Why the Chris Matthews smear matters

[Guest guest]

S

Sat, 21 Jan 2006 17:54:28 -0800 (PST)

Why the Chris Matthews smear matters

 

 

 

 

Why the Chris Matthews smear matters

 

The anger over Chris Matthews' comment that Osama bin Laden in his new

video sounds like Michael Moore, and the resulting campaign demanding

that Matthews apologize, arises from much more than a single comment,

and has little to do with Moore himself. The Matthews smear

illustrates the fact that it has become routine in our national

political dialogue, and among our nation's journalists, to equate

opposition to George Bush with subversiveness, treason, and support

for Al Qaeda.

 

The national media has truly adopted this dissent-quashing dichotomy

created by the Bush White House: one is either a follower of George

Bush who praises his war and terrorism policies, or one is an enemy of

the United States who is on the side of Al Qaeda. That is not

hyperbole. This is the manipulative and decidedly un-American view

that is re-enforced again and again

 

.. In the lead-up to the 2004 Presidential elections, it became the

conventional wisdom of prominent " journalists " like Matthews that Bin

Laden was rooting for Kerry to win. The bin Laden video which emerged

in the days before the election was described by these journalists as

proof that Bin Laden was endorsing, and even campaigning for, John

Kerry. Every cable news show, including Matthews', featured commentary

equating bin Laden's video with the Democratic Party's foreign policy

views.

 

This is all part of a broad, ongoing and potent campaign to equate

opposition to George Bush with being pro-terrorist, and the origin of

this campaign is the Administration itself. Bush himself thus uses the

language of treason -- treason -- to instruct us that we are permitted

to criticize his policies only on the narrowest grounds and with the

utmost respect, otherwise we are guilty of aiding the enemy:

 

Yet we must remember there is a difference between responsible and

irresponsible debate -- and it's even more important to conduct this

debate responsibly when American troops are risking their lives

overseas. . . . When our soldiers hear politicians in Washington

question the mission they are risking their lives to accomplish, it

hurts their morale. In a time of war, we have a responsibility to show

that whatever our political differences at home, our nation is united

and determined to prevail. . . . So I ask all Americans to hold their

elected leaders to account, and demand a debate that brings credit to

our democracy -- not comfort to our adversaries.

 

From the NSA scandal to the war in Iraq, the President and his

followers repeatedly accuse those who oppose the President of aiding

the terrorists and being on the side of Al Qaeda. And it is this smear

– that anyone who opposes Bush is not just weak on national security

but literally a supporter of the terrorists – that is the only

" argument " which Bush followers have and it's the only one they've

needed. They have won two straight national elections wielding this

McCarthyite filth and with the 2006 elections approaching, they are

bidding for a trifecta:

 

Karl Rove, the president's chief political adviser, gave nervous

Republicans here a preview on Friday of the party's strategy to

maintain its dominance in the fall elections . . . And he left little

doubt that in 2006 - as in both nationwide elections since the Sept.

11 attacks - he was intent on making national security the pre-eminent

issue.

 

Mr. Rove called for civility in politics in his speech to the

Republican National Committee, and then for 26 minutes offered a

lacerating attack on Democrats . . . " The United States faces a

ruthless enemy, " Mr. Rove said, " and we need a commander in chief and

a Congress who understand the nature of the threat and the gravity of

the moment America finds itself in. President Bush and the Republican

Party do. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for many Democrats. "

 

Rove's strategy has repeatedly worked because our national media

" stars " -- even the ones like Chris Matthews who are held out as

objective journalists -- propagate the repugnant smear that opposition

to George Bush's terrorism and war policies puts one on the side of Al

Qaeda. That's why it's so vital to aggressively protest such comments

when they come from " journalists " like Chris Matthews.

 

At its core, this tactic rests on a glaring double standard. As Bush

himself decreed, and as the national media have ingested, only the

most restrained and respectful criticism of " the Commander-in-Chief "

is appropriate. When it comes to the President, any rhetoric beyond

the most tepid is considered shrill and unhinged. Whether it be Al

Gore, Howard Dean, Moveon.org-- anyone who aggressively criticizes the

President is immediately relegated to the far fringe of the political

mainstream, where they are decreed to be unfit for good company, " on

the other side, " and even of questionable mental health, literally.

While the media stars vigorously condemn such comparisons when applied

to Bush, it is a virtual consensus that to oppose George Bush's

terrorism policies is tantamount to sounding like Osama bin Laden.

Indeed, this Matthews episode a few days ago is not the first time

Chris Matthews has equated opposition to George Bush with support for

Osama bin Laden. When the bin Laden video surfaced days before the

2004 election, here is what he asked Democratic Sen. John Breaux:

 

" What happens, Senator Breaux, if it looks like Al Qaeda is

playing cards here, playing a game of trying to get people to vote

Democrat for president to basically make their case worldwide? Doesn't

it put your party in a terrible position of having Al Qaeda rooting

for you? "

 

The assertion that al Qaeda was rooting for Kerry, and that bin Laden

espoused Kerry's views in his pre-election video, was a predominate

theme in the days before the election. Dick Morris wrote a column in

the New York Post entitled " Terrorists for Kerry " in which he

asserted: " It is obvious that Osama and his allies all want Bush out. "

And here is John at Powerline, reporting on his television appearance

on Kudlow & Cramer:

 

A partial translation of " Osama bin Laden's " video is here. I said

on Kudlow and Cramer this afternoon that reports of bin Laden's speech

made it sound as if he had absorbed the Democrats' talking points

quite well. . . .

 

This is, of course, pure Michael Moore. Obviously bin Laden has

seen Fahrenheit 9/11, or at least heard about it from other terrorists

who have seen it. Just as obviously, they approve of Moore's movie.

 

Do you suppose there are any Democrats honest enough to be

embarrassed that Osama bin Laden has enthusiastically adopted their

campaign themes?

 

Well before bin Laden's video emerged, CNN " reporter " Kelli Arena told

this to Wolf Blitzer: " [T]here is some speculation that Al Qaeda

believes it has a better chance of winning in Iraq if John Kerry is in

the White House. " And right before the election, Peggy Noonan spewed

out this on Fox:

 

This is a man on the run who got into a studio, got a camera on

him and tried to act like he was a big, strong guy. This guy is half

finished, and the reason is George Bush. Do you think he wants George

Bush to have a nice day on Tuesday? I don't think so.

 

This tactic of equating Democrats with bin Laden is designed to

eliminate dissent and to stigmatize Bush's opponents as traitors. That

the GOP has transparently wielded this tactic almost from the moment

the airplanes crashed into the World Trade Center is reprehensible

enough. But it is simply no longer tolerable for the media – which was

intended to serve as a Fourth Estate check against government

propaganda of this type – to continue to be the primary instrument for

the dissemination of this smear.

 

There are few things more important than combating this notion, so

prevalent among the Chris Matthews of the world, that opposing George

Bush is tantamount to supporting Al Qaeda, or relatedly, that it's

perfectly acceptable to equate Bush opponents with bin Laden but it is

terribly crass - even treasonous - to aggressively criticize the

President.

 

Those are the smears which Karl Rove is relying on, as he just made

clear, to scare Americans once again into supporting Republican

control even while the most comprehensive scandals and disastrous

polices engulf them. Sitting by and passively allowing these comments

to go unchallenged is to allow them, yet again, to settle in as

conventional wisdom, and that's exactly what Bush opponents can't

afford to do.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/stories/2006/01/21/whyTheChrisMatthewsSmearMatter

[Guest guest]

There has never been a time, from the beginning of his career as a TV journalist

and gas bag, that Chris Matthews has not been the most despicable flunky for

right wing government and politicians. There is nothing the least bit unusual

about this latest bin Laden/Michael Moore comparison. It amazes me that he's

gotten a pass during this whole time. What does it take to awaken democrats to

what is being done to them on media?

 

 

>califpacific <califpacific

>Jan 21, 2006 7:09 PM

>

> Why the Chris Matthews smear matters

>

>S

>Sat, 21 Jan 2006 17:54:28 -0800 (PST)

>Why the Chris Matthews smear matters

>

>

>

>

>Why the Chris Matthews smear matters

>

>The anger over Chris Matthews' comment that Osama bin Laden in his new

>video sounds like Michael Moore, and the resulting campaign demanding

>that Matthews apologize, arises from much more than a single comment,

>and has little to do with Moore himself. The Matthews smear

>illustrates the fact that it has become routine in our national

>political dialogue, and among our nation's journalists, to equate

>opposition to George Bush with subversiveness, treason, and support

>for Al Qaeda.

(snip)f