MediaBloodhound

From the Archives: Bob Schieffer, Company Man

"I don't want to think about it [the final debate] too much, but I think it could very well determine who our next president will be." -- Bob Schieffer

It seems timely to dig up this MediaBloodhound post (from May 6) on Bob Schieffer, tonight's debate host. Schieffer, an undeniably likable guy, has ties to the Bush White House that raise serious conflicts of interest. Will Schieffer's brother, for example, lose his ambassadorship to Japan if Obama wins?

Here are some things to keep in mind when you're watching tonight:

Bob Schieffer's coverage during the George W. Bush years, weighed against his hushed compromising relationship with the president, belies the CBS newsman's projected image as an unimpeachably principled journalist and typifies the way our media class operates.

In a Sunday post on Crooks and Liars, under the headline "Schieffer Wakes Up to Life in the Bush Administration," Nicole Belle wrote: "I don’t know where Bob Schieffer’s been these last seven years, but he thinks that the White House might have an credibility problem." She was reacting to Schieffer's Face the Nation commentary on the Lurita Doan scandal:

SCHIEFFER: I saw a story in the Washington Post the other day, where a reporter granted a government official anonymity in order as the newspaper put it, ‘for the government official to speak more candidly.’ Well, that made me wonder. Do we no longer expect government officials to tell the whole story if they must take responsibility for what they say? Even worse, do we believe that is acceptable?

For sure, the White House won no prize for candor last week; it gave the outgoing head of the General Services Administration, Lurita Doan, a big send off by thanking her for making government buildings more energy-efficient or some such, when in truth, she was forced out. She was the object of multiple investigations, suspicious dealings on government contracts, and asking government employees what they could do to help political candidates, which is, of course, against the law. Even the government’s watchdog agency recommended she be disciplined to the fullest extent. Yet the White House spokesman declined to say if her resignation had anything to do with any of that. From the White House came only thanks and confirmation she was gone. The government saw no obligation to say why, which leads me to this: have decades of secrecy, spin and stonewalling conditioned us to accept less than the whole story from the government? Is telling the whole truth no longer a given? Frankly, I’m not sure. What I do know is more and more people seem skeptical of everything the government says and does. What we saw last week may be one reason why.

Belle then pointed out the underlying absurdity:

The Lurita Doan scandal is such a minor one relative to all the other lies, spin, incompetence and outright negligence of the Bush administration that it’s tragically laughable that this is the one that Schieffer thinks exemplifies why the American people are skeptical to what comes out of the White House.

This also epitomizes Schieffer's reporting on the administration, which has treaded between muted criticism and outright fawning. It's no wonder after Dan Rather's departure from CBS Evening News, President Bush gladly granted Schieffer an exclusive interview. Something he never afforded Rather.

In a March 2003 interview, Schieffer was asked "if the Pentagon's decision to allow reporters to embed with troops" will "make it difficult for journalists to remain objective?" His answer was telling:

BOB SCHIEFFER: No, I don't think so at all. I think it was a very good decision. I must tell you on this one, I'm sort of like Ronald Reagan who used to say of the Soviet Union, "Trust but verify." I take them at their word at the Pentagon, if they're going to let these reporters go along and give us a view of this war if it does come. But I'm going to wait until the shooting starts until I give a final opinion. So far, they are saying all the right things. I give them the benefit of the doubt. I think they're going to try to do the right thing. But we'll see once the shooting starts if they follow up. If they do what they say they're going to do, it would be a very good thing. I also think it's not just good for the American people to have independent observers along, I think it's also good for the military. Had there been a reporter along with Lieutenant Calley when he massacred those people in Vietnam, I think that probably wouldn't have happened.

The truth is, however, in covering the Bush administration, Schieffer has been overly willing to trust and, whenever discrepancies between administration claims and the facts are verified, ever reluctant to hold anyone accountable. The ideal company man. Affable and avuncular yet trusted and above the fray. Walter Cronkite without that pesky willingness to speak truth to power. In the end, Schieffer might as well replace "trust but verify" with "ask but don't follow up."

Throughout his January 2006 interview with Bush, Schieffer responded "Um-hmm" and "Okay" and jarringly changed topics when the president's absurd answers demanded further inquiry. His misplaced deference lent credence to Bush's specious, unconstitutional explanations on everything from wiretaps, speaking with our enemies, the state of Iraq, Katrina, healthcare and energy independence. Moreover, Schieffer's final three questions were embarrassing softballs: "Has the presidency changed you, Mr. President?"; "What has been the worst part?"; and "What has been the impact on your family?"

From the Archives: Gonzales Pulling All-Nighters to Ace Attorneygate

In honor of Alberto Gonzales' compelling testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee this past Thursday, in which his memory failed him 64 times, here's The Wounded-Courier article that explored the attorney general's painstaking preparation.

WASHINGTON – In preparation for his scheduled appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee concerning eight fired U.S. attorneys, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales is cramming like he’s back in law school, pulling all-nighters and subsisting solely on Red Bull, cold pizza, Snickers, power naps and foosball. 

President Bush, standing firm in his support of the attorney general, called Gonzales’ grueling preparation for his testimony “one more example of his strong work ethic and commitment to fight partisan attacks on his character.” Bush added, “It reminds me of when Alberto disappeared to write that torture memo. He showed up in my office two weeks later – full beard, strung out on guarana, Vivarin and Malomars. Looked like Jim Morrison near the end. But that memo was A+. Making a legal case for torture was hard work. Colin Powell said it couldn’t be done. But Colin didn’t know Alberto’s heart. The law’s no barrier to this patriot. And I have every confidence the attorney general will once again rise to the occasion.”

Part of Gonzales’ intensive preparation includes mock question-and-answer sessions with outside legal advisors, a methodical re-reading of Orwell’s Nineteen-Eighty-Four and Machiavelli’s The Prince, tutoring with a team of Kaplan SAT instructors, a spa day with Henry Kissinger (involving a detoxifying Dead Sea wrap, ginger-lemon body polish and couples massage), team-building exercises with members of the National J. Edgar Hoover Fan Club at an undisclosed paintball facility, and a global endangered species hunting expedition with a panel of Stalin-era legal scholars (game will include proboscis monkeys, marmosets, African giant frogs, northern hairy-nosed wombats and puffins).

Responding to Gonzales’ studying regimen, Senate Judiciary Chairman Pat Leahy warned, “Mr. Gonzales seems to think this is going to be some kind of multiple choice test. Someone needs to tell the attorney general this is true or false. Pass-fail. I don’t care if this administration pumps him full of performance enhancing drugs, Stephen Hawking gives him a damn mind-meld and he channels Harry f**king Houdini. Time is running out for Torqamada.”

Leahy then criticized Gonzales for not answering 200 written questions following his January appearance before the committee. In response, a Justice spokesman confirmed, “We’re working round-the-clock to complete those questions for the record,” before howling with laugher. “No really,” he continued, convulsing and snorting, tears streaming from his eyes, “we’re all over that – hahaha!! No really…ba-hahaha!!”

Los Angeles Times columnist Ron Brownstein believes that Gonzales has his work cut out for him but still has a good chance to keep his job. “It might be evident he’s lied and broken federal law in firing these U.S. attorneys for failing to do this administration’s bidding,” Brownstein said. “So for Congress and the American people to embrace the kind of amnesia and acquiescence to fascism necessary to overlook these crimes, Gonzales is going to have to deliver an impressive performance before the committee – a mix of airtight labyrinthine logic, Svengali-like body language and subtle yet pointed death threats. Sure, it’s somewhat of a challenge. But I wouldn’t count him out by any means. The American people love a fighter.”

Speaking with Today anchor Matt Lauer, NBC's chief political analyst and Meet the Press host Tim Russert cautioned, “The real danger here for Democrats is looking overly beholden to the rule of law. This betrays a certain inflexibility that makes Americans uncomfortable. Remember, Matt, the Revolutionary War forced our leaders to “break the law” in order to form our democracy. Democrat leaders forget our country’s own history at their peril." Added Russert, "Don’t be surprised to see a devastating backlash to this pursuance of justice in the next presidential election.”

From the Archives: Our Latest Poll on What Americans Are Thinking

(This Wounded-Courier poll was originally posted on October 13, 2006. In light of today's AP-AOL News poll that found 81% of Americans believe in angels, here's a timely rejoinder from the vault.)

The majority of Americans still think Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11. A new Wounded-Courier poll uncovered other surprising beliefs held by U.S. citizens.

Here are the results:

• If an insurgency lasts for more than four hours, you should call your doctor: 61%

• Abraham Lincoln designed the Lincoln Town Car, the first modern automobile: 52%

• God does not like France: 48%

• ABC’s Schoolhouse Rock created the Bill of Rights in 1973: 34%

• Grande Mocha is located between Papua New Guinea and Zimbabwe: 54%

• Pat Buchanan was our 15th president: 76%

• Iran’s Revolutionary Guard fought in the Revolutionary War during the Summer of Love: 37%

• Peanut brittle is made by elves: 84%

• Al Gore invented global warming and bears the mark of the devil between his shoulder blades: 29%

• “Congress” comes from the words “con” and “regress”: 57%

• As a child, Benjamin Franklin lied about chopping down a cherry tree to his mother, Margaret Thatcher, the first queen of England: 36%

• President Bush’s proposed Missile Defense System is also known as “The Cone of Silence”: 41%

• A caucus is like a circus of caulk, but more somber: 49%

• The line “Oh, say, can you see, by the dawn’s kick ass light” appears in our national anthem: 39%

• Massachusetts is in New Jersey: 28%

(This Wounded-Courier poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percent.)

From the Archives: Doc Finds Bush’s Head Up His Ass During Physical

(This Wounded-Courier article was originally posted on August 4, 2006. It's comforting to know that most Americans finally agree with his doctor's diagnosis.)

Washington, DC - In the middle of President Bush’s routine yearly checkup on Tuesday, White House physician Richard Tubb discovered that the Commander-in-Chief's head was up his own ass.

“It was not the first time,” revealed Dr. Tubb. “As far back as 2002, when he was telling me how we need to invade Iraq after being attacked by Bin Laden, I told the president, ‘It appears what we initially believed was a benign growth has actually turned out to be your head up your ass.’ He just laughed it off, and said, ‘You done, Doc, I got some other sh** to do.’ The next thing I know we’re invading Iraq. As his physician, it saddens me the president didn’t deal with his condition back then. The procedure would’ve been much easier to perform. But with each passing year that Mr. Bush’s head remains up his ass, the challenge to remove it only grows more insurmountable."

Dr. Kenneth Cooper, however, the other supervising physician on hand as a team of doctors examined Bush from head to toe, refuted Dr. Tubb’s assessment. President of the Cooper Aerobics Center in Dallas and longtime friend of Mr. Bush, Dr. Cooper said, “With all due respect to Dr. Tubb, I unequivocally deny the president’s head has been up his ass as far back as 2002. As for its current location, I think more tests are required before we can reach an accurate diagnosis.” He added, “It should be noted that many former presidents, from George’s father to presidents Reagan and Nixon - most certainly Hoover - have served their country admirably while their heads remained lodged up their asses. As a physician, I can assure you this is a minor problem that presents no imminent threat to one’s health.”

Shortly after news broke of the alleged location of the president’s head, White House Press Secretary Tony Snow addressed members of the press. David Gregory of NBC asked, “The president told us repeatedly freedom’s on the march in Iraq. The Taliban are through in Afghanistan. No one could’ve anticipated breached levees in New Orleans. Talking with North Korea or Iran is a mistake. The science behind global warming is inconclusive. And, though there are nearly 1,000 civilian deaths in Lebanon, only a sustainable cease-fire is acceptable. Is it possible the president’s leadership is a direct result of having, as his physician says, his head up his ass for so long?” Grinning brightly, Snow replied, “First, David, his own personal physician, Dr. Cooper, has refuted this. Dr. Tubb, who alleged that particular location of the president’s head, appears to be going through some kind of personal crisis. I can’t really get into the specifics until I have something more concrete. But there’s been talk he may have been drunk at the time of the exam, possibly strung out on heroin. Also allegations of longstanding spousal abuse have surfaced. Even potential involvement in a widespread child pornography ring. But really, David, it would be wrong of me to speculate any further at this time.”

On Paula Zahn Now, Zahn asked end times fiction writer Joel Rosenberg, “These reports, Joel, of the president’s head being up his ass…is this another sign of the Apocalypse?” Rosenberg responded, “Well, I certainly wouldn’t say it’s not a sign. In fact, Paula, I think the current position of President Bush’s head has been fundamental in setting some of these end time sequences into motion.” Zahn quipped, “So, for the sake of your sales, you’d probably prefer the president keep his head where it is.” Nodding, Rosenberg said, “You might say that.”

Some critics of President Bush’s leadership, like Senator Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin), have said this news explains a lot. “Well, to be frank, I’ve thought this for years. But I’m glad to finally have confirmation. My friend, former Senator Wellstone, God rest his soul, was one of the first to point this out. Everyone said he was exaggerating. Well, here’s to you, Paul,” Feingold said, raising his cup of coffee. But Senator John McCain (R-Arizona), visiting Larry King Live, expressed “the president should be judged on his commitment to fighting the war on terror and spreading liberty, not on the divisive issue of where his head might be located.” When King pressed McCain on his personal view of where Bush’s head lies, the maverick senator replied, “Larry, whether President Bush’s head is on his shoulders or six miles up Cripple Creek, this is all simply a diversion from the issues that matter most to Americans.”

As this controversy raged on, Peggy Noonan opined in the Wall Street Journal, “Is the president’s head really up his ass? I would say no. But if it turns out it is, then it would show that George W. Bush, as opposed to what the liberal media would have you believe, is actually an extremely introspective human being. A man who has searched deeply within himself, and has come to the conclusion that the fight for peace must not end until there’s no one left to fight. Some people would call that conviction.”

Emily Jackson, now twelve, but a member of the second-grade classroom in which President Bush received news of the first plane hitting the World Trade Center, said she assumed as much back then. “I was, like, seven at the time. But when I found out afterwards he kept, like, reading that stupid pet goat story while our nation was under attack, I was, like, that’s whack, yo. Sure I thought his head was up his ass. Duh.”

The latest Zogby Interactive poll shows that 69% of Americans think the president’s head is firmly up his ass. Another 16% believe it’s only partially up his ass. While 10% say the president’s head is not up his ass at all. The remaining 5% are unsure of its precise location.

Moments before this report was going to press, the White House released a statement saying that Dr. Tubb, the physician who diagnosed the president earlier this week, has resigned from his duties in order to spend more time with his family.

From the Archives: Bush Calls for Law Protecting “Popsicles of Life”

(This Wounded-Courier article was originally posted on July 21, 2006. In light of the victory for stem cell research on Tuesday, here's one from the vault.)

WASHINGTON, DC – Following his veto of the bill to remove funding restrictions on human embryonic stem cell research, President Bush called today for a Constitutional amendment to protect the “sanctity of life and civil liberties of all frozen embryos.”

Rejoined by the same “adopted” frozen embryo families who served as a backdrop to Wednesday’s rousing veto address, Bush reiterated his stem cell stance and then went a step further. “As I said previously, these children surrounding me are not spare parts. All of them were once just frozen embryos. But now these popsicles of life are fulfilling their human, God-given potential. They’ve grown arms and legs…can think and feel, walk and talk. Heck, one of the mothers over there even said her little boy can do cat’s cradle. I still couldn't do that.” Pausing, Bush joked, “Some might say they’re more advanced than many of us adults,” drawing laughter from both the families and members of the press.

“Two days ago,” Bush continued, “I vetoed that bill because it supported the taking of innocent human life in the hope of finding medical benefits for others. Today, I reaffirm my belief and stand defiant before the pontificators of an immoral science. And I say no to those in immediate need of cures who seek genetic handouts from the government rather than looking inward and embracing the personal responsibility of self-reliance.” Rapping the podium with his fist, Bush’s declared, “I refuse to stand by and watch a frozen embryonic Bataan Death March. That’s why today I’m calling on Congress to pass an amendment to the Constitution that would protect the civil rights of all human embryos, including the right to free speech, religion and the right to bear arms.”

Critics maintain that the majority of the over 400,000 frozen embryos sitting in U.S. fertility clinics will be thrown out because the couples who produced them are no longer trying to conceive. What’s more, these same couples do not want strangers raising their biological children. Conversely, couples who are still seeking to conceive children often prefer the godlike power trip of creating biological beings in their own image, thus ensuring a genetic legacy of idiosyncratic neuroses. Nevertheless, Bush argued, “It’s better that hundreds of thousands of these, uh, frozen life cubes meet their maker with dignity than be violated by the zealous Frankensteins and liberal Kevorkians of the medical community.”

Added Bush, “The very same liberals who complain about the treatment of enemy combatants, killers who have no value for the sanctity of human life, would sentence these, uh…these frozen dinners of humanity to an early grave. In other words, that's like tossing a frozen dinner in the garbage before anyone's got a chance to cook it.”

Some, like Senator Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), reject Bush’s analysis, saying it’s tantamount to calling every couple that produces unused embryos murderers, including those who allow fertility clinics to cultivate and store the embryos. When told of Harkin’s comment, Bush smiled and replied, “Thanks for the hat tip. I’ll get Grand Inquisitor right on that. That's my nickname for Alberto.”

Bush declined to field formal questions from the press. Instead, after evading UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan's latest call for a ceasefire in the Israeli-Hezbollah conflict, Bush attended a birthday pig roast for one of the former frozen embryo children. When a reporter shouted out a question about the roiling Middle East conflict in which hundreds of innocent civilians, mostly Lebanese, have already been killed, Bush, a stickler for keeping to a schedule, stayed focused on the task at hand. “Going to a pig roast. Can’t be late. Like pig. Heck, at least that’s one thing Jews and Muslims can agree on, right? No pig. Not sure how they do it. Love that salty tang. That snap. The charred flesh. Little Billy over there - it’s his birthday - he’s getting his first taste today. A real Texas pig roast. Billy’s gonna be four, which is, what, like twelve in frozen embryo years.”

From the Archives: Rove Accuses Dems of “Paper-Cutting and Running”

(This Wounded-Courier article was originally posted on June 23, 2006. Just think of how much our national political discourse has improved since then.)

WASHINGTON, DC - With Senate Democrats already in retreat after attempting to impose an exit strategy in Iraq, White House senior advisor Karl Rove stepped up his attacks earlier today, accusing the Democratic Party of “paper-cutting and running.”

Speaking in Lynchburg, Tenn., to Republicans Against Tits (RAT), an undersexed think tank sworn to stanch the tide of exposed nipples in America, Karl Rove went on the offensive again. “The Democrats see war and ask, ‘Why?’ Republicans see war and ask, ‘Why not?’” he said to the wild applause of the militantly frumpy audience.

With the overwhelming unpopularity of Bush’s war in Iraq, the recent grim milestone of 2,500 dead U.S. soldiers and no end in sight to rapacious violence and spiraling civil war, Rove had ample opportunity to take it to the Democrats after they proposed an exit strategy but disagreed on the timetable. “First the Democrats want to cut and run before achieving victory. But now they can’t even agree on when to cut and run. If you ask me, that’s more like paper-cutting and running. How these people decide what tie to wear in the morning is beyond me.”

Later, on CNN’s The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said, “If we could just put aside for the moment the idea of winning the war against the insurgents or, say, the War on Terror, Wolf. The Republicans are united in our tactical assault on the Democrats’ politically motivated willingness to walk away from a no-win quagmire. And I’m confident the American people understand this.”

On Hardball last night, host Chris Matthews called the Democrats “dead meat on a stick” if they think Americans won’t see them as “effete, Chardonnay-sipping, pinky-in-the-air holding sissy-pants” for requesting an actual exit plan in Iraq. “I think Bush comes off like a finely tailored Genghis Khan here. A real modern-day warrior who is not shaken by the blood of other people’s children. And you have to respect that kind of manly tenacity in the face of an unwinnable war.”

Some wondered if the Republicans have already won the 2006 elections based on weeklong blows to the Democrats’ testicles. Attending a fundraiser sponsored by Republicans Against Minimum (RAM) – an economics society that claims raising the minimum wage would only make poor people fatter - Senator Orin Hatch reasoned,  “There’s only so much emasculation a party can take before it drops to its knees and weeps the tears of little girls and lost puppies.”

Critics complain that President Bush and the Republican Party have no plan for bringing U.S. troops home and point to polls showing the majority of Americans in favor of a timetable for withdrawal. Decorated war veteran Senator John Kerry, his own military record still under question, offered a plan for full troop withdrawal by July 2007. Said Kerry, “The Republicans and Karl Rove first say cut and run. Now paper-cutting and running. All right. But do you know what their plan is? I’ll tell you precisely what their plan is, and I won’t hesitate to allow the words to pass over my lips and reach your ears, ears that are eager for enlightenment. That much I can most certainly promise you. An oath, if you will, from me to you. And now I will no longer forestall my rather incisive rejoinder. So, here it goes, ready or not. Their plan is, without further adieu, ‘lie and die.’ That’s right, you heard me. Lie and die.” Kerry nodded. “That’s right, lie and die. Catchy, huh?”

The normally soft-spoken Senate Democratic Leader Harry M. Reid, appearing somewhat haggard and smelling faintly of gin and potato chips after a week of unsuccessfully prodding his fellow Democrats to reach common ground, showed some strain today outside the Capitol. “Look, I don’t even have the energy anymore. Are all of you guys in the press smoking monkey dust or something?” Walking away, Reid was heard muttering, “We get hit by al-Qaeda, we attack Iraq. Up is down. Left is right. Peace is war. What, are you f***ing kidding me?”

Following the devastating week of Democratic internal strife, National Republican Party Chairman Ken Mehlman suggested on Live with Regis and Kelly this morning that Democrats should cede all matters of the Iraq War to the Republicans. “Why fight it anymore?” Melhman said with a shrug. “They’re not a party that enjoys unnecessarily spilling the blood of young men and women. It’s a weakness. It’s maybe time they own up to it and focus on their other strengths.”

From the Archives: The War on Grandpa

(This Story of the Day was originally posted on August 28, 2006. Since our Torturer-in-Chief just signed the Military Commissions Act into law this week, it seemed apropos to revisit this unbelievable story.)

It's bad enough the Bush administration has yet to shut down the Guantanamo prison camp and continues to operate undisclosed gulags around the globe. Ongoing acts (along with prior atrocities at Abu Ghraib) that manage to outdo what a murky, totalitarian bureaucracy perpetrated on Joseph K. in Kafka's novel The Trial. In the story, K. is woken one morning and arrested for a crime without being informed of the charges; he then embarks on a futile journey that sends him from one false hope of exoneration to the next, until finally, summarily, even mercifully - as he's come to recognize his futile state - he is stabbed to death by executioners. He meets his end never knowing what he was charged with, his last words: "Like a dog!"

Now, there's this off the AP newswire:

The oldest detainee at Guantanamo Bay — an Afghan man who is at least 71 and hobbled around the U.S. prison in Cuba using a walker — has been sent home, his lawyer said Monday.

This isn't satire. I wish it were. His name is Haji Nasrat Khan.

Khan was not charged with a crime and Ryan [his lawyer] said the government never said why he was detained.

"We couldn't figure out why he was there," Ryan said. "He could barely walk and he could barely hear."

It only gets worse.

Khan told his lawyers he believes he's around 78, but doesn't know his exact age. He is at least 71, according to military records obtained by The Associated Press.

So, for close to five years, the military has been holding a man in Guantanamo who is now somewhere between the age of 71 and 78 years old, limited to creeping along on a walker and is nearly deaf. 

U.S. forces captured the elderly detainee's son, Hiztullah Nasrat Yar, in a compound with some 700 weapons, including small arms and rockets, according to military records.

Khan and his son told the military panel that the younger man was guarding the weapons for the government of Afghan President Hamid Karzai. The father had said he was arrested while complaining about his son's capture several days later.

The military said both father and son had links to the Taliban — a notion Khan once ridiculed at a military hearing.

"How could I be an enemy combatant if I was not able to stand up?" he asked, according to transcripts released to the AP.

Who knows? Maybe Guantanamo commander Rear Adm. Harry Harris declared Khan's method of ambulation an act of asymmetrical warfare. Those walkers, when raised, could be quite effective in momentarily warding off one's torturers.

Now let's see if this story garners any attention in the mainstream media, or if this geriatric jihadist shuffles gently into the night. 

71-Year-Old Gitmo Detainee Released, by Ben Fox
The Associated Press

From the Archives: The Pentagon's Big Cover-Up in the Sky

(This Story of the Day was originally posted on August 2, 2006. It's another one of those damning findings about the Bush administration that the mainstream media dropped down the memory hole. As the White House and Republicans continue to tout national security as their strength - a patently false assertion based on their record and one the mainstream media refuses to challenge - I thought it timely to dig this up.)

Did the Pentagon cover up the 9/11 incompetence of the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD)? It sure looks that way. Today's Vanity Fair online exclusive pieces together the actions that morning of those who were charged to protect our skies. The article's author, Michael Bronner, includes chronological tapes allowing you to listen in on the absolute chaos and cluelessness that engulfed NORAD that morning.

Bronner writes:

It was into this airspace that violence descended on 9/11, and from the NEADS [Northeast Air Defense Sector, the regional headquarters for NORAD] operations floor that what turned out to be the sum total of America's military response during those critical 100-some minutes of the attack—scrambling four armed fighter jets and one unarmed training plane—emanated.

...

Through the heat of the attack the wheels of what were, perhaps, some of the more modern pieces of equipment in the room—four Dictaphone multi-channel reel-to-reel tape recorders mounted on a rack in a corner of the operations floor—spun impassively, recording every radio channel, with time stamps.

...

For the NEADS crew, 9/11 was not a story of four hijacked airplanes, but one of a heated chase after more than a dozen potential hijackings—some real, some phantom—that emerged from the turbulence of misinformation that spiked in the first 100 minutes of the attack and continued well into the afternoon and evening. At one point, in the span of a single mad minute, one hears Nasypany [the facility's mission-crew commander] struggling to parse reports of four separate hijackings at once.

...

"The real story is actually better than the one we told," a NORAD general admitted to 9/11-commission staffers when confronted with evidence from the tapes that contradicted his original testimony. And so it seems.

This Vanity Fair exclusive ties in well with new revelations that some members of the 9/11 commission believed the Pentagon was indeed intentionally misleading the panel. From today's Washington Post:

Suspicion of wrongdoing ran so deep that the 10-member commission, in a secret meeting at the end of its tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation, according to several commission sources. Staff members and some commissioners thought that e-mails and other evidence provided enough probable cause to believe that military and aviation officials violated the law by making false statements to Congress and to the commission, hoping to hide the bungled response to the hijackings, these sources said.

Ah, but what did this whitewashing commission wind up doing?

In the end, the panel agreed to a compromise, turning over the allegations to the inspectors general for the Defense and Transportation departments, who can make criminal referrals if they believe they are warranted, officials said.

How disingenuous is the 9/11 commission's search for truth? Apparently, about a notch above OJ's:

"We to this day don't know why NORAD [the North American Aerospace Command] told us what they told us," said Thomas H. Kean, the former New Jersey Republican governor who led the commission. "It was just so far from the truth. . . . It's one of those loose ends that never got tied."

Did someone forget to tell Kean the very purpose of his relatively useless commission was to untie those "loose ends"?

For more than two years after the attacks, officials with NORAD and the FAA provided inaccurate information about the response to the hijackings in testimony and media appearances. Authorities suggested that U.S. air defenses had reacted quickly, that jets had been scrambled in response to the last two hijackings and that fighters were prepared to shoot down United Airlines Flight 93 if it threatened Washington.

In fact, the commission reported a year later, audiotapes from NORAD's Northeast headquarters and other evidence showed clearly that the military never had any of the hijacked airliners in its sights and at one point chased a phantom aircraft -- American Airlines Flight 11 -- long after it had crashed into the World Trade Center

...

"I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described," John Farmer, a former New Jersey attorney general who led the staff inquiry into events on Sept. 11, said in a recent interview. "The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years. . . . This is not spin. This is not true."

But what's the likelihood of the inspectors general for the Defense and Transportation departments prosecuting criminal referrals? This about sums it up:

John F. Lehman, a Republican commission member and former Navy secretary, said in a recent interview that he believed the panel may have been lied to but that he did not believe the evidence was sufficient to support a criminal referral.

"My view of that was that whether it was willful or just the fog of stupid bureaucracy, I don't know," Lehman said. "But in the order of magnitude of things, going after bureaucrats because they misled the commission didn't seem to make sense to me."

Unbelievable. The purported task of the 9/11 commission was to pinpoint what happened that day, unearth entrenched incompetence and recommend remedies to ensure our country is better prepared for future attacks. Unfortunately, in the corrupt Bush administration, after endless bluster about how protecting our citizens is its number one priority - used to justify the war in Iraq, torture, secret prisons, unlimited presidential power, daily deaths and maimings of our troops, and massive foreign civilian casualties - the truth of the matter remains, as it has since the days before the towers even fell (see August 6th memo), that national security is of little importance to the Bushites. Rather, it has always been about money and power.

Make no mistake about it, these bloodthirsty bandits and their coffers - no matter what happens in Iraq, or any other part of the world they've touched - have already achieved their goals. All one needs to do is look at the record profits of Halliburton, its subsidiary companies and big oil.

A recent Ward Sutton cartoon depicted Bush and Cheney celebrating July 4th under a gaudy banner that read, "Mi$$ion Accomplished!" It was the perfect summation of the Bush presidency. A reckless, ruthless money grab.

As Orwell said, "To see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle."

Though all of this can be overwhelming, can make you feel helpless and hopeless, this kind of constant struggle is crucial now more than ever. The Bush administration's greed appears insatiable, inured to the cost in human life. Please read this whole Vanity Fair story (you don't want to miss listening to these tapes). Then ask yourself why the mainstream media still largely acts as though this flagrantly criminal administration deserves the benefit of the doubt. On any issue.

9/11 Live: The NORAD Tapes, by Michael Bronner
Vanity Fair

From the Archives: Slaughterhouse Live

(This Story of the Day was originally posted on August 16, 2006. Since that time, 109 more of our troops have been killed in Iraq; the U.S. death toll reached 2,711 today. Sectarian violence continues unabated. And more suicide attacks occurred this week than at any other time during the war. Concurrently, television coverage, as well as the prominence and frequency of stories in national newspapers, has waned, mirroring the same pattern that took place as the 2004 presidential election drew near. It's back to all terror, all the time. Meanwhile, the slaughterhouse rages on. Our troops have been abandoned by leaders who view death as a means to an end, even if that end isn't feasible.)

It's time to all join hands and say it together: Iraq is in the midst of a civil war. It's not "in danger" of one, not "slipping into" or "sliding toward" one. It's not even gazing longingly at one. It has arrived. And the mainstream media must end its parsing of words.

Bush's unnecessary war has blown up in his face and, according to July's death toll, is now killing more than 110 Iraqi civilians a day. This carnage marks a 9% increase over June's tally, doubling the toll of January. The Chicago Tribune reports:

The rising numbers indicate that sectarian violence is spiraling out of control, and seemed to bolster an assertion many senior Iraqi officials and American military analysts have been making in recent months: The country is already embroiled in a civil war, not just slipping into one, and the American-led forces are caught between Sunni Arab guerrillas and Shiite militias.

It's official. Our troops, sent to fight under false pretenses by this extremist White House, are now slogging through a human abattoir. There is no end in sight. And no reason to believe another dead or disfigured or mentally shattered American soldier will serve any purpose but to broaden the scope of this senseless tragedy.

When the tally for civilian deaths in July is added to the Iraqi government numbers for earlier months obtained by the United Nations, the total indicates that at least 17,776 Iraqi civilians died violently in the first seven months of this year, or an average of 2,539 per month.

The death toll for U.S. troops now stands at 2,602; 19,511 of our young men and women have been wounded. Make no mistake about it: Iraq is their Vietnam. Another blind death march. Our soldiers aren't making a sacrifice; they are being sacrificed. Left adrift by an administration undeterred by facts on the ground, military advisors, political forebears, historians or even their own conscience.

A recent Washington Post report revealed the growing frustration among our troops. Spec. Tim Ivey, 28, of San Antonio, said, “It sucks. Honestly, it just feels like we're driving around waiting to get blown up. That's the most honest answer I could give you.” Summing up the seeming senselessness of their mission, Spec. David Fulcher, 22, a medic from Lynchburg, Va., said, "At this point, it seems like the war on drugs in America. It's like this never-ending battle, like, we find one IED, if we do find it before it hits us, so what? You know it's just like if the cops make a big bust, next week the next higher-up puts more back out there."

Nevertheless, the slaughterhouse continues to churn.

Iraqi Deaths Hit Record in July
Chicago Tribune

From the Archives: Bush Drafts Amendment for Etch-A-Sketch Constitution

(This Wounded-Courier article was originally posted on August 11, 2006. In the interim, Bush has admitted to running secret prisons overseas and has been working diligently to not only maintain his administration's ability to practice torture but to protect it from facing war crimes by retroactively altering Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. Meanwhile, the mainstream media has framed this news almost solely in terms of November election maneuvering: Won’t this put the Democrats on the defensive? Transgressing the rule of law is now a political strategy to our mainstream media. When things get this insane, The Wounded-Courier offers shelter. And then burns the house down.)

Crawford, TX - In a bold election year move, the Bush administration has drafted an amendment to create a new Constitution employing the classic simplicity of Etch-A-Sketch, the cherished American toy (perfect for ages 3 to 103) that allows users to draw on a screen, then, when finished, to simply turn it upside down and shake it to erase and start from scratch.

President Bush paused from a virile display of clearing brush at his Crawford ranch to tout the new proposed law of the land. “We’re, you know, an old country. Several hundred years of change and turmoil and, uh, wandering through deserts in search of liberty. It’s time we evolve. Stop pretending we can slow the wheels of history,” said Bush. “And, as you know, we’ve been busy drafting so many amendments to our current Constitution that, uh, we got to thinking, heck, why not just start from scratch. And, um, even better, make it easy to erase rather than throwing honest taxpayers’ money out the window by having to check with Congress. I think our citizens like change. They’re, uh, a changeable people.” His voicing rising, Bush proclaimed, “With this Etch-A-Sketch Constitution, we can embrace change any time we feel like it. That makes us a more flexible warrior in the war on terror.”

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) said Congress "is aware of the how bogged down government has become. We need to weigh the importance of our president having the power to do his job with just how far we can allow the administration to make our great country a laughingstock around the world.”

Hardball host Chris Matthews last night called the move “the most heroically revolutionary act since the Boston Tea Party.” Guest Andrea Mitchell, NBC’s Senior White House Correspondent, said, “Though many on Capitol Hill have their doubts about the ability to maintain checks and balances with this so-called Etch-A-Sketch Constitution, we’ve been hearing that Republicans are already lining up behind the president on this one, hoping to capitalize this election year on the inherent national security benefits of a Constitution written on an Etch-A-Sketch.” She added, “And after Lamont’s devastating victory this past week, which – let’s face it, Chris - once again paints the Democratic Party soft as brie on defense issues, even some Democrats are getting into the game. Most notably the Dem now moonlighting as an Independent, Senator Joe Lieberman. ”

Campaigning, again, against the obscenely wealthy Ned Lamont, a re-energized Senator Lieberman reasoned, “You know, we just plain don’t have time to follow rules written over two hundred years ago. These terrorists, these killers, who make Adolph Hitler look like a kitten with milk, are changing the playbook every single day.” As he stamped a baby’s forehead with the new “Joementum Lives!” campaign slogan, Lieberman concluded, “Look, an Etch-A-Sketch Constitution makes sense for the American people,” adding, “If Ned Lamont wasn’t busy surfing the net for child pornography while hacking into my campaign’s computers, text messaging with his ol’ buddy Hugo Chavez and planning his next politically improvised explosive device against me in November, then he might understand the dangers our country is facing.”

Some critics, including Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (R-New York), accuse the White House of going several steps further than this week’s previously drafted legislation to amend the War Crimes Act, which they believed was a blatant attempt to circumvent potential prosecution over the handling of detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan. Said Clinton, “During our now famous drinking contest, Senator McCain and I came up with the idea of writing a new Constitution on a deck of cards – not a fixed deck, mind you, a deck with all 52 cards intact. Would that work? I’m not completely convinced. But we sanction an Etch-A-Sketch Constitution to this, frankly, untrustworthy administration at our country’s peril.”

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales flatly denied allegations that this administration has, or intends to, abuse executive power, noting, “The Constitution is a multi-interpretable document. Much like the Bible. Some people, as you know, look at the New Testament and see ‘turn the other cheek.’ Others look at it and see that Jesus didn’t just walk on water, but that he may have been the first man to engage in legitimate use of water boarding. A tactic he applied to the Apostles when one of them stepped out of line - for instance, hiding his robe or staff or replacing his hair-straightener with his toothpaste. So, you see,” Gonzales continued, “when people ask that age-old question, ‘What would Jesus do?’ I think we have ample evidence to say, ‘Water boarding.’”