Wednesday, July 13, 2005

Krafty Words

Mr. Kraft is worried about my credibility again and for that I thank him. He suggests that I turn off FOX and turn on NPR. He thinks that I should be critical of Republicans in order to meet some criteria of fairness and balance. If the truth be told, I was planning on treating him to a review of the various Republican ‘bad boys’ (as I see them). There are Republicans who philander, lie, cheat, and steal. I wasn’t gong to just blast Mr. Kraft and expose his feeble-mindedness. But, in the immortal words of John Wayne: “the hell I won’t!”

If the best Mr. Kraft (and my other critics) can do is to cry in their coffee about how one-sided my “attacks” are, then it is incumbent upon them to either own up to the fact that their side is exactly as I’ve described them, or respond to my “attacks” and prove me wrong. Months ago, Mr. Kraft called me on the carpet about my observations on the performance of the Springfield School District. He demanded an apology, but he never got around to disproving the statistics I quoted from the Town Report - statistics that came directly from the schools themselves.

Mr. Kraft’s assertion that NPR is more “fair and balanced” than FOX News is another bit of tired, liberal dogma that just makes me shake my head. It is highly doubtful that Mr. Kraft ever has watched FOX News for any length of time, much less long enough to draw a rational conclusion. ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, and NPR and the rest of the ‘mainstream media’ regularly lob broadsides against FOX. It is to their advantage to do so: news is business and in business you must obliterate your competition. As consumers, it is incumbent upon us to work through the advertising. Clearly, Mr. Kraft has failed to do this. If he had, he would have learned that Juan Williams and Mara Liason, both highly placed in NPR, are regular commentators on the Brit Hume segment. Despite being regularly cast as a conservative, Bill O’Rielly considers himself a moderate and his show never casts a Republican without giving equal time to a Democrat. O’Rielly is often highly critical of the Bush Administration. There would be no Hannity & Colmes show without the extremely liberal and proudly Democratic Alan Colmes. Despite being a Republican, Sean Hannity regularly invites his friends liberal Democrats Charles Rangle and Al Sharpton and gives them ample time to speak their minds. Before I ever let a partisan movie like “OutFOXed” make up my mind about where I get my information from, I’m damn-sure going to go out there and get both sides. I watched all the major news networks and listened to NPR for years before I settled in at FOX and I still get most of my news from a variety of independent sources including foreign news agencies.

It is intellectually vapid of Mr. Kraft to assert that my credibility is diminished because I focus on the failings of the Democratic Party and Liberalism without giving “equal time” to bashing Republicans. The majority of other contributors to the Springfield Reporter, from editorials to political cartoons, to letters to the editor, engage in “Bush-bashing” and anti-Republicans rants. Howard Dean says “Republicans have never worked an honesty day in their lives,” speaking about ALL Republican, not just the leadership as he tried to spin his comments later. Where is Mr. Kraft’s condemnation of these others? It is typical of the Left to slip into the “politics of personal destruction,” when they are challenged. Neither Kraft, nor anyone else thus far, has even attempted with any degree of clarity to debunk anything I’ve written. The response to anything critical of the Left is to make ad hominem attacks unrelated to the facts of the issue, to decry the unfairness of “giving so much space” to the critic, and to try the moral relativism of saying, “well, your side has done bad stuff, too!”

Mr. Kraft suggests I look to Watergate and I wish he would. For decades, Nixon’s name has been trashed, yet as we approach the time frame where history is gaining enough perspective to see clearly, it’s becoming much more obvious that what we’ve been led to believe (by Democrats like Hillary Clinton and Bob Woodward) just ain’t so. What do we know about Nixon? Well, when he lost to Kennedy in 1960 in an election rife with legitimate charges of Democratic electoral fraud, then-Vice President Nixon did not go to court and hold up the transfer of power for six weeks. Once he did gain office, Nixon did what earlier Democratic Presidents before him had done. President Lyndon B. Johnson, through Bill Moyers, illegally used the FBI to plant bugs on his political opponents Barry Goldwater (and his staffers) and Robert F. Kennedy. That’s Bill Moyers, who till recently was the power at the “politically balanced” NPR. We’ve learned that much of “All The President’s Men” is suspect and that the ‘reporting’ of The Washington Post was sketchy at best. The source of the information used to “bring down” the President was a disgruntled employee who broke the law to do as much damage as he possibly could. Moreover, that same “hero” then proceeded to do exactly what the “plumbers” did and was caught and convicted. Sadly, a Republican President pardoned him. It would be sweet justice if Mark Felt, Woodward, and Bernstein were tried for the Federal crimes they committed or at least for bribery - it doesn’t matter that the payoff of the bribe comes decades after the crime: should Felt get any money for his story, it would be the payoff. I wouldn’t suggest jail time, only the conviction because then he couldn’t get any money out of it. Somehow, I don’t think that Mr. Kraft sees this the way I do and the way that I believe history will.

I am sure Mr. Kraft would disagree with the following statements, but I believe them to be true. “September 11 changed America. It made us realize we must deal differently with the very real threat of terrorism, whether it comes from shadowy groups operating in the mountains of Afghanistan or in 70 other countries....There has been some debate over how ‘imminent’ a threat Iraq poses. I do believe that Iraq poses an imminent threat, but I also believe that after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated...Saddam’s government has contact with many international terrorist organizations...He could make those weapons available to many terrorist groups...if Saddam thought he could attack America through proxies and cover the trail back to Baghdad, he might not think it so irrational...The fact that Zarqawi certainly is related to the death of the U.S. aid officer and that he is very close to bin Laden puts at rest, in fairly dramatic terms, that there is at least a substantial connection between Saddam and al Qaeda...September 11 has forever changed the world. We may not like it, but that is the world in which we live. When there is a grave threat to Americans’ lives, we have a responsibility to take action to prevent it.” These are the same words George W. Bush has used in many statements since September 11, 2001, BUT this is not his statement. The quote belongs to Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) made on the floor of the Senate on October 10, 2002 and again on CNN on February 5, 2003 to Wolf Blitzer. At the end of June this year, the same person who made the previous statements said Iraq “had nothing to do with Osama bin Laden, it had nothing to do with al-Qaida, it had nothing to do with September 11.” I leave it to the reader to determine the character of Senator Rockefeller - “the hell I will!” Only a moral reprobate who cares for nothing but his own aggrandizement could hold both of these positions. George W. Bush has never connected September 11 with Saddam Hussein except to point out that Iraq is the next front in the War on Terror. It is the trademark hypocrisy and shame of the Democratic leadership that they “banged the drums of war” when the tide of the country washed over them but with its ebb, they went right back to demoralizing rhetoric and self-aggrandizing accusations.

I could go on, but I’ve reached saturation for today. The reason I changed tacks and decided to address Mr. Kraft directly rather than indulge his childish notion of ‘balance’ is because I got up early this morning (July 7, 2005) to the news of the major terrorist strike in London, England. Why do I hold Mr. Kraft and the Democrat Party in such high disregard? I think I’ll let Michael Moore and Woody Allen speak for me. Shortly after 9/11, Moore told an audience: “There is no terrorist threat.” The Democratic Party enthroned Moore at their 2004 Convention and continue to buy his books and watch his movies. On June 28, 2005, Woody Allen added this gem to the political debate: 9/11 is “too small, history overwhelms it...The history of the world is like: He kills me, I kill him, only with different cosmetics and different castings. So in 2001, some fanatics killed some Americans, and now some Americans are killing some Iraqis...And in my childhood, some Nazis killed some Jews. And now, some Jewish people and some Palestinians are killing each other. Political questions, if you go back thousands of years, are ephemeral, not important. History is the same thing over and over again.” Of course, Allen didn’t have the balls to say this in America, he said it in Germany to Der Spiegel. I doubt his movies would suffer much if he had said it here. Karl Rove was right: “Liberals do not understand the significance of 9/11.”

In closing I should like to quote Dick Durban: “Some may believe that my remarks crossed the line. To them, I extend my heartfelt apologies.”

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home