Skip to comments.Mike Wallace Turns WWII Memorial into Anti-Bush Bash
Posted on 06/01/2004 6:21:27 PM PDT by kattracks
It was supposed to be an event where World War II-era journalists could swap war stories and bask in the glory of the soon-to-be christened WWII memorial on Washington, D.C.'s mall.
But it didn't take long for CBS "60 Minutes" star Mike Wallace and USA Today founder Al Neuharth, who had been invited to address the crowd, to turn Friday's WWII reminiscence into bash-Bush rally.
Wallace began innocently enough, telling the crowd that in WWII, "We knew what we were fighting for. We knew how important it was. We loved our country. We loved our commander-in-chief.
"And when Pearl Harbor came and we finally got in, it was a damn good thing that we did," the veteran newsman recalled.
But then Wallace turned abruptly political:
"I look at where we are today and I say to myself, I wouldn't want to - this is not, in my estimation, a good war. . . . George Washington was commander-in-chief and president of the United States. Franklin Roosevelt was commander-in-chief and president of the United States. I don't have to persuade anybody of the validity of those two guys."
But when it came to President Bush, the CBS newsman lamented:
"I don't know how we got into a position where our present commander-in-chief and the people around him had the guts to take our kids and send them on what seems to be - it sure is not a noble enterprise."
At that point some in the audience, annoyed at Wallace's attempt to politicize what was supposed to be a WWII commemoration, began heckling him.
USA Today's Al Neuwarth stepped in and tried to calm the waters by noting that "all wars are bad wars." But within minutes, he too was bashing Bush.
"I'm proud of every veteran in this country, who fought in any of [the wars]. That includes Iraq," Neuharth announced. "But I must agree with [Mike] - we stumbled and bumbled our way into this war."
The USA Today founder complained, "That decision was not made by the troops who are over there fighting and dying. It was made in the Oval Office. And I think it does raise a question of whether we were absolutely right when our Founding Fathers said that the president of the United States shall be the commander-in-chief of our military forces.
"They were right with George Washington. He had been a military person. But I'm not sure whether a non-military commander-in-chief, no matter which party he's from and no matter who he or she is, has the background or the instincts to take us to war."
At that point boos again erupted from the crowd and moderator Thomas Doherty tried to get the event back on track. But it was too late for many.
Square One Media Network's Kathryn Serkes was on hand and she tells NewsMax that at least 50 attendees got up and stormed out because of Wallace and Neuharth's partisan antics.
Although the event was televised by C-Span, the network declined to archive the video on its web site. NewsMax thanks Ms. Serkes for sharing her copy.
Things were different in WWII because the press wasn't full of leftist, anti-American bastards like you, mike.
The problem is that they only talk to eachother (a parochial exercise where they always find their views validated) and talk at the rest of us. Their tin ears will be their undoing. Even when people rightfully question their leaders and their decisions, the combination of the nastiness of their attacks (e.g., Pelosi, Kennedy) and their wilingness to use otherwise inappropriate forums to launch them (commencement addresses and memorial events) is creating a powerful resentment.
November will see landslides for the GOP.
Thank you God for the courage of those who stood against those two communist/socialist/progressive pigs. I hope when faced with more anti-American ranters, that we all have the courage to boo them and tell them that the Soviet Union is dead, just MOVEON.org!!!
What a way to honor our fighting men. Bastards.
CHARLIE: "Why did Mr. Wallace say those things about our president?"
GRANDPA JO: "Because, Charlie, he's a nitwit"
Newbarf is an idiot. The commander in chief of the American military is a civilian because the founding fathers wanted to avoid the prospects of a military dictatorship. They also knew that a civilian might be more reluctant to go to war. They also knew that a civilian would get out of the way when war was the last resort (Iraq had 12 years) and let the military run things from there. They also INTENDED for the president (executive branch) to only be responsible for the defense of the United States, not to be responsible for social security, mediscare, war on drugs, the economy, creating jobs, AIDS research, reducing teenage pregnancy, etc, etc, etc. At least the founding fathers had faith in Americans to perform those functions on their own, without the government telling them how to do it.
I saw this comment and had some choice words for the television in response.
In the context of commemorating WW II this "distinguised" baron of the journalism world seems to be attacking President Roosevelt. Because President Bush is a veteran after all (and the son of a WW II hero and former Commander in Chief to boot). Roosevelt was no veteran, and the topic was supposedly WW II.
But in context it was very clear that he was grasping for a way to allow Mike Wallace and himself to continue to discredit the current president without using his name, despite the moderator's request to get back on topic. Thankfully the audience didn't buy it, and the moderator quickly scrambled to try to keep the whole thing from blowing up (the audience was truly getting angry by this point), telling them to save that sort of comment for the questions and answers period at the end.
Unless Al Neuwarth truly believes the military should not be under civilian control, and that Roosevelt was a poor commander in chief in World War II, he's a dishonest creep who amply demonstrated the lunatic left's continuing drift toward saying anything at any time or place to bash the president. If he does believe those things, he's a moron.
How do we email Freep these two? Anyone?
Their words were disgraceful.
You know what gets to me about this?
The fact that these two are showing incredible disrespect to the very people they are supposed to be honoring.
This is a kick in my Dad's ass, my brothers' asses, and my ass.
I used to like Al, but now both of these guys can go straight to hell, as far as I'm concerned. Anyone who turns any memorial to our soldiers into a political arena can go straight to hell.
Our soldiers are this country's greatest assets. Not our teachers. Not our engineers. Not our leaders. Not our children. If it weren't for our soldiers, no one else would exist.
I didn't see any major media coverage of the negative side of the speech. My favorite statement when it comes to the biased media: "Again, the silence was deafening."
I was watching that exchange.
Wallace, out of the blue, without provacation, started in about how this war was not "a good war." Then, when he started to feel the pressure, he started saying "let's not make this about Iraq." What a POS. What if they asked him and Al how they would have felt if the press kept calling "their" war a "bad" war? How would they have felt?
You've got that right! Mike Wallace has no shame. What a Clymer.
It's funny. The first thing I wanted to say after reading this was "Bastards!" Seems the same word came to mind for many of us.
One of the great quotes by a MY meadia rep: I don't know how Bush was elected, no one that I know voted for him.
Mine will likely be pulled.
I am mad.
Wallace has declared himself unfit for duty.
Whether he agrees with this war or not, we're fighting it, and he has chosen the losing side for his allegiance.
As much as I find his behavior embarrassing, I must still have some sympathy for him, since history will be far less forgiving than I am.
Well, of course Mike Wallace is ticked off that Saddam is out of power... Don't forget shortly before the war, Mike trundelled off to Baghdad to interview Saddam, and he was treated like royalty. They loved each other. Saddam loved Mike for the softball questions, and Mike loved Saddam because Saddam treated Mike Wallace with the respect Mike feels he deserves, as one of the elder statesmen of the profession.
The fact that Saddam was a sadistic, psychopathic mass murderer just never entered his mind. Remember, this is the same guy who said that Bill Clinton is a basicly honest guy...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.