SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Impeach George W. Bush -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Bill who wrote (54148)2/17/2006 6:25:20 PM
From: bentway  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 93284
 
No LINK? dumbass? No link means YOU LIE! Show us McCarthy's list of names... He said he had a list.. Show us the list dumbo.



To: Bill who wrote (54148)2/17/2006 7:10:53 PM
From: Land Shark  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 93284
 
McCarthy was your hero... figures. I guess you yearn for the days of McCarthy again... Irritants like Michael Moore, Al Gore, Soros, Martin Sheen, Jane Fonda, etc., etc., could all be accused of being commies and be locked away for good and better yet tortured... Wouldn't that be nice? Eh? Stalin did that too. I suggest you admire him too, along with Hitler, Pol Pot, Mau etc., etc..



To: Bill who wrote (54148)2/18/2006 11:27:58 AM
From: paret  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 93284
 
Vince Foster and Dick Cheney
The American Thinker ^ | 17 February 2006 | Christopher J. Alleva

Some observers have compared the White House’s handling of Dick Cheney’s accident to Vince Foster’s suspicious death in the summer of 1993. This comparison has been drawn mostly on the basis of delays in disclosure in both cases.

We know now the Clinton White House actively withheld information on this regrettable incident from the press, starting with the initial delay while they apparently worked on a major cover up. Numerous problems with the investigation ensued and serious misconduct was later exposed. White House Chief Counsel Bernard Nussbaum was eventually rebuked for mishandling this matter.

To test this comparison I researched reporting done on the Foster death by the Washington Post. I sampled stories from the date of the first report July 21, to August 8, 1993. This sampling method loosely approximates the current five day chronology of the Cheney story. My research reveals a collection of stories written with a very perceptible bias.

Ruth Marcus broke the story from the original White House press release. The next day, July 22, 1993, Lloyd Grove wrote the lamentation “Striking at the Heart of the White House” Grove introduced the piece with what can only be called appropriate sentiments such as:

“The atmosphere at the White House was one of great sadness, disbelief, anger and tragedy the morning after Deputy White House Counsel Vincent Foster Jr, one of the Clinton’s closest friends…”

This is wholly unremarkable viewed through the prism of 1993. Looked at through the lens of the Cheney story it exemplifies Post’s abandonment of basic fairness and compassion.

Ruth Marcus followed the same day with a fawning eulogy headlined” “One of the Golden Boys… Clinton’s Rock of Gibraltar.” Again Marcus wrote a perfectly sensible story reflecting the natural human emotions arising from a tragedy like this:

“White House colleagues were unanimous in their view that Foster was the last person they would have expected to commit suicide”

Ann Devroy than adds the uncritical and sympathetic piece “Clintons Mystified…”

There’s nothing inherently wrong with this reporting and that’s the point. When reporting on their Democratic Party brothers in arms they are respectful and professional.

Now this Cheney incident comes along and they threw out any modicum of respect and restraint. Case in point, we have a national political reporter clownishly donning an orange hunting vest and sock cap on a cable news show, yucking it up with the ring master over the Vice President’s regrettable misfortune.

The above stories about the Foster death, in contrast, marked the beginning of a string of uncritical reporting for the ensuing several weeks.

David Von Drehle followed with more reporting on Foster’s death with Saturday and Sunday puff pieces like “friends left behind”, “Vince Foster faithful adviser”, “Arkansan’s reflect on the tremendous toll of life in the seat of power.” Von Drehle attended the funeral and filed a perfectly serviceable story. He captured what no doubt was a day full of sorrow and remembrance. Naturally, he couldn’t resist repeating the well-worn “boy from Hope” nonsense.

Consummate Washington insider Meg Greenfield weighed in with her own lamentation simply titled: “A death in Washington” This report consisted of nostalgic impressions and quotes from her encounters with politicians and journalist at an exclusive dinner party. It all feels too cozy for comfort. Readers are cast on the outside, looking in on the rarefied world of Washington.

Fully seven days passed before there was a story on the nuts and bolts of the investigation.

Michael Isikoff uncritically reported the crack homicide detectives from the Park Police were leading. One day later Isikoff joined Devroy in revealing selected details apparently disclosed as part of the investigation.

Two weeks after Foster’s death Walter Pincus churned out a story that sticks right to the “company line” with: “Vincent Foster: Out of his Element.” Finally, on August 8, the estimable late Mary McGrory penned a note perfect apologist’s essay snappily titled “The fog after Foster.”

The early reporting record of the Foster death shows very little skepticism, lots of sympathy and a pronounced inclination to accept whatever whoppers the White House laid out for the press corps.

Contrast this with coverage on the Cheney matter: question everything, believe nothing, always infer the most nefarious and evil explanations. Conjecture and speculation are the rule of the day. All this being done with the irrefutable knowledge that no one got killed, and no one doubts it is anything other than a regrettable garden-variety accident.

The February 13 story by Nedra Pickler “Cheney cited for Breaking Hunting Law” typifies the tone and substance of the coverage printed by thePost. It was a $7.00 fine for not having the stamp endorsement on his valid hunting license. This violation is one step removed below a jaywalking citation. February 15, the Post picked up an AP byline from Erin McClam “Vice Presidents Share Curious Lineage.” This fairly interesting story provides historical context – which is fine. The subtext is somewhat more sinister. Peppered with quotes like the one from John Nance Garner, FDR’s two term veep who once characterized the VP’s job as “not worth a bucket of warm spit” its easy to see where this is headed. Let’s cut the Post a little slack now.

I must thank Howie Kurtz, the Post’s usually even handed media critic for his unwitting assistance in proving my point. Save and except for the inapt comparison to the WMD story, the piece Kurtz wrote headlined “Gunning for Cheney” lays out clear and convincing evidence in excruciating detail of the withering attacks being leveled at Cheney by the media. As to be expected, Kurtz refrains from ascribing any motives for this conduct. I must say his zeal for objectivity takes a lot of zip out his arguments. Perhaps they can hire Meg Greenfield back for a cameo appearance. They can send her to some dinner party this weekend. Undoubtedly, the party will be teeming with journalists with nothing but sweet things to say about Dick Cheney.

Eventually the questions about Foster’s death were too numerous to ignore. The seemingly interminable investigations into Foster’s death never concluded anything. Thirteen years later, lingering doubts and nagging questions remain. This is in no small part a result of the press abdicating their responsibility. Unbelievably, more than a decade after Foster’s death Charles Lane wrote:

“Court Bars Release Of Foster Photos; Family’s Right To Privacy Prevails (2004)”

Strangely, the incurious Washington Post never lifted a finger to advocate for the public’s right to know in this case. Lane in fact disparages the overly insistent “right wingers” that peskily persisted in pursuit of the truth. The Post shows an unhealthy contempt for the truth especially if it is at odds with establishment orthodoxy-that is the Democrat Establishment.

While the Cheney story has not run its course, in all probability this will turn out to be much ado about nothing adding yet another chapter to the Post’s journalistic legacy-such as it is. The comparison with the handling of Foster’s death shows in stark relief what is meant by “media bias.”



To: Bill who wrote (54148)2/18/2006 11:32:10 AM
From: paret  Respond to of 93284
 
Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton: Who's On First?
Chronwatch.com ^ | 2/18/ 2006 | Gabriel Garnica

It seems that Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, the Abbott and Costello of The Civil Rights Movement, are upset and indignant that President Bush has dared to praise Coretta Scott King. This divisive duo never waste an opportunity to take possession of the civil rights cause as if they were its watch keepers and foot soldiers.

The words “we,” “us,” and “our” are always sprinkled generously when these two race peddlers, problem profiteers, and blatant hypocrites spout their civil rights rhetoric like Pied Pipers hypnotizing blacks and shaking down whites all the way to the bank.

The notion, however, that these two raging reverends care about anything other than gaining more power, influence, and money is more laughable than any routine Abbot and Costello could have ever conjured.

Dubious Achievements

Jesse Jackson began by exploiting the assassination of Martin Luther King for political gain and has been working his way down the moral ladder ever since. Jackson’s brand of civil rights reparation involves shaking down corporations like Texaco, Coca-Cola, 7 Eleven, Shoney’s, Coors, Viacom, Clear Channel Communications, Am Fm Inc. and others with absurd discrimination lawsuit threats and manipulated settlements that most likely never reach anyone too far from his inner circle, lavishing such things as money, stock deals, and business opportunities their way.

Both Jackson and Sharpton have fanned the flames of racial protest and violence in their relentless quest for power, influence, and money. From Sharpton’s despicable involvement in the Tawana Brawley hoax in 1987 to the Crown Heights violence in 1991 to violence leading to the deaths of innocent jewelry workers in 1995, to Jackson’s frequent support of murderers and criminals like Gary Graham, these two race hucksters have never met a race riot they did not like.

The Reverend Jesse Lee Peterson has called Jackson “David Duke in black skin” and Kenneth Timmerman has accused him of having no qualms about poisoning American race relations for personal gain, wondering how Jackson’s reported $ 1 a year salary garners limousines, lavish homes, sweetheart stock deals, large bank accounts, first class travel, and the best schools for his kids. Gerard Jackson has called Jackson a “race-baiting hypocrite” and Mychal Massie is still looking for someone who can “Name 10 things Jesse Jackson has done to tangibly help the black people he claims to represent.” Sharpton is not far behind in the garnering the accolades of observers and fellow African-American leaders. Jeff Jacobs has called Sharpton a “vicious liar and a dangerous bigot.” Others have called him a” racial hustler.”

As if betraying the black community they pretend to represent and spurring racial unrest for personal gain were not enough, these two have also demonstrated a pattern of siding with questionable people. Jackson, a so-called Christian minister, has called Fidel Castro “the most honest, courageous politician I ever met” despite the fact that Castro has murdered thousands of Cuban Christians. He has also heaped praise on Yasser Arafat, calling him “urbane,” “reasonable” and having an “absolute commitment to justice.” Sharpton’s involvement with the mob and other dubious associations only add fuel to the sleaze surrounding these two so-called religious leaders. The cherry on this hypocrisy cake came when legendary womanizer and unfaithful husband Jesse Jackson declared “a week of moral outrage” over the inauguration of Bush and then revealed that he had a child out of wedlock by a former aide. Abbott and Costello never made me laugh like the time I saw Jackson counseling Clinton over the Lewinsky scandal!

Simple Logic

It is commonly accepted that Democrats are terrified of losing any part of the black vote that they have long assumed is in their pocket. Threatened by such successful luminaries as Condi Rice, Lynn Swan, Ken Blackwell and Michael Steele, liberals have sent their African-American soldiers like Jackson and Sharpton out to disable and distort these blacks who dare to counter the traditional liberal line. Liberals and especially liberal blacks perpetuate the lie that the Democratic Party has always spearheaded civil rights when everything from Lincoln to Republican efforts in passing The Civil Rights Act of 1964 has shown otherwise. Bill Clinton is considered “The First Black President” even though there were no major civil rights initiatives during his term and let us not forget that Southern Democrats were the ones who led a failed filibuster effort to stop The Civil Rights Act of 1964. Hillary’s recent idiotic plantation comments and remarks by other liberal black leaders comparing the GOP to the Nazis or Confederates further demonstrate this designed defamation of Republican race efforts and desperate distortion of truth.

Democrats want to keep blacks “angry and afraid” in order to perpetuate this victimization model that allows them to pose as racial saviors against supposedly bigoted Republicans. Sharpton and Jackson, whose entire social relevance is tied to racial discord, want racial unity and black progress like oil companies want solar powered cars. Simply put, these two racists and problem profiteers betray the black community every time they open their mouths.

The liberal MSM, of course, paints these two as “civil rights and social justice leaders” because having them around benefits the liberal cause. If the MSM revealed the truth about these two racial clowns, liberals would lose black votes and be destined to see The White House as tourists until kingdom come.

Conclusion

History is lined with examples of individuals who betray precisely those they pretend to be fighting for merely for personal gain. Such people often yell and protest the loudest even as they themselves backstab their audience with despicable and selfish motives. Like many black liberals, Sharpton and Jackson use civil rights concerns as a tool of self-benefit. They support liberal policies such as on-demand abortion, feminism and government policies that further destroy the black community and attack conservative efforts that would actually help that community. In the words of David Usher, “Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are the most indignant promoters of policies that break up the black family, leading a pack of organizations married to the welfare state, thus keeping blacks in the chaotic underclass they complain about.” Jesse Jackson has called himself “the conscience of the Democratic Party.” I can think of no better condemnation of both that party and these two con men. While Sharpton and Jackson race to the mike to see who’s on first at the next race riot, press conference, or so-called prayer service, there is no doubt that the ones who will always be last will be those confused members of the black community that blindly swallow their lies.

About the Writer: Gabriel Garnica, Esq., is an educator, licensed attorney, and resident of Long Island, New York.