I'm interested in the issue of the promised congressional hearings on the relief response to Katrina.Clearly Congress has the authority to investigate the conduct of the Administration; Congress after all has the authority to impeach the president of the United States.
But does Congress have the authority to investigate a sitting governor? Congress doesn't select or ratify the nominations of governors, and Congress doesn't have the authority to impeach them, either. And governors don't report to the president, either - President Bush was completely stymied when the Governor of Louisiana did not elect to do what President Bush recommended.
So the issue becomes whether in fact the Republican congressional majority can do anything at all about the propaganda assigning all blame for the aftermath of the hurricane to the Bush Administration. But when the issue is framed as a propaganda issue, it should be clear that the federal government does in fact have some resources. And a legitimate investigative target.
The problem is in fact that the distiction between "objective journalism" and the Democratic Party is not a substantive difference. Liberal "objective" journalism will always hype any problem, and will always blame the nearest Republican for any given problem. And that is all that is going on in the fingerpointing over the Katrina aftermath.
The organizational reality is that the local and state governments of New Orleans and Louisiana were the first responders in the Katrina disaster; the federal government has a role only as the governor of Louisiana requestst it. And the fact is that the (Democratic) governor of Louisiana did not ask for - did not allow - federal involvement in the aftermath of Katrina until the die was cast that there would be an insurrection in New Orleans delaying rescue efforts and until unnecessary suffering in the Superdome and the Convention Center was inevitable.
True to form, "objective" journalism and the rest of the Democratic Party has been insinuating that President Bush should have done what only the Democratic governor and mayor in question were authorized to do. Print journalism is as independent of the Congress as the governor of Louisana is, but print journalism is not where the action is. The core of the problem is broadcast journalism, and broadcast journalism - all broadcasting - exists at the pleasure of Congress. It exists because the FCC censors competion in radio transmission, and the FCC exists by congressional statute.
IMHO the right thing for Congress to do is investigate the disaster response to define the limits of the president's authority to respond, and compare that to the actual behavior of the administration. And compare the performance in Louisiana with that in Mississippi and Alabama, with the differing behaviors of the governors of those states. But part of documenting the problems in Louisiana must be to discuss the coverage of the event. The broadcast coverage which is ultimately done under government sanction. The real issue is the fact that government is giving sanction to claims of objectivity from Democratic activists.
Tsunami Minister Defends U.S. on Katrina The Guardian UK ^ | 9/11/2005 | Chris Brummitt
Why the media acts this way is one of the mysteries of our collective lives.
Excellent recap and point well made but there is no mystery.
The Roosevelt administration was saturated with Communists. That included Alger Hiss, one of his key advisers who was later accused, tried, convicted, and executed for treason. It also included his wife, Eleanor.
The heads of most of the media were also Communist sympathizers as were many journalists. It was the new, de rigueur thing to be. It was a new religion.
Much of the law breaking you mention was to secretly arm the USSR not just Great Britain. The maneuvering to get into WWII was to take the pressure off Joe Stalin. Pearl Harbor was a surprise but he had other plans already under way to instigate war with Japan. We fought Germany to take pressure off his Stalins western front and Japan to ease the threat on his eastern front.
Today the media are the same but we have an anti-Communist in the White House. Isn't it interesting that those who further the move toward Communism (FDR, JFK,Carter, and Clinton) by installing socialist policies and giving away our defenses, Panama Canal, and military secrets are praised by the media while those opposed (Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, and both Bushes)are constantly faced with withering condemnation and out right lies.
You need look no further than that, the furthering of the progress of Communism, to understand the media and the left.
I listened intently. I read his biography and a very distuingished scholarly man he is. Yet, the hard, cold incisiveness of his condemnation of the government, chilled my inside.
The people are so clever and utterly incapable of equal consideration, it scares me. When that charlatan Galloway was said to have "cowed" members of Congress, I wondered if there can be any proper hearings at all? This given the forum for, yes, nothing more that hate. Perhaps I should have used another word. I cannot think of one.