Carpe Datum

Blog Tour

For those of you who don't read all the great liberal political blogs out there, some of which I have linked in my sidebar, I offer some excerpts from really good stuff recently (long post today). First, on the so-called liberal media in the latest Nation column by Eric Alterman, of "What Liberal Media?" fame, among many other things:

Gore gave voice to some plain-spoken truths that were just about unsayable in the mass media until he said them. Gore accused George W. Bush of undertaking "a systematic effort to manipulate facts in service to a totalistic ideology that is felt to be more important than the mandates of basic honesty." The President, he said, was "pursuing policies chosen in advance of the facts--policies designed to benefit friends and supporters--and [using] tactics that deprived the American people of any opportunity to effectively subject his arguments to the kind of informed scrutiny that is essential in our system of checks and balances." ...

The reaction was as swift as it was predictable. ... Post editors accused Gore of leading his party "off a cliff" and "validat[ing] just about every conspiratorial theory of the antiwar left."

Yet on the very same day that these good citizens of Quinn-Broderville were fulminating about Al Gore, Post reporters Barton Gellman and Walter Pincus published a 5,331-word report detailing how Bush and his aides "made allegations depicting Iraq's nuclear weapons program as more active, more certain and more imminent in its threat than the data they had would support...withheld evidence that did not conform to their views," and "seldom corrected misstatements." ...

It's worth noting, by contrast, that in Britain, Tony Blair is on the ropes for offenses against democracy that--while significant--pale in comparison to Bush's. Blair faces an aggressive, independent-minded media whose members consider it their job, in the words of the BBC's head of newsgathering, Adrian Van Klaveren, "to question governments...to hold governments to account.... This is not passive journalism. This is about trying to get information which others don't want us to know." ...

Here, the mainstream media almost always allow the Bush Administration to lie without consequence. It's not that lies go unnoticed; it's just that it's considered bad manners to worry about so silly an issue--and never more so than when those lies are deployed to justify a needless war. Even frequent Bush apologist Howard "Conflict of Interest" Kurtz could not help noticing that when Bush said, "Did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is: absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in," his answer bore "no relation to reality." He asked his guest on CNN's Reliable Sources, "Why has that not been more made of by the press?"

The Post's Dana Milbank, who has established a deserved reputation as the toughest of all the regular White House correspondents, answers, "I think what people basically decided was this is just the President being the President. Occasionally he plays the wrong track and something comes out quite wrong. He is under a great deal of pressure."

There you have it. An American President is said to be "under a great deal of pressure"--unlike, say, Bill Clinton--and so the Washington press corps decide that "people" prefer that he not be held accountable even for his own deceitful words.

In other news, Media Horse reminds us of the latest Bush-looking-at-the-camera-and-lying-directly-to-the-American-public incident:

Last Thursday, when the breakdown of a huge part of the nation's antiquated electrical power grid plunged much of the Northeast into the largest blackout in U.S. history, George W. Bush went on the air, looked into the cameras, and lied through his teeth.

"Of course, we'll have time to look at it and determine whether or not our grid needs to be modernized," Bush said in reply to a reporter's question. "I happen to think it does, and have said so all along."

"Said so all along"?

Since Bush stole his way into the White House, responsible scientists and engineers have pleaded with his Administration to pay more attention to power grid modernization.Ý The problem became especially urgent in the wake of the Enron-spawned California energy crisis and the September 11, 2001Ý attacks.

And the White House response?Ý Both Bush and his Republican allies and henchmenÝ ignored the advice -- and actually killed modernization proposals.

The most egregious obstructionism occurred in 2001, when Rep. Sam Farr (D-CA) tried to offer an amendment to an appropriations bill that would have channeledÝ $350 million in federal loans and loan guarantees to public and private-sector firms toward electric power grid improvements.Ý Not grants, not subsidies, but badly needed loans and guarantees.

But the Bush Administration lobbied heavily against the measure and the Republicans voted it down on three separate occasions -- on a straight party-line vote in the House Appropriations Committee, on a straight party-line vote in the House Rules Committee, and on a party line vote in the full House of Representatives.

"It's pure demagoguery," then-House Majority Whip (and now Majority Leader) Tom DeLay said of Farr's proposal.

And now Bush tells us that he's supported modernization of the grid "all along"?

"ALL ALONG"?!

Actually, it's all of a piece with the rest of this administration's congenital lying and stonewalling.Ý You know the syndrome. Ignore a nationalÝ problem.Ý Then ignore direct, dire warnings about that problem.Ý Disallow funding that will help cure the problem.Ý Put on a big show when the problem blows up in your face.Ý Then lie about what you knew and what you did before the problem blew up in your face. ...

Since 1996, two-thirds of all reported electric utility corporation campaign contributions (totaling, in all, more than $60 million) have gone to Republicans.

And in 2000, George W. Bush received 86% of all reported electric utility corporation presidential capaign contributions, compared to the 14% that went to Al Gore.

The mind boggles at what's worse -- the fanaticism or the gross corruption?

It boggles even more at the news media's virtual complete silence over this one.

Media Horse also pointed me to this funny article about a guy returning his Bush action figure (in full military flight suit outfit) for a refund:

With great disappointment, I am returning the George W. Bush ìaction figure,î which you will find enclosed in this package. I am seeking a full refund for this defective toy for the following reasons:

ïÝDespite its billing as an action figure to pair up with my GI Joes, it was obviously not made to be a soldier. Never mind the lack of any scar on its face. The bigger problem is that I cannot find any weapons of mass destruction anywhere in the box. Heck, I can't find any weapons at all!

ïÝWhen I pull the string to make it talk, the results are muffled and unintelligible or make no sense at all. Is this supposed to be some kind of rotten joke on your customers?

ïÝEvery time I turn the doll upside down and shake it, white powder comes out. What's with that?

ïÝEven worse, my GI Joe dolls don't seem to like this one at all, and I'm beginning to understand why:

All last week, during the grueling sandbox battles in my backyard between my GI Joes and the hideous armies of Grog, the GW Bush doll was missing. I thought it was lost for good. But then, after my GI Joes won the day and made the sandbox safe again, there the Bush doll was, front and center, looking splendid and unruffled in pristine army fatigues. Evidently it'd been playing dress-up all week with my sister's Ken doll but was right there to take the credit for the GI Joe's victory.

My GI Joes are all saying that the GW Bush doll is stealing money out of their pockets and giving it to my sister's Ken and Barbie dolls. I didn't believe this at first, but this afternoon I spied a nice, new dollhouse in my sister's room and now I'm thinking it must be so.

While I'm thinking about it, Daily Kos has some very good perspective on Iraqi oil revenues and the cost of rebuilding Iraq. And Josh Marshall has a great quote from General Wesley Clark regarding Tom DeLay's (the Republican majority leader in the US House of Representatives, arguably the 3rd most powerful politician in the country behind Dick Cheney and Senate leader Bill Frist) credibility on war issues and politics:

TOM DELAY: Frankly, what irritates me the most are these blow-dried Napoleons that come on television and, in some cases, have their own agendas.

General Clark is one of them that is running for president, yet he's paid to be an expert on your network. And he's questioning the plan and raising doubts as he becomes this expert.

I think they would serve the nation better if they would just comment on what they see and what they know, rather than putting their own agenda forward as an expert.

CLARK: Well, first of all, I'd be happy to compare my hair with Tom DeLay's. We'll see who's got the blow-dried hair.

But beyond that, Wolf, he's got it exactly backward. It's upside down. I am saying what I believe. And I'm being drawn into the political process because of what I believe and what I've said about it.

So it's precisely the opposite of a man like Tom DeLay, who is only motivated by politics and says whatever he needs to say to get the political purpose. And so, you know, it couldn't be more diametrically opposed, and I couldn't be more opposed than I am to Tom DeLay.

You know, Wolf, when our airmen were flying over Kosovo, Tom DeLay led the House Republicans to vote not to support their activities, when American troops were in combat. To me, that's a real indicator of a man who is motivated not by patriotism or support for the troops, but for partisan political purposes.

Clark may be jumping into the Democratic race, but I don't know enough about his politics vs, say, Dean's to know whom I'd prefer. They are both saying what needs to be said, that's for sure.

Posted by Observer at August 19, 2003 08:01 AM