with or donating to or donated to by Liberty Central, or Justice Thomas must resign from the Supreme Court. Otherwise, every verdict he renders will have to be assumed to be the result of influence peddling, and whatever effectiveness he has on the court will be reduced to a pathetic joke.   Before we get to the heart of the matter, isn’t it marvelous how a cable news anchor shows such disrespect to the wife of a Supreme Court justice?  “She has the usual stuff, a blind hatred of the president, paranoid use of the word tyranny, endorsing knee jerk candidates, her own little group of Neanderthals called Liberty Central…But otherwise, Mrs. Thomas’ story is the usual reactionary tripe.” Is this REALLY what the wife of a Supreme Court justice deserves just because she has different political beliefs than a television personality?  As to the substance of Olbermann’s complaint, every verdict Thomas renders will have to be assumed to be the result of influence peddling? Not just the ones that might actually involve donors to his wife’s organization? That seems absurdly sweeping even for the typically absurdly sweeping “Countdown” host. Sadly, if he and his staff had done the slightest bit of research, they would have uncovered what the Los Angeles Times reported  concerning this matter on March 14: “I think the American public expects the justices to be out of politics,” said University of Texas law school professor Lucas A. “Scot” Powe, a court historian. He said the expectations for spouses are far less clear. “I really don’t know because we’ve never seen it,” Powe said. Under judicial rules, judges must curb political activity, but a spouse is free to engage. As in her appearance at the panel discussion, the website does not mention Clarence Thomas. The judicial code of conduct does require judges to separate themselves from their spouses’ political activity. As a result, Marjorie Rendell, a judge on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, has stayed away from political events, campaign rallies and debates in Pennsylvania. Her husband discussed such issues in his first campaign for governor. Since then, Judge Rendell has sought the opinion of the judiciary’s Committee on Codes of Conduct when a case presents a possible conflict of interest involving her husband’s political office, she said. And what about this specific situation? Law professor Gillers said that Justice Thomas, too, should be on alert for possible conflicts, particularly those involving donors to his wife’s nonprofit. “There is opportunity for mischief if a company with a case before the court, or which it wants the court to accept, makes a substantial contribution to Liberty Central in the interim,” he said. Justice Thomas would be required to be aware of such contributions, Gillers said, adding that he believes Thomas should then disclose those facts and allow parties in the case to argue for recusal. But it would be up to Justice Thomas to decide whether to recuse himself. As such, despite Olbermann’s blathering, the only potential conflict here would be if the Supreme Court heard a case involving a donor to Liberty Central. At that point, there are procedures in place to deal with it. After all, in the many centuries we’ve had a Supreme Court, this isn’t the first time a justice’s spouse was involved in politics. If Olbermann and his staff had actually read the entire piece  he referred to in this report, he may have been far better informed on this subject: Neither a Liberty Central official, nor a Supreme Court spokeswoman would say whether the group would disclose the names of its donors to the Supreme Court legal office or to Thomas’s husband so he can avoid ruling on cases in which a major Liberty Central donor is a party. “Liberty Central has been run past the Supreme Court ethics office and they found that the organization meets all ethics standards,” [policy director and general counsel Sarah] Field said. “As she has throughout her 30-year history in the policy community, Ginni will address any potential conflicts on a case-by-case basis.” As Ginni Thomas has begun to emerge as a high-profile political player in her own right, friends and allies say has bristled at the focus on her husband, and questions about whether her involvement with Liberty Central could compromise his impartiality. The Thomases last faced conflict questions in 2000 when Ginni Thomas, then working for the conservative Heritage Foundation, solicited resumes for potential transition team members for George W. Bush, while Justice Thomas was part of the court majority that sided with Bush over Democratic rival Al Gore in the historic case of Bush v. Gore. In fact, this is certainly not the first time Thomas has been politically active: “In my experience working with her, people usually didn’t know (she was married to Clarence Thomas), because she doesn’t wear it on her sleeve,” said Kibbe, who worked with Thomas at the right-leaning U.S. Chamber of Commerce while her husband was a federal appeals court judge rumored to be on then-President George H.W. Bush’s shortlist for the Supreme Court. After the Chamber, Ginni Thomas, who has a law degree, went on to work for the Labor Department under the Bush administration and later for then-House Majority Leader Dick Armey, a Texas Republican who now chairs Kibbe’s group, as well as the Heritage Foundation, a pillar of the Washington conservative establishment. That was followed by the job as a Washington coordinator for Hillsdale College. Thomas, who declined to be interviewed for this story and has mostly limited her media interaction to conservative outlets, explained to the Washington Examiner last month that she decided to start Liberty Central because she “realized I needed to get closer to the front lines, that there was a more short-term crisis – and that unless we have a big impact in November and again in 2012, we wouldn’t recognize the country we’re living in.” She also explained to the Examiner, “My favorite times are when people who have worked for me for over 10 years come to understand only later that I am the wife of Justice Thomas.” Taking this a step further: Supreme Court spokeswoman Kathy Arberg told POLITICO that “Mrs. Thomas had reviewed her involvement (in Liberty Central) with the Supreme Court legal office.” But Arberg would not say whether Clarence Thomas had participated in the discussion, nor whether Liberty Central had agreed to reveal its donors to him or the court’s legal office. As such, the Court’s legal office is quite aware of the situation making Olbermann’s call for Thomas to step down if Virginia doesn’t disclose her donors quite absurd. Alas, that’s par for the course for MSNBC’s prime time clown who predictably makes hyperbolic fulminations without facts to support them. His hero Edward R. Murrow must be so proud. 

The rest is here:
Keith Olbermann Calls for Justice Clarence Thomas to Resign

Keith Olbermann Cherry Picks Rush Limbaugh to Make Him Look Racist

The lengths Keith Olbermann will go to attack his adversaries knows no bounds. On Tuesday, he selectively edited and cherry picked from a Rush Limbaugh radio transcript in order to make the talk show personality look racist. Most disgracefully, the “Countdown” host completely avoided telling his few viewers that Limbaugh was referring to truly disgusting statements the Atlanta Journal-Constitution’s Cynthia Tucker made on ABC’s “This Week” Sunday. With total disregard for the truth or any sense of journalistic integrity, here’s what Olbermann said during his “Worst Person in the World” segment Tuesday (h/t Meredith Jessup ): KEITH OLBERMANN, HOST: Speaking of which, there‘s tonight’s hands down winner, Boss Limbaugh. These quotes speak for themselves and for a diseased and failing mind. “If Obama weren’t black, he’d be a tour guide in Honolulu or he‘d be teaching Saul Alinsky Constitutional law or lecturing on it in Chicago,” said the college dropout, Rush Limbaugh. “He wouldn’t have been voted president if he weren‘t black. Somebody asked me over the-oh, I need to remember. Somebody asked me over the weekend, why does somebody earn a lot of money, have a lot of money. I said it‘s because he’s black.” This the guy who once said the media was conspiring to make Donovan McNabb of the Eagles to be a better quarterback than he actually was because he was black. “It,” Limbaugh said, “was Oprah,” said the guy who doesn‘t have half Oprah Winfrey’s talent, or income. “No, it can’t be,” he continued. “Yes, it is. There’s a lot of guilt out there. To show we’re not racist, we‘ll make this person wealthy and big and famous and so forth.” Stop the tape. Actually, that’s NOT what Limbaugh said. Here’s the real version from RushLimbaugh.com: RUSH LIMBAUGH, HOST: Cynthia Tucker, ABC’s This Week, Sunday, roundtable, they discussed Michael Steele. And, by the way, this woman is the editorial director of the Atlanta Urinal and Constipation, and she has been for a long, long time. “Cynthia you once called Michael Steele an affirmative action hire gone bad.” By the way, she can say this because she’s African-American. Here’s what she said. CYNTHIA TUCKER, ATLANTA JOURNAL-CONSTITUTION: Michael Steele is a self-aggrandizing gaffe-prone incompetent who would have been fired a long time ago were he not black. Of course the irony is that he never would have been voted in as chairman of the Republican Party were he not black. LIMBAUGH: Same with Obama. TUCKER: It is very ironic since the Republican — LIMBAUGH: Stop the tape a second. That’s exactly the same thing you could say about Obama. He wouldn’t have been voted president if he weren’t black. Somebody asked me over the weekend why does somebody earn a lot of money have a lot of money, because she’s black. It was Oprah. No, it can’t be. Yes, it is. There’s a lot of guilt out there, show we’re not racists, we’ll make this person wealthy and big and famous and so forth. The Chicago Sun-Times today has this story, it’s amazing, “How did we get conned, how did we get fooled? My God we’ve elected an empty suit. We elected somebody who had no experience, no idea what he was doing, the empty suit cost $5,000.” I thought my God, they finally woke up, they’re talking about Obama, but no, they’re talking about Blago. They’re asking themselves in Chicago how they got conned by Blagojevich! And you read this, and I will share it with you as the program unfolds, it could be written about Obama. So Cynthia Tucker says, yeah, he wouldn’t be hired by the GOP if he weren’t black. BREAK TRANSCRIPT RUSH: Washington awaits my fatwa on Michael Steele. Washington is paralyzed today until I issue my findings on this. The first thing I have to say about this: Cynthia Tucker said Steele would only have the gig if he was black. If Obama weren’t black he’d be a tour guide in Honolulu or he’d be teaching Saul Alinsky constitutional law or lecturing on it in Chicago, and if somebody’s “entitled to a couple of gaffes,” why do we still have Senator Bite Me running around as Vice President Bite Me, who is a walking gaffe every time he opens his mouth and he’s not even black! So what’s the Democrats’ excuse for having Joe Bite Me around as vice president? As such, Limbaugh was commenting about what Tucker said on “This Week” two days earlier. For those that missed it, here it is:  JAKE TAPPER, HOST: Cynthia, you once called, let me underline “You” once called Michael Steele an affirmative action hire gone bad. What’s your take on this? CYNTHIA TUCKER, ATLANTA JOURNAL-CONSTITUTION: Well, Michael Steele is a self-aggrandizing, gaffe-prone incompetent who would have been fired a long time ago were he not black. Of course, the irony is that he never would have been voted in as Chairman of the Republican Party were he not black. Let’s remember how the Party wound up with Michael Steele. In November 2008, the Party was devastated that the Democrats had elected the nation’s first black president while the Republican Party was stuck with being seen as largely the party of aging white people, with good reason. A party that was hostile to people of color, especially blacks and Latinos. So the Party needed a new face, preferably a face of color, and they didn’t have very many officials to choose from. So, they came up with Michael Steele. And it is very ironic since the Republicans have been so critical of affirmative action, to watch them stuck with their affirmative action hire that they dare not get rid of because that would generate even more controversy.  Not surprisingly, Olbermann NEVER told his audience this:  OLBERMANN: There it is. See, the United States is tilted in favor of black people. That‘s the premise. We have made it so easy that human beings inferior to the great Rush Limbaugh, the fired by ESPN one month into his dream job, Rush Limbaugh-inferior creatures like Obama and Oprah Winfrey have been made wealthy and big and famous and so forth. They have not earned it. They aren‘t actually talented. They haven‘t actually done the job. Oprah Winfrey and Barack Obama and presumably every other black person in this country has not succeed despite the fact that they‘re black, when this country is still filled with racists like this homunculus Limbaugh. They‘ve succeeded because they‘re black, and only because they‘re black. Well, you heard it. It‘s naked, ugly racism. It‘s the distillation of Rush Limbaugh‘s view of our country. The only other thing I can say is, Oprah, please, crush this schmuck, huh? Rush Limbaugh, overt racist, today‘s worst person in the world.   Also not surprisingly, the shills at Huffington Post on Wednesday reported Olbermann’s claim word for word without checking to see if he had accurately quoted the target of his disaffection. Maybe the fact-check-loving Arianna should get her staff to fact-check Olbermann’s screeds before they parrot them – or would that be too much journalism for Ms. Huffington?  As for Olbermann, the idea that MSNBC tolerates this kind of misreporting should be offensive to Americans on both sides of the aisle. Sadly, it seems unlikely to stop, doesn’t it? 

Link:
Keith Olbermann Cherry Picks Rush Limbaugh to Make Him Look Racist

Defending the Indefensible: ABC’s Moran, Stephanopoulos Shill for Obama’s Gulf Address

Despite widespread criticism of President Barack Obama’s Oval Office address on the Gulf oil spill–including flak from MSNBC’s left-wing posse of Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, and Howard Fineman–ABC’s Terry Moran and George Stephanopoulos on the June 15 “Nightline” fawned over the president’s speech and ignored its obvious shortcomings. In recapping the address, Moran could not contain his adulation for Obama’s ability to assert his presidential authority and inspire the nation: “For the first time in the Oval Office, President Obama addressed the nation. A nation anxious and doubtful about his leadership on the environmental catastrophe that’s unfolded in the Gulf for 57 days. So, the main goal tonight, show the country he’s truly in charge.” “President Obama, who finished a two-day trip to the Gulf Coast this afternoon, clearly wanted to project power in his handling with the oil spill, and the most direct way to do that is to use the language of war of the commander-in-chief.” “As the cleanup efforts continue to grapple with the giant spill, residents all along the coast have grown more and more worried, more and more angry and the president spoke to that directly tonight, and he made a promise.” “At the end, like so many in the Oval Office before him, President Obama asked for prayers.” Moran praised Obama for taking charge of the Gulf, but failed to acknowledge critics who point out that the commander-in-chief dawdled for 57 days before addressing the nation. The “Nightline” anchor lauded Obama for engendering in Gulf Coast residents a sense of hope, but he ignored the cries of local fishermen who have criticized the president’s handling of the spill. Gushing like an uncapped oil well, Moran discarded journalistic integrity and reported only portions of the address he wanted his viewers to see. In contrast, NewsBusters reported that MSNBC’s liberal panel excoriated the president. Olbermann quipped, “Maybe I missed something. I thought it was a great speech if you’ve been on another planet for the last 57 days.” Matthews promised to “barf” if the president mentioned the Energy Secretary’s Nobel Prize again. Fineman lamented, “We want to explain how we`re going to clean up the Gulf. We want to talk about long-range goals. But this 15 or 16 or 17-minute speech really didn’t go into any of those things in detail.” After adorning Obama with plaudits, Moran brought on Stephanopoulos, a former Bill Clinton operative turned political correspondent, who made the unconscionable claim that Obama’s speech was brimming with detail. “First of all, this was the first time the president put all of the facts and figures and details to what he’s done in one place,” declared Stephanopoulos. “You know, 30,000 personnel, the ordering of 17,000 National Guards, men and women down to the area.” While the “Good Morning America” anchor quenched his thirst for a detailed plan of action, MSNBC’s liberal panel was starving for specifics. “Nothing. Nothing specific. Nothing specific at all,” bemoaned Olbermann. “Yeah, you said he aimed too low,” proclaimed Fineman. “I don’t think he was specific enough, Keith.” “[Energy legislation is] the hardest thing in the world, and he’s saying ‘I’m going to do it,’ and then no more information,” bellowed Matthews. Stephanopoulos also compared Obama’s address to FDR’s famous fireside chats, but that was a bridge too far even for Moran, who observed, “Franklin Roosevelt, those are big shoes to fill.” A transcript of the segment can be found below: ABC Nightline 6/15/10 12:39 a.m. TERRY MORAN: Just a few hours before President Obama made his first address to the nation from the Oval Office, a shocking new estimate was released of how much oil is gushing into the Gulf each day, up to 60,000 barrels, a number up roughly 200% over the original estimate. It was the latest reminder of how high the stakes are in this historic environment catastrophe. For the first time in the Oval Office… PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: Good evening. MORAN: …President Obama addressed the nation. A nation anxious and doubtful about his leadership on the environmental catastrophe that’s unfolded in the Gulf for 57 days. So, the main goal tonight, show the country he’s truly in charge. OBAMA: Make no mistake. We will fight this spill with everything we’ve got for as long as it takes. We will make BP pay for the damage their company has caused. And we will do whatever is necessary to help the Gulf Coast and its people recover from this tragedy. MORAN: President Obama, who finished a two-day trip to the Gulf Coast this afternoon, clearly wanted to project power in his handling with the oil spill, and the most direct way to do that is to use the language of war of the commander-in-chief. OBAMA: Tonight, I’d like to lay out for you what our battle plan is going forward. I’ve authorized the deployment of over 17,000 National Guard members along the coast. The one answer I will not settle for is the idea that this challenge is somehow too big and too difficult to meet. You know, the same thing was said about our ability to produce enough planes and tanks in World War II. MORAN: As the cleanup efforts continue to grapple with the giant spill, residents all along the coast have grown more and more worried, more and more angry and the President spoke to that directly tonight, and he made a promise. OBAMA: The sadness and the anger they feel is not just about the money they’ve lost. It’s about a wrenching anxiety that their way of life may be lost. I refuse to let that happen. Tomorrow, I will meet with the chairman of BP and inform him that he is to set aside whatever resources are required to compensate the workers and business owners who have been harmed as a result of his company’s recklessness. And this fund will not be controlled by BP. MORAN: And typical of this president’s grand–some say grandiose ambitions, a call for a new national energy policy to reduce American dependence on fossil fuels. OBAMA: Now is the moment for this generation to embark on a national mission to unleash America’s innovation and seize control of our own destiny. MORAN: At the end, like so many in the Oval Office before him, President Obama asked for prayers. OBAMA: We pray for the people of the Gulf. And we pray that a hand may guide us through the storm towards a brighter day. Thank you, God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America. MORAN: And we’re joined by our Chief Political Correspondent and “Good Morning America” anchor George Stephanopoulos for his take on the President’s address. George, an Oval Office address to a nation that has had real doubts about President Obama’s leadership on this crisis. Did he do the job tonight in showing he can take charge? GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS, ABC chief political correspondent: I think he did what he needed to do, saying it, but I say that knowing full well that it’s not going to make a difference until we stop seeing that oil on our television and computer screens every day. I think the White House knows that, as well. I think one of the reasons the President decided to give the speech tonight is that they now believe what he did say in the speech, that within a couple of weeks, 90% of the oil coming out of that leak, it will be siphoned off, will be captured and they believe that will set the stage for future political gains and for getting this whole mess under control. MORAN: So, he was able to deliver that bit of news. But he said a lot of these kinds of things before in the various places he’s been talking about this. What else was new? What did we learn tonight from him? STEPHANOPOULOS: Well we–I think we learned a few things tonight. First of all, this was the first time the president put all of the facts and figures and details to what he’s done in one place. You know, 30,000 personnel, the ordering of 17,000 National Guards, men and women down to the area. What we did see new tonight is he named the head of restoration project for the Gulf, Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus, a former governor of Mississippi, former ambassador to Saudi Arabia to come up with a restoration plan, which is critically important to the people of the Gulf. As the President said tonight, so many of them fear that they’re going to lose their entire way of life. We heard a new name for the head of that Minerals and Management Service, which has just been plagued, really by corruption, and by lax regulation of the industry. The President putting in a former prosecutor, Michael Bromwich. He has new men in place to help lead this effort. We also saw him come down pretty hard, as you might expect, on BP. On British Petroleum, saying he’s informing them they have to come up with this escrow fund, some in Congress calling for up to $20 billion. Now there is some question of whether President has the legal authority to do that. He’s just asserting it. MORAN: Let’s take a step back. It’s a historic moment in the Obama presidency. First Oval Office address to the nation. Optics. That’s a big word in the political class right now. How did he look up there? How do you think people received this moment of Barack Obama addressing from the Oval Office? STEPHANOPOULOS: You know, usually the public, especially those than tune in who tend to want to support the president anyway have a good reaction to these kinds of speeches, and they get all of his information unfiltered. Now for me it was just, you know, I’m not used to watching the president speak sitting down. You know, he gives so many of his big speeches standing up and I think that was a new way to look at the president. I think he was certainly reaching for the language of Oval Office addresses, all of these have military language–siege, assault on our shores, battle plan. White House aides tell me that the President was trying to recreate the feel of Franklin Roosevelt’s fireside chats because he wanted people to understand how serious this moment is. That said, I think all presidents are a little bit nervous going into their first Oval Office address. I think the President showed a little bit of that at the beginning as well. MORAN: Franklin Roosevelt, those are big shoes to fill. George Stephanopoulos, thanks very much for being with us tonight. –Alex Fitzsimmons is a News Analysis intern at the Media Research Center. Click here to follow him on Twitter.

See the rest here:
Defending the Indefensible: ABC’s Moran, Stephanopoulos Shill for Obama’s Gulf Address

Lawrence O’Donnell Brings More Liberal Orthodoxy to MSNBC at 10 PM

MSNBC contributor Lawrence O’Donnell will take over at the 10 pm slot, the cable network announced Tuesday. O’Donnell, who guest-hosted “Countdown” while Keith Olbermann was on leave, is a self-described socialist, and will fit in nicely with the rest of MSNBC’s prime-time lineup. The 10 pm slot has to this time been “Countdown” reruns, so MSNBC viewers will now be treated to far-left rant a tad different from Olbermann’s 8 pm far-left rant. That said, O’Donnell’s segment will hardly be a breath of fresh air, if his previous antics are any indication. He has a short, if colorful history of liberal outbursts. Let us review some of his greatest hits: As mentioned above, O’Donnell made sure to correct Joe Scarborough on “Morning Joe,” telling him, ” we’re socialists, not Marxists. ” O’Donnell then launched into a vicious tirade against author and former Bush speechwriter Marc Thiessen that forced Scarborough to cut to commercial early. When the program returned, Scarborough carefully mediated the discussion. The new MSNBC anchor has challenged the basic mental fortitude of Sarah Palin. Though that is hardly groundbreaking for a liberal, I suppose, O’Donnell even hosted a comedian to bizarrely mock Palin in drag . O’Donnell retains the dubious honor of conducting “possibly the worst interview in history.” A member of Congress told him during an interview, “you’re illustrating why MSNBC’s viewership is in the tank.” To his credit, O’Donnell was one of the few liberal media figures to accurately report that ObamaCare would mean a de facto tax increase–the largest one ever , by his account. But that didn’t stop him from offering his support.

Read more:
Lawrence O’Donnell Brings More Liberal Orthodoxy to MSNBC at 10 PM

Olbermann Claims FNC ‘Says ‘Indefensible & Even Racist Things’ Like Helen Thomas

On Friday’s Countdown show, after having decided not to include Helen Thomas in his “Worst Person” segment for her anti-Semitic declaration that Jews should “get the hell out of Palestine” and “go home” to Germany and Poland, MSNBC host Keith Olbermann included Fox News Sunday anchor Chris Wallace in his “Worst Person” segment for suggesting that it would be “poetic justice” if Fox News were to be given her seat in the White House briefing room. Olbermann went on to claim that FNC personalities are guilty of making comments that are similarly racist as compared to Thomas’s attack on Israeli Jews: “Wallace thus implying that a far right entity that occasionally says indefensible and even racist things should replace a far left entity that occasionally said indefensible and even racist things.” On Wednesday’s Countdown show, Olbermann had similarly found a reason to include in his “Worst Person” segment the rabbi who exposed Thomas’s anti-Semitism, even though Thomas herself was never included in the segment. Below is a transcript of the relevant portion of the Friday, June 11, Countdown show on MSNBC: Runner up, Chris Wallace of Fox, saying his place, its own kind of get rich quick pitch, should get Helen Thomas`s front row seat in the White House press room. “This is actually kind of interesting because I think it would be the final sort of back payment for Helen Thomas if this were to happen because, obviously, she was very far to the left wing. And if her seat were to be taken by Fox News, it would be kind of poetic justice.” Wallace thus implying that a far right entity that occasionally says indefensible and even racist things should replace a far left entity that occasionally said indefensible and even racist things. When his implication was pointed out to him by a Fox interviewer, he said, “I just realized that`s probably not the way to go on this. We`re fair and balanced. That`s the point.” Chris, good luck with the rest of the toothpaste.

Read more:
Olbermann Claims FNC ‘Says ‘Indefensible & Even Racist Things’ Like Helen Thomas

South Africa 2010: World Cup Group B

Argentina, Nigeria, South Korea and Greece have been grouped together to face each other in the World Cup. Follow us on twitter at twitter.com

http://www.youtube.com/v/uOnSpw095O8?f=videos&app=youtube_gdata

Read more:
South Africa 2010: World Cup Group B