Thursday, August 31, 2006
Why I No Longer Watch the Alphabet News
No, it's not Keith Olbermann's Alice through the looking glass, 180 degrees wrong, long, pompous rant about President Bush and the Nazi appeasers in the 1930s (according to Keith, President Bush is like Neville Chamberlain--stunningly wrong; so who then is Churchill? John Kerry?). It's the hidden agenda commentary in supposed straight news things they say, which things are absolutely wrong and what they show in supposed support actually reveal the original statements are wrong, that have me staying away from ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, et al.. Let's start from the beginning.
The President gave a magnificent speech today in front of the Vets of the American Legion. Here's the transcript.
I was finally working out, listening to Hugh Hewitt, who was great and after, when I was getting dressed, some member at the Y turned the the locker room TV to ABC News where David Gregory (that paragon of honest reporting, civility and fairness (sarcasm alert)) was covering the President's speech. Gregory said that the President again tried to tie Osama Bin Laden in with the attack on 9/11. Then they played this part of the speech obviously in what they considered support of that statement:
Here at home we have a choice to make about Iraq. Some politicians look at our efforts in Iraq and see a diversion from the war on terror. That would come as news to Osama bin Laden, who proclaimed that the "third world war is raging" in Iraq.
How do those sentences try to tie Osama bin Laden to 9/11? The short answer is that they don't--not in any way. When is it misdirection on the President's part to quote bin Laden when he talks about Iraq? The President's supporting his statement that Iraq is an integral part of the war against Jihadism with a quote from the enemy is appropriate. ABC could well learn to do the same.
The Gregory smear therefore was untrue, unfair, nearly unbalanced and unchallenged.
I see I haven't been missing a thing.
The President gave a magnificent speech today in front of the Vets of the American Legion. Here's the transcript.
I was finally working out, listening to Hugh Hewitt, who was great and after, when I was getting dressed, some member at the Y turned the the locker room TV to ABC News where David Gregory (that paragon of honest reporting, civility and fairness (sarcasm alert)) was covering the President's speech. Gregory said that the President again tried to tie Osama Bin Laden in with the attack on 9/11. Then they played this part of the speech obviously in what they considered support of that statement:
Here at home we have a choice to make about Iraq. Some politicians look at our efforts in Iraq and see a diversion from the war on terror. That would come as news to Osama bin Laden, who proclaimed that the "third world war is raging" in Iraq.
How do those sentences try to tie Osama bin Laden to 9/11? The short answer is that they don't--not in any way. When is it misdirection on the President's part to quote bin Laden when he talks about Iraq? The President's supporting his statement that Iraq is an integral part of the war against Jihadism with a quote from the enemy is appropriate. ABC could well learn to do the same.
The Gregory smear therefore was untrue, unfair, nearly unbalanced and unchallenged.
I see I haven't been missing a thing.
# posted by Roger Fraley @ 6:58 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
Roger, you may well have missed something b/c if you believe that the president's speech was magnificent, you are too easily impressed.
Thank you for the link which allowed me to read it. Now a few comments:
"To understand the struggle unfolding in the Middle East, we need to look at recent history."
Had the members of this administration looked at recent history, to wit, the history of Iraq, by reading the works of Gertrude Bell or "A Peace to End All Peace by David Fromkin, perhaps the U.S. would not have invaded Iraq. I have voiced my predictions regarding the prospective success of democracy in Iraq and will not revisit them at this time, except to say that it is curious to hear George Bush invoke history, to which he remains a complete stranger.
Yes, Mr. President, "the images that come back from the front lines are striking, and sometimes unsettling," to say the least.
The United States invasion of Iraq has so destabilized the country that now it is haven for terrorists, illegal militias, and those bent on committing sectarian violence. But let us not revise history and make it up out of whole cloth. Iraq is not the Omaha Beach of the war against terrorism.
In fact, it can now be credibly argued that the Saddam Hussein has fueled the Shi'ite resurgency. See Iran and Hezbollah.
"And we also know, by history and by logic, that promoting democracy is the surest way to build security. Democracies don't attack one another or threaten the peace."
The last time I checked, there were ongoing hostilities in Gaza and the surrounding area in which the participants are the democratically elected governments of Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Of course the Palestinians democratically elected Hamas, a terrorist organization which refuses to recognize the the existence of Israel.
Other democracies in the Mideast are democarcies in name only: Lebanon, whose central government is so weak that Hezbollah, another terrorist organization de facto ruled the southern part of the country and whose acts of provocation instigated a war that has left much of the infrastructure in that country in ruins.
There is democracy in Iran. Candidates can run if they are approved by the mullahs and we have that paragon of rationalism, President Mahmoud Ahmadinajad who can't decide what he would like to do first: develop a nuclear weapon; wipe Israel off the map; or debate President Bush on TV. Maybe we should visit his blog and find out.
There is democracy in Egypt in name only. Please understand, I prefer Hosni Mubarek to the Muslim Brotherhood which continues to grow in popularity despite being surpressed.
Who are our staunchest allies and greatest friends in the Mideast, other than Israel? The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan which are ruled by kings.
Certainly we are confronted with a conflict which in one form another will endure for our lifetimes and beyond. Whether one characterizes it as a police work; a war; or a jihad makes very little difference.
I agree w/ the president that w/drawal from Iraq b/f the stabilization of the Iraqi governemnt will signal defeat and result in disaster.
If I were him, I would be doing what he is doing, however, despite the sentiments of H.L. Mencken, we Americans are not quite as the president would have us. You have no doubt heard, ad nauseum, that the occupation of Iraq has now lasted longer than the war against Germany. Americans, largely thanks to television, I believe, are not invested w/ that degree of patience necessary to follow Mr. Bush unquestioningly, Legionnaires and neocons perhaps excepted.
The stated reasons for our invasion of Iraq have proved illusory. The concept that the war in Iraq was or is crucial to the larger conflict is unconvincing at best and severely misguided in the middle of the scale, and utterly false at worst.
In Iraq, this administration has wasted our resources, ill spent our revenues, and squandered the lives of younng men and women.
In 68 days, we will see if there is a reckoning.
Thank you for the link which allowed me to read it. Now a few comments:
"To understand the struggle unfolding in the Middle East, we need to look at recent history."
Had the members of this administration looked at recent history, to wit, the history of Iraq, by reading the works of Gertrude Bell or "A Peace to End All Peace by David Fromkin, perhaps the U.S. would not have invaded Iraq. I have voiced my predictions regarding the prospective success of democracy in Iraq and will not revisit them at this time, except to say that it is curious to hear George Bush invoke history, to which he remains a complete stranger.
Yes, Mr. President, "the images that come back from the front lines are striking, and sometimes unsettling," to say the least.
The United States invasion of Iraq has so destabilized the country that now it is haven for terrorists, illegal militias, and those bent on committing sectarian violence. But let us not revise history and make it up out of whole cloth. Iraq is not the Omaha Beach of the war against terrorism.
In fact, it can now be credibly argued that the Saddam Hussein has fueled the Shi'ite resurgency. See Iran and Hezbollah.
"And we also know, by history and by logic, that promoting democracy is the surest way to build security. Democracies don't attack one another or threaten the peace."
The last time I checked, there were ongoing hostilities in Gaza and the surrounding area in which the participants are the democratically elected governments of Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Of course the Palestinians democratically elected Hamas, a terrorist organization which refuses to recognize the the existence of Israel.
Other democracies in the Mideast are democarcies in name only: Lebanon, whose central government is so weak that Hezbollah, another terrorist organization de facto ruled the southern part of the country and whose acts of provocation instigated a war that has left much of the infrastructure in that country in ruins.
There is democracy in Iran. Candidates can run if they are approved by the mullahs and we have that paragon of rationalism, President Mahmoud Ahmadinajad who can't decide what he would like to do first: develop a nuclear weapon; wipe Israel off the map; or debate President Bush on TV. Maybe we should visit his blog and find out.
There is democracy in Egypt in name only. Please understand, I prefer Hosni Mubarek to the Muslim Brotherhood which continues to grow in popularity despite being surpressed.
Who are our staunchest allies and greatest friends in the Mideast, other than Israel? The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan which are ruled by kings.
Certainly we are confronted with a conflict which in one form another will endure for our lifetimes and beyond. Whether one characterizes it as a police work; a war; or a jihad makes very little difference.
I agree w/ the president that w/drawal from Iraq b/f the stabilization of the Iraqi governemnt will signal defeat and result in disaster.
If I were him, I would be doing what he is doing, however, despite the sentiments of H.L. Mencken, we Americans are not quite as the president would have us. You have no doubt heard, ad nauseum, that the occupation of Iraq has now lasted longer than the war against Germany. Americans, largely thanks to television, I believe, are not invested w/ that degree of patience necessary to follow Mr. Bush unquestioningly, Legionnaires and neocons perhaps excepted.
The stated reasons for our invasion of Iraq have proved illusory. The concept that the war in Iraq was or is crucial to the larger conflict is unconvincing at best and severely misguided in the middle of the scale, and utterly false at worst.
In Iraq, this administration has wasted our resources, ill spent our revenues, and squandered the lives of younng men and women.
In 68 days, we will see if there is a reckoning.
# posted by 
: 1:37 PM
: 1:37 PM
Good comments even if they evoked a sense of deja vu. Yes, we know Iraq is a volcano of ingratitude. I still think 2500 dead to free 25 mil from a Hitlerite despot (and his worse sons) an extraordinary bargain and I'd think that if the buthcer's bill was 4 times that bad. England has a monarch, we still like them. The stated reasons for our invasion of Iraq have proved illusory You stick to the illusion that WMD was the only reason--The 1998 bill for regime change had 23 Whereas clauses and only 2 concerned WMD. There was plenty of expressed reason for finishing Gulf War 1 and all of it (including separating Saddam from WMD) remain valid. Glad you liked the elk, I'd hate to think it died in vain.
R,
WMD's is what the administration sold the public.
There are no goood solutions. We got rid of clan Hussein but in doing so we unleashed chaos, not only in Iraq; but also in the Shi'ite crescent.
Now that jackanapes Hugo Chavez seems to pop up for more photo ops than Paris Hilton and although he's equally vacuous, he is not quite as harmless.
Post a Comment
WMD's is what the administration sold the public.
There are no goood solutions. We got rid of clan Hussein but in doing so we unleashed chaos, not only in Iraq; but also in the Shi'ite crescent.
Now that jackanapes Hugo Chavez seems to pop up for more photo ops than Paris Hilton and although he's equally vacuous, he is not quite as harmless.
# posted by : 8:22 AM
: 8:22 AM << Home
