Watching the media induced debate over President George Bush's speech to the United Nations once again strikes us with the notion that our media believes they are the newsmakers rather than the news reporters.
The Bush strategy seems pretty clear and whining that the administration doesn't sit down with particular reporters and explain the details of the public relations strategy -- which any fool can see would be stupid -- leads some journalists to irresponsibly speculate, thus planting ideas that have no basis on truth. Speculation is a dangerous game and our media is so absorbed in this activity that they threaten the success of the President's strategy -- and of course, for many media personalities that is the purpose.
Then of course there are the media members who, clearly piqued at the President for not taking them into their confidence, resort to personal attacks. Citing "Bush's Dangerous Obsessions", Eleanor Clift of Newsweek 1 takes her best shot at excoriating the President for what she calls "great stagecraft". Having obviously never read Shakespeare, Mz. Clift obviously thinks her stagecraft is permissible while the President's is not. Pay attention Mz. Clift, "The world is but a stage" to mangle the great bard's opinion.
Yes we understand your anti-war, pacifist drivel is important Mz. Clift, and your obsession with these agendas makes it impossible to understand the tactics of foreign policy, but please a personal attack on George W. only makes you look like -- well we'll be kind. We're sure our readers don't think to fill in the blanks with a positive word or phrase.
Hey, we'll spell it out for you. Iraq is a danger to the world -- Liberal idiots don't get it, so they scream "No war!" or when that fails, "Can't act unilaterally" or "Congress must debate." The President, not as stupid as liberals keep trying to paint him, and his staff sit back and wait for the high pitched screaming to peak and then take the challenge and do exactly what you, Mz. Clift and your cowardly friends demand. It doesn't matter that the President has absolutely legal authority already -- nor does it matter whether Congress likes it or not. His going to the U.N. is called state craft Mz. Craft, not stagecraft. And his consulting with Congress is also state craft. It would be better to have the U.N. and a big coalition and Congress all lined up and ready to go. But does he need you? Nope. You ARE irrelevant. Just like the U.N. has been for over a decade. And rather than let the United States be attacked again and allow our country to be irrelevant, our President is challenging the world to wake up before its too late.
And then when President Bush goes to the U.N., you scream "Obsession, stagecraft..." and more of the same. Fine. You serve to only prove our point, time and again. Soon you'll be re-writing the speech, changing history and then having the NEA tell our children that George really didn't go to the U.N.
And as Congress "debates" and holds hearings that leave little doubt that only opinions differ, the facts do not, you and your friends in the "Stay at home and let the world come to us" crowd undoubtedly grasp at straws offered by idiots like Scott Ritter. Fine again. Keep up the good work.
And as you ignore history and cry "Foul" whenever someone uses a historical lesson to point out that your ilk have always whined at times leadership is demonstrated, especially when that leadership might not be of the party you wish to have in the White House, the rest of the thinking humans on the planet will continue to praise the President for not taking a stand against you and yours, he will boldly go where the last administration didn't have the guts to go, taking the war to the terrorists instead of decades of helping them build up to 9/11. Get a clue, Mz. Clift. Vigilance doesn't mean carefully watching for Political Correctness, it means inciting government to protect its people. And sometimes that means pre-emptive action. Oh, I'm sorry, that sounds too warlike. How about, "Taking the gun out of the bad guys hands and replacing it with a hoe or plowshare". There, now its in terms you can understand.
Now on to Iran and North Korea. Maybe you need to take a few weeks off and watch some cable news instead of trying to be a newsmaker. People with actual experience in the real world have been talking about this for weeks. But again you just don't listen -- maybe you're incapable of understanding?
Iran IS a danger, that's why they were declared part of -- dare we say it -- the axis of evil. And North Korea just completed another damn missile deal in the Middle East. Again you just don't get it. Thse two countries do represent big dangers. But maybe, just maybe, kicking the hell out of Saddam Hussein and freeing the Iraqi people from that tyrant might push Iran over too. Hell it might even help force the Saudis to move more towards democracy, heaven knows they are pretty poor allies for the U.S. Opps, sorry I brought God into the discussion. My apologies.
Maybe the moderates in Iran will be emboldened enough to kick their nasty Mullahs out of power. North Korea went from thumbing their nose at every one to suddenly opening talks with South Korea. Maybe including them in the axis of evil not only sets a stake in the ground, it has influence on the foreign affairs of countries whose policies endanger world peace. But maybe, too, we'll need to go over there and bomb their missile factories. That's a lot tougher than taking on Saddam. Yeah, we said it. Saddam is easier. Gee, that kind of makes sense. Start with the easy evil, see if the effort convinces others to change. And then if they don't, well move on to the next one. Sounds like a GOOD strategy to me.
Somalia. Yep, on the list. Sudan, Syria, and a few others too. The United States is going down the list. Hopefully, before we get to the bottom of the terrorist empires, we will find that some of the countries involved got the message. "Clean it up or we're going to do it for you." That is called responsible leadership. It's also known as a pre-emptive strategy. It works and it is legal. Read the U.N. charter, its in there too! If the Israelis hadn't adopted it a few decades ago, Saddam would already have nuclear weapons. If the U.S. had a little more guts, India and Pakistan might not have their nuclear weapons either. Fortunately, they haven't turned Kashmir into glass -- yet. It was our liberal laws that allowed both countries to send their students over here to be educated in nuclear physics. Well, we need to correct that -- the U.K.'s open society helped too. Don't even get us started on China's nuclear program.
We -- the country support the President -- you, a vocal and shrill minority do not. That's called democracy. Democracy doesn't need your PC, over-sensitive whining and misdirection. But, sigh, we are forced to read your drivel because it is a free country. Well I guess we can always stop at the headline, huh.
The tactics being executed are risky, perhaps. But guess what? You and your kind don't get to counsel the policy makers - at least not this time around. And while Congress can make suggestions and attempt to drag their feet, U.S. policy is set by the President of the United States. You are free to whine and complain, we'll listen. But when you make it personal, you only serve to show how desperate and frustrated you are. Take a pill. And then get back to reporting. We don't give a damn about your clearly biased analysis. Maybe you'd like to go down to Florida and help Janet Reno whine about her losing the primary.
Every time you sit down at your keyboard, you give us at MILNET the opportunity to fire up ours. On second thought, this is fun. Keep up the good work!
_____________________________________________________________________________________
1 Bush’s Dangerous Obsessions, Newseek Article at MSNBC Online, September 13, 2002.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
© Copyright, 2002, Michael Crawford, MILNET
© Copyright 2002, MILNET