AMERICA or 'the terrorists'?
Posted on 05/18/2002 12:17:38 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
Edited on 07/12/2004 3:53:42 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Is it payback time? For three days, peevish print and broadcast journalists have made mischief against the White House, determined to build one hazy news item into a blockbuster case against President Bush.
It is a classic case of incestuous media amplification bolstered with hasty conclusions.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
Big Media and The Cynthia McKinney Effect
From the panic-stricken media hysterics, you might get the impression the President himself secretly plotted 9/11 with Osama Bin Laden while vacationing at his ranch in Crawford last summer. CBSNEWS -- already embroiled in scandal for airing this week a snippet of the Pearl murderer video -- was the first out the gate with the new "bombshell" "revelation" Wednesday night.
What's all the hullaballo about?
Sit down -- get ready for a shocker.
According to White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, U.S. intelligence last August told President Bush that Bin Laden (gasp!) might possibly seek to hijack American aircraft.
Gee, DUH.
Anyone with an ounce of sense should figure that out all by his lonesome. Excuse me, but where's the "startling" "revelation" here? Or am I missing something?
Gee, Mr. President, Osama Bin Laden doesn't really like us much. And you know what? He might even try to hijack our planes. Uh-ah. A shocker, alright.
Give me a break.
Don't need to be a spook to know hijackings are a favorite of terrorists -- well before 9/11. $40 billion bureaucrats to tell you what any moron knows at a glance? To me, that's the scandal here.
If this no-brainer is news to the newsies, then they're even duller than I thought.
Presidents are fed intelligence alerts like this all the time. They are, by nature, alarmist. The warnings run the gamut, from potential biological and chemical attacks, to full-scale nuking. Should Presidents grab a bullhorn and cry 'wolf!' at the drop of a hat? Now, how smart would that be? Prudently, the White House responded last August by secretly putting the feds on Red Alert. Why tip-off the enemy?
But the presstitutes have their work cut out for them. You see, they're trying, strenuously trying -- someway, somehow -- to make a molehill into a mountain. (Psst! Mid-term elections are just around the corner.)
"Bush Knew of Hijack Threat", screamed CBSNEWS.com Wednesday night, insanely implying the President knew of the terror-plot in advance, with specificity, but did nothing to stop it.
False.
As Condoleeza Rice yesterday tried to explain, the briefings were general in nature -- no date, no time, no target was indicated. Indeed, a CIA spokesman emphasized that suicide hijackings, a la 9/11, were never even imagined.
The reason is obvious. The word "hijacking", post-9/11, means suicide bombers crashing jets into big city skyscrapers and the Pentagon in Washington. Pre-9/11, "hijacking" meant hostages, ransom demands, etc.
Everything changed on September 11.
Further, for the press to suggest something sinister is ludicrous on its face. From U.S. surveillance satellites, American officials knew that al-Qaeda used an actual jet on the ground in training camps to school terrorists in the 'art'. I doubt CIA thought the camps offered courses for Flight Attendants.
But no-one -- not even the vaunted CIA -- could envision a 9/11. To a peaceful nation, shielded by oceans east and west, friendly neighbors north and south, the horrors of 9/11 were singularly unfathomable.
But don't tell the media eggheads; don't tell the phony-baloney, publicity-starved 20/20 hindsighters on Capitol Hill beating their chests in righteous indignation.
Already we hear echoes of Watergate's, "what did the President know and when did he know it?"
This is pack "journalism" at its absolute worse, folks. The AP hears CBS say it; AP repeats it, which spurs CNN, then ABC, MSNBC -- not to be outdone -- hop on the gravy train, embellishing the tale beyond recognition. By early Thursday, the story metastasized into a full-blown, media-made White House "flap".
It doesn't get any lower, any meaner, any shallower, any dirtier, any pettier than this, Ladies and Gentlemen.
Nor any loonier, either. Call it the Cynthia McKinney effect.
The berserko from Georgia charged the President last month with advance knowledge of 9/11; that he did nothing to stop it to line the pockets of fat-cat war profiteers -- defense contractors. In the daffy, loony world of Cynthia McKinney, 9/11 was nothing but a sinister kickback scheme, a way for Bush to pay back 'wealthy' campaign contributors.
Scary stuff. Scary, that is, that someone so foolish, so zany, so obviously deranged might sit in Congress. Demented kooks making life and death decisions -- that's enough to scare the bejeebers out of anyone. Then again, that's Congress.
In retrospect, so what started as a Cynthia McKinney trial balloon -- it blew up in her face -- has now become Big Media's flavor of the month, the "scandal" to sink the Bush Presidency.
The story now isn't that Bush knew too little, but that he knew it all -- every jot and tittle -- and allowed it to happen. What's next? That Bush was behind the Anthrax mailings?
Gee, America, your President is a terrorist.
We knew the press hated Bush, but never how much. We now know. Presidents, over the history of our republic, have stood accused of many things. But never something as unseemly, as scurrilous, as foul, as gross, as vulgar and dirty as this. Accusing the President of complicity in -- or indifference to -- the cold-blooded murder of thousands of citizens ranks as a new, unimaginable low. This isn't just tawdry politics, this is character assassination of dimensions unprecedented. And, on top of that, during wartime.
To Bush-haters out there, I wouldn't pop the champagne corks just yet, if I were you.
The media's strategy is clear: Blacken the name George W. Bush, transform public perception from symbol of courage and resolve, to traitor or blundering fool. The man can't be both. But the press won't stop until merely mentioning the name hurls voters into fits of revulsion -- or ridicule.
In their frantic quest to destroy this President, the media has tried every trick in their playbook.
They tried Enron. It flopped. They tried the 9/11 photo. It sputtered. They tried Anthrax. It fizzled. They tried Afghanistan -- the quagmire. It backfired. They tried the "drunken" twins. It bombed. They tried Kyoto. It stalled. They tried arsenic in drinking water. It sunk. They tried the deficit. It faded. They tried 'unilateralism'. It faltered. They tried the Mideast. It ebbed.
I could go on.
Suffice it is to say that, with the beltway press, this President never once enjoyed a honeymoon. From the gitgo, Big Media's been on the warpath, voraciously on the attack.
What's new are the depths of depravity Bush's enemies will plumb, out of desparation, to bring down his Presidency.
I mentioned how the media has its work cut out for it, here's why.
For one thing, the story already is taking new, unexpected twists and turns.
By mid-afternoon, in fact, Democrats had egg on their faces. It was reported that senior Democrats -- the very hypocrites pointing accusatory fingers at the White House -- in fact were given the very same intelligence briefing as the President at the time. As were the intelligence committees in both houses of Congress.
Secondly, on investigating 9/11, are Democrats sure they want to 'go there'? All trails lead right back to Clinton. Repeatedly, Bin Laden was offered for extradition during the Clinton administration. The offers were turned down summarily, each time. Three-thousand men, women and children are dead as a consequence.
Moreover, on Clinton's watch, our intelligence agencies were decimated, as was our military. The FBI was mired in paralysis. A new director was installed only eight days before the 9/11 attacks.
Politically, despite the sound and fury, it's hard to imagine how any of this will change the public perception of Bush as a decent human being.
You see, Bush's persona as honest and trustworthy -- as a man of integrity -- isn't just for show: It's the real thing. The public senses that.
As promised, Bush restored dignity and respect to his office, after the battering it took during the Clinton years.
Decent, respectable, honorable -- these are Bush's defining traits.
It's why Democrats are desparate.
But the bond between Bush and his countrymen, forged in the 9/11 aftermath, is firm and dauntless -- and will doubtless endure this teapot-sized tempest.
Democrats are in for a terrible disappointment.
Mark my words.
Anyway, that's...
My two cents....
"JohnHuang2"
Saturday, May 18, 2002
I'm never gonna get to sleep tonight!
Thanks John for your two cents .. they are always the best
If memory serves wasn't it the Democraps that held up the appointment of FBI director Mueller until a few short weeks before the 9/11 tragedy?
Did normal Democrap politics hinder President Bush from from establishing his Administration? Are they still doing it by holding up appointments to the Courts?
Is there anything lower than these Democraps?
An aside to FBI Director Mueller: Please straighten out that Agency and provide us with any facts we should be aware of regarding Oklahoma City, .... flight DCCC, and other transgressions.
Thank you.
Yet newspapers all across the country printed the story on the front page above the fold line. Why? Who coordinated this effort? There's only one outlet with that kind of influence --- the Clinton press release network.
Could be a conspiracy. Could just be that this is a big story.
These days, it's hard -- if not impossible -- to tell which is which.
Mark W.
The big story is how this scurilous attempt by the dems, and their lackys in the press, has energized the President's base. Thank you, Lord, for putting bumbling imbeciles like McAuliffe, Daschle, Gephardt, McKinney out front for the DNC. By all means keep a microphone in front of Hillary and let her screech about this a little more, then please, let Helen Thomas write another idiotic, eye-crossing, mind-numbing article about this despicable non-story.
Can you say, Republican landslide in the making.
I think you're very wrong.
Almost since 9/11, there have been people questioning how much the Feds knew beforehand. Right here on FR there have been almost weekly threads from many different points of view, from tin foil oddballs with notes about CIA bases in Florida to buttoned-down speculations tracking the info gathered from prior Arab plots and attempting to make reasonable speculations for the data...
This is not something that came up suddenly out of nowhere.
There is certainly a political content to many of the press reports. [shrugs] These days that just goes without saying. There was a heavy political content in many of the true attacks against Clinton. The political content didn't make those Clinton attacks not true.
I'm more inclined to think that the sudden press interest in the pre-9/11 info is just that that fringe speculations became too heavily grounded in hardcore facts for even the lamestream press to continue ignoring.
FWIW, the most shocking thing to me isn't the press coverage of the 9/11 warnings -- heck, that stuff has had the potential to be a good story for a long time. I'm more shocked at the almost mindless, knee-jerk way so many here at FR have responded to the issue.
I mean, we lived through this kind of thing ourselves when the target was Clinton. We remember how crazy it felt when every point we tried to make was simply dismissed because it had "political content" and therefore was assumed to be not true.
Conservatives are NOT just "democrats who vote for republicans." Conservatives are people who have a LOVE and RESPECT for the truth. If there is DATA that points to shaddy doings by Bush (or anybody else) prior to 9/11, then we should welcome that info, rather than fight against it tooth and nail the way so many here on FR are doing...
Mark W.
Be careful.
I'm 42 years old and I've voted Republican in every presidential election but one. (I was so disgusted with the way Bush I handled the Gulf War without taking out Saddam and appeased the Saudis by having the US flag covered etc. that I voted against Bush for his second term.)
Now I am so disturbed by the way so many here at FR are reacting to these pre-9/11 warning stories that I am finding it harder and harder to see myself standing with such people in any election.
To me, this is a serious issue and for so many Bush fanatics to dismiss these stories as, well, fanatically as they've been doing, makes me more afraid of them than I would be of democratic politicians getting elected.
I urge all the robo-Bushies at this site to consider your actions carefully. Your craziness reflects not just on you, but also on Republicans in general, and Conservatives in general as well...
Mark W.
For Perot? You didn't vote for Clinton did you?
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.