Norway's Jens Stoltenberg: Can this guy run here, please?

By Carl 

Norway's response to the terrible tragedy over the weekend that stripped the innocence of the nation from terror attacks and mass murder? 

Intelligence:

Norway's prime minister said Wednesday that the response to twin attacks that have rocked his country will be "more democracy."

Jens Stoltenberg told reporters Wednesday that Norwegians will defend themselves by showing they are not afraid of violence.

The vicious attack in the normally placid country has left Norwegians appalled and shaky, but determined to move forward. Some government workers were planning to return to work in their offices in the buildings where the bomb blasts blew out most windows. 

Contrast this with "WANTED: Dead Or Alive," paranoia, patting down grandmas, "You're with us, or with the terrists," Islamophobia so bad that ten years later the first instinct for the cowardly was to blame Al Qaeda for a bombing and killings that a) didn't even fit their modality and b) were in a country that hadn't even blipped on the radar in bin Laden's statements.

A couple of years ago, I wrote a meditation on 9/11 that goes into great depth about the fears inherent in living in what was an open society which I invite you to read at your leisure. I will not repeat it here, except this excerpt:

I will never be afraid again of this world that has been created around me by naked greed and hideous envy, for I am stronger than any of you who would see me buckle and bend to your hatred. I will be true to my soul, and true to my heart, and will fight you with every breath in my body and with every fibre of my being.

And long after you have gone to dust, long after I go to dust, the monument to truth and peace and freedom that I have added a few miserable pebbles to will stand tall and firm as a bulwark against the dark you attempt to bring to the world.

Call it a Nordic trait, I suppose: the prime minister of Norway got it a lot faster than I did. Note that those words are not only directed at those who would attack me, my home, my people, but also to those who would twist events to their own warped ends.

Those people, the greedy cowards who stick their fingers into pies simply to prevent anyone else from savoring them because they fear the loss of one pie to someone else means no pie for themselves, they are as to blame for the events in Norway as Anders Breivik himself. Moreso, since they saw first hand the devastation of terror and still incited more anger and more fear.

Truth. Peace. Freedom. The tripod of enlightened society, the true wealth of nations.

Jens Stoltenberg, you have my gratitude.

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)

Will Fox News pay a price for Murdoch's fall?

By Richard K. Barry

Perhaps not surprisingly, Media Matters is paying close attention to how much or, we should say, how little coverage Fox News is giving to the News Corp. phone-hacking scandal in England.

Media Matters has for some time been doing a splendid job of monitoring the pathetically biased news coverage over at Fox, so they must have been salivating at the opportunity to track how obvious Fox would be in low-keying the scandal enveloping its parent company, News Corp., and owner, Rupert Murdoch.

According to Media Matters:

Over a nine-day period from July 4 through July 13, Fox produced 30 segments on the crisis, as opposed to 71 for MSNBC and 109 for CNN.

Okay, that's sort of interesting, but clear evidence that Fox News under-reports facts that are inconsistent with its wacky hyper-right wing world view is hardly earth-shattering. Just more of the same.

Hate to say it, but Americans, especially the right-wing variety, are just not going to pay all that much attention to what goes on on the other side of the pond. If the matter remained in England, that might have been the end of it, as least regarding Murdoch's fortunes here.

But, as they say, this story might have legs. According to CNN:

The FBI has launched an investigation into Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. after a report that employees or associates may have attempted to hack into phone conversations and voice mail of September 11 survivors, victims and their families, a federal law enforcement source told CNN Thursday.

Just to be clear, it appears that the investigation of possible hacking of 9/11 victims' and their families' phones is an extension of the Murdoch owned British newspaper scandal having to do with accusations that its reporters illegally eavesdropped on the phone messages of murder and terrorist victims, politicians and celebrities.

The accusations would appear not to involve Murdoch owned entities in the U.S.

Nonetheless, that does beg a very interesting question. What would the repercussions be, if any, for News Corp. properties like Fox News and The Wall Street Journal if it is found out that 9/11 victims had their phones tapped by employees of the Rupert Murdoch media empire?

Clearly, News of the World, which bore the brunt of the scandal in England, decided to shut down rather than die a slow death at the hands of mortified advertisers who decided that the newspaper was just too toxic.

9/11 has for so long been such an important part of the way that Fox News in particular has draped itself in the American flag, that evidence that the parent company was violating the privacy of the victims and their families in such a dramatic way might just be too difficult a fact to spin away, or ignore away (see above).

Might people start to tune out or, better yet, advertisers start to walk away?

We can only hope, but it will be interesting to see.

(Cross-posted to Lippmann's Ghost.)

Rashard Mendenhall clarifies controversial Twitter remarks

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Pittsburgh Steelers running back Rashard Mendenhall, you've probably heard, posted some rather interesting tweets on the killing of Osama bin Laden. I wrote about them on Wednesday, defending Mendenhall but not excusing a couple of the more inexcusable tweets.

Presenting himself as a 9/11 Truther? Not so good.

Seeming to be an Osama apologist? Also not so good.

But saying that there's something wrong with celebrating death, with the lust for bloody vengeance, refusing to be a judge (which only his God can truly be), and encouraging thought instead of ignorance? What's so wrong with that?

While defending Mendenhall, to a point, I made sure to stress that he needed to clarify his remarks, to explain himself. I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt because he appears to be thoughtful, peaceful man. I said that he should have been more careful, that Twitter isn't the best place to express such nuanced thoughts. I said that we shouldn't be too quick to judge. I admired him, in a way, but I was prepared to be more critical if he didn't 

Well, Mendenhall took to his blog (as reported by the Post-Gazette), a blog now with just a single post, for clarification. I encourage you to read his post in full. Here's some of it:

I appreciate those of you who have decided to read this letter and attain a greater understanding of my recent twitter posts. I see how they have gotten misconstrued, and wanted to use this outlet as a way to clear up all things that do not truthfully represent myself, what I stand for personally, and any organization that I am a part of.

First, I want people to understand that I am not in support of Bin Laden, or against the USA. I understand how devastating 9/11 was to this country and to the people whose families were affected. Not just in the US, but families all over the world who had relatives in the World Trade Centers. My heart goes out to the troops who fight for our freedoms everyday, not being certain if they will have the opportunity to return home, and the families who watch their loved ones bravely go off to war.

And he responded specifically to objections to one of his two objectionable tweets, the one in which he said that people shouldn't celebrate death but also in which he wondered how people could hate a man (Osama) they'd never even heard speak:

This controversial statement was something I said in response to the amount of joy I saw in the event of a murder. I don't believe that this is an issue of politics or American pride; but one of religion, morality, and human ethics...

I wasn't questioning Bin Laden's evil acts. I believe that he will have to face God for what he has done. I was reflecting on our own hypocrisy. During 9/11 we watched in horror as parts of the world celebrated death on our soil. Earlier this week, parts of the world watched us in horror celebrating a man's death.

And then he apologized for anything that might have been misconstrued:

Nothing I said was meant to stir up controversy. It was my way to generate conversation. In looking at my timeline in its entirety, everything that I've said is with the intent of expressing a wide array of ideas and generating open and honest discussions, something I believe we as American citizens should be able to do. Most opinions will not be fully agreed upon and are not meant to be. However, I believe every opinion should be respected or at least given some thought. I apologize for the timing as such a sensitive matter, but it was not meant to do harm. I apologize to anyone I unintentionally harmed with anything that I said, or any hurtful interpretation that was made and put in my name.

It was only meant to encourage anyone reading it to think.

With respect to the controversial tweet about hearing Osama's side, I think that Mendenhall wrote inartfully. In other words, he just didn't express himself well. His explanation helps, but obviously he should have been more careful with his words. Because, as it is, that tweet comes across not necessarily as pro-Osama but at least as deeply ignorant. (A lot of us heard Osama speak. A lot of us know the other side. But we still hated the man and were content, if not happy, to see him killed.)

Overall, Mendenhall's clarification, which according to the Post-Gazette he wrote himself, shows him, like his Twitter feed generally, to be an intelligent, humble, and thoughtful man. In a world full of knee-jerk jingoism, including some of what we saw in the aftermath of the killing Sunday night, such a nuanced sense both of self and of the world is truly admirable. (And, in a pro athlete, truly remarkable.) I was a fan of the athlete before. Now I'm a fan of the man.

The problem, though, is that Mendenhall did not address his 9/11 Truther tweet: "We'll never know what really happened. I just have a hard time believing a plane could take a skyscraper down demolition style." Does he really think that something else was going on, that, say, the U.S. government was behind it, or is he merely musing on a distantly remote possibility? I'd certainly like to know, as would his other fans, as would pretty much everyone else for that matter. He deleted that specific tweet, and so maybe he doesn't think he needs to explain it, but he must know that anything that goes public on a social networking site is likely to remain public no matter what, and that tweet remains out there regardless of whether or not it's in his feed.

So, Rashard, will you not take the time to clarify it? You seem to be a good and decent man. You say you want us all to think. Well, then, give us more than a single tweet about 9/11 and tell us what you really think. I, for one, am certainly open to having a conversation about it, and I suspect that many others are as well. I know you've encountered a lot of knee-jerk jingoism already, but not all of us are like that. And while I will disagree with you if you really are a 9/11 Truther, and while most others will too, you would do well not to let that tweet stand as your only statement on the matter. I suspect your views on that are much more nuanced. So what are they?

The European view of the Osama bin Laden killing

By Michael J.W. Stickings

From the NYT:

No European government has condemned or criticized the killing of Osama bin Laden by American commandos, but the questions raised about the changing details of his death sharpened considerably after the White House revealed that he did not fire a weapon, was not armed and did not use a woman as a protective shield.

Some are questioning whether "justice" in fact was done, as President Obama portrayed the killing, and whether the American troops made any effort to capture Bin Laden alive or whether they simply executed him. And some think that the scenes of celebrating Americans — whether at the White House or at ground zero — are inappropriate responses that are indecorous at the least and at worst could incite more terrorism.

The disquiet is mostly among those on the left and among the elite in the news media, but it is reminiscent of the atmosphere during the Bush administration and the war against Iraq, when the United States was criticized for unilateralism, arrogance, disrespect for international law, triumphalism and a resort to overwhelming military force.

To be fair, there is no monolithic European view. Opinions there are divided just as they everywhere else, though I suspect there is far more nuance there than, say, on Main Street America, where fist-pumping and flag-waving were, and remain, the order of the day.

There may be some "disquiet" on the left and in some parts of the media, but the Times is generalizing to the point of near-misrepresentation. Clearly not everyone on the European left, whatever that even means, is full of "disquiet." And, indeed, I suspect that the vast majority of Europeans, including those on the left, are on the American "side." Consider the outpouring of support after 9/11. We were all Americans then, were we not?

Besides, the concern isn't so much with what happened but how it happened. Which is to say, the concern is that the U.S. acted unilaterally and applied its own brand justice. That is a legitimate concern, given American tendencies to act unilaterally and without much regard for anyone else, including Europeans, and I would also suggest that the view, which we're not hearing much of from the U.S., that the U.S. should have taken Osama alive and subjected him to due process is similarly legitimate. And I share the view that some of the reaction to Osama's killing was indeed somewhat "indecorous," even if I understand the outpouring of patriotic glee and find little fault with it. I was not in a celebratory mood Sunday night, given the gravity of war, but that is not to say that Americans shouldn't have let off a little steam.

Now, I actually don't think that taking Osama alive would have made much sense, and I generally agree with what my friend Richard Barry wrote earlier today about this. I say this with great trepidation, but Osama had to be killed. That was really the only option. A trial and everything surrounding it would have been a circus.

But it would behoove Americans, and all those celebrating what happened, to take seriously the other side. No, not Osama's side, of course, but the side of those who are understandably experiencing some "disquiet" in the wake of what was, essentially, a state-ordered execution followed by some dishonest spin from the White House and its allies (Osama was living a life of luxury in a million-dollar mansion, Osama was armed and fought back, Osama used a woman as a human shield, etc.).

I remain convinced that it had to be done, though I find that spin unnecessary and counter-productive, as it undermines not the mythology of Osama bin Laden but American credibility. But, yes, "disquiet" is a good word for the certain nagging doubt that prevents me, and so many others, from fully celebrating what was a necessary act. A sense of justice was done. True justice, as ever, continues to elude us all.

Reversal, capitulation, weakness: Obama, Congress, and the trial of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed

By Michael J.W. Stickings

There was much ado yesterday over the Obama Administration's apparent "reversal" with respect to where and how to try 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and four others involved in the attacks. They will be tried not in a civilian court but before a military commission at Gitmo.

The NYT's Charlie Savage called it "a major policy reversal," suggesting that the White House "abandoned [its] plan amid a political backlash." While "[t]he shift was foreshadowed by stiffening Congressional resistance to bringing Guantánamo detainees into the United States, and by other recent steps clearing the way for new tribunal trials,... it marked a significant moment of capitulation in the Obama administration's largely frustrated effort to dismantle counterterrorism architecture left behind by former President George W. Bush."

Reversal. Capitulation. Apparently it's all Obama's fault.

But is it? Savage goes on to note that Attorney General Holder "stood by" his initial determination that KSM et al. should be tried in a civilian court. "He criticized restrictions imposed by Congress last year that banned the military from using its funds to transfer detainees to domestic soil, even for trials."

Well, that's it, isn't it? It's not what Obama did, it's what Congress did to limit his options. Steve Benen explains:

Holder told reporters [yesterday] afternoon that his original decision was still the right one, but blamed Congress for "tying our hands."

He happens to be right. Even today, Holder wants to do the right thing, and so does President Obama. And yet, Gitmo is open today, and KSM will be subjected to a military commission in the near future, not because of an administration that backed down in the face of far-right whining, but because congressional Republicans orchestrated a massive, choreographed freak-out, and scared the bejesus out of congressional Democrats. Together, they limited the White House's options to, in effect, not having any choice at all.

There's plenty of room for criticism of the administration, but those slamming Obama for "breaking his word" on this are blaming the wrong end of Pennsylvania Avenue.

This is not to excuse how Obama has handled "national security" so far. In many respects he has maintained the Bush-Cheney national security state, including some of its worst elements. And, of course, Congressional opposition to trying accused terrorists in civilian courts gives him cover. He (or Holder) can blame Congress, an easy target. Obama (and Holder) could have pushed harder to get what they supposedly want, just as they could push harder to close Gitmo, but they don't want to.

It's sort of like how Obama could have pushed harder for a public option to be included in the Affordable Care Act or for earlier DADT repeal. He always blames Congress for tying his hands, even though he's the one with the bully pulpit (and significantly greater popularity than either party in Congress).

Yes, Steve is right. Congress deserves the blame for this. But let me qualify that. Congress deserves much of the blame for this. Because Obama deserves some of it as well.

As CBS News is reporting, "Obama said last month that he remained committed to trying terror suspects in federal courts," yet he also "approved the resumption of military trials for detainees at the Guantanamo prison, ending a two-year ban." Yes, yes, his hands were tied, what else could he do? I get that. It's hard to get very far with Republicans and cowardly, appeasement-minded Democrats blocking him.

The problem is that, with respect to national security and the "war on terror," Obama hasn't done nearly enough to secure our trust, to suggest that, regardless of what Congress does, he isn't just a somewhat softer replica of his predecessor. It may be correct in this case to blame Congress, but if the president really wants to move away from Bush-Cheney, on terrorist trials or otherwise, he needs to show the necessary leadership to make it happen. Because it just isn't all that presidential to throw your hands up in frustration, whether you mean it or not.

I'm Pat f***king Tillman — why are you shooting at me?

By Edward Copeland 

That post title is the last words the former NFL star turned Army Ranger said before he was killed in Afghanistan by his own troops in 2004.

We are living in the Golden Age of Nonfiction. I thought it silly when the Oscars expanded best picture to 10 nominees, but I could live with them doubling the number of documentary feature nominees because documentaries get better and better. I have a difficult time cutting it down to five. I've only seen one 2010 documentary that I've given a negative review. More importantly, this meant that Oscar finalist The Tillman Story didn't make the final cut and it's the second-best 2010 documentary I've seen (so far).

For the Bush Administration, the wars in Afghanistan and later in Iraq weren't just campaigns for whatever reason they chose to give on any particular day, they also were part of a re-election strategy and whenever there was a chance to sell a positive story to the lazy eager-to-echo-anything press, they took it. So, when Pat Tillman, who earned millions in the NFL for the Arizona Cardinals, decided to give up his football career to join the fight against terrorism after 9/11, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told his subordinates to keep special watch on him. This was an American hero in the making that would make for great P.R.

Things didn't turn out that way exactly, though the government and high-ranking Pentagon officials did their best to keep their heroic scenario when Tillman was killed April 22, 2004, the initial story was the he died from enemy fire in an ambush, going so far as to credit him for saving the lives of some of his fellow soldiers and Gen. Stanley McChrystal awarded him the Silver Star posthumously. Just one problem: That was all a lie. Tillman died as a result of friendly fire and it took years and the persistence of his family to get at the truth.

Director Amir Bar-Lev gives a detailed portrait of who Tillman was both before and after his enlistment and with testimony from others who served with him, evokes a sense of outrage at the coverup, misguided accusations and fall guys the government used because their desired tailor-made American hero failed to pan out the way they envisioned. Ironically, during his unit's Iraq deployment Tillman was even there to witness the lengths they went in setting up the false tale of Pvt. Jessica Lynch's rescue. They were kept waiting 24 hours before retrieving Lynch to allow time for the camera crew to arrive. During his time in Iraq, Tillman also turned against Bush and the war effort, commenting to fellow soldiers that the Iraq war was "so fucking illegal." Bar-Lev keeps the focus moving with complete clarity and this documentary is quite a change-of-pace from his previous one, 2007's My Kid Could Paint That.

Narrated by Josh Brolin, The Tillman Story shows the true Pat Tillman, one that defied all stereotypes one would lump on the star athlete. He was a well-read man (Chomsky and Emerson; most religious texts, despite his atheism) who graduated from Arizona State with a 3.8 G.P.A. While the administration and the media were eager to wrap Tillman's decision to forgo his lucrative NFL career with a simple patriotic motive, Tillman himself refused interviews on the subject.

Even though both he and his very close younger brother Kevin joined up as Army Rangers, Tillman was determined to keep his reasons private. However, before he'd ever made the decision to enlist, various NFL players were filmed giving reactions to the 9/11 terrorist attacks and this footage was usurped by the Pentagon in their P.R. efforts to define Tillman's motive, be it true or not.

The entire Tillman family could be viewed somewhat as iconoclasts, compared to most Americans, so as far as I'm concerned that's what endears them to me all the more. When his family first learns of his death, they were given the false story of the ambush and the enemy fire. Still, even at the large, made-for-television memorial service Washington assembled (despite the fact that on his enlistment papers Pat Tillman specifically said he wanted no military funeral. Military officials even tried to take advantage of his grieving wife Marie to get Pat buried at Arlington.), while speakers spoke of God's blessings, etc., ignoring Pat's quite vocal status, like most of his family, as an atheist, his youngest brother Rich thanked the previous speakers for their thoughts but said, "Pat isn't with God. He's fucking dead."

Once soldiers on the scene spoke out and the Pentagon was forced to admit that Tillman was a victim of friendly fire, D.C. realized they picked the wrong family to screw with as his mom began a years-long campaign to get at the truth about the coverup. The story as told proves both inspiring and frustrating, as the Army drops so many documents, most redacted, upon Dannie Tillman, that she and another veteran start approaching them like some sort of crossword puzzle to decipher what names and words are blacked out.

In one of the most infuriating incidents, Lt. Col. Ralph Kauzlarich, who Tillman served under in Afghanistan, went on ESPN and made comments to the effect that the reason the Tillman family wouldn't let it go and just accept the Army's story was that because they were atheists and didn't believe in God, it would be hard for them to accept any truths. Eventually, after they finally got a congressional inquiry, Kauzlarich was demoted in retirement and remains the only person who received any sanction for the coverup.

On the other hand, the soldiers who did speak to the truth, were all punished in other ways for essentially being whistle-blowers.

Credit for the excellence of The Tillman Story should also be given to Mark Monroe for compiling this massive amount of information into a workable script for Bar-Lev to direct into such a coherent, compelling and, yes, chilling film. It almost makes me want to synopsize the entire documentary, but it's better to see it for yourself.

The ultimate irony about Pat Tillman is that the Bush Administration wanted to mold him into a hero for their own cynical, political purposes but by the covering up of the way he died, it enabled us to see who the real Pat Tillman was and he was more patriotic and a hero on a far grander scale than any P.R. flaks could have dreamed up. It's tragic that he died the way he did, but it's reassuring to know that men like him still exist in the first place.

(Cross-posted at Edward Copeland on Film.)

Is Jon Stewart the new Edward R. Murrow?

By Michael J.W. Stickings

There has been much ado recently, and justifiably so, about Jon Stewart's admirable advocacy in support of 9/11 First Responders, demanding passage of the Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act and shaming both Congress (Democrats for not being aggressive enough and Republicans for obstructing the bill) and the news media (which, with the exception of Aljazeera, was neglecting the story entirely) into action.

Stewart has repeated denied that he is a political player, let alone a partisan, preferring to present himself as a comedian first and foremost, but there is no denying that he has become a major political figure. His rally with Colbert back at the end of October was a sign of his significant reach, but those of us who adore him, if I may put it so lovingly, have known about his influence for a long time. So, for that matter, have his critics.

While a huge fan, I have been deeply critical of Stewart's anti-partisan claims, and so, while supporting 9/11 First Reponders is hardly a partisan thing to do (even if Republicans like Tom Coburn made it partisan), I do welcome Stewart's aggressive foray into legislative politics. Without necessarily turning into an overt partisan, and without endangering his comedy (and his broad appeal across the left into the center, and especially with liberal-minded but independent young people), he should do more of it.

But the question is, is he, as no less an authority than the Times has suggested, the new Edward R. Murrow, the legendary journalist and CBS commentator who famously stood up to McCarthyism and, in the process, became the icon of journalism itself?

It's a silly question, in a way, even as it asks us to put Stewart into perspective, to figure out just what he's all about. No longer just a self-deprecating comedian with an obscure late-night cable faux news show appealing to collegiate stoners, Stewart has become a sort of icon himself, the essential progressive voice of the engaged but generally powerless, a voice speaking truth to political and media power, but doing so not as a member of the insider ranks, like Keith Olbermann or Rachel Maddow, but as a justifiably cynical outsider pointing out the very absurdity of it all while holding those on the inside to account, catching them in their various foibles, sometimes criminal, often unethical, usually counter to the public good.

If he isn't quite Murrow, it's because he refuses to be that serious, because he remains a comedian above all, and because, honestly, Murrow was a man of his time and place. In today's media landscape, a Murrow just isn't possible, just as, say, a Cronkite isn't possible. The world is too fractured for such a singular giant. Now it's all about granular niches and multiple platforms, not overarching media figures wielding immense influence on a limited number of channels, the entire nation tuned in.

But that doesn't mean the comparison is without merit. Murrow was a man of exceptional determination and courage. Stewart is much less sure of himself, and much more of a funny man who thrives on being out there on the fringe, poking fun at the establishment, but his willingness to take on the establishment even as he and his fans are laughing at it suggests a courage that is sorely lacking in American society today, both in politics and in the media. He may not have the revolutionary aims of a Julian Assange, but, then, neither did Murrow. And like Murrow, what Stewart is ultimately fighting for is for America to live up to its professed values and principles. He doesn't go about it quite the same way Murrow did, but the similarities are there.

For more on this, see this fine piece by Andrew Cohen at The Atlantic, which has influenced much of what I've written here. Here's part of it:

Jon Stewart may or may not be the most important journalist of the 21th Century -- it's early still, plus he'd have to cop to the label and I'm not sure he would. But it should be clear from this episode, if it somehow weren't before, that Stewart (Murrow-like, you might say) wields enormous power and prestige through the medium of television (and the Internet). He showed it this fall with his well-attended Washington rally, he shows it each week with his ratings among younger viewers and the nation's political elite, and he clearly raised his game a notch with his searing light on how official Washington was screwing up the responders' health bill. I give credit to the Times and others for at least trying to cover that aspect of this story. The comparison to Murrow, which came off as facile in the Times piece, has some merit. It just wasn't explained well enough. Nor, alas, was the mainstream media's generally miserable failure -- also highlighted by Stewart -- in covering the 9/11 responders' legislation before Stewart's broadcasts. Stewart didn't just blast the Congress, remember, he blasted news organizations, too, for the latest example of their chronically short attention spans.

When Murrow took on Sen. Joseph McCarthy nearly half a century ago, he had far more to lose than Stewart did when he lobbied for the federal legislation. Murrow was standing up to bullies -- horrible, powerful bullies -- who might have ended his career and destroyed his network. By comparison, Stewart was merely speaking out against the way politics and journalism too often works in Washington. But both Murrow and Stewart dramatically changed public perceptions about a current event. Both men stuck their necks out. Both went first into a sort of no-man's-land. It is probably true that only Murrow in his time had the bona fides to stand up to McCarthy (and don't forget, Murrow waited years before doing so). But of all the media people who could have stood up in late 2010 for the brave, sick men and women who went into the rubble of September 11, 2001 only Stewart had both the will and the chops to do so in earnest. Does that make his courage any less impressive? Not in my book. Not when compared with so many other broadcasters and journalists who thought they had more important stories to file.

Courage in broadcasting, or in journalism in general, is not a zero sum game. Praising Stewart for his "mad as hell ain't gonna take it anymore" moment is no slight to Murrow or any other journalist who risks criticism and vitriol for speaking truth to power. Any comparison between the men diminishes neither. Let the historians and biographers correct me if I am wrong, but I believe Murrow would have applauded Stewart's role in redirecting public opinion back to some of the heroes who ran toward the rubble in Lower Manhattan in September 2001. And I believe Murrow would have endorsed Stewart's critical view of the media's role in the affair -- especially the navel-gazing that has occurred since the passage of the legislation. Murrow may have searched for light but he is known today for the passion, the heat, he brought to his best work. I believe history will judge Stewart similarly, in this instance and hopefully again in the future.

Hopefully indeed.

Tom Coburn looks to block passage of health-care benefits for 9/11 First Responders

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Full credit, or almost full credit, to Jon Stewart for raising awareness of the urgent health-care needs of 9/11 First Responders at a time when most in the media, and so many in Washington, couldn't be bothered, and for advocating swift passage of the Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act.

As Slate's Chris Beam notes, examining Stewart's undesired role as partisan political activist, "[t]he bill wasn't as far from passage as it seemed -- Stewart just shined a light on the issue at the right moment." But even if it was close to passage, Republicans were still blocking it, at least until the tax deal was passed. And it was getting so bad for Republicans, PR-wise, that even some conservatives were slamming them for blocking what should be a slam dunk (or at least, like Giuliani, Huckabee, and Pataki, advising them to get on board). Who, after all, opposes health care benefits for courageous 9/11 First Responders?

Well, how about Oklahoma's Tom Coburn?

Amid mounting pressure from Democrats and a growing handful of Republicans to pass a bill that would provide health care benefits to first responders who were at the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Oklahoma Republican Sen. Tom Coburn announced on Monday his intentions to block passage of the legislation.

He tells Politico that he "wouldn't allow the bill to move quickly" due to "problems with parts of the bill and the process Democrats are employing" to pass it.

Coburn  defended his position in a Tuesday morning interview on Fox News, arguing that "this is a bill that's been drawn up and forced through Congress at the end of the year on a basis to solve a problem that we didn't have time to solve and we didn't get done."

Coburn also argued that the bill, entitled the Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act, "hasn't even been through a committee." Coburn added: "We haven't had the testimony to know." (ThinkProgress notes that on June 29, the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions -- on which Coburn sits -- held a hearing on the bill. But Coburn's office says that doesn't amount to having gone "through a committee.")

The testimony to know what? Whether 9/11 First Responders deserve health care? Why do you need a committee to tell you that? I appreciate the committee process, but isn't this a prime example of a bill that should be allowed to circumvent process?

It's bad enough that Senate Republicans -- all of them, let us remember -- were prepared to block this and all legislation until the tax deal was passed, as if tax cuts for the wealthy are more important than health care for 9/11 First Responders (to Republicans, they seem to be), worse that Democrats still had to get Republicans to haggle over the cost of the bill (and how it would be paid for -- now a fee on federal contracts instead of closing a corporate tax loophole), as if the health care benefits of these courageous men and women should have to be subjected to the right-wing Republican agenda, and worse still that this one Republican is threatening to kill it altogether. (And is he really against it for procedural reasons, or is he just against it period -- you know, because it's government health care?)

And is he alone? As Fox News's Shep Smith discovered, a lot of Republicans don't even want to talk about it. So are they with Coburn or not?

I suspect that the bill will be passed -- another major victory for Democrats during the lame-duck session. But it won't be easy, given Coburn's opposition, and it says a lot about Republicans (and not just Coburn), that it's come to this point.

Will Bachmann Support 9/11 First Responders and Victims?

The Queens Gazette:

Congressmember Carolyn Maloney scored a success last week in her continuing fight to secure healthcare funding for Ground Zero workers when the House passed a bill allocating more than $70 million in funding for the World Trade Center Health Program.

Maloney was among the prime sponsors of the 9/11 Health and Compensation Act, which would provide long-term comprehensive health care and compensation for those sickened or injured in the aftermath of the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center of Sept. 11, 2001.

Commenting on the bill's passage, Maloney (D- Queens/Manhattan) declared: "The heroes and heroines of 9/11 deserve a helping hand from the federal government—it's the least we can do as a grateful nation. This $70 million in federal funding will keep the doors of 9/11 health clinics open until we pass comprehensive 9/11 health legislation, hopefully by the eighth anniversary of the attacks."

Maloney's release said the $70,723,000 would directly benefit first responders and community members who are living with 9/11-related illnesses.

From Congresswoman Maloney's press release:

“Today’s vote is a crucial step toward our goal of passing this landmark bill by the eighth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. Eight years is long enough to finally get proper care and compensation for the heroes and heroines of 9/11,” said Rep. Maloney. “I thank my good friends and cosponsors Jerry Nadler, Pete King, and Michael McMahon for their leadership and I am grateful to Chairman Conyers, Congresswoman Lofgren, and Speaker Pelosi for their steadfast support in moving this long-overdue bill forward. I would also like to extend my gratitude to three friends on the other side of the aisle who voted today to approve this bill: Reps. Dan Lungren, Ted Poe, and Thomas Rooney.”

The Daily News:

GOP Disses 9/11 Responders

July 28, 2009 WASHINGTON — First responders from 9/11 can accept if Republicans don’t vote for a bill to help ailing Ground Zero workers, but they say rudeness is another matter.
Several victims of the terror attacks who have become advocates on behalf of other ill responders say they were treated poorly when they called some Capitol Hill Republicans in hopes of getting them to back a measure coming up for a committee vote Wednesday.

“One office said, ‘Why do you people keep calling us? Leave us alone,’” said Charlie Giles, 41, from Barnegat, N.J. “‘You people?’ That is a disgrace from a congressman’s office.”

Giles, a Republican, said his rounds of calls — and GOP opposition to a bill to reopen the Sept. 11 Victims’ Compensation Fund — left him so angry he’s ready to denounce his party when he and other responders take a bus to the Capitol Wednesday.

“I’ll bring my Republican card, and show it to them,” he said. “If I have to tear it into a million pieces in front of them, I will.”

Giles, who was an EMT on Sept. 11, 2001, singled out the offices of Reps. Randy Forbes (R-Va.) and Thomas Rooney (R-Fla.), as did other angry responders. They said their reactions from other members of the GOP was better.

Spokespeople for both congressmen said they were not aware of any problems with callers, and insisted they provide unfailingly polite and helpful service.

In one instance, a spokesperson for Forbes thought an intern may have annoyed someone by offering to take their name and see if an appointment could be arranged.

“If someone felt they were mistreated, we apologize,” said Rooney spokesman Jeff Ostermayer. “Our office treats everyone who calls with courtesy and respect.”

Daily News calls to their offices were answered politely, but a worker in Rooney’s office said she couldn’t answer a question about the bill, and transferred the call to a Democratic committee office without saying that’s what she was doing.

“They were just cold,” said Glen Klein, 50, a retired city detective, “like you’re interrupting their lunch or something like that.”
Klein, of Centereach, L.I., spent nine months working at Ground Zero and is collecting Social Security disability.

James O’Connell, 50, an ex-Army man who recently survived a suicide attempt he blames on his 9/11 suffering, said he couldn’t understand the reception he got.

“They were at the very least, conduct unprofessional,” he said. “I don’t get politicians. I thought 9/11 was something that affected all Americans. I thought it was nonpartisan.

Read the whole article....

What happened to Charles Giles and other 9/11 first-responders is shameful.

Bachmann is not on the list of co-sponsors of H.R. 847 The James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation.

Bachmann often invokes 9/11. Reporters and constituents need to ask Bachmann and other representatives to co-sponsor the bill to help the first responders and victims of the events of 9/11.