MSNBC: You Know Who's Responsible For Violence in Egypt? United States Of Course

Via Firedoglake's YouTube account, Here's one MSNBC reporter's take on who's to blame for the violence in Egypt, and no, it's not President Mubarak:



He has a point that we are somewhat backing Mubarak, but it's not exactly an easy position that President Obama and the United States is in:

So confounded is the administration by all this that you’ve got some Democratic foreign policy specialists saying Mubarak shouldn’t go while other Democratic foreign policy experts are calling for democratic presidential elections. Look at it from Obama’s perspective: If he sides with Mubarak and the regime falls, the anti-American backlash will be vicious. If he sides with the protesters and the regime falls, he’ll be blamed for having helped bring the Muslim Brotherhood to power. Better to stick to neutral, well-meaning pap about “restraint” and hope for the best, no? Which of course also explains why U.S. foreign policy towards Egypt has remained basically constant for 30 years through administrations as different as Reagan, Clinton, Bush, and Obama. Given the country’s Islamist grassroots, what was the alternative? Any president who came out whole-hog for democracy would have risked destabilizing the regime and empowering fundamentalists, which would in turn have encouraged fanatics across the region and potentially reoriented Sunni governments away from the Iranian threat and back towards Israel. As I recall, that was a chief “realist” criticism of Bush’s vision for the Middle East, later illustrated by Hamas’s victory in Gaza — that a democratic process doesn’t necessarily lead to a more liberal outcome. After 9/11 and the Iranian revolution in ’79, how could any American president gamble on backing reforms that might produce a net outcome that’s more Islamist? It’s political suicide.

Given that, I can see why there would be such a reluctance on the part of the Obama Administration to openly back one side or another.

However, this reporter went a bit further with it. He seemed to imply that the protesters believe that United States is backing the Egyptian president because the police used some tear gas from American companies. That is a bit far-fetched, but considering the Anti-American sentiment and the radical Islamic belief that the US is the Great Satan or something, it might be probable that some may believe that.

However, I have to wonder if those on the left actually agree with that sentiment.

What The Big Deal? MSNBC Indefinitely Suspends Olbermann For Donating to the Max to 3 Democrats/Update: TV "Insiders" Say Olbermann Won't Be Back

Keith Olbermann was suspended indefinitely by MSNBC for donating the maximum amount allowed by law to three different Democrats this past election cycle:

MSNBC President Phil Griffin said in a statement Friday: “I became aware of Keith's political contributions late last night. Mindful of NBC News policy and standards, I have suspended him indefinitely without pay."
Olbermann made campaign contributions to two Arizona members of Congress and failed Kentucky Senate candidate Jack Conway ahead of Tuesday’s election.

Olbermann, who acknowledged the contributions in a statement to POLITICO, made the maximum legal donations of $2,400 apiece to Conway and to Arizona Reps. Raul Grijalva and Gabrielle Giffords. He donated to the Arizona pair on Oct. 28 — the same day that Grijalva appeared as a guest on Olbermann’s “Countdown” show.

I’m really having trouble drumming up the ability to care about this story much. MSNBC is just posturing and trying to keep alive the meme that they are unbiased. The fact that Keith is liberal and would donate to Democrats should not come as a shock to anyone that has watched Countdown for more than two minutes. His bias is more than obvious. He doesn’t even really try to hide it, either.

Personally, I don’t think that he should be suspended or fired for this anymore than Juan Williams should have been fired from NPR over his comment about being nervous around Muslims on airplanes, and it’ll, more than likely, pass, and he’ll come back to MSNBC soon, especially considering all of the negative backlash that they are getting from the left AND the right over this issue.

However, there is a hypocrisy angle to this story. This should be brought up to Keith by any guest that comes on his show anytime that he chastises Rupert Murdoch or anyone else on Fox for donating a penny to any GOP candidate

Update:

TV "Insiders" are saying that Olbermann won't be back:

Insiders we’ve talked to say Olbermann won’t be back. The question is whether he’ll leave or MSNBC keeps him off the air.

GE Receives Payback For MSNBC's Glowing Coverage of Obama

Jeffery Immelt has transformed NBC networks, especially MSNBC, into a bastion for liberal superpartisans. Now thanks to a loophole, General Electric is getting "rescued" by a program designed to help the banks:

General Electric, the world's largest industrial company, has quietly become the biggest beneficiary of one of the government's key rescue programs for banks.

At the same time, GE has avoided many of the restrictions facing other financial giants getting help from the government.

The company did not initially qualify for the program, under which the government sought to unfreeze credit markets by guaranteeing debt sold by banking firms. But regulators soon loosened the eligibility requirements, in part because of behind-the-scenes appeals from GE.

As a result, GE has joined major banks collectively saving billions of dollars by raising money for their operations at lower interest rates. Public records show that GE Capital, the company's massive financing arm, has issued nearly a quarter of the $340 billion in debt backed by the program, which is known as the Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program, or TLGP. The government's actions have been "powerful and helpful" to the company, GE chief executive Jeffrey Immelt acknowledged in December.

Not a bad return on their investment after sacrificing their ratings and occupational integrity showering The One with praise and tingles up their hosts' legs.

MSNBC's O'Donnell: No White Men Were Good Enough For Supreme Court

From the same network that have guests that call tea party activists "teabagging racist rednecks" and don't challenge them, Norah O'Donnell claims that there weren't any qualified white men to replace Souter.

During the 3:00PM EST hour on MSNBC on Wednesday, political analyst Pat Buchanan wondered why President Obama’s short list for the Supreme Court only included women, in response, anchor Norah O’Donnell declared: "Did it ever occur to you, Pat, that maybe there weren’t any white men who were qualified?"

Buchanan replied: "No, it did not occur to me...You mean there are no white males qualified? That is – that would be an act of bigotry to make a statement like that." O’Donnell defended her remark by claiming past discrimination against women in the nominating process: "In the past there have been no women that have been qualified." Buchanan argued: "They certainly have been qualified in the past. I don’t doubt there are. But probably half of the great lawyers and judges are white males in this country. And to rule them out, why? Because of their sex and because of their race is wrong, I think. At least it’s affirmative action."

O’Donnell rejected Buchanan’s claim: "I don’t think you have proof that they did that." Buchanan asked: "How did he come down to four women?" O’Donnell simply repeated White House talking points: "He said that they were the best and that met the views that he had, the particular criteria." Buchanan summed up that "criteria": "One of them, it’s got to be a woman, and the other it got down to be, ‘hey, it’s an Hispanic,’ that’s affirmative action."

Last time I checked, Souter was a white man. So a white man isn't capable of replacing another white man. That doesn't make sense.

While I agree with Buchannan that affirmative action is in play here, we all knew it was coming. So, I don't know why Buchannan acted surprised. He was probably just making a point, but it's falling on deaf ears over at MSNBC and their overly liberal audience.

GE: Shareholder's Express Their Righteous Anger Over Immelt's Leftward Slant of MSNBC

There was a shareholder revolt at GE as shareholders bombarded those who reign supreme at GE with questions and criticism about how the "thrill that goes up the leg" of MSNBC "embarrasses" their shareholders.

"The crowd was very upset with MSNBC because of its leftward tilt," one attendee said. "Some former employees said they were embarrassed by it.

"When he got the floor, Waters focused his question about MSNBC on Olbermann's interview of actress Janeane Garofalo, who likened conservatives to racists and spoke of "the limbic brain inside a right-winger."

"He (Waters) was complaining that Olbermann didn't bother to challenge her," another GE shareholder said.

This was sweet to watch. MSNBC has been mailing it in to the left for years. It has only gotten worse. It doesn't matter if it's Olbermann, Maddow, Schulz, or Mathews. They're all liberal cheerleaders for Obama that carriers the water for the Democrats 24/7.

"Any time MSNBC was mentioned, there was a rumbling in the crowd of 400 people," he added.

There is a lot of righteous anger on the part of the shareholders. They are losing financially because of Immelt's incompetence.

He has an obvious bias to the left who was even chosen to be a economic advisor to the president back in February.

Immelt has run GE into the ground not just with their cable TV stations but in all facets of the company. The companies have dropped like a stone over Immelt's "leadership". How does he still have a job? He has to know where all of the skelaton's are buried.

"Brokaw's Embarrassment" Grows, MSNBC Moves Further Left With Addition of Ed Shultz

Is MSNBC Set to Create Yet Another Left-Wing Propaganda Hour?
By Rich Noyes
March 26, 2009 - 10:53 ET

If you thought MSNBC could not possibly tilt any further to the left, you may — sadly — be wrong. According to the New York Observer, the cable network may be about to give liberal radio host Ed Schultz his own program. Schultz has already filled in three times this month as anchor of the 6pm ET 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, the one-time venue of Meet the Press moderator David Gregory.

“Schultz, with his rustic delivery, blue-collar bona fides and copious hunting references, would presumably add some heartland credibility to MSNBC's wonky cosmopolitan lineup without disrupting the lefty story line,” The Observer’s Felix Gillette noted on Tuesday.

Schultz has been a favorite with the NBC/MSNBC crowd since his national radio show debuted in January 2004. NBC’s Today show quickly brought him on as a pundit during the Democratic primaries, and treated him to a gooey profile in March of that year. Katie Couric touted Schultz as a liberal version of radio mega-star Rush Limbaugh, though at the time Schultz’s affiliates consisted only of stations in North Dakota, Montana, and Needles, California.

“Who in the heck is Ed Schultz? We’re gonna profile the man being called the liberals’ answer to Rush Limbaugh," Couric chirped in setting up the segment. "There’s a different sound coming from your radio days these days. It’s a liberal talk show host. Some say it’s the left wing’s answer to Rush Limbaugh. And you might be surprised to hear that this liberal host originates from the conservative heartland. We’re gonna meet him in this half-hour.”

The report, by correspondent Jamie Gangel, revealed that Schultz was actually a stooge of Democratic activists. "It is no secret that you are on the air for the next two years because Democratic donors have put up $2 million to launch this. Can you really say what you think?" Gangel challenged. Schultz insisted: "I'm not beholden to anybody."

In 2008, NBC and MSNBC both pounded conservative radio host Bill Cunningham after he referred to “Barack Hussein Obama” prior to a McCain campaign event. A few weeks later, however, after the liberal Schultz blasted McCain as a “warmonger” at an Obama event (for which the Obama campaign rebuked Schultz), his friends at NBC and MSNBC helped shield him. MSNBC’s Countdown and Hardball — which feverishly went after Cunningham — were silent on Schultz, while David Gregory’s 6pm Race for the White House offered Schultz a friendly forum to explain himself.

Appearing on the April 7, 2008 show, Schultz stuck by his venomous attack: “He is a warmonger. His policies and his positions on Iraq certainly parallel that of a warmonger. And he fits the description.”

On his radio show, Schultz has polluted the airwaves with rhetoric far nastier than what liberals claim about talk radio conservatives. Last Friday, for example, Schultz called GOP Senator Jon Kyl a “spineless scumbag” for daring to criticize President Obama’s joke about bowling “like Special Olympics or something.” Other recent examples chronicled here on NewsBusters:

■ On March 2, Schultz compared Limbaugh to Adolf Hitler: “If you watch Limbaugh with the sound down...he looks like Adolf Hitler!...The parallel is so striking.”
■ On November 25, Schultz rued how, after years of bashing George W. Bush, the outgoing President never extended his hospitality to left-wing talkers: “We lefties with microphones, we were never invited to the White House. Never got a chance to even urinate on the yard.”
■ On November 17, Schultz blasted Republican Senator Richard Shelby as a “terrorist” for opposing a taxpayer bailout of the auto companies: “It is his mission to kill the Big Three.... Senator Shelby from Alabama is a terrorist on the American worker. He is a terrorist on wage workers.” Two weeks later, on December 3, Schultz attacked network news (presumably including NBC?) for not “cheerleading” a socialist bailout: “They should be cheerleading. They should. Forget all this journalist crap! I’m serious.”

Last August, retired NBC anchor Tom Brokaw refused to defend the one-sided left-wing rants that have replaced professional journalism on MSNBC, telling a forum on campaign reporting: “I think Keith has gone too far. I think Chris has gone too far.” If MSNBC adds Schultz to the line-up, Brokaw’s embarrassment will only grow.

-----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/rich-noyes/2009/03/26/msnbc-set-create-yet-another-left-wing-propaganda-hour
-----------------------------------------------------------

My Thoughts

MSNBC had already hit rock bottom. Now, they've took out a shovel and started to dig.

The MSM and the left pounded Limbaugh just for saying that he wants Obama's agenda to fail. Imagine what would have happened if he would've called Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid a “spineless scumbag” or said that Obama looked like Hitler while stumping on the campaign trail.

MSNBC's Alex Witt: Throws Logic Out the Window Downplaying Obama's Special Olympics Gaffe

MSNBC Dives To Cover For Obama With New 'Special Olympics' Theory

By Mike Sargent
March 20, 2009 - 13:07 ET

This morning, MSNBC’s Alex Witt was in full damage control mode, working whatever apologist explanations she could find into her reluctant coverage of last night's teleprompter-free “Tonight Show” appearance by the president.

Obama was doing quite well at staying on message, when he made the following comment in reaction to Jay Leno's question about his infamous lack of bowling ability:

JAY LENO: I imagine the bowling alley has been burned and closed down. President

BARACK OBAMA: No, I've been practicing.

LENO: Really?

OBAMA: I bowled a 129. I had –

LENO: Oh, no, that's very good. Yeah. That's very good, Mr. President.

OBAMA: It's sort of like Special Olympics or something.

From the press releases coming out of the White House, we know that the press division immediately kicked into high-gear damage-control mode. Of course, the media picked up on the urgent need to bury this story in whatever way they possibly could - which led to the following ludicrous statement by the MSNBC anchor:

ALEX WITT: Now as nothing goes unescaped when it comes to the President. He did talk about the Special Olympics. Some took that as an offensive remark. However, this morning on a radio show, the director of the Special Olympics for the state of Illinois, a man by the name of Doug Snyder, talked about that. And he thinks he knows where all this came from, because he remembers a couple years back introducing the President to a little girl named Caitlyn, who showed the President how to bowl, and did a darn better job of doing it at the time than the President was able to do it. He thinks Caitlyn is actually perhaps the inspiration for the President deciding to be a bit better as a bowler.

It is a rather wide practice for the media to hide their favored politicians behind children. Think, for instance, of the school voucher debate. Those people who favored vouchers were portrayed as being “against better education for our children.” In this, Witt is attempting to hide the President's flippant and insulting remark behind a silver-lined cloud of compassion. Not even the White House is so silly as to think that the President's remarks were anything but flippant and offensive - as evidenced by the immediate phone call to the President and CEO of the Special Olympics apologizing for the comments, and the near-instantaneous press release.

In her zeal to cover the President's gaffe, Alex Witt has shown her true colors - just another liberal media apologist, deep in the tank for Obama.

-----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/mike-sargent/2009/03/20/msnbc-dives-cover-obama-new-special-olympics-theory
-----------------------------------------------------------

My Thoughts

To call this a stretch is an understatement of gigantic proportions. I guarantee you Obama wasn't thinking about that girl, or he would have mentioned her name. This is pitiful example of using innocent children to promote your own agenda. MSNBC has less journalistic integrity than the National Inquirer.

Ari Fleischer Exposes Liberal Media Hypocrisy

Ari Fleischer Zings MSNBC: Should Dems Denounce Keith Olbermann?

By Scott Whitlock March 5, 2009 - 18:10 ET
Former Bush White House press secretary Ari Fleischer appeared on the Thursday edition of MSNBC's "Morning Joe" and stopped the program cold when he challenged the hosts as to whether they were "going after Democrat members of Congress for why they aren't distancing themselves from Keith Olbermann?" Co-anchors Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski, who had been discussing the battle between the White House and Rush Limbaugh, were silent for a moment before Brzezinski admitted, "That was a good one. We're all thinking."

Fleischer pressed, "That's my point. It's a one-sided debate because, largely, the press loves it because the press doesn't like Rush." The quip occurred after Brzezinski attempted to trap Fleischer into saying that he would be following the tactics of attacking the radio host, were he in the same situation as the Obama White House. After Fleischer's jibe, Scarborough started sipping from his coffee and attempted to toss the potential network hot potato over to the show's other guest, Mike Barnicle. Scarborough joked, "I'm going to have a – I can't talk right now because I'm drinking. Mike?" A few seconds later, however, the token MSNBC conservative did admit, "No, that was good."

A transcript of the March 5 segment, which aired at 8:04am, follows:

JOE SCARBOROUGH: All right, let's bring in right now former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer. Ari, thank you so much for being with us.

ARI FLEISCHER: Good morning.

SCARBOROUGH: A lot of people don't realize Ari not only was the spokesman for the Bush White House, he also is running PR for Michael Steele, at least over the past two weeks.

MIKA BRZEZINSKI: Good. He can explain what's going on there.

SCARBOROUGH: You're doing a helluva job, Ari. What's going on there?

FLEISCHER: Good morning. It's great to be on your show where you make things up.

SCARBOROUGH: Well, we find it easier than reading newspapers. No, let's talk seriously about Michael Steele. What would you instruct the leader of the RNC to do at this point?

FLEISCHER: Frankly, I think the RNC, Michael Steele, should not have taken the bait on this whole issue. They fell into a silly political trap. But what I find most distressing though, Joe, is didn't President Obama say he wanted to change the way politics was done in Washington, be post-partisan. He talked at the inaugural address about not engaging in childish things and his Chief of Staff engages in one of the biggest childish things imaginable. This whole food fight over Rush Limbaugh is a distraction from the economy from health care and the things he should be working on. It just makes me think Barack Obama is like every other politician who just seeks political advantage.

SCARBOROUGH: While he was making that statement, you did have Carville and their teams doing polls on trying to find the most unpopular person –

BRZEZINSKI: Well --

SCARBOROUGH: Hold on. They found Rush Limbaugh. They said, you should target him. If that's not political gamesmanship, if that's not politics the way Washington's run for the past generation, I don't know what is.

FLEISCHER: Joe, listen to this. Here's what Barack Obama said in his inaugural address. We've come to proclaim the end of petty grievances, the recriminations that have strangled our politics. He cited scripture, and then he said, the time has come to set aside childish things and then his staff engages in those very things that his inaugural address talked about. You know, Barack Obama has huge popularity, but I think he is planting the seeds which could hurt him down the road if he really is no different from anybody else. And that's what I think this episode shows.

SCARBOROUGH: And, you know, Mike Barnicle, that makes me sad, I'm like the Indian that has the tear coming out the corner of his eye.

BRZEZINSKI: Oh, god.

SCARBOROUGH: I believed he would be different.

BRZEZINSKI: It was Ari. It was Ari.

MIKE BARNICLE: Ari, you can't seriously believe – do you seriously believe that Obama and his staff, including Rahm Emanuel, what do you figure they're spending, two, three, four minutes a day on Rush Limbaugh? I mean, come on.

FLEISCHER: You know, Mike, how it works, you plant the bomb and you see where it goes off. But isn't that what he said he would stop in Washington? 2004 he said there's not a red America, there's not a blue America, there's a United States of America. My point is, what he is doing and what people on the cable shows have all picked up on, is exactly what people get weary of Washington for. And it's what every politician does. He wanted to be different, and I think he's squandering that chance to truly be different, especially to Republicans who question his policies, but really thought he might be a different type of leader. That's the big problem I have with all of this. This is – this reminds me a lot of the lipstick on a pig issue during the campaign raised against Barack Obama. It's foolish, who needs to get into that?

BRZEZINSKI: Ari, if you were standing at that podium, would you have not taken the opportunity to do what they are doing with Rush Limbaugh?

SCARBOROUGH: Let's say Michael Moore.

FLEISCHER: You have to be careful when you stand at that podium, you don't realize until you're in that unique job how much weight your words have. When you previously as a Senator's press secretary or a party secretary, press secretary, could dismiss or take a slap at a political opponent, when you do it from the White House, you're bringing the weight of the government onto that private person. So, you really have to be careful about it and do it with some grace. Going after Rush Limbaugh, it's just -- to me it's the usual nonsense.

BRZEZINSKI: They're not going after him, they were just labeling him as the leader of the Republican Party and saying --

SCARBOROUGH: They targeted him, Mika.

FLEISCHER: It's gamesmanship.

BRZEZINSKI: I'm saying you wouldn't have pointed that out?

FLEISCHER: It's gamesmanship, what difference does it make? Are you going after Democrat members of Congress for why they aren't distancing themselves from Keith Olbermann?

BRZEZINSKI: That was a good one. We're all thinking.

FLEISCHER: That's my point. That's my point. It's a one-sided debate because largely the press loves it because the press doesn't like Rush.

SCARBOROUGH: I'm going to have a – I can't talk right now because I'm drinking. Mike?

BRZEZINSKI: Mike Barnicle?

BARNICLE: I have to ask you, Ari, because you were really good when you were standing at the podium.

SCARBOROUGH: No, that was good.

BARNICLE: But did you have to soak your face in cement this morning to come out and say all of this with a straight face. I mean, come on!

FLEISCHER: You are so part of how Washington's always worked and this is why people give up.

BARNICLE: [Laughing] Me? What?

BRZEZINSKI: Barnicle?

FLEISCHER: You guys love this story. You love what Barack Obama and Rahm Emanuel are doing because it gives the left an excuse – not you, Joe – to go after people like Rush and conservatives and like they did to Newt. But don't you realize, this is why so many people in America tune out Washington? Especially at a time when we got so many bigger issues. Yeah, Mike, it's two or three minutes a day, that's all it took for them to plant the seeds of destruction they wanted to plant.

-----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2009/03/05/ari-fleischer-zings-msnbc-should-dems-denounce-keith-olbermann
-----------------------------------------------------------

My Thoughts

Ha! I love to see liberals squirm when their caught in their own hypocrisy.

If Republicans have to denounce Limbaugh as a far right extremist, then I fully expect the Democrats to do the same for not just Olbermann but also Michael Moore, Bill Maher, DL Hughley, or anyone in the MSM that wanted America to fail in the Iraq War.

I'll be here holding my breath. Someone call 911, if I start looking like a Smurf..

Their attack on Limbaugh is a thinly veiled diversionary tactic to distract people from the Democratic spending orgy, free fall in the market, and the administration's tax and cabinet scandals. So they bring up the Limbaugh boogieman that they used in the 90's.

It's the height of hypocrisy for the Democrats to chastise the Republicans to hold Ayers, Wright, Rezko, etc against Obama as guilt by association. Then, they turn around and do the same to Republicans. They want to convict the GOP in court of public opinion of their guilt by association with Rush.