click the image to see the"Telecoms are spying on Americans for Bush, and corporate Media Whores won't tell you about it"
ad from DemocracyForAmerica.org
or click this link- www.DemocracyforAmerica.com/ProveIt
Monday, January 28, 2008
Corporate Media Whores CENSOR "telecom SPYING IMMUNITY bill" story, because Corporate media whores are birds-of-a-feather with Telecom whores...
click the image to see the"Telecoms are spying on Americans for Bush, and corporate Media Whores won't tell you about it"
ad from DemocracyForAmerica.org
or click this link- www.DemocracyforAmerica.com/ProveIt
Saturday, January 26, 2008
FINALLY! Michael Weiner, aka Mike SAVAGE, DROPPED by major advertisers for his Jewish-Nazi HATE INCITING radio shock-talk.
We are not pulling punches on our "incendiary" (or even "anti-Semitic", as some people might accuse)- "JEWISH-NAZI" headline, because for years now HATE-RADIO talk show host MICHAEL SAVAGE (real name Michael Weiner) has been broadcasting a hateful appeal that, substitute "Jewish" for his haranguing use of "Muslim" - IS IDENTICAL with the race-baiting anti-Semitism of Hitler's pre-war Nazi propaganda empire.
Listen for yourself, and ask... "How could it be that this blowhard hate-monger, operating out of a major American city and on one of the the top-20 most listened to radio talk-shows in America, has gone unnoticed by the 'American mainstream media' for the past half-dozen years, when his rhetoric is IDENTICAL to the back-alley and beer room brawling hate-speech of the Nazi Party in 1935?"
For more on the Robert Greenwald video, and attempts by Greenwald and others to get corporate donors to stop subsidizing (buying ads for) Michael Savage's insane Nazi-esque hate-mongering, see the full HuffingtonPost.com story at:
Advertisers Drop Savage over Hateful Remarks
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/23/advertisers-drop-savage-o_n_82901.html
or at
http://worldwide-sawdust.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2024
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
LIES-to-WAR SOLD to the American public as a PR campaign, by Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, Feith, & co....
False Pretenses [i.e. LIES-to-WAR by the Bush-Cheney Administration, 2002-2003]
By Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith
January 23, 2008
The Center for Public Integrity... www.PublicINTEGRITY.org
http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/Default.aspx?src=home&context=overview&id=945
Following 9/11, President Bush and seven top officials of his administration waged a carefully orchestrated campaign of misinformation about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
President George W. Bush and seven of his administration's top officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, made at least 935 false statements in the two years following September 11, 2001, about the national security threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Nearly five years after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, an exhaustive examination of the record shows that the statements were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses.
On at least 532 separate occasions (in speeches, briefings, interviews, testimony, and the like), Bush and these three key officials, along with Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, and White House press secretaries Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan, stated unequivocally that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (or was trying to produce or obtain them), links to Al Qaeda, or both. This concerted effort was the underpinning of the Bush administration's case for war.
It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to Al Qaeda. This was the conclusion of numerous bipartisan government investigations, including those by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (2004 and 2006), the 9/11 Commission, and the multinational Iraq Survey Group, whose "Duelfer Report" established that Saddam Hussein had terminated Iraq's nuclear program in 1991 and made little effort to restart it.
In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003. Not surprisingly, the officials with the most opportunities to make speeches, grant media interviews, and otherwise frame the public debate also made the most false statements, according to this first-ever analysis of the entire body of prewar rhetoric.
[continued at- ]
http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/Default.aspx?src=home&context=overview&id=945
Sunday, January 20, 2008
The Stupid editor of GOLFWEEK magazine put... a NOOSE on the cover to hype a cheap story. GOOD RIDDANCE, you entitled, tabloid, fired fool!
<< The editor of Golfweek magazine, Dave Seanor, has been fired for the controversial decision to depict a noose on the cover of the January 19 issue, the latest chapter in the Tiger Woods "lynch" affair. >> http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/01/19/2142189.htm?section=justin
It smacks of tabloid journalism," Finchem said in a statement. "It was a naked attempt to inflame and keep alive an incident that was heading to an appropriate conclusion."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080118/ap_on_sp_go_ne/glf_magazine_cover
<< Kelly Tilghman, The Golf Channel anchor who said players who want to challenge Tiger Woods, pictured last month, should "lynch him in a back alley", has been suspended for two weeks by the network for her words. >> (link)
=======================================
GOLFWEEK NOOSE [cover picture] ELICIS STRONG REACTION
By Doug Gerguson, AP Golf Writer
Fri Jan 18, 2003
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080118/ap_on_sp_go_ne/glf_magazine_cover
The editor of Golfweek magazine said he was overwhelmed by negative reaction to the photo of a noose on the cover of this week's issue, illustrating a story about the suspension of a Golf Channel anchor for using the word "lynch" in an on-air discussion about how to beat Tiger Woods.
"We knew that image would grab attention, but I didn't anticipate the enormity of it," Dave Seanor, vice president and editor of the weekly magazine, said from the PGA Merchandise Show in Orlando, Fla.
"There's been a huge, negative reaction," he said. "I've gotten so many e-mails. It's a little overwhelming."
Among the critics was PGA Tour commissioner Tim Finchem, who said he found the imagery to be "outrageous and irresponsible."
" It smacks of tabloid journalism," Finchem said in a statement. "It was a naked attempt to inflame and keep alive an incident that was heading to an appropriate conclusion."
Kelly Tilghman was suspended for two weeks because of comments she made during the second round of the Mercedes-Benz Championship, when she and analyst Nick Faldo were discussing young challengers to Woods.
Faldo suggested that "to take Tiger on, maybe they should just gang up (on him) for a while."
"LYNCH HIM IN A BACK ALLEY," Tilghman replied.
(continued at http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080118/ap_on_sp_go_ne/glf_magazine_cover
TV 'news' BAD FOR DEMOCRACY... TV execs focus coverage on SCANDAL, HYPE, and horse-race, vs substantive discussion of the issues. Duh
<< The public wants a different kind of television election coverage. A recent study by the Pew Research Center found that 80 percent of Americans want more coverage of where candidates stand on issues and more coverage of lesser-known candidates. This is not likely to happen soon. It is easier and cheaper to cover elections with a template that tells us where a particular prominent candidate is, which celebrity appeared with the candidate, the latest poll numbers, and who feels momentum. It is more sensational to show and analyze Hillary Clinton’s teary eyes than detail her policy initiatives. >>
TV news bad for democracy
Jeffrey M. McCall
Greencastle, Ind.
January 20, 2008
http://www.projo.com/opinion/contributors/content/CT_mccall20_01-20-08_GT84OCD_v17.2b1176b.html
AT THIS TIME last year, Michael Copps, a member of the Federal Communications Commission, told a media-reform conference that the broadcast media should do more to strengthen our democracy. He criticized the television news industry for giving the public “too much baloney passed off as news.” Sadly, the evidence since that speech indicates that Commissioner Copps’s critique remains quite valid. From superficial coverage of elections to hyped-up coverage of celebrity scandals, the broadcast news industry continues to give the citizenry a news agenda that degrades the conversation of democracy.
Recent studies clearly indicate the public’s disappointment with coverage of the presidential campaign. A report released late last fall from the Harvard Center for Public Leadership said that about two-thirds of the public does not trust the media’s campaign coverage. Sixty percent of those polled said the reporting is biased, and 88 percent said the campaign coverage focused on trivial issues.
The Center for Media and Public Affairs analyzed 481 election stories aired October through December on the evening news shows of ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox News Channel. The CMPA study showed that more stories were aired about the candidates’ campaign strategies than about candidate policy positions. Over a third of all stories focused on polling and the horse-race angle of the campaign.
The public wants a different kind of television election coverage. A recent study by the Pew Research Center found that 80 percent of Americans want more coverage of where candidates stand on issues and more coverage of lesser-known candidates. This is not likely to happen soon. It is easier and cheaper to cover elections with a template that tells us where a particular prominent candidate is, which celebrity appeared with the candidate, the latest poll numbers, and who feels momentum. It is more sensational to show and analyze Hillary Clinton’s teary eyes than detail her policy initiatives.
(continued at_ http://www.projo.com/opinion/contributors/content/CT_mccall20_01-20-08_GT84OCD_v17.2b1176b.html
TV news bad for democracy
Jeffrey M. McCall
Greencastle, Ind.
January 20, 2008
http://www.projo.com/opinion/contributors/content/CT_mccall20_01-20-08_GT84OCD_v17.2b1176b.html
AT THIS TIME last year, Michael Copps, a member of the Federal Communications Commission, told a media-reform conference that the broadcast media should do more to strengthen our democracy. He criticized the television news industry for giving the public “too much baloney passed off as news.” Sadly, the evidence since that speech indicates that Commissioner Copps’s critique remains quite valid. From superficial coverage of elections to hyped-up coverage of celebrity scandals, the broadcast news industry continues to give the citizenry a news agenda that degrades the conversation of democracy.
Recent studies clearly indicate the public’s disappointment with coverage of the presidential campaign. A report released late last fall from the Harvard Center for Public Leadership said that about two-thirds of the public does not trust the media’s campaign coverage. Sixty percent of those polled said the reporting is biased, and 88 percent said the campaign coverage focused on trivial issues.
The Center for Media and Public Affairs analyzed 481 election stories aired October through December on the evening news shows of ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox News Channel. The CMPA study showed that more stories were aired about the candidates’ campaign strategies than about candidate policy positions. Over a third of all stories focused on polling and the horse-race angle of the campaign.
The public wants a different kind of television election coverage. A recent study by the Pew Research Center found that 80 percent of Americans want more coverage of where candidates stand on issues and more coverage of lesser-known candidates. This is not likely to happen soon. It is easier and cheaper to cover elections with a template that tells us where a particular prominent candidate is, which celebrity appeared with the candidate, the latest poll numbers, and who feels momentum. It is more sensational to show and analyze Hillary Clinton’s teary eyes than detail her policy initiatives.
(continued at_ http://www.projo.com/opinion/contributors/content/CT_mccall20_01-20-08_GT84OCD_v17.2b1176b.html
Monday, January 14, 2008
MyDD does a great expose on the Right-Wing Corporate Media SMEAR JOB against John Edwards' campaign....
And this second YouTube video, captures NBC 'news' anchor Brian Williams GETTING Edwards FINISH AHEAD OF HILLARY in Iowa polls WRONG... the only mention it gives of Edwards in Williams' entire NBC newscast that night..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrd_EIFukjg&feature=related
John Edwards is pi$$ing off all the right people.
by jedreport at MyDD.com
Sat Jan 12, 2008
http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/1/12/155216/311
"...if anyone's in doubt: yes, Edwards is pissing off the right people." -- grannyhelen
-------------------------
As the primary process continues, amidst the daily barrage of broadsides fired from one campaign onto another, it's worth remembering that John Edwards is still talking about real issues.
John Edwards' campaign isn't about him. It's about us. It's about taking back power from the wealthy elites who want to run this country and putting it in our hands. It's about finally taking on the corporations that dominate more and more of the American economy. It's about challenging the system.
And it's pissing off the all right people
(line-by-line expose of Right-Wing bloviators against Edwards, click here to continue...
http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/1/12/155216/311
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrd_EIFukjg&feature=related
John Edwards is pi$$ing off all the right people.
by jedreport at MyDD.com
Sat Jan 12, 2008
http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/1/12/155216/311
"...if anyone's in doubt: yes, Edwards is pissing off the right people." -- grannyhelen
-------------------------
As the primary process continues, amidst the daily barrage of broadsides fired from one campaign onto another, it's worth remembering that John Edwards is still talking about real issues.
John Edwards' campaign isn't about him. It's about us. It's about taking back power from the wealthy elites who want to run this country and putting it in our hands. It's about finally taking on the corporations that dominate more and more of the American economy. It's about challenging the system.
And it's pissing off the all right people
(line-by-line expose of Right-Wing bloviators against Edwards, click here to continue...
http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/1/12/155216/311
Friday, January 11, 2008
Chris Mathews is BACK TO his career-launching roots: his fixation with BILL CLINTON's SEX LIFE. "Tweety" Mathews DROOLS at the prospect!
NEW- Great new MediaMatters article, culling every Mathew's every comment about Hillary Clinton and Rudi Giuliani for the months of September, October, and November of 2007, and tabulating and comparing those comments, to reveal an over 3:1 ratio of positive, idolatory comments for Giuliani vs relentless, usually snide bashing of Hillary.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200712180005?f=h_top
CHRIS MATHEWS first came to America's attention (nationwide, outside of hometown Pennsylvania and his brief stint as a Democrat Congressional Staffer) by PIMPING the BILL CLINTON IMPEACHMENT - which is to say pimping THE MONICA LEWINSKY sex SCANDAL - on the new MSNBC cable "news" network. MSNBC was one of the many cable networks which sprouted in the late 1990s as copy-cats of CNN's original Cable News Network, which came to world attention during the US-Iraq1/Gulf War almost a decade earlier.
Mathews is a queer fish, he often exhibits a PURITAN DISGUST of sex, while at the same time drooling on and on and on with a peeping-Tom fascination of same. Mathews also GUSHES over his male heroes de jour, usually Republicans posing in Militarist/strong-man poses, as for example when President Bush flew on to a US aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln in April 2003, as the Lincoln was steaming just over the horizon from the San Diego coastline, for Bush's infamous "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" photo-op moment.
The White House insisted that the "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" banner had been created by the sailors aboard the USS Lincoln, but the banner of course had been created and stage-managed by Karl Rove's White House Political Affairs office.
It would take AN ENTIRE VOLUME to document Chris Mathew's SEXIST FASCINATION with strong-men male poses and his usually equal but opposite derision of female leaders, but suffice it to say (we not having the videos of Mathew's repeated homo-erotic comments on his "Spitball" show night), here is the picture that had "Tweety" Mathews gushing for weeks on end: George W. Bush, intrepid pilot in a flight-suit, taking credit for the United States military defeat of Iraq's military, of a country that had been defeated just over 10 years earlier, and had been divided, embargoed, and overflown by US military jets ever since!
Today there are a dozen new web stories detailing Chris Mathews RECURRING OBSESSION with BILL CLINTON's SEX LIFE, his SCORN for female candidates, and his HOMO-EROTIC fascination with "tough-guy" politicians posing as world-dominating strong-men.
(links shamelessly swiped from the great "MediaMATTERS.org", yet even they can not quite capture the full spittle-spraying, homo-erotic, mysogenistic, leader-fawning slavish whoreishness of MSNBC cable fraud Chris Mathews)
#1. O'Reilly criticized as "personal attack" Matthews' assertion that Clinton owes political career to her husband's "mess[ing] around" http://mediamatters.org/items/200801100005?f=h_top
#2. Matthews has spent most of his career trashing Bill and Hillary Clinton, as ThinkProgress has documented. His Hillary-bashing got so out of control before the New Hampshire primary that he contributed enormously to the anti-sexism backlash that drove women to give Hillary her astonishing victory.
http://www.democrats.com/chris-matthews-should-debate-hillary
#3. Matthews: "[T]he reason she may be a front-runner is her husband messed around"
Matthews stated, "I will never underestimate Hillary Clinton again." But the next day, Matthews said, "[T]he reason she's a U.S. senator, the reason she's a candidate for president, the reason she may be a front-runner is her husband messed around."
http://mediamatters.org/items/200801090008?f=h_top
#4. VIDEO COMPILATION: Matthews Obsessed With Clinton Sex Speculation
MSNBC host Chris Matthews is obsessed with Bill Clinton’s sex life. Over the last four weeks, Matthews has incessantly raised baseless speculation that President Clinton may have an extramarital affair or engage in inappropriate behavior that would impact Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY). http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/28/video-matthews-obsessed
Keith Olbermann (gently) confronts CHRIS MATHEW's MAN-CRUSH on authoritarian former Republican corruption-master-in-chief TOM DeLAY:
#5. Keith Olbermann is far too professional to be as confrontational as I would be on the subject of Chris Matthews’ well-documented man-crushes, where he gets enthralled by what he perceives as shrewd maneuvering by politicians without any connection to whether the maneuvering is a positive or negative for the country as a whole. However, he couldn’t resist a little playful poke at the juxtaposition between Chris Matthews excoriation of the Clintons’ political machine and his arms-open-wide intro and fawning interview of Tom Delay, who for whatever reason was asked to give his opinions on the primary tonight. http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/01/08/keith-spanks-matthews-for-his-delay-crush
#6. Jon Stewart calls Chris Mathews "INSANE" for his man-crushes:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/10/stewart-vs-matthews-roun_n_80941.html
Tuesday, January 08, 2008
Peasants with Pitch-forks: REPUBLICAN peasants! - STORM Rupert Murdoch's evil castle of 'news' Propaganda with Blazing Torches!
OK, please excuse our small foray into dramatic hyperbole... the Peasants didn't actually storm the evil castle of Rupert Murdoch's treacherous, traitorous media-empire with blazing torches and pitchforks.... it was merely REPUBLICAN Ron Paul primary supporters HOUNDING Murdoch's demagogue minion SEAN HANNITY, through the streets of New Hampshire! For Murdoch's FOX 'news' TRYING TO EXCLUDE Republican CANDIDATES Ron Paul and Duncan Hunter, FROM the REPUBLICAN PRIMARY DEBATE held by Fox anchor Chris Wallace.
Crooks and Liars has a short take on the AMERICA PEASANTS STORMING EVIL MEDIA LORD Rupert Murdoch's evil castle, ummm.... outraged Republican campaign activists CHASING FOX 'news' PERSONALITY SEAN HANNITY through the streets of Manchester, New Hampshire!
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/01/07/sean-hannity-flees-from-ron-paul-supporters/
Here's FOX's own take, notice Duncan Hunter and Ron Paul are absent from Chris Wallace's interviews:
http://youdecide08.foxnews.com/2008/01/07/gop-candidates-to-strut-their-stuff-in-fox-news-presidential-forum/
Murdoch's FOX 'news' IS SO BLATANTLY BIASED & partisan - even within the Republican Party - that the NH GOP has DROPPED Fox as a Primary News Partner
NY Times also covers the "Fox forced out of New Hampshire Republican Party Primary Partnership" story, for Rupert Murdoch and his 'news' executive minions trying to EXCLUDE legitimate, Republican primary candidates from a Fox 'news' sponsored Republican debate:
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/05/new-hampshire-gop-backs-out-of-fox-forum/
NH GOP Drops Out As Fox Forum Partner
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2004109251_apforumsponsor05.html
New Hampshire's Republican Party has dropped out as a partner of a Fox News Channel presidential forum because the network [FOX] WILL NOT LET two low-polling [Republican] candidates take part [in the REPUBLICAN PARTY DEBATE!]
Party Chairman Fergus Cullen said he has failed in attempts to get Fox to include candidates Ron Paul and Duncan Hunter in Sunday's forum.
"Only in New Hampshire do lesser known, lesser funded underdogs have a fighting chance to establish themselves as national figures," Cullen said. "Consistent with that tradition, we believe all recognized major candidates should have an equal opportunity to participate in pre-primary debates and forums."
David Rhodes, Fox's vice president of news, did not address Cullen's objection in a one-sentence statement released immediately after Cullen's announcement.
"We look forward to presenting a substantive forum which will serve as the first program of its kind this election season," Rhodes said.
The network said previously that it invited candidates who had received double-digit support in national polls. Fox invited Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, John McCain, Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson. The 90-minute forum airs at 8 p.m. Sunday.
Cullen also said all candidates should be allowed in Saturday's ABC-WMUR debate. ABC announced Friday that based on either a poor showing in Iowa or poor poll showings, Hunter and Democrats Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel would not be included.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/05/new-hampshire-gop-backs-out-of-fox-forum/
NH GOP Drops Out As Fox Forum Partner
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2004109251_apforumsponsor05.html
New Hampshire's Republican Party has dropped out as a partner of a Fox News Channel presidential forum because the network [FOX] WILL NOT LET two low-polling [Republican] candidates take part [in the REPUBLICAN PARTY DEBATE!]
Party Chairman Fergus Cullen said he has failed in attempts to get Fox to include candidates Ron Paul and Duncan Hunter in Sunday's forum.
"Only in New Hampshire do lesser known, lesser funded underdogs have a fighting chance to establish themselves as national figures," Cullen said. "Consistent with that tradition, we believe all recognized major candidates should have an equal opportunity to participate in pre-primary debates and forums."
David Rhodes, Fox's vice president of news, did not address Cullen's objection in a one-sentence statement released immediately after Cullen's announcement.
"We look forward to presenting a substantive forum which will serve as the first program of its kind this election season," Rhodes said.
The network said previously that it invited candidates who had received double-digit support in national polls. Fox invited Rudy Giuliani, Mike Huckabee, John McCain, Mitt Romney and Fred Thompson. The 90-minute forum airs at 8 p.m. Sunday.
Cullen also said all candidates should be allowed in Saturday's ABC-WMUR debate. ABC announced Friday that based on either a poor showing in Iowa or poor poll showings, Hunter and Democrats Dennis Kucinich and Mike Gravel would not be included.
Saturday, January 05, 2008
Media Lying Whores INVERT REALITY: spin Benazir Bhutto ASSASSINATION as HAVING NOTHING TO DO WITH Pakistan Dictator Musharraf.....
Conventional Wisdom: An Unstoppable Zombie - AMERICA's OVERPAID, LYING MEDIA WHORES - Wreak Havoc On America.
Arianna Huffington captures the ghoulish nature of America's lying media whores, who portray EVER EXPANDING WARS as "making America safer;" who portray billions of dollars of government no-oversight, no-accountability spending in the "war on terror" as "TAX CUTS" for taxpayers, and who, indeed, are now in the process of portraying PAKISTAN DICTATOR Pervez Musharraf as a so-called paragon "OF STABILITY", even though his own ISI security force general may well be a PRIME SUSPECT in the ASSASSINATION of former Prime Minister Bhutto.
The American press coverage of the Bhutto assassination has been so whore-iffic, that CNN radio 'news' actually gave the Pakistan government's version of the assassination - that Mrs. Bhutto KILLED HERSELF by banging her head on the sun-roof of her limousine! - equal weight with the facts that a gunman's three shots at the former Prime Minister were followed by a terrific bomb that killed two dozen of her supporters.
WHETHER or not it was MUSHARRAF, the ISI, or the Taliban which killed Mrs. Bhutto and her supporters, it is beyond dispute that Musharraf is USING A SIGNIFICANT PORTION of the NINE BILLION DOLLARS in US aid money shipped to Pakistan... TO BRIBE OFF THE TALIBAN to leave his regime uncontested in Islamabad.
That is, President George Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney are quite possibly SUBSIDIZING THE TALIBAN in Western Pakistan along the hostile Afghanistan border!
============================================
Conventional Wisdom: An Unstoppable Zombie Wreaks Havoc On America
(i.e. the press/media whores' "Conventional Wisdom")
By Arianna Huffington
Jan. 5, 2008
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/i-am-conventional-wisdom_b_78958.html
It's the most frightening zombie tale of the year, but it's not I Am Legend, and it doesn't star Will Smith. Instead, this one features George Bush, Dick Cheney, and a supporting cast made up of Beltway "experts" like David Brooks and Tim Russert. The script is written by a small number of Washington media types. It's called Conventional Wisdom and, sadly, it's always playing at a venue near you.
The latest version of this many-sequeled franchise premiered less than 48 hours after the assassination of Benazir Bhutto. In this real-life horror, the conventional wisdom about the war in Iraq came back from the dead, reasserting the absurd notion that the more wrong you were about Iraq, the more credibility your opinion has about anything having to do with terrorism, the Middle East, Islam, or national security.
Accordingly, conventional wisdom has it that the main "beneficiaries" of the turmoil in Pakistan are Rudy Giuliani, who has yet to utter a critical word about the Bush strategy in the Middle East, and Hillary Clinton, the Democratic candidate who took the longest to separate herself from that strategy.
You might think that the one positive thing to come out of this tragedy would be the opportunity it gives us to reassess not only our strategy in the Middle East, but the conventional wisdom that gave rise to this strategy and continues to sustain it.
But, sadly, you would be wrong. Because the conventional wisdom is composed largely of what Atrios calls "zombie lies." They cannot be stopped. For a moment or two, it may seem like you've killed them, but back they come over the horizon. Again and again and again.
One of the biggest zombie lies about our national security is that our disastrous invasion of Iraq exists in a bubble and has nothing to do with events in other countries in the region -- like Pakistan. Another zombie lie is that the people who supported this catastrophic diversion are the ones best qualified to decide how to clean up the mess they helped create.
Hey, no one ever said zombies are logical.
But to even raise this point is an invitation to be attacked by the Conventional Wisdom zombies.
Just ask Obama campaign advisor David Axelrod. In response to being asked if the Bhutto assassination would benefit Hillary, he told reporters:
"She was a strong supporter of the war in Iraq which, we would submit, was one of the reasons why we were diverted from Afghanistan, Pakistan and al-Qaeda, who may have been players in this event today, so that's a judgment she'll have to defend."
Who could possibly consider this a controversial statement?
The Clinton campaign, for starters. Its spokesman Jay Carson shot back with:
"This is a time to be focused on the tragedy of the situation, its implications for the U.S. and the world, and to be concerned for the people of Pakistan and the country's stability. No one should be politicizing this situation with baseless allegations."
Hazarding the opinion that the Iraq war had diverted us from Pakistan and Afghanistan and suggesting that Hillary Clinton should have to defend her judgment to support that war is "politicizing" the situation? She's running for president, isn't she? Of course questions about what happened in Pakistan, what factors contributed to it, and what should we do about it are politicized -- as they should be.
It's no secret why the writers of conventional wisdom get so defensive when these kinds of questions are raised: their opinions helped lead to the war in Iraq, so any time the conventional wisdom is threatened, they rise up in its defense.
Exhibit A came during Obama's appearance yesterday on Meet the Press. Tim Russert, one of the temple guards of Conventional Wisdom, used one of the classic weapons in its defense: the straw man. So in asking Obama about Axelrod's comments, Russert plays the dumb-dumb and twists the argument:
RUSSERT: The Washington Post has said in an editorial that Mr. Obama committed a foul in some of your comments and some of your staff comments to the situation in Pakistan, specifically -- let me ask you a question -- do you believe that Senator Clinton's vote for, for the war in Iraq in any way, shape or form led to the events that transpired in Pakistan on Thursday?
Obama knocks the straw man down:
OBAMA: Of course not, and that's never what any of my aides said...my staff said that I think candidates will be judged based on the judgments they have made, and they made then an indisputable, I believe, comment, although The Washington Post, I think, may disagree with this. And that is that, by going into Iraq, we got distracted from Afghanistan, we got distracted from hunting down bin Laden, we got distracted from dealing with the al-Qaeda havens that have been created in northwestern Pakistan...
Russert, the Conventional Wisdom Zombie, is having none of it:
RUSSERT: But a vote for the war in Iraq, in your mind, distracted us from Pakistan and that could have led to the situation?
Obama takes another stab:
OBAMA: I am not drawing a causal relationship between any single vote in the tragedy there. The, the tragedy resulted from a suicide bomber. But what I do believe is that, if we are going to take seriously the problem of Islamic terrorism and the stability of Pakistan, then we have to look at it in a wider context. What we do in Iraq matters, what we do with respect to Iran matters, what we do with respect to Musharraf matters and not giving him a blank check and conditioning military aid that's not related to terrorism on him opening up the election so that there's greater legitimacy and less anti-American sentiment in Pakistan. Those are all parts of a broader foreign policy, and I believe that I'm best equipped to chart that new direction in foreign policy that will ultimately make American safer.
Will Smith couldn't have blown away that zombie any more effectively. But, make no mistake, it will be back.
In fact, I was going back over some of my old columns and I was struck by one I wrote during the 2004 campaign. It was about how even though the evidence overwhelmingly showed that Bush's policies at home and abroad had made us less safe, the American people believed he was the candidate best able to keep us safe. By a wide margin.
Why would the public think that? Because the Conventional Wisdom zombies kept hammering home the lie, however ludicrous it was -- and is. No matter how many times we've seen this movie, it's still shocking to see how the conventional wisdom is able to repair itself event after event after event that should have by now mortally wounded it.
But, apparently, nothing can kill the idea that those who were the most wrong about Iraq should be listened to most fervently about how to go forward.
Arianna Huffington captures the ghoulish nature of America's lying media whores, who portray EVER EXPANDING WARS as "making America safer;" who portray billions of dollars of government no-oversight, no-accountability spending in the "war on terror" as "TAX CUTS" for taxpayers, and who, indeed, are now in the process of portraying PAKISTAN DICTATOR Pervez Musharraf as a so-called paragon "OF STABILITY", even though his own ISI security force general may well be a PRIME SUSPECT in the ASSASSINATION of former Prime Minister Bhutto.
The American press coverage of the Bhutto assassination has been so whore-iffic, that CNN radio 'news' actually gave the Pakistan government's version of the assassination - that Mrs. Bhutto KILLED HERSELF by banging her head on the sun-roof of her limousine! - equal weight with the facts that a gunman's three shots at the former Prime Minister were followed by a terrific bomb that killed two dozen of her supporters.
WHETHER or not it was MUSHARRAF, the ISI, or the Taliban which killed Mrs. Bhutto and her supporters, it is beyond dispute that Musharraf is USING A SIGNIFICANT PORTION of the NINE BILLION DOLLARS in US aid money shipped to Pakistan... TO BRIBE OFF THE TALIBAN to leave his regime uncontested in Islamabad.
That is, President George Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney are quite possibly SUBSIDIZING THE TALIBAN in Western Pakistan along the hostile Afghanistan border!
============================================
Conventional Wisdom: An Unstoppable Zombie Wreaks Havoc On America
(i.e. the press/media whores' "Conventional Wisdom")
By Arianna Huffington
Jan. 5, 2008
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/i-am-conventional-wisdom_b_78958.html
It's the most frightening zombie tale of the year, but it's not I Am Legend, and it doesn't star Will Smith. Instead, this one features George Bush, Dick Cheney, and a supporting cast made up of Beltway "experts" like David Brooks and Tim Russert. The script is written by a small number of Washington media types. It's called Conventional Wisdom and, sadly, it's always playing at a venue near you.
The latest version of this many-sequeled franchise premiered less than 48 hours after the assassination of Benazir Bhutto. In this real-life horror, the conventional wisdom about the war in Iraq came back from the dead, reasserting the absurd notion that the more wrong you were about Iraq, the more credibility your opinion has about anything having to do with terrorism, the Middle East, Islam, or national security.
Accordingly, conventional wisdom has it that the main "beneficiaries" of the turmoil in Pakistan are Rudy Giuliani, who has yet to utter a critical word about the Bush strategy in the Middle East, and Hillary Clinton, the Democratic candidate who took the longest to separate herself from that strategy.
You might think that the one positive thing to come out of this tragedy would be the opportunity it gives us to reassess not only our strategy in the Middle East, but the conventional wisdom that gave rise to this strategy and continues to sustain it.
But, sadly, you would be wrong. Because the conventional wisdom is composed largely of what Atrios calls "zombie lies." They cannot be stopped. For a moment or two, it may seem like you've killed them, but back they come over the horizon. Again and again and again.
One of the biggest zombie lies about our national security is that our disastrous invasion of Iraq exists in a bubble and has nothing to do with events in other countries in the region -- like Pakistan. Another zombie lie is that the people who supported this catastrophic diversion are the ones best qualified to decide how to clean up the mess they helped create.
Hey, no one ever said zombies are logical.
But to even raise this point is an invitation to be attacked by the Conventional Wisdom zombies.
Just ask Obama campaign advisor David Axelrod. In response to being asked if the Bhutto assassination would benefit Hillary, he told reporters:
"She was a strong supporter of the war in Iraq which, we would submit, was one of the reasons why we were diverted from Afghanistan, Pakistan and al-Qaeda, who may have been players in this event today, so that's a judgment she'll have to defend."
Who could possibly consider this a controversial statement?
The Clinton campaign, for starters. Its spokesman Jay Carson shot back with:
"This is a time to be focused on the tragedy of the situation, its implications for the U.S. and the world, and to be concerned for the people of Pakistan and the country's stability. No one should be politicizing this situation with baseless allegations."
Hazarding the opinion that the Iraq war had diverted us from Pakistan and Afghanistan and suggesting that Hillary Clinton should have to defend her judgment to support that war is "politicizing" the situation? She's running for president, isn't she? Of course questions about what happened in Pakistan, what factors contributed to it, and what should we do about it are politicized -- as they should be.
It's no secret why the writers of conventional wisdom get so defensive when these kinds of questions are raised: their opinions helped lead to the war in Iraq, so any time the conventional wisdom is threatened, they rise up in its defense.
Exhibit A came during Obama's appearance yesterday on Meet the Press. Tim Russert, one of the temple guards of Conventional Wisdom, used one of the classic weapons in its defense: the straw man. So in asking Obama about Axelrod's comments, Russert plays the dumb-dumb and twists the argument:
RUSSERT: The Washington Post has said in an editorial that Mr. Obama committed a foul in some of your comments and some of your staff comments to the situation in Pakistan, specifically -- let me ask you a question -- do you believe that Senator Clinton's vote for, for the war in Iraq in any way, shape or form led to the events that transpired in Pakistan on Thursday?
Obama knocks the straw man down:
OBAMA: Of course not, and that's never what any of my aides said...my staff said that I think candidates will be judged based on the judgments they have made, and they made then an indisputable, I believe, comment, although The Washington Post, I think, may disagree with this. And that is that, by going into Iraq, we got distracted from Afghanistan, we got distracted from hunting down bin Laden, we got distracted from dealing with the al-Qaeda havens that have been created in northwestern Pakistan...
Russert, the Conventional Wisdom Zombie, is having none of it:
RUSSERT: But a vote for the war in Iraq, in your mind, distracted us from Pakistan and that could have led to the situation?
Obama takes another stab:
OBAMA: I am not drawing a causal relationship between any single vote in the tragedy there. The, the tragedy resulted from a suicide bomber. But what I do believe is that, if we are going to take seriously the problem of Islamic terrorism and the stability of Pakistan, then we have to look at it in a wider context. What we do in Iraq matters, what we do with respect to Iran matters, what we do with respect to Musharraf matters and not giving him a blank check and conditioning military aid that's not related to terrorism on him opening up the election so that there's greater legitimacy and less anti-American sentiment in Pakistan. Those are all parts of a broader foreign policy, and I believe that I'm best equipped to chart that new direction in foreign policy that will ultimately make American safer.
Will Smith couldn't have blown away that zombie any more effectively. But, make no mistake, it will be back.
In fact, I was going back over some of my old columns and I was struck by one I wrote during the 2004 campaign. It was about how even though the evidence overwhelmingly showed that Bush's policies at home and abroad had made us less safe, the American people believed he was the candidate best able to keep us safe. By a wide margin.
Why would the public think that? Because the Conventional Wisdom zombies kept hammering home the lie, however ludicrous it was -- and is. No matter how many times we've seen this movie, it's still shocking to see how the conventional wisdom is able to repair itself event after event after event that should have by now mortally wounded it.
But, apparently, nothing can kill the idea that those who were the most wrong about Iraq should be listened to most fervently about how to go forward.
Huffpost's Chris Kelly deconstructs UBER neo-con LYING WHORE JONAH GOLDBERG, the frothing Michael Savage clone at the LA Times....
The cover on LA Times neo-con lying media whore JONAH GOLDBERG's latest book is a the familiar image of a smiley face... with a garish Hitler mustache. 
CUTE!, Mr. Goldberg. You invoking Adolf Hitler REALLY PROVES THAT LIBERALS and Human Rights advocates - many of those who had the misfortune to live in Germany in the late 1930s wound up in Hitler's concentration camps - ARE FACISTS!
But this ghoulish leap of logic (not to call such souless ghoulishness "faith") is far from the most pathetic example of Jonah Goldberg's tedious, demagogue (not to say "Naziesque") innuendo and broad-brush attempt to SMEAR all "liberals", Democrats, and human-rights advocates as Nazis.... no, that would be Goldberg's STEALING that HITLER SMILEY icon from the avowed WHITE SUPREMACIST "Prussian Blue" twin girls!
Check out Chris Kelly's original post to catch the LOST ANGELES TIMES _SIGNATURE_ op-ed columnist make a sad, pathetic, farcical fool of himself... and his paper, which is now a TEXTBOOK EXAMPLE of the WHORISH DECLINE of American "journalism."
As Kelly concludes:
CUTE!, Mr. Goldberg. You invoking Adolf Hitler REALLY PROVES THAT LIBERALS and Human Rights advocates - many of those who had the misfortune to live in Germany in the late 1930s wound up in Hitler's concentration camps - ARE FACISTS!But this ghoulish leap of logic (not to call such souless ghoulishness "faith") is far from the most pathetic example of Jonah Goldberg's tedious, demagogue (not to say "Naziesque") innuendo and broad-brush attempt to SMEAR all "liberals", Democrats, and human-rights advocates as Nazis.... no, that would be Goldberg's STEALING that HITLER SMILEY icon from the avowed WHITE SUPREMACIST "Prussian Blue" twin girls!
"Jonah Goldberg is so tragically lame, to sell a book he'd steal a logo from a racist child."http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-kelly/jonah-goldberg-the-tough_b_79861.html
Check out Chris Kelly's original post to catch the LOST ANGELES TIMES _SIGNATURE_ op-ed columnist make a sad, pathetic, farcical fool of himself... and his paper, which is now a TEXTBOOK EXAMPLE of the WHORISH DECLINE of American "journalism."
As Kelly concludes:
Not liberal fascism. Just plain old fascism.
Friday, January 04, 2008
HuffPost's David Roberts catches WashPost's PETER BAKER LYING... line-by-line, paragraph by dismal, cowardly paragraph.
THANKS to David Roberts for taking up where we here at MediaWhoresUSA have become entirely too entirely too deluged and overrun to keep up with during the holiday weeks... THE ABJECT, CRAVEN, PILING-ON LIES of the Media Whores.
Including this "greenwash" article by WASHINGTON POST WHORE Peter Baker, whose article (and WashWhorePost editor assigned title) wants to make you THINK that president George W. Bush has "gone greener" in the last 12 months of his presidency... WHEN IN FACT THE COMPLETE, 100% OPPOSITE is true... Bush is NOT EVEN a LITTLE, TOUCH GREENER!
Peter Baker is a professional liar for the Washington Post... helping his editors and publisher SHOVEL LIES by the ton down the gullets of Post readers who don't have the time to dig deep into the Post's awful reporting, or, if they really knew the true score, don't have the time and energy to confront the epic lies coming out of the Bush White House.
=======================================
Washington Post Greenwashes Bush
by David Roberts, HuffingtonPost.com
Posted January 3, 2008
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-roberts/washington-post-_b_79564.html
In an ongoing series about the world-historical suckage of a recent WaPo piece, we come now to the difference between rhetoric and policy. I don't know about you, but when I see a headline like "In Bush's Final Year, The Agenda Gets Greener," I think, "oh, the policy agenda is getting greener." And that's probably what the White Hou... er, reporter Peter Baker wants you to think.
But if you read the entire piece closely, you realize your initial impression is entirely at odds with reality.
Early on:
For years, Bush bristled privately at what he considered sky-is-falling alarmism by the liberal, elitist Hollywood crowd. The clatter over climate change, according to friends and advisers, seemed to him more like a political agenda than a rational response to known facts.
(If there's one thing Bush deplores, it is public officials who place political agendas above rational responses to known facts.)
But ever so gradually, they say, Bush's views have evolved.
Not flip-flopped, like the media told us John Kerry did. Not insincerely tacked with the political winds, like they painted Al Gore. No, this is evolution. Wisdom unfolding! Slowly. (You'll see later that "evolved" is lifted directly from the spin of a Bush partisan.)
He has found the science increasingly persuasive and believes more needs to be done, especially after a set of secret briefings last winter.
Bush's opposition to action on climate change was based on careful examination of the facts. He just hadn't yet been persuaded by the science. Oh, sure, he'd been briefed on the the comprehensive IPCC reports coming out since a decade before he became president, but they didn't meet his rigorous standards of evidence. Those must have been some amazing secret briefings!
A former aide said Bush's staff even developed models for a market-based cap on greenhouse emissions.
His staff made models? Eureka! That must mean he's moving toward a cap on emissions.
Wait, what's this, way down there in paragraph 30? An account of what actually happened at those secret briefings:
"We gamed out what a hard cap-and-trade system would look like," the former adviser said. "Is there a way to do cap-and-trade that is economically responsible? Probably so." But the models studied by Bush did not amount to a formal proposal. "It never got to that point," the adviser said.
Oh. One time somebody on Bush's staff sketched out a carbon policy. Cool, I guess.
There's probably other evidence of Bush's greener agenda, right? Yeah, here's some:
The evolution has been evident over the past year. Bush cited the danger of climate change in his State of the Union address for the first time ...
Greener speeches. Sweet.
... proposed a plan to cut gasoline consumption and, by extension, greenhouse gases ...
Wait, but Bush fought CAFE boosts tooth and nail for years. He helped chop the bulk of the greenhouse gas reducing measures out of the energy bill he just signed. It almost sounds like he's doing something just to ...
"We couldn't fight something with nothing," said the former Bush adviser. "We had to have something."
Ah.
But there's more:
... and convened a conference of major world polluters to start work on an international accord to follow the Kyoto Protocol.
That sounds like something! But what's this? Buried waaay down in paragraph 36:
In September, Bush hosted a meeting of the world's largest economies to discuss the way forward. He offered no major new policies, instead advocating that each nation set its own goal that would not be internationally binding. ...
[German chancellor Angela] Merkel flew last month to Texas, where Bush hosted her for dinner at his Crawford ranch and told her he had no plans to change his policies, according to people briefed on the talk. She left disappointed.
Hm.
At least there's this:
He even invited former vice president Al Gore for a 40-minute talk about global warming.
OK, now I think Baker's just mocking us.
This is even more hilarious:
"As you draw toward the end of an eight-year term, it's human nature to try to look forward and then backward -- look into the future and then back at the past and think about how it looks," said a former Bush adviser who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "You could conclude, as this administration has, that you want to be seen ultimately as having evolved and opened some doors and maybe started a glide path to the next administration."
There's "evolved." And opened doors. Started a glide path. You can see why Baker had to grant anonymity to Rove this former Bush adviser. Nobody can risk that kind of brave truth-telling on the record!
This is the kicker, though. First, the classic chestnut:
Many environmentalists dismiss [the aforementioned faux accomplishments] as cover for a do-nothing policy.
"Environmentalists" do this, mind you. Not, say, awake people. Or political observers with intact critical facilities. Or, god forbid, reporters. It's not reality in which Bush's handwaving is cover for a do-nothing policy. There is no reality! There's only what former Bush advisers say and what environmentalists say.
The very next sentence:
Bush still rejects the one measure that they, and even many Republican corporate leaders, [and Democrats, and scientists, and economists, and the leaders of every other developed country] consider vital to reversing warming trends -- a mandatory cap on carbon emissions. His negotiators infuriated counterparts at this month's talks in Bali by resisting such a move. And just hours after Bush signed the energy bill, the administration invalidated an effort by California and 17 other states to impose tougher tailpipe emission rules, saying it makes more sense to have a single national policy.
"There's no question the profile has changed in a pretty dramatic way," said Eileen Claussen, president of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change and a leader of a coalition of corporations and nonprofit groups called the United States Climate Action Partnership, which has been lobbying Bush. "But the policy prescriptions haven't changed at all."
Finally, here you have, out of 3,000 words, the one acknowledgment that the entire premise of the piece is bogus. The only thing "getting greener" is Bush's rhetoric. He's not doing anything greener, beyond the minimum necessary to create some positive spin and derail more substantial action. He shows zero signs of changing that course.
Baker didn't tell that story, though. All the facts necessary to tease it out are in there, if you read closely. But the story he told casual readers was the one Bush's spinners told him: Bush is going greener. That's the story most readers will remember.
Thus is the public misinformed.
Including this "greenwash" article by WASHINGTON POST WHORE Peter Baker, whose article (and WashWhorePost editor assigned title) wants to make you THINK that president George W. Bush has "gone greener" in the last 12 months of his presidency... WHEN IN FACT THE COMPLETE, 100% OPPOSITE is true... Bush is NOT EVEN a LITTLE, TOUCH GREENER!
Peter Baker is a professional liar for the Washington Post... helping his editors and publisher SHOVEL LIES by the ton down the gullets of Post readers who don't have the time to dig deep into the Post's awful reporting, or, if they really knew the true score, don't have the time and energy to confront the epic lies coming out of the Bush White House.
=======================================
Washington Post Greenwashes Bush
by David Roberts, HuffingtonPost.com
Posted January 3, 2008
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-roberts/washington-post-_b_79564.html
In an ongoing series about the world-historical suckage of a recent WaPo piece, we come now to the difference between rhetoric and policy. I don't know about you, but when I see a headline like "In Bush's Final Year, The Agenda Gets Greener," I think, "oh, the policy agenda is getting greener." And that's probably what the White Hou... er, reporter Peter Baker wants you to think.
But if you read the entire piece closely, you realize your initial impression is entirely at odds with reality.
Early on:
For years, Bush bristled privately at what he considered sky-is-falling alarmism by the liberal, elitist Hollywood crowd. The clatter over climate change, according to friends and advisers, seemed to him more like a political agenda than a rational response to known facts.
(If there's one thing Bush deplores, it is public officials who place political agendas above rational responses to known facts.)
But ever so gradually, they say, Bush's views have evolved.
Not flip-flopped, like the media told us John Kerry did. Not insincerely tacked with the political winds, like they painted Al Gore. No, this is evolution. Wisdom unfolding! Slowly. (You'll see later that "evolved" is lifted directly from the spin of a Bush partisan.)
He has found the science increasingly persuasive and believes more needs to be done, especially after a set of secret briefings last winter.
Bush's opposition to action on climate change was based on careful examination of the facts. He just hadn't yet been persuaded by the science. Oh, sure, he'd been briefed on the the comprehensive IPCC reports coming out since a decade before he became president, but they didn't meet his rigorous standards of evidence. Those must have been some amazing secret briefings!
A former aide said Bush's staff even developed models for a market-based cap on greenhouse emissions.
His staff made models? Eureka! That must mean he's moving toward a cap on emissions.
Wait, what's this, way down there in paragraph 30? An account of what actually happened at those secret briefings:
"We gamed out what a hard cap-and-trade system would look like," the former adviser said. "Is there a way to do cap-and-trade that is economically responsible? Probably so." But the models studied by Bush did not amount to a formal proposal. "It never got to that point," the adviser said.
Oh. One time somebody on Bush's staff sketched out a carbon policy. Cool, I guess.
There's probably other evidence of Bush's greener agenda, right? Yeah, here's some:
The evolution has been evident over the past year. Bush cited the danger of climate change in his State of the Union address for the first time ...
Greener speeches. Sweet.
... proposed a plan to cut gasoline consumption and, by extension, greenhouse gases ...
Wait, but Bush fought CAFE boosts tooth and nail for years. He helped chop the bulk of the greenhouse gas reducing measures out of the energy bill he just signed. It almost sounds like he's doing something just to ...
"We couldn't fight something with nothing," said the former Bush adviser. "We had to have something."
Ah.
But there's more:
... and convened a conference of major world polluters to start work on an international accord to follow the Kyoto Protocol.
That sounds like something! But what's this? Buried waaay down in paragraph 36:
In September, Bush hosted a meeting of the world's largest economies to discuss the way forward. He offered no major new policies, instead advocating that each nation set its own goal that would not be internationally binding. ...
[German chancellor Angela] Merkel flew last month to Texas, where Bush hosted her for dinner at his Crawford ranch and told her he had no plans to change his policies, according to people briefed on the talk. She left disappointed.
Hm.
At least there's this:
He even invited former vice president Al Gore for a 40-minute talk about global warming.
OK, now I think Baker's just mocking us.
This is even more hilarious:
"As you draw toward the end of an eight-year term, it's human nature to try to look forward and then backward -- look into the future and then back at the past and think about how it looks," said a former Bush adviser who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "You could conclude, as this administration has, that you want to be seen ultimately as having evolved and opened some doors and maybe started a glide path to the next administration."
There's "evolved." And opened doors. Started a glide path. You can see why Baker had to grant anonymity to Rove this former Bush adviser. Nobody can risk that kind of brave truth-telling on the record!
This is the kicker, though. First, the classic chestnut:
Many environmentalists dismiss [the aforementioned faux accomplishments] as cover for a do-nothing policy.
"Environmentalists" do this, mind you. Not, say, awake people. Or political observers with intact critical facilities. Or, god forbid, reporters. It's not reality in which Bush's handwaving is cover for a do-nothing policy. There is no reality! There's only what former Bush advisers say and what environmentalists say.
The very next sentence:
Bush still rejects the one measure that they, and even many Republican corporate leaders, [and Democrats, and scientists, and economists, and the leaders of every other developed country] consider vital to reversing warming trends -- a mandatory cap on carbon emissions. His negotiators infuriated counterparts at this month's talks in Bali by resisting such a move. And just hours after Bush signed the energy bill, the administration invalidated an effort by California and 17 other states to impose tougher tailpipe emission rules, saying it makes more sense to have a single national policy.
"There's no question the profile has changed in a pretty dramatic way," said Eileen Claussen, president of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change and a leader of a coalition of corporations and nonprofit groups called the United States Climate Action Partnership, which has been lobbying Bush. "But the policy prescriptions haven't changed at all."
Finally, here you have, out of 3,000 words, the one acknowledgment that the entire premise of the piece is bogus. The only thing "getting greener" is Bush's rhetoric. He's not doing anything greener, beyond the minimum necessary to create some positive spin and derail more substantial action. He shows zero signs of changing that course.
Baker didn't tell that story, though. All the facts necessary to tease it out are in there, if you read closely. But the story he told casual readers was the one Bush's spinners told him: Bush is going greener. That's the story most readers will remember.
Thus is the public misinformed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)