Friday, November 04, 2005

Don't Expect to Read All About It in the Local Newspapers

The manipulation of ignorance
By Tony Snow

Harry Reid and Co., in accusing Team Bush of manipulating intelligence, have managed to pioneer an even more egregious abuse of the American political system: the manipulation of ignorance.

Righteous ignorance has become a hallmark of the Howard Dean Democrats: Lacking any sensible doctrine with which to combat the continued growth of American conservatism, they have been reduced to a state of unshakable hysteria, beginning with the conviction that George W. Bush is the most vicious, evil, conniving president in American history.

Bushophobia bobbed to the surface most recently when Harry Reid, abetted by Sen. Dick Durbin, tried to link the recent indictment of Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff, I. Lewis ("Scooter") Libby, to alleged prewar underhandedness by the president, vice president and defense secretary.

Said Reid, "The Libby indictment provides a window into what this is all about, how this administration manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to sell the war in Iraq and attempted to destroyed those who dared challenge its actions."

Unfortunately for the Democratic leader, Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald slapped down the Libby-war link: "This indictment is not about the war, not about the propriety of the war. This indictment will not seek to prove that the war was justified or unjustified, this is focused on a narrow transaction."

The manipulation of ignorance continued with Reid's claim of "manufacturing" intelligence — a phrase often used, but never linked to a specific piece of intelligence or prewar administration statement.
In fact, Democrats were every bit as bellicose as the president before the war. Democratic Sens. Jay Rockefeller, Carl Levin, Joseph Biden, Joseph Lieberman, and John Edwards (among others) all asserted that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction and posed a real threat to American citizens and national interests.

Sen. Rockefeller captured the prevailing sense of urgency when he told his colleagues on Oct. 10, 2002, "I do believe that Iraq poses an imminent threat, but I also believe that after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. It is in the nature of these weapons, and the way they are targeted against civilian populations, that documented capability and demonstrated intent may be the only warning we get. To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? We cannot!"

He added, "The president has rightly called Saddam Hussein's efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction a grave and gathering threat to Americans."

Next comes L'Affaire Plame — the assertion that the administration ferociously "outed" a "covert agent," Valerie Plame.
Joe Wilson himself made his wife a public figure by yowling about her supposedly rough treatment at the hands of the meanies working for the president. But there was no roughing up.

When exposed, she was not "covert" and hadn't been for years. A number of reporters, including Michael Isikoff of Newsweek and Andrea Mitchell of NBC, described her CIA work as an "open secret" in Washington.
In addition, a CIA investigation concluded the Plame revelation didn't place her at risk and didn't compromise any ongoing intelligence operations. As Bob Woodward noted, "there was no physical danger to anyone and there was just some embarrassment."

So why would Democrats create a stir by clearing out the Senate chambers and demanding secret hearings? For the same reason condemned men scowl at executioners: They want to look defiant when facing their doom.

Strategists from the left wing of the party (James Carville, Stan Greenberg and Bob Shrum) and the right-wing (Will Gallston and the Progressive Policy Institute) have concluded that the "We Hate Dubya" faction is destroying the party and that ideas, not insults, drive political movements.

But consider what's taking place. World events seem to be vindicating George W. Bush's vision and tactics. Iraq soon will install an elected, constitutional government. Syria has begun handing over bad guys. Arab nations are taking baby steps toward democracy. Iran has embarked on a campaign of scaredy-cat bellicosity. And Osama bin Laden's henchmen have been reduced to cadging cash from one another.

Does that not provide a stunning contrast to the attempts by Harry Reid et al to discredit the war at the very moment our troops seem to have made real strides toward finishing the job?


At November 04, 2005 7:54 AM, Blogger Mike Hu said...

What you can expect to see is more bogus information like polls that report that 59% (Reuters) of Americans are demanding Karl Rove’s resignation -- until one considers, 59% of Americans don’t even know who Karl Rove is. And of that tiny minority, few are even aware of any reason he should be forced to resign. Some the newspapers (mass media) get caught more and more passing on manipulated information (political propaganda), and wonder why their credibility and integrity is the laughing stock of these times.

More and more, the mass media information is ignorance, bias and bigotry, propagated as the News. However, once a perceptive people realize this and point it out to others, it is the beginning of the end of the propaganda machine, and the opportunity for new information sources and forums to supplant them. That is the news that is not being widely reported by the traditional news organizations. It is their own passing in time.

While the newspapers loudly report that the President’s approval rating is at new lows, it is several times the approval rating for the mass media, which they suppress, along with all the other voices in the community. Ever wonder why the news is so lopsided and personal attacks are allowed by one party but not the other?

It’s time to cancel those subscriptions and something better will fill the void -- the next generation of information. It’s always happened.

It is not the triumph of one ideology (party) over the other; it is the triumph of thinking persons -- to live in freedom, and run their own lives, free from the control and manipulation of a less perfect society.

At November 04, 2005 8:13 AM, Blogger Mike Hu said...

They're pretty close to just making up anything they think they can get away with -- like pathological liars who become emboldened with their "success," who think they are escaping detection.

But the perceptive individual is content just to observe and see how far the criminal mind will proceed -- thinking there are no consequences. It's not like the old days when yesterday's news was forgotten. Now, yesterday's news is as eternally fresh as today's; that is what killed the mass media -- their own doing and inescapable past that they no longer had exclusive control over.

All the little fish, have to swim in the big pond now. Most will just drown -- never learning how to compete in the wide-open sea. The competition is no longer just the other newspapers. The competition is from everybody and everything -- relentlessly.

At November 04, 2005 8:35 AM, Blogger Mike Hu said...

One Reporter's Opinion – Liberal Hypocrisy
George Putnam
Saturday, Nov. 5, 2005

Moore Owned Halliburton, Defense Stocks

It is this reporter's opinion that a new book by Peter Schweizer, "Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy," does a brilliant job of exposing the blatant hypocrisy of liberals who loudly espouse principals they disregard in their own personal lives.

Schweizer writes in the November issue of NewsMax magazine: "Hypocrisy has proved to be a wonderful weapon for the liberals in their war against conservatives. Yet for all the talk about conservative hypocrisy, there has been very little investigation into the prevalence of hypocrisy on the Left."

Fellow NewsMax journalist Jim Meyers wrote, in a recent article, that among the eye-opening revelations in Schweizer's book are the following:

Filmmaker Michael Moore insists that corporations are evil and claims he doesn't invest in the stock market due to moral principals, but his IRS forms viewed by Schweizer show that he has owned shares in such corporate giants as Halliburton, Merck, Pfizer, Sunoco, Tenet Health Care, Ford, General Electric and McDonald's.

Staunch union supporter Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California and her husband received the Cesar Chavez award from the United Farm Workers union. But the $25 million Northern California vineyard she and her husband own is a non-union shop.

Pelosi has received more money from the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees union than any other member of Congress.

She and her husband own a large stake in an exclusive California hotel with more than 250 employees – none of them union.

The Pelosis also are partners in a restaurant chain with 900 employees – also a non-union shop.

How about Ralph Nader, who claims unions are essential to protect workers' rights – but when an editor of one of his publications tried to form a union, the editor was fired.

Self-described socialist Noam Chomsky has described the Pentagon as "the most vile institution on the face of the earth" and lashed out against tax havens and trusts that benefit only the rich. But Chomsky has been paid millions of dollars by the Pentagon over the last 40 years and has used a law firm to set up his irrevocable trust to shield his assets from the IRS.

Air America radio host Al Franken calls conservatives "racists because they lack diversity and oppose affirmative action." Yet fewer than 1 percent of the people he has hired over the last 15 years have been African-American.

Ted Kennedy has fought for the estate tax and has spoken out against tax shelters, but he repeatedly benefits from an intricate web of trusts and private foundations shielding most of his family's fortune from the IRS. One such Kennedy family trust wasn't even set up in the United States – but in Fiji.

Barbra Streisand talks about the necessity of unions to protect a living wage, but she prefers to do her filming and post-production work in Canada so she can pay less than American union wages.

Bill and Hillary Clinton speak in favor of the estate tax. Yet in the year 2000 Bill vetoed a bill seeking to end it. The Clintons have set up a contract trust allowing them to reduce the amount of inheritance tax their estate will pay when they die.

Billionaire George Soros says the wealthy should pay higher, more progressive tax rates, but he holds the bulk of his money in tax-free overseas accounts in Curacao, Bermuda and the Cayman Islands.

Schweizer writes:

"Liberals claim to support affirmative action BUT THEY DON'T PRACTICE IT! They support higher taxes but they set up complicated tax shelters TO AVOID PAYING THEM. They claim to be ardent environmentalists but abandon their cause when it impinges on THEIR OWN PROPERTY RIGHTS. Liberals preach in moral platitudes and condemn ordinary Americans for a whole host of things – racism, lack of concern for the poor, polluting the environment, and greed."

But Schweizer, in his book "Do As I Say," says that when it comes to applying those standards to themselves, liberals are bound to be shockingly guilty of hypocrisy.

After two years of research into liberal hypocrisy, Schweizer says, "What I discovered was just stunning!"

At November 04, 2005 8:40 AM, Blogger Mike Hu said...

Somebody, will undoubtedly write a book on the even more shocking hypocrisy and abuses of the liberal media.

At November 04, 2005 9:35 AM, Blogger Mike Hu said...

Have you heard of liberal racism?

Blacks condemn paper's Thomas editorial
Denounce notion of 'black way of thinking that is expressly liberal'

Posted: November 4, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern

Members of a coalition of black leaders condemned a Milwaukee Journal Sentinel editorial asserting U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas should have an "asterisk" next to his name with regard to his race because he "does not represent the views of mainstream black America."

Project 21, a black leadership network, said its members strongly denounce the "notion that there is a black way of thinking that is expressly liberal in nature."

As WorldNetDaily reported this week, the newspaper's editorial board, lamenting the choice of Samuel Alito to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, opined Tuesday: "In losing a woman, the court with Alito would feature seven white men, one white woman and a black man, who deserves an asterisk because he arguably does not represent the views of mainstream black America."

Project 21 member Deroy Murdock said, "Agree or disagree with Justice Thomas, his personal journey from poverty in Pinpoint, Georgia, to academic achievement at Yale Law School to high-level service in several federal positions and on the nation's highest court is an admirable example of personal dedication and success, not an asterisk."

Murdock asserted Thomas is not on the court to "represent 'mainstream black America' any more than Justice Antonin Scalia is supposed to stick up for Americans of Italian descent or Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is supposed to be the court's voice of American Jewry."

"Is there a mainstream black view on so-called 'right to die' cases?" Murdock asked. "What is the proper Jewish position on the Endangered Species Act's impact on property rights? Who knows? Justice Thomas represents the conservative judicial philosophy of the president who appointed him. So far, he is doing that quite well. If liberals want to affect the philosophical tone of the Supreme Court, they should consider winning the White House."

Project 21 member Mychal Massie, a WND columnist, said the editorial is "representative of the left's unambiguous contempt for decency."

"It gives one cause to question the depth of moral turpitude liberals will plumb to cast dispersions on blacks and women who do not ascribe to their perversion of reality," he said.

In its editorial, the Milwaukee paper said the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito, an Italian-American, is "troubling" because "it's liable to divide America" and "it lessens the extent to which the court mirrors the nation's rich diversity."

Radio giant Rush Limbaugh blasted the editorial after reading WND's story during his national broadcast Wednesday, calling the newspaper's editors "bigoted" and "Stalinist."

"You will go out and you will write stories about Bill Clinton as the first black president and you will think that you are being brilliant, and you will think that you're being clever," said Limbaugh. "You take an African-American, Clarence Thomas, and you say he's not black; he doesn't qualify because he doesn't represent the views of the blacks in this country. ... "

On its website, the Journal Sentinel claims it has no political bent, stating, "We are independent, beholden to no special interest or political party."

It also notes, "We believe that diversity unites us all for our ultimate role as shareholders of the planet. Thus, anything that separates us also weakens us. The birthright of all people is equal opportunity."

Limbaugh called the paper's stance "Stalinist," acting as if Thomas were an enemy of the state.

"Clarence Thomas is an enemy of the liberal state because his mind is not right. His mind ain't under control, and so he's not really black. ... "

At November 04, 2005 9:44 AM, Blogger Mike Hu said...

The editors of the local newspapers no longer have a choice --

They have to play with the Big Boys -- whether they're ready for prime time or not. The global is local.


Post a Comment

<< Home