FOR THE RECORD: Chris Matthews' LIES About Laura Bush's Remarks About Nagin

On Hardball last night, Chris Matthews said no less than three times that Laura Bush said "God wants New Orleans to be rebuilt."

In the interest of FACTUAL and ACCURATE reporting, here are her EXACT quotes, followed by Matthews' statments.

"Asked about the comment, Mrs. Bush joked that she didn't really think she could speak for God. Then she added that she believes Nagin wants New Orleans to be rebuilt."

"He wants people who lived in New Orleans to come back," Mrs. Bush said. "I do to, and I know the president does too. You know it's going to take a long time."

"He wants people who lived in New Orleans to come back," Mrs. Bush said. "I do to, and I know the president does too. You know it‘s going to take a long time."

---

Mrs. Bush, who said her next trip likely will be to New Orleans to visit schools damaged in the hurricane, also reacted to a comment by New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin that stirred controversy. Nagin had said: "This city will be chocolate at the end of the day." He later apologized.

Nagin also said the hurricane that devastated New Orleans was God's way of showing displeasure about U.S. involvement in Iraq. "Surely God is mad at America," Nagin said in a speech Monday. "Surely He's not approving of us being in Iraq under false pretense. But surely He's upset at black America also. We're not taking care of ourselves."

Asked about the comment, Mrs. Bush joked that she didn't really think she could speak for God. Then she added that she believes Nagin wants New Orleans to be rebuilt.

"He wants people who lived in New Orleans to come back," Mrs. Bush said. "I do to, and I know the president does to. You know it's going to take a long time."

---

It's all like that; nobody else said the things he said.

***Now, here is the TRANSCRIPT from MSNBC of last night's show (edited by YaYa123):

"MATTHEWS: What did you make of Laura Bush saying, regarding the Mayor Nagin thing of New Orleans, a very famous guy, obviously controversial, because of the way things went down down there.

But Laura Bush saying, “No, Nagin was wrong when he said that God, whatever, is mad at blacks.” He had a couple of comments which I think are a bit off the wall. But then she came in with one that I think topped him. She said, “God wants New Orleans to be rebuilt.” How does she know? Why are people talking for a deity? We can argue whether there is a God, but then to be hearing voices. This is the Joan of Arc stuff.

ROGERS: There do appear to be a lot of people hearing divine calling right now. I haven't read what Mrs. Bush said, but I'll give her the benefit of the doubt.

MATTHEWS: She said God wants us to rebuild New Orleans.

ROGERS: Well, maybe he does.

MATTHEWS: Well, sure. Maybe he hasn't give it any thought, I'm not sure. I just don't know, but I wouldn't presume.

ROGERS: I don't want to pick on Mrs. Bush. I don't know what she said. I give her the benefit of the doubt.

MATTHEWS: Well, I just told you what she said. But you can hide behind ignorance.

ROGERS: Ignorance is bliss.

MATTHEWS: I know. I've heard that before.

Dee Dee, what do you make of this godliness on the part of political figures like Nagin, like Robertson talking about how Sharon got sick because he wanted to cut a deal on land and peace? And now the first lady, who everybody likes—I like her—has jumped into the thing and she's talking for God now.

MYERS: I certainly don't look to political leaders of either party to interpret God's intentions for me. And I hope most Americans—and I don't think most Americans do either.

MATTHEWS: I'd like to know where they were last night, let alone tell me where God is. Just give me the basic information—how did they vote and how much they collected. And, by the way, who at the White House has been entertaining Jack Abramoff? Is that a fair question?

________________________________________________________________

(After the segment with Roger Cressey on the Pakistan bombing,which Chris didn't like at all, Chris goes back to Laura bashing: )

"MATTHEWS: Well, mixed bag. Probably most politicians are mixed bags. Most reporters are mixed bags. Most people are. That's fairly safe, isn't it?

He's saying he wants to bring back a chocolate city—a clear ethnic

reference, a racial reference if you will, although race means we're all of

the same race.

ALLEN: Well, he presumed to speak for God which, I think, is a mistake for any of us.

MATTHEWS: Well, what about Laura Bush doing the same thing today, saying God wants to rebuild New Orleans.

ALLEN: Today...

MATTHEWS: Or is that just general lunch-time Christianity, just the kind of thing you say—we know God wants us to rebuild our city, we know God roots for our downtown booster club, we know God—that sort of generalized sort of Kiwanis-type (ph) of religion, you know?

ALLEN: I think a good rule for living—in fact, I just saw this on a billboard the other day—it said “If you want to know what God's thinking, stop talking.”

And maybe that's a good rule for all of us."

The point you need to make to your father about untruthful reporters is not that they tell lies. They lie by not telling the entire story.....lying by omission. They also give distorted impression of events by refusing to put facts in context. Three examples of dishonest journalism can be found in the way the media handled the FEMA Katrina response stories, the NSA spying controversy, and the coverage of the Iraq war.

For instance, the media measures the success of the Iraq war by their daily casualty count...not progress being made. While constantly hyping the casualty rates of the Iraq conflict, they never, ever put it into the context of other conflicts. If Americans knew that tens of thousands of Americans died in one day in some battles during the civil war, or that we lost over 8,000 men just trying to recapture Iwo Jima, then 2,500 deaths suffered over nearly three years, while freeing 50 million people, begins to seem like a reasonable cost. without the context of deaths suffered in previous conflicts it is impossible for even a fair-minded person to determine the relative success or failure of a military action when casualties are used as the barometer for that success.

In the Katrina reporting one was left to believe that everything that was done poorly was the fault of FEMA and the federal government. During the first week of the media's assault on the Bush administration you were led to believe that Governor Blanco and Mayor Nagin were little more than spectators. Their own responsibilities for planning, notification, and command and control resources was completely ignored by the press. Why?? Because it would negate the anger and animus they wanted to direct at the White House they loathe.

Not only did they lie by omission be refusing to hold Blanco and Nagin responsible for issues that were clearly their responsibility, they played the no-context card perfectly by not disclosing the time it took FEMA to respond to other conflicts. FEMA could have had the fastest response time to Katrina that the agency has ever had in an emergency, but how would anyone know if previous response times by FEMA were never revealed. The FEMA website clearly puts the responsibility for the first 72 hours on the local authorities... could just one network have shown a screen-shot of the website and illuminated this fact?

In the NSA warrantless "wiretapping" imbroglio you are left to believe that nothing like this has ever happened before. If you were born yesterday you would never know that Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus and jailed, without charges, thousands of Americans who simply spoke badly about the president and the Emancipation proclomation.

If you were an alien that just landed on earth you would never have a clue that FDR imprisoned every japanese national and spied on Americans daily during WWII.

If you were a liberal and facts did not matter, then you would never remember the terms "echelon" or "carnivore". Both of these programs, that facilitated spying on American citizens by the Clinton administration, defended by jamie Gorelick as totally constitutional, are never mentioned by the press when reporting on the current NSA controversy.

This is how the media "tells the truth" without really telling the truth. They do it by omission of relevant facts and context. The absence of information is a tool to lie and the traditional mainstream media has perfected this technique to a science. They do every minute of every day. It is a shameful thing

Explain to your father that this is how they lie to us.

Freegards,

PresidentFelon

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.