Click here for instructions on running Gaggle daily on your own site. There's also an archive of previous toons available here.

Keith Olbermann's ongoing campaign against the Bush administration is now resonating so well with liberals, Democratic leaders in Washington are starting to quote the MSNBC host publicly. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid was so impressed with Olbermann's August 30 attack on Donald Rumsfeld for a speech in which the Defense Secretary referred to the appeasement of Nazis before World War II, the Democratic leader read from Olbermann's comments while making a speech on the Senate floor. In turn, Olbermann was so proud of this recognition that he played a clip of Reid's speech during the "Top Three Sound Bites" segment on Wednesday's Countdown show. (Transcript follows)

President Bush's announcement Wednesday, that he wants military tribunals for al-Qaeda operatives he's moved from secret sites to Guantanamo Bay, drew some unusual respect from top broadcast network stars, particularly ABC's George Stephanopoulos and CBS's Bob Schieffer, for its political cleverness. Stephanopoulos declared on World News with Charles Gibson: “Here the administration took an admission, and a mandate from the Supreme Court, and turned it into a powerful political statement. That's some clever jujitsu there.” Over on the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric, ex-anchor Schieffer told his replacement: “Well, he was very deft in how he did this, Katie....The President stressed the benefits from this program, he talked about how much information they'd gotten from these people...”

NBC's Tim Russert also employed the “jujitsu” term, but not in such an admiring way as he recalled how Democrats “remember after September 11th the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, a Democratic idea. The President opposed it. He then took it, jujitsu, and drove it and ran against Democrats in the midterm elections, of 2002, successfully.” Russert also passed along how Nancy Pelosi oddly charged: “The last time we saw a picture of Donald Rumsfeld, he was shaking Saddam Hussein's hand.”

With the 'macaca' controversy growing painfully ancient by the day, Washington Post staff writer Tim Craig found a new liberal talking point to further against Sen. George Allen (R-Va.) in his September 6 Metro section article, "Entertainment Industry Donates to Allen's Bid."

My home-delivered Maryland Edition of the paper ran the story without any 'macaca' references on page B5, but Nexis shows the paper's Final Edition ran the story on B1 with two references to 'macaca' in the article.

According to Nexis, the headline for that run of the article was "Music, TV Industry Donates to Allen; Senator Has Faulted Webb's Ties to Field." I noticed it was the 11th story filed or co-written by Craig to mention the 'macaca' flap.

A night after giving its “freeSpeech” platform over to the liberal Morgan Spurlock to gripe about the lack of “civil discourse,” the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric on Wednesday employed the feature to help plug a Thursday protest in favor of amnesty for illegal immigrants. CBS put a soft and sympathetic edge on the topic by showcasing a Los Angeles Times reporter, Sonia Nazario, concerned about mothers in the U.S. separated from their kids south of the border. Couric set up Nazario by pointing out how, on Thursday in DC, there would be “a demonstration in favor of amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants.” The “freeSpeech” segment, Couric explained, would focus “on mothers who come here illegally, and the children they leave behind.”

Nazario began: “If we are going to start to solve our immigration problem and stay true to our family values, we need to understand the plight of hundreds of thousands of mothers now in the U.S. and the children they felt forced to leave behind in Central America. It's a humanitarian crisis.” Nazario is the author of Enrique’s Journey: The Story of a Boy’s Dangerous Odyssey to Reunite with His Mother. (Transcript follows)

Dan Rather, who may have been out to rain on Katie Couric's parade, promote his return to TV news, or both, talked at length the other day to Rebecca Dana of the New York Observer, and the result is in the Observer's new issue. Highlights:

--Starting October 24, the hour-long Dan Rather Reports will air Tuesday nights on the high-definition channel HDNet, whose boss, Mark Cuban, has, in Dana's words, "promised [Rather] complete editorial control of the program." Rather also will do a documentary for HDNet every so often.

Dana writes that Rather "declined to say whether he himself hoped to pursue the mysterious National Guard documents that formed the basis of the [Memogate] report. Instead, he outlined three areas of coverage that he plans to focus on...the lives of soldiers and their families; the shrinking of the middle class (“although I don’t like to talk in terms of class; it’s a European term”); and the relationship between money and political campaigns...All three are topics that he believes are under-covered by the broadcast and cable news operations..."

The President of the United States addressed the nation, the media and the world today (well, most of the world - the mainstream networks felt it unnecessary to break from their soaps to carry the speech) from the White House. He spoke for 37 minutes, and addressed the current state of the War On Terror. He talked about the attacks on September 11th. He talked about the terrorists who have been caught, and how the information from them led to the capture of other terrorists. He talked about multiple attacks on the United States that had been thwarted by the capture and interrogation of these terrorists. He spoke about the need to continue to gather information. He spoke about the Supreme Court's Hamdan decision, and the bill that he has sent to Congress to authorize military tribunals. He talked about the transfer to Guantanamo of certain high-profile terrorists, and the treatment that everyone at Guantanamo has received. He talked about trying the men responsible for 9/11, the USS Cole, the embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania.

As regular readers of NewsBusters know, a fairly large number of leftists in this country are convinced that George W. Bush is hell-bent on destroying America and turning it into a dictatorship where mandatory worship of "neocons" is required and media outlets are censored. Liberal figures such as Al Gore, Keith Olbermann, and regulars at places like Democratic Underground and Daily Kos routinely make such statements.

While exposing leftist paranoia for public ridicule is amusing, I think it's also worth noting just how far from reality these claims really are. Last month, we saw how real media repression occurs every day in Fidel Castro's Cuba. But Cuba is far from the only place where this happens. Over at PBS's MediaShift, Mark Glaser and Zimbabwean journalist Frank Chikowore talk about how that country's government imprisons and censors reporters who dare criticize it:

The government shuts down independent newspapers. It jams radio signals from outside the country. Internet access is sporadic. Inflation is out of control. A bill is in Parliament that would allow the government to censor private email communications.

Welcome to Zimbabwe, the south African country born out of the former Rhodesia in 1980 and led by strongman President Robert Mugabe every day since its independence from British colonialism.

MSNBC's Chris Matthews invited on New York gubernatorial Green Party candidate Malachy McCourt, to state his case but when the brother of Angela's Ashes author, Frank McCourt, suggested George W. Bush be tried for war crimes and executed, the Hardball host didn't even flinch. The following exchange occurred on last night's Hardball:

Matthews: "Look, let me ask you this. Where are you on capital punishment?"

Malachy McCourt: "Capital punishment? I think that if, if I've got to find that guy in Spain who indicted Pinochet and get him for war crimes, and I get him to do the same thing for Bush. And in that case, I would be for capital punishment. Otherwise, I am against it. Spitzer, who is the other guy running here, he is for capital punishment for those who kill policemen. Well, my son is a cop in New York, and if somebody killed my son, and it wouldn't do me any good or give me any satisfaction to sit there in some death house in Sing Sing and watch them put some other person to death because they killed my son. That would not cheer me up one bit, Chris."

Washington Post reporter Petula Dvorak (controversial chronicler of supposed rookie protesters) wrote up the beginning of hard-left protests dubbed "Camp Democracy" on Page A-5 Wednesday, even though Dvorak estimated the crowd at only "about 100" military family members and "peace activists." Perhaps the hype comes from its affiliation with Cindy Sheehan’s "Camp Casey" protests against Bush, but Sheehan was not present yesterday. The headline was "Antiwar Message Travels From Texas to Washington." (The story and accompanying photo also topped the Post home page on Tuesday night.)

CNSNews.com reporter Nathan Burchfiel also observed the protests yesterday, and found nowhere near 100 protesters there: "A few dozen anti-war activists faced light rain in Washington, D.C., Tuesday as they gathered to kick off a 17-day protest of the war in Iraq and other Bush administration policies...The opening ceremonies drew fewer than 50 protesters, who gathered under one of five large tents erected to protect a crowd of hundreds from the rain, which is forecast to continue for the first three days of the event."

Well, that certainly didn’t take long. On her first day, new co-host Rosie O’Donnell muted (slightly) some of her well known liberalism. On September 6, only her second appearance, she made a crack about Rush Limbaugh’s prescription drug problem and promoted a gay ‘Survivor.’ O’Donnell was discussing, shockingly, Tom Cruise when co-host Joy Behar swerved a conversation on prescription drugs into an unrelated, liberal direction:

Behar: "Well, I like Tom, too...but he is not an expert in this particular area. There are scientists and doctors who are experts. It’s like when Rush Limbaugh, know who he is? He says that there's no global warming. Two million scientists say there is global warming, but Rush Limbaugh, no, there is no global warming."

O’Donnell: "He also said he didn’t have 100 bottles of OxyContin in his room."

In covering yesterday's Bush speech, Washington Post reporter Michael Fletcher demonstrates a weird sense of when to use quote marks:

In his speech, Bush said terrorist leaders' statements have made plain their goals, which he called the present-day equivalent of the "evil" aims of Vladimir Lenin and Adolf Hitler.

As opposed to Post reporter Tim Craig recounting the alleged infamy of George Allen again, no quote marks: 

He then segued into his infamous "macaca" remark directed at a Webb volunteer of Indian descent.

Last month, bloggers (including NB's Bob Owens), caught the BBC flat-out admitting its complicity in a staged photo shoot with a Lebanese boy posing next to what the broadcast said was an "Israeli bomb lying unexploded" in someone's living room.

Admitting to participating in news manipulation was bad enough and doing it while endangering a child was even worse. Further compounding things, though, was that in an accompanying photo essay, the Beeb breathlessly identified another Israeli munition left behind in a Lebanese house as an anti-personnel mine. Trouble is, it wasn't:

From SUSANNA BRANDON, copy editor, USA Today: BBC correspondent Martin Asser, reporting Aug. 21 from Southern Lebanon, caused something of a photo-staging and child-endangerment stir when he informed readers: "The shell is huge, bigger than the young boy pushed forward to stand reluctantly next to it while we get our cameras out and record the scene for posterity."

But deeper into the accompanying photo essay, titled Lebanese Villagers Return Home, was something equally amiss: a device breathlessly identified in photo No. 9 as an anti-personnel mine. One is led to assume that the mine was left behind by the Israelis to maim these innocent civilians returning home.

Leave it to the Today show to find the negative side of good economic news. Reporting on the discovery of the largest oil discovery in the Gulf of Mexico, NBC's Martin Savidge admitted that "environmentalists might have a point," in worrying, "the discovery will hardly make a dent in America's reliance on foreign oil" and "it might cause Americans to stop conserving."

The following is the full segment introduced by Ann Curry:

Ann Curry: "Now to Today At the Pump and a major oil discovery in the Gulf of Mexico. The average price of unleaded gas, nationwide, is now $2.72 a gallon according to the AAA. A steady drop over the last few weeks but drivers everywhere are wondering if the price of gas will drop even further with what could be the largest domestic oil find in 38 years. NBC's Martin Savidge has more on the potential of this new find. Hey Martin, good morning."

I felt that same unmistakably liberal chill that the Israeli-Hezbollah war would be twisted by the media when I saw a CNN correspondent reporting on one of the first strikes in Lebanon by Israel.  The reporter was commenting on the "supposed surgical strikes with smart bombs", and he said "Apparently, those smart bombs must not be so accurate because I am standing next to a piece of farm machinery that was hit, and I don't think it is military equipment."  Then with a wry grin, he said  "It appears to be some kind of well-digger."

No, genius, it was a hole-digger for digging tunnels!  Oye!!

-Rob in Marietta, GA

Taking its cue from left-wing bloggers (as noted by NB's Noel Sheppard), California-based New York Times reporter Jesse McKinley files a respectful story today on left-wing complaints about the ABC miniseries "The Path to 9/11," "9/11 Miniseries Is Criticized As Inaccurate And Biased." "Criticized" by left-wingers and former Clintonites, though the Times tries its best to hide that fact.

"Days before its scheduled debut, the first major television miniseries about the Sept. 11 attacks was being criticized on Tuesday as biased and inaccurate by bloggers, terrorism experts and a member of the Sept. 11 commission, whose report makes up much of the film’s source material.

David Gregory, just scolded by White House press secretary Tony Snow for advancing Democratic talking points, pushed them again, along with Matt Lauer, on this morning's Today show. Gregory repeated Democratic attacks on Donald Rumsfeld: "Critics have a long list of complaints against Rumsfeld. The abuse at Abu Ghraib and his role in advocating tougher treatment of prisoners. Underestimating troop levels for the war. And what critics call his arrogance in the face of bad news, like this response two-years ago to a soldier complaining about inadequate armor."

Lauer then followed Gregory's lead, pounding Senate Majority Bill Frist on the Secretary of Defense. Lauer repeatedly interrupted Frist with the following anti-Rumsfeld questions:

Don't be too surprised if you start seeing Guy Fawkes masks popping up at leftist demonstrations and political events in the near future. The reason is that the leftists are now deriving their political inspiration from an incredibly simplistic fantasy movie called V For Vendetta which they take completely seriously as is indicated from this title of a recent thread at the Democratic Underground, "The answers to many of our questions can be found in the movie 'V'."

If you are not up to speed on V For Vendetta aka V For Vicodin, it is set in the near future where Britain is ruled by the fascistic regime of High Chancellor Adam Sutler (read "Adolf Hitler") whom the movie makes sure we know is a member of the Conservative Party. The characters of V have the one-dimensional subtlety of a sledge hammer with Sutler never speaking normally but with a vicious snarl. Muslims are portrayed in this movie as among the innocent victims of a hate campaign (also directed against lesbians) where even the ownership of a Koran results in quick execution by the EVIL regime.

Open and ready for discussion. Today's starter: Mexico's leftists are refusing to concede their electoral loss. Are they taking a page from Al Gore?

    To mark the fifth anniversary of the September 11 attack on America, ABC Entertainment is presenting a six-hour miniseries titled "The Path to 9/11," a forceful, compelling docudrama chronicling the struggles faced by America's counter-terrorist experts between the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 and the fatal one in 2001. Unlike the tone of too much of our reporting on terrorism, where anyone who fights terrorism is depicted as either assembling naked Muslim pyramids if in Iraq, or listening to Grandma's phone calls if at home, this film treats the fight against terror as deadly business, and not just deadly business but a noble struggle for the survival of our nation.

    Serious scholars of current events, not to mention some of those named in the film, may take issue with parts of this presentation. The movie is based on the report of the 9/11 Commission, which itself is not infallible in its conclusions on what went wrong and what needs to fixed. Moreover, up front the moviemakers note it has composite characters and manipulates the time of events for a better movie experience. As a "docudrama" it has taken certain poetic license with history. 

To mark Katie Couric's debut in the Dan Rather chair in media bias at the "CBS Evening News," please consult "Meet the Real Katie Couric," MRC's new Special Report on Couric's very tilted career.

And see our topic page dedicated to all our Couric blogs, including Brent Baker's report from a rebroadcast of the Aspen Ideas Festival, where she declared, without the laugh track she deserved, "I know that I've tried my best through my career to ask challenging questions to whomever I'm speaking, and whether it's a Republican or a Democrat."

Our bloggers' reviews of Katie's first show are just coming in: Mark Finkelstein and Greg Tinti have commented thus far. See Brent Baker's video summary here. Couric is also looking for suggestions for her new sign-off. Take part in the NewsBusters discussion of the subject here.

As the fifth anniversary of the attacks on 9/11 approaches, Americans are once again facing the horrors surrounding this event, and the ominous portent it conveyed. Yet, for some reason, one group of citizens has chosen to commemorate this solemn occasion by protesting an ABC miniseries documenting the history of this calamity.

As amazing as it might seem, the top brass in the liberal blogosphere’s “Netroots” have been frantically writing the past couple of days about “The Path to 9/11,” declaring to their readers that this docudrama is “a piece of fiction,” and that ABC’s airing it represents “gross negligence.”

At the heart of the controversy is the belief universally shared by these Michael Moore devotees that the ABC program in question doesn’t paint a very pretty picture of their Hero-in-Chief, William Jefferson Clinton. Yet, it appears that none of the disgruntled commentators has actually seen the miniseries – a fact that some hypocritically suggest represents a part of the conspiracy – and, therefore, are coming to conclusions about the program’s contents from reviews by others.

Take for example Markos Moulitsas, the outspoken proprietor of Daily Kos. On September 5, he posted a blog at his website entitled “ABC’s Work of Fiction”: