Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - Is there some sort of daily Right Wing Memo?

host · 11-20-2007, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

.....I would suspect that if you went rounding up some left-side reactions after, say, the 2006 elections, they would read very similarly, too. Think of the numbers of people and outlets involved (on both sides) and you'll conclude that it's unavoidable.

This whole thing is much ado about nothing.

You're dismissing three important points:

1.)Malkin and the others are representing themselves as journalists. They have positioned themselves, and not just in relation to this news story, it appears to be vs. much of reality based news reporting....on some "side" that is opposite "fact based" news.

Quote:

http://michellemalkin.com/2006/04/12...bilal-hussein/
WHERE IS BILAL HUSSEIN?
By Michelle Malkin • <h3>April 12, 2006 10:16 PM </h3>

Where is Bilal Hussein–and who is he working for?

.....<h3>This afternoon, in response to a tip from an anonymous military source in Iraq,</h3> I contacted both the AP reporter embedded with the Marines in Ramadi, Todd Pitman, as well as AP’s media relations office headquartered in New York concerning Hussein’s whereabouts. No word from Pitman. But at 6:20pm EDT, I received the following e-mail response from AP:....

2.)The government that the executive branch can "get at", appears to be doing the same thing....an example:

Quote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/12/wa...gewanted=print
April 12, 2007
In 5-Year Effort, Scant Evidence of Voter Fraud
By ERIC LIPTON and IAN URBINA

Correction Appended

WASHINGTON, April 11 — Five years after the Bush administration began a crackdown on voter fraud, the Justice Department has turned up virtually no evidence of any organized effort to skew federal elections, according to court records and interviews.

Although Republican activists have repeatedly said fraud is so widespread that it has corrupted the political process and, possibly, cost the party election victories, about 120 people have been charged and 86 convicted as of last year.

Most of those charged have been Democrats, voting records show. Many of those charged by the Justice Department appear to have mistakenly filled out registration forms or misunderstood eligibility rules, a review of court records and interviews with prosecutors and defense lawyers show.

In Miami, an assistant United States attorney said many cases there involved what were apparently mistakes by immigrants, not fraud.

In Wisconsin, where prosecutors have lost almost twice as many cases as they won, charges were brought against voters who filled out more than one registration form and felons seemingly unaware that they were barred from voting.

One ex-convict was so unfamiliar with the rules that he provided his prison-issued identification card, stamped “Offender,” when he registered just before voting.

A handful of convictions involved people who voted twice. More than 30 were linked to small vote-buying schemes in which candidates generally in sheriff’s or judge’s races paid voters for their support.

A federal panel, the Election Assistance Commission, reported last year that the pervasiveness of fraud was debatable. That conclusion played down findings of the consultants who said there was little evidence of it across the country, according to a review of the original report by The New York Times that was reported on Wednesday. .....

Quote:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/17532.html
Was campaigning against voter fraud a Republican ploy?
By Greg Gordon | McClatchy Newspapers

* Posted on Sunday, July 1, 2007

....In a controversial move, the interim U.S. attorney in Kansas City announced indictments against four ACORN workers five days before the 2006 election, despite the fact that Justice Department policy discourages such action close to an election. Acorn officials had notified the federal officials when they noticed the doctored forms.

"Their job was to confuse the public about voter fraud and offer bogus solutions to the problem," said Michael Slater
, the deputy director of Project Vote, "And like the Tobacco Institute, they relied on deception and faulty research to advance the interests of their clients."

<h3>Mark "Thor" Hearne, a St. Louis lawyer and former national counsel for President Bush's 2004 reelection campaign, is widely considered the driving force behind the organizations.</h3> Vogel described him as "clearly the one in charge."

Hearne, who also was a vice president and director of election operations for the Republican Lawyers Association
, said he couldn't discuss the organizations because they're former clients.

But in an e-mail exchange, he defended the need for photo IDs. "Requiring a government-issued photo ID in order to vote as a safeguard against vote fraud and as a measure to increase public confidence in the fairness and honesty of our elections is not some Republican voter suppression effort," Hearne said.

Hearne called photo IDs "an important voice in election reform."

Hearne and Rogers appeared at separate hearings before the House Administration Committee last year in Ohio and New Mexico. They cited reports of thousands of dead people on voter registration rolls, fraudulent registrations and other election fraud schemes.

As proof, Hearne, offered a 28-page "investigative report" on Ohio events in the 2004 election, and then publicly sent a copy to the Justice Department, citing "substantial evidence to suggest potential criminal wrongdoing."

So far, no charges have been filed.

Earlier, in August 2005, the Legislative Fund issued a string of press releases naming five cities as the nation's top "hot spots" for voter fraud. Philadelphia was tagged as No. 1, followed by Milwaukee, Seattle, St. Louis and Cleveland.

With a push from the center's lobbyists, legislatures in Missouri and Pennsylvania passed photo ID laws last year. Missouri's law was thrown out by the state Supreme Court, and Democratic Gov. Edward Rendell vetoed the Pennsylvania bill.

In an interview with the federal Election Assistance Commission last year, two Pennsylvania officials said they knew of no instances of voter identity fraud or voter registration fraud in the state.

Amid the controversy, the American Center for Voting Rights shuttered its Internet site on St. Patrick's Day, and the two nonprofits appear to have vanished.

But their influence could linger.

<h3>One of the directors of the American Center,
Cameron Quinn,</h3> who lists her membership in the Republican National Lawyers Association on her resume
, was appointed last year as the voting counsel for the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division.

<h3>The division is charged with policing elections and guarding against discrimination against minorities.</h3>

Quote:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...d-report_x.htm
Report refutes fraud at poll sites
Updated 10/11/2006 12:32 PM ET
By Richard Wolf, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — At a time when many states are instituting new requirements for voter registration and identification, a preliminary report to the U.S. Election Assistance Commission has found little evidence of the type of polling-place fraud those measures seek to stop.

USA TODAY obtained the report from the commission four months after it was delivered by two consultants hired to write it. The commission has not distributed it publicly.

NEW LAWS: Thousands of voters shut out | Read the preliminary report

At least 11 states have approved new rules for independent voter-registration drives or requirements that voters produce specific forms of photo ID at polling places. Several of those laws have been blocked in court, most recently in Arizona last week. The House of Representatives last month approved a photo-ID law, now pending in the Senate.

The bipartisan report by two consultants to the election commission casts doubt on the problem those laws are intended to address. "There is widespread but not unanimous agreement that there is little polling-place fraud, or at least much less than is claimed, including voter impersonation, 'dead' voters, non-citizen voting and felon voters," the report says.

The report, prepared by Tova Wang, an elections expert at the Century Foundation think tank, and Job Serebrov, an Arkansas attorney, says most fraud occurs in the absentee ballot process, such as through coercion or forgery. Wang declined to comment on the report, and Serebrov could not be reached for comment.

Others who reviewed the report for the election commission differ on its findings. Jon Greenbaum of the liberal Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law says it was convincing. The committee wrote to the commission Friday seeking its release.

Conservatives dispute the research and conclusions. <h3>Thor Hearne, counsel to the American Center for Voting Rights,</h3> notes that the Justice Department has sued Missouri for having ineligible voters registered, while dead people have turned up on the registration rolls in Michigan. "It is just wrong to say that this isn't a problem," he says.

That's one reason the commission decided not to officially release the report. "There was a division of opinion here," Chairman Paul DeGregorio says. "We've seen places where fraud does occur."

The consultants found little evidence of that. Barry Weinberg, former deputy chief of the voting section in the Justice Department's civil rights division, reviewed their work. "Fraud at the polling place is generally difficult to pull off," he says. "It takes a lot of planning and a lot of coordination."

3.)It seems likely that Bilal Hussein was captured and detained for so long, in the manner that he was...with no charges and no evidence provided, <h3>BECAUSE of a campaign by these "bloggers". I am pointing out that they are serving a function of not only commenting on the actions of authority, but heavily influencing and sometimes directing the priorities and actions</h3> of authority:

Quote:

http://michellemalkin.com/2006/04/12...bilal-hussein/
WHERE IS BILAL HUSSEIN?
By Michelle Malkin • April 12, 2006 10:16 PM

Where is Bilal Hussein–and who is he working for?

A year ago, I blogged about a controversial, Pulitzer Prize-winning photo taken by an unidentified Associated Press stringer in Iraq. More background from the blogosphere here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. Do take the time to re-read them all. <h3>The context is important.</h3>

One member of the Pulitzer-winning AP team was AP stringer Bilal Hussein. Hussein’s photos have raised serious, persistent questions about his relationship with terrorists in Iraq and whether his photos were/are staged in collusion with the enemy. I’ve learned of an intriguing news development that strengthens those lingering suspicions.

This afternoon,<h3> in response to a tip from an anonymous military source in Iraq,</h3> I contacted both the AP reporter embedded with the Marines in Ramadi, Todd Pitman, as well as AP’s media relations office headquartered in New York concerning Hussein’s whereabouts. No word from Pitman. But at 6:20pm EDT, I received the following e-mail response from AP:....

[/quote]

Quote:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/index.html
Tuesday November 20, 2007 10:21 EST
Interviews with AP executives on the Bilal Hussein travesty

<h3>This morning I interviewed AP's Executive Editor, Kathleen Carroll, and AP's CEO Tom Curley</h3> regarding this case. Neither of them still have any idea what the charges are against Hussein, nor what the supposed new and "irrefutable" evidence is of his guilt. Worse, because 19 months have elapsed since he was detained, it is virtually impossible to conduct a meaningful investigation or to mount a defense. As Curley explained:

....<i>Second, <h3>nobody from the U.S. military interrogated him from May 2006 until a couple of weeks ago. So he went about 18 months without having any value to the U.S. military.</h3> Under no circumstances can we imagine that there are new charges that have been made against him. They have not worked on the case. The people who initially detained him, the people who have initially interrogated him, are long since gone. This makes no sense at all. This is truly an abuse of the justice system.</i>

It is so vital to realize the direct connection between Hussein's war journalism and the lawless detention of him by the U.S. military for almost two years

<h3>But Hussein's photographs directly contradicted the claims being made at the time by the U.S. military regarding Anbar. As Curley said:</h3>

<i>Bilal Hussein was operating in Anbar Province. Anbar was a black hole in the coverage of Iraq. For most of the war, there have been virtually no journalists there or very few journalists, so getting any information from Anbar was difficult.

These pictures came at a time when the U.S. was trying to say that things were OK, and we know now that they were deteriorating.</i>

<h3>The photographs taken by Hussein, and published by AP, demonstrated that things were anything but calm in Anbar.</h3>

One aspect that has always been so striking and disturbing about this case is that long before Hussein was detained by the U.S. military, he was the target of constant accusations from right-wing bloggers such as Michelle Malkin and Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs that he was in cahoots with the insurgents. To make these accusations, some would literally outright lie, such as by claiming that a photograph Hussein took of insurgents holding up a corpse of a dead hostage was, in fact, a photograph of the hostage right before he was killed (thus "proving" that Hussein was working with the insurgents).

To this day, completely reckless bloggers like Powerline's John Hinderaker insinuate that Hussein took photographs of the hostage immediately before his death, even though -- as Carroll said -- videotape proves that the photograph taken was of the corpse of the hostage after he was already dead. As was common for Iraq, Hussein and other journalists were forced by the insurgents at gunpoint to take the photograph of the corpse.

Indeed, of the more than 900 photographs Hussein took for AP, a grand total of 4 even include in-progress insurgent action. Although right-wing bloggers far from the war would have no idea about this, it was hardly uncommon in war-torn Anbar to see insurgents in action. Taking photographs of ongoing insurgent action in Iraq -- which is, in any event, newsworthy -- is hardly proof that someone is working in cahoots with them. ...
...Even worse, when Bilal Hussein was first detained, nobody had any idea what happened to him. As Michelle Malkin boasted yesterday, she was the one who "broke" the story of his detention, by which she means that someone in the U.S. military told her -- before anything was said to A.P. or anyone else -- the news that he had been detained. As AP's Curley said:

<i> Someone leaked information to her at about the time [Hussein's] brother arrived at our A.P. bureau and told us he was detained. So somebody did give her information, and it does further politicize anything that can be said against him.</i>

Carroll described the grave danger Iraqis such as Hussein face who work for news organizations in Iraq. Six separate Iraqi journalists working for AP have been murdered during the war, more than any other war in AP's 160 year history. It has been confirmed that at least 3 were murdered specifically because they worked with AP. Carroll expressed particular anger towards right-wing bloggers and others who have baselessly attacked the integrity of AP's Iraqi journalists while, as she put it, the accusing bloggers are "safely ensconced far away from the action."

<h3>But more important still is how threatening and chilling this behavior is.</h3> Carroll explained that ever since Hussein was detained, AP -- for obvious reasons -- has had great difficulty finding Iraqis in Anbar to work with them, due to fears that they will be arrested the way Hussein was. She indicated that other news organizations are having the same difficulty. When the U.S. military sufficiently intimidates journalists from reporting on wars, <h2>then one must increasingly rely for news upon the government and the military, or upon journalists who are reporting in a way that is pleasing to those authorities. </h2>

I know from experience loquitur, that you haven't seen anything, in a long series of the present regime's assaults on our rights, our laws, our treasury, and, our sensibilities, to take much exception to, especially from our exchanges during the Scooter Libby trial.

I don't like the POTUS, DOJ, and the military acting batshit crazy partisan, dismissing mainstream news sources, even as they manipulate information and events with the help of zealot bloggers posing as journalists. When did the executive branch transition itself from being the center of "the establishment", to some "fringe group" so closely aligned with an "alternative" press? Given that the white house and US military control the largerst nuclear arsenal in the world, it greatly concerns me that they identify, pre-occupy themselves with, and lash out at threats that either do not exist at all or are blown up, by the white house, DOJ, and DOD, along with their "bloggers", ridiculously out of proportion, even as they intimidate the press and defame it so that we will somehow take "our news" from the white house, DOJ, and DOD, and "their bloggers", as their "faithful",obviously are doing.

AP is a consortium of 5000 news gathering entities. There are intrepid unbiased reporters in "the mix", and there are agenda driven partisans. To dismiss AP, though, is a symptom of an insular, even a paranoid mentality, itf it wasn't so obvious that these miscreants in charge are attenpting to compete with AP, and with independent observatgion of event in the real world. The problem also, is, their track shows that they suck at it... NO WMD, NO WIDESPREAD VOTING FRAUD....no terrorist AP photographer....no formidible enemy in a GWOT to justify the hundreds of billions of dollars and the life and limb so far expended to combat it:

Quote:

http://salon.com/news/feature/2007/10/31/boylan/
The case of the angry colonel

The Iraq war's top spokesman loves to dash off fiery complaints to bloggers -- unless someone's impersonating him. Do Col. Steven Boylan's claims of identity theft hold water?

By Farhad Manjoo

Oct. 31, 2007 | <h3>Is the military's top spokesman in Iraq a loose cannon who routinely fires off angry, impetuous e-mails to bloggers who criticize the war and the spin surrounding it?</h3> Or is Col. Steven Boylan, instead, an innocent victim -- an online wallflower whose identity has been hijacked by a pro-war hacker who has managed to break into the most well-fortified space on the planet in order to taunt lefty critics? Neither scenario paints a comforting picture of the situation in Iraq -- and even though the e-mails in question are coming from military servers in Iraq, the military seems strangely uninterested in solving the mystery of who is writing them.....

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/ea..._id=1003664994
Gen. Petraeus' Spokesman Denies Sending Angry Email -- Plot Thickens
A critical email allegedly sent by a top U.S. military spokesman to a leading blogger this past weekend is starting to draw mainstream attention. But the colonel had sent an equally hot note to E&P in May defending the general -- without reading the report in question.

By Greg Mitchell

NEW YORK (October 29, 2007) -- A disturbing email allegedly sent by a top U.S. military spokesman to a leading blogger at Salon.com this past weekend is just starting to draw mainstream attention. Howard Kurtz at The Washington Post mentioned it today, for example. It requires a good deal of background information to fully appreciate it, so I will provide a link to Glenn Greenwald’s blog page at Salon where he offered extensive postings (and updates) Sunday and today about the email purportedly from Army Col. Steven Boylan.

But E&P has its own correspondence from Boylan, and I want to focus on that.

The long and short of the Greenwald postings: For months the popular blogger -- a former attorney and author of the recent bestseller "A Tragic Legacy" -- <h3>has criticized the growing “politicization” of the military attached to Iraq, starting earlier this year and peaking around the appearance of Gen. David Petraeus before Congress (and the media) in September.</h3> This was even before William Safire declared, this past weekend, that the general ought to be considered as a running mate for a Republican candidate for president next

year click to show

***

<h3>Knowing that I had a brief exchange of emails with Boylan last spring</h3>, I went back and found them -- with the Boylan in them sounding an awful lot like the Boylan in the disputed email to Greenwald.

<h3>I had drawn Boylan’s attention with a May 9, 2007, column</h3> that followed an appearance by Gen. Petraeus, via a video feed from Baghdad, at the Associated Press annual meeting in New York, which I attended. This is what I wrote then: “Reporters should also ask Gen. David Petraeus, who is directing the ‘surge’ effort in Iraq, why he lied in responding to a reporter's question this week concerning widespread abuse by U.S. troops.”

A reporter on stage at the gathering had asked about a U.S. Army Surgeon General study of over 1,300 troops in Iraq, released last week, which showed increasing mental stress -- and an alarming spillover into poor treatment of noncombatants. Petraeus, who said he had read the report (and was troubled by it), asserted that the survey showed that only a "small number" admitted they may have mistreated "detainees" -- a profoundly misleading statement.

Actually, the study found that at least 10% of U.S. forces reported that they had personally, and without cause, mistreated "noncombatants" (not detainees) through physical violence or damage to personal property.

The survey also noted that only 47% of the soldiers and 38% of marines agreed that noncombatants should be treated with dignity and respect. More than 40% said they backed torture in certain circumstances. Even worse, nearly one in five said that all noncombatants "should be treated as insurgents."

About 30% said their officers had not made it clear that they should not mistreat civilians.

Only 40% of American marines and 55% of soldiers in Iraq said they would report a fellow service member for killing or injuring an innocent Iraqi. “Of course, this only guarantees that it will happen again, and again,” I observed.

<h3>That sparked an email from Boylan in Baghdad the next day. “I found your latest column to be less than fair and as many editorials, lacking context,” he wrote.</h3> “I find it insulting that you would even consider saying that General Petraeus lied to the gathering during the AP hosted event Monday. Simply put, you are in error and as such you even pointed it out in your own column….

”Because you don't agree with his words, detainee vice [sic] civilians, you are saying that he has lied. I am not sure how you come to that conclusion that he has lied? Would you be willing to explain that? I assume you could disagree on what is a small number or it is that you don't like his choice of words by using detainee.

”I am pleased that you can offer such a misinformed opinion based on one-hour event.”

I wrote back to him: “Surely you understand the difference between a ‘detainee’ and a ’noncombatant.’ Presumably Petraeus does as well. He said he'd read the report, where it clearly stated that the actions carried out by the
10% were against civilians or their property and without cause.”

In other words, Petraeus was suggesting to the media – if not directly stating -- that it wasn’t so bad a problem because it was merely (presumably guilty enemy) prisoners who were mistreated, not run-of-the-mill civilians. I didn’t even raise the issue in my email to Boylan of whether 10% was an acceptable, or appalling, number of bad actors. Petraeus had called this a “small number.” I also did not refer to the poll's quite damning finding (for Petraeus and others) that their officers had not stressed the no-abuse policy strongly enough.

Anyway, Boylan wrote back right away: “Yes, I clearly know the difference between the two, however, it was clear that he was saying and thinking detainee when he made his statement. I have not read the report, but either way, to state that he lied is at a minimum disingenuous and at worst, flat wrong on your part without even asking the questions, but making unfounded assumptions. I
expect better professionalism from someone of your position based on your publication.”

So Boylan, who admitted he had “not read the report,” did not let that stop him from lecturing me and defending the misuse of its contents by Petraeus, who said he did read the report. Petraeus, at least, faced facts a short time later, writing a letter to his troops refreshing their memories about the requirement that they not abuse friendlys.

***

UPDATE: Greenwald has continued posting on this matter. On Wednesday, Salon.com on its main site published its own probe of the Boylan emails. It's at:

http://salon.com/news/feature/2007/10/31/boylan/