Posted on 05/16/2004 8:43:10 PM PDT by CyberAnt
MULLINGS ® An American Cyber-Column
Imagine This. Imagine That.
Rich Galen Monday May 17, 2004
Senator Edward Kennedy (D-Mass) said on the floor of the US Senate the other day, "Shamefully, we now learn that Saddam's torture chambers reopened under new management - U.S. management."
Imagine This:
Imagine the current President were a Democrat and a Republican US Senator compared - no, EQUATED - the Abu Ghraib experience to Saddam Hussein.
There would not have been enough printer's ink in the country to publish all of the editorials demanding an apology from the Senator and demands for a censure by the Senate as a whole.
Except for the New York Times which would call for the Senator's immediate resignation, and the New York Post which would call for the Senator's immediate inclusion on Mt. Rushmore.
Sunday shows would have been devoted entirely to the matter of whether the Republican Party as a whole should (or could) be held responsible for the comparison. Republican Senators would have tepidly defended another Senator's right to speak freely; Democrats would be exhibiting projectile sweat in their anger over the unfair and unsustainable charge.
The Baghdad bureaus of US newspapers and TV networks would be charged by their home offices with finding people who were tortured, raped and maimed under the Saddam regime and interviewing them - with video and/or photos - to demonstrate just how far off the mark the Republican Senator had been.
National Public Radio's bureau in Iraq would begin running a 74-month-long series of daily interviews with women who had been raped or tortured as a regular feature of Saddam's justice system thereby demonstrating the differences.
President of France, Jacques Chirac, would announce that any elderly French person who dies during a heat wave this summer will be as the result of the stress put upon them by the Republican Senator.
UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan would hint darkly that the United Nations, because of the additional costs which would be involved in protecting UN peacekeeping forces after the ill-advised statement by the Republican Senator, might have to call off the internal investigation into the UN's handling of the oil-for-food program.
CNN would be running 27/7 special features entitled: "The Politics of Abu Ghraib - Isn't Every Republican Since Abe Lincoln is Responsible?" MSNBC, with better tag line writers, would title theirs simply: "Saddam and the Senator - The Same Sort?"
Fox News Channel would have a fair and balanced look at the situation by hosting a debate between Fred Barnes and Newt Gingrich.
On the Presidential campaign front, the Democratic incumbent would, through the White House press secretary, demand that the Republican presumptive nominee take full and complete responsibility - as he is not only also a Republican US Senator, not only a Republican US Senator from the same state, but a Republican US Senator from the same state who has repeatedly used the offending Senator to bolster his campaign.
The Secretary of Defense in the Democratic Administration would claim the Senator had put the lives of the 135,000 wonderful services members in Iraq in real, personal danger and the Senator should, perhaps, apologize to the families of each and every one.
The Secretary of State would sadly point out that such statements do nothing but provide fodder for those in the Middle East who disagree with US policy and the Senator's remark might, in fact, be used by terrorists as a recruitment tool.
The Chairman of the Democratic National Committee would file suit in Federal Court against the Republican National Committee and the Republican candidate's campaign committee demanding that all e-mail and phone records be made public to see how many times the Republican Senator's office communicated with each organization.
Because it was Senator Kennedy who said it, none of this happened.
Imagine that.
Copyright ©2004 Richard A. Galen
Bump!
WFTR
Bill
Yeah probably .. something like Kerry's complaint that if you weren't in Vietnam, you can't discuss it.
I figured after our discussion following Rich's article last week, I would ping you.
AtlanticFriend...please note that there is a paragraph in there about the French. But, I think that you will note Mr. Galen is poking fun at the French, more than attacking them. Looking back at many of Mr. Galen's columns, he seems to poke fun at the French since the situation in the UN during the buildup to the War in Iraq.
I can't speak for him, but it seems that he is doing it more to "get a rise" out of people, more than being hurtful.
Anyway...enjoy the article.
Galen's being hyperbolic, of course. But not by much...
But what gets me is that people have come to not only accept the media's double standard, they expect it.
Meanwhile, the media themselves are either too dim or dishonest -- or both -- to recognize the egregiousness of their bias.
Just one more manifestation of the national disconnect...
Thanks, Matt. I'm gonna have a good, hard, look at that Galen column. It's a nice day, the sky is deep blue and the sun is shining on the white church near my office, so I suppose he can poke fun at my country without me getting grumpy about it ! lol
A funny column, in a satirical way. I guess our President could make elderly people die of pressure just by asking them to vote for him !
We may have to suffer with Kennedy until the day they carry him feet first from the Senate chambers, but history will look upon him as the disgrace he is. As historians unravel how this country fell apart, he will be cited as a key player. "Nice legacy, Ted."
The elite NY Dem/media elects our President, determins our culture, and our values. During Clinton's investigation, Rather used to open that story this way:
"Republican Ken Starr, is investigating the President's personal life".
If Clinton were Republican, Rather would have said:
"Judge Kenneth Starr is investigating alleged sexual harrassement charges against the President".
And Katie Couric did no stories on sexual harrassment. NONE. No stories on young women in the work force, being hit on by their CEO's or bosses.
She would have done those stories everyday had it been a Republican.
The elites in NY and Hollywood, have written Ken Starr as the pervert in history, and Clinton is a laughable "bad boy".
I have said for decades that the elite NY media is our enemy, not the Dems.
Most on the right have insisted that they don't have that power anymore, even Rush has delusions of wishfull thinking.
Stupid, head-in-the-sand nonsense.
As for our current situation, the proof is there for all to see, the left-wing media has worn down the American people to a pulp, by refusing to report from Iraq in context, revising recent history and pre-war statements, pushing conspirazoids and their myths, and literally rooting for the Islamic cults in Iraq by the implication that the normal everyday Iraqis are rising up against the evil US.
They want us guilt-ridden and second-guessing, they want us to believe that their are NO human beings in the military or the Administration, that war is supposed to run by a script, and never deviate, and that after 9/11 our path was perfectly clear. They are simple contrarians.
They know that leads to inaction and helplessness, in order to turn to some new guy who says the UN will make it all go away.
And since Americans adore their Oprah, Friends, and 1/2 sitcoms, they will take that route.
And the media will suddenly start to report deeds, actions, statements, with clarity and context. Even their words and discriptions will differ from the last 3 years.
It matters not what Bush says or does, for it is his enimies who have to power to report it in any way they please.
"Most on the right have insisted that they don't have that power anymore"
I agree. If the liberal media were so powerful, Kerry would be leading Bush by 15 points. So far, every media attack against the President had melted into nothing; or come back to smack the dems in the face.
I'm not saying the attacks haven't had some effect, but after the onslaught the media has loosed on Bush, he should have been toast months ago.
Here's a stat for you which might explain why the "partisan" media is no longer as powerful as they WANT US TO BELIEVE.
During impeachment, the media continually threw in our faces the fact that 75% of the public did not want Clinton removed from office. However, just one short year later - after a lot of what was in the impeachment documents got exposed, that same 75% of the public had changed their minds and now believed Clinton SHOULD HAVE BEEN REMOVED. The media has never acknowledged this shift away from support for the Clintons. They still have their groupies, but Clintons personal approval numbers are still in the 20% range or lower.
Add to that stat the 2000 election and the gross performance of Al Gore .. and add to that 9/11 .. and the whole attitude of America is changed.
The problem is that the partisan media has denied this radical change in the public's attitude, and the democrats refuse to acknowledge they are out of power.
During the last WH Press Conference - CNN's audience = 1.9 mil, FOX's audience = over 5 mil. The public no longer trusts the partisan media .. they are losing viewer share daily and still they refuse to change. To continue doing the same thing and expecting different results - is insanity.
You make my point, the elite NY media allowed Clinton to stay in office during impeachment. It's only after the fact that they release damaging info.
As soon as Kerry picks a VP, the elites in the press will get him to 15 points up.
And if he is elected, you will see good news out of Iraq, good pictures, and "investigative reporters" will suddenly start investigating our enemies.
Since 9/11 I have seen NO serious journalism info on OBL, Arafat, Islamic cults in general, Syria, or Iran.
They COULD be helping their country at this time, and are refusing to do so.
The NY elite media need to be smeared and their reputations ruined by the "seriousness of the charge".
Who should we start with?
Kerry will NEVER get a 15 point lead on Bush .. NEVER!
This is where you miss it. You seem to think the public is as stupid as the elite media thinks they are. That's a very erroneous assumption.
The media has done nothing but throw stuff at Bush .. and it just won't stick. According to Rasmussen, the President's approval number is back up to 52%. So, Newsweak's trumped up number of 42% was bogus .. and the public knows it.
You're giving the elite media waaaaaay too much credit.
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.