Guys - Please HELP Keith Olbermann debunk bush/contradicta's LIES!

[calimary]

I just sent this to Countdown, to Keith, and to Dan Abrams at MSNBC:

Dear Keith/Countdown:

Your show tonight (Wednesday, 9/27) is expected to examine the "missing 8 months" and what the Bush team did or did NOT do to fight terrorism. Are you going to include the Hart/Rudman report they ignored? And did you see the memo linked in this story - from Richard Clarke to Contradicta Rice (also evidently ignored):


http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/2001_memo_to_Rice_contradicts_statements_0926.html

THANK GOD for you guys!!! You're the only outlet on TV/cable actually probing and presenting TRUTHS.

God BLESS you! You, like Obi-Wan Kenobi, are our only hope.

-------------

Guys, I suggest STRONGLY that a bunch of us send this link and ANYTHING ELSE we find that's relevant/helpful to Keith Olbermann. Last night, he said that tonight's show was going to examine the "missing eight months" before 9/11 to see whether the bushies fought terrorism as "aggressively" as the Clinton people did - as contradicta (falsely) claims. If they get a bunch of info, it might enhance their coverage. NONE of these truths are getting out there, otherwise. I mean, have YOU heard anybody else - ANYWHERE - bringing this stuff up?

sent to:
Keith Olbermann <[e-mail] >, [e-mail], Dan Abrams <[e-mail] >

[GetTheRightVote]

1. link not working, why not ??

:kick:

[calimary]

3. I think I fixed it.

Try it now, and thanks for the good catch. Sometimes I blow it on the technical aspects.

Found this in our own LBN. This one:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2531643

[blm]

2. I am seriously pissed that Hart-Rudman was never taken up and championed

It was Clinton's commissioned study on global terror.

If Poppy Bush could stick by and champion NAFTA after leaving office, Clinton could have stuck by Hart-Rudman and championed it - he was certainly aware of its seriousness.

I'll be emailing Keith. And thanks to all of you who kept the Hart-Rudman report simmering all these years.

[calimary]

4. Incomprehensible, isn't it? I don't understand it, either.

But then again, I read some analysis in one of the journalism forums that mentioned how - to MANY reporters in this day and age, it is merely enough to report what someone SAID, and NOT to examine the merits of what they said, whether it was true or false, and whether they had an axe to grind. The reporter's job, to these people's way of thinking, is simply to report what was said. And leave it at that. And THEN, the flip side of that is - they presume they're covering both sides by simply mentioning someone else's conflicting view, or merely that someone else HAD a conflicting view ("...so and so denies that..."). And then they pronounce themselves "fair and balanced," because ALLEGEDLY they "covered both sides."

It's really not "journalism," if you wanna know the truth. Most people would define it as LAZINESS.

And in this case, too, it's a clear offshoot of the long-running practice (of at least six years, or as long as bush himself has been on the national political scene - longer than his specific "terms of office") of never questioning, challenging, or probing beneath the surface of whatever it is that he and his are passing off as truth. NOBODY'S EVER fact-checked him objectively. The rare few who have, from the reporter who broke his drunk driving record in the days before the 2000 election to Dan Rather and Mary Mapes and his National Guard AWOL record, have always met with hostility, disciplinary action and/or a bad professional end.

As Olbermann himself said the other night, "Mr. bush, YOUR FREE PASS IS OVER." And we need to trumpet that EVERYWHERE.

[BlueEyedSon]

16. Jesus Christ, I would love a 6-year "free pass"....

[calimary]

18. Wouldn't we all? TELL me about it!

It's one thing when it's deserved.

It's quite another when it's NOT!

[City Lights]

5. Good idea, calimary.

In addition to examining what he didn't do, they need to show what bush did prioritize. Two things given priority status were Dick's secret energy task force and the right's beloved missile shield.

I also think they need to mention the fact that Asscroft stopped flying in July of 2001. Didn't bush also sleep on some ship at sea during the G8 summit that year due to the threat of flying aircraft into buildings? If my memory is correct, that serves as another nail in Condi's coffin of truth.

I'll gather some info and get it off to Keith! :-)

[calimary]

9. Good points. Also, do you remember what the stated priority was

for john ashcroft's "new and improved" Justice Department?

Pornography.

Do you remember when one of the first things he did was to target one of those historic statues in, I think, the Capitol Rotunda or some other high-level public place, because it depicted a female - I think it was "Justice" or "Liberty" or some mythic creature with breasts exposed? And he proceeded to hold a news conference with the statue draped for modesty behind him? I remember reading a letter from some little old lady, commenting on how, in spite of this fig-leafing, there was still a big boob on prominent display there.

[City Lights]

11. I forgot he went after pornography.

:eyes:

IIRC, he went after nude statues after 9-11. :shrug: Still a waste of time and money though...

I found some PDF files outlining his budgets/priorities and sent them off to Keith.

[bvar22]

29. John Ashcroft spent the first months....

...chasing hookers in New Orleans.
He spent several $Million dollars peeking throught keyholes,
and eventually caught 12 prostitutes.

[slipslidingaway]

26. Agree what were the priorities. I just sent this link to K. Olbermann

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0102/04/le.00.html

Condoleezza Rice Discusses Importance of Missile Defense System; What Will Become of Bush's $1.6 Trillion Tax Cut in Congress?

Aired February 4, 2001 - 12:00 p.m. ET

It might be worthwhile to send the information to others, maybe Jack Cafferty.

[calimary]

33. Yes indeed. And to Lou Dobbs. And to David Gregory.

And to any other mainstream reporters who are now leaning our way.

Frankly, if Keith Olbermann gets enough of this stuff, he'll have WAY more material than he can fit into his show. For one night, anyway. Might motivate him to do a follow-up with more.

This needs to be said, read, and SPREAD.

Sometimes you DO have to do their work for them. Sigh...

[calimary]

6. I thought I'd link to this one, also:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2848504

There's a post in this one urging us to contact the NBC Nightly News and thank them for bringing us specific TRUTHS and cutting through the bullshit.

Positive reinforcement WORKS!

I mean, look what it's doing for Keith Olbermann.

[rosesaylavee]

7. Good idea

Sent an email asking that he include info on Rice's assertion that the August PDB was only a 'historical' document.

[calimary]

19. EVERY little bit helps. EVERY bit.

Don't dismiss your efforts as a mere drop in the bucket. Enough of those drops and the bucket is full - up to the brim, to the overflow point.

[Wilber_Stool]

8. I think a lack of documents is el Diablo's problem.

All the excuses made and no documents to back them up.


I really like the el Diablo meme.

[oasis]

10. El Diablo kick.

[blm]

27. Critical mass. Too many documents pointing to their guilt and a few more

leakers willing to pass them along in the interest of our democracy.

What's a dictatortot to do?

[calimary]

12. Here's another thread with more -

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2848793

But this one's more along the lines of what Clinton DID while HE was in office, as opposed to what bush did NOT do when he "took" over. But still important, and STILL worth sending to Keith.

[oasis]

34. Another kick for what Clinton did.

[barbtries]

13. yesterday

i read about a contest. did anyone ever collect? i'm sorry i'm on my way to work but it had to do with anyone finding a credible link to gw or rice even mentioning al queada (sic) or bin laden in the months prior to 911. that would be a good one for olbermann to discuss.

the reality is as i see it that there is way more out there than he can cover in one hour. i've been seeing it and reading it since the gw admin hijacked the 2000 election. it seems nothing i see on tv is news to me, because for the past 6 years i've gotten my news on the web.

[calimary]

20. I get most of my news from the web, too. Everything else on TV,

pretty much, is deficient and slanted.

It used to be that the professional reporters and anchors knew everything. Now, WE know more, just because of the net. Because we can access it all. We're thus a LOT harder to fool, and a LOT more well-informed information consumers. Hell, we're information BROKERS at this point.

I wish people here got the same kind of salaries that the pantywaists "doing the news" on TV were paid. MUCH more deserving folks HERE. Then again, the concept of "doing the news" certainly fits, these days, if you take the - um - "looser" definition of "doing." 'Cause they sure have fucked - and fucked with - everything.

:evilgrin:

[babylonsister]

14. I send lots of e-mails to KO, but also think his staff reads

DU, which is a good thing.
Our e-mails might inform, encourage, and make their jobs easier. Sending them also makes me feel better, so I'll just keep right on doing it.
Thanks, calimary!

[calimary]

22. Thank YOU, babylonsister!

Every email helps. EVERY little bit. EVERY message. EVERY fax. EVERY phone call. EVERYTHING.

It goes back to what some of us have known since the beginning - about weighing in and MAKING OURSELVES HEARD (since the Xtian "WRONG" and the CONS and all the other Bad Guys certainly make themselves heard loud and clear):

We HAVE to butt in and MAKE ourselves unavoidable and impossible to ignore, because...

If they think WE don't care, THEY WON'T, EITHER!!!

[Coexist]

15. pages 277-263

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf#search=%229%2F11%20commission%20report%22

some more...
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=39828

great info on Condi's world view here:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_03_21.php

Clark v. Rice
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/08/clarke.rice/index.html

Good questions and Condi doublespeak here:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/03/20040328.html


http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0403/24/lkl.00.html
KING: Was 9/11 preventable?

CLARKE: Well, we'll never know. But let me compare 9/11 and the period immediately before it to the millennium rollover and the period immediately before that. In December, 1999, we received intelligence reports that there were going to be major al Qaeda attacks. President Clinton asked his national security adviser Sandy Berger to hold daily meetings with the attorney general, the FBI director, the CIA director and stop the attacks. And every day they went back from the White House to the FBI, to the Justice Department, to the CIA and they shook the trees to find out if there was any information. You know, when you know the United States is going to be attacked, the top people in the United States government ought to be working hands-on to prevent it and working together.

Now, contrast that with what happened in the summer of 2001, when we even had more clear indications that there was going to be an attack. Did the president ask for daily meetings of his team to try to stop the attack? Did Condi Rice hold meetings of her counterparts to try to stop the attack? No.

And if she had, if the FBI director and the attorney general had gone back day after day to their department to the White House, what would they have shaken loose? We now know from testimony before the Commission that buried in the FBI was the fact that two of the hijackers had entered the United States. Now, if that information had been able to be shaken loose by the FBI director and the attorney general in response to daily meetings with the White House, if we had known that those two -- if the attorney general had known, if the FBI director had known, that those two were in the United States, Larry, I believe we could have caught those two. Would that have stopped...

KING: But who knew -- you knew they were in the United States, who else knew?

CLARKE: No, I didn't. I didn't know.

KING: We should have known is what you're saying.

CLARKE: The people in the FBI knew. Not the director.

KING: They did know.

CLARKE: Some people in the FBI knew. And if Condi Rice had been doing her job and holding those daily meetings, the way Sandy Berger did, if she had a hands-on attitude to being national security adviser, when she had information that there was a threat against the United States, that kind of information was shaken out in December 1999, it would have been shaken out in the summer of 2001, if she had been doing her job.

CONDOLEEZZA RICE, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: Richard Clarke had plenty of opportunities to tell us in the administration that he thought the war on terrorism was moving in the wrong direction, and he chose not to. In fact, when he came to me and asked if I would support him with Tom Ridge to become the deputy secretary of homeland security, a department which he now says should never have been -- never have been created. When he asked me to support him in that job, he said he supported the president. So frankly, I'm flabbergasted.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: Mr. Clarke, what would you say to the flabbergasted Dr. Rice?

CLARKE: I'd say, let's get back to the main issue. Before you went to the break, Larry, you had the president saying that George Tenet was briefing him regularly on the threat. He was. George Tenet told me that, and I saw the briefings. The president was being told on a regular basis that an al Qaeda threat was coming, an al Qaeda attack was coming.

Now, what does the president say in his own words to Bob Woodward in "Bush at War?" He says, Bush acknowledged that bin Laden was not his focus or that of his national security team. "I was not on point," the president said. "I didn't feel a sense of urgency."

Well, how can you not feel a sense of urgency when George Tenet is telling you in daily briefings, day after day, that a major al Qaeda attack is coming? That's my point. That's one of my points. The other point is, which I'd like to get to, that by fighting the war in Iraq, the president has actually diminished our ability to fight the war on terrorism.

[calimary]

17. Holy Cow - that's great stuff! Send it!

Excellent digging!

Hell, YOU guys make up a better research department than ANY network news division has EVER had. And I've worked in more than a few of 'em.

[EVDebs]

21. Don't forget Greg Palast's "Khan Job" article, wargames, Ptech...

which mentions the NSA's pre-9/11 "policy shift" re OBL that Bush alone ordered:

""A top-level CIA operative who spoke with us on condition of strictest anonymity said that, after Bush took office, "There was a major policy shift" at the National Security Agency. Investigators were ordered to "back off " from any inquiries into Saudi Arabian financing of terror networks, especially if they touched on Saudi royals and their retainers. That put the Bin Ladens, a family worth a reported $12 billion and a virtual arm of the Saudi royal household, off limits for investigation. Osama was the exception; he remained a wanted man, but agents could not look too closely at how he filled his piggy bank. The key rule of any investigation, "follow the money," was now violated, and investigations-at least before September 11-began to die.""

Khan Job
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Feb04/Palast0212.htm

Or the wargames scheduled for 9-11 (see list, Vigilant Warrior, Vigilant Guardian, Northern Guardian, Tripod II, and the CIA/NRO 'plane into building scenario' ... google them if need be, the media didn't make them household words).

Or the footnote in the 9-11 report that is the only mention of these wargames.

Or about Ptech, a Saudi software company that had computer access to the FAA, DOD, Air Force, and dig this, White House computer systems. And presumably STILL DOES within the Bush administration...under a new name of course (GoAgile):

""Ptech is used primarily to develop enterprise blueprints at the highest level of US government and corporate infrastructure. These blueprints hold every important functional, operational, and technical detail of the enterprise. A secondary use of this powerful tool is to build other smart tools in a short period of time. Ptech’s clients in 2001 included the Department of Justice, the Department of Energy, Customs, Air Force, the White House, the FAA, IBM, Sysco, Aetna, and Motorola, to name just a few.""

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17730

Please note the source of the above article dated April 2005, and relish them being 'hoist on their own petard' !

[calimary]

23. Send it, send it, send it, send it, send it!

Oh, yeah, did I forget to say "send it!"?

All of this is GREAT! PRIMO!

[EVDebs]

25. If KO even mentions any of this on air I will be amazed.

Don't get me wrong, KO has been great, but MSNBC will NEVER allow the 'Boy King' to be embarassed with the facts of the case. BTW, the 9-11 Commission report in section 3 shows that only three dozen FAA Air Marshalls were working in toto as of 9-11, when * blew off the Aug PDB of '01 he could have militarized and deputized more armed air marshalls at the very least. As much as I can't gag Hillary this makes her statement yesterday all the more truthful, since with this information WJC would have at least done that.

BTW, Clinton's DOD may have hired Ptech, but then you have to ask yourself why the embedded neocons from those days, and the DeltaForce 'crazies in the basement' wanted this particular software firm. Now we're getting to the marrow, from the days of Reagan and Nixon even with Cheney/Rummy. Why is Ptech, now GoAgile, STILL in the Bush WH and DOD ? A Democratic congress or house at least can do investigations that we will never see under an Republican controlled congress

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/01/02/MNG8G427D61.DTL

[calimary]

30. Even so, send it.

They CANNOT turn their backs on the avalanches of positive feedback they're obviously getting, week in and week out by now.

Even if you don't think it'll make much difference, send it ANYWAY.

Besides, I'd strongly suspect that they're hip to email now. It's viewer feedback that has startled them, pleasantly surprised them - the reaction they've been getting. They're attuned to it now, I think, and MUCH more likely to appreciate it, read a lot of it, take careful note of it, and react accordingly, programming-wise.

REMEMBER: Keith went on the "Today" show the day after his earth-shaking landmark 9/11 commentary (purportedly mainly to hawk his new book) and stated, himself, that he always gets hate mail and expect that, but he added - what he was NOT prepared for was an avalanche of appreciative messages from viewers tired of being silenced, disenfranchised, and ignored by the media. He was NOT prepared for the onslaught of thank-you's and atta-boy emails and letters and phone calls. You can bet just about anything of value that you own - that they're HYPER-sensitive to the email traffic they get. They know the momentum is on their side, and that their ratings are going up. They're always interested in hearing why. They gauge it from the responses they get from viewers. THAT'S how they know. And if the input is strongly favorable, they know they're on the (pardon the expression) right track. The REAL right, not the perverted fundamentalist/knuckle-dragger "right."

You keep on sending in those messages, especially emails and letters and faxes with this kind of useful information that backs him up. You know, the guy is only gonna have just so many researchers or staffers working with him. They won't be able to keep track of everything. That's why WE can be his backup, his many many aces in the hole. More ammo for him just makes him a better broadcaster and a better disseminator of what we ALL know is the truth. And he won't get to the top without us. It won't be possible. Media personalities don't rise without tidal waves of fans/viewers/readers/listeners buoying them up. It's the same as with actors. They get better parts and bigger paychecks the more movie tickets they sell, and the better box office scores their films score.

This is ALL to the good. And who knows - maybe somebody else at MSNBC or another network won't be able to help noticing this, and wondering if perhaps THIS is the bandwagon to climb onto, for a change. This could very well be the beginning of the end of the hate-radio/conservative talk show host juggernaut. I think it's played itself out, especially since it has less and less to talk about and crow about.

[EVDebs]

35. OK calimary, will send it 'run it up flagpole and see who salutes'

so to speak. Hope springs eternal.

[City Lights]

24. What did The Pissy Dismisser do about the Cole bombing?

Didn't it come out yesterday (or recently) that no one told him there was a plan to retaliate for the Cole bombing?

[calimary]

32. And what does THAT tell you about their overall "efficient"

communication machine in that abortion of a White House?

What does that tell you about the importance they placed on the Cole bombing when they came in and "took" office?

What does that tell you about the level of commitment or even of the slightest interest in pursuing and handling the crisis?

What does that tell you about the priority they placed on terrorist attacks like this, and in general?

It tells you all kinds of stuff. All of it REALLY bad.

[truthisfreedom]

28. Olbi-Wan Keithnobi

8^)

[calimary]

31. Like it, like it, like it!

:hi:

FOR NOW - he's our only hope. But as momentum grows for his kind of approach, his kind of program, there will be more. TV is nothing without its clonemanship. If this works as dramatically as it can, you watch - there'll be more shows with the sensibility of his, and more anchors and hosts like him.

[Toots]

36. Let us not forget the Justice Department's budget request submitted 9-10

The day before 9-11 John Ashcroft submitted the budget request for the Justice Department and guess what. All funding for fighting terrorism had been cut. They deemed it was not an urgent matter...I think that alone shows just how hard they worked on terrorism....