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.
Neuharth continued:
"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.
"There numbers at the big 3 major TV networks are tanking."
It's my fault. ;o) I quit watching their morning, and
evening news broadcasts during the '92 election season. I
quit watching the "tiny 3" altogether about 5 years ago,
with a couple of exceptions.
I am SO thankful for FR, talk radio, and the internet.
Good post. Thanks for the ping.
Very good, potlatch. ;o)
LOL! That's a good one. ;o)
Thanks for the ping.
*** The problem is that they only talk to eachother (a parochial exercise where they always find their views validated) ***
is that like water (and BS) finding its own level?
I went with my three yound kids to a Memorial Service at Tahoma National Cemetery near Seattle. (I grew up in Mpls. so your post caught my eye.)
The speakers at the service were veterans. They all pointed out how the young men and women are showing the same bravery and courage as those in the "Greatest Generation". (Applause). And that they are fighting for no less of a noble reason than that of FREEDOM. (Applause).
No huge political overtones. But lots of praise and prayers for the troops and their Commander-in-Chief in amongst the gratiitude for the veterans. Each time these types of comments were well received by this patriotic crowd. (Including the twenty-something guy in front of me with his waist-length hair!)
I think so too! My gosh .. the dems keep pushing and pushing the envelope and now that the public is beginning to push back and is booing them all over the country .. THEY STILL DON'T GET IT. ROTFLOL!!!
Good
Thanks for the ping.
Two questions, if anyone knows. One, who invited Mike Wallace to speak at this event? His vile spew should've been predictable. Second, how many people were in attendance before the 50 walked out?
I've run out of adjectives to describe the evil that mainstream media has become. So, I'll just say, I freaking hate Mike Wallace.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/1998/07/09/60minutes/main13549.shtml
Right we only freed 25,000,000 people and put an end to the rape rooms, acid vats...Nothing noble about that.
These people are crazy. One minute they praise FDR, the next minute they say a CIC, President should always have military experience. FDR didn't have any.
Nice to know they were booed.
What a couple of Bas*ards Mike Wallace and Al Neuharth are !!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.
Thank God for the hecklers calling them out on this !!!
This is really a strange statement. On the one hand, he seems to be complaining that the decision to go to war isn't being made by those fighting it. But I wonder, is it ever made that way? Anyone who has worn the uniform will know that everyone in the service (it's called that for a reason) is instructed that a big part of their role is to obey the lawful orders of those placed in authority over you. Decisions are made by those in the chain of command, and those receiving the (legal) orders don't have a say in basic policy decisions once they have been set by those authorized to do so. He seems to acknowledge that in the second sentence, but offers it in a critical, complaining manner.
In our system, the military takes its orders from civilian authority. Unless the guy is proposing some kind of military takeover of civilian authority akin to the "Seven days In May" scenario (only instigated by front-line soldiers), I don't see the point.
Finally, in the history of what has been traditionally a peaceful nation, the United States, and the President in particular, usually doesn't take it upon himself to just get up one day and say, "I guess today I'll declare war on so-and-so", and just start the fighting. In the case of the present war, events forced our actions. Whether or not we'd be in Iraq and Afghanistan today without the events of 9/11 is arguable at best, but I know for a fact that what happened on that tragic day was perpetrated by those who carried it out and their enablers overseas, certainly not in the Oval Office.
This kind of stuff really gets me stirred up.I need to find an email addy for Mike Wallace and give him a piece of my mind,
what's left of it ! lol !
His son bothers me too. I just don't trust the putz.
That's because the President during WWII WAS a leftist.
FDR was the most left-wing president we've ever had, and part of his legacy (along with the Social Security Ponzi scheme) was a communist-infiltratred State Department.
McCarthy was right, you know.
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.