Skip to comments.America’s media traitors
Posted on 09/17/2001 10:59:02 AM PDT by Jean S
TNA News with Commentary
Tuesday 18 September 2001
Overall, the American medias coverage of the recent terrorist atrocities has reflected well on them. However, and theres always a however when dealing with some reporters and media anchors, there were appalling exceptions. Those who used the atrocities to vent their hatred of Bush exposed themselves as callous political bigots. Theres a huge difference between criticizing, even in error, the president and trying to subvert him. The latter, in my opinion, amounts to giving aid and comfort to the enemy i.e., treason.
Let readers judge for themselves except for those who follow the Chomsky line that America is a terrorist state and so had it coming. When interviewing Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf about the bombings Tom Brokaw couldnt help but insinuate that Bush was responsible for the atrocities because he was negligent regarding the Mideast peace process. So all that Bush had to do to avert an act of war against the United States was to make Israel commit national suicide, because that seems to be the only thing that will satisfy so-called Palestinians and their Western-hating supporters.
Just to show how patriotic it really is, the New York Times had the loathsome Maureen McDowd insinuating that Bush was a coward because she and her leftwing media buddies didnt know where he was. (A Newsday editorial pushed the same line). She then described how chilling it was to see how unprepared those in charge seemed to be. Maybe thats because the leftwing papers like the New York Times, the rag that pays her, and its Democratic allies have spent years waging war against Americas intelligence agencies. This is the very point that Tom Clancy made to Judy Woodruff about our defenses when she interviewed him. The fatuous Woodruff responded with the pompous assertion that the media didnt take sides on intelligence agencies. And this is the same bigoted idiot who erupted with But thats spying when Clancy said America would have to infiltrate its enemies organizations. Perhaps this media moron would prefer more atrocities.
Of course Dowd is not the only one at the Times who abandoned patriotism if she ever had any in favor of partisanship. R.W. Apple Jrs story was titled: Bush Presidency Seems to Gain Legitimacy was written in an attempt to belittle Bush and impugn his capacity for the job. Evidently the Times and most of its staff are still refusing to accept Bush as president. Okay, if thats how that scurvy bunch want to behave, its their choice. But for Junior to use the terrorist raids on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon to cast aspersions on the President Bushs legitimacy is an outrage. (The Times is not alone in attacking the presidents legitimacy. During the National Prayer Service Peter Jennings called Clinton President Clinton).
Despite the gravity of the situation and the suffering of the victims, the New York Times even used the atrocity to attack Bushs national missile defense proposals, just as CNN did. Ignoring this papers sickening lack of sensitivity (one of its favorite words) what does it think these fanatics would do if they got their hands on a nuclear missile? But the likes of the Times thinks it incredible that anyone could rationally disagree them.
Robert Wright did likewise in Bill Gates magazine online Slate, arguing that the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon proved the futility of missile defense. Its as if this little left-winger (I refuse to simply call his ilk liberals because they are not real liberals at all) couldnt wait to use the dead and the dying to attack proposals for an advanced national defense system. Being a good internationalist Wright argues against unilateral American action. This is leftwing code for: The US is a bully-boy who cannot be trusted to act alone, even in self-defense. Perhaps Gates should fire him. The Bush-hating Albert R. Hunt of The Wall Street Journal also shares Wrights views, recalling how Clintons missile raid on bin Laden failed. That it was not meant to succeed is not a thought that struck Hunt.
Newsweeks Howard Fineman felt the need to attack Bush for his lack of eloquence (even mass murder cannot deter this lot from political nitpicking) asserting he did not look larger than life. Larger than life! Now whats that supposed to mean? Bush looked the way he is supposed to look presidential. The Los Angeles Socialist Times Howard Rosenberg played the same theme when he argued that Bush lacked size in front of the camera when he should have been commanding, going so far as to vindictively describe Bush as looking like a little boy. And what would have given, in Rosenbergs opinion, Bush a commanding presence? Believe it or not, the persona of a national anchorman. The journalistic arrogance of these leftwing media monkeys is truly unbelievable at times.
Peter Jennings ABC News also tried to advance the McDowd line that Bush went into hiding after the bombing. Running abreast of the weaselly Jennings was Mary McGrory from the Washington Post who pompously declared that He [President Bush] allowed himself to be hauled about the country like a fugitive to bunkers at Air Force bases in Louisiana and Nebraska. Maliciously adding: He might have reflected that if Washington wasnt safe for him, it wasnt safe for the rest of us.
That it was known at the time that Bush had rejected security advice not to return to Washington did not faze McGrory one little bit, once again demonstrating the lefts contempt for the truth. Not far behind this pack was the reptilian Ellis Henican, a Clinton worshipper and a reporter with the leftwing Long Island Newsday who stated: Mostly, George W. Bush has been keeping his head down, staying out of harms way. He certainly hasnt shown his face around here.
Its now known that security believed that Air Force One and the White House were terrorist targets. And thats why Bush was delayed. Even this information was questioned. In an exchange with Peter Jennings Claire Shipman asserted that some people on the Hill think that Bush was really afraid to return to the White House. Jennings, of course, supported her with the phony observation that were all pretty skeptical and cynical about Washington. I say phony because Jennings never exhibited any skepticism when Clinton was president. Even though the above information has been confirmed, the likes of Jennings and Shipman have not offered their President an apology. (Incidentally, this is the same sensitive Jennings who interrupted the Wednesday morning prayers that were being offered by the House and Senate chaplains).
Now note the knee-jerk reaction of these media personalities, their willingness to immediately assume the worst of Bush, not even bothering to checkout their prejudiced assumptions. Can anyone honestly tell me these hacks are not bigoted? And there are, unfortunately, hundreds of others. The likes of Andrea Mitchell NBCs Campbell Brown, Dan Rather, Katie Couric and Brian Williams are just the tip of a very big iceberg that our editor, Gerry Jackson, calls Americas fifth column.
The sooner CNN is bankrupt, the better.
I have noted that, time and again, on the part of media pundits and rank and file voters. For example, Rush and Russert and O'Reilly and Hannity et al. were always willing to immediately assume the worst of Clinton, without even bothering to check the facts to see if their wild and treasonous assertations were true.
I can't even name the number of "scandals" that the press and conservatives in general were able to stain Clinton with. In every case but one, all those charges turned out to be lies, but that didn't stop his enemies form embracing and endlessly repeating those lies on television, on the radio, in newspapers and magazines, and in every other form of media.
In every case, over and over again, regardless of the ridiculousness of the accusations, his enemies invariably assumed the worst about Clinton. They even suggested, when he was sending cruise missles after Bin Laden, that he was "wagging the dog."
So I know what you mean when you complain about pundits and people treating the president without respect or honor. Unfortunately, that's the way it is nowadays. Conservatives changed the rules about how Americans talk about their president in order to lambaste Clinton mercilessly. Now Bush has to live under the new rules. No, he won't like these new rules -- but then neither did Clinton, and he put up with being called every name in the book for over eight years.
Criticism has always come with the job. And nowadays, criticism comes with calumnies and insults, because that's the way conservatives wanted it.
The above is just for starter's. I promise you, hidy, you have just opened up a Pandora's box for this forum...DUCK for cover!
By now, you should realize...
Oh never mind...someone pass Hildy another cup of kool-aid. After that verbal vomit, she/he's probably a little dehydrated.
'"I can't even name the number of "scandals"...'
An apologist for komrade krintoon for sure.
Ummm, lets see, WJC sent a single cruise missile into an apirin factory, on the eve of Monica Lewinsky testimony, and he was going after bin Ladin?..........rrrrriiiiiigggggghhhhhttttt
"Unfortunately, that's the way it is nowadays. Conservatives changed the rules about how Americans talk about their president in order to lambaste Clinton mercilessly."
Oh yeah, I remember the press treating Reagan and Bush Sr. with such respect. The only problem liberals have had with the "rules" of reporting on Clinton, is that they were created prior to him, and when they are applied, it was just such a terrible and hateful thing, of which they demanded suspension of course, until another conservative sat in the oval office.
You can see that the essence of Clinton is dripping from his chin. Nothing you can ever say to him and no proof that can ever be offered will make him give up his devotion to Scumbag. He drank the Kool-Aide long ago.
He talked about reading his Bible to decide that Scumbag did not rape Juanita Broaddrick.
One of the purposes of this forum is to inform each other and plan action that can be helpful to our conservative cause.
I learned my lesson. Attempting to have a discussion with someone still on his kneepads will accomplish nothing. It will waste your time. Much of South Central Los Angeles will never believe that O.J. Simpson murdered two people. The same with Scumbag. Hidy is a partisan hack and all he wants to do is mentally masturbate with anyone here who will give him the opportunity.
He is of no value on this forum. He simply takes up space. I do not have enough respect for him to engage in further discourse.
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.