Shut 'Em Up

Shut 'em up – that's the tried-and-true policy of the Bush gang when it comes to people whose views contradict their own.

Scientists want to speak out on global warming? Muzzle them. Military advisors offer opinions they don't want to hear? Fire them. A Medicare official has information they don't want to see the light of day? Threaten him.

And the latest? "Virtual censorship" of the State Department's speakers bureau – the U.S. Speaker and Specialist Program – according to the department's own Inspector General.

The program guidelines call for the State Department to provide speakers "who represent a broad range of responsible and informed opinion in the United States" and are "not limited to the expression of U.S. government policies."

But, according to a 22-page "sensitive but unclassified" report obtained by McClatchy Newspapers – political appointee program managers screened potential speakers for opinions differing from the Bush administration's policies, "regardless of whether the speaker candidates' personal opinions had a bearing on the topical issues for which they were being considered for recruitment."

One example, an expert on conflict resolution was informed at the last minute that he was no longer invited to participate in a videoconference in Jerusalem. He had authored a book that was critical of the Iraqi Reconstruction program.

The bureau also delayed potential speakers in order to find others who it felt created a so-called "balance." For example, the U.S. Embassy in Jakarta requested an appearance by Sen. Barack Obama who lived in Indoneisa as a boy. He was delayed for 7 months while Bush political appointees pushed for a Republican Senator to be included as well.

What arrogance for this administration to claim that it is working to promote democracy abroad. Isn't it time Bush & Co. understood that we teach more by example than by lecturing, bullying-- or launching unprovoked wars.

Comments (22)

1. MASK, where are you? :)

   Posted by ILOVEPHYSICS at 11/02/2006 @ 6:41pm

2. Right 'chere!

   "He was delayed for 7 months while Bush political appointees pushed for a Republican Senator to be included as well."

   "as well", you mean "instead of", right, Ms vanden Heuvel?

   I mean, "as well" would be "balanced", not "slanted to the Right"

   Right?

   Posted by Mask at 11/02/2006 @ 7:24pm

3. five days.. and counting

   Posted by Will C. at 11/02/2006 @ 10:32pm

4. ...and never is heard, a discouraging word....and the skies are not cloud-y all day!

   (However, here is the reality-tinged reality, all is not so rosy....howver, as noted...5 more days)

   Posted by leftofcenter at 11/02/2006 @ 10:47pm

5. Mask,

   You miss the point. It's not the State Dept.'s job to tell people who they need to have come and speak. If the embabssy wanted Obama and Obama only, there was no reason to delay his visit for 7 months just so the State Dept. could make sure the Bush ideology was represented. The speakers program is meant "to provide speakers who represent a broad range of responsible and informed opinion in the United States" and "not limited to the expression of U.S. government policies." Sloppy reading there, Mask.

   Posted by gregokauf at 11/02/2006 @ 11:10pm

6. Anyone else notice this story about how 2 federal agencies, the Commerce Department and NASA, have now begun "coordinated, sweeping investigations of the Bush administration's censorship and suppression" of federal research into global warming."

   This was triggered by "A report last month in the scientific journal Nature claimed administrators at the Commerce Department's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration blocked the release of a report that linked hurricane strength and frequency to global warming."

   Yes, that certainly sounds like the Bush administration was looking for 'balance', right?

   Posted by Lillian at 11/02/2006 @ 11:10pm

7. The link...

   http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15519947/

   Posted by Lillian at 11/02/2006 @ 11:18pm

8. I am shocked! Shocked,do you hear! Shocked that gambling is taking place here!

   Posted by crabwalk at 11/02/2006 @ 11:30pm

9. MASK, where are you? :)

   in the ignore bin. life is too short to argue with blockheads.

   Posted by johannesrolf at 11/02/2006 @ 11:59pm

10. Continued from previous thread (sorry, but this point needs prosecuting):

    Posted by LVLIBERTY1 11/02/2006 @ 7:39pm

    Luvvy, once again you contradict yourself on both points.

    The entire thrust of your comments on those troops choosing to speak out is at best that they don't deserve anyone's support for doing so, at worst, that they don't deserve to register opposition to failed policies that jeopardize their lives for no verifiable reason. Maybe my question to you would be better phrased as 'you don't support (all) the troops, do you hate America?'

    As to the (I get a) Rush (from oxycodone) vs. KO question, you are once again incapable of cogent argument.

    Of course the Big Fat Idiot's presence on the airwaves is a political decision, in the sense that the market is as politically driven as any other human endeavor.

    Regarding MSNBC and Olberman, have you ever heard of a 'loss leader?' That's a product that in and of itself that does not turn a profit, but stimulates consumers towards other offerings, resulting in an overall net gain. Now I will agree that KO is a political entitity, but so what? If you don't like him, you don't have to buy his time - shoot, you don't even have to get off your (un)dead ass. It's called the remote.

    Limpsack, on the other hand, is an example of the classic 'bait and switch.' For whatever reason, certain pudknockers tune in expecting to hear political discourse, but instead get fed the rantings of a drug addicted, racially bigoted, flopped dick hypocrite.

    One last word of advice: proof reading is about more than grammer and spelling; it's also about internal consistency and making logical sense. You might try the 'preview' feature sometime.

    Posted by skeletonman at 11/03/2006 @ 07:37am

11. The speakers program is meant "to provide speakers who represent a broad range of responsible and informed opinion in the United States" and "not limited to the expression of U.S. government policies." Sloppy reading there, Mask.

    Posted by GREGOKAUF 11/02/2006 @ 11:10pm |

    Uh, SLOPPIER reading there GREG. How do you "provide speakers who represent a broad range of responsible and informed opinion in the United States"...if the ONLY speaker is a Democrat and not one from the Dems and one from the Repubs?!?!?

    Posted by Mask at 11/03/2006 @ 08:47am

12. http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061103/ts_nm/security_bush_poll_dc

    Posted by djmarch at 11/03/2006 @ 09:19am

13. Facts? We don't need no steenking facts!

    Posted by leftofcenter at 11/03/2006 @ 11:46am

14. As usual, this is less for Mask's benefit than for any other readers/lurkers.

    When you are trying to offer a variety of programming and you don't have all the money in the world, be it for a lecture series or a TV network, you operate under a fairly simple concept: you don't need to have balance within every single program but you strive for an overall balance over time. So, you may invite an eminent critic who thinks W.H. Auden is the greatest poet of the 20th Century, but when an equally acclaimed academic comes out with a biography slamming Auden the following year, you invite him, too.

    Obama is not an idiot, and somehow I doubt that he would have gone over to Indonesia and attacked the Bush Administration at an Embassy sponsored event, especially since the hook was that he had lived there as a boy. I imagine the vast majority of pols in both major parties still follow the old rules of not airing too much of the dirty laundry internationally. But the Bushies are so paranoid and hyper-competitive that they can't even handle the concept of the loyal opposition anymore, even in foreign policy, even on foreign soil!

    Posted by cka2nd at 11/03/2006 @ 12:02pm

15. "I am shocked! Shocked,do you hear! Shocked that gambling is taking place here!"

    Posted by CRABWALK 11/02/2006 @ 11:30pm | ignore this person

    --------------

    Round up the usual suspects!

    Posted by twocinc at 11/03/2006 @ 12:05pm

16. Posted by CKA2ND 11/03/2006 @ 12:02am

    I feel 'ya. I would think that the implication with striving for balance is that you try to achieve it in the aggregate. I'm pretty sure that most of the inside-the-beltway egos would rather not share the dais with anyone, and I wouldn't be surprised to find that most administration-friendly speakers spoke solo, without the same constraints.

    Posted by drhammer at 11/03/2006 @ 12:19pm

17. Posted by CKA2ND 11/03/2006 @ 12:02am

    My point wasn't on Obama or what he might or might not say....

    it was on the factual argument of this article.

    "The bureau also delayed potential speakers in order to find others who it felt created a so-called "balance."

    Great...so we can drop all that "bring back the Fairness Doctrine" nonsense now, huh?

    Posted by Mask at 11/03/2006 @ 12:26pm

18. Wasn't the Fairness Doctrine a principle that was adopted by the FCC around 1950 or so to apply to communications on the airways owned by the public?

    When did it ever apply to diplomatic efforts?

    And, just to clarify, wasn't it thrown out long ago...1987 or so...by Ronald Reagan?!? And then ground into dust by Michael Powell in like 2002!?!

    Posted by Lillian at 11/03/2006 @ 12:56pm

19. http://www.twf.org/News/Y1997/Fairness.html

    the fairness doctrine.

    Posted by johannesrolf at 11/03/2006 @ 1:05pm

20. Posted by LILLIAN 11/03/2006 @ 12:56am

    Good thing, LIL....

    otherwise Jon Stewart would have to allow "equal time" from...Dennis Miller!

    Posted by Mask at 11/03/2006 @ 1:10pm

21. Apropos WNBC, it is important to note that following Olberman is Scarborough, who is right out of FOX. fairness or just out to make a buck?

    Posted by johannesrolf at 11/03/2006 @ 1:20pm

22. Good thing, LIL....

    otherwise Jon Stewart would have to allow "equal time" from...Dennis Miller!

    Posted by MASK 11/03/2006 @ 1:10pm | ignore this person

    Really...I thought it was considered a "good thing" because it would've required Leno to give equal time to Phil Angellides.

    Oh well, it's gone now...banished by the Republicans... coincidentally, right around the time they got their hate radio really cranked up. Hmmmm...

    Posted by Lillian at 11/03/2006 @ 4:46pm