that slams labor unions who criticize Wal-Mart. Turns out the paper forgot to mention that the author of the op-ed works for a nonprofit whose main funder is the Walton Family Foundation, the charitable arm of Wal-Mart founder Sam Walton.
On Thursday, Cooper used his program to criticize his “cable competitors” for their “downright ridiculous” coverage of the Natalee Holloway kidnapping case in Aruba, Page Six reports. “Cooper showed clips of [MSNBC's Dan] Abrams and Fox News Channel’s Bill O’Reilly and Greta Van Susteren.”
This prompted an angry response from Abrams:
“I love it when media folks try to jump on the journalistic high horse,” Abrams slammed back the next night. He pointed out that Cooper’s CNN colleagues Larry King and Nancy Grace have both been covering the Holloway disappearance. What was “holier-than-thou” Cooper covering? “The disappearance of the newlywed on a cruise ship . . . women who love killers and the Jackson jurors,” Abrams said. “You might want to take a 360-degree look around your own house and clean it up, before telling us which disinfectant we should use in our kitchen.”
Neither Abrams nor Cooper have much credibility in this debate. But it’s comforting to see both express a bit of shame over the vapid “news” coverage their networks slop out each day. (Give them some encouragement — visit BeAWitness.org, our new campaign to persuade broadcast networks to start covering legitimate stories like the ongoing genocide in Darfur.)
but it’s tough to argue with numbers like these. “The five named tropical storms recorded in July were the most on record for that month, and worldwide it was the second warmest July on record,” AP reports.
It wasn’t too long ago that Ken Mehlman, former political director at the White House under Rove, was heaping praises on Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald during “Meet the Press”:
I have tremendous confidence in Pat Fitzgerald. He’s a career prosecutor. He’s a tough prosecutor. That’s why he was put in charge of this case, because people want to get to the bottom of it. And that’s why it is so outrageous that these partisan smears would occur this past week. The question is this: Do the people that are smearing Karl Rove not have confidence in Mr. Fitzgerald? Do they not think, in fact, he’s going to get to the bottom of it? Or would they rather, than getting to the facts, try to make political gain?
Host Tim Russert then asked Mehlman the obvious questions: “If, in fact, he indicts White House officials, will you accept that indictment and not fight it?…Will you pledge today, because you have tremendous confidence in him, that you will not criticize his decision?” Despite the urgings of Russert (and Center for American Progress CEO John Podesta), Mehlman would not take that step.
Korb had argued that the Bush administration’s repeated failure to heed the advice of top military commanders about troop levels in Iraq had not only undercut the mission, but severely weakened our military. “Gen. Maxwell Taylor, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff for President Lyndon Johnson, said that while we sent the Army to Vietnam to save Vietnam, we had to withdraw to save the Army,” Korb wrote. “This is where we are today.”
DiRita was incredulous:
Korb is looking for something that doesn’t exist: a difference in views between civilian leaders and military commanders regarding force levels in Iraq. The President, Secretary (Donald) Rumsfeld and military commanders have all consistently said “” and believed “” that the conflict against extremists in Iraq will ultimately have to be fought and won by Iraqis.
Bob Dole has an op-ed in the New York Times that, perhaps inevitably, begins the right-wing attack on Patrick Fitzgerald. (Former White House political director Ken Mehlman had a chance to declare Patrick Fitzgerald off limits a few weeks ago and demurred.) Dole’s argument against Fitzgerald’s approach hinges on his analysis of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982. Dole may have been a co-sponsor of the law, but he completely distorts its terms. Here is what Dole says:
Thus the act was drafted in very narrow terms: our goal was to criminalize only those disclosures that clearly represented a conscious and pernicious effort to identify and expose agents with the intent to impair America’s foreign intelligence activities.
Dole is wrong. The law does not require the exposing of an undercover CIA agent to be “pernicious.” And there is no requirement of an “intent to impair America’s foreign intelligence activities.” The LA Times explains:
Nowhere does this statute require proof that the defendant “wished to harm” an undercover agent or jeopardize national security. The reason why someone disclosed the information — whether for revenge, to prevent the publication of a story or to harm the U.S. — is an issue of motive, not intent.
The purpose of the law, is not merely to protect the nation’s “foreign intelligence activities” but to protect the agents themselves. In a 1983 Washington Quarterly article, Sen. Barry Goldwater (R-AZ), then chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence wrote:
The act sends out a clear signal that U.S. intelligence officers will no longer be fair game for those members of their own society who wish to take issue with the existence of CIA or find other motives for making these unauthorized disclosures.
We know that Karl Rove declared Valerie Plame, an undercover CIA agent, “fair game.” Whether it was a “pernicious” effort to “impair America’s foreign intelligence activities” or not, Rove may have violated the law. Dole should stop attacking Fitzgerald for doing his job.
– Mipe Okunseinde and Judd Legum
President Bush said Supreme Court nominee John Roberts has a “profound respect for…the liberties guaranteed to every citizen.”
But in a 1984 memo, Roberts argued wasn’t anything wrong with the fact that women earned 60 percent of what men did for the same work. He trashed a letter written to Reagan by then-Rep. Olympia J. Snowe (R-ME), then-Rep. Claudine Schneider (R-RI) and Rep. Nancy L. Johnson (R-CT) urging the administration to accept a federal court ruling prohibiting women from being paid less because of their gender:
[The letter] contends that more is required because women still earn only $0.60 for every $1 earned by men, ignoring the factors that explain that apparent disparity, such as seniority, the fact that many women frequently leave the work force for extended periods of time. I honestly find it troubling that three Republican representatives are so quick to embrace such a radical redistributive concept.
Roberts, then accused the three female member of congress of embracing Marxist dogma:
Their slogan may as well be, “From each according to his ability, to each according to her gender.”
Roberts problems with women demanding equal treatment are longstanding. In 1972, in his high school newspaper, he explained why his all-boy academy shouldn’t go co-ed:
I would prefer to discuss Shakespeare’s double entendre and the latus rectum of conic sections without a [b]londe giggling and blushing behind me.