Selective Outrage
Time and time again, Democrats and the MSM have tried to accuse the Bush Administration of perpetrating a falsehood -- that there was evidence Saddam was connected to 9/11. Presumably, the outrage sprang from the fact that polls indicated the American people believed such a link existed.
The charge against Bush was inaccurate. But if the Dems and MSM are such sticklers for accuracy, then why are they not concerned that, as this piece in today's Wall Street Journal points out:
During the 2004 presidential campaign, when attacks on the economy were in full force, 36% of Americans thought we were in recession. One year later, even though unemployment has fallen from 5.5% to 5%, and real GDP has expanded by 3.7%, the number who think a recession is underway has climbed to 43%.
How 'bout that little misperception? Selective outrage, indeed.
The charge against Bush was inaccurate. But if the Dems and MSM are such sticklers for accuracy, then why are they not concerned that, as this piece in today's Wall Street Journal points out:
During the 2004 presidential campaign, when attacks on the economy were in full force, 36% of Americans thought we were in recession. One year later, even though unemployment has fallen from 5.5% to 5%, and real GDP has expanded by 3.7%, the number who think a recession is underway has climbed to 43%.
How 'bout that little misperception? Selective outrage, indeed.
posted by LadybugUSA at 8:46 AM
21 Comments:
Carol, The fact that the 'MSM' doesn't get their facts straight is directly attributable to their disinterest in information that doesn't comport with their predetermined conclusions.
That's the main reason why I've stopped using the 'MSM' nickname and started calling them the Agenda Media.
It isn't about accuracy or America's 'right to know'. It's about advancing their ultra-partisan agenda.
The more I read from Eleanor Clift or E.J. Dionne, the Washington Post's Jim Vandehei or Dana Milbank, the more convinced I am that they start with a presumption, ignore the most current information that's available, and look for quotes from Democrats that support their 'conclusions'.
The reason "polls indicated the American people believed such a link (between Saddam and 9/11) existed" is because Tweedle Dick and Tweedle Dumb repeated that assertion endlessly. The ad nauseam repetition even cemented itself as fact in Tweedle Dumb's brain, as evidenced by his remark during the first presidential debate that they (Iraq) attacked us first. Remember? He had to interrupt Kerry to say that (paraphrasing) 'of course I know that Saddam didn't attack us on 9/11.'
And maybe the reason "the number (of people) who think a recession is underway has climbed to 43%" is because they are struggling to make ends meet while the top ten percent wallow in the mountains of hush money that's been doled to them over the past five years.
And the mere mention by you, Carol, of all people, of "selective outrage" is hysterical. Still waiting for your outrage over the slimy, corrupt Duke Cunningham. Or Jack Abramoff. Or any of the scores of filthy Republicans whose scummy actions make Whitewater look like, well, what it was...nothing.
What an excellent point!
Thank you!
Anonymous: Lori was responding to Carol's post...oh, and ad hominem attacks are not an effective argument tool. You show your weak hand when you do that.
I'm an American and an 18 year veteran of the Navy.
I know Saddam did not attack us, but he supported those who did. I also know that he needed to be removed and that by doing so, our armed forces have had the opportunity to openly kill or capture thousands of jihadists on the field of combat rather than at home. Fighting on our terms cost us 2000 soldiers' lives over 2.5 years, for which I am immensly saddened, but fighting on their terms cost us over 3000 civilian lives in a day. Neither is preferred, but the choice is clear and America becomes safer every day.
I know the economy is doing well even though there is constant news like GM laying of 30,000 workers and the economic devastation of Katrina. It isn't magic that we come through the difficult times to succeed.
I am outraged by Duke Cunningham; he sold the honor he worked so hard to earn. He is a huge disgrace. I am also outraged by John Kerry's treason after his return from Vietnam. He is a vile, disgusting vermin.(I have not had the opportunity to seek out the details of the Abramoff story yet, so I reserve my opinion on that.)
Merry Christmas everyone,
The Armadillo
"...struggling to make ends meet while the top ten percent wallow in the mountains of hush money that's been doled to them over the past five years."
For lower-tiered workers – non-managers in the services sectors and production-line workers in the factory sector – average hourly wages increased in November for the twenty-third consecutive month. Over the past year, average hourly and weekly wages for those workers both increased 3.2 percent.
And Merry Christmas to the lower-tiered workers.
The Armadillo
Ah, the Annoymous has uncoiled his slimy shell! Just a tad ironical that he points out only Republican's failings in a "Selective Outrage" post. Sandy Burglar and Harry Reid would be proud of you. If you could just get out of lock-step with the left and use a bit of logic, you might come up with some truth in your bashings. But alas, that would most likely just lead to you seeing the light and coming over to the conservative side!
Yes, Cunningham took a bribe. And he did what a Democrat will never do, admit that he sinned and should suffer the consequences of his human failings of greed. He will go to jail deservedly so. On the other hand Bill Clinton and Berger will campaign for the lying Hillary in '08.
Thank you Armadillo for your service to our great country. The people in Afghanastan and Iraq are now enjoying some of the freedoms we too often take for granted. But just because you serve, doesn't mean you get a pass for bad ideas (or no ideas).
I just wish we had Armadillo's in Colorado, because I would now get some joy out of seeing the poor helpless critters squashed on the side of the road.
Maybe I'm confused...did "the Armadillo" post under Anonymous. If so, sorry, it would just be helpful if people used unique handles.
One more thought though, at this point, the Democrats better hope that Joe Lieberman runs for President in '08, he might be your only hope!
Merry Christmas!
When Cunningham goes to the House floor and receives a standing ovation as the Dems treat their 'inhouse criminals', a la Jim Wright (or post impeachment Clinton on the White House lawn), let's talk.
Michael Kinsley chastised Republicans for not giving Cunningham a smackdown months ago based on, hold your hat, newspaper reports. The Dems don't need a jury of peers, an admission of guilt or even an indictment if the accused is Republican. If the accused is a Democrat facts can be ignored as clearly the accused is targeted by an overzealous prosecuter.
"I know Saddam did not attack us, but he supported those who did."
Once again, no, he did not. He may have supported them in the manner that I support the Atlanta Falcons -- cheering, from afar -- but not in any other way. It is amazing that these myths become embedded into the American consciousness as truth simply because they're either easy to believe and/or people want to believe them AND because a certain president WANTED us to believe them.
"He [Saddam] has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001."
A distinguished member of Congress
believed Saddam was 'involved' to the extent cited above. She said so in a speech on the Senate floor October 10, 2002. Hillary Clinton was that senator.
See her Web site: http://clinton.senate.gov/~clinton/speeches/
iraq_101002.html
Carol, I enjoy reading your posts on your blog but I wish you would not permit anonymous comments. It's your blog, but I have to let you know that the vile filth that gets posted by some of your anonymous commenters (not on this particular post but on many past ones) makes me cringe just before I click the link to read the comments. Anonymity seems to promote irresponsibility in commenters, which is why I do not permit anonymous comments on either of the blogs I moderate. Requiring commenters to use Blogger IDs might promote responsible, refining exchanges of ideas and opinions. Just a thought.
Carol opined, " Time and time again, Democrats and the MSM have tried to accuse the Bush Administration of perpetrating a falsehood -- that there was evidence Saddam was connected to 9/11. Presumably, the outrage sprang from the fact that polls indicated the American people believed such a link existed."
Carol, it's just my opinion, but I think the outrage sprang from members of the Bush Administration perpetuating the falsehood that Saddam was connected to 9/11. Take for example, the following direct quote from the 9/14/2003 edition of Meet the Press...
"If we’re successful in Iraq, … we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11."
The person speaking here was Dick Cheney. According to the Vice President--the second ranking member of the Bush Administration--Iraq was the base of the 9/11 terrorists.
Carol plays the false equivalence game by concluding, "How 'bout that little misperception? Selective outrage, indeed."
I'm sorry, Carol, but you are talking gibberish here. Members of the Bush Administration, chief among them Vice President Dick Cheney, claimed that Saddam Hussein was linked to the 9/11 terrorists (see my post above). The American public believed him. Currently a substantial portion of the American public also believes we are in a recession.
How is any of this linked to the Democrats? Can you find one Democrat of national stature that has claimed we are currently in a recession or that we were in a recession in 2004? No, of course not, because it never happened.
From the same article:
"Mr Bush did however repeat his belief that the former Iraqi president had ties to al-Qaeda - the group widely regarded as responsible for the attacks on New York and Washington."
That is the lie. Well...one of the lies. This President went into Iraq for his own purposes and he mislead the American people in the process. There is no denying it. There are simply too many things that turned out to be wrong.
He could have come out and said that Iraq was shooting at our planes every day, and that that is unacceptable. I would have accepted that (Granted, that probably would not have been sufficient for most Democrats or most Americans--hence the lie). Instead, he or his yes-men fabricated an elaborate lie in order to sell the war, avenge the Boy King's father, and save a couple of cents on oil.
As a dedicated and peaceful Christian, I am embarassed at the way that our President has bastardized our world image, made our entire country appear immoral and faithless, and killed thousands of innocent Iraqis in the process.
Sen. Kennedy, a Democrat of 'national stature,' in a speech given 04/05/2004 at the Brookings Institution, said, "We lost 1.9 million jobs..." in 2002 and "...300,000 jobs..." in 2003. He did not use the word "recession," but the Business Cycle Dating Committee at the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) determines the amount of business activity in the economy by looking at things like employment, industrial production, real income and wholesale-retail sales. They define a recession as the time when business activity has reached its peak and starts to fall until the time when business activity bottoms out. So, Sen Kennedy was, in effect, describing a "recession." He failed to mention, however, that 1 million of those jobs were lost right after 9/11.
Rep. Richard Gebhardt, a Democrat of 'national stature,' on January 14, 2004, during a speech in Nevada, Iowa, said, "Today we face an even greater challenge. In the depths of recession [emphasis mine] and war, this administration has offered the American people no reason for hope."
Those are but two Democrats I was able to find info on in 30 minutes with a slow, dial-up ISP.
Given that CNN, ABC, SeeBS and NBC are now arms of the DNC, their almost daily bashing of the economy ought to be included.
But these examples are enough to show some Democrats were, indeed, barking "recession" or "recession stats" in 2004.
Sam, since the citation from Sen. Hillary Clinton (see above) said Saddam had provided, "...aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members...", I guess you'd have to admit she was lying, too, right?
First, given the Gephardt quote, I stand corrected, and I apologize for being wrong. Dick Gephardt lied to the American people. This is unacceptable behavior from a person holding a public trust (as all elected officials do).
There, I've made my mea culpa. Now, where is the condemnation of the right on the much more egregious lies of Dick Cheney that helped push us into the administration's war of choice? I don't hear them. Instead I read Carol's (using a single example) continuing claims that the Bush administration never did or said any such thing. When presented with direct evidence to the contrary, did she apologize to her readership for not being factually accurate? Not that I've seen.
How about you, Bachbone? Are you going to call Dick Cheney to account? Are you even going to acknowledge that the Bush administration lied on this matter?
As far as the Kennedy example goes, did Ted Kennedy speak the truth or not? Yes, he spoke the truth. Did Ted Kennedy claim the United States was in a recession? No he did not.
If you want to play this game, how many examples do you think I could dig up where President Bush used the word "Iraq" or "Saddam" within a sentence or so of the words "9/11" in speeches; implying a link while not actually claiming one? Funny, I never heard you complain about that either, Bachbone.
With respect to your media comments--boo hoo, cry me a river. Dick Cheney lied to the American people, and noone from the media called him on it. Just like you, Carol, and the overwhelming majority of wingnuts, the media never called Dick Cheney to account for his spew of documented lies and innaccuracies. Calling the prostitutes that make up corporate media in America a branch of the DNC is laughable.
"If you could just get out of lock-step with the left and use a bit of logic, you might come up with some truth in your bashings."
Liberals aren't logic-minded. That's why there's a cliche here in Minnesota that says "Liberals don't link." They don't use logic, therefore they don't put 2 and 2 together to get 4. Therefore they can't make logical conclusions.
Make sense???
Pew Research Center report of 10/15/2000: "... members of the news media let their own political preferences influence the way they report the news[.]” 57% of those polled said "often," 32% said "sometimes," 8% said "seldom," 1% said "never." 47% believed reporters wanted Gore to win; 23% believed reporters wanted Bush to win.
Gallup poll of 10/22-24/2004: 35% of those polled said media coverage was biased in favor of Kerry; 16% said in favor of Bush.
Election day poll by Fabrizio, McLaughlin & Associates in 12 states: 32% said media coverage was biased in favor of Kerry; 14% said in favor of Bush.
During June and July 2004 (report published April 2005), the Missouri School of Journalism polled adults about the press. 85% believed there was bias in reporting; 48% believed it to be liberal bias; 30% believed it to be conservative bias; 12% "both;" 3% "other."
January 28, 2004, by John Stossel of ABC's 20/20: "Where I work at ABC, people say ‘conservative’ the way people say ‘child molester.'"
November 7, 2004, by Andy Rooney on 60 Minutes: "I know a lot of you believe that most people in the news business are liberal. Let me tell you, I know a lot of them, and they were almost evenly divided this time. Half of them liked Senator Kerry; the other half hated President Bush."
January 13, 2005 in the Los Angeles Times by former CBS News President Van Gordon Sauter: "Personally, I have a great affection for CBS News....But I stopped watching it some time ago. The unremitting liberal orientation finally became too much for me. I still check in, but less and less frequently. I increasingly drift to NBC News and Fox and MSNBC.”
January 10, 2005 by former CBS Exec. Producer Don Hewitt (as reported by Chris Matthews of MSNBC: "Does anybody really think there wouldn’t have been more scrutiny if this [CBS’s bogus 60 Minutes National Guard story] had been about John Kerry?"
January 11, 2005, by Howard Fineman of Newsweek: "The notion of a neutral, non-partisan mainstream press was, to me at least, worth holding onto. Now it’s pretty much dead, at least as the public sees things. The seeds of its demise were sown with the best of intentions in the late 1960s, when the AMMP [American Mainstream Media Party] was founded in good measure (and ironically enough) by CBS. Old folks may remember the moment: Walter Cronkite stepped from behind the podium of presumed objectivity to become an outright foe of the war in Vietnam. Later, he and CBS’s star White House reporter, Dan Rather, went to painstaking lengths to make Watergate understandable to viewers, which helped seal Richard Nixon’s fate as the first President to resign. The crusades of Vietnam and Watergate seemed like a good idea at the time, even a noble one, not only to the press but perhaps to a majority of Americans. The problem was that, once the AMMP declared its existence by taking sides, there was no going back. A party was born."
Again, just a few examples found in a few minutes on a dial-up ISP.
The general public and even journalists themselves, believe CNN, ABC, SeeBS, NBC, PBS and CPR are at the very least left-leaning.
Apologies to Carol for using up her bandwidth.
Bachbone, I read and reread your latest missive, and I can't seem to find the place where you denounce Dick Cheney for falsely linking Saddam Hussein and the attacks of 9/11. I wonder why that is...
Post a Comment
<< Home