|
1. It Takes Durbin Apology to Get Net Coverage, But CBS Still Spikes
It took an action by Democratic Senator Dick Durbin himself to generate some broadcast network attention for his June 14 remarks on the Senate floor in which the Senate's Assistant Minority Leader described interrogation techniques at Guantanamo and claimed that "you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags or some mad regime -- Pol Pot or others." Late Tuesday afternoon Durbin apologized for smearing U.S. servicemen, leading to short items on the ABC and NBC evening shows Tuesday night and on Wednesday morning to a brief item on NBC's Today and a full story on ABC's Good Morning America, the first mentions of the subject on ABC's World News Tonight or the two morning programs. Last Thursday, the NBC Nightly News carried a very brief item. CBS, however, maintained its blackout and didn't utter a word about Durbin on Tuesday's CBS Evening News or Wednesday's Early Show. CNN's Aaron Brown snidely hoped: "You would think now this story would go away, and it probably will in your lifetime."
2. Lauer to McCain: Time to "Revisit" Comparison of Iraq to Vietnam?
Instead of talk about Democratic Senator Dick Durbin's comparison of the treatment of Guantanamo detainees to Nazis and the Soviet gulag, viewers on Tuesday morning of NBC's Today heard Iraq characterized as Vietnam and those watching ABC's Good Morning America were treated to a long discussion about the John Bolton nomination and Bush's low approval level. On Today, when Senator John McCain put the situation in Iraq at a six on a scale of one to ten, Matt Lauer reacted: "Six? That's, that's actually a lot higher than a lot of people are saying." Lauer soon reminded McCain: "Remember Senator at the beginning of the war there was some who were saying this could be our next Vietnam and those comments were greeted with outrage. Now a couple years down the road should we revisit those comments?"
3. MSNBC's Countdown Showcases Leftist Cause-Celebre "Denver Three"
MSNBC's Keith Olbermann devoted a segment of his Countdown show on Tuesday to showcasing a publicity gimmick by three left-wing agitators from Colorado who went to the White House gate to try to deliver a letter to President Bush demanding to know who on his staff made them leave a Social Security event with Bush in Denver three months ago. Olbermann brought aboard one of the activists, Leslie Weise, who maintained that a "No More Blood for Oil" bumper sticker on their car led to their ouster, and Washington Post reporter Dana Milbank, who followed the "Denver Three" around DC on Tuesday for a sympathetic Wednesday story, which the Post headlined: "The Tenacious Trio." On MSNBC, Milbank described the three, who have became a cause celebre in the left-wing blogging world, as "very sympathetic characters" as he insisted that "the 'Denver Three' have a compelling case to make." At the end of the segment, Milbank noted what he and Olbermann made possible: "One thing they do seem capable of doing is getting all of us to keep chattering about it."
 It Takes Durbin Apology to Get Net Coverage,
But CBS Still Spikes
It took an action by Democratic Senator Dick Durbin himself to generate some broadcast network attention for his June 14 remarks on the Senate floor in which the Senate's Assistant Minority Leader described interrogation techniques at Guantanamo and claimed that "you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags or some mad regime -- Pol Pot or others." Late Tuesday afternoon Durbin apologized for smearing U.S. servicemen, leading to short items on the ABC and NBC evening shows Tuesday night and on Wednesday morning to a brief item on NBC's Today and a full story on ABC's Good Morning America, the first mentions of the subject on ABC's World News Tonight or the two morning programs. Last Thursday, the NBC Nightly News carried a very brief item. CBS, however, maintained its blackout and didn't utter a word about Durbin on Tuesday's CBS Evening News or Wednesday's Early Show. CNN's Aaron Brown snidely hoped: "You would think now this story would go away, and it probably will in your lifetime."
Other than the brief item on the June 16 NBC Nightly News, before Tuesday night the only broadcast network mentions of Durbin's charge came on the Sunday interview shows, which all raised the remarks with a guest.
(The June 17 CyberAlert recounted: ABC and CBS led Thursday night with how four backbench Members of Congress held a press conference to publicize their resolution calling for a draw down of troops in Iraq by October of 2006, but neither network uttered a word about Democratic Senator Dick Durbin's outlandish comparison of the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo to "Nazis, Soviets in their gulags" or Pol Pot. Only NBC reported Durbin's comparison, but that brief item aired only after Kelly O'Donnell touted the vision of "North Carolina Republican Walter Jones, who today alongside two Democrats and a fellow Republican, proposed what many Americans, weary of the violence in Iraq, appear increasingly eager to see, a withdrawal date for U.S. troops." On ABC, anchor Elizabeth Vargas announced: "We start tonight with the Bush administration and the growing discontent over the war in Iraq. On Capitol Hill today, a resolution was introduced that would require U.S. troops to begin pulling out of Iraq a year from this fall. The resolution was sponsored by a small, bipartisan group of Congressmen, but it is a first."
Substitute NBC Nightly News anchor Campbell Brown, in a short item she read Thursday evening, painted the White House, not Durbin, as the aggressor:
"And the war of words over the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, continued today with the White House attacking a Democratic Senator for comparing interrogation tactics at Guantanamo Bay, which were contained in an FBI report, to those used by the Nazis, the Soviets, and the Khmer Rouge. Press Secretary Scott McClellan calls Senator Richard Durbin's remarks 'beyond belief,' and said U.S. soldiers go out of their way to treat prisoners humanely. Durbin said not only will he not apologize, but the administration should apologize for the situation at Guantanamo.")
For the June 17 CyberAlert article: www.mediaresearch.org
Back now to Tuesday night/Wednesday morning of this week, the June 21 CBS Evening News didn't bring up Durbin who made his apology about 45 minutes before the 6:30pm EDT start of the newscast, but ABC and NBC managed to get it in and CBS had a live exchange between Bob Schieffer and Bill Plante, about the Bolton nomination, in which the subject could have been raised.
CBS also made time for a taped piece from Gloria Borger about how Senator Hillary Clinton is moving to the "center" in anticipation of a presidential run. Borger touted: "It's the start of Hillary Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign. First stop is re-election to the Senate next year. But the Senator is already moving to the center on certain issues as part of her ultimate campaign for the White House. One new ally -- and potential rival in 2008 -- says 'don't underestimate Hillary Clinton.'"
Borger to Newt Gingrich: "She's the toughest candidate to beat?"
Gingrich: "Anybody who doesn't think she's not the toughest candidate has not looked at the history of American politics since 1978. The Clintons have lost one time, and they've learned from that."
On ABC's World News Tonight, after George Stephanopoulos opined on the Bolton situation, anchor Charles Gibson delivered that show's first mention of Durbin's claim: "Also in Washington, an emotional moment. An extraordinary apology on the floor of the Senate today. Illinois Democrat Dick Durbin last week compared interrogators at Guantanamo Bay to Nazis and the people who ran the gulags in the Soviet Union. Republicans were incensed. And today, Durbin took the Senate floor to say he was sorry."
Richard Durbin, D-Ill: "When you look into the eyes of those soldiers, you see your son. You see your daughter. They're the best. I never ever intended any disrespect for them. Some may believe that my remarks crossed the line. To them, I extend my heartfelt apologies."
Gibson: "Illinois Democrat Dick Durbin on the floor of the Senate today."
On the NBC Nightly News, Brian Williams noted: "Illinois Senator Dick Durbin apologized today for remarks last week that touched off a firestorm of criticism. Durbin quoted from an FBI agent's report describing harsh treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay. He said if you didn't know, you'd think he was describing tactics used by Nazis or Soviets in their gulags. Late today, an emotional Senator Durbin said he was sorry."
Richard Durbin on the Senate floor: "Some may believe that my remarks crossed the line. To them I extend my heartfelt apologies."
Williams: "Durbin, who ranks number two among Democrats in the Senate leadership, also apologized to any soldiers who felt insulted by his remarks. He said, quote, 'They're the best. I never ever intended any disrespect for them.'"
CNN's Aaron Brown, whose NewsNight I don't believe has previously covered Durbin's remarks (with the possible exception of the Headline News channel updates aired during it), didn't get to them until his "Tomorrow's Papers Tonight" segment at the very end of Tuesday's NewsNight. He held up a velox of the front page of Wednesday's Washington Times and snidely pointed out how it "leads with Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois. This is a big story for them, and they put it on the front page: 'Durbin 'sorry' for Gitmo remarks; Makes his apology on the Senate floor.' You would think now this story would go away, and it probably will in your lifetime."
(Monday's CyberAlert ran down Brown's Friday night agenda: CNN's NewsNight on Friday, under Aaron Brown's guidance, delivered a trio of liberal agenda stories on Iraq. First, Brown suggested that "support for the war seems to be ebbing more so in the wake of a once-secret British government memo that was recently leaked and seems to have had a delayed reaction." John King then provided an overview on liberal claims about the so-called "Downing Street memo." Second, Brown set up an empathetic profile of Congressman Walter Jones as he stressed a potential wider trend: "What might make the White House and the war supporters the most nervous are the stirrings of a few voices, a few, on the Republican side. They're not big names, not House or Senate leaders, they're back benchers, but sometimes that's where rebellion starts." Third, Brown brought aboard liberal Republican Senator Lincoln Chafee, whom he described as part of what "used to be called the moderate wing of the Republican Party." Brown ludicrously claimed that "he may now be the entire moderate wing of the Republican Party." Brown asked him "sort of the elephant in the room question," whether "since it became clear that there were no WMD in Iraq, do you think the administration's been honest with the American people?" See: www.mediaresearch.org )
On Wednesday morning, Today news reader Natalie Morales related this brief item, but not until the 8am news update: "Democratic Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois is apologizing for comparing interrogators at Guantanamo Bay to Nazis. Durbin's voice cracked as he apologized for his, quote, 'poor choice of words' on the Senate floor Tuesday. His comments came after an FBI report said detainees were chained to the floor at the prison without food or water."
ABC's Good Morning America, the MRC's Jessica Barnes observed, featured a full story Wednesday morning as that show too for the first time informed viewers about Durbin's allegation.
Co-host Diane Sawyer announced: "Well, yesterday in Washington you didn't know whether you were watching the government or the afternoon soap operas. Emotions were running so high -- tears, accusations. Vice President Dick Cheney took a personal swipe at Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean, and we'll get to that in a moment, but first, a Democratic Senator choked up on the Senate floor as he gave an emotional apology and ABC's Linda Douglass is in Washington with the story. Linda."
From Capitol Hill, Douglass explained: "Well Diane, this really did just prove what happened to Dick Durbin, the old political truth that words really do matter, and in an extraordinary move, the Senate's number two Democrat last night did try to diffuse the impact of his words."
Sen. Durbin, on the Senate floor: "I offer my apologies to those who were offended by my words."
Douglass: "The controversy began last week when Senator Dick Durbin recited allegations that Americans have abused foreign prisoners at Guantanamo Bay."
Sen. Durbin on Senate floor, June 14: "You would most certainly believe this must have happened by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime."
Douglass: "Comparing U.S. servicemen to Nazis? Republicans lined up to denounce Durbin, calling his statements-"
Sen. John Warner: "Insulting to our men and women in uniform who are fighting for the safety of all of us here at home."
Rep. Candice Miller, R-Michigan: "That kind of rhetoric incites our enemies and hinders our efforts in the war on terror."
Douglass: "By yesterday, criticism had reached a crescendo: the Republican Campaign Committee called Durbin anti-American, Vice President Cheney said he was appalled, Republican Senate leaders called Durbin's statements disrespectful and dangerous. They demanded an apology and last night they got one."
Sen. Durbin: "When you look into the eyes of the soldiers, you see your son, you see your daughter. They're the best. I never, ever intended any disrespect for them. Some may believe that my remarks crossed the line. To them I extend my heartfelt apologies."
Douglass: "Former prisoner of war, Republican John McCain, stood up to forgive him."
Sen. McCain: "He did the right thing, the courageous thing and I believe we can put this issue behind us."
Douglass concluded: "Now, many Republicans have been having a field day with the Democrats' recent statements, Howard Dean calling the Republican Party the party of white Christians, House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi calling the war a grotesque mistake. Some Democrats are saying, Charlie, that they wish their leaders would watch what they say."
 Lauer to McCain: Time to "Revisit" Comparison
of Iraq to Vietnam?
Instead of talk about Democratic Senator Dick Durbin's comparison of the treatment of Guantanamo detainees to Nazis and the Soviet gulag, viewers on Tuesday morning of NBC's Today heard Iraq characterized as Vietnam and those watching ABC's Good Morning America were treated to a long discussion about the John Bolton nomination and Bush's low approval level. On Today, when Senator John McCain put the situation in Iraq at a six on a scale of one to ten, Matt Lauer reacted: "Six? That's, that's actually a lot higher than a lot of people are saying." Lauer soon reminded McCain: "Remember Senator at the beginning of the war there was some who were saying this could be our next Vietnam and those comments were greeted with outrage. Now a couple years down the road should we revisit those comments?"
Prompted by President Bush's scheduled Tuesday meeting with Vietnam's Prime Minister, Today ostensibly brought McCain aboard to discuss U.S. relations with that communist regime. Following a few questions on that subject, Lauer, the MRC's Geoff Dickens noticed, switched to Iraq:
"Let me move on to Iraq for a second Senator and give you some numbers. In just the past week there's an average of about 50 to 60 insurgent attacks there each and everyday. 48 U.S. troops have died in the last month. Some 1200 Iraqis including a lot of civilians have been killed in bombings. On a scale of 1 to 10, 1 being a disaster, 10 being a success where does our effort in Iraq stand right now in your opinion?"
McCain: "Six."
Lauer: "Six? That's, that's actually a lot higher than a lot of people are saying."
McCain: We have made progress, Sunnis involved, more Iraqi military and police. Key is patience. "Failure not a option."
Lauer: "60 percent of the American people now say things are going badly in Iraq. About 56 percent say it wasn't worth going to war in the first place. Remember Senator at the beginning of the war there was some who were saying this could be our next Vietnam and those comments were greeted with outrage. Now a couple years down the road should we revisit those comments?"
 McCain: "I still don't believe there's a good comparison....South Vietnamese never had a legitimate election."
Lauer: "And without letting you go without talking about John Bolton, the Democrats succeeded in blocking a vote on John Bolton again. They still want those documents from the White House that they say they need to see before they can, they can take a vote on this. I mean what's your feeling on this? If there's nothing to hide in those documents why doesn't the White House just turn them over and get a vote on their man?"
Gibson teased at the top of the June 21 GMA on ABC: "This morning, showdown. A second major defeat for President Bush on his controversial pick for UN ambassador. Will he now go over the head of Congress to get his way?"
Gibson set up the subsequent segment, as taken down by the MRC's Jessica Barnes, in which Gibson and his two guests sat around a table: "So we return to the subject of President Bush in a showdown with the Senate Democrats over John Bolton, the President's controversial choice to be the next UN ambassador. And joining us this morning for our GMA Crossfire are former Clinton advisor Paul Begala and Joe Watkins, a former aide to the first President Bush. So for the second time, the Senate blocks a vote on the Bolton nomination. Why can't the President get this through the Senate?"
Paul Begala: "Because politicians are like dogs, they can sense weakness and the President is politically weak right now. Think about it, four years ago at this time he had 12 Senate Democrats working on his tax cut, his biggest priority. He can't even get one on a relatively minor priority today, that is his UN ambassador. He's politically weakened. Harry Reid, the Democratic Senate leader, has united the party like nobody before him and it's worked for the Democrats and it's hurt the President."
Joe Watkins: "Well, I don't agree with that. I don't think he's weak at all. I think he's going to complete his agenda and John Bolton's the right guy for the job. What we need right now at the UN is somebody who's tough and a straight shooter."
Gibson: "Well, he may be the right guy for the job or he may not be, but the Senate shows no inclination to vote for it. Twice they voted down cloture, so what's the President to do? He can't get his nomination through."
Watkins: "Well, there's always the possibility of a recess appointment which could work, and the President might just do that, he might just do that, and if does, I would applaud him if he did."
Gibson: "He can go over the heads of the Senate, he can make the appointment. Do you think he'll do it?"
Watkins: "He might just very well do that. I'm not going to commit the President, because the President of course is the President. It's his choice to make."
Gibson: "Well, what's your gut sense?"
Watkins: "My gut sense is that he will."
Begala: "It's an act of weakness to do that. It says he can't get his nominee through the Senate and it'll only be a one-year deal. He'd have to go through all this all over again in another 12 months."
Gibson worried: "But he would inflame the Senate, would he not, if he did that?"
Watkins: "I don't think it would inflame the Senate."
Gibson: "It steps on their prerogatives."
Watkins: "We need somebody there. We can't continue to go to the United Nations without a U.S. ambassador. We've got to have somebody there. We've got to have somebody strong there to bring about the reforms that are needed."
Gibson: "But he could have in the offing a Supreme Court nomination, which would have to go through the Senate and does he dare get senators angry at this point with a recess appointment to the UN?"
Begala: "That's the problem. He's got other fish to fry, and senators in both parties don't like recess appointments because it bypasses the Senate's obligation to advise and consent."
Gibson: "Its steps on their prerogatives."
Begala: "So it's not a partisan thing, it's not just Democrats who would be inflamed. You're right, he's, I think, strategically thinking ahead to a potential Supreme Court nomination. If I were advising him, and I used to work a President, I'd say don't pick this fight here on a comparatively unimportant job at the UN -- big, but not as big as the Supreme Court. Save, pick your battles, sir."
Gibson: "It may be long shot for John Bolton to get through the Senate; it's a longer shot that he'll [pointing toward Begala] ever be advising this President, though."
[Paul Begala laughs]
Watkins: "That's exactly right."
Gibson: "But you said the President is not weak. The polls, the latest polls, CBS/New York Times poll shows his approval rating is at 42 percent -- that's incredible for a President who just got reelected -- and his approval rating on Iraq is 37 percent."
Watkins: "Polls go up and down during the course of a presidency. Presidents don't rule by virtue of their polls, they don't look to see how popular they are. Great presidents, I think, make decisions based upon leadership and their agenda, and this President is following through on his agenda...."
Gibson: "Joe, he's got a war in Iraq that's less and less popular."
Watkins: "There's no doubt that the war in Iraq is unpopular. Certainly when you see what the insurgents are doing from time to time, it does dishearten folks, but consider this, Charlie. Look at democracy, the democracy that's taking hold in Iraq. I mean, it took the United States longer to build a democracy than it's taken in Iraq. I mean, Iraq is moving at breakneck speed to have a system of government where the people choose their own leaders."
Gibson: "I'll go to the other side of the aisle."
Begala: "Well, Joe's right, polls go up and they go down -- they go up when the country thinks you're doing a good job, they go down when they think you're doing a bad job. When I worked for Bill Clinton at this stage of his presidency, he was at 60 percent; this President's at 42; Ronald Reagan, by the way, was 59. I mean, those were successful second-term presidents. This President is in a lot of trouble right now and the risk for him is if he just sort of drinks the Kool-Aid, if he sounds like these folks who seem to be advising him -- the Vice President one of them -- and says 'all is well, everything is great,' well, the country is trying to tell him something. They're saying, 'sir, we don't like the direction that you're going in.' He's got to listen to that rather than listen to the toadies and suck-ups around him like, you know, White Houses always have."
Gibson: "You both worked for presidents. Do they really not look at approval ratings?"
Begala: "George W. Bush was a friend of mine before he became President and I know he uses polls, and he should. That's how, you know, the White House is isolating, it's a bubble. I know his pollsters -- they're friends of mine, they're good people -- and he needs to be communicating with the American people both through is public performances, but he also needs to be listening to us and that's what these surveys do."
Watkins: "Polls are indicators of how you're doing at the moment, but ultimately the President's job is to get things done for the American people and that's what this President is committed to do."
 MSNBC's Countdown Showcases Leftist Cause-Celebre
"Denver Three"
MSNBC's Keith Olbermann devoted a segment of his Countdown show on Tuesday to showcasing a publicity gimmick by three left-wing agitators from Colorado who went to the White House gate to try to deliver a letter to President Bush demanding to know who on his staff made them leave a Social Security event with Bush in Denver three months ago. Olbermann brought aboard one of the activists, Leslie Weise, who maintained that a "No More Blood for Oil" bumper sticker on their car led to their ouster, and Washington Post reporter Dana Milbank, who followed the "Denver Three" around DC on Tuesday for a sympathetic Wednesday story, which the Post headlined: "The Tenacious Trio." On MSNBC, Milbank described the three, who have became a cause celebre in the left-wing blogging world, as "very sympathetic characters" as he insisted that "the 'Denver Three' have a compelling case to make." At the end of the segment, Milbank noted what he and Olbermann made possible: "One thing they do seem capable of doing is getting all of us to keep chattering about it."
The presumption behind Olbermann's segment: That it was improper to remove the three from the event, and that may be a reasonable position, but the three were hardly independent citizens there to hear the President. They were clearly activists hostile to the President's policies in areas different than the topic of the event and thus it was also not unreasonable to have a concern that they would disrupt the event. Indeed, Milbank noted in Wednesday's Washington Post that they "wore 'Stop the Lies' T-shirts underneath their business attire."
Olbermann set up the June 21 segment a few minutes into his 8pm EDT program, as corrected against the closed-captioning by the MRC's Brad Wilmouth:
"And also from the 'We're made as hell, and we're not going to take this anymore' file, rare is the life that includes getting kicked out of a presidential rally. Rare, too, is one that includes getting turned back at the gates of the White House itself, but tonight three Denver activists can say they accomplished both in just three months -- exactly three months. On March 21st, Karen Bauer, Leslie Weise, and Alex Young were admitted to the Wings over the Rockies Air and Space Museum for President Bush's clam bake on Social Security reform. Half an hour later, the same unidentified man who let them in kicked them out. Mr. Young says they were told they were getting the bums rush because one of them had a bumper sticker on the back of her car reading 'No More Blood for Oil.'
[That sticker was shown later. At this point viewers saw video of this sticker: "Save the Environment Plant a Bush Back in Texas"]
"So the three went to Washington hoping to deliver a letter to the President asking him to identify who told them to leave the rally. Supposedly they thought it was a Secret Service person, but a uniformed Secret Service sergeant at the gate ["home video" of the bunch plus media talking, through the gate, to a uniformed Secret Service officer] told them that letters and packages are not accepted through the iron fence at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. He suggested that instead they get a roll of stamps and mail it in. This they then did literally. They mailed the letter. Dana Milbank, the Washington Post national political reporter, spent the day with the 'Denver Three,' and, as his punishment, he now gets to spend a few minutes with us. Good evening, Dana."
Dana Milbank, Washington Post: "Good evening, Keith."
Olbermann: "Also with us, one of those who mailed the letter, Leslie Weise. Ms. Weise, good evening to you."
Leslie Weise: "Good evening, Keith."
Olbermann: "Dana, let me start with you, and let's be clear, these are not Jimmy Stewart and two of his buddies from the Boy Rangers from 'Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.' There is a political context here, to some degree, is there not?"
 From DC, Milbank answered: "No, it's partially true because they're very sympathetic characters. As you'll see, Leslie doesn't look like your typical thug or heckler. But of course there's a political component to it in that it is a way of posing the main issue around this administration, and that is that they have not allowed the free flow of information, the free exchange of ideas, and, as these people say, that they're misleading the American public. So of course it gets at that. It's a way for Democrats, as they did today when these people were visiting them, to go after the President on Social Security, but it's a very safe way to do that because the 'Denver Three' have a compelling case to make."
Olbermann: "Ms. Weise, let's talk about that case going back to the incident in Denver in March. What's the independent verification that you got kicked out because of the 'No Blood for Oil' bumper sticker or, in fact, even that you got kicked out?"
Weise, "Denver Three Activist," from DC: "Well, two friends and I attended the event. We had tickets for the event that we attained from our Congressman's office, and we were physically removed from the event by a man who was wearing a suit and an earpiece who was identified to us by another person working at the event as a Secret Service agent. We called the next day to find out why this had happened to us because we were not told the day of the event, and it was confirmed by Secret Service in Denver that the person who removed us was not, in fact, a Secret Service agent, but rather was a White House event staff person. And it was, the sole reason we were removed was because of the bumper sticker on my car. This was confirmed to us by Secret Service. What we're here in D.C. to find out is what are the instructions given to these people who are, there's a pattern throughout the country, this didn't just happen to us in Colorado. It happened in Arizona, in North Dakota, in New Hampshire, so we're here to find out what are the instructions by the White House to these event staffers to remove citizens not because they've done anything wrong, but because of their viewpoints alone."
Olbermann: "Ms. Weise, strip away the political layers here and distill the complaint for me, that what, that taxpayer money is used for those Social Security rallies or other rallies, and if somebody kicks you out, you ought to be able to get a photocopy of their Secret Service ID or their Republican committee ID or whatever?"
Weise: "Well, it's that citizens should not be removed if they haven't done anything to disrupt or to do -- we hadn't done anything wrong. We were removed because of the bumper sticker on my car. Americans should not be fearful that they can't wear a T-shirt or a bumper sticker or have a viewpoint that's different than the President or this administration. He is the President for all Americans. This is a taxpayer-funded event. We had legitimate tickets to the event, but we were thrown out because, what was confirmed, was the bumper sticker on my car."
Olbermann: "Dana, regarding today, is there anything intrinsically wrong about the White House not accepting hand-delivered letters? I mean, I know Theodore Roosevelt used to have open house on New Year's Day and everybody could go in and shake his hand, but does not security and logic suggest that what happened was the right thing to do yesterday?"
Milbank: "Well, of course, and they knew that. The letters were already stamped and pre-addressed. Nobody was expecting the President to come out onto the lawn and give them all a big hug, but it's a symbolic gesture. It's done for the cameras. That's how you wage a battle like this with the White House. They try to embarrass the White House as much as possible, get as much media attention, and as a result of that, they've got a terrific hearing both from Democrats and Republicans up on the Hill."
Olbermann: "Dana, what are they going to do about this? What are the Democrats going to do with this other than say, 'Get it on the news'?"
Milbank: "They're just, that's pretty much all the Democrats can do with any issue is just make an awful lot of noise about it. The White House is in a tough spot because they say, oh, it's just an overzealous volunteer. The problem is there are overzealous volunteers popping up at all these Bush events around the country, so it gets harder to argue that this is just a coincidence. There are freedom of information requests out there. These folks are threatening to file a lawsuit. One thing they do seem capable of doing is getting all of us to keep chattering about it."
Olbermann: "At best, it does appear to be an overzealous employee franchise around the country. Dana Milbank of the Washington Post, Leslie Weise, one of the members of the so-called 'Denver Three.' We're out of time. Thank you both for yours."
An excerpt from Olbermann's June 22 "Washington Sketch" column on page A-10 of the news section, "The Tenacious Trio":
The door to Rep. Mark Udall's office opens at lunchtime yesterday, and 13 chattering reporters and cameramen stream in.
The Colorado Democrat gawks. "I wish I could get this kind of coverage on my own," he says.
Indeed, the journalistic pack -- from CNN, the New York Times, The Washington Post, the Associated Press and elsewhere -- is interested not in the congressman but in the three people sitting demurely in armchairs in his office: a computer worker, a temp and a non-practicing lawyer.
Individually, they are ordinary citizens and political unknowns. But collectively, they are the Denver Three -- a political sensation in Colorado that is causing agita to a White House that has bested far more sophisticated foes.
The Denver Three's quest: to learn the identity of the "Mystery Man" who, impersonating a Secret Service agent, forcibly removed them from a taxpayer-funded Social Security event with President Bush three months ago because of a "No More Blood for Oil" bumper sticker on one of their cars.
They and their attorneys have filed 10 freedom-of-information requests. They won support from eight of Colorado's nine members of Congress and persuaded lawmakers to send letters of protest to the White House and Secret Service. Working from a Denver coffee shop and from a loft apartment, they spend hours each day contacting reporters, producing almost daily news coverage and provoking questions at White House briefings. They have a Web site and bumper stickers, and they got a well-funded liberal group to send them to Washington. Now they're talking about public meetings and a lawsuit....
It started when the three got tickets to Bush's March 21 Social Security town hall meeting in Colorado. They flirted with protesting at the event and wore "Stop the Lies" T-shirts underneath their business attire. But Weise worried about getting arrested.
Even so, they were identified after they arrived as potential troublemakers, and then forcefully removed by a man who, they had been told, was a Secret Service agent. Only later did they learn that the man wasn't an agent at all....
END of Excerpt
For Milbank's piece in full: www.washingtonpost.com
# CyberAlert countdown to the 2,000th edition: 2 to go.
-- Brent Baker
|
It took an action by Democratic Senator Dick Durbin himself to generate some broadcast network attention for his June 14 remarks on the Senate floor in which the Senate's Assistant Minority Leader described interrogation techniques at Guantanamo and claimed that "you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags or some mad regime -- Pol Pot or others." Late Tuesday afternoon Durbin apologized for smearing U.S. servicemen, leading to short items on the ABC and NBC evening shows Tuesday night and on Wednesday morning to a brief item on NBC's Today and a full story on ABC's Good Morning America, the first mentions of the subject on ABC's World News Tonight or the two morning programs. Last Thursday, the NBC Nightly News carried a very brief item. CBS, however, maintained its blackout and didn't utter a word about Durbin on Tuesday's CBS Evening News or Wednesday's Early Show. CNN's Aaron Brown snidely hoped: "You would think now this story would go away, and it probably will in your lifetime." 
Instead of talk about Democratic Senator Dick Durbin's comparison of the treatment of Guantanamo detainees to Nazis and the Soviet gulag, viewers on Tuesday morning of NBC's Today heard Iraq characterized as Vietnam and those watching ABC's Good Morning America were treated to a long discussion about the John Bolton nomination and Bush's low approval level. On Today, when Senator John McCain put the situation in Iraq at a six on a scale of one to ten, Matt Lauer reacted: "Six? That's, that's actually a lot higher than a lot of people are saying." Lauer soon reminded McCain: "Remember Senator at the beginning of the war there was some who were saying this could be our next Vietnam and those comments were greeted with outrage. Now a couple years down the road should we revisit those comments?" 
McCain: "I still don't believe there's a good comparison....South Vietnamese never had a legitimate election." 
MSNBC's Keith Olbermann devoted a segment of his Countdown show on Tuesday to showcasing a publicity gimmick by three left-wing agitators from Colorado who went to the White House gate to try to deliver a letter to President Bush demanding to know who on his staff made them leave a Social Security event with Bush in Denver three months ago. Olbermann brought aboard one of the activists, Leslie Weise, who maintained that a "No More Blood for Oil" bumper sticker on their car led to their ouster, and Washington Post reporter Dana Milbank, who followed the "Denver Three" around DC on Tuesday for a sympathetic Wednesday story, which the Post headlined: "The Tenacious Trio." On MSNBC, Milbank described the three, who have became a cause celebre in the left-wing blogging world, as "very sympathetic characters" as he insisted that "the 'Denver Three' have a compelling case to make." At the end of the segment, Milbank noted what he and Olbermann made possible: "One thing they do seem capable of doing is getting all of us to keep chattering about it." 
From DC, Milbank answered: "No, it's partially true because they're very sympathetic characters. As you'll see, Leslie doesn't look like your typical thug or heckler. But of course there's a political component to it in that it is a way of posing the main issue around this administration, and that is that they have not allowed the free flow of information, the free exchange of ideas, and, as these people say, that they're misleading the American public. So of course it gets at that. It's a way for Democrats, as they did today when these people were visiting them, to go after the President on Social Security, but it's a very safe way to do that because the 'Denver Three' have a compelling case to make."