Posted on 06/01/2004 9:23:06 AM PDT by Warhammer
Indeed, some would say that the news and, particularly, newsREELS of the 1940s were unabashedly pro-USA, pro-FDR ... and the opposition GOP at the time didn't really complain, because they understood that the fight was foremost for America, not for a party or an election. I suppose those days are gone now.
Doh! Stupid fat fingers!
The O'Neill "shrubs" comment was most definetly a swipe at this Administration, and totally out of character for O'Neill. No doubt about it.
But that said, claiming Kinsey represents Cheney is just plain silly. There is no likeness (and never once have I seen Kinsey tied to "big business" either). And if you're going to accept that Kinsey is Cheney, then you also have to accept that Bush is portrayed as a great guy, cause the President to Kinsey's VP in SG-1 is a great guy who made all the right decisions and even brought down Kinsey.
The "shrubs" criticism was a valid one, but the other just makes him look silly.
Qwinn
making the link live:
http://winwithhumor.com
Cynic that I am, I'm more inclined to believe your view than the author's. The tale as to what kind of nation we are at the dawn of the 21st century will be told this November. As I watched the President at the WWII memorial dedication on Saturday and at Arlington yesterday, I wondered if we are nation which will toss this courgeous giant of a man out of office.
This man who virtually single-handedly kept this nation together and moving forward in the dark days and weeks immediately following 9/11/01. This man whose policies prevented both total economic collapse after 9/11 and another attack on our soil in the nearly three years since. Not only prevented economic collapse, but who made it possible for the economy to roar back. This man who freed tens of millions of people in two countries; who got out of Israel's way so she could put down the violence begun under Clinton. This man who is pointing the way toward a freer, more democratic Middle East.
What ungrateful, stupid, blind fools we will be if, as a nation, we throw GWB out of office. If that happens, we will deserve what we get under a President John Kerry. And I, for one, will forever cease caring one whit about this nation of my birth.
"What happened to the good old days when the News was factual and the Entertainment programming was politically neutral?"
Those days were before we recognized just how much bias there was in the news because we didn't have enough non-biased news pointing it out. We were still being snowed back then. Ole Walter Cronkite did his damnedest to end the Vietnam war... and he succeeded by broadcasting the anti-war crap to the American audience every night. Just like the mainstream media is doing now. Only now, there are MANY conservative news orgs fighting back. Not so easy when you have stiff competition and the majority of Americans prefer unbiased news.
I have not a single point to add, FRiend. I fear the same things, for the same reasons.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!! Not Col. O'NEIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIL!!!
All of these examples of DNC talking points as pop TV dialogue, is a very successful method of making sure The Sheep are properly prepared for the inevitable return of Socialism. As long as their heroes and fave people keep getting their lines right, they validate what The Sheep are supposed to believe.
It's insidious, but predicted. Who said to us, that TV is a great educator?
It would be one thing if the media was just bias; unfortunately, they are deceptive and outright liars. From the distortions over the "16 words" to accusations that Bush lied, the media has made a deliberate attempt to hide the truth from the American people.
As they chastize and redicule Foxnews viewers as ignorant for accepting a Saddam/terrorist connection, it was they themselves who made these very connections when "their guy" was president. From a great article at Frontpagemag, called Untelling the Truth...http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles.readarticle.asp?ID=13589
"Newsweek magazine ran an article in its January 11, 1999, issue headed "Saddam + Bin Laden?" "Here's what is known so far," it read:
"Saddam Hussein, who has a long record of supporting terrorism, is trying to rebuild his intelligence network overseas--assets that would allow him to establish a terrorism network. U.S. sources say he is reaching out to Islamic terrorists, including some who may be linked to Osama bin Laden, the wealthy Saudi exile accused of masterminding the bombing of two U.S. embassies in Africa last summer."
Four days later, on January 15, 1999, ABC News reported that three intelligence agencies believed that Saddam had offered asylum to bin Laden:
"Intelligence sources say bin Laden's long relationship with the Iraqis began as he helped Sudan's fundamentalist government in their efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction. --ABC News has learned that in December, an Iraqi intelligence chief named Faruq Hijazi, now Iraq's ambassador to Turkey, made a secret trip to Afghanistan to meet with bin Laden. Three intelligence agencies tell ABC News they cannot be certain what was discussed, but almost certainly, they say, bin Laden has been told he would be welcome in Baghdad."
These are just two of the several stories the big media ran as they sought to lend support to Clinton's aggression against Iraq. Since the election of Bush, it has been the MEDIA that has changed the storylines and consistently moved the goal-posts in an effort to discredit Bush. The very lies they attribute to Bush, were once facts that they and the Democrats used to justify Clinton's actions in Iraq.
As they often misquote Bush, they conventiently leave out statements made by other Democrats, the UN and other intel agencies that often said the same...and even more, than what Bush said. As this media attacks American companies like Halliburton and accuse them of only wanting to profit from oil interests, they intentionally ignore the biggest scandal involving oil from foreign interests such as the UN and France.
The entire liberal establishment in this country...from academia to the media to Hollywood to the abundance of so-called authors who have sprung from the woodwork, have deliberately and dishonestly misrepresented to the American people both the important aspects of the WOT and the reason why Saddam was a threat. These are people who can dig up a 25 year old DUI charge but for some reason can't locate a quote from a democrat only a few years ago.
And the same is true for Kerry, as this media has intentionally hidden his relevant views from the past...and gafs of the present, as they rant on about Abu Ghraib...in some cases, for 28 straight days. I am fed up with this liberal media, who in their zeal to destroy Bush, has endangered and obstructed the war on terror...and thus, endangered us all.
I have never known such a time. I grew up with a liberal monopoly in media, and shows like M*A*S*H, which presented conservative philosophy in the archetype of the sniveling, incompetent, holier then thou, adulterous Frank Burns.
You're scratching the surface of something that's troubling me. Why were media accounts of WWII, not just news reels, so pro-America? Why was WWII not a major political theme in the general elections of 1942 or 1944? Are those days gone, or just missing?
I watched the WWII Memorial dedication Saturday. President Bush delivered a wonderful keynote address. A portion of the address reflected on the efforts at home in support of the war effort. His exact statement was:
"Those liberators would come, but the enterprise would require the commitment and effort of our entire nation. As World War II began, after a decade of economic depression, the United States was not a rich country. Far from being a great power, we had only the 17th largest army in the world. To fight and win on two fronts, Americans had to work and save and ration and sacrifice as never before. War production plants operated shifts around the clock. Across the country, families planted victory gardens -- 20 million of them, producing 40 percent of the nation's vegetables in backyards and on rooftops. Two out of every three citizens put money into war bonds. As Colonel Oveta Culp Hobby said, "This was a people's war, and everyone was in it." "
The last sentence summed up our war effort. This was a people's war.
That very morning, before the President's address, I listened to Jim Clymer, Constitution Party National Chairman, talk about our nation's war efforts. Not just the current war in Iraq, but a brief analysis of all wars our nation has been involved in. He summed up our efforts by stating the USA has won every war declared by Congress, and only lost the undeclared wars of Korea and Viet Nam. That's an insightful historical perspective. Every war declared by Congress is a "people's war".
Lost to both the President's speech and the comments of Mr. Clymer are the necessary components to bring both parties in Congress to Declare War, and involve the people. These components were present in the days following the attack on Pearl Harbor, and the attacks of 9-11. Where the components were realized following Pearl Harbor, they were squandered following 9-11.
In the days preceding Pearl Harbor, the vast majority of Americans opposed our entry into war. I've heard 75-90% of the nation opposed war before the Pearl Harbor attack. Such numbers probably opposed a war on terrorism prior to the 9-11 attacks. In the days following both these attacks, the opinions of Americans shifted over night. What differed was how these shifting opinions were handled.
The first, and most necessary component to any successful war is the involvement of volunteer citizens. From our Revolutionary War roots, with state militias and Washington's raising of money with a lottery to fund the regular army, to WWII civil defense teams and the USO, civilian participation has been key to winning. I personally feel a war bond effort immediately following the 9-11 attacks would have been beneficial. It would have involved citizens in selling the bonds, given citizens a personal stake in the outcome, and kept government borrowing from other sources to a minimum. Just as with any successful venture in the business world, or community, the more people that "buy-in", the more likely the success.
Is there anyone that did not see a nation united in determination following the 9-11 attacks? A strategy to employ this determination was not forthcoming. Actions following 9-11 point to the differing response of our government following the Pearl Harbor and 9-11 attacks. One is the Patriot's Act that allows the government greater access to the private lives of our citizens. All the attackers were foreign nationals, and this legislation would not have deterred the attacks. The other piece of legislation involved the Office of Emergency Services. As in the days following Pearl Harbor, our nation was in need of civil defenses. Volunteer citizens stepped forward to fill this need. Following 9-11, steps were taken that allowed the government to pick citizens, by invitation only, to fill this need. Another action taken expanded the role of government employees, such as postal workers, to also act as "spies" upon our own population.
This is not an indictment of President Bush. It is an indictment of the times we live in. We live in a time when the dictates of the "politically correct" offers few options but to see all people alike. Things were different during WWII. FDR, at the urging of Earl Warren, then the Republican Governor of California, took the precautionary step of interning all Americans of Japanese decent. This chapter of our history has been, and will be rewritten many times, but the basic reasoning was sound. Japan had attacked our nation, and until we knew otherwise, it was necessary to view all Japanese, even those with American citizenship with deep suspicion.
Another necessary component is unity, regardless of party affiliation. During times of war, it is necessary for the President, as Commander-in-Chief to look beyond party affiliation. This requires the President to take his own party to task on the partisan politics of war for the sake of national unity. There is no place for partisan politics in war. The partisan politics may enter into other important issues such as economics, taxes, social issues, or budgets, but they cannot be allowed to enter into the realm of our united war efforts. This is a difficult undertaking for any wartime president. It requires the president to browbeat his own political party on occasion and champion the cause of national unity.
President Bush hasn't done this... yet. Opportunities have been occurred. If President Bush seizes the proper opportunity, he would find more, not less support for our war efforts. Chastising one's own is required of parents, close friends, and during times of war, the president. President Bush would have to temper such remarks to not alienate his own party, and in so doing, present himself as the candidate best equipped to unify the nation.
What planet was that on ..??
I think the left is just paranoid that in 2008 there could be a Cheney/Rice ticket .. it's just the left's PRE-EMPTIVE STRIKE - which they say they don't believe in.
Zell is right .. it's the Clinton party, not the democrat party. The real democrats don't have a party anymore.
Okay you two .. that's enough whining! If you are so concerned, then get off your blessed assurance and start organizing voter registration. RNC will supply tables, chairs, signs - in most areas - a few hours every day could net a whole bunch of new voters for GWB.
Besides, you can promote FReeRepublic.com which gives more people access to a point of view other than the partisan media.
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.