Hypocrisy on steroids (Small wonder Democrats are sulking)

Remember the Democrats' criticism after the World Trade Centers attack: "Bush knew they were coming!" The anti-Bush crowd insisted that the president had intelligence reports that revealed the imminent attacks, and he failed to prevent them.

Subsequent investigations revealed there was, indeed, chatter in the intelligence community that suggested there were people in this country who were associated with al-Qaida, and that airplanes might be used in some kind of future attack. As with all intelligence fragments gathered from a variety of sources, the best heads in the U.S. intelligence community, most of whom were holdovers from the Clinton era, concluded there was not enough information available to take any specific action.

Prior to the Iraq invasion, there was a mountain of intelligence that indicated biological, chemical and nuclear weapons potential in the hands of Saddam Hussein. There were also analysts who suggested that some of the evidence was not conclusive. The best heads in the U.S. intelligence community concluded that there was enough information available to take specific action. This conclusion was shared by the best heads in the international intelligence community, as well.

What would the Democrats be saying now, had the president not taken action in the face of the available intelligence information, and if Saddam had unleashed a dirty bomb, or one with chemical or biological materials? And how much worse might the consequences be?

As severely as the president was criticized for not taking action – based on very flimsy information – to prevent the WTC attack, how much more would they be criticizing him for not taking action based on the preponderance of information about the probability of biological, chemical or nuclear weapons?

Democrats are going to criticize this Republican president, regardless of what he does. Their criticism has little to do with the merits of any issue, and everything to do with public perception. The current criticism of the war in Iraq has nothing to do with the security of the United States, and everything to do with tarnishing the president sufficiently to gain some political advantage.

From the outset, the president has pledged to stay in Iraq until "the job is done." He has consistently defined this to be the point at which the Iraqi people have an elected, representative government in place, and a security force of sufficient strength to defend the new government. He has consistently said that as the Iraqi force "stands up," the United States and coalition forces will "stand down."

Despite the determined attacks by al-Qaida in Iraq, the people have elected an interim government, which produced a constitution that the people voted to approve, and are only weeks away from electing their first constitutional government. This is a remarkable achievement. Especially when it has occurred in the face of daily bomb blasts and murders by the terrorists.

The Iraqi security force now exceeds 200,000, and they are growing more competent by the day. Iraqis are taking ever increasing responsibility for their own security, just exactly as was planned.

After the election in December, and when the new government is established, U.S. troops will begin to reduce their presence, as the Iraqi forces assume control.

Don't expect the Democrats to applaud this achievement. They are now positioning themselves to take credit for the return of American troops. Expect Democrats to say it was their criticism of the war that forced the president to withdraw American soldiers, and that the president is bringing them home in hopes of regaining favor for Republicans before the mid-term elections.

Democrats – and the media – never miss an opportunity to point to the 2,000 American soldiers who have died in Iraq since 2003. Neither has shed the first tear over the 14,000 Americans who died needlessly in 2004 alone ... as the result of drunk drivers. Their criticism is not about the loss of American lives – it is about political advantage.

Soldiers bravely gave their lives to help the Iraqis create a new representative government in the Middle East that will not breed terrorists, but will create opportunities and alternatives for Iraqis to enjoy the prosperity that freedom makes possible. It is the president's hope that such a government will inspire other Middle East countries to follow the Iraqi example, and begin to suppress religious extremism in favor of individual freedom.

This goal will not be achieved before President Bush leaves office. It would not even be possible, however, had he not heeded the warnings laid before him by the best heads in the intelligence community, and taken the bold action the previous administration said was necessary, but failed to undertake.

Saddam Hussein is gone. A new representative government is rising in Iraq despite all the hypocritical criticism the Democrats can muster. Because of these two events, the world is a better place, and the prospects for eventually containing the terrorists are much brighter.

Small wonder Democrats are sulking

By JohnHuang2
March 16, 2002
All the good news on the economy of late is enough to make a grown Democrat cry -- like a baby.
And, for Democrats -- and all kindred recession-mongers, for that matter -- there's just no relief in sight.
Economists seemed stunned and amazed at the torrent of reports signaling a stronger -- much stronger -- than expected recovery. In fact, Big Media's dirtiest little secret is that a recovery was already well underway prior to the September 11 attacks. That's a fact.
This is not to minimize the impact of 9/11, however. Indeed, harrowing footage of kamikaze attacks leveling the World Trade Center in the nation's premier financial district sent shock waves here and across the globe. Consumer sentiment dove into a free-fall.
But, contrary to "analysts'"' predictions, the U.S. economy did not implode. It's debatable whether we were ever in a recession. The National Bureau of Economic Research, the so-called official 'scorekeeper', announced in November that the U.S. economy had slipped into recession in March of 2001. Yet, only third quarter GDP posted negative growth. Recession requires two back-to-back quarters of contraction. In retrospect, the consensus is NBER apparently jumped the gun -- big time.
But they weren't the only ones. Bush had barely been in office for six weeks in March of '01, but Democrats seized the NBER report and were already calling it the 'Bush recession'.
"Mainstream" pundits, parroting those sentiments, sounded the death knell of the Bush presidency, auguring a GOP bloodbath in the fall. In the end, 43's fate would be no different from 41's. Some even suggested a 'recession curse' plaguing the Bush family name.
But that was then, and this is now.
Recession? What recession? Hello? The talk today is of peddle-to-the-medal recovery and expansion. New numbers by the Federal Reserve yesterday on industrial production (up .4% for February) and capacity utilization (up .3%) -- both figures exceeding expectations -- only validates the bullish sentiment sweeping Wall Street these days.
And Mainstreet, as well.
Take a peek at yesterday's University of Michigan survey of consumer sentiment. The index leaped in February to 95.0 from 90.7 in January. Th reading is reportedly the highest it's been since December of 2000.
As if that were not enough, according to the report, a majority of consumers now anticipate good economic times -- the first time since 9/11. While 60% percent expected unemployment to rise back in September, only 31% feel that way today -- a level of consumer optimism not seen in over 14 months.
With a recovery in full swing, speculation now turns on the Fed's next move. After 11 straight rate cuts in 2001, most expect the Federal Open Market Committee in its policy meeting on Tuesday to change its stance from 'easing' to 'neutral'. But while Democrats are hoping this sets the stage for aggressive rate hiking this year, and an end to the recovery, they're in a crushing disappointment. The FOMC will likely leave rates unchanged until it sees a full investment sector recovery -- always a lagging indicator.
Moreover, the threat of inflation remains virtually nil. The Labor Department reported Friday the Producer Price index edged up a paltry .2% in February, only slightly higher than January's .1%. The "core" rate, which excludes widely gyrating food and energy prices, was unchanged in February. "Analysts" expected a .1% rise in PPI.
Let's see here: Tame inflation, low short-term interests rates, improving employment picture, rising factory output, rising consumer sentiment, rising disposable income, rising demand, rising stock market, rising productivity -- small wonder Democrats are sulking and moaning and groaning these days.
But, as the Gipper would say, they ain't seen nothing yet.
Meanwhile, back in Washington, the fallout over the killing of the Pickering nomination by Judiciary Committee Democrats escalated further yesterday.
Maverick Georgia Democrat Sen. Zell Miller, who on key issues often breaks with his party, warned fellow Democrats to expect dramatic ballot-box repercussions, particularly in the south, in the aftermath of their torpedoing of the Pickering nomination.
"Politically, this action may very well elect a Republican governor in Mississippi", thundered Sen. Miller. "And it will certainly make it even more difficult for Democratic candidates to be successful in the South."
In other words, what goes around, comes around. But the backlash isn't waiting for November.
Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott of Mississippi made do on a threat earlier Friday to reciprocate the detestable, odious, ugly and shameful mistreatment Judge Pickering had received at the hands of Committee Democrats. One of Daschle's nominees to the Federal Communications Commission is now on hold. The nominee is a Daschle staffer, no less.
Additionally, Sen. Lott scotched a Judiciary Committee supplementary funding request, to the tune of $1.5 million.
In my humble opinion, Sen. Lott needs to go even further. Republicans should bring all -- ALL -- Senate activity to a screeching halt until the full Senate is allowed to vote the Pickering nomination up-or-down.
Judge Pickering deserves no less -- especially after the contemptible, Kafkaesque travesty he's been put through. But don't hold your breath, however. If a full Senate vote were allowed, Judge Pickering would easily be confirmed to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans.
Charles Pickering, a longtime friend of Sen. Lott, currently serves as U.S. District Judge in Mississippi.
My two cents...
"JohnHuang2"

http://clinton.senate.gov/~clinton/speeches/020516_warning-statement.html

Remarks of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton
On The Need For An Independent Commission To Examine Events Leading Up To 9/ll
On The Floor Of The United States Senate

Mr. President, I rise today out of respect for, and to speak on behalf of, the people of New York. I am especially mindful today of the memory of the people in New York who were lost on September 11, and their family members and loved ones, who grieve for them to this day.

We learn today something we might have learned at least eight months ago: that President Bush had been informed last year, before September 11, of a possible Al-Qaeda plot to hijack a US airliner.

The White House says that the President took all appropriate steps in reaction to that warning.

The White House says that the warning did not include any specific information, such as which airline, which date, or the fact that a hijacked plane would be used as a missile. Those are all important issues, worthy of exploration by the relevant committees of Congress. The goal of such an examination should not be to assign blame, but to find out all the facts.

And I also support the effort by Senators Lieberman and McCain to have an independent National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon The United States, which was reported out of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee in March.

Such a panel can help assure the people of New York and all Americans that every facet of this national tragedy will be fully explored, in hopes that the lessons we learn can prevent disasters in our future.

I appreciate the Senator from Connecticut's remarks on the floor earlier today indicating his desire to offer this proposal as an amendment at the earliest possible convenience. Because we must do all we can to learn the hard lessons of experience from our past and apply them to safeguard our future.

That is why I also support the call by the distinguished Majority Leader, Mr. Daschle, for the release of the Phoenix FBI memorandum and the August intelligence briefing to Congressional investigators, because, as Senator Daschle said this morning, the American people "need to get the facts."

Mr. President, I know some things about the unique challenges faced by the person who assumes the mantle of Commander in Chief. No one but those individuals who have that responsibility can truly know the full scope of the burdens of that office. But I've had the privilege of witnessing such history up close. And I know there is never any shortage of second-guessers and Monday morning quarterbacks, ready to dismantle any comment, or critique any action taken, or not taken.

Having experienced that from the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, I will not play that game, especially in this circumstance.

I am simply here today, on the floor of this hallowed chamber, to seek answers to questions. Questions being asked by my constituents. Questions raised by our newspapers in New York, such as the one with the headline "Bush Knew." The President knew what? My constituents would like to know the answers to those questions. Not to blame the President or any American. But just to know. To learn from experience. To do all we can to ensure that a 9/ll never happens again.

The pain of 9/ll is revisited every time a scene of the flaming towers appears on the television. It is revisited every time we see a picture of the cleanup at Ground Zero. It is revisited every time the remains of a fallen hero is recovered. And it is revisited today, with the questions about what might have been, had the pieces of the puzzle been put together in a different way before that sad day in September.

I cannot answer the questions my constituents are asking. I cannot answer the concerns raised by the families of the victims.

As agonizing as it is to even think that there was intelligence suggesting the possibility of the tragedy that occurred, particularly for the family members who lost a loved one, it's a subject that we are absolutely required to explore.

As for the President, he may not be in a position to respond to all of those concerns. But he is in a position to answer some of them, including the question of why we know today, May 16, about the warning he received, and why we did not know this on April 16, or March 16, or February 16, or January 16, or December 16, or November 16, or October 16, September 16........or August 16?

And I hope that the President will assume the duty that we know he is capable of fulfilling, exercise the leadership that we know he has, and come before the American people at the earliest possible moment to answer the questions so many Americans are asking today. That will help. My constituents would appreciate it.

After all, it's the not knowing that hurts the most.

I spent 35 years of my life in the media. There was hardly a day in that 35 years that there was not at least one story touting the power of the media.

Even today if one goes to Washington D.C. or any state capital and talks to the elected officials you will find that the vast majority believes in the power of the media. I believe the the only real power the media has is the typical politican's belief that the media does control public opinion. The evidence does not suport that belief.

I grew up in an era when the media hated Democrats and especially Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Harry Truman. Time and Life magazines were a huge power in the political world. They had huge circulations and they hated FDR and HST. Time and Life were owned by Henry Luce. Luce's his wife was a Republican Congresswoman. Harry Truman referred to Mr. and Mrs. Henry Luce as "Arsenic and old Luce!"

The most listened to Broadcast Anchor was H.V. Kaltenborn on NBC. In his 1948 election night coverage, which began when the East coast polls closed, started with the statement that it would be a short night because Dewey was going to have a massive victory. According to Kaltenborn the only thing left in suspense was what President Elect Dewey would say in his acceptance announcement and what Truman would say in his concession speech.

At seven O'Clock the next morning with the election hinging on Illinois, Kaltenborn said there was no doubt that once all the votes in Illinois were counted Dewey would be the new president. The Chicago Tribune was so sure of a Dewey victory that they had their first edition printed up before the first votes in Ill. were counted. Id had the words "DEWEY WINS" in eight inch letters on the front page. But Truman won and by 9:00Am on the day after the election even Kaltenborn had to admit it.

By 1972 the media had a new generation in charge and they were very, very, leftist. From the day to day coverage of the election in the spring and summer of 1972 one would have been certain that Nixon was going down to a massive defeat. The polls showed Nixon in line for a massive victory, but the stories on election day were all about can McGovern pull it out... not that Nixon was going to win a massive victory. If you listened, watched, or read the news on election eve and election day, the question on every reporters lips was will McGovern pull it out. It was intended to create the impression that McGovern could still win. He didn't have a chance.

The 1980 bias was incredible. The economy was in shambles with stagflation.. We were suffering a combination of double digit unemployment and double digit inflation. Plus Iran had kicked our rump with the Iran hostage crisis and still had our hostages. The media covered this failure of leadership by saying the presidency had become way too big a job for just one man.. Even a brilliant man like Jimmy Carter. They told us Jimmy was a Nuclear Scientist and was brilliant. And if Jimmy could not do the job, then no one could. The solution on every Sunday talk show was to divide the presidency into two jobs.. for two men. They also painted a picture of total disaster if Reagan were elected. If it was terrible under Carter things would just be 10 times worse under an the so called leadership of an out of work actor who could only read his handlers lines.

If one looks at the 1988 election the media painted George W. Bush as a wimp. A surviver of 35 missions as a naval torpedo plane pilot, Bush was painted as a wimp.

We experienced how the media treated George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004. In 2000 was presented as a spoiled rich kid, with no brains and little common sense. And in 2004 as the man who had stolen the election of 2000.

My point in this long diatribe is to give examples of when the media has failed. If you examine the elections since 1932 you will see that the media supported candidate has won 7 of the last 20 races. The media candidate has won 3 of the last 10 races.

That would tend to support the proposal that the media is mostly counter productive. I don't think that is true.

But what I learned from my experience is the following. That if I attacked a politician, those that already supported him attacked me and supported him. Those that did not like the politician supported me and joined the attack. Those that did not have an opinion, tended to stay undecided.

Think about it in your own life. If someone says something nasty about someone you like you defend the person being attacked. If someone says something nasty about someone you dislike you tend to agree. If you have no opinion.. an attack leaves you undecided. The usual reaction of the undecideds is "I would like to hear the other side before I make a decision."

If one wants to persuade a majority of the public, one has to reach those undecideds and cause them to decide. Those undecideds have to believe they have heard both sides and that THEY are making the decision.. not the media.

Roger Ailes pretty much understands persuasion in We Report You decide approach for FOX. Many of us are angry when Fox presents the news from the lefts standpoint. Fox does that. They also present the news from the rights standpoint. Fox does that too. It is for that reason, that they are so influential.

But the stupidity of CNN blows my mind. They put a big X over Chaney.. to put him down. What they do is totally unite the Right, and alienate the Center while pleasing the left. Silly tricks like that are counter productive.

Shows like the Rush and Sean radio programs are good for energizing the base. Base turn out is important. But Rush and Sean preach to the choir they do not make converts.

What the right needs is more media that fairly presents both sides. Given the success of capitalism as economic policy and the success of the Reagan-Bush approach to foreign policy, the right should welcome that sort of coverage. In fact it is an essential coverage. It is by far the best way to win the contest for the hearts and minds of a solid majority of voters.

Absolutely stupendous reply to a marvelous initial post. This is a keeper sequence if there ever was one.

You're from my era (I'm 62) and I remember well the historical points you make. In addition, your main point is right on; the 'power of the media' is illusory at best. Oh, sure, the elites both in the media and politics believe that public opinion can be swayed by a constant infusion of rhetoric and managed news. And to some degree this is true. But the large majority of us are fully capable of making up our own minds, acting on our own decisions, and seeing through all the BS. And that is precisely why the left has not been successful in establishing their 'utopia'.

I also agree with your final two paragraphs. Conservative talk radio and television are fine for energizing the base but do little to get the truth out to all Americans. Most people don't listen or watch these broadcasts and aren't exposed to the truth. In addition, many (if not most Americans) don't follow the news whether through newspapers, radio or TV and are clueless about what is really going on in our country. These deficiencies will never be overcome by conservative talk radio/TV. They will only be addressed and rectified by a structural shift in how the MSM views and reports the news. Fox is a start but much more needs happen before we can even begin to see victory ahead.

Again, a wonderful post. My hats off to you.

Good post. One thing that I think Republicans and conservatives can do is start using the media against themselves. Every Sunday we have Republicans seated across from a Democrat and a reporter on national T.V. What do we usually see?

We usually see the reporter badger the Republican, let the democrat pile on, then turn to the Republican for a response and we get.....

"Well Tim, I don't agree with my fine colleague and ...."

When an undecided sees the Republican waddle into some wishy washy defense of himself, his party, or his President it always seems half hearted. The undecided comes away thinking either he doesn't even really believe in what he is saying or that he really doesn't care. There nothing there to push the undecided in a rightward direction. The Undecided sits there thinking "Hell, he don't care. Why should I?"

What we should see is the Republican forcefully deny the accusation. Demand that the reporter or Democrat actually provide evidence of the basis of their accusation and not give up until the issue has been fully addressed. The reporter will try to move on. This is where the Republican can force the issue. Refuse to do so.

Now what happens is that the democrat sitting across from the Republican is forced to reply, a position he is not used to. He will prattle the latest TPM, the Republican swats it right back at him and that neuters the democrat.

Then the Republican should turn to the reporter and ask why he is not taking issue with the democrat lies and misinformation. Also question the reporter himself.

Think of any major issue. Iraq, economy, War on Terror, European relations, it doesn't matter. The Republican almost always is starting from a disadvantage when in reality it should be a strong point for the Republican.

It is the main weakness of the Republican Party. They cower when they should be fighting and seem not to mind when the reporter refereeing the fight is wearing the opponents colors and betting against him.

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.