Bush administration: Fake news is A-OK

Remember those fake video news reports the Bush administration has been
distributing to local television stations? Back in February, the
Government Accountability Office warned federal agencies to stop pushing
the phony news reports on the grounds that continuing to do so would
amount to the distribution of domestic propaganda in violation of
federal law.

That might have been the end of the matter, but the Bush administration
has other ideas. Last week, budget director Josh Bolten and a Justice
Department lawyer named Steven Bradbury issued their own opinion about
the fake news stories. Their conclusion: The GAO is wrong, and the fake
news reports are perfectly legal. Moreover, as the Washington Post
reports today, Bolten and Bradbury said that legal advice for the
executive branch is supposed to come not from the Government
Accountability Office but from the Justice's Office of Legal Counsel.

That would be the same Office of Legal Counsel that issued a legal
memorandum in August 2002 defining torture out of existence and opining
that the president's commander-in-chief power gives him authority to
defy federal law in the name of national security -- and the same Office
of Legal Counsel that retracted that memo in December 2004, just in time
for Alberto Gonzales' confirmation hearings.

The OLC may well be the right entity to provide legal advice to the
executive branch, but that doesn't mean that its advice is any better on
the fake news stories than it was on the torture of detainees. In words
that could have described either issue, the head of the GAO told the
Post yesterday that the administration's approach to the fake news
stories is not just illegal but wrong. "This is more than a legal
issue," said Comptroller General David Walker. "It's also an ethical
issue and involves important good government principles, namely the need
for openness in connection with government activities and expenditures.
We should not just be seeking to do what's arguably legal. We should be
doing what's right."

A government that aspires to morality and not just to the bare minimum
of legality? The notion seems so . . . quaint.

Tim Grieve -- Salon

So what your problem? The administration has already said that reality is
whatever they decide it is............
And the "sheeple" buy anything as long as it's wrapped in the flag and
supported by religious wackos!

"Jim," wrote in message
...
Bush administration: Fake news is A-OK

Remember those fake video news reports the Bush administration has been
distributing to local television stations? Back in February, the
Government Accountability Office warned federal agencies to stop pushing
the phony news reports on the grounds that continuing to do so would
amount to the distribution of domestic propaganda in violation of federal
law.

That might have been the end of the matter, but the Bush administration
has other ideas. Last week, budget director Josh Bolten and a Justice
Department lawyer named Steven Bradbury issued their own opinion about the
fake news stories. Their conclusion: The GAO is wrong, and the fake news
reports are perfectly legal. Moreover, as the Washington Post reports
today, Bolten and Bradbury said that legal advice for the executive branch
is supposed to come not from the Government Accountability Office but from
the Justice's Office of Legal Counsel.

That would be the same Office of Legal Counsel that issued a legal
memorandum in August 2002 defining torture out of existence and opining
that the president's commander-in-chief power gives him authority to defy
federal law in the name of national security -- and the same Office of
Legal Counsel that retracted that memo in December 2004, just in time for
Alberto Gonzales' confirmation hearings.

The OLC may well be the right entity to provide legal advice to the
executive branch, but that doesn't mean that its advice is any better on
the fake news stories than it was on the torture of detainees. In words
that could have described either issue, the head of the GAO told the Post
yesterday that the administration's approach to the fake news stories is
not just illegal but wrong. "This is more than a legal issue," said
Comptroller General David Walker. "It's also an ethical issue and involves
important good government principles, namely the need for openness in
connection with government activities and expenditures. We should not just
be seeking to do what's arguably legal. We should be doing what's right."

A government that aspires to morality and not just to the bare minimum of
legality? The notion seems so . . . quaint.

Tim Grieve -- Salon

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 14:42:26 GMT, "Jim," wrote:

Bush administration: Fake news is A-OK

I guess, in your rush to post some anti-Bush stuff, you missed this:

Here's the headline and first couple paragraphs:

************************************************** *****
Under Bush, a New Age of Prepackaged TV News
By DAVID BARSTOW and ROBIN STEIN

Published: March 13, 2005

It is the kind of TV news coverage every president covets.

"Thank you, Bush. Thank you, U.S.A.," a jubilant Iraqi-American told a camera
crew in Kansas City for a segment about reaction to the fall of Baghdad. A
second report told of "another success" in the Bush administration's "drive to
strengthen aviation security"; the reporter called it "one of the most
remarkable campaigns in aviation history." A third segment, broadcast in
January, described the administration's determination to open markets for
American farmers.

To a viewer, each report looked like any other 90-second segment on the local
news. In fact, the federal government produced all three. The report from Kansas
City was made by the State Department. The "reporter" covering airport safety
was actually a public relations professional working under a false name for the
Transportation Security Administration. The farming segment was done by the
Agriculture Department's office of communications.
**************************************

Now, the implication is that Bush has started some new manner of deceiving the
public. Not until almost halfway into this "news article" do we get to:

***************************************
The practice, which also occurred in the Clinton administration, is
continuing...
************************************

Yup. That's unbiased reporting.


--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 16:08:56 GMT, "MMC" wrote:

So what your problem? The administration has already said that reality is
whatever they decide it is............
And the "sheeple" buy anything as long as it's wrapped in the flag and
supported by religious wackos!


Not to mention that Clinton was doing the same damn thing, and no one uttered a
sound.

No bias there, is there?

--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

John H wrote:

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 14:42:26 GMT, "Jim," wrote:


Bush administration: Fake news is A-OK


I guess, in your rush to post some anti-Bush stuff, you missed this:

Here's the headline and first couple paragraphs:

************************************************** *****
Under Bush, a New Age of Prepackaged TV News
By DAVID BARSTOW and ROBIN STEIN

Published: March 13, 2005

It is the kind of TV news coverage every president covets.

"Thank you, Bush. Thank you, U.S.A.," a jubilant Iraqi-American told a camera
crew in Kansas City for a segment about reaction to the fall of Baghdad. A
second report told of "another success" in the Bush administration's "drive to
strengthen aviation security"; the reporter called it "one of the most
remarkable campaigns in aviation history." A third segment, broadcast in
January, described the administration's determination to open markets for
American farmers.

To a viewer, each report looked like any other 90-second segment on the local
news. In fact, the federal government produced all three. The report from Kansas
City was made by the State Department. The "reporter" covering airport safety
was actually a public relations professional working under a false name for the
Transportation Security Administration. The farming segment was done by the
Agriculture Department's office of communications.
**************************************

Now, the implication is that Bush has started some new manner of deceiving the
public. Not until almost halfway into this "news article" do we get to:

***************************************
The practice, which also occurred in the Clinton administration, is
continuing...
************************************

Yup. That's unbiased reporting.


And YOU neglected to mention that bush in a little over 4 years has
already spent *DOUBLE* what Clinton spent in 8

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 22:35:03 GMT, "Jim," wrote:

John H wrote:

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 14:42:26 GMT, "Jim," wrote:


Bush administration: Fake news is A-OK


I guess, in your rush to post some anti-Bush stuff, you missed this:

Here's the headline and first couple paragraphs:

************************************************** *****
Under Bush, a New Age of Prepackaged TV News
By DAVID BARSTOW and ROBIN STEIN

Published: March 13, 2005

It is the kind of TV news coverage every president covets.

"Thank you, Bush. Thank you, U.S.A.," a jubilant Iraqi-American told a camera
crew in Kansas City for a segment about reaction to the fall of Baghdad. A
second report told of "another success" in the Bush administration's "drive to
strengthen aviation security"; the reporter called it "one of the most
remarkable campaigns in aviation history." A third segment, broadcast in
January, described the administration's determination to open markets for
American farmers.

To a viewer, each report looked like any other 90-second segment on the local
news. In fact, the federal government produced all three. The report from Kansas
City was made by the State Department. The "reporter" covering airport safety
was actually a public relations professional working under a false name for the
Transportation Security Administration. The farming segment was done by the
Agriculture Department's office of communications.
**************************************

Now, the implication is that Bush has started some new manner of deceiving the
public. Not until almost halfway into this "news article" do we get to:

***************************************
The practice, which also occurred in the Clinton administration, is
continuing...
************************************

Yup. That's unbiased reporting.


And YOU neglected to mention that bush in a little over 4 years has
already spent *DOUBLE* what Clinton spent in 8

Bush has done twice as many things to brag about!
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

And YOU neglected to mention that bush in a little over 4 years has
already spent *DOUBLE* what Clinton spent in 8


John H wrote:
Bush has done twice as many things to brag about!

Like what?

C'mon put your money where your mouth is... name a few of the Bush
Administration's major accomplishments...

DSK

DSK wrote:

And YOU neglected to mention that bush in a little over 4 years has
already spent *DOUBLE* what Clinton spent in 8



John H wrote:

Bush has done twice as many things to brag about!


Like what?

C'mon put your money where your mouth is... name a few of the Bush
Administration's major accomplishments...

DSK


Record national Debt
involvement in an unnecessary war
1500 dead
10,000+ wounded
working to destroy Social Security
cut aid to states
ignored the bill of rights ("patriot act")
opened the southern boarder to infiltration
Cost of gas doubled
cozy with the "professional Christian"? Churches

how many more do you want?

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 18:09:28 -0500, DSK wrote:

And YOU neglected to mention that bush in a little over 4 years has
already spent *DOUBLE* what Clinton spent in 8


John H wrote:
Bush has done twice as many things to brag about!

Like what?

C'mon put your money where your mouth is... name a few of the Bush
Administration's major accomplishments...

DSK

You've *got* to watch something besides Dan Rather!

--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

C'mon put your money where your mouth is... name a few of the Bush
Administration's major accomplishments...



John H wrote:
You've *got* to watch something besides Dan Rather!


Still can't name anything, huh?

DSK