At the very end of Monday's Countdown show, during his latest "Special Comment" (also posted on his Bloggermann Web site) attacking the Bush administration, MSNBC's Keith Olbermann unleashed one of his most vitriolic attacks on the President, accusing him of "lying by implication" to get America into a "fraudulent war" with "needless death" in Iraq, which Olbermann referred to as "an impeachable offense." Olbermann: "The polite phrase for how so many of us were duped into supporting a war on the false premise that it had something to do with 9/11 is lying by implication. The impolite phrase is 'impeachable offense.'" He also bizarrely seemed to blame President Bush for the delays in building a memorial at Ground Zero, as he branded Bush's "reprehensible inaction" as a "crime against every victim here and every patriotic sentiment you [Bush] mouthed but did not enact, you have done nothing about it." After accusing the President of "forgetting the lessons of 9/11," Olbermann obnoxiously concluded: "May this country forgive you." (Transcript follows)

Video of the last two-thirds of Olbermann's nearly nine-minute long rant (5:45): Real (4.4 MB at 100 kbps) or Windows Media (3.7 MB at 81 kbps), plus MP3 audio (2 MB)

MSNBC brought back former NBC anchor Tom Brokaw for some post-Bush 9/11 commemoration speech analysis with Chris Matthews. Brokaw wasn't impressed: “I was surprised that there was not more poetry in it, a, and b, that he didn't take us to a different place in terms of where he wants to go next. This is the kind of speech that he could have given three years ago, not five years after 9/11. The American public now has been through a lot in five years, Chris, and with all due respect to the President, they'll be measuring his rhetoric versus the reality that they see almost every day in their newspapers and on television.” Forwarding a liberal world view, Brokaw proposed: “The policies versus the reality, I think is what a lot of people are going to be looking at. And whether or not we have to find other ways, than just militarily going in to deal with these issues, is the question on the minds of a lot of people."

He soon elaborated on the point: “The question is, do we advance the goals of trying to suffocate this Islamic rage, which is real, we are still under threat from a lot of jihadists around the world, by fighting the war the way we are in Iraq and doing what we have been doing in Afghanistan, or is there another way worth examining?” (Transcript follows)

I'm not going to waste my time fisking Keith Olbermann's rant against President Bush on tonight's Countdown, but the gist of tonight's "Special Comment" was basically that President Bush has used 9/11 to drive a wedge between Americans, bring the country into an unjust war, and should be impeached.

Video available here.

Transcript available here.

I do, however, have to note one point of extreme irony.

Keith began his soliloquy by sputtering on about the fact that nothing has been done yet at Ground Zero:

In the fourth half-hour of NBC’s Today on September 11, co-host Matt Lauer chatted with Washington Bureau Chief Tim Russert and former anchorman Tom Brokaw about what's happened to America in the last five years. It wasn't pretty. Lauer cited lost civil liberties, Russert lamented we're "pretty much alone" in Iraq, and Brokaw found both parties weren't enthusiastic enough about demanding more "sacrifice" -- as in tax increases.

MRC's Geoff Dickens found that around 8:35 AM Eastern time, Brokaw suggested that while it was politically dangerous to sound the usual partisan notes on this anniversary, "Nonetheless the country is fully engaged in a very robust debate, as they say these days, about the wisdom of the policies." Lauer grew specific: "And some of the changes and some of the controversial subjects we've talked about in the last several years here. The loss of some personal liberties as a result of this war on terrorism and yet when you poll people and you ask them are they willing to give up those personal freedoms and feel safer a majority of people say yes."

Have a look at the poll that Keith Olbermann flashed during this evening's Countdown. 

Try to put aside your politics for a moment to describe - in all objectivity - the most striking aspect of the poll results.  I'd say it's the fact that by a margin of almost 2:1, Americans feel more safe rather than less safe since 9/11.  Pretty good accomplishment by the Bush administration, you might say.

So how did Keith Olbermann characterize the results?  "55% combined think we are either as safe or less safe" since 9/11.

Lebanese-born Joseph Shahda has translated a July 25, 2000 Iraqi intelligence document released by the U.S. Army Foreign Military Studies Office. The document refers to "one of our sources" who works for the "American Associated Press Agency."

Republic of Iraq

The Presidency of the Republic

The Intelligence Service

Date: 25/7/2000

Number: 6146

Secret

To: 5th / 4th / 13th Directorates

We were informed from one of our sources (the degree of trust in him is good) who works in the American Associated Press Agency that the agency broadcasted to through computer to its branches worldwide the following:

Some of you might be familiar with an Internet movie called “Loose Change.” Addressed by NewsBusters in August, this low-budget schlockumentary suggested that much of 9/11 is a fantasy created by the Bush administration to advance the war on terror.

With that in mind, “Democracy Now” host Amy Goodman invited the writer/director and researcher of this film on her program today to debate a couple of editors from Popular Mechanics magazine about this issue (video and transcript links to follow).

Popular Mechanics was invited on due to a March 2005 cover-story it did entitled “9/11: Debunking the Myths.” More recently, PM has taken a strong position against this film in an article at its blog:

Apparently Bravo feels that a Michael Moore movie is worth watching on the 5th anniversary of 9/11. Starting at 4:30 EST today we can all watch Bowling for Columbine, Moore's movie on gun violence. If they are going to choose programming for this day, why not go all the way and show Fahrenheit 9/11! Is it a bit distasteful or is it just me?

The New York Times' reliably liberal television-beat reporter Alessandra Stanley offered up a surprising assessment in her mostly favorable review of “The Path to 9-11," a review which ran on Friday when there was still some doubt as to whether or not ABC would cave in to the Clintonistas and various left-wing bloggers furious at the network. The first part of the miniseries ran last night with some selective edits but with the essence of the story intact, further infuriating the left with its picture of a Clinton administration unwilling to take terrorism seriously.

Rosie O’Donnell and her fellow "View" co-hosts delivered a mostly restrained show on the fifth anniversary of 9/11. The women talked about the terrible loss of life and where each person was on that fateful day. However, during a discussion of the world’s support for America, post-September 11th, the liberal Ms. O’Donnell had to be reined in by the usually equally left-wing Joy Behar.

O’Donnell: "And it’s hard to believe that in the five years since, that's all gone away. And we have sort of squandered, the, you know, the world's, um-"

Behar: "We’ll get to that on another day."

O’Donnell: "Yeah. Well, we’ll get to it, I’m sure."

Perhaps he hopes to give legitimacy to the "9-11 conspiracy" movement. Filmmaker Oliver Stone says he is thinking of doing a movie about a "group of people in the American administration" who planned the terrorist attack. In his classic approach, he will claim that "bin Laden and George Bush met on the Grassy Knoll."

Reports Agence France-Presse:

US filmmaker Oliver Stone, who surprised many with the patriotic flavor of his new film "World Trade Center," hinted here Monday that he is considering a more controversial follow-up investigating the "conspiracy" around 9-11.

"There is a great story in a movie, a conspiracy by a group of people in the American administration who have an agenda and who used 9-11 to further that agenda," he told journalists while in Moscow as part of a world tour to promote his latest movie.

I wrote, earlier today, about how The Early Show began the broadcast this morning by politicizing 9/11. I had stopped watching after the Axelrod segment to write about it, and just recently got back to it. I was almost stunned by how right my headline had been. I just didn't know the half of it. The first hour of the show was filled with politics, the vast majority of it negative towards the Bush administration and the rest just inappropriate.
First, we had the Axelrod piece, as referenced earlier.

Axelrod: The President's aides have made it clear this is no time for politics, although his very presence here is a reminder of the lost popularity for Mr. Bush in the past five years....In the days and weeks after the President climbed that rubble pile at Ground Zero and promised revenge, the President had an 89% approval rating. Five years later that number is 36%. Later today the President will head from here in Manhattan to Shanksville, Pennsylvania. At 11:45 A.M., Mr. Bush will participate in a ceremony in Shanksville. He will then fly to Washington to lay a wreath at the Pentagon. At 9:00 tonight the President will address the nation in what we're told will be a non-political speech.

This one definitely requires readers to put down all drinking vessels if they want to save their computers from devastating harm. Agence France Presse reported Monday that Australian Prime Minister John Howard has chosen not to meet with former vice president and Global Warmingist-in-Chief Dr. Albert Gore. Apparently, Gore wants to meet with the prime minister to discuss his controversial opinions concerning man-made gases – those not emanating from him, of course – causing irreparable damage to the world’s atmosphere.

According to AFP (emphasis mine), “Howard retorted that he did not take policy advice from films and said he would not meet Gore.”

Howard wasn’t the only Australian government official to diss Gore (emphasis mine):

An excerpt from my latest item up at the MRC's BusinessandMedia.org Web site. See my article for more, including links to external content:

The recent discovery of new oil reserves in the Gulf of Mexico was the perfect excuse for CNN’s Jack Cafferty to revisit his election-year conspiracy theory. But when the September 9 "In the Money" aired, the program’s panelists talked to an oil analyst about the future of oil and gas prices, leaving out the idea of a Big Oil-GOP axis of petrol. 

"You know, if you were a real cynic, you could also wonder if the oil companies might not be pulling the price of gas down to help the Republicans get re-elected in the midterm elections a couple of months away," Cafferty suggested on the August 30 "Situation Room," just five days before the Chevron (NYSE: CVX) oil discovery. 

While NBC's Matt Lauer baited Sen. Hillary Clinton to admonish the administration to say we're not safer, he attacked the President for, in fact, trying to make the nation safer. Lauer prompted Clinton: "Are you comfortable that the United States did not break the law in conducting that kind of interrogations in those secret sites?" Then later in the program, as first noted by MRC's Brent Baker, Lauer repeatedly attacked Bush over interrogation methods worrying: "Are you at all concerned that at some point, even if you get results, there is a blurring the lines of, between ourselves and the people we're trying to protect us against?"

Video clip of Lauer's combative exchange with Bush over treatment of terrorists (3:20): Real (5.6 MB) or Windows Media (6.5 MB), plus MP3 audio (1.1 MB)

On Monday morning, the fifth anniversary of the September 11th terrorist attacks, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani appeared on the morning shows of each of the three broadcast networks, ABC’s "Good Morning America," NBC’s "Today," and CBS’s "Early Show. While "Good Morning America," and "Today" avoided talk of possible future campaigns, Rene Syler on the "Early Show" looked ahead to the Presidential campaign in 2008 and inquired if Mr. Giuliani would himself be a candidate:

"If I could, sir, ask you about your political aspirations because there's been a lot of talk. You remain a presidential prospect for 2008, will you run for president?"

Watching Tom Brokaw on this morning's Today show viewers couldn't help feel depressed as Brokaw painted a divided America that is disrepected abroad and losing the war on terrorism. On this morning's special 9/11 anniversary edition of Today, Brokaw opined: "Five years later there are more questions, more uncertainty. After all five years later the Taliban are back in Afghanistan, Iraq is on the verge of anarchy, Iran is more dangerous than ever. Five years later there have been no more attacks on the U.S. but the terrorists are still out there."

Brokaw worried about government overstepping its bounds and wrung his hands about the origins of Islamic anger:

"Just who else is listening in on our conversations? The Islamic rage, where does that come from?"

As expected, the airing of the ABC movie, The Path To 9/11, has infuriated the left-wing blogosphere. Their comments range from dark threats against ABC for broadcasting this movie to a self-pitying sense of despair over their inability to keep it from airing. Here is a sampling of enraged comments from the Democratic Underground, the Daily Kos, and the Huffington Post:

If ABC/Disney goes through with its plans to air "Path to 9/11" tomorrow and Monday I don't blame them at all. Why? Because they are not scared of the left and quite frankly we have not given them any damn reason to fear us.

NEVER GIVE UP, NEVER GIVE IN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If we give up on this we will give up on everything they wish to spoon feed us. I have sent all of my e-mails, and cancelled plans for a vacation next summer in disney world. If they end up showing this docu, they will just as easily steal the elections in `06. But, actually `06 is ssssssooooooooooo minor compared to `08. They have no intentions of leaving, the power has been too much of a narcotic for them to give it to the dems.

The 5th anniversary of the terrorist attacks on September 11th, 2001, is clearly an event that needs to be marked and acknowledged. One can only imagine the furor that would arise if the President of the United States were to neglect observing and commenting on the day. On the other hand, if he were to choose this particular time to come out with partisan political attacks, to attempt to take advantage of the anniversary observances in purely political ways, I believe we can say, with some confidence, that the mainstream press would be vociferous in their condemnation. History suggests to us that the media in this country is on the lookout for any signs of partisanship from the President today. (It also suggests that that vigilance is, shall we say, one-sided. Attacks against the President for allowing the towers to be destroyed "on his watch," as it were, would be unlikely to arouse the same sense of outrage.)

On this solemn occasion, our hearts go out to all who lost friends, colleagues, and family members five years ago, as well as to those who worked tirelessly and selflessly to save them. God Bless America.

For those that watched “The Path to 9/11” last evening, and were interested in which scenes were targeted by the Clinton administration for editing, you should see Dan Riehl’s post on the subject here.

Those that are interested in what apparently was altered in the final edition should see Al Brown's post here, as well as Editor & Publisher’s article on the subject.

With that as pretext, I wanted to offer my impressions of Part I.

Matt Lauer gave it the old college try, doing his best to lure Hillary Clinton into some Bush-bashing on the fifth anniversary of 9/11.  But demonstrating savvy political instincts, or at least those of her advisers, Clinton held fire, not deigning to swing at the anti-Bush softballs Lauer served up on this morning's 'Today.'

Lauer: "Are we safer today five years after the attacks of 9-11?"

Hillary: "I think it is fair to say we are safer but not safe enough. We have a lot of work to do."

Lauer lobbed a couple questions inviting Hillary to suggest that our war on terrorism has made things worse:

"I am curious how you feel about this. Do you think there are more or less people today, more or fewer people today who want to bring harm to the United States than there were in the days prior to 9-11 and the actions we have taken post 9-11?"

With many internet companies such as Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft knuckling under pressure from the rulers of China to censor their content, it's refreshing to see it when one takes a stand against political censorship (h/t: Caine Starfire):

The founder of Wikipedia, the online encyclopaedia written by its users, has defied the Chinese government by refusing to bow to censorship of politically sensitive entries.