Talking Points

July 15, 2006

Who has our best interest?

Filed under: Talking Points memo — talkingpoints @ 2:10 am

So here’s the question: Who is really looking out for you—the Bush Administration, or the anti-Bush media? That’s the subject of today’s Talking Points memo.

The President says he is fighting an effective war against worldwide terror and points to the roundup and destruction of many top al-Qaeda people, as well as the fact that the homeland has not been attacked since 9/11. President Bush asserts that his aggressive and “clandestine policies” have put the terrorists on the defensive, and that the war in Iraq has kept them bottled up where the American military can kill them.

The anti-Bush press, led by The New York Times, believes the Bush administration violates human rights, is overly secretive and is dismantling civil liberties. The Times and other committed left-wing journalists justify exposing national security programs because the Bush administration, they say, cannot be trusted.

For the everyday American, the debate is filled with a lot of clutter. Is the Bush administration really compromising the nation’s integrity in the terror war? Does the anti-Bush media really want the USA to lose in Iraq? 

Personally, I feel they do.

Recently, the heads of five journalism schools wrote a piece for the magazine “Editor and Publisher” which stated: “In the aftermath of 9/11, a new climate of caution was a sensible response to a sophisticated terrorist foe. But Bush’s reaction—declaring a ‘war on terror’—and claiming the Constitution grants almost limitless powers to the president in a time of war—is excessive.”

The men who wrote this piece are all committed liberals. These guys love The New York Times. One of them, Harvard’s Alex Jones, used to work there. Thus, their analysis of the war on terror is viewed through an ideological prism, the same problem that exists at the Times itself, where publisher Arthur Sulzburger is liberal in the extreme and generally hires people who agree with him.

So what we have here, is a “failure to communicate,” at least honestly. Liberal people do not generally approve of armed conflict and certainly do not like coerced interrogation, wire taps, internment camps, and just about every other anti-terror measure the Bush administration has come up with. So with all due respect to the journalism deans, what does the left propose be done to diminish the threat of terror? I haven’t heard one concrete suggestion. I have heard all kinds of theoretical gibberish that must send Osama into gales of laughter.

The problem for the regular folks is that the Bush administration is secretive. The President does believe he has the authority to institute anti-terror strategy without strict oversight. President Bush well understands that any and all secret programs will be publicly outed by people who don’t like him. And there are a few of those.

In the end, it comes down to this: I believe there will be more blood in American streets if the government eases up on aggressively pursuing the terror killers. But the anti-Bush media doesn’t believe that, and some are putting forth that the President’s policies are the primary threat to this country, not the killers themselves.

I think that’s downright dangerous. Fighting a two-front war on terror, with the second front being the media controversy here at home, has weakened America substantially.

And that’s the memo.


Leave a Comment »

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at

%d bloggers like this: