Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dale Baker who wrote (28090)	9/6/2006 1:54:03 PM
From: Dale Baker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 543632

From Dan Froomkin in the Washington Post today: About This Series This is Bush's third public relations offensive in less than a year to try to rally support for the war. Here's the text of Bush's American Legion speech on Thursday; here's the short version, from his Saturday radio address . Anne E. Kornblut and Sheryl Gay Stolberg wrote in the New York Times: "President Bush said Thursday that withdrawing now from Iraq would leave Americans at risk of terrorist attacks 'in the streets of our own cities,' and he cast the struggle against Islamic extremists as the costly but necessary successor to the battles of the last century against Nazism and Communism. . . . "The speech, the first of five addresses on national security Mr. Bush plans to deliver between now and Sept. 19, was part of an orchestrated White House offensive to buttress public support for the Iraq war and portray Democrats as less capable of protecting the country, a theme that has proved effective for Republicans in the past two elections. . . . "Yet even some Republicans, granted anonymity to speak freely about their criticism of the White House strategy, were skeptical, saying the public was tired not only of the war but also of politically divisive speeches on national security. "'The hard-core conservatives are already behind his Iraq policy,' said a senior Republican Senate aide. 'For him to move the numbers in a way that benefits Congressional Republicans, he needs to reach out to moderates, and it's difficult to do that when his surrogates are contradicting him and calling opponents of his policy appeasers.'" Kornblut and Stolberg did a rare bit of fact checking: "In making the case that the war in Iraq is 'the central front in our fight against terrorism,' the president linked Iraq, the summer battles between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon and the growing nuclear threat in Iran under the general rubric of his freedom agenda. "At the same time, he placed various factions of terrorists -- Sunnis who swear allegiance to Al Qaeda, Shiite radicals who join groups like Hezbollah and so-called homegrown terrorists -- under one umbrella. "Experts said that might be overstating the facts." Peter Baker and Jim VandeHei wrote in The Washington Post on Thursday: "President Bush and his surrogates are launching a new campaign intended to rebuild support for the war in Iraq by accusing the opposition of aiming to appease terrorists and cut off funding for troops on the battlefield. . . . "Bush suggested last week that Democrats are promising voters to block additional money for continuing the war. Vice President Cheney this week said critics 'claim retreat from Iraq would satisfy the appetite of the terrorists and get them to leave us alone.' And Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, citing passivity toward Nazi Germany before World War II, said that 'many have still not learned history's lessons' and 'believe that somehow vicious extremists can be appeased.' "Pressed to support these allegations, the White House yesterday could cite no major Democrat who has proposed cutting off funds or suggested that withdrawing from Iraq would persuade terrorists to leave Americans alone. But White House and Republican officials said those are logical interpretations of the most common Democratic position favoring a timetable for withdrawing troops from Iraq."

To: Dale Baker who wrote (28090)	9/6/2006 3:02:16 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 543632

My own take, fwiw, is that sometime after Nixon, journalists quit holding politicians responsible for the "truth" content of their statements. They moved, slowly, to what we see today, which is politician x says so and so and then here are three other opinions, take your pick. And I should hasten to add I'm thinking of facticity issues; not political philosophy. I noticed it, first when Reagan would make those outlandish statements which everyone knew were false (the welfare queen comes to mind as I type) and journalists just let them ride. But I think it began earlier. Once journalists dropped that role, politicians just said some version of spin wins, no one is going to hold us accountable. At least routinely. There will still be those non routine moments but they are so rare that the pols just skate on by saying whatever they wish. For most of the electorate, I see them as too busy living their lives to devote the kind of time necessary to sort truth from fiction. And so it's, unfortunately, the best spinner. Thus, I don't see the politicians or the public any dumber; just a media which no longer does minimal "truthiness" gatekeeping.