http://www.cooperativeresearch.org The Center for Grassroots Oversight aims to provide the public with a means to collaborate on investigations at the grassroots level. en-us http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=financial_crisis_18#financial_crisis_18 http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=financial_crisis_18#financial_crisis_18 US government-seized mortgage finance companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac suspend foreclosures from November 26, 2008 until January 9, 2009. The six-week suspension on both foreclosures and evictions will give loan servicers time to implement streamlined loan modifications for struggling borrowers. Since September 6, 2008, Fannie and Freddie have been federal government-controlled and sponsored entities that own or guarantee $5.2 billion of the $12 billion US home mortgage market. They offer borrowers who are 90 days or more delinquent with high loan-to-income ratios a chance to modify their mortgage terms to decrease their monthly mortgage payments by roughly 38 percent of the homeowner's monthly pretax salary. The companies say they plan to reduce interest rates for up to 5 years while lengthening repayment terms as much as 40 years to trim monthly payments. 99PercentPure 2009-01-05T18:09:22-08:00 http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a012502powellcutout#a012502powellcutout http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a012502powellcutout#a012502powellcutout Secretary of State Colin Powell asks for a meeting with President Bush, hoping to dissuade him from abandoning the Geneva Conventions in the interrogation procedures involving terror suspects . Powell is unaware that he and the State Department have been deliberately cut out of the decision-making process by the Office of the Vice President. Before Powell can meet with the president, White House counsel Alberto Gonzales releases a memo that paints Geneva as "quaint" to the administration, in an attempt to anticipate and undermine Powell's objections. Following up on the argument that the Geneva Conventions are "quaint," Vice President Cheney's chief counsel, David Addington, portrays Powell as a defender of "obsolete" rules devised for an earlier time. If Bush follows Powell's lead, Addington warns, US forces would be obliged to provide athletic gear and commissary privileges to captured terrorists. State Department lawyer David Bowker later says that Powell never argued that al-Qaeda and Taliban detainees deserve the full privileges of prisoners of war; while each captive deserves a status review under Geneva, he believes few will qualify because the suspects do not wear uniforms on the battlefield or obey a lawful chain of command. Bowker recalls, "We said, 'If you give legal process and you follow the rules, you're going to reach substantially the same result and the courts will defer to you.'" The upshot of Bush's decision to go with Gonzales's opinion over Powell's has the effect of relegating the State Department to the sidelines. A senior administration official will later recall: "State was cut out of a lot of this activity from February of 2002 on. These were treaties that we were dealing with; they are meant to know about that." State's senior legal adviser, William H. Taft IV, is shunned by the lawyers who dominated the detainee policy, officials say; some Bush conservatives privately call Taft too "squishy and suspect" to adequately fight terrorists, according to a former White House official. "People did not take him very seriously." As Gonzales's memo begins to circulate around the government, Addington says to White House lawyer Timothy Flanigan, "It'll leak in 10 minutes." He is correct: on January 26, the conservative Washington Times prints a front-page article that features administration sources accusing Powell of "bowing to pressure from the political left" and advocating that terrorists be given "all sorts of amenities, including exercise rooms and canteens." The article implies that Powell is soft on the nation's enemies. Addington blames the State Department for leaking the memo, and says that the leak proves Taft cannot be trusted. Taft later recalls, "I was off the team." Addington had marked him as an enemy, Taft will recall, but Taft had no idea he was at war. "Which, of course, is why you're ripe for the taking, isn't it?" he adds. blackmax 2009-01-04T18:16:02-08:00 http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a020503mediareactionpowell#a020503mediareactionpowell http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a020503mediareactionpowell#a020503mediareactionpowell Colin Powell's speech to the UN Security Council has a far more powerful effect on the American populace than it does among others. The presentation does little to change minds on the Security Council. France, Russia, and China remain opposed to the idea of a new resolution that would pave the way for the US to invade Iraq. These countries say that Powell's speech demonstrates that inspections are working and must be allowed to continue. "Immediately after Powell spoke, the foreign ministers of France, Russia and China--all of which hold veto power--rejected the need for imminent military action and instead said the solution was more inspections," reports the Washington Post. But governments who have been supportive of the United States' stance remain firmly behind Washington. The European press's response to Powell's evidence is also mixed. The Times of London, a relatively conservative daily newspaper, describes Powell's presentation as a "few smudgy satellite photographs, a teaspoon of talcum powder, some Lego-style drawings of sinister trucks and trains, a picture of an American U2 spy plane, several mugshots of Arabic men, and a script that required a suspension of mistrust by the world's doves." The US media's reaction to Powell's presentation is immediate and overwhelmingly positive. Over 100 press outlets compare his speech to Adlai Stevenson's 1962 denunciation of the USSR during the Cuban Missile Crisis . One poll shows that 90 percent of Americans now believe Iraq has an active WMD program that poses a dire threat to the nation. Another shows 67 percent of Americans believe that the US is justified in going to war with Iraq because of that nation's illicit WMD. The San Francisco Chronicle calls the speech "impressive in its breadth and eloquence." The Denver Post compares Powell to "Marshal Dillon facing down a gunslinger in Dodge City," and adds that he showed the world "not just one 'smoking gun' but a battery of them." Perhaps the most telling reaction is among the media's liberals. The Washington Post's Mary McGrory says Powell won her over. Richard Cohen, a moderate Post colleague, writes that Powell's evidence is "absolutely bone-chilling in its detail ... [and] had to prove to anyone that Iraq not only hadn't accounted for its weapons of mass destruction but without a doubt still retains them. Only a fool, or possibly a Frenchman, could conclude otherwise." And the New York Times writes three separate stories praising Powell as "powerful," "sober," "factual," and "nearly encyclopedic." Columnist William Safire says Powell's presentation has "half a dozen smoking guns" and makes an "irrefutable and undeniable" case. Safire's colleague at the Times, Michael Gordon, concludes, "It will be difficult for skeptics to argue that Washington's case against Iraq is based on groundless suspicions and not intelligence information." In the days after the speech, the Washington Post opinion pages are filled with praises for Powell and the presentation. One Post editorial proclaims that after the presentation, it is "hard to imagine how anyone could doubt that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction." Former ambassador Joseph Wilson will write in 2004: "[I]t was Powell's credibility that finally put public opinion over the top. Over and over again, I was told, 'Colin Powell wouldn't lie to us.' ... Powell's support for invading Iraq with a pseudo-coalition was essential, and he deserves at least as much of the responsibility for the subsequent situation that we find ourselves in as anybody else in the administration, because, more than anybody else, it was his credibility and standing among the American people that tipped the scales." In 2007, CBS anchor Dan Rather gives a simple reason why Powell's presentation is so strongly accepted by so many. "Colin Powell was trusted. Is trusted, I'd put it--in a sense. He, unlike many of the people who made the decisions to go to war, Colin Powell has seen war. He knows what a green jungle hell Vietnam was. He knows what the battlefield looks like. And when Colin Powell says to you, 'I, Colin Powell, am putting my personal stamp on this information. It's my name, my face, and I'm putting it out there,' that did make a difference. ... I was impressed. And who wouldn't be?" blackmax 2009-01-04T18:15:06-08:00 http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a101090fabricatedprstory#a101090fabricatedprstory http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a101090fabricatedprstory#a101090fabricatedprstory The televised Congressional hearings of Iraqi atrocities against the Kuwaiti people, featuring the emotional testimony of a young Kuwaiti girl who tells the wrenching tale of Iraqi soldiers murdering Kuwaiti babies in their incubators , sparks an outcry among both lawmakers and members of the US public. The story is later proven to be entirely false, but only long after the story, the product of an American public relations firm , has had its desired impact . The story is repeated over and over again, by President Bush, in subsequent Congressional testimony, on television and radio broadcasts, and even at the UN Security Council. Bush says that such "ghastly atrocities" are like "Hitler revisited," and uses the images of "babies pulled from incubators and scattered like firewood across the floor" to excoriate Congressional Democrats reluctant to authorize the impending invasion. Author John MacArthur will later write, "Of all the accusations made against the dictator [Saddam Hussein], none had more impact on American public opinion than the one about Iraqi soldiers removing 312 babies from their incubators and leaving them to die on the cold hospital floors of Kuwait City." American public opinion remains deeply divided about the necessity of a war with Iraq; the US Senate authorizes the war by a bare five-vote margin . Journalists John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton will later write, "Given the narrowness of the vote, the babies-thrown-from-incubators story may have turned the tide in Bush's favor." In 1995, Bush's National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft will say: "We didn't know it wasn't true at the time. ... [I]t was useful in mobilizing public opinion." blackmax 2009-01-04T18:14:32-08:00 http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a081190citizensfreekuwait#a081190citizensfreekuwait http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a081190citizensfreekuwait#a081190citizensfreekuwait Nine days after Iraq invades Kuwait , the public relations firm Hill & Knowlton creates a front organization, "Citizens for a Free Kuwait," almost entirely funded by Kuwaiti money. Hill & Knowlton's point man with the Kuwaitis is Craig Fuller, a close friend and political adviser to President Bush . Veteran PR reporter Jack O'Dwyer will later write, "Hill & Knowlton ... has assumed a role in world affairs unprecedented for a PR firm." Citizens for a Free Kuwait is one of about twenty PR and lobbying groups formed by the Kuwaiti government. Other American PR firms representing these groups include the Rendon Group and Neill & Co. Citizens for a Free Kuwait will spread a false story of Kuwaiti babies being killed in their incubators by Iraqi troops, a story that will help inflame US public opinion and win the Bush administration the authority to launch an assault against Iraq . Another public relations and lobbying effort includes a 154-page book detailing supposed Iraqi atrocities, entitled ''The Rape of Kuwait'', that is distributed to various media outlets and later featured on television talk shows and in the pages of the Wall Street Journal. The Kuwaiti embassy also buys 200,000 copies of the book for distribution to American troops. Hill & Knowlton will produce dozens of "video news releases" that are offered as "news stories" to television news broadcasters throughout America; the VNRs are shown on hundreds of US television news broadcasts, usually as straight news reports without being identified as the product of a public relations firm. blackmax 2009-01-04T18:13:43-08:00 http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a031704limbaughtreason#a031704limbaughtreason http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a031704limbaughtreason#a031704limbaughtreason Conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh joins the Wall Street Journal in demanding that Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry name the foreign leaders who have supposedly secretly endorsed his candidacy . Limbaugh goes further than the Journal by stating that he believes Kerry's foreign endorsers are enemy heads of state. "[L]et's name some names," he says. "Bashar Assad in Syria, Kim Jong Il in North Korea." In 2008, authors Kathleen Hall Jamieson and Joseph N. Cappella will write: "The assertion was ridiculous on its face, and Limbaugh undoubtedly knew it was. Underlying Limbaugh's trope is the assumption that any leader who would criticize US policy must be an enemy of the country." Jamieson and Cappella will extend their argument by writing: "Importantly, introduction of the names of villainous foreign leaders exemplifies a rhetorical function that Limbaugh and the conservative opinion hosts serve for the Republican Party: expanding the range of attack by marking out extreme positions that by comparisons make the official position of the Republican candidate or party leaders seem moderate. At the same time, if some in Limbaugh's audience take the allegation of actual talks with heads of outlaw states serious, as [conservative voter Cedric] Brown appeared to , then the association reinforces, if it does not actively shape, that person's view that Kerry's assumptions are extreme and disqualify him from serious consideration as a presidential contender." blackmax 2009-01-04T14:41:05-08:00 http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a031604cheneyendorsements#a031604cheneyendorsements http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a031604cheneyendorsements#a031604cheneyendorsements Vice President Dick Cheney weighs in on on the controversy surrounding Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry's supposed acceptance of private endorsements from unnamed foreign leaders . At an Arizona fundraiser, Cheney says: "[I]t is our business when a candidate for president claims the political endorsement of foreign leaders. At the very least, we have a right to know what he is saying to them that makes them so supportive of his candidacy." blackmax 2009-01-04T14:40:30-08:00 http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a031504widevarietymedia#a031504widevarietymedia http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a031504widevarietymedia#a031504widevarietymedia ABC News and Fox News are the only major news networks to broadcast a "hard news" report on the day's exchange between Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry and voter Cedric Brown . CBS gives a brief synopsis of the exchange; neither NBC nor CNN devote much air time to the story. CBS anchor Dan Rather sums up the exchange by providing a brief overview of the controversy surrounding Kerry's supposed claim of unnamed "foreign leaders" supporting his bid for the presidency (see and ) and the Bush campaign's implication that Kerry is lying; the Kerry campaign's response; and White House spokesman Scott McClellan's insistence that Kerry either "name names" or admit to "making it up." In 2008, authors Kathleen Hall Jamieson and Joseph N. Cappella will write, "By sandwiching the Kerry perspective between an opening and closing statement focused on the Bush perspective, the CBS piece creates a net advantage for the Republicans." The ABC report, by reporter Linda Douglass, goes further in asking about the Bush campaign's motives in attacking Kerry, and asks if the Bush campaign is not trying to deflect attention from reports about Bush administration misrepresentations about the true costs of its Medicare plan . ABC anchor Elizabeth Varga opens by noting the Bush campaign's "extraordinary" attack on Kerry's "credibility," leading into Douglass's report, which summarizes the "foreign leaders" controversy, reports the Kerry-Brown exchange, observes that the Kerry campaign is "sidestep[ping]" the accusations that he is lying about the foreign leaders claim, and notes that Kerry accuses the Bush campaign of trying to divert attention from the Medicare controversy. Douglass concludes, "Seven months before the election, the campaign seems to be all about credibility." Fox News anchor Brit Hume begins his report by saying, "John Kerry still won't say who those foreign leaders were, whom he claims are back--who he claims are backing him for president." The Fox report, by Carl Cameron, begins by claiming Kerry is being "[b]attered for refusing to name foreign leaders that he claims want President Bush defeated," says Kerry is trying to "get back on offense" by attacking the Bush administration's failure to fully fund firefighters (an attack "few Americans believe," Cameron asserts), and notes that Bush defenders accuse Kerry of "voting against the troops" by opposing the $87 billion to stabilize and complete the post-Saddam Iraq occupation. Cameron then quotes unnamed Republicans as calling Kerry an "international man of mystery," a disparaging comparison to the ''Austin Powers'' movie satire, "for his various un-backed-up charges" about the foreign leaders' support. Cameron ends the report by playing a snippet from the Kerry-Brown exchange where Kerry demanded Brown identify himself as a "registered Republican" (he does not air Brown's response where he admits to being a Bush supporter) and with the White House's assertion that "Kerry is making it up to attack the president." Fox twice has Brown appear as a guest on its news broadcasts. In one, Brown says Kerry "didn't appear to be honest" during their conversation, says, "I think Senator Kerry betrayed our country," and calls for a congressional investigation into Kerry's supposed claim of having "secret" deals for foreign leaders' backing. Authors Jamieson and Cappella will write: "The strategic frames of Fox and ABC differ. On Fox, Kerry is cast as 'battered' and on the strategic defensive ('Kerry ''tried'' to get back on offense and ''tried'' to turn the tables on his inquisitors,') [emphasis added by authors]. By contrasts, ABC situates Kerry as a contender who is 'determined not to give ground on the war over who is more truthful.' On Fox, Kerry's attack is portrayed as an attempt to 'get back on offense,' whereas the Bush response is portrayed as motivated by outrage." Fox "focuses on Kerry's credibility, while ABC centers on charges and countercharges about the relative truthfulness of Bush and Kerry." Douglass attributes claims of truth or falsity to the respective campaigns, but Cameron makes blanket assertions--unattributed value judgments--about Kerry's supposed dishonesty. The print media shows much of the same dichotomy in covering the Kerry-Brown exchange as do ABC and Fox. The Washington Post gives Brown a chance to again accuse Kerry of lying, but calls him "a heckler ... who interrupted Kerry's comments on health care, education and the economy to raise questions about the assertion of foreign endorsements." The Los Angeles Times describes Brown as "abruptly" shouting over Kerry, and, when the audience tries to shout Brown down, shows Kerry asking the audience to allow Brown to speak. In these and other accounts, Jamieson and Cappella will note, "Kerry's questioning of the questioner is set in the context of Brown's interruption, inflammatory charges ... and verbal attacks on Kerry." On the other hand, the Wall Street Journal's editorial page joins Fox News in ignoring Brown's initial interruption and verbal assault on Kerry , and instead focuses on what the Journal's James Taranto calls "Kerry's thuggish interrogation of the voter." Taranto also directs his readers to coverage by Fox News and Limbaugh, who himself accuses Kerry of "browbeating" Brown. Jamieson and Cappella will write, "Specifically taken together, [Rush] Limbaugh, [Sean] Hannity, and the Wall Street Journal's opinion pages marshaled four strategies to marginalize Kerry and undercut his perceived acceptability as a candidate for president: extreme hypotheticals [i.e. Kerry's supposed 'secret meeting' with North Korea's Kim Jong-il--see ], ridicule, challenges to character, and association with strong negative emotion." Fox News and the Wall Street Journal's editorial page, for example, characterize Kerry's response to Brown as "yelling" and "thuggish," while other media outlets report Kerry's response as generally restrained and civil, and Brown as the one shouting and angry. blackmax 2009-01-04T14:40:01-08:00 http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a031504wsjaccuse#a031504wsjaccuse http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a031504wsjaccuse#a031504wsjaccuse A Wall Street Journal editorial, responding to reports that Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry has accepted private endorsements from unnamed foreign leaders , accuses Kerry of making private, secret deals with those leaders. "Who are these foreign leaders, and what is Mr. Kerry privately saying that makes them so enthusiastic about his candidacy?" it asks. "What 'new policy' is he sharing with them that he isn't sharing with Americans?" blackmax 2009-01-04T14:38:26-08:00 http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a031504kerrybrown#a031504kerrybrown http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a031504kerrybrown#a031504kerrybrown During a campaign stop, Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry is questioned by Pennsylvania voter Cedric Brown, who demands that Kerry identify the "foreign leaders" he reportedly claimed support his candidacy . Kerry responds: "I've met with lots of foreign leaders, but let me just say something to you, sir. Just a minute. Just a minute," gesturing to the audience to allow Brown to continue speaking. "I'm not going to betray a private conversation with anybody and get some leader--they have to deal with this administration" . Brown then accuses Kerry of colluding with those unnamed foreign leaders to "overthrow" the Bush presidency. The exchange becomes somewhat heated, with Brown calling Kerry a "liar" and asks if he secretly met with the dictator of North Korea, Kim Jong Il, an assertion advanced by conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh . The exchange lasts for about eight minutes. In 2008, authors Kathleen Hall Jamieson and Joseph N. Cappella will perform an in-depth analysis of the media coverage of the Kerry-Brown exchange, and determine that while the mainstream media (ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC, the New York Times, and the Washington Post, among others) generally cover the exchange by reporting both sides fairly evenly (ABC's coverage tilts towards favoring Kerry's point of view while CBS's gives Bush the advantage--see ), the conservative media they analyze (Limbaugh, Fox News, Fox's ''Hannity & Colmes'', and the Wall Street Journal's editorial page) report the story from Brown's viewpoint, and work to both denigrate Kerry and marginalize mainstream reporting. blackmax 2009-01-04T14:34:35-08:00