What Bush didn't know: Hugh Hewitt catches elite media asking the wrong question

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Wednesday, May 22, 2002 | Hugh Hewitt

[JohnHuang2]

As usual, the elite media is asking the wrong question. Much more interesting than what Bush knew is what Bush didn't know. The list is long.

Bush didn't know that the leadership of the Democratic Party could never be expected to sacrifice its political interest to the national interest, not even after the slaughter of thousands of Americans and the beginning of war.

Bush didn't know that every few weeks a Democratic leader would launch an assault on his conduct of the war in the hopes of nicking the president's huge standing with the public. Whether Biden's "mano-a-mano" laugher, Daschle's "no exit strategy," or Hillary's and Gephardt's bald charges of last week, Bush clearly has been surprised by the McKinney Democrats.

Bush didn't know that, even though the confirmation of his deputy attorney general was stalled by the Senate until May 10, the confirmation of his assistant attorney general for the Criminal Division until June 14, and the confirmation of his commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service until July 31, that he would be blamed for not having cleaned up the mess at Justice in time to prevent 9-11.

Bush didn't know that Robert Mueller, confirmed as director of the FBI on Aug. 2, would get the heat for FBI fumbling instead of Louis Freeh, whose last day as director was June 30.

Bush didn't know that the Beltway punditry, now so eager to label him as inattentive, would collectively forget their fascination with Chandra Levy and Jim Jeffords. Bush didn't know that, even now, when "focus" is so highly valued by the sideline second-guessers, no one is asking whether Jeffords may have been a little too self-absorbed for the country's good. Bush didn't realize that a media that covered for the Gore-Lieberman attempt to strip the votes from the military serving overseas would turn a blind eye to the chaos in the intelligence community created in the locust years of Clinton-Gore.

Bush didn't know that the country's "leading" newspaper would not think twice about headlining a columnist who questioned his courage, as Maureen Dowd did when, in writing about the use of a photo from 9-11 for fundraising she penned: "Fortunately for the Republicans, it's a photo and not a video. Otherwise we might hear the president nervously inquiring of his adult supervisor, 'Hey, Dick, is it safe to come home yet?'" Did the Times, during World War II, wonder aloud about FDR's cloaking his travels to meet with Churchill and Stalin? After Kennedy's assassination, did the Times feature second-guessings about LBJ's every move?

Bush didn't know that Newsweek's Howard Fineman was not only a partisan hack, but also clairvoyant. Fineman's assertions on Hardball on May 16 that the president was not completely surprised by 9-11 because he had been warned by the CIA, and because his jaw did not drop when told of the attack, represent a new low for "journalism" that Bush clearly did not anticipate.

Bush didn't know that his decision to keep George Tenet as head of the CIA in January would not be remembered as an act of continuity and bipartisanship, or that his refusal to fire the Clinton holdover post 9-11 would not be credited as a refusal to scapegoat the previous administration. Bush is clearly surprised at the Democrats' willingness to heap scorn on the FBI and CIA of Clinton's creating even as they try and finger Bush for those agencies' failures.

And Bush is quite obviously taken aback by the Jerry Nadlers of the world, whose own quite obvious internal demons allow them to voice the idea that the country needs to investigate whether a president of the United States would not have acted to prevent the massacre of thousands.

Bush didn't know that Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney was not only not around the bend, but that she was an opinion leader of the Democrats. And Bush didn't know that straight-faced Democrats and their buddies in the Beltway media would send up a chorus of demands for a new "commission" to review intelligence failures, even as Democratic staffers leaked the documents the already launched investigation had unfortunately placed in their hands.

Bush didn't know that there are two kinds of conservatives – loyal conservatives and ratings-driven conservatives, and that the former aren't very skilled at combating the Beltway machine and the latter don't want to.

Bush didn't know that many Republicans couldn't tell the difference between a steel tariff and a JDAM, or the difference between a wheat subsidy and the dispatch of special forces to the Philippines and Georgia.

Bush didn't anticipate how quickly a country as spoiled as ours could will 9-11 into the memory hole.

Bush didn't foresee the cravenness of the commenting class, or the capacity of Tom Daschle to be both Iago and Cassius at the same time. Bush couldn't imagine a Patrick Leahy lying or (and forgive him here, no one could see this coming) a Hillary Clinton demanding answers from the White House.

Bush did not know that a Senate that could not understand what the meaning of "is" is, could never understand what the meaning of "war" was.

In short and in summary, President Bush was wholly unprepared for the decadence of D.C. as he found it in 2001.

But then again, so was I, and so apparently are the vast, vast majority of the American people. President Bush has found it prudent to disguise his disgust, but there is no reason why the electorate should. The reckoning is in November, and there is little that Dowd, Fineman et al can do about that.

---

[Mia T]

HILLARY CLINTON SHOULD BE CAREFUL WHAT SHE WISHES FOR. . .

THE REAL PROXIMATE CAUSE OF 9/11

 

What did he know. . . and when did he know it ?

by Mia T

5.17.02

 

"The instant that second plane hit, I said to the person with whom I was speaking, 'Bin Laden did this.' I knew immediately. I know what this network can do."

bill clinton

 

 

Clinton's FBI Learned In 1995 Of Plot To Use Terror Jetliner

Clinton Warned on Bin Laden Hijack-Kamikaze Plot

Clinton Let Bin Laden Slip Away and Metastasize 

  

Notwithstanding the above, or more precisely, because of it, hillary clinton, in a Senate speech yesterday, called on President Bush...and not her inept, depraved husband...or, for that matter, her inept, depraved self...to "come before the American people at the earliest possible time to answer the questions so many New Yorkers and Americans are asking...so that...a 9/11 doesn't happen again."

it won't s-p-i-n

No sign of intelligent life above.

The rapist virtually indicts himself as the proximate cause of 9/11...and his zipper-hoisted one-trick pony horse is too arrogant and dim-witted to understand that the jig is up, that the demagogic process in this fiberoptic age is not about counting spun heads; it's about not discounting circumambient brains.

it won't s-p-i-n

They ARE space aliens

reckless rodham-clinton-gore reinvention-of-government schemata

KNOWNOTHING VICTIMS RODHAM/CLINTON REVISITED

^{Q ERTY2} "There isn't a shred of evidence."

HILLARY, YOU KNOW, ^{KnowNothing Victim} Q ERTY4 ^{double bagel},

W I D E B O D Y. _{low-center-of-gravity} Dim Bulb, _{Congenital Bottom Feeder}

_{Q ERTY3} ^{zipper-hoisted}

clinton zipper vitiated by obvious spilth

_{Humpty Dummies}

Q ERTY6 ^{utter failures}_{rodham-clinton} ^{reality-check}

^{4th-Estate Malfeasance} (DEATH BY MISREPORT) BUMP!

[maica]

Wow! Does this article sum up the opposition or what! We could put it in point form and have it in our pockets for discussion between now and November 5 - like the Contract with America.

Call it the Ten Reasons to Strengthen Our Defense! (Elect Republicans)

[Coop]

Bush clearly has been surprised by the McKinney Democrats.

Sorry, I beg to differ. I think most everyone agrees that this White House is very political; it pays close attention to politics. Even a political novice knows the Democrats know how to do little else except slander and attack. These attacks surprised no one, except for maybe how ineffective they have been.

[Coop]

Not allowing Pilots to carry in the cockpit

That moronic statement came from one upper level goon in the Transportation Department - never even heard of him before. From what I understand it's Congress' decision to make, and I expect pilots to eventually be able to carry.

[rambo316]

Minetta is a Clymer and a Clinton holdover.

I call all pilots to go on strike immediately and protest this decision. It is moronic all right.

[RonDog]

"...Bush didn't anticipate how quickly a country as spoiled as ours could will 9-11 into the memory hole.

Bush didn't foresee the cravenness of the commenting class, or the capacity of Tom Daschle to be both Iago and Cassius at the same time. Bush couldn't imagine a Patrick Leahy lying or (and forgive him here, no one could see this coming) a Hillary Clinton demanding answers from the White House.

Bush did not know that a Senate that could not understand what the meaning of "is" is, could never understand what the meaning of "war" was.

In short and in summary, President Bush was wholly unprepared for the decadence of D.C. as he found it in 2001.

But then again, so was I, and so apparently are the vast, vast majority of the American people. President Bush has found it prudent to disguise his disgust, but there is no reason why the electorate should. The reckoning is in November, and there is little that Dowd, Fineman et al can do about that." - Hugh Hewitt

.

If you listen to Hugh Hewitt, or read his WND commentaries,
this PING list is for YOU!
Please post your comments, and BUMP!

(If you want OFF - or ON - my "Hugh Hewitt PING list" - please let me know)

[RonDog]

Hugh Hewitt always hits out of the park.
For insightful, no-holds-barred analysis, you won't find a better writer than Hewitt.

You got THAT right!

Bush knew...

...that the RATS are SLIME!!!

We need to TAKE BACK THE SENATE in 2002.

[prognostigaator]

"You like me , you actually like me!"

Actress Sally Fields , accepting an Academy Award some years back...

[RonDog]

Bush didn't know that the country's "leading" newspaper would not think twice about headlining a columnist who questioned his courage, as Maureen Dowd did when, in writing about the use of a photo from 9-11 for fundraising she penned: "Fortunately for the Republicans, it's a photo and not a video. Otherwise we might hear the president nervously inquiring of his adult supervisor,
'Hey, Dick, is it safe to come home yet?'"

From http://www.whitehouse.gov/president/september11/01.html:

"After departing Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska,
President George W. Bush confers with Vice President Dick Cheney from Air Force One during his flight to Andrews Air Force Base Sept. 11, 2001."

[Aggie Mama]

My thoughts exactly. Just perfect.

[ladtx]

The reckoning is in November, and there is little that Dowd, Fineman et al can do about that.

I hope this is true. I would like nothing better than to sweep the Democrats into the trashbin of history. But I'm afraid there are too many people with no interest at all in what is going on and will vote only on what they hear in soundbites and headlines and the Dems know it. I think that is why they are continually bringing up ridiculous arguments and accusations. They know that come November only the soundbites and headlines will be remembered. The GOP must begin pushing the truth now. Waiting until a month or two before the elections will be too late, they will be overwhelmed by the soundbites. Now is the time to publicly challenge the inane and downright ridiculous charges being made.

[RonDog]

I don't have the words to express what a slam dunk this article is.

Here is a great VISUAL summary, from:

Cartoonist Implies Daschle Is Dragging Democrats Over A Cliff!
5/18/2002 | Ramirez
Posted on 5/20/02 11:07 AM Pacific by Retired Chemist

Michael Ramirez -- The Los Angeles

[Kaslin]

Great Article.

To The Top

[RonDog]

I hope this is true. I would like nothing better than to sweep the Democrats into the trashbin of history. But I'm afraid there are too many people with no interest at all in what is going on and will vote only on what they hear in soundbites and headlines and the Dems know it. I think that is why they are continually bringing up ridiculous arguments and accusations. They know that come November only the soundbites and headlines will be remembered...

You may be right.

From http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2001-11-19-1.html:

"...When we went into the Gulf War, it was about liberating a little country -- Kuwait -- from the vicious dictator who had conquered it. But about fifteen minutes after the war ended, the only version we ever heard was, "It was about big oil. Those oil companies got the U.S. government to protect their profits."

During Clarence Thomas's confirmation hearings, it was obvious to most of us that somebody was lying and it wasn't Clarence Thomas. Polls at the time showed that most Americans believed Thomas and didn't think he had ever behaved improperly to Anita Hill. But fifteen minutes after it was over, the only version we heard was how Anita Hill was a victim of sexual harassment -- instead of how Clarence Thomas was a victim of character assassination.

And guess what? The polls now show that the revisionists have won. Most Americans -- even those who were following events at the time -- will tell you that the Gulf War was about oil and Clarence Thomas probably said "something" to Anita Hill..." - from "Revisionist History" by Orson Scott Card in The Rhinoceros Times, Greensboro, NC

[MeekOneGOP]

Thanks for the post, JH2, and ping, RD!
JH2 did a great commentary on another article that I'd like
to put here. Good job JohnHuang2! (Hope ya don't mind?)

Laura Bush: 'No time for politics' in terror war

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/687509/posts

Democrat/Media 9/11 attacks backfire


Democrats can't say they weren't warned.

The Red flags were all over the place.

No, not warnings of possible hijackings and briefing memos -- the White House, it turns out, did share the Aug. 6th memo with Capitol Hill the very day after the President was briefed -- but warnings that their high-risk campaign to profit politically by slandering the President as either a colossal incompetent or 9/11 terror mastermind would ultimately backfire.

For residents of Palm Beach county, Democrats and their Big Media toadies last week accused the President -- in sinister Nixonian lingo, no less -- of ignoring intelligence "warnings" last summer that al-Qaeda suicide hijackers planned to dive-bomb passenger jets into big city skyscrapers, and that the attacks were imminent.

The ugly, malicious charge -- as expected -- sparked a media uproar, the likes of which hadn't been seen since Iran/Contra.

Bush "knew that al-Qaeda was planning to hijack a U.S. airline", belched CNN's Judy Woodruff in dripping melodrama, her stagy theatrics insinuating 'we've met the enemy, and the enemy is -- not Bin Laden -- but BUSH!'

Yipee! The sharks were circling the White House. Bush's bloodthirsty enemies -- legion in Washington -- could barely contain their glee; they smelled victory. The President will face mounting pressure to resign (or impeachment), they thought, once the "truth" -- i.e., reprobacy or dereliction, take your pick -- is "known."

Democrats, mortified by Bush's sustained popularity, shorn of issues to run on for the fall, breathed a sigh of relief. To them, this 'mother-of-all-scandals' could threaten to bring down the whole Republican party, at best, or tip political scales against the President, at least.

Swarming the airwaves, a full-scale, no-holds-barred media propaganda war, 24/7. For the presstitutes, the goal was to deal Bush a death-blow by hog-tying the President, in the most defamatory manner imaginable, to the crimes of 9/11. For Big Media, the hope was convincing the sheeple that Bush had secretly plotted 9/11, or imply he was living a double-life -- in public, he plays the War President; undercover, he's a terror-mastermind, breaking bread with Osama. And if the sheeple wouldn't bite? Big Media had a back-up plan: Jawbone voters with "evidence" of Bush's supreme 'incompentence.'

Both tactics were tried, in fact.

NBC's Katie Curic, feigning bloodcurdling horror, spouted lurid, Watergate-era innuendo, 'what did the President know, and when did he know it?', calumny later regurgitated, verbatim, by ever-despicable House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt.

A gloating Tom Daschle, Senate Democrat leader, couldn't wait to get in the blame game. He said he was "gravely concerned" that Bush sat on his hands -- did nothing -- despite "warnings" of imminent 9/11 attacks. He goaded the White House to cough up the briefing memos, darkly hinting they contain the 'smoking gun'.

Waving the New York Post's roaring "Bush Knew!" cover-headline on the Senate floor, Hillary Clinton, of Rose Law Firm fame, in a fit of hypocrisy urged the President to "come before the American people at the earliest possible time to answer the questions so many New Yorkers and Americans are asking". Sinister suggestions that Bush was somehow culpable were barely disguised, indeed, Hillary might as well've blurted out, "Bush, you murderer, why did you bomb us?!!"

The network nightly news broadcasts were beyond feeding frenzy; heck, they'd all but convicted Bush of crimes against humanity. Rather, Jennings, Brokaw -- all three had their nose out of joint, flailing away at the White House.

The wires (AP, Reuters, UPI) employed the most callous, cold-hearted, dirty, despicable tactics, among them, trotting out grief-stricken relatives and friends of WTC bombing victims.

'How do feel about the President now, now that you've learned Bush knew about 9/11 in advance, but had taken no steps to prevent it?', bereaved loved ones and friends were asked (in words to the effect).

For them, reliving the horror was bad enough, but now they're told their President was either involved or didn't give diddley-squat.

Look, I'd never had very high expectations for the media, but I'd never thought I'd ever see anything quite as revolting, as repulsive, as loathsome, as hideous, as odious, as disgusting, as obscene this -- to wit, the cavalcade of media scavengers preying on 9/11 families and friends.

What a travesty.

All to bring down the President.

But -- not surprisingly -- their efforts, premised as it was on a slew of media lies, failed, miserably. Indeed, the President's popularity stands undiminished -- in some polls, his job ratings actually crept upwards -- despite a wave of media slander, mudslinging, character assassination, defamation, smear, libel, invective and insult.

Nice try, scoundrels.

Anyway, that's.....

My two cents....
"JohnHuang2"

[MeekOneGOP]

I look Soooooo forward to the election returns in November!
DIMocRAT Jaws WILL drop!......

[RonDog]

"...Bush couldn't imagine a Patrick Leahy lying or (and forgive him here, no one could see this coming) a Hillary Clinton demanding answers from the White House..."

From http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/05/18/wh.hillary/:

White House accuses Sen. Clinton of fueling political divisions

May 18, 2002 Posted: 7:38 AM EDT (1138 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- White House press secretary Ari Fleischer accused Sen. Hillary Clinton Friday of working to divide Americans along party lines.

The former first lady responded by saying she is simply "seeking answers and information" about recent revelations that President Bush was alerted prior to September 11 of possible terrorist attacks.

The row between the White House and the Democrat from New York began Thursday when Clinton appeared on the Senate floor and held up a copy of the New York Post with the headline of "Bush Knew."

"The president knew what?" she asked. "My constituents would like to know the answer to that and many other questions, not to blame the president or any other American, just to know."

Fleischer responded in his daily news briefing.

"I have to say, with disappointment, that Mrs. Clinton, having seen that same headline, did not call the White House, did not ask if it was accurate or not," he said.

"Instead, she immediately went to the floor of the Senate, and I'm sorry to say that she followed that headline and divided..."

And, since CNN chose to mangle Ari's quote, HERE is the full text of what he said, from http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/05/20020517-6.html:

May 17, 2002

Press Briefing by Ari Fleischer

"...MR. FLEISCHER: I think Democrats and Republicans and everybody around the world is saddened and disappointed that we were unable to prevent an attack that took place in our country. Nobody can dispute that, Keith. But as the President said today, that if he had specific information that terrorists were planning to use those airplanes to attack our country, he would have taken the same action that any Democrat or Republican in the White House would have taken. Those are the facts.

Q If I could follow up on what Helen said --

MR. FLEISCHER: Keith, and then we'll --

Q I get a follow-up.

Q Do you know what he thinks, too?

Q You're indicating that you're welcoming an investigation. Yet the President today talked about this being a town of second-guessers. Vice President Cheney last night apparently said that some Democratic criticism was thoroughly irresponsible in a time of war, and we're going to be in a time of war for quite some time. Aren't you simultaneously trying to chill an investigation at the same time you say that you welcome it?

MR. FLEISCHER: Absolutely not. But there are relevant points to be made about the professional manner in which the investigation should be conducted. And on that point, I want to bring something to your attention that illustrates some of the language and the statements that were used or the suggestions by members of Congress yesterday that the administration might possibly have had information that it did not use or the President did not use.

And this is something -- there have been several responsible -- many responsible things said by Democrats. Senator Bob Graham of the Intelligence Committee, Senator Lieberman, Senator Feinstein. Senator Feinstein, in July of 2001, on CNN, on Wolf Blitzer's program, said, and I quote -- "Intelligence staff have told me that there is a major probability of a terrorist incident within the next three months." She continued, "The Vice President, when he spoke to the Democrat Caucus, mentioned that the administration was going to be working on the issue of homeland defense around that particular issue -- the point being the administration, prior to September 11th, as shared with the Democrats, was already moving on the homeland security front.

But the point I'm making vis-a-vis the statements by these Democrats yesterday that the President may not have acted on information that he had -- clearly, if Senator Feinstein, a Democrat on the Intelligence Committee, was aware of this, the question arises, what did the Democrats know and why weren't they talking to each other?

Q Who said these things? Who are you talking about on the Hill? Who acted in a manner, as Vice President Cheney said last night, "unworthy of national leaders in a time of war"? Who are you talking about?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think that anybody who made insinuations or suggestions that this President had information that could have prevented the attacks and did not act on them is asking questions in such a way as to create an impression that the President could have and should have done something that he didn't do.

Q -- who did that?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think it's fair to say that individuals in the Democrat leadership -- and let me also bring your attention to something that should be reflected on when it comes to the politics of this. And you can draw contrasts by how leaders act and leaders respond to something like this. When there was a suggestion that Bush knew about this in print, Bush knew about 9/11, Mayor Bloomberg of New York said that suggestion was ridiculous. He contacted the White House, he listened, heard what information the White House had. He called it ridiculous. He united New York City, and he led.

I have to say, with disappointment, that Mrs. Clinton, having seen that same headline, did not call the White House, did not ask if it was accurate or not. Instead, she immediately went to the floor of the Senate, and I'm sorry to say that she followed that headline and divided..."

[Landru]

"...Bush didn't anticipate how quickly a country as spoiled as ours could will 9-11 into the memory hole.
Bush didn't foresee the cravenness of the commenting class, or the capacity of Tom Daschle to be both Iago and Cassius at the same time. Bush couldn't imagine a Patrick Leahy lying or (and forgive him here, no one could see this coming) a Hillary Clinton demanding answers from the White House.
Bush did not know that a Senate that could not understand what the meaning of 'is' is, could never understand what the meaning of 'war' was.
In short and in summary, President Bush was wholly unprepared for the decadence of D.C. as he found it in 2001."

I sure in the hell hope Mr. Bush, because of the decadence he's just discovered? (~& somehow missed when ol' Pa Bush was in office?)
Has learned well to anticipate -- and appreciate -- the magnatude & sheer power of stupidity he's dealing with, now.
Which coincidentally?
"Is" the same stupidity responsible for keeping the filthy Liberal-Socialist 'Rats in power year after year after year!!!!
Yes Mr. President, some things never change, Sir; even for a Bush.

I'd also like to think Mr. Bush may now foresee the cravinness of our Lamestream media; as a whole!
Come to realize these Liberal-Socialists have painted a target on his forehead & mean to take 'em out by any means necessary.
Not a threat.
Not a promise.
~A fact.

In addition, let us all -- for the sake of the nation & her longevity -- pray Mr. Bush has come to know the Senate, apparently, better than he has before?
Since really now; those bloodsuckers haven't changed one iota a'tall in all the years since there's been a Seneate, eh?
Welcome to the future, Mr. President.

In short & in summary; let us *all* hope Mr. Bush is better prepared now than ever before.

...so he might get the hell down to business whenever dealing with the lousy, traitorous Leftist-Socialist SOBs.

[RonDog]

"...Look, I'd never had very high expectations for the media, but I'd never thought I'd ever see anything quite as revolting, as repulsive, as loathsome, as hideous, as odious, as disgusting, as obscene this -- to wit, the cavalcade of media scavengers preying on 9/11 families and friends.

What a travesty.

All to bring down the President.

But -- not surprisingly -- their efforts, premised as it was on a slew of media lies, failed, miserably. Indeed, the President's popularity stands undiminished -- in some polls, his job ratings actually crept upwards -- despite a wave of media slander, mudslinging, character assassination, defamation, smear, libel, invective and insult.

Nice try, scoundrels... - JohnHuang2

GREAT commentary, JohnHuang2 - again!

Thanks for the ping, MeeknMing.

For MORE excellent analysis by JohnHuang2, see also:

from
RJayneJ's WONDERFUL BullDog Bulletin
with
Free Republic's "Greatest Hits"

[Grampa Dave]

You and your hate GW crowd hate American as much as the Rats who vote for the Rats in Congress.

You and your crew would have America destroyed for your fairy tale view of America. That is why you will all ways be part of the PPE crowd. President Poll Envy crowd. I cleaned up the second P.

At least when we have to deal with Rats, we know what they really stand for.

However you and your professional hate GW crowd should keep posting your hate GW Bravo Sierra as it drives away the sane people.