Pentagon said O’Reilly, Malkin had ‘thoughtful’ views on Guantanamo.
Pentagon said O’Reilly, Malkin had ‘thoughtful’ views on Guantanamo.
Last month, the Pentagon released a document collection on its military analyst propaganda program. In a July 2006 e-mail between Public Affairs official Jeffrey Gordon and other Pentagon officials, Gordon attached several articles on detention policy by right-wing talkers, including Bill O’Reilly and Michelle Malkin, that he said were “thoughtful.” In a later e-mail, Gordon said officials could use the articles “with military analysts as appropriate” (p. 5808). His initial e-mail lauded the right-wing voices (p. 5808):
From: Gordon, Jeffrey D LCDR OSD PA
To: Ruff, Eric, SES, OSD; Bryan Mr OSD PA; Keck, Gary L Col OSD PA; [Redacted] AFIS-HQ/PIA
Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2006 6:38 PM
Subject: RE: articles on detaineesGentlemen,
As requested, attached document contains four thoughtful articles/columns about Guantanamo, from Charles Krauthammer, Bill O’Reilly and Michelle Malkin. I have a call out to OGC and DoJ to provide some inputs as well. I Envision that I will have more material tomorrow a.m.
What were the “thoughtful” remarks of Malkin and O’Reilly on detention policy? In the Malkin column, she said that a “far greater threat” than Guantanamo to America is the “unseriousness and hypocrisy of the terrorist-abetting left.” O’Reilly said there were only “minor cases of abuse” there. In fact, when news broke of suicides at the prison, Malkin’s reaction was “boo-freaking hoo.”
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
46 Responses to “Pentagon said O’Reilly, Malkin had ‘thoughtful’ views on Guantanamo.”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Think ProgressContact Us
Donate
Oh, please.
May 13th, 2008 at 9:06 pmI became a lefty because of Bush/Cheney. Lots of people did. But Bush/Cheney don’t need me to tell them this. It’s so funny, McCain is out west pushing himself as a Green candidate! This is a guy who thinks anti-war Americans are Hamas!
May 13th, 2008 at 9:14 pmMuch more thoughtful and credible are the writings of Philippe Sands, who has written a book on Guantanamo Bay [entitled, I believe, Torture Team] and an article on this subject in the May issue of Vanity Fair, describing how those intimately connected, from Feith to Rumsfeld, would continually attempt to justify and rationalize why those prisoners should have been tortured by a country that professes to follow democratic values. It is no wonder that the Islamic fundamentalists have no trouble attracting new members to fight against the Western infidels.
May 13th, 2008 at 9:19 pmMentioning the words O’Reilly, Malkin and thoughtful in the same sentence is the equivalent of mentioning snack, tasty and dogshit in the same sentence — there’s just something inherently nauseating about it.
Just saying . . .
May 13th, 2008 at 9:26 pmDid you know that many in the Bush Administration have been charged with war crimes? Read it now!
Now can we get these other traitors, from the PNAC crowd, to these media a$$wipes, to Yoo and all of them indicted and tried?
May 13th, 2008 at 9:34 pmMaybe there is a reason for Gitmo in regards to the war on terror:
http://www.reuters.com/ article/ topNews/ idUSL0176218520080501
May 13th, 2008 at 9:36 pmOMFG!! - Malkin thoughtful??!!?? - she’s an expert on nothing and not much of anything.And if you want to see O’Reilly in great form,Olbermann had a gem on his show the other night (it’s on the Countdown web link) when he showed a clip of Billo going nuts a few years back on Inside Edition - too funny!!! (and not very thoughtful).
May 13th, 2008 at 9:42 pmbackup…and maybe Gitmo MADE a suicide bomber?
How many new terrorists come from what we have done to them??
May 13th, 2008 at 9:46 pmI wouldn’t be surprised to learn that Malkin in particular was on the Pentagon payroll, or at the very least granted special access in exchange for favorable reporting. What other bloggers get a full Iraq Green Zone tour like they gave Malkin on the taxpayer dime?
Also, maybe it’s time we take a harder look at the two US military attacks on Al Jazeera’s office, the US military attack on the journalist-packed Hotel Palestine in Baghdad, and the many other examples of journalists possibly being targeted. We should also take a harder look at cases such as the imprisonment of AP photo-journalist Bilal Hussein and other journalists falsely imprisoned.
The Pentagon was clearly out to control the message, even if it meant breaking the law. I wouldn’t put it past people like Rumsfeld (who, according to recent tapes also basically wished for another terrorist attack on our country in response to the Democrats winning back Congress in 2006) to order journalists targeted while also paying for all this propaganda from “military experts”.
May 13th, 2008 at 9:52 pmJeffery Gordon can’t tell the difference between asinine arrogance and thoughtfulness.
May 13th, 2008 at 9:55 pmYeah, I wouldn’t normally do this, but the Americans have made me so mad at Gitmo, I think I’ll blow myself up and take a bunch of innocent people with me.
Here’s another possibility. The U.S. is holding terrorists, capable of commiting future acts of terror, at Gitmo.
May 13th, 2008 at 10:02 pmbackup Says:
You really aren’t THAT STUPID,are you???
MAYBE THERE IS A REASON FOR DITTO-HEADS IN REGARDS TO THIS WAR ON INTELLIGENCE.
May 13th, 2008 at 10:07 pmOh never mind, I forgot to whom I was speaking.
May 13th, 2008 at 10:09 pmSpecialist F…no $hit.
Ignorance is as ignorance speaks (or types).
May 13th, 2008 at 10:12 pmO.K. backedup, here’s a hypothetical. Let’s suppose the government picked up some white trash from his double-wide and held him for 4 or 5 years with no charges. Then they used “enhanced interrogation techniques” for up to 15 hours a day. Do you think this might make said trailer trash more likely to join a white supremicists group and pull an Oklahoma city type bombing???
May 13th, 2008 at 10:15 pmLet be be more clear and say that TT(aka backedup) had never seriously thought about joining the skinhead group before. Do you think the 4-5 years of torture might just change his mind??
May 13th, 2008 at 10:19 pmI know how much you wingers LOVE hypotheticals like 24’s “ticking time bomb” scenario!
I know, Ms.Joanne, guys like this just don’t get it. We used to be an honarable country that followed the rule of law. Fake patriots like BU PI$$ ME OFF! I guess as long as he is wearing his flag pin…
May 13th, 2008 at 10:23 pmbackup Says:
Here’s another possibility. The U.S. is holding terrorists, capable of commiting future acts of terror, at Gitmo.
May 13th, 2008 at 10:02 pm
_____
All the more reason to try them and convict them, then, instead of holding them in a state of legal purgatory, outside the reach of the UN conventions on torture, justice, and the rule of law.
Yes, some of the detainees in GTMO may have been actively involved with al-Qa’ida or related groups. A lot of them were not - they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, or pissed off the wrong guy from a rival Pakistani tribe who really wanted a few thousand dollars in reward money. Only 5% were picked up on the battlefield, and only 8% are classified as al-Qa’ida fighters.
The rest of them, well, if you torture someone enough, eventually he’ll tell you all about their days drinking tea with Osama while plotting to blow up the 49th Street Bridge, or fighting alongside the Taliban at Mazar-e-Sharif. Even if they’ve never been to Mazar-e-Sharif.
May 13th, 2008 at 10:27 pmSo bear with me a moment.
We all know that the WH puts out talking points to conservative pundits like Rush and MalKKKin and O’Really to spout on the air.
We know that the WH sent out the pentagon to catapult the propaganda.
If you send pentagon officials spouting WH talking points to Right wing hacks that spout the same WH talking points. Don’t you do a little double dipping there? And don’t you create a space/ time continuum that will suck America into a black hole?
May 13th, 2008 at 10:44 pmI think you need a flex capacitor and a DeLorean for that!
May 13th, 2008 at 10:54 pmAt the very least, one might need Groundhog Day.
May 13th, 2008 at 11:10 pmKrauthammer. O’Reilly. Malkin. Thoughtful.
And we, the taxpaying citizens, fund the Pentagon to the tune of nearly half a trillion dollars a year. To defend us.
And they’re THIS felching STUPID?
Madness.
May 13th, 2008 at 11:23 pmIt will be over soon.
May 13th, 2008 at 11:47 pmObviously, by thoughtful what the Pentagon means is on our side — in other words, not one of the Reality-based community.
May 14th, 2008 at 12:00 am.
So,
Bill O’LIEly and Michelle Milkin’it are qualified on issues of National interests and threats?
O’REALLY…?
.
May 14th, 2008 at 12:26 amIn the Malkin column, she said that a “far greater threat” than Guantanamo to America is the “unseriousness and hypocrisy of the terrorist-abetting left.”
As opposed to the terrorist-creating right.
May 14th, 2008 at 12:31 amHateful, Spiteful, Crapful, certainly, but thoughtful, not.
May 14th, 2008 at 12:38 amboo-freaking-hoo.
It’s the right-wingers’ version of thoughtful.
And if they really apply themselves they even get to use 5th grade-level vocabulary on occasions.
May 14th, 2008 at 12:40 amMaybe there is a reason for Gitmo in regards to the war on terror
~backup
Maybe we should throw you in Gitmo, just in case you go postal on the rest of us. You know, preemptive life jail sentence. With a little “enhanced interrogation technique”, perhaps, but no trial.
How does that sound? I say let’s do it.
May 14th, 2008 at 12:44 amWhat you have to understand is that the guys at the top are in agreement with the administration on their policies. They think of this as a great Crusade to rid the world of the evil. People that last long enough in the military to make it to General or even Colonel usually have swallowed the full thing hook, line, and sinker. Regular KoolAid drinkers who either truly believe it, or care more about their career to say they do.
May 14th, 2008 at 3:11 amChrisitian dominionism is no joke in the military either. Dont believe me check out Military Religious Freedom Foundation.
>Here’s another possibility. The U.S. is holding terrorists, >capable of commiting future acts of terror, at Gitmo.
???????????????
May 14th, 2008 at 4:47 amSo by that logic why dont we just throw the whole middle east in Gitmo? Do you really think we can lock up every person capeably of commiting future acts of terror?
yeah i can provide other precious examples of Republican Morals and singular concience:
http://ccoaler.blogspot.com/ 2008/ 05/ man-axes-his-own-family.html
Man axes his own family
http://ccoaler.blogspot.com/ 2008/ 05/ ubs-accused-of-aiding-terrorists.html
UBS supported terrorism
http://ccoaler.blogspot.com/ 2008/ 05/ bilderberg-in-greece-this-year.html
Bilderberg in Greece this year
http://ccoaler.blogspot.com/ 2008/ 05/ hugo-chavez-adds-another-remark-against.html
Chavez-merkel feud widens
May 14th, 2008 at 6:26 amjb Says:
Jeffery Gordon can’t tell the difference between asinine arrogance and thoughtfulness.
Is that like not knowing his arse from his hat rack?
May 14th, 2008 at 8:39 amDid Gordon even bother to read the columns of any pundit who wasn’t right-wing? Knowing what I do about psychological halo effects, I’m inclined to doubt it. If you’ve already formed an strong opinion about something, you’re more inclined to have a positive impression of those people who share your opinion and more inclined to have a negative impression of those who don’t. Especially considering the fact that the Bush administration has time and time again shown that there is little or no room for people who don’t agree with Bush and his policies, it hardly seems unreasonable to conclude that anyone working at the Pentagon who expressed any doubts about the detention program at Guantanamo wouldn’t have been working at the Pentagon much longer after that.
May 14th, 2008 at 8:56 amClose Guantanamo, and reopen it as a thought provoking retreat for soon to be retired pundits.
May 14th, 2008 at 9:14 amWhen you consider the released prisoner that blew himself up as a suicide bomber, maybe there is a reason for the Bush policy at Gitmo.
Instead of the progressive attack that Gitmo is just some place where the Bush administration can hold people without cause, maybe they have people detained there that pose a real threat.
It’s possible the administration may want to hold them as enemy combatants, because they believe the risk of their release is greater than the dilemma created by their status?
Think about it; a combatant they released has carried out a suicide bombing. That’s one they felt comfortable releasing. The ones they feel less comfortable letting go, are those the ones that progressives want back on the street?
When Obama becomes president and closes Gitmo, and some of the released detainees commit acts of terror (like the one that has already occurred) will progressives applaud the closing in light of the grief brought on by what could have been avoidable terror acts?
I know there are problems with the status of the detainees, but is it really that black and white an issue? If Obama closes Gitmo, does he become responsible, if those released because of his decision, go on to commit the terror that the Bush Administration detained them to prevent in the first place?
May 14th, 2008 at 10:05 ambackup Says:
Instead of the progressive attack that Gitmo is just some place where the Bush administration can hold people without cause, maybe they have people detained there that pose a real threat.
It’s possible the administration may want to hold them as enemy combatants, because they believe the risk of their release is greater than the dilemma created by their status?
May 14th, 2008 at 10:05 am
_____
Oh, that’s what the Administration wants people to believe- that I’m sure of.
It doesn’t change the fact that the overwhelming majority of detainees in Guantanamo were not picked up on the battlefield and have no affiliation with al-Qa’ida. It doesn’t change the fact that they are human beings with rights guaranteed under international law. It doesn’t change the fact that they are being held and tortured illegally.
If these detainees are such a danger to society, then there should be no problem convicting them in a court of law, right? Unless, of course, their cases have been so tainted by torture and manipulation that the prosecutors can’t get a conviction. In which case, they must be let go. And if a few of these former detainees — that we had to acquit because we tainted their cases — do go on to commit acts of terror, it’d be our own fault.
I’d rather risk letting a few “dangerous” people go than lose our entire country to fascism.
May 14th, 2008 at 10:18 amYou have to admit this is a pretty convenient position.
Bush administration picks up what it believes are jihadists capable of terror acts (similar to 9/11).
They detain them as combatants. Maybe they are concerned that if these detainees are tried in a civil court, there may not be enough evidence to convict, and they will be released. But, they still believe the detainee to be a threat (much like the one who just turned out to be a suicide bomber, killing innocent people).
Then, by your logic, when democrats successfully pressure for the release of these detainees (that Bush admin officials deemed a threat in the first place) and they go on to commit terror - it’s our fault.
Wow, you’ve got the whole issue covered.
May 14th, 2008 at 10:48 amAs President, Bush swore to protect and defend the country.
If he knowingly releases people that defense officials deem to be a threat to the country, is he meeting his obligation to protect and defend?
May 14th, 2008 at 10:52 ambackup Says:
As President, Bush swore to protect and defend the country.
If he knowingly releases people that defense officials deem to be a threat to the country, is he meeting his obligation to protect and defend?
May 14th, 2008 at 10:52 am
_____
Bush has no obligation to protect and defend the country.
When he took the Oath of Office, he swore to protect and defend the Constitution. And he’s doing a pretty shitty job of it.
May 14th, 2008 at 11:00 amtoasterhead. This is a good point. It will no doubt be an understatement to you, but this administration has provided plenty of fodder to debate how far you infringe on liberties to provide defense.
May 14th, 2008 at 11:05 ambackup Says:
Bush administration picks up what it believes are jihadists capable of terror acts (similar to 9/11).
May 14th, 2008 at 10:48 am
_____
And the “unlawful combatant” designation means that the Bush administration can consider anti-war protestors and political dissenters and anyone else politically inconvenient to the U.S. or its allies as “jihadists capable of terror acts.” They are only dangerous because the Administration says they are, not because they are proven in a court of law to be dangerous.
And by keeping these detainees illegally imprisoned, we show the rest of the world that the freedom and liberty and justice that the U.S. claims to be the beacon of is nothing more than a pathetic facade. By keeping detainees in Guantanamo indefinitely, we encourage terrorists to attack us. Guantanamo is a threat to our national security.
May 14th, 2008 at 11:06 ambackup Says:
toasterhead. This is a good point. It will no doubt be an understatement to you, but this administration has provided plenty of fodder to debate how far you infringe on liberties to provide defense.
May 14th, 2008 at 11:05 am
_____
How exactly does destroying civil liberties protect civil liberties?
May 14th, 2008 at 11:08 ambackup Says:
As President, Bush swore to protect and defend the country.
Pretty bold statement about a President who, while on one of his many vacations playing fake cowboy at his fake Texas ranch in 2001, received a Presidential Daily Brief one month before 9/11 entitled “Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US,” and completely ignored it.
And of course it’s the same guy who’s hand-picked National Security Adviser (Kindalazee Rice), for 9 months prior to 9/11, flippantly dismissed the many, many warnings from then top counter-terrorism adviser Richard Clarke and FBI field agents that Al Qaeda was a growing threat that needed urgent attention.
With a defender and protector like that — who the hell needs enemies?
Just saying . . .
May 14th, 2008 at 11:30 am#6 backup:
Maybe there is a reason for Gitmo in regards to the war on terror:….
What’s that? To breed the next crop of bombers?
Cheers,
May 15th, 2008 at 1:11 am#15 specialist f:
O.K. backedup, here’s a hypothetical. Let’s suppose the government picked up some white trash from his double-wide and held him for 4 or 5 years with no charges. Then they used “enhanced interrogation techniques” for up to 15 hours a day. Do you think this might make said trailer trash more likely to join a white supremicists group and pull an Oklahoma city type bombing???
Actually, it didn’t even take that for McVeigh; just some inchoate grievances about supposedly authoritarian feds and their treatment of others….
Cheers,
May 15th, 2008 at 1:14 am