Couric: U.S. Enemies in Cuba a 'Who's Who of Bush's Adversaries' --9/18/2006

1. Couric: U.S. Enemies in Cuba a 'Who's Who of Bush's Adversaries'
In a brief item on the Friday's CBS Evening News, Katie Couric asserted: "At the top of tonight's news briefing, a who's who of President Bush's adversaries on the world stage all together in one place. Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are among the leaders in Havana for the meeting of the non-aligned nations. Raul Castro is playing host. His older brother, Fidel, is still recovering from intestinal surgery." ABC and NBC, however, realized those leaders and others gathered, for the summit in Havana of the "Non-Aligned Movement," are enemies of the United States, not just the current occupant of the Oval Office. Fill-in ABC anchor Kate Snow referred to how the organization "regularly takes anti-American stances and today was no exception." NBC's Brian Williams, anchoring from Havana, described the summit of non-aligned nations as "all of the enemies of the United States, really, gathered in one room."

2. Plamegate Fadeout I. Borger: Without Rove, Media Lost Interest
On CNN's Reliable Sources on Sunday morning, Gloria Borger, CBS News Capitol Hill correspondent and U.S. News columnist, conceded that the revelation that then-Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage was who leaked the fact that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, "was sort of a big yawn" to the news media "and why we didn't cover it that much, is because, first of all, everybody was anticipating a Karl Rove indictment, and that would have been a huge, huge story." So, when "Karl Rove was not indicted, the air went out of the balloon at that particular point." To put it mildly. Host Howard Kurtz called media coverage of Rove "overheated," suggesting that "a lot of journalists practically had the date circled on the calendar when he might be charged."

3. Plamegate Fadeout II. Newsweek's Thomas: Plamegate a 'Big Zero'
On the chat show Inside Washington on PBS station WETA-TV in Washington, DC on Friday night, the spin was in: Plamegate was a massive zero. No one was more enthusiastic than Newsweek's Evan Thomas. I'm sure the reporting of his colleague Michael Isikoff has him completely persuaded. But here's what didn't come up: How much ink did Newsweek spill hyping this "zero" story up? When the show's substitute host Kathleen Matthews (wife of Chris Matthews) asked what the bottom line was on Plamegate, Thomas declared: "Nothing! Nothing! This is a big zero of a story that most of the American public has ignored, Washington has been feverishly consumed by, and it means something for Scooter Libby, who may go to jail, so it has some personal consequences, but in the great sum of American body politic, it means nothing."

4. Plamegate Fadeout III. Novak Regrets Reporters 'Don't Say Sorry'
On Friday's C-SPAN morning show Washington Journal, host Brian Lamb interviewed columnist Robert Novak in the hour of 9 to 10 AM Eastern time on his column on the unraveling of the Plamegate scandal. (Novak was in Urbana, Illinois, at his alma mater, the University of Illinois.) Perhaps the most entertaining parts were his harsh takes on Chris Matthews (un-watchable) and Jon Stewart, whom he called "a self-righteous comedian taking on airs of grandeur." Novak also scolded his media colleagues: "At the beginning there was a lot of attention played to it and a lot of bad journalism on this story. You could write a book about the bad journalism involved of exaggerating it. But journalists don't say they're sorry."

5. At Press Conf, Bush v Gregory and Bush Jokes About 'Friendly' NYT
President Bush's Rose Garden press conference on Friday morning began with the President making a forceful statement about the need to keep the country safe, and how new legislation to curtail interrogations and surveillance programs could make that job harder. But the goofiest question of the day had to be the one from CNN White House correspondent Suzanne Malveaux: "Would you be willing to, perhaps, meet face-to-face with Ahmadinejad, and would this possibly be a breakthrough, some sort of opportunity for a breakthrough on a personal level?" Perhaps Bush's best quip of the day came in his exchange with Sheryl Gay Stolberg of the New York Times who described her paper as "friendly." To laughter, Bush retorted: "I'd hate to see unfriendly." Plus, NBC's David Gregory was again the Man Who Wouldn't Shut Up in an antagonistic exchange with Bush. AUDIO&VIDEO [1]

6. On Today Show, Olbermann Defends His Anti-Bush Invective
Appearing with NBC's Matt Lauer in the first half hour of Friday's Today show, MSNBC host Keith Olbermann discussed his recent vitriolic attack on President Bush from the September 11 broadcast of his Countdown show, during which Olbermann had accused Bush of a "crime against" 9/11 victims for not accomplishing the construction of a memorial at Ground Zero, and had accused Bush of the "impeachable offense" of "lying by implication" regarding the Iraq War. While Olbermann's inflammatory comments were not quoted by Lauer or Olbermann, the MSNBC host rationalized his rant by comparing it to President Bush's speech to the nation "politicizing 9/11 in his own way." Olbermann: "I might add that I was on the air two minutes before the President was politicizing 9/11 in his own way. I don't see that there's much difference." Olbermann also contended that views similar to his shared by a segment of the American population were "not being articulated in the mainstream media." Olbermann: "I thought that there was a part of the persona of the nation not really being articulated in the mainstream media."

7. Olbermann Blasts 'Orwellian' Bush for 'Telling Us What to Think'
On Friday night's Countdown, MSNBC's Keith Olbermann renewed his "Special Comment" attack on President Bush, replaying the original comments from Monday's show, and adding a condemnation of Bush for an awkwardly worded, off-the-cuff remark made by the President during Friday's news conference that it is "unacceptable to think" the actions of America can be compared to those of terrorists. Not catching on to the President's likely meaning that it is "ridiculous to claim" the actions of America are similar to those terrorists, Olbermann referred to a favorite topic of his, George Orwell's 1984, as he attacked Bush's "chilling" words. Olbermann: "'It's unacceptable to think.' Sounds like something straight out of George Orwell's 1984. Instead, it was something straight out of George Bush's mouth.... And not only issuing those chilling words, 'It's unacceptable to think,' but doing so in answer to the call to conscience from his own former Secretary of State, Colin Powell."

8. CNN: Are Falling Gas Prices a Sneaky Scheme to Help Republicans?
In a Friday report for The Situation Room, CNN reporter Bill Schneider wondered if the current decrease in gas prices has been timed to help Republicans in the midterm elections. He ominously asked: "The drop in prices may last a couple of months, long enough to get through the November election. Could that be what the oil companies want?" Does that mean high prices in the spring and summer were an attempt to hurt the Republicans? This theme, that oil companies are trying to aid the GOP, was repeated or insinuated throughout the report.

9. You Read It Here First: Drudge & FNC Pick Up Sean Penn's Vitriol
You read it here first. In the "Grapevine" segment of Friday's Special Report with Brit Hume on FNC, anchor Jim Angle picked up on the NewsBusters/CyberAlert item, "Sean Penn: Bush Caused 'Enormous Damage to Mankind,' May Bring Fascism to U.S.," the NewsBusters version of which was highlighted most of Friday and into Saturday on the front page of the Drudge Report.

Couric: U.S. Enemies in Cuba a 'Who's
Who of Bush's Adversaries'

In a brief item on the Friday's CBS Evening News, Katie Couric asserted: "At the top of tonight's news briefing, a who's who of President Bush's adversaries on the world stage all together in one place. Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are among the leaders in Havana for the meeting of the non-aligned nations. Raul Castro is playing host. His older brother, Fidel, is still recovering from intestinal surgery."

ABC and NBC, however, realized those leaders and others gathered, for the summit in Havana of the "Non-Aligned Movement," are enemies of the United States, not just the current occupant of the Oval Office. Fill-in ABC anchor Kate Snow referred to how the organization "regularly takes anti-American stances and today was no exception" and reporter Jim Avila, in Cuba, relayed how "America's short list of antagonists" were "all bashing the United States for opposing Iran's nuclear program, all of them together in Cuba, capital of anti-Americanism." NBC's Brian Williams, anchoring from Havana, described the summit of non-aligned nations as "all of the enemies of the United States, really, gathered in one room."

[This item was posted Friday night on the MRC's blog, NewsBusters.org: newsbusters.org [2] ]

The full transcript of Couric's full item is above. A bit more of how the September 15 ABC and NBC newscasts described the conclave:

# ABC's World News with Charles Gibson:
Anchor Kate Snow: "Now to Cuba, where Fidel Castro's government took over the leadership of the so-called nonaligned nations today, the organization regularly takes anti-American stances and today was no exception. But conspicuously absent from the limelight and the ranting was Fidel Castro. ABC's Jim Avila is in Havana."

Avila began, from Cuba: "America's short list of antagonists -- Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinajad, and Bolivia's Evo Morales -- all bashing the United States for opposing Iran's nuclear program, all of them together in Cuba, capital of anti-Americanism..."

# NBC Nightly News:
Brian Williams opened: "Good evening from Havana, Cuba, the host city for what is called the summit of non-aligned nations. In short, all of the enemies of the United States, really, gathered in one room. Their host happens to be the longest serving ruler of any nation on earth. Fidel Castro has outlasted nine U.S. Presidents. And while he is currently hospitalized, sitting out this conference after transferring power her to his brother Raul, this is still very much every bit Castro's Cuba..."

Plamegate Fadeout I. Borger: Without
Rove, Media Lost Interest

On CNN's Reliable Sources on Sunday morning, Gloria Borger, CBS News Capitol Hill correspondent and U.S. News columnist, conceded that the revelation that then-Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage was who leaked the fact that Joe Wilson's wife worked for the CIA, "was sort of a big yawn" to the news media "and why we didn't cover it that much, is because, first of all, everybody was anticipating a Karl Rove indictment, and that would have been a huge, huge story." So, when "Karl Rove was not indicted, the air went out of the balloon at that particular point." To put it mildly. Host Howard Kurtz called media coverage of Rove "overheated," suggesting that "a lot of journalists practically had the date circled on the calendar when he might be charged."

The CBS Evening News at least ran a story, unlike the ABC and NBC evening newscasts, but a very skewed and incomplete report, as detailed in the September 8 CyberAlert item, "CBS Interviews Armitage: Spikes Rove, Suggests Apology to Wilson," online at: www.mediaresearch.org [3]

[This item was posted noontime Sunday on the MRC's blog, NewsBusters.org: newsbusters.org [4] ]

From the September 17 Reliable Sources, aired live at 10am EDT, with David Corn of The Nation in the DC studio with Borger and John Fund of OpinionJournal.com via remote from New York City as the other guests in the segment:

Gloria Borger: "I'll tell you why the Richard Armitage thing was sort of a big yawn and why we didn't cover it that much, is because, first of all, everybody was anticipating a Karl Rove indictment, and that would have been a huge, huge story. Top adviser to the President, Scooter Libby, top adviser to the Vice President had already been indicted for lying."
Howard Kurtz: "And that was overheated, by the way. You know, mean sure, he was certainly vulnerable and he testified four or five times, but you know a lot of journalists practically had the date circled on the calendar when he might be charged."
Borger: "And the blogs had been blogging, 'oh Karl Rove's gonna get indicted.' Well, guess what? Karl Rove was not indicted. The air went out of the balloon at that particular point."

Plamegate Fadeout II. Newsweek's Thomas:
Plamegate a 'Big Zero'

On the chat show Inside Washington on PBS station WETA-TV in Washington, DC on Friday night, the spin was in: Plamegate was a massive zero. No one was more enthusiastic than Newsweek's Evan Thomas. I'm sure the reporting of his colleague Michael Isikoff has him completely persuaded. But here's what didn't come up: How much ink did Newsweek spill hyping this "zero" story up? When the show's substitute host Kathleen Matthews (wife of Chris Matthews) asked what the bottom line was on Plamegate, Thomas declared: "Nothing! Nothing! This is a big zero of a story that most of the American public has ignored, Washington has been feverishly consumed by, and it means something for Scooter Libby, who may go to jail, so it has some personal consequences, but in the great sum of American body politic, it means nothing."

[This item, by Tim Graham, was posted Saturday morning on the MRC's blog, NewsBusters.org: newsbusters.org [5] ]

Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer added the press angle: "It tells us a lot about the press, which as long as Rove's neck was in the noose, and Libby and Cheney and the President, was extremely interested in this story, hundreds of stories on the front page, hours of it here on this show, and as soon as it doesn't appear to be that way, no interest whatsoever."

Left-leaning Mark Shields, who worked for years with Robert Novak on CNN's "Capital Gang," declared on the show that Novak is a man of integrity and that he believes that Novak is telling the truth in his column that Richard Armitage deceived people by never admitting he was the leaker, and then claiming that he couldn't talk because of Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, even though Fitzgerald was appointed months after he must have realized he was Novak's source.

Plamegate Fadeout III. Novak Regrets
Reporters 'Don't Say Sorry'

On Friday's C-SPAN morning show Washington Journal, host Brian Lamb interviewed columnist Robert Novak in the hour of 9 to 10 AM Eastern time on his column on the unraveling of the Plamegate scandal. (Novak was in Urbana, Illinois, at his alma mater, the University of Illinois.) Perhaps the most entertaining parts were his harsh takes on Chris Matthews (un-watchable) and Jon Stewart, whom he called "a self-righteous comedian taking on airs of grandeur." Novak also scolded his media colleagues: "At the beginning there was a lot of attention played to it and a lot of bad journalism on this story. You could write a book about the bad journalism involved of exaggerating it. But journalists don't say they're sorry."

[This item, by Tim Graham, was posted Saturday on the MRC's blog, NewsBusters.org: newsbusters.org [6] ]

After a supportive call mentioning Matthews, Novak said Hardball was un-watchable:
"Well, thank you. My problem here, sir, is that I never watch Chris Matthews' program because I don't feel that I can possibly learn anything from all that shouting and blathering and interrupting people. So I haven't watched his program in years. I don't know if he said much about this and I don't care. I can imagine that Mr. Matthews believes that being mistaken in journalism means never having to say you're sorry. So I don't think he'll say much of anything."

Later, Brian Lamb revisited the point, which spurred Novak to praise C-SPAN:

Lamb: "That brings up the question how much television do you watch, what other shows do you watch and do you spend much time in front of that tube?"
Novak: "Well, I have a -- yeah, I do spend a lot of time. I'm able to do, what's the fancy term now, multi-task. I am able to write and talk on the telephone and watch television at the same time. Pretty good for an old man, isn't it, Brian? I have a television set right next to my terminal at work and I have one next to my terminal at home. And, I do a lot of C-SPAN watching, which I really enjoy. I watch the Senate and House, particularly the Senate. I get a lot of story ideas from that and watch of C-SPAN and watch the cable networks considerably. But, I don't -- don't watch -- I have a lot of problems with Chris Matthews, which I won't go into. This is not the Chris Matthews show, but I just don't watch that program. And I certainly, if somebody mentioned the Jon Stewart program, I've never seen that in my life and I will go to my grave not having seen it."
Lamb: "Why?"
Novak: "I don't see a reason for it, it's a comedian, a self-righteous comedian taking on airs of grandeur, I don't really need that."

I'm sure Novak was smarting from a caller who had mentioned Stewart's "stop, stop, stop, stop hurting America" outburst on CNN's Crossfire about how that show was a civic menace (October 15, 2004). The best part was Stewart saying that Crossfire was for partisan hacks, even as co-host Tucker Carlson was pressing him about how he asked partisan-hack-softball questions to John Kerry on The Daily Show.

Novak told Lamb that for most of its history, Crossfire was actually a fairly civil show, but that it grew more heated when it started being taped before a studio audience at George Washington University and added the Clinton spinners James Carville and Paul Begala to oppose Novak and Carlson from the left.

When asked if he would write a book on his Plamegate experiences, Novak replied he has a memoir coming next year on his 50 years in Washington. As he said of Matthews, he repeated that the press in general is paying too little attention to Plamegate's utter collapse:
"I would say that most of the press really ignored this story I think they intuitively felt there was a build-up phony story. At the beginning there was a lot of attention played to it and a lot of bad journalism on this story. You could write a book about the bad journalism involved of exaggerating it. But journalists don't say they're sorry. In fact, they never even say they're wrong. It's part of, I think, we -- we accept that as our -- as our First Amendment right to be wrong."

Hat tip for the transcript to MRC's Michelle Humphrey.

At Press Conf, Bush v Gregory and Bush
Jokes About 'Friendly' NYT

[This item is adopted from Tim Graham's Friday afternoon posting with video, on the MRC's NewsBusters.org blog. Two audio/video clips will be added to the posted version of this CyberAlert, but in the meantime, to watch Windows Media video of the Gregory/Bush interplay detailed below, or for Windows Media, Real or an mp3 of the humorous exchange about the New York Times as a "friendly" newspaper, go to: newsbusters.org [8] ]

# Malveaux's question: "Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian President, will actually be in the same building as you next week, in Manhattan for the United Nations General Assembly. You say that you want to give the message to the Iranian people that you respect them. Is this not an opportunity, perhaps, to show that you also respect their leader? Would you be willing to, perhaps, meet face-to-face with Ahmadinejad, and would this possibly be a breakthrough, some sort of opportunity for a breakthrough on a personal level?"
Bush: "No, I'm not going to meet with him. I have made it clear to the Iranian regime that we will sit down with the Iranians once they verifiably suspend their enrichment program. I meant what I said."

It may have been Bush's shortest answer of the day. He didn't get into how he was supposed to show respect for the Iranian president's Israel-threatening or anti-Semitism or Holocaust denial.

# Humorous Stolberg/Bush back-and-forth about New York Times as "friendly" newspaper:

# Gregory/Bush exchange (video above): If Stolberg's first words look meek on paper, NBC's David Gregory was again the Man Who Wouldn't Shut Up. Everyone else pretty much followed Bush's preference to avoid follow-up questions. (Why get follow-ups when the next reporter will repeat the liberal question of the day?) Not Gregory. Bush started out whimsical:

Bush: "I must say, having gone through those gyrations, you're looking beautiful today, Dave." (Laughter.)
Gregory: "Mr. President, critics of your proposed bill on interrogation rules say there's another important test -- these critics include John McCain, who you've mentioned several times this morning -- and that test is this: If a CIA officer, paramilitary or special operations soldier from the United States were captured in Iran or North Korea, and they were roughed up, and those governments said, well, they were interrogated in accordance with our interpretation of the Geneva Conventions, and then they were put on trial and they were convicted based on secret evidence that they were not able to see, how would you react to that, as Commander-in-Chief?"
Bush: "David, my reaction is, is that if the nations such as those you named, adopted the standards within the Detainee Detention Act, the world would be better. That's my reaction. We're trying to clarify law. We're trying to set high standards, not ambiguous standards.
"And let me just repeat, Dave, we can debate this issue all we want, but the practical matter is, if our professionals don't have clear standards in the law, the program is not going to go forward. You cannot ask a young intelligence officer to violate the law. And they're not going to. They -- let me finish, please -- they will not violate the law. You can ask this question all you want, but the bottom line is -- and the American people have got to understand this -- that this program won't go forward; if there is vague standards applied, like those in Common Article III from the Geneva Convention, it's just not going to go forward. You can't ask a young professional on the front line of protecting this country to violate law.
"Now, I know they said they're not going to prosecute them. Think about that: Go ahead and violate it, we won't prosecute you. These people aren't going to do that, Dave. Now, we can justify anything you want and bring up this example or that example, I'm just telling you the bottom line, and that's why this debate is important, and it's a vital debate.
"Now, perhaps some in Congress don't think the program is important. That's fine. I don't know if they do or don't. I think it's vital, and I have the obligation to make sure that our professionals who I would ask to go conduct interrogations to find out what might be happening or who might be coming to this country, I got to give them the tools they need. And that is clear law.
Gregory (first interruption/follow-up): "But sir, this is an important point, and I think it depends-"
Bush: "The point I just made is the most important point."
Gregory: "Okay."
Bush: "And that is the program is not going forward. David, you can give a hypothetical about North Korea, or any other country, the point is that the program is not going to go forward if our professionals do not have clarity in the law. And the best way to provide clarity in the law is to make sure the Detainee Treatment Act is the crux of the law. That's how we define Common Article III, and it sets a good standard for the countries that you just talked about. Next man."
Gregory (second): "No, but wait a second, I think this is an important point-"
Bush: "I know you think it's an important point." (Laughter.)
Gregory (third): "Sir, with respect, if other countries interpret the Geneva Conventions as they see fit -- as they see fit -- you're saying that you'd be okay with that?"
Bush: "I am saying that I would hope that they would adopt the same standards we adopt; and that by clarifying Article III, we make it stronger, we make it clearer, we make it definite. And I will tell you again, David, you can ask every hypothetical you want, but the American people have got to know the facts. And the bottom line is simple: If Congress passes a law that does not clarify the rules, if they do not do that, the program is not going forward."
Gregory (fourth): "This will not endanger U.S. troops, in your-"
Bush: "Next man."
Gregory (fifth): This will not endanger U.S. troops-"
Bush: "David, next man, please. Thank you. It took you a long time to unravel, and it took you a long time to ask your question."

On Today Show, Olbermann Defends His
Anti-Bush Invective

Appearing with NBC's Matt Lauer in the first half hour of Friday's Today show, MSNBC host Keith Olbermann discussed his recent vitriolic attack on President Bush from the September 11 broadcast of his Countdown show, during which Olbermann had accused Bush of a "crime against" 9/11 victims for not accomplishing the construction of a memorial at Ground Zero, and had accused Bush of the "impeachable offense" of "lying by implication" regarding the Iraq War. While Olbermann's inflammatory comments were not quoted by Lauer or Olbermann, the MSNBC host rationalized his rant by comparing it to President Bush's speech to the nation "politicizing 9/11 in his own way." Olbermann: "I might add that I was on the air two minutes before the President was politicizing 9/11 in his own way. I don't see that there's much difference." Olbermann also contended that views similar to his shared by a segment of the American population were "not being articulated in the mainstream media." Olbermann: "I thought that there was a part of the persona of the nation not really being articulated in the mainstream media."

[This item, by Brad Wilmouth, was posted Friday morning on the MRC's blog, NewsBusters.org: newsbusters.org [12] ]

(See the September 12 CyberAlert, linked at the end of item #7 below, for audio/video, as well as a transcript, of Olbermann's Monday tantrum.)

Below is a transcript of the relevant portion of the interview with Olbermann from the September 15 Today show:

Matt Lauer: "On Monday, we all observed the fifth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, and you, at the end of your show, railed against the President and the administration for using 9/11 as a wedge in this country, a political dividing factor. The response was overwhelming."
Keith Olbermann: "Indeed."
Lauer: "Both ways. Some people said way to go, Keith, other people said, 'How dare you make this statement on 9/11 from Ground Zero? You could have done it another time.'"
Olbermann: "Yeah."
Lauer: "Were you surprised by the response?"
Olbermann: "To the first part, a little bit, the positive response. I mean, I think-"
Lauer: "You didn't expect it?"
Olbermann: "I didn't expect it in the degree that it's happened. I mean, I thought that there was a part of the persona of the nation not really being articulated in the mainstream media, which we did kind of hit, but I did not anticipate the volume of it. As to the other part, I noticed that the major criticism was not the content of what I was saying, but the date-"
Lauer: "And the location."
Olbermann: "Right, and the location, but, you know, it's a personal thing for me as it is for many people, and also, I might add that I was on the air two minutes before the President was politicizing 9/11 in his own way. I don't see that there's much difference."
Lauer, laughing: "Maybe he took your lead?"
Olbermann: "Probably not."

Olbermann Blasts 'Orwellian' Bush for
'Telling Us What to Think'

On Friday night's Countdown, MSNBC's Keith Olbermann renewed his "Special Comment" attack on President Bush, replaying the original comments from Monday's show, and adding a condemnation of Bush for an awkwardly worded, off-the-cuff remark made by the President during Friday's news conference that it is "unacceptable to think" the actions of America can be compared to those of terrorists. Not catching on to the President's likely meaning that it is "ridiculous to claim" the actions of America are similar to those terrorists, Olbermann referred to a favorite topic of his, George Orwell's 1984, as he attacked Bush's "chilling" words. Olbermann: "'It's unacceptable to think.' Sounds like something straight out of George Orwell's 1984. Instead, it was something straight out of George Bush's mouth.... And not only issuing those chilling words, 'It's unacceptable to think,' but doing so in answer to the call to conscience from his own former Secretary of State, Colin Powell."

[This item, by Brad Wilmouth, was posted late Friday night on the MRC's blog, NewsBusters.org: newsbusters.org [13] ]

During the show's teaser, after mentioning the friction between Bush and some Senate Republicans over the interrogation of detainees, Olbermann showed his alarm over Bush "telling us what we may and may not think."

Olbermann: "After the rebuke from his former Secretary of State about how we're beginning to lose the moral basis in the fight against terror. The President tells him and us what we may and may not think."
Bush: "It's unacceptable to think that there's any kind of comparison between the behavior of the United States of America and the action of Islamic extremists who kill innocent women and children to achieve an objective."
Olbermann: "An America in which a President says it is unacceptable to think something. We will again invoke everyone from Abraham Lincoln at Gettysburg to Rod Serling on Maple Street, and ask why, five years later, 9/11 is still just a photo-op. Why it's not the centerpiece of national unity, but rather a political football, why there is no memorial, just a hole in the ground and in our hearts. My 'Special Comment' ahead."

Olbermann opened the show with his latest reference to George Orwell's 1984. Olbermann: "'It's unacceptable to think.' Sounds like something straight out of George Orwell's 1984. Instead, it was something straight out of George Bush's mouth." Referring to former Secretary of State Colin Powell's letter of concern about America "losing the moral high ground" in the eyes of the world, Olbermann soon continued: "And not only issuing those chilling words, 'It's unacceptable to think,' but doing so in answer to the call to conscience from his own former Secretary of State, Colin Powell."

The Countdown host soon showed clips from the President's news conference, including the one that so outraged Olbermann:

Terence Hunt, Associated Press: "Mr. President, former Secretary of State Colin Powell says the world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism. If a former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and former Secretary of State feels this way, don't you think that Americans and the rest of the world are beginning to wonder whether you're following a flawed strategy?"
Bush: "If there's any comparison between the compassion and decency of the American people and the terrorist tactics of extremists, that's flawed logic. It's just, I simply can't accept that. It's unacceptable to think that there's any kind of comparison between the behavior of the United States of America and the action of Islamic extremists who kill innocent women and children to achieve an objective."

At the end of the show, Olbermann took the opportunity to replay his controversial "Special Comment" attack on Bush which first aired last Monday September 11th. The Countdown host introduced the segment proclaiming his gratitude to those who emailed and downloaded the video of his comments, though he did not provide any details on what percentage were supporters versus critics. Olbermann: "To merely say I'm grateful to all those who have written and emailed and called and downloaded the video, we count at least 800,000 in the last group, that does not do the feeling justice. Our number one story on the Countdown, we're going to bring you again Monday night's 'Special Comment' from Ground Zero, on all that that site and that date has and has not become."

After complaining that New York Governor George Pataki vetoed a bill that would have made any memorial at Ground Zero free to the public, Olbermann repeated the entire "Special Comment" attacking Bush from Monday's show, during which he had accused the President of committing a "crime against" 9/11 victims and of the "impeachable offense" of "lying by implication" regarding the Iraq War. Olbermann concluded the show by again referring to Bush saying it is "unacceptable to think," followed by a recounting of the number of U.S. troops killed "since the declaration of 'Mission Accomplished' in Iraq," a regular part of Olbermann's nightly signoff intended to embarrass the President:
"My 'Special Comment' from Ground Zero, originally broadcast on this program this past Monday September 11th. And since then, remember, we have now been told by this President it is unacceptable to think, even if you are the former Secretary of State in that President's first term. That is Countdown for this, the 1,231st day since the declaration of 'Mission Accomplished' in Iraq. This reminder, please join us again at Midnight Eastern time tonight, 11 p.m. Central, 9 Pacific, for the late edition of Countdown. I'm Keith Olbermann. Good night and good luck."

Below is a transcript of relevant portions of the September 15 Countdown, leading up to the replay of Olbermann's "Special Comment" at the end of the hour:

Keith Olbermann, in opening teaser: "Which of these stories will you be talking about tomorrow? After the rebuke on rewriting the Geneva Conventions from three heavyweight Republican Senators, the President scrambles."
George W. Bush: "Congress has got a decision to make. You want the program to go forward or not?"
Olbermann: "After the rebuke from his former Secretary of State about how we're beginning to lose the moral basis in the fight against terror. The President tells him and us what we may and may not think."
Bush: "It's unacceptable to think that there's any kind of comparison between the behavior of the United States of America and the action of Islamic extremists who kill innocent women and children to achieve an objective."
Olbermann: "An America in which a President says it is unacceptable to think something. We will again invoke everyone from Abraham Lincoln at Gettysburg to Rod Serling on Maple Street, and ask why, five years later, 9/11 is still just a photo-op. Why it's not the centerpiece of national unity, but rather a political football, why there is no memorial, just a hole in the ground and in our hearts. My 'Special Comment' ahead."...

Olbermann, introducing the show: "Good evening. This is Friday September 15th, 53 days until the 2006 midterm elections. 'It's unacceptable to think.' Sounds like something straight out of George Orwell's 1984. Instead, it was something straight out of George Bush's mouth. Our fifth story on the Countdown, that massive pre-election struggle Mr. Bush had engineered over national security having gone horribly wrong, not the Democrats defending now themselves against Republicans, but rather the President having to do so. And not only issuing those chilling words, 'It's unacceptable to think,' but doing so in answer to the call to conscience from his own former Secretary of State, Colin Powell. Having lost round one over his proposal for the interrogation of terror suspects with the Senate Armed Services just yesterday. Mr. Bush subjecting himself to an interrogation today at the White House Rose Garden. In the course of the news conference, the President pretty much playing chicken with Congress, threatening to abandon all U.S. efforts to question terror suspects unless the Senate sees fit to rewrite Article III of the Geneva Conventions. You know, the part that prohibits the cruel and inhuman treatment of detainees. Mr. Bush also rebuking his former Secretary of State for not believing exactly what he wants him to believe."

Terence Hunt, Associated Press: "Mr. President, former Secretary of State Colin Powell says the world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism. If a former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and former Secretary of State feels this way, don't you think that Americans and the rest of the world are beginning to wonder whether you're following a flawed strategy?"
Bush: "If there's any comparison between the compassion and decency of the American people and the terrorist tactics of extremists, that's flawed logic. It's just, I simply can't accept that. It's unacceptable to think that there's any kind of comparison between the behavior of the United States of America and the action of Islamic extremists who kill innocent women and children to achieve an objective."

At the end of the show, Olbermann resumed his attack on Bush:
"To merely say I'm grateful to all those who have written and emailed and called and downloaded the video, we count at least 800,000 in the last group, that does not do the feeling justice. Our number one story on the Countdown, we're going to bring you again Monday night's 'Special Comment' from Ground Zero, on all that that site and that date has and has not become. First, though, if the physical part of the story could get worse, it has gotten worse. Governor George Pataki, who was there on Monday and felt the same enduring pain the rest of us did, yesterday vetoed a bill passed by the New York state assembly and the New York state legislature, which would have guaranteed that admission to the World Trade Center memorial and museum would be free. The governor said he understood the sentiment, but that a 'world class memorial comes at a significant expense estimated at $50 million a year.' It is a point-of-view that might have some merit if we were even close to actually building that memorial. We are not. Not physically, not emotionally, and certainly not, to our great national grief, politically."

The show then cut to a replay of the "Special Comment" from Monday's show, which the September 12 CyberAlert recounted:
At the very end of Monday's Countdown show, during his latest "Special Comment" attacking the Bush administration, MSNBC's Keith Olbermann unleashed one of his most vitriolic attacks on the President, accusing him of "lying by implication" to get America into a "fraudulent war" with "needless death" in Iraq, which Olbermann referred to as "an impeachable offense." Olbermann: "The polite phrase for how so many of us were duped into supporting a war on the false premise that it had something to do with 9/11 is lying by implication. The impolite phrase is 'impeachable offense.'" He also bizarrely seemed to blame President Bush for the delays in building a memorial at Ground Zero, as he branded Bush's "reprehensible inaction" as a "crime against every victim here and every patriotic sentiment you [Bush] mouthed but did not enact, you have done nothing about it." After accusing the President of "forgetting the lessons of 9/11," Olbermann obnoxiously concluded: "May this country forgive you."

Audio and video of Olbermann's September 11 screeching will be added to the posted version of this CyberAlert, but in the meantime, for mp3 audio, as well as Real and Windows Media, of Olbermann, go to Tuesday's CyberAlert:
www.mediaresearch.org [14]

CNN: Are Falling Gas Prices a Sneaky
Scheme to Help Republicans?

In a Friday report for The Situation Room, CNN reporter Bill Schneider wondered if the current decrease in gas prices has been timed to help Republicans in the midterm elections. He ominously asked: "The drop in prices may last a couple of months, long enough to get through the November election. Could that be what the oil companies want?" Does that mean high prices in the spring and summer were an attempt to hurt the Republicans? This theme, that oil companies are trying to aid the GOP, was repeated or insinuated throughout the report.

[This item, by Scott Whitlock, was posted Friday afternoon on the MRC's blog, NewsBusters.org: newsbusters.org [15] ]

In the September 15 segment, which aired at 4:40pm EDT, anchor Wolf Blitzer introduced Schneider by noting that a form of smog reducing gasoline will be pulled "as we head into the fall and the November elections." Schneider then prefaced a soundbite from an "oil industry critic" by stating: "But this oil industry critic believes that what drove prices up was speculation and a report from a bipartisan congressional investigation may be having an impact."

The critic, Tyson Slocum, is a member of Public Citizen, a liberal consumer advocacy group founded by Ralph Nader. The group's left-wing ideology was not mentioned, the only ID onscreen was of the organization's name. At that point, Schneider asked the question: Do oil companies want prices down through the midterms? Slocum elaborated for him: "Eighty-one percent of their money goes to members of the Republican Party. I cannot say for sure whether or not they are influencing prices to assure that outcome, but it is, I think, more than just a coincidence that we're seeing an easing of prices at a time of running up to a very, very important election."

This isn't the first time CNN has conjured up dark conspiracies involving the GOP and "big oil." The August 31 CyberAlert related:
Wednesday's USA Today reported that gasoline prices could be closer to $2 a gallon by Thanksgiving. The paper cited the end of the summer driving season and decreased demand as causes for this predicted decline. Not surprisingly, CNN's Jack Cafferty saw something more sinister at work. Before his daily "Cafferty File" segment during the 4pm EDT hour of The Situation Room on Wednesday afternoon, substitute anchor John King and news reader Zain Verjee discussed this report and cheered on lower gas prices as good news. Cafferty then spouted off the old liberal conspiracy theory connecting Republicans and Big Oil: "You know, if you were a real cynic, you could also wonder if the oil companies might not be pulling the price of gas down to help the Republicans get re-elected in the midterm elections a couple of months away."

For more: www.mediaresearch.org [16]

You Read It Here First: Drudge & FNC
Pick Up Sean Penn's Vitriol

Angle announced on the September 15 Special Report: "Hollywood star Sean Penn is suggesting that President Bush may bring fascism to the U.S. Promoting his new film based on the life of all-powerful Louisiana Governor Huey Long, Penn told Larry King that the film relates to a political figure today, saying 'Huey Long said something very interesting. It was 'fascism will come to America, but likely under another name, perhaps anti-fascism.' Penn went on to call the President and Donald Rumsfeld 'party clowns' who have done, quote 'enormous damage' to mankind, accusing them of beating the war drum to quote, 'drown out the reality of what's really happening.' Penn insisted that quote, 'No Democrat that doesn't have a plan to get our troops out of Iraq should be voted for,' adding that Mr. Bush has 'devastated our democracy.'"

The September 15 CyberAlert recounted:
Actor Sean Penn, in a taped Larry King Live interview aired Thursday night on CNN to promote his new movie, All the King's Men, in which he plays a Huey Long-like character, suggested President Bush may bring fascism to America, charged that Bush has "devastated our democracy," insisted Donald Rumsfeld and Bush have done "enormous damage" to "this country and mankind" and claimed the war on terrorism is meant to distract from reality. Clearly referring to President Bush, a smirking Penn recalled: "Well, in 1932 Huey Long said something very interesting. It was, 'Fascism will come to America, but likely under another name, perhaps anti-fascism.'"
Later, Penn fulminated about how "party clowns like Don Rumsfeld could be described as, as far as I'm concerned, except for the enormous damage he's done this country and mankind -- and our President -- and saw that they're getting out there and they're beating this drum, to drown out, as they did in 2002, to drown out other -- in that case it was Enron. Now we have another situation, so it's this war on terror, boom, boom, boom. Drown out the reality of what's really happening." Penn also argued: "No Democrat that doesn't have a plan to get our troops out of Iraq should be voted for."

Audio and video of Penn will be added to the posted version of this CyberAlert, but in the meantime, for mp3 audio, as well as Real and Windows Media, of Penn spouting off, jump to Friday's CyberAlert: www.mediaresearch.org [21]

-- Brent Baker