Cheney's stenographers fight back

Note from Greetings: Politico is a Dick Cheney press office, not a news organization. Clearly. Publishing his press releases verbatim with no questions, and no challenges. Politico, the Republican's press corps(e):

by Glenn Greenwald, Salon.com

Throughout the year, Politico has repeatedly published as "news articles" comments from Dick Cheney, which its "reporters" faithfully write down and print with virtually no challenge, skepticism or contradiction. So extreme has this behavior become that even Beltway TV personalities such as Chris Matthews are beginning to mock it. This afternoon, Greg Sargent asked Editor-in-Chief John Harris to defend his magazine's conduct, and Harris replied by claiming, in essence, that Cheney's comments are "newsworthy" and that it's Politico's job to "get newsworthy people to say interesting things."

Harris' reply is a complete non sequitur. Nobody I've heard objects to Politico's act of telling its readers about the "interesting things" Cheney has to say. The objection is that Politico mindlessly reprints any and all claims Cheney wants to make, no matter how factually dubious or even blatantly false, without question or challenge. By definition, then, Politico serves Cheney as his official stenographer and spokesman (i.e., writing down and announcing what someone has said), rather than acting as journalists (i.e., stating what the facts are and how and why a politicians' statements are untrue). Harris doesn't dispute this; he simply explains that -- like most establishment journalists -- Politico's role is not to document someone's falsehoods, but only to repeat and amplify them. We're supposed to believe that what Judy Miller did was somehow anomalous and worthy of being disgraced, yet virtually every time "reporters" like Harris explain how they perceive their role, they describe exactly what Miller did: we get important people to say interesting things and write it down, regardless of whether it's true.

Thus, in their last Cheney "article," Politico let Cheney attack Obama for giving "terrorists the rights of Americans, let[ting] them lawyer up and read[ing] them their Miranda rights" -- without mentioning that the Bush administration did exactly that with Richard Reid, Zacharais Moussoui and several others (see this new Jake Tapper article detailing these contradictions for how an actual "journalist" reports on a political figure's false accusations). Politico also let Cheney accuse Obama of wanting to "release the hard-core Al Qaeda-trained terrorists" from Guantanamo -- without noting that (a) many of the to-be-released detainees are ones even the Bush administration concluded did nothing wrong and are not a threat; (b) the vast majority of detainees held at Guantanamo were completely innocent; (c) it was Bush/Cheney who released many of the detainees who have since returned to the so-called "battlefield," including one of the alleged leaders of Al Qaeda of the Arabian Peninsula; and (d) Obama is using the same tools used by Bush/Cheney -- trials, military commissions and indefinite detention -- to imprison all detainees deemed to be a "threat." Politico also let Cheney repeatedly claim that "that President Obama is trying to pretend we are not at war" -- without noting that Obama twice escalated in Afghanistan, began bombing Yemen, and massively ratcheted up our drone attacks in Pakistan.

In other words, they dutifully wrote down a bunch of falsehoods and lies Cheney told, and passed those claim on to their readers without noting that they were false. When confronted with their conduct, Politico's Editor-in-Chief blithely claims that this misleading, subservient behavior is his understanding of what "journalists" are supposed to. And it undoubtedly is. It's true that, two days before printing its latest Cheney homage, Politico ran a good article by one of its few real reporters, Josh Gerstein, documenting that Bush waited longer to comment on Richard Reid than Obama waited to comment on the Northwest Airlines incident, but that's only one of Cheney's lies, and debunking it in an entirely separate article two days earlier doesn't justify printing Cheney's comments without challenge.

Of course, Politico will continue to serve Cheney in this way -- offering him a challenge-free platform to say whatever he wants -- because if they ever stopped being good little boys for Dick Cheney, he would find someone else to serve as his faithful stenographers, and then they, rather than Politico, would get the Drudge links and gossip attention which Politico, above all else, desperately craves.

* * * * *

I'm not a big fan of "we-are-doomed" symbolism. But for those looking for end-of-the-decade signs of our impending collapse, it would be hard to do better than pointing to the appointment of the Executive Editor of Politico -- of Politico -- to the Pulitzer Committee.

LNG Threat to the Narragansett Bay; Letter from the Executive Director of Save the Bay

Note from Greetings: I hope the people in the Narragansett Bay and Rhode Island read the following letter from Save the Bay's ED, and all wake up and call their congressmen and senators. LNG will disrupt business and travel on the Narragansett Bay. It is dangerous, with a potential blast area that covers many thousands in population and many square miles in property. With its path up the bay past the U.S. Naval Warfare College, it leaves this area a target for potential terrorist attacks. And, in the end, if none of these matter to you... it will most undoubtedly decrease your property values and increase your insurance policy costs as homeowners. Who will want to buy a house in a potentially dangerous area? One where travel is closed down any time a tanker goes up the bay... without notice. And one where it can be seen to be a potential explosion waiting to happen at any time. From Jonathan Stone, Executive Director, Save The Bay Dear Friend of Narragansett Bay, I’m writing today to express deep disappointment over the opinion piece which ran in today’s Providence Journal by Weaver’s Cove LNG president and CEO Ted Gehrig. He suggests that the LNG project proposed for Mount Hope Bay is necessary and beneficial, and that the environmental costs, use conflicts and security issues are insignificant. This self-serving and dismissive approach underestimates our common resolve and ignores the history of Bay stewardship and protection that defines the people who live here. Save The Bay strenuously opposes this project because, unlike any existing user of the Bay, Weaver’s Cove LNG will become a dominant presence from the East Passage to Fall River that is completely out of balance with the mixed uses we all enjoy today. Year-round LNG tanker traffic will disrupt our fragile marine and tourism industries, and the project will destroy critical habitat we have worked for more than two decades and committed hundreds of millions of dollars to save. For the record, while focusing on the higher cost of Canadian natural gas, Mr. Gehrig did not mention his competitors’ two new LNG terminals off the coasts of Gloucester and Boston that are or will be operational by the end of this year that serve the region. So who benefits most from this project, exactly? That would be Weaver’s Cove LNG. In one respect Mr. Gehrig is correct. Two key federal agencies, each according to their narrow permitting mandate, are allowing this project to go forward. This would be an irreversible tragedy. Save The Bay is committed, for as long as it takes, to defeating this plan. It’s wrong for the Bay, wrong for the economy and wrong for our communities. I urge you to take action by writing letters to the editor, contacting your local and state elected officials, writing your Congressional delegates and encouraging your friends and neighbors to fight this project. Please join the cause today. P.S. The LNG Threat is the cover story of the fall issue of Save The Bay's Tides. You may read that story, an important article on the wastewater/stormwater crisis on Aquidneck Island and other items of interest around the Bay online.

The Senate Brandishes a Gun at Amtrak

NOTE FROM GREETINGS: This is an utterly ridiculous stand from the Senate. And these are the same folks who keep "forecasting" a terrorist attack under Obama. Well, they're doing everything they can to help that along with this passage. Guns on trains in the heavily traveled Northeast Corridor? This is true insanity, thanks to the below-mentioned U.S. Senators. Look up the names and call their offices. Guns can NOT be sealed on a transportation system like Amtrak or U.S. buses. Would they let people carry them onto airplanes? How do they decide if someone CAN'T carry them on versus someone who CAN? This will show up as the act that helped create the next terrorist attack. And these names will be held responsible.

NY Times Editorial, Sept. 18, 2009

In a shocking genuflection to the gun lobby, the Senate has voted to deny Amtrak its indispensable $1.6 billion federal subsidy unless it allows passengers to transport handguns in their checked luggage. The budget support would be stripped in six months unless Amtrak scraps the gun ban that it wisely adopted five years ago after the terrorist railroad atrocities in Madrid.

The majority vote was bipartisan and not even close, with 27 Democrats and one independent (the ultraliberal Bernie Sanders from gun-friendly Vermont) joining all 40 Republicans versus 30 opponents. The hope is that the House or President Obama will ultimately reject the Amtrak measure, but security-wary citizens cannot count on that as the gun lobby choreographs political cravenness.

The budget cudgel was approved despite pleas from Amtrak that it lacks the manpower, equipment and extra financing to effectively meet the deadline and that it faces a shutdown if federal funds are lost. Among other changes, baggage cars would have to be securely retrofitted and manpower increased. The warning cut no ice with the majority as the chief sponsor, Senator Roger Wicker, a Republican of Mississippi, intoned a lock-step mantra: “Americans should not have their Second Amendment rights restricted for any reason.”

Proponents said the change was needed to put Amtrak back to its pre-9/11 gun policy and equate it with airline security measures that allow unloaded, locked handguns in checked baggage. This is lunatic reasoning for a nation supposedly sensitized by the 9/11 attacks. Why should gun owners be treated as privileged travelers?

Amtrak has none of the hermetic procedures where airport passengers are screened shoeless at detectors while their checked baggage is separately secured. Trains stop at stations and passengers come and go. Amtrak presently has a system of checking passengers and screening baggage at random, much the way New York police monitor mass transit.

If the Senate wants to pass a bill on Amtrak, it should provide the money to hire more security guards and create a real passenger rail system. Generally, it should just stop its demeaning homage to the gun lobby.

Senators Who Voted to Enable the Next Terrorist Attack (via Amtrak)

The following U.S. Senators voted Yes to allow guns on Amtrak passenger trains. Would you want them on airplanes now, too? Why yes on one and no on another?

Member	Party	State
Lamar Alexander	R	TN
John Barrasso	R	WY
Max Baucus	D	MT
Evan Bayh	D	IN
Mark Begich	D	AK
Michael Bennet	D	CO
Robert F. Bennett	R	UT
Jeff Bingaman	D	NM
Christopher S. Bond	R	MO
Sam Brownback	R	KS
Jim Bunning	R	KY
Richard M. Burr	R	NC
Bob Casey	D	PA
Saxby Chambliss	R	GA
Tom Coburn	R	OK
Thad Cochran	R	MS
Susan Collins	R	ME
Kent Conrad	D	ND
Bob Corker	R	TN
John Cornyn	R	TX
Michael D. Crapo	R	ID
Jim DeMint	R	SC
Byron L. Dorgan	D	ND
John Ensign	R	NV
Michael B. Enzi	R	WY
Russ Feingold	D	WI
Lindsey Graham	R	SC
Charles E. Grassley	R	IA
Judd Gregg	R	NH
Kay Hagan	D	NC
Orrin G. Hatch	R	UT
Kay Bailey Hutchison	R	TX
James M. Inhofe	R	OK
Johnny Isakson	R	GA
Mike Johanns	R	NE
Tim Johnson	D	SD
Amy Klobuchar	D	MN
Herb Kohl	D	WI
Jon Kyl	R	AZ
Mary L. Landrieu	D	LA
George S. LeMieux	R	FL
Patrick J. Leahy	D	VT
Blanche Lincoln	D	AR
Richard G. Lugar	R	IN
John McCain	R	AZ
Claire McCaskill	D	MO
Mitch McConnell	R	KY
Jeff Merkley	D	OR
Lisa Murkowski	R	AK
Bill Nelson	D	FL
Ben Nelson	D	NE
Harry Reid	D	NV
Jim Risch	R	ID
Pat Roberts	R	KS
Bernard Sanders	I	VT
Jeff Sessions	R	AL
Jeanne Shaheen	D	NH
Richard C. Shelby	R	AL
Olympia J. Snowe	R	ME
Jon Tester	D	MT
John Thune	R	SD
Mark Udall	D	CO
Tom Udall	D	NM
David Vitter	R	LA
George V. Voinovich	R	OH
Mark Warner	D	VA
Jim Webb	D	VA
Roger Wicker	R	MS

The U.S. Senators With Common Sense

These are the U.S. Senators who had enough common sense to vote "No" - to not allow guns on Amtrak Passenger trains. People who understand the consequences of the vote in terms of the potential for terrorist attacks.

No Votes (30)

Member	Party	State
Daniel K. Akaka	D	HI
Barbara Boxer	D	CA
Sherrod Brown	D	OH
Roland W. Burris	D	IL
Maria Cantwell	D	WA
Benjamin L. Cardin	D	MD
Thomas R. Carper	D	DE
Christopher J. Dodd	D	CT
Richard J. Durbin	D	IL
Dianne Feinstein	D	CA
Al Franken	D	MN
Kirsten Gillibrand	D	NY
Tom Harkin	D	IA
Daniel K. Inouye	D	HI
Edward E. Kaufman	D	DE
John Kerry	D	MA
Frank R. Lautenberg	D	NJ
Carl Levin	D	MI
Joseph I. Lieberman	ID	CT
Robert Menendez	D	NJ
Barbara A. Mikulski	D	MD
Patty Murray	D	WA
Mark Pryor	D	AR
Jack Reed	D	RI
John D. Rockefeller IV	D	WV
Charles E. Schumer	D	NY
Arlen Specter	D	PA
Debbie Stabenow	D	MI
Sheldon Whitehouse	D	RI
Ron Wyden	D	OR

Anti-Terrorism Expert Praises New Film About LNG

Anti-terrorism expert gives high praises to new film, The Risks and Danger of LNG, and says, "The detail in your film of the dangers of LNG should leave no doubt in anyone's mind that we are facing a crisis when an LNG facility is sited in populated areas. It should be mandatory for every first responder to view this film." The LNG movie is now available at www.LngDANGER.com.

Colonel David Gavigan, a nationally and internationally recognized specialist in terrorism, has praised filmmakers Tim and Hayden Riley and their film, The Risks and Danger of LNG. Gavigan is a graduate of the Army War College, the chairman of Massachusetts Bristol County Homeland Security Task Force, a member of the U.S. Attorney's Anti-Terrorism Advisory Council (ATAC), Boston, MA, and is the military and terrorism analyst for FOX 25 TV, Boston.

"Let me start by congratulating you both on the outstanding DVD I just received entitled The Risks and Danger of LNG. This has to be an award winner. When I watched the film it gave me more insight into the dangers that communities face by the greed of large companies to site dangerous materials in populated areas. I feel that your work should set an example for others who wish to protect the public. The detail in your film of the dangers of LNG should leave no doubt in anyone's mind that we are facing a crisis when an LNG facility is sited in populated areas. It should be mandatory for every first responder to view this film," said Colonel Gavigan.

The film highlights the many hazards of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) tankers, facilities, and pipelines; and reveals LNG's vulnerability to accidental disaster, terrorism, and demonstrates how massive its destruction can be to our American communities.

The Risks and Danger of LNG was an Official Selection of the Malibu Film Festival, and had its World Premiere screening on September 18, 2004, at the festival.

"Naturally, we were honored that our film has been recognized as an official selection in the Malibu Film Festival, and the fact that it has received such meaningful praises from an anti-terrorist expert such as Colonel Gavigan, is additional validation of our film," said co-producer Tim Riley.

"We did not try to make a slick Hollywood popcorn movie, nor was a film festival even on our radar screen," says co-producer Hayden Riley, "We made the movie to provide vital information to all Americans about the real hazards of LNG by focusing on the actual risks and dangers of LNG which are routinely minimized by the energy industry, LNG proponents, LNG investors, political allies and their internet blogging friends."

"The energy industry and its friends don't like our film, and they don't want Americans to see it, because our film provides information they prefer you didn't know," says Tim Riley, who also co-wrote the film.

"We are at war with terrorism. Vice President Cheney recently mentioned a few times during his debate with Senator Edwards that he is concerned about a nuclear weapon being unleashed in one of our residential communities. Well, so are we, and that is why we warn Americans in our film, that a loaded LNG tanker has the energy equivalent of 55 Hiroshima bombs. Terrorists could unleash that tremendous amount of energy for mass destruction of an American community without the need of a nuclear weapon. LNG proponents dont like that we are alerting America to LNG's vulnerability to terrorism and compare its devastating power to its nuclear equivalent, however, we are not alone in that regard," said Tim Riley.

On September 21, 2004, The Providence Journal, in an article entitled, "Lloyd's Executive Likens LNG Attack to Nuclear Explosion," that paper reported that a Lloyd's of London Insurance executive likened an LNG attack to a nuclear explosion. "The assertion, which is contested by industry experts, was in a speech that the chairman, Peter Levene, delivered last night to business leaders in Houston."

"Gas carriers too, whether at sea or in ports, make obvious targets," said Levene. "Specialists reckon that a terrorist attack on an LNG tanker would have the force of a small nuclear explosion."

According to documentary co-writer Hayden Riley, "Not only will LNG endanger our residential communities and make them vulnerable to devastation by terrorist sabotage, it will make America's economy weaker by exporting more American dollars for more imported fossil fuel. It also makes Americas economy more vulnerable to energy market manipulation by the foreign energy nations of the Middle East and Pacific Rim. It is time for America to abandon its age old reliance on foreign fossil fuel, and it is now time to invest the same billions of dollars into America and American ingenuity, and create American jobs to develop safe renewable energy sources for Americas future."

The more people that see our movie and learn the truth about LNG, the safer the American public will be. LNG proponents label me a NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) philosopher, well America is my backyard, so in a sense they are correct; however, the more appropriate label is NIABY - Not In America's Back Yard," said Tim Riley.

In the film the Rileys maintain, A sound, safe American energy plan requires solutions that make America stronger not weaker, make America more self-sufficient not more dependent, make America safer not more vulnerable, and make America fossil free not more polluted."

"We thank those on the front lines like Colonel Gavigan who are protecting America from terrorism, and we are grateful that he feels so strongly about our movie. His praises of our film are very meaningful," said Hayden Riley.

To preview a short trailer and to buy a DVD or VHS copy of the film, go to www.LngDanger.com .

Also visit the Riley's informational websites: http://TimRileyLaw.com and http://TimRileyLaw.com/LNG.htm

Clear-eyed conservative realism -- translated into English.