Here’s how this whole thing started. In late December, Rachel did a segment on how the Kochs buy their economic studies reinforcing conservative ideas. They do this by donating huge sums to universities and demanding the right to hire faculty who think like they do. That report is here.
Apparently the Kochs didn’t appreciate her reporting, because for some bizarre reason they don’t mind throwing billions around the political universe but shy away from receiving credit for it. So they had their lawyers send Rachel a letter, and boy was it a doozy, as you’ll see in the segment. It included a demand that she read a prepared script by the lawyers retracting her report and apologizing for it.
She did not apologize. I believe her exact words were “I will not renounce or retract reporting that is true, even if the subjects of that reporting don’t like it.” As for the script, she let them know she does “not read scripts provided to me by anyone else. I don’t do requests.”
She also reminded them that if they don’t like it when the truth is brought to light, they should just stop doing those things that generate attention.
I guess she told them. She forgot to tell them they were bullies and thought they could buy their way into almost anything.
I can see why the Koch’s are annoyed. They prefer to fund competing players that come to the same conclusion and thus announce that many agree with what they say. Maddow does a bit of punditry different from many others in that she lets the guest actually speak and answer a question.
I really enjoy Rachel Maddow, she is smart ,quick, and I believe fair.
I can see why the Koch’s are annoyed.
She lied.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/01/rachel-maddow-is-crazy-too.php
Based on a biased blogger…I don’t believe Maddow intentionally lies…ever. If she makes a mistake, and she does, she corrects.
Do the Koch brothers lie? Are their mouths moving?
Find something that isn’t biased if you want to prove a point. The mention of the low IQ base proves the biase to me.
Ummm… you do know that this whole segment was completely false, right? The Koch brothers have never given money to the FFGA. The link she claims is that they have donated a relatively small amount of money to the State Policy Network.
If that one link is her reasoning then she should have also called out others who donate to the State Policy Network, Microsoft, Facebook, AT&T, Time Warner Cable, GlaxoSmithKline, Kraft Foods, and many more.
Oh, and by the way… one other company has donated to the State Policy Network, Comcast, who as you know owns MSNBC and is Maddow’s employer.
Ummm…who died and made you the authority? Which right wing rag did you get your secret source from?
that info is readily available, the Koch’s have never donated directly to the FFGA. The only link Maddow offers is that they donated to the SPN (State Policy Network) and then says that the SPN is associated with FFGA (which is not entirely true either).
But for arguments sake, lets assume that the SPN is totally associated with FFGA. Then why did she conveniently forget to mention that Comcast also donates to the SPN and by that simple fact MSNBC as well?
Since the link here is SPN, and both the Koch’s and Comcast have donated to SPN then she could have easily stated the following in the segment along with her statements about the Kochs:
* MSNBC has been promoting forced drug tests for people on welfare
* FFGA is an MSNBC-affiliated group
and by the way, the information I stated can all be found in Maddow’s own report. Well, not ALL the information, the fact the Comcast has donated to the same exact group the Kochs have that she then links to “promoting forced drug tests for people on welfare”. That information you won’t see in her report.
Comcast doesn’t own MSNBC
Good to see Maddow refuse to be ntimidated by the Koch brothers. I wish the tea naggers would quit licking the Koch brothers’ boots
Google it… they do and have since 2009.
I hope ‘tea naggers’ was a typo, that is dangerously close to being a racial slur. But leaving that aside, yes, she refuses to be intimidated by the Koch brothers but apparently is very intimidated by her bosses at Comcast.
@Starry flights
Comcast purchased NBCUniversal in 2011. MSNBC is a division of NBCUniversal.
I do not know why the Left wastes so much energy on the Koch Bros. They finance causes and candidates just like George Soros does. Just how much influence the uber-rich have on policy is not at all clear.
If you want to get upset, you should consider what Robert Gates wrote about Obama, Biden, and Hillary. Known to be relatively non-partisan and even tempered, and having served under presidents from both parties, Gates’ criticism is rather damning. It matters more what a professional like Gates says and thinks than what the Koch Bros/Soros are scheming.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/robert-gates-former-defense-secretary-offers-harsh-critique-of-obamas-leadership-in-duty/2014/01/07/6a6915b2-77cb-11e3-b1c5-739e63e9c9a7_print.html
Ah….I was just waiting for one of you guys to bring up George Soros. It’s like Pavlov’s dog. Koch Bros….response: George Soros.
Yawn. I don’t want rich people buying my politics regardless.
Actually what Gates had to say was rather flattering about Hillary. He said the Obama White House was controlling. He is entitled to his opinion.
I’m not sure that Gates’ criticism is all that damning, at least from the WaPo article. It appears that Gates is peeved that Obama didn’t blindly follow the recommendations of his military leaders- but that’s why we have executive oversight of the military. We need an independent leader to make the decisions and not the generals.
Gates is also apparently sore because Obama didn’t consider Iraq “his war” and only wanted out. Well, Duh! So did the vast majority of the American people!
Without actually having read the book (I don’t think it’s out yet), it seems that Gates doesn’t know WHAT he thinks, praising on the one hand and criticizing on the other. Doesn’t seem like the behavior of a great advisor- but it’ll probably sell books.
On the other hand, how many people do we give 100% praise to? I don’t think its uncommon to have mixed feelings.
The Koch brothers are just convenient faces to put on a conglomeration of people and interests aligned in the effort to introduce doubt into the science and to delay any action to address climate change. They have made a big effort to hide their influence recently by laundering their contributions to the denier groups and “scientists.”
The Koch’s and the others are in the business of protecting their short and medium-term profits with the knowledge that those same profits will insulate them from the worst consequences of climate change. Unlike the millions of poor and disadvantaged coastal dwelling people around the world.
It’s easy to find the Kochs (or the Soroses) to be problematic, but in this particular issue, I think the Kochs are more nearly right than Maddow. She started out after a very legitimate public policy issue – the political tendency to impose burdens on recipients of public benefits that many people not on benefits could not measure up to. But then she sort of went off the rails in trying to link this to the Kochs. I realize that for weak-minded audiences, boogie-men are a helpful aid in promoting return viewers (Fox has made an entire industry out of this), but Maddow’s link to the Kochs was very thin indeed, and caused her to lose focus on the underlying issue.
@middleman
I look forward to reading Gates’ book. One thing that cannot be said about Bob Gates is that he wanted anyone to blindly follow advice from military leaders. He did not hesitate to replace/berate/relieve leaders from command if they were not responsive to civilian leadership. What Gates is saying is that a leader has to think strategically about implementing objectives. Gates probably agreed with the overall objective to withdraw most U.S. combat troops. Even though the objective was to withdraw, it has to be carried out in such a way as to prevent a strategic reversal from becoming almost inevitable. A status of forces agreement should have been completed.
The fall of Fallujah to Al Qaeda shows that Bob Gates is absolutely correct. Obama was playing checkers when he should have been playing chess.
The 2008 Obama said that Afghanistan was the good war. Yet the result will be similar to Iraq if Obama continues on the same path.
There are no good wars, are there? I am not so sure that any post war situation has been acceptable since Japan and West Germany. I can’t think of one, as a matter of fact.
Post Korea or Vietnam? Nope. Post Persian Gulf? Nope Post Somalia?
It seems like the fall of Fallujah is just more proof we should have never gone in there in the first place.
Hindsight is 20-20, Kelly. Gates seems to be looking for a payday.
It’s also very curious that Gates chose to publish his book now while the war is still going on, particularly with the charge that the president is not fully behind his troops, that he has doubts about their mission. To me, this undermines our military effectiveness at time of war. One could consider that treason.
It seems to me that Gates’ book is very partisan, indeed. In an interview on CBS, he indicated that Obama didn’t exhibit Bush’s certainty when it comes to the wars. No mention that Bush’s certainty was largely misplaced. No mention of the faulty (nonexistent?) planning and execution of the wars under Bush. Apparently no mention of any issues at all with Republican players.
The book’s criticism, again without having read it, seems targeted and planned to achieve an objective.
I agree. Bush’s certainty was misplaced. He also had some bad advisors and some disreputable ‘cheerleaders.’
Keep in mind, I have many reservations and issues with Obama’s foreign policy. While there have been some successes, I don’t think he’s been a particularly good manager in that area. But so far, it appears Gates’ book is a hack job.
@middleman
There is no hindsight involved. Many people (including myself on this very blog) expressed strong concerns over a power vacuum in Iraq with a total U.S. withdrawal. History shows (e.g. the fall of Saigon) that the standard playbook for irregular forces is to move in after the U.S. loses interest. Gates discussed in a low-key interview in 2008 that tens of thousands of U.S. troops should stay in Iraq after the drawdown in 2011. Apparently the only one in power without an appreciation for the risk of total U.S. abandonment of Iraq was Obama.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/22/washington/22combat.html
If my recollection is correct, the administration worked for months towards a status of forces agreement without success due to a corrupt and recalcitrant government over there. It takes two to Tango, so I’m not sure it’s fair to lay all the blame on Obama for the failure to secure that status of forces agreement.
Your recollection is not correct. It was mainly the ham-handed approach of the Administration to the negotiations, not the government of Iraq that doomed the SOFA. I can give details, but you probably want to move on to the next excuse, … er, reason, …. why the Administration should not be blamed for allowing the takeover Fallujah.
I think it’s pretty clear that I’m not in the business of making excuses for this administration. I’ve stated numerous times on this blog my disagreements and disappointments with it (and with Obama himself). Ultimately, the buck stops with the president in my mind.
That doesn’t change the one-sided hack job that Gates wrote. I actually do think his heart is in the right place regarding the military, but I also think he let his heart cloud his judgement when he wrote the book. He makes claims no one can corroborate, like the Hillary quote on her surge vote and his “feeling” that Obama’s heart wasn’t in his war plans. Not exactly non-partisan in my opinion.