Archive for June, 2005

Great example of media bias…they’re upset because Bush called them terrorists (because, in the minds of the CNN crew, you can only be called a terrorist if you were part of the 9/11 plot?)…what do you call men and women who kill civilians, hide their weapons, wear no uniforms, hide among regular people then blow themselves up, set up explosives to kill military and civilian alike, kidnap, behead, etc? You call those people TERRORISTS, but Bush-haters will have none of that…let’s invent new names so we can attack Bush for calling them what they are.

Maybe it’s the low ratings that have them upset…

You also see how absurd these people get when they complain that Bush mentioned sept 11. HELLO FOLKS!! The way we deal with threats changed on 9/11- we’re fighting terrorists in Iraq, and the war on terror started with sept 11…a majority of Americans had a positive view of the speech, Bush haters like these few on CNN refuse to see reality, and they wouldn’t dare see it as the average American on the street does- they hate Bush, so they attack everything he does, everything he says, maybe everything he THINKS. It’s just sad, and for a big news outlet like CNN- it’s just shameful.

Gergen claims Bush’s numbers on social security with the public went into the tank, tho that’s not really the case…when looking at fair polls that are worded clearly and not biased from the start- you see that younger Americans, those the changes and private accounts would actually affect support the plan by a large majority…you also see that seniors now, who won’t be effected don’t have a problem with the plan. The way the MSM posed many of the questions lead to this obvious bias in the numbers. For example- some media outlets would ask:

Do you agree with Bush’s plan to privatize social security, and put that money at risk in the open market?

Well, hello- that’s not even what the plan called for…it didn’t call for “privatization” which was used ALL OF THE TIME on most networks, newspapers, etc. The fact that everyone refers to it as “privatization” should tell you that it was all biased from the start…the plan was to ALLOW VOLUNTARY private accounts for PART OF YOUR MONEY- not all of it. It was merely a plan to give Americans THEIR OWN choice as to do what to do with THEIR MONEY. The democrats who have no plan of their own (Nancy Pelosi said- we don’t need a plan, why should we offer a plan when all we want is to defeat Bush’s plan?), and used their propaganda attacks to twist what the plan really said.

Gergen knows the bias in the overall reporting of this issue, and his claim that Americans didn’t support the true plan are disengenous.

Gergen also complained that the “major” reason for going to war was never mentioned…why on earth would Bush mention WMD, if we haven’t found any? He was there to offer his support to the troops, who constantly say in Iraq that they’re tired of most in the media and how they constantly portray the situation in such a negative light…Bush wasn’t there to discuss CIA mistakes! What purpose would that have served, other than to make Gergen, who clearly doesn’t care much for Bush, feel better inside? It’s nonsense. Gergen should listen to the troops, who wouldn’t much care for his reporting on the issue.

You can see more bias from the other networks…they continue to do all they can to destroy troop morale, paint the worst picture possible of Iraq, and bash and attack Bush on everything he says. If you don’t see the bias in this reporting, you’re blind and you’d never see bias no matter how obscene it was.

There’s a disconnect with the media and average Americans in general…and the media knows this- which is prtly why we have biased reporting on the war at all. Journalists know that they can use their reporting to make things look as bad as possible…then they can bash and attack Bush and his plan as much as possible- eventually, Americans will, in large part, buy into the bias and take it in as their own.

Surely, most Americans should know better and recognize bias when they see it…unfortunately many don’t, and the media is, in part, suceeding in their goal of transforming public opinion to match their own biases. That transformation hurts troop morale, and it puts us all at risk…when the media constantly portrays events to fit their own preconceived ideals and values, the enemy plays right into this and uses it against our men and women in uniform, and eventually they’ll use it as a reason to attack us here at home.

CNN Team Upset by Bush Tying 9/11 to Iraq, Gergen “Offended”

The CNN analysis team, after President Bush’ national address Tuesday night from Ft. Bragg, seemed obsessed about Bush tying September 11th to the war in Iraq. Wolf Blitzer fretted: “We heard a lot of explanations of the connections to 9/11, the new world after 9/11. We heard no reference to the major argument that he made going into the war: weapons of mass destruction.” David Gergen falsely asserted that Bush “never once called them ‘Iraqi insurgents,’ as the media does. He called them terrorists, you know, as if they’re all associated and linked to the attacks here on 9/11.” When Zahn asked if Bush “overreached with these multiple references to 9/11 when there has been absolutely no linkage established between the actions of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein on that horrible day?”, Gergen said he was “offended by the regularity of coming back to 9/11″ because “none of the terrorists were linked to Saddam, and, you know, there’s been this myth for a long time that’s just untrue that Saddam was somehow responsible for 9/11.” But that wasn’t Bush’s point. He was just putting Iraq into the context of world threats post 9/11. On ABC, George Stephanopoulos also questioned Bush’s linking of 9/11.

As for Gergen’s charge that Bush “never once called them ‘Iraqi insurgents,’” the MRC’s Brad Wilmouth observed that about six minutes into his address, Bush stated: “Our military reports that we have killed or captured hundreds of foreign fighters in Iraq who’ve come from Saudi Arabia and Syria, Iran, Egypt, Sudan, Yemen, Libya, and others. They are making common cause with criminal elements, Iraqi insurgents, and remnants of Saddam Hussein’s regime who want to restore the old order.”

For the White House’s posted text of the speech: www.whitehouse.gov

Bush’s 8pm EDT address was carried by ABC, CBS, CNN, Fox, FNC, MSNBC, NBC, PBS and, later, by C-SPAN. In the Eastern and Central time zones, CBS and Fox went to entertainment programming within a minute of Bush finishing — CBS to King of Queens and Fox to Trading Spouses. ABC stayed on for five minutes and interviewed Senator Joe Biden before joining George Lopez in progress. NBC continued coverage until 9pm EDT, making time for Democratic Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, retired General Barry McCaffrey and a segment with both Senators John Warner and Biden. PBS hung around until about five minutes before 9pm EDT.

On ABC, after anchor Charles Gibson noted the “sober” tone of the speech, Stephanopoulos, who was with Gibson in Manhattan, asserted: “It was not a pep rally tonight. No applause as the President came out. No applause during the speech. He was making a case tonight. And Charlie, the case he was making tonight most of all was this war began on 9/11, not on the day that he invaded Iraq. Five times in the speech, the President mentions September 11th, making the point that Iraq has become the central front in the global war on terror. Now the irony, of course, is that the CIA said prior to the war there were no ties between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. Just a couple of weeks ago the CIA says Iraq has become the number one training ground for al Qaeda.”

On CNN, soon after Bush wrapped up, Paula Zahn, who along with Wolf Blitzer anchored from an outdoor rooftop location overlooking the Old Executive Office Building next to the White House, zeroed in on Bush’s references to 9/11, playing a clip and then suggesting:
“I suspect the President is leaving himself vulnerable to a lot of criticism tomorrow, although he did not directly tie Saddam Hussein in any way to 9/11, that is in repeated public statements, some Americans [interrupted by reaction to a piece of debris flying by in wind] have come to that conclusion. You had House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi saying today it was, in fact, the President’s strategy in Iraq that has made Iraq a magnet for insurgency and for terrorism. And that was at the heart of the speech tonight, what do you do about this insurgency movement?”

A few minutes later, Dana Bash, at the venue, echoed Zahn, but at least relayed the White House explanation: “But one thing that I wanted to note that Paula was talking about, which I certainly noted as well, the number of times Mr. Bush referenced September 11th, and we were talking to some of the President’s senior aides here just before the speech asking that very question of whether or not, aren’t they concerned that they’re going to open themselves up to the same criticism that they had heard time and time again about trying to link these two, which aren’t necessarily linkable, if you will. And one of the President’s senior aides pointed out one quote in the President’s speech where he quotes Osama bin Laden saying that this is the third world war, and it’s raging, raging essentially in Iraq. Essentially, the President is trying to back up these calls and this assertion that Iraq is the central front in the war on terrorism by saying even Osama bin Laden says that. So that was the way the White House was trying to defend and even explain the way they characterize Iraq right now.”

Wolf Blitzer, sitting beside Zahn, soon joined the parade: “Paula, it’s really interesting, if this speech — a little bit more than two years after the start of the war with 1,700 U.S. troops who are dead; 12,000, if not more, injured; $200 billion in expenditures; going into the war, the major focus was on words that the President didn’t utter once during this speech, namely ‘weapons of mass destruction.’ We heard a lot of explanations of the connections to 9/11, the new world after 9/11. We heard no reference to the major argument that he made going into the war: weapons of mass destruction. Simply put, the U.S. has not found any weapons of mass destruction, and that’s a fact that the administration, of course, lives with.”
Zahn backpedaled a bit: “But it’s interesting when you look at the language in this speech and the six references to 9/11. I think the writers of the speech were very cautious not to imply a direct linkage. I think the linkage comes from the multiple references to 9/11 in the speech.”

From Boston, David Gergen praised Bush’s “logical presentation,” but then lamented: “I do think it’s going to leave many of his critics spluttering because they’re going to be, I think, angered by the playing of the 9/11 trump card. You know, 9/11 has been his trump card all along since then, and he plays it in various political moments along the way, played it in the campaign. He’s playing it again now. And you noticed that throughout the speech tonight he never once called them ‘Iraqi insurgents,’ as the media does. He called them terrorists, you know, as if they’re all associated and linked to the attacks here on 9/11. And I do think you’re right. The linkages were implicit, but they came so often. It’s clear the White House is now going to its trump card again, recognizing many will say it’s heavy-handed among his critics. But nonetheless, that’s the way to keep the country behind us…”
Zahn: “But, David, you understand this better than just about anybody else out there. You know the criticism’s going to come tomorrow.”
Gergen: “Sure.”
Zahn: “Do you think the President overreached with these multiple references to 9/11 when there has been absolutely no linkage established between the actions of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein on that horrible day?”
Gergen: “Well, listen, I was troubled and at times offended by the regularity of coming back to 9/11, you know, because, as you say, none of the terrorists were linked to Saddam, and, you know, there’s been this myth for a long time that’s just untrue that Saddam was somehow responsible for 9/11. Having said that, it’s my political judgment, even though you and I may not like it, it’s my political judgment that that trump card has worked well for the President in the past. It’s likely to work reasonably well here…”
Zahn: “But, David, as you well know, and very briefly here, it’s not just the Iraq numbers that are dragging down the President’s overall approval rating. It also has to do with the economy and health care, right?”
Gergen: “I totally agree with that, and here I don’t think that he draws strength. I don’t think he will help himself domestically with this speech tonight. And the only caution I have to everything I’m saying is that he’s spoken to the country repeatedly on Social Security in the last six months, and, of course, his numbers on that have dwindled regularly. It’s not working. Here, I think because he’s playing the 9/11 card, as much, as offensive as some of the critics may find it, my sense is he will buy more time with the speech.”

Five minutes later, after an ad break, Zahn asked Senator Joe Biden about the topic which animated her: “The other thing David Gergen said, and this is a man, once again, who’s worked in both Republican and Democratic administrations, that he thought the President very effectively played his trump card tonight, that trump card the issue of 9/11. And while he personally was insulted by the multiple references to 9/11 tonight, he thought that was effective. Your reaction to those references?”

Biden agreed that the “American people are a lot smarter than that.”