Sunday, June 01, 2008

They Think We Are Stupid

The media, that is. Part of Scotty McClellan's new book that is creating such a firestorm is his claim that the stenographic nature of todays media is partially responsible for the disaster that is named Iraq.

In a resounding harumph, our media elites respond by giving face time with an endless parade of critics turning Scotty into a pinata.

This is their chickenshit way of avoiding culpability for the death and destruction resulting from being mere publishers of Pentagon/Bush blast fax publishers. Two primary deniers of a meek and compliant press corps are Charlie Gibson and David Gregory.

Both use some version of SEP-- Somebody else's problem, or, not my job. Brian Williams tries to split the baby by claiming it was a cultural thing, in the aftermath of 9/11.

Here is Charlie Gibson:
I think the questions were asked. I respectfully disagree with the gentle lady from the Columbia Broadcasting System [group giggles]. I think the questions were asked. . . . I can remember getting in trouble with administration officials for asking questions they didn't feel comfortable with.

It was just a drumbeat of support from the administration. And it is not our job to debate them; it's our job to ask the questions.

Indeed. If my interpretation of my job as a truck driver were so narrowly defined, it would be possible for more American deaths and mutilations to happen. Sorry for that analogy, Charlie, but I could not resist. People sometimes do not use turn signals, but I do not smugly squash entire families because "mind reader" is not in my job description.

So what kind of jaw-cracking questions did Charlie ask? via Glenn Greenwald:

On February 6, 2003 -- the day of Powell's speech -- Gibson had on as guests former CIA Director James Woolsey and Terence Taylor of the International Institute For Strategic Studies to analyze Powell's claims. Here are some of the super-tough, skeptical questions Gibson asked:

* Terence Taylor, let me start with you. Specifically, of all the biological and chemical weapons that he outlined, and the means of delivery, what's the most frightening? Should be the most frightening?

* Question number two that was in my mind. James Woolsey, he showed intercepts, he showed photo intelligence. He talked about human resources that we had. How much intelligence was compromised?

* On a scale of one to 10, one being the most sanitized of intelligence information and 10 being laying out all our intelligence ammunition, where was he yesterday on the scale?

* Terence Taylor, as I look at some of the pictures that we were talking about just a moment ago with James Woolsey, the pictures dramatic in that they show Iraqi trucks pulling away from sites virtually as the, as the inspectors trucks are pulling up. How compromised are the inspectors there? Are they totally infiltrated by Iraqi intelligence?

Here's how the segment ended:

James Woolsey, the Iraqis immediately challenged a lot of what was shown, said it was altered, said it was doctored. The international community -- do they know that stuff was genuine?


Oh, anybody who is objective about this I think does. The people who now doubt whether or not Saddam really has WMD programs, chemical and bacteriological, in particular, are really of two types, either they work for Saddam or they're doing a human imitation of an ostrich. There really are, I think, no other possibilities.


James Woolsey, former CIA Director, Terence Taylor, former weapons inspector, I thank you both.

Other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play? According to Charlie Gibson, who digs in his heels and bristles at the idea of a codling lapdog press corps, these are the type of hard hitting questions that shine the light of truth on Governmental policy for the American public. Placing two Administration tool talking point pez dispensers on his show and asking if Americans should be more terrified of cooties or the sooper sekrit intell that cooties are stockpiled in Iraq.

David Gregory says the right questions were asked:

Not only that, but he completely rebukes any culpability by blaming everyone else, even going so far as blaming Bill Clinton, the apparent shield of choice for anything that goes wrong these days.

These guys would be funny if they were not so pathetic. They work in the field of mass communications, but it is as if they are completely unaware that there are recording devices. Here is an example of David Gregory asking the right questions before the war in Iraq.

Q Mr. President, good evening. If you order war, can any military operation be considered a success if the United States does not capture Saddam Hussein, as you once said, dead or alive?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I hope we don’t have to go to war, but if we go to war, we will disarm Iraq. And if we go to war, there will be a regime change. And replacing this cancer inside of Iraq will be a government that represents the rights of all the people, a government which represents the voices of the Shia and Sunni and the Kurds.

We care about the suffering of the Iraqi people. I mentioned in my opening comments that there’s a lot of food ready to go in. There’s something like 55,000 oil-for-food distribution points in Iraq. We know where they are. We fully intend to make sure that they’re — got ample food. We know where their hospitals are; we want to make sure they’ve got ample medical supplies. The life of the Iraqi citizen is going to dramatically improve.

Q Sir, I’m sorry, is success contingent upon capturing or killing Saddam Hussein, in your mind?

THE PRESIDENT: We will be changing the regime of Iraq, for the good of the Iraqi people.

Easy there Dave, try not to be so disagreeable with Bush. Not to worry though, if the Democrats retake the White House, you can bet we will once again have a confrontational and cynical press corps, dutifully rifling through the panty drawers and high school signature pages no matter what the approval rating is. I just don't know how to fix this.

No comments: