Posted on 07/31/2003 5:53:36 PM PDT by luv2ndamend
The mainstream media's vicious crusade against Bush caught many people by surprise after the way these reporters toned down their attack after the 9/11 atrocity. Overall, the American media's coverage of that event reflected well on them. However, and there's always a 'however' when dealing with leftwing reporters and media anchors, there were appalling exceptions, which should have alerted people to what was to come.
Those who used the atrocities to vent their hatred of Bush exposed themselves as callous political bigots. There's a huge difference between criticizing, even in error, the president and trying to subvert him. The latter, in my opinion, amounts to giving aid and comfort to the enemy — i.e., treason. And that is what we are once again witnessing.
Let readers judge for themselves — except for those who follow the Chomsky line that America is a terrorist state and so had it coming. When interviewing Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf about the bombings Tom Brokaw couldn't help but insinuate that Bush was responsible for the atrocities because he was "negligent" regarding "the Middle East peace process." So all that Bush had to do to avert an act of war against the United States, according to Brokaw, was to make Israel commit national suicide, because that seems to be the only thing that will satisfy so-called Palestinians and their Western-hating supporters.
Just to show how patriotic it really is, the New York Times had the loathsome Maureen Dowd insinuating that Bush was a coward because she and her leftwing media buddies didn't know where he was. (A Newsday editorial pushed the same line). She then described how "chilling" it was "to see how unprepared those in charge" seemed to be. Maybe that's because the leftwing papers like the New York Times, the rag that pays her, and its Democratic allies spent years successfully waging war against America's intelligence agencies.
This is the very point that Tom Clancy made to Judy Woodruff about our defenses when she interviewed him. The fatuous Woodruff responded with the pompous assertion that the media do not take sides on intelligence agencies. And this is the same bigoted idiot who erupted with "But that's spying" when Clancy said America would have to "infiltrate" its enemies organizations. Perhaps this media moron would prefer more atrocities.
Of course Dowd was not the only one at the Times who abandoned patriotism — if she ever had any — in favor of partisanship. R.W. Apple's story was titled Bush Presidency Seems to Gain Legitimacy, and was clearly written in an attempt to belittle Bush and impugn "his capacity for the job".
Evidently the Times and most of its staff were refusing to accept Bush as president, which is still the case. Okay, if that's how that scurvy bunch want to behave, it's their choice. But for Apple to use the terrorist raids on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon to cast aspersions on the President Bush's legitimacy was an outrage. (The Times was not alone in attacking the president's legitimacy. During the National Prayer Service Peter Jennings called Clinton "President Clinton").
Despite the gravity of the situation and the suffering of the victims, the New York Times still used the atrocity to attack Bush's national missile defense proposals, just as CNN did, the same outfit that was collaborating with Saddam's secret police while simultaneously attacking Bush.
Robert Wright did likewise in Bill Gates' online magazine Slate, arguing that the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon proved the futility of missile defense. It's as if this little left-winger (I refuse to simply call his ilk liberals — because they are not real liberals at all) couldn’t wait to use the dead and the dying to attack proposals for an advanced national defense system. Being a good internationalist Wright argued against "unilateral American action".
"unilateral American action" is leftwing code for: "The US is a bully-boy who cannot be trusted to act alone, even in self-defense." The Bush-hating Albert R. Hunt of The Wall Street Journal also shares Wright’s views, recalling how Clinton’s missile raid on bin Laden failed. That it was not meant to succeed is not a thought that struck Hunt.
Newsweek's Howard Fineman felt the need to attack Bush for his lack of eloquence (even mass murder cannot deter this lot from political nitpicking) asserting that "he did not look larger than life". "Larger than life"! Now what was that supposed to mean? Bush looked the way he is supposed to look — presidential.
The Los Angeles Times' Howard Rosenberg played the same theme when he argued that Bush "lacked size in front of the camera when he should have been commanding," going so far as to vindictively describe Bush as looking "like a little boy". And what would have given, in Rosenberg’s opinion, Bush a "commanding" presence? An intern on either arm, perhaps? No, believe it or not it was the persona of a "national anchorman." The journalistic arrogance of these leftwing media monkeys is truly unbelievable at times.
Peter Jennings ABC News also tried to advance the Dowd line that Bush went into hiding after the bombing. Running abreast of the weaselly Jennings was Mary McGrory from the Washington Post who pompously declared that "He [President Bush] allowed himself to be hauled about the country like a fugitive to bunkers at Air Force bases in Louisiana and Nebraska". Maliciously adding: "He might have reflected that if Washington wasn't safe for him, it wasn't safe for the rest of us."
That it was known at the time that Bush had rejected security advice not to return to Washington did not faze McGrory one little bit, once again demonstrating the left's contempt for the truth. Not far behind this pack was the reptilian Ellis Henican, a Clinton worshipper and a reporter with the leftwing Long Island Newsday who said, "Mostly, George W. Bush has been keeping his head down, staying out of harm's way. He certainly hasn't shown his face around here."
It's now known that security believed that Air Force One and the White House were terrorist targets. And that that is why Bush was delayed. Even this information was questioned. In an exchange with Peter Jennings Claire Shipman claimed that some people on the Hill think that Bush was really afraid to return to the White House. Jennings, of course, supported her with the phony observation that "we're all pretty skeptical and cynical about Washington."
I say phony because Jennings never exhibited any skepticism when Clinton was president. Even though the above information has been confirmed, the likes of Jennings and Shipman have not offered their President an apology. (Incidentally, this is the same sensitive Jennings who interrupted the Wednesday morning prayers that were being offered by the House and Senate chaplains).
Now note the knee-jerk reaction of these media personalities, their willingness to immediately assume the worst of Bush, not even bothering to checkout their prejudiced assumptions. Can anyone honestly tell me these hacks are not bigoted? And there are, unfortunately, hundreds of others. The likes of Andrea Mitchell NBC's Campbell Brown, Dan Rather, Katie Couric and Brian Williams are just the tip of a very big iceberg .
One needs to recap on these events to demonstrate the single-mindedness of the leftwing media and their determination to pull Bush down no matter what — even if it includes giving moral support to terrorists.
IMHO, statements like this destroy the point the author is making. He is simply substituting one form of name-calling with another. To say the left-wing media is bias is a very valid point. Of course they engage in name-calling, but to discuss their bias while engaging one of their tactics, deminishes his point.
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.