Clinton Plays with the Media to bolster her image
Last week, you may recall the blistering criticism Senator Clinton issued to Sec Def Rumsfeld. Later that day, she used the opportunity to ‘call’ for his resignation. Whatever, it was clearly a political stunt to bolster her position with the party as one who does not support the war on terror that is being fought in Iraq.
RobertNovak
"Clinton's performance was more a campaign tactic than a Senate hearing procedure, trying to immunize her from anti-Iraq voter rage aimed at Sen. Joseph Lieberman. Clinton planned the confrontation, picking and editing Rumsfeld quotations to upgrade her anti-war credentials... "
MediaMatters
"Summary: Several news outlets portrayed Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's harsh criticism of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld as a purely political maneuver to "find the exact middle" in the Democratic Party or to position herself for a potential 2008 presidential run."
Jed Babbin, who is an excellent thinker and source of information outlined this in his article on real clear politcs today:
August 10, 2006
The Contrived News Story
By Jed Babbin
Excerpt:
...Defense Secretary Rumsfeld was scheduled to testify on Iraq in a closed Senate hearing on Thursday afternoon. But closed sessions don't produce television sound bites. Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner was somehow importuned into holding a morning hearing and asking Rumsfeld to testify at that one, too.
Rumsfeld declined and, at his Wednesday press conference, he was hit with planted questions asked by Reuters and CNN, about why he was refusing his obligation to testify. He answered that he'd considered testifying but thought one session that day would be enough. Then came the contrivance. The Associated Press quickly published a story by Lolita Baldor and Devlin Barrett titled, "Rumsfeld Snub of War Hearing Draws Fire," in which the first sentence said that Rumsfeld, "...essentially said he was too busy to testify at a public hearing....raising a new furor on Capitol Hill over the three-year-old conflict." But the "furor" was only in the minds of the AP reporters and editors. Rumsfeld never said he was too busy to bother with the Senate. The story quoted only Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy.
Then came the hearing with Sen. Clinton reading a long, strident statement to Rumsfeld, and his reply that shot down Clinton's arguments seriatim. Rumsfeld had answered so well that Clinton left the room deflated. But AP reported it as Rumsfeld retreating, unable to answer Clinton's onslaught.
That story, "Sen. Clinton rips Rumsfeld over Iraq decisions," was another exercise in spin, not reporting. Devlin Barrett - one of the reporters who'd written the first story - wrote this one like a Hillary campaign commercial. "The showdown between Clinton, a potential candidate in 2008, and Rumsfeld, the public face of the Bush administration's war effort, included the strongest criticism of the Iraq war she has made to date...The defense secretary seemed briefly stunned by the intensity of her attack..." Count the freighted words in those two stories: furor, showdown, stunned. None of them were true. None of this would have gotten past an assistant city editor twenty years ago. I called the AP editors - night editor Robert Glass and later bureau chief Sandra Johnson - for interviews on talk radio and for print, but Glass shuffled me off to another editor (Alan Fram) and neither Fram nor Johnson responded to my messages.
These people - supposedly in the truth business - are part of Team Clinton.
Read Jed's entire article Here.
As I have said before, being prior military influences what I say and how I talk about the leadership of this Country. I choose not to criticize the administration that is leading our Country for this simple fact: “a house divided against its self cannot stand”. I fully understand decisions of great importance are made on a daily basis, some of which are wrong. That is unfortunate because in many circumstances good men and women die. However, everyone knows hind sight is 20/20, and anyone can be an "arm chair quarterback". Hopefully, the leadership learns from their mistakes, and adapts to and overcomes the enemy.
I personally believe President Bush and his administration are doing the best jobs they can under the circumstances. I fully believe Senators Clinton, Kerry or any other talking head would most certainly flounder and fail as the leader of this nation. I also support Secretary Rumsfeld. It is clear that he too, has made errors, but I believe he is doing far more good than bad, and his errors are not malicious or intentional. It is one thing to dodge the fiery darts of the enemy, but when your friends and allies start shooting at you from behind as you are leading your country into battle, it is hard to stay focused on the enemy.
With that being said, I do not believe President Bush is God, but I do believe he is where he is for such a time as this. And though I do not agree with all of his policies, I will choose to stand and fight for him and for my Country during this time of war. I will also continue to support our troops and their efforts to defeat the enemies of our country.
RobertNovak
"Clinton's performance was more a campaign tactic than a Senate hearing procedure, trying to immunize her from anti-Iraq voter rage aimed at Sen. Joseph Lieberman. Clinton planned the confrontation, picking and editing Rumsfeld quotations to upgrade her anti-war credentials... "
MediaMatters
"Summary: Several news outlets portrayed Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's harsh criticism of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld as a purely political maneuver to "find the exact middle" in the Democratic Party or to position herself for a potential 2008 presidential run."
Jed Babbin, who is an excellent thinker and source of information outlined this in his article on real clear politcs today:
August 10, 2006
The Contrived News Story
By Jed Babbin
Excerpt:
...Defense Secretary Rumsfeld was scheduled to testify on Iraq in a closed Senate hearing on Thursday afternoon. But closed sessions don't produce television sound bites. Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner was somehow importuned into holding a morning hearing and asking Rumsfeld to testify at that one, too.
Rumsfeld declined and, at his Wednesday press conference, he was hit with planted questions asked by Reuters and CNN, about why he was refusing his obligation to testify. He answered that he'd considered testifying but thought one session that day would be enough. Then came the contrivance. The Associated Press quickly published a story by Lolita Baldor and Devlin Barrett titled, "Rumsfeld Snub of War Hearing Draws Fire," in which the first sentence said that Rumsfeld, "...essentially said he was too busy to testify at a public hearing....raising a new furor on Capitol Hill over the three-year-old conflict." But the "furor" was only in the minds of the AP reporters and editors. Rumsfeld never said he was too busy to bother with the Senate. The story quoted only Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy.
Then came the hearing with Sen. Clinton reading a long, strident statement to Rumsfeld, and his reply that shot down Clinton's arguments seriatim. Rumsfeld had answered so well that Clinton left the room deflated. But AP reported it as Rumsfeld retreating, unable to answer Clinton's onslaught.
That story, "Sen. Clinton rips Rumsfeld over Iraq decisions," was another exercise in spin, not reporting. Devlin Barrett - one of the reporters who'd written the first story - wrote this one like a Hillary campaign commercial. "The showdown between Clinton, a potential candidate in 2008, and Rumsfeld, the public face of the Bush administration's war effort, included the strongest criticism of the Iraq war she has made to date...The defense secretary seemed briefly stunned by the intensity of her attack..." Count the freighted words in those two stories: furor, showdown, stunned. None of them were true. None of this would have gotten past an assistant city editor twenty years ago. I called the AP editors - night editor Robert Glass and later bureau chief Sandra Johnson - for interviews on talk radio and for print, but Glass shuffled me off to another editor (Alan Fram) and neither Fram nor Johnson responded to my messages.
These people - supposedly in the truth business - are part of Team Clinton.
Read Jed's entire article Here.
As I have said before, being prior military influences what I say and how I talk about the leadership of this Country. I choose not to criticize the administration that is leading our Country for this simple fact: “a house divided against its self cannot stand”. I fully understand decisions of great importance are made on a daily basis, some of which are wrong. That is unfortunate because in many circumstances good men and women die. However, everyone knows hind sight is 20/20, and anyone can be an "arm chair quarterback". Hopefully, the leadership learns from their mistakes, and adapts to and overcomes the enemy.
I personally believe President Bush and his administration are doing the best jobs they can under the circumstances. I fully believe Senators Clinton, Kerry or any other talking head would most certainly flounder and fail as the leader of this nation. I also support Secretary Rumsfeld. It is clear that he too, has made errors, but I believe he is doing far more good than bad, and his errors are not malicious or intentional. It is one thing to dodge the fiery darts of the enemy, but when your friends and allies start shooting at you from behind as you are leading your country into battle, it is hard to stay focused on the enemy.
With that being said, I do not believe President Bush is God, but I do believe he is where he is for such a time as this. And though I do not agree with all of his policies, I will choose to stand and fight for him and for my Country during this time of war. I will also continue to support our troops and their efforts to defeat the enemies of our country.
posted by Gary | 7:47 PM
<< Home