WOW – They Really Said That?
Vol: 15 Issue: 29 Sunday, December 29, 2002
As we prepare to close the books on 2002, America is a nation bitterly divided over nothing that anyone can put their finger on, but the divisions are there. The gulf between left and right has widened, and the left is finding itself losing much of its base of support.
Election 2002 suggests that America may be making a hard right turn, and the left is doing all it can to hold the steering wheel straight. Let’s take a look at some of 2002’s best liberal propaganda and remember, they really did say this stuff. I’m not making this up.
Terry Moran of ABC News actually asked the following of White House spokesman Ari Fleischer during a September 10 news conference: Can you assure the American people that this elevated [terrorism] threat alert is not part of the administration s effort to convince people that the danger is such that military action against Iraq is necessary?
In other words, how can we, the people know that you the government aren’t simply making things up so you can go to war?
Ummm – the current New York skyline might be a clue.
The day after the President’s September 12 speech to the UN, Jennings shared his impartial journalistic observations;
Wherever you live in the world today, the sound of war drums being beaten in Washington has become unmistakable. With the first anniversary of the September 11th attacks behind us…the administration s preoccupation with Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction has rapidly become the number one issue in international affairs.
Too bad we have a paranoid lunatic in the White House, eh, Peter?
Later, Jennings, in his ‘Closer Look” for October 14, continued to play up that theme.
“We re going to take A Closer Look tonight at the mood in the country as the President s determination to wage war against Iraq becomes more defined. The country appears to be less confident than the President. Really? Nothing in the polls indicate that, but Peter Jennings is against it, so that must qualify as the ‘country’.
ABC’s Bill Redecker interviewed people in three cities, San Diego, Charleston and Denver. Redeker’s report quoted only those opposed to the war.
Here’s the ‘ ‘balanced’ view from the left. “Voices of opposition. Not so much against getting rid of Saddam Hussein but how, when and at what cost….Military retirees remember getting bogged down in Vietnam and losing support at home. Many here are leery of a rerun….Unilateral action also troubles those we talked to in Denver. Few want to go it alone….In all three cities, there is a feeling the administration is moving too fast….Contrary to what the President says, when it comes to war, America does not speak with one voice.
Excuse me, Mr. Redecker, but I must disagree. According to your report, America DOES speak with one voice. And it sounds just like YOURS.
Or NBC’s Ron Allen, who reported from Baghdad on September 17; Many Iraqis believe America s true motive is to remove Saddam Hussein from power, install a puppet government and seize Iraq s vast oil wealth. On the streets, many see Hussein s offer to allow the inspectors back as a wise, brave decision showing strength.
Thanks for sharing that tidbit of news. The Iraqis are wise and brave, while America’s true motive is to steal Iraqi oil, according to the National Broadcasting Corporation (which nation are they broadcasting for again?)
Then there is this little bit of impartial journalism from liberal Washington Post writer Ceci Connoly, who analyzed Bush’s UN speech on Fox News, saying, What also struck me, aside from how frightening much in this speech was, were the things that were missing. Very little with respect to minorities, the uninsured, the homeless, the elderly, Enron workers who have lost their life savings.
I am sure that the United Nations wanted to hear about all your pet liberal causes in a speech to the UN about the possibility of war with Iraq, Cecie. But since he didn’t, thanks for your impartial journalistic analysis.
According to TIME magazine, George Bush was indirectly responsible for the Beltway Sniper. Time s Karen Tumulty and Viveca Novak wrote in the November 4 issue of Bush’s slimy association to the crimes, saying,
Gun-rights advocates have been emboldened by an administration that is sympathetic to their cause. The closeness was underscored by the fact that the military-style gun used in the sniper attacks named, unfortunately for the White House, Bushmaster XM15 was manufactured by a company owned by Richard Dyke, a Bush fundraiser.
The ‘Bushmaster’ was named for George W. Bush, and NOT because most hunters go hunting in the ‘bush’ and the gun manufacturer wanted to convey the impression that someone armed with that hunting rifle would ‘master the bush’.
Just in case you want the ‘real’ story on George Bush. He inspired the Beltway sniper, you know.
MSNBC’s Brian Williams wanted America to know what it REALLY meant for the US to withdraw from the ABM treaty. It wasn’t because we face a threat from North Korea’s 5000 mile range Taepodong1 missile or North Korea’s developing nuclear arsenal. Instead, Williams teased the story this way.
When we come back, the other big news from the White House today. President Bush makes a major announcement. Tonight, why the U.S. is deliberately going back on its word in front of the rest of the world.
Is President Bush’s agenda to protect America from its enemies, foreign and domestic, as required by the Constitution and made necessary by September 11?
Of course not, says New York Times writer Robert E Worth. In his column last February 24, Worth explained;
As President Bush toured Asia last week, some world leaders worried publicly that the war on terrorism was starting to look suspiciously like the last great American campaign against Communism….The McCarthy years in some ways were eerily similar to the present moment….Communists were often conceived as moral monsters whose deviousness and unwavering dedication to their faith made them capable of almost anything….The first victims of anti-Communist hysteria were immigrants, and hundreds of immigrants have been detained since Sept. 11, many with little apparent cause beyond the fact that they were Middle Eastern men.
Worth, in his zeal to point out Bush’s propaganda campaign against immigrants, neglected to mention that 100% of the al-Qaeda terrorist network is made up of men between the ages of 17 and 45 from the Middle East.
‘Anti-Communist hysteria’ has been replaced by ‘anti-something hysteria’ — but clearly, it is just a Bush White House inspired ‘hyseria’.
Not a response to the 9/11 attacks that claimed more Americans than Pearl Harbor or than fell during the Normandy invasion on D-Day. It’s just ‘hysteria’.
Does any of this bear any resemblance to reality? The liberal media has pulled out all the stops — right down to finding a way to plant a subliminal suggestion that somehow George Bush bears some responsibility for the Beltway Sniper.
On December 2, Peter Jennings reported that, The President said he is not encouraged by the weapons inspections currently being done by the United Nations in Iraq, even though the UN inspectors say that under the circumstances things are going quite well.
Really? That same night, Dan Rather reported, Inside Iraq today the weapons hunters made their rounds and, as CBS s Mark Phillips reports from Baghdad, for the first time since inspections resumed last week, they were not satisfied with what they found.
Here’s the way Tom Brokaw set up the exact same story on the exact same night.
This is the beginning of a critical week in the showdown between Iraq and the coalition led by the United States. By Sunday we could know much more about the chances for war….[The] signals coming out of today s UN weapons inspection in Iraq were not encouraging.
Same night, three different newscasts, same subject. (A week before the Iraqi declaration that even the UN said was baloney)
How about this one? Some of the President s critics take these encounters as a sign the President is not waiting for the weapons inspectors to do their jobs and that the U.S. may even be these are their words goading the Iraqis to lighting up their air defense systems.
That was Peter Jennings on November 20 giving HIS opinion but disguising it as coming from ‘some of the president’s critics’.
That America was deliberately starting a war with Iraq. Remember, ‘more Americans get their ‘news’ from ABC News than from any other source’.
Here’s what those misinformed Americans who trusted ABC News for the truth learned on November 20:
Peter Jennings: There has been rising anti-American sentiment in Saudi Arabia as there has been in many Arab countries. Just one of the ripple effects on the road to possible war with Iraq.
Jim Sciutto: Across the Arab world, few would miss Saddam Hussein, but even fewer believe a U.S.-led war is the way to remove him. Even America s closest allies are reluctant….Many here see the U.S., not Iraq, as the greater threat to peace.
America is a greater threat to peace than Iraq.
The end is indeed near.