NBC News, of course, knows all about staging events

[Cal]

All the news is a stage
By Michelle Malkin

Oct 19, 2005

Syndicated columnist


This is a monumental week in Iraq. On the heels of the country's historic constitutional referendum, the trial of Saddam Hussein for his role in the 1982 massacre of 140 men and boys in the Shiite town of Dujail begins. For the Iraqi families of the murdered, it is a day of reckoning they never thought they'd see.

You might think this would be a moment to give the victims and their families center stage. Think again.

The victims of Saddam are being overshadowed by media reports about terror-apologizing "human rights" activists decrying the "show trial." Meanwhile, journalists are complaining about courtroom security procedures. "I'm not even allowed to take a notebook and a pen with me into the court," CBS correspondent Lara Logan told "The Early Show." And Washington Post reporter Jackie Spinner is irked by accusations of bias. "When you're the media in Iraq, (American readers) don't believe what we're telling them," Spinner told the Decatur (Ill.) Herald and Review. "They think we are distorting the picture. We are not telling the truth. They think we're against the American soldiers."

Wherever did we get that idea? Let's revisit the mainstream media brouhaha last week over President Bush's question-and-answer session with some of our soldiers in Iraq. The Associated Press, NBC News correspondent Andrea Mitchell and others in the Bush-bashing press corps accused the White House and 10 soldiers from the Army's 42nd Infantry Division of "staging" the event. (This is the same hypocritical media that eagerly abetted the staging of anti-war agitator Cindy Sheehan's Endless Summer tour of discontent.) Vicious anti-war activists smeared the soldiers as "stooges."

Sergeant Ron Long, an Army combat medic, was one of the participants. He gave his side of the story (which the media has chosen to ignore, of course) on his personal blog (http://278medic.blogspot.com/). "I believe that it would have been totally irresponsible for us not to prepare some ideas, facts or comments that we wanted to share with the President," Long noted. He explained further:

We practiced passing the microphone around to one another, so we wouldn't choke someone on live TV. We had an idea as to who we thought should answer what types of questions, unless President Bush called on one of us specifically.

President Bush told us, during his closing, that the American people were behind us. I know that we are fighting here, not only to preserve our own freedoms, but to establish those same freedoms for the people of Iraq. It makes my stomach ache to think that we are helping to preserve free speech in the U.S., while the media uses that freedom to try to rip down the President and our morale, as U.S. Soldiers. They seem to be enjoying the fact that they are tearing the country apart. Worthless!

Sgt. Long is dead-on. The smearing of our troops, who were accused of helping stage the capture of Saddam and now stand accused of staging their support for President Bush's goals in Iraq, is especially galling to military family members who have watched the media shamelessly manipulate and fake the news with impunity for years.

Indeed, as NBC News was indulging in its Bush-deranged feeding frenzy over the "staged" talk with the troops, one of the network's crack reporters, Michelle Kosinski, was rowing a canoe in a few inches of water in New Jersey to create the illusion of dangerous flood conditions. The illusion was comically destroyed when two men walked in front of the camera with water barely reaching their ankles.

NBC News, of course, knows all about staging events (you remember those faked GM truck crash tests). The rest of the mainstream media know whereof they speak as well -- from Cokie Roberts' faked U.S. Capitol backdrop on ABC News to CBS's manufactured National Guard memos on "60 Minutes" to the bogus reports of Jayson Blair, Mike Barnicle, Janet Cooke, Diana Griego Erwin, Mitch Albom, Stephen Glass, Eric Slater and Jack Kelley.

As they spin the Saddam trial and deride our soldiers in Iraq, the lesson is clear: These media masters of theater are incapable of delivering real drama and good news unless they control the script.

Fortunately, you control the remote.


Find this story at: http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/michellemalkin/2005/10/19/171893.html

 

[Liberty Belle]

Thanks for posting this Cal.

Did you read this through dis? What say you?

I didn't see News Max mentioned as one of the discredited news sources, did you?

 

[Disagreeable]

Thanks for posting this Cal.

Did you read this through dis? What say you?

I didn't see News Max mentioned as one of the discredited news sources, did you?

Let's see now, you think it's OK for the White House to stage an event that will possibly result in the deaths of thousands more Americans and Iraqis? And it's oK because a reporter rowed around in knee deep water or they had a fake backdrop on a news report? Oh, yes, I can see the similarities. :roll:

You think it's OK for George W. Bush to use American soldiers as stage props to push his own agenda?

This is pure spin. This has nothing to do with US soldiers. It has to do with George W. Bush lying to the American people about Saddam's WMDs. Everyone in the world with a TV set got to see this fake teleconference. They now know what a dishonest group we have in the White House.

That's what I have to say about it.

 

[Liberty Belle]

Let's see now, you think it's OK for the White House to stage an event that will possibly result in the deaths of thousands more Americans and Iraqis? And it's oK because a reporter rowed around in knee deep water or they had a fake backdrop on a news report? Oh, yes, I can see the similarities.

You think it's OK for George W. Bush to use American soldiers as stage props to push his own agenda?

This is pure spin. This has nothing to do with US soldiers. It has to do with George W. Bush lying to the American people about Saddam's WMDs. Everyone in the world with a TV set got to see this fake teleconference. They now know what a dishonest group we have in the White House.

That's what I have to say about it.

Possibly result in the deaths of thousands? How do you figure that? Did you say spin???

So Bush used soldiers to push his agenda, huh? Expound on that off the wall comment will you?

How Saddam's WMDs get into this conversation? You refuse to talk about the liberals who told us there were WMDs. Read this through again slowly, and then let's have us a little visit about honesty:

If The Bush Administration Lied About WMD, So Did These People
by John Hawkins

Since we haven't found WMD in Iraq, a lot of the anti-war/anti-Bush crowd is saying that the Bush administration lied about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Well, if they're going to claim that the Bush administration lied, then there sure are a lot of other people, including quite a few prominent Democrats, who have told the same "lies" since the inspectors pulled out of Iraq in 1998. Here are just a few examples that prove that the Bush administration didn't lie about weapons of mass destruction...

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998

"This December will mark three years since United Nations inspectors last visited Iraq. There is no doubt that since that time, Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to refine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer- range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." -- From a December 6, 2001 letter signed by Bob Graham, Joe Lieberman, Harold Ford, & Tom Lantos among others

"Whereas Iraq has consistently breached its cease-fire agreement between Iraq and the United States, entered into on March 3, 1991, by failing to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction program, and refusing to permit monitoring and verification by United Nations inspections; Whereas Iraq has developed weapons of mass destruction, including chemical and biological capabilities, and has made positive progress toward developing nuclear weapons capabilities" -- From a joint resolution submitted by Tom Harkin and Arlen Specter on July 18, 2002
"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998
"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998

"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability." -- Robert Byrd, October 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He 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. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons...I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out." -- Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"I share the administration's goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction." -- Dick Gephardt in September of 2002
"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." -- Bob Graham, December 2002

"Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction." -- Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." -- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

"(W)e need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. ...And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm. So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War." -- John Kerry, Jan 23, 2003

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." -- Carl Levin, Sept 19, 2002

"Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States." -- Joe Lieberman, August, 2002

"Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. During 1991 - 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of nuclear facilities that Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate that Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise. Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons.U.N. inspectors have said that Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran, and later, against its own Kurdish population. While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction." -- Patty Murray, October 9, 2002

"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." -- Nancy Pelosi, December 16, 1998

"Even today, Iraq is not nearly disarmed. Based on highly credible intelligence, UNSCOM [the U.N. weapons inspectors] suspects that Iraq still has biological agents like anthrax, botulinum toxin, and clostridium perfringens in sufficient quantity to fill several dozen bombs and ballistic missile warheads, as well as the means to continue manufacturing these deadly agents. Iraq probably retains several tons of the highly toxic VX substance, as well as sarin nerve gas and mustard gas. This agent is stored in artillery shells, bombs, and ballistic missile warheads. And Iraq retains significant dual-use industrial infrastructure that can be used to rapidly reconstitute large-scale chemical weapons production." -- Ex-Un Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter in 1998

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq's enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Administration's policy towards Iraq, I don't think there can be any question about Saddam's conduct. He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts." -- Henry Waxman, Oct 10, 2002

 

[Faster horses]

Why am I not suprised to see a quick reply from Dis...

I think you've got her surrounded and...

she's calling in her troops.

 

[Liberty Belle]

I've been watching for those troops, but so far no one has shown up.... :lol2:

 

[Faster horses]

Do ya suppose she's feeling a little like Custer at the Little Big Horn about now? :shock:

 

[Disagreeable]

Do ya suppose she's feeling a little like Custer at the Little Big Horn about now? :shock:

 

[Disagreeable]

Ms Ding Dong said:

Possibly result in the deaths of thousands? How do you figure that? Did you say spin???

Americans are turning their back on Bush's war. Polls show the majority of us now say we need to get troops out of there. In having this rigged teleconference he was trying to bolster public support for the Iraqi war. Every day people die in Iraq. If it continues until he leaves office, thousands more people will be dead. That's not spin, that's the truth.

So Bush used soldiers to push his agenda, huh? Expound on that off the wall comment will you?

He does it all the time. He stands in front of uniformed military people to make his speeches. He calls for the war to continue because Americans have died for his personal vendettal on Saddam. He uses our military men and women as props for his personal agenda. I find it disgusting and that you support it shows that you're (a) just as disgusting or (b) too dumb to realize what he's doing.

How Saddam's WMDs get into this conversation? You refuse to talk about the liberals who told us there were WMDs. Read this through again slowly, and then let's have us a little visit about honesty:

If The Bush Administration Lied About WMD, So Did These People
by John Hawkins

Since we haven't found WMD in Iraq, a lot of the anti-war/anti-Bush crowd is saying that the Bush administration lied about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Well, if they're going to claim that the Bush administration lied, then there sure are a lot of other people, including quite a few prominent Democrats, who have told the same "lies" since the inspectors pulled out of Iraq in 1998. Here are just a few examples that prove that the Bush administration didn't lie about weapons of mass destruction...

And this is tiresome. It or something like it has been posted dozens of times and I still have the same answer:

:roll: It doesn't matter what these people thought. Not a single one of them sent American troops into Iraq. George W. Bush is President of the US. He couldn't wait for weapons inspectors to find proof, one way or another, about WMDs in Iraq. He ordered them out of the country so he could invade. Spin all you want. But Bush used information he knew was not reliable as a cornerstone for this invasion. That's the truth; you know it; you just don't have the guts to admit it. You'd apparently rather see young American men and women, along with Iraqi men, women and children, die because of Bush's personal vendetta with Saddam.

 

[Liberty Belle]

He does it all the time. He stands in front of uniformed military people to make his speeches. He calls for the war to continue because Americans have died for his personal vendettal on Saddam. He uses our military men and women as props for his personal agenda. I find it disgusting and that you support it shows that you're (a) just as disgusting or (b) too dumb to realize what he's doing.

I'm proud to be lumped in with President Bush by such as you. Spin, name calling and spewing hatred seem to be the best you can do on any topic and you have proven that you have no facts to back your tirades against our president, our military or our country. But please stay around for the entertainment you offer, if for no other reason.

It doesn't matter what these people thought. Not a single one of them sent American troops into Iraq. George W. Bush is President of the US. He couldn't wait for weapons inspectors to find proof, one way or another, about WMDs in Iraq. He ordered them out of the country so he could invade. Spin all you want. But Bush used information he knew was not reliable as a cornerstone for this invasion. That's the truth; you know it; you just don't have the guts to admit it. You'd apparently rather see young American men and women, along with Iraqi men, women and children, die because of Bush's personal vendetta with Saddam.

Oh, but it did, and does, matter what these people thought and said right out loud in public. You, my dear despicable dis, are the maestro of spin... and obviously you have not read through the statements made by your heroes on the left. You would rather see innocent Americans, yes, even women and children, die in terrorist attacks like the two on the World Trade Center than to have the war taken to the very doorsteps of the Islamic terrorists sworn to annihilate the "Great Satan" (that's the Muslim name for the United States, for you on the left).

 

[Steve]

Disagreeable wrote:

Americans are turning their back on Bush's war. Polls show the majority of us now say we need to get troops out of there.

do you mean us as in liberals as, it appears they are the only ones the pollsters seem to call ( the rest of US are to busy working due to the robust economy, to sit and answer thier biased questions)

Maybe you should check out this straight forward poll that shows you are wrong among midwestern working folks........as Just You, Planet Earth Lady, and Liberal Steve seem to want US to have our troops surrender to the Radical Islamic terrorists.....
http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=51769#51769

 

[Disagreeable]

Disagreeable wrote:

Americans are turning their back on Bush's war. Polls show the majority of us now say we need to get troops out of there.

do you mean us as in liberals as, it appears they are the only ones the pollsters seem to call ( the rest of US are to busy working due to the robust economy, to sit and answer thier biased questions)

ROTFLMAO! Republican pollsters are getting the same results as Dem pollsters or "unbiased" pollsters. And it's all negative for Bush. I'll see if I can find the latest.

Maybe you should check out this straight forward poll that shows you are wrong among midwestern working folks........as Just You, Planet Earth Lady, and Liberal Steve seem to want US to have our troops surrender to the Radical Islamic terrorists.....
http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=51769#51769

That shows how out of step with the rest of America you few, loud, pro-war people are. Very slowly now, there were no Radical Islamic Terrorists in Iraq until George W. Bush invaded the country. They're in Iraq now, setting up training camps in Iraq and sending trained terrorists all over the world to spread their violence and anger. That's going to be George W. Bush's legacy.

Here's a link to a poll that shows Bush's support is above 50% in only six states. You can track his approval in your state at this link:

http://www.surveyusa.com/50State2005/50StatePOTUS1005SortedbyApproval.htm

 

[Disagreeable]

Ms ding dong said:

I'm proud to be lumped in with President Bush by such as you. Spin, name calling and spewing hatred seem to be the best you can do on any topic and you have proven that you have no facts to back your tirades against our president, our military or our country. But please stay around for the entertainment you offer, if for no other reason.

I'm not the one calling people unpatriotic and spewing hatred. That's you Bush supporters who are finding themselves backed into a corner. It's a point of honor, or so they say, in the Bush Administration to give people nick names. If you don't like yours, by all means, ask nicely and I'll consider not using it. I'm only too glad to bring some entertainment into your dull, drab Republican life.

Oh, but it did, and does, matter what these people thought and said right out loud in public. You, my dear despicable dis, are the maestro of spin... and obviously you have not read through the statements made by your heroes on the left. You would rather see innocent Americans, yes, even women and children, die in terrorist attacks like the two on the World Trade Center than to have the war taken to the very doorsteps of the Islamic terrorists sworn to annihilate the "Great Satan" (that's the Muslim name for the United States, for you on the left).

No, people gave their opinions, but only Bush rushed our troops into an unnecessary war. A war that could have been avoided if he had waited for the WMD inspectors to do their job. An amazing thing is that the people who attacked the WTC the first time are in jail. But the head of the plot that took down the WTC is still on the loose. So you tell me which Administration actually punished the people who attacked the WTC? Sigh: again, very slowly and patiently: Iraq was not a center for terrorists. You guys seem to be very slow about this and absolutely refuse to acknowledge what your president, George W. Bush said There is no proof that Saddam had anything to do with 9-11. Do you think George is just stupid or maybe lying when he said that?