Article

2007-04-21 Fifth Column

Bill Moyers show "proves" MSM sold out to evil Bushies re: invading Afghanistan

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by trailing wife 2007-04-21 01:25|| || Front Page|| [11127 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 We have guys busting ass to produce a victory while these bloodless d***heads sit in their cushy offices and upper-crust cocktail parties, make pronunciations on things they have no knowledge of since they have never done what we do behind the trigger.

Bill, you and the liberals at E&P can grasp this with both hands, rotate it sideways, then take a mallet and pound it up your *ss.

Posted by OldSpook 2007-04-21 03:29|| 2007-04-21 03:29|| Front Page Top

#2 The delusional characteristics of such as Moyers have come to resemble those of Truthers, Klansmen, etc. And the number of folks who cling to increasingly baroque mythological distortions of recent history is frightening.

Posted by Verlaine 2007-04-21 03:33|| 2007-04-21 03:33|| Front Page Top

#3 OS, Verlaine, I feel for you and everyone else who serves or has served in the military. The civilian political opposition is as clearly on the enemy side as if they were caught on camera placing IEDs. I've got some ideas about what is eventually going to be necessary to fix the problem, but I suspect it's going to have to get worse before it gets better. A lot worse.

Posted by Mac 2007-04-21 04:33|| 2007-04-21 04:33|| Front Page Top

#4 He told us it was a fight to preserve the Union. But the Union was never in danger. Now he tells us the war is to free the slaves. I can't believe we fell for it.

/Bill Moyers

Posted by Excalibur 2007-04-21 07:36|| 2007-04-21 07:36|| Front Page Top

#5 I didn't want to pollute this site by putting the actual words of the article where your eyes might see them (go there and read it if you feel a masochistic need to drive up your blood pressure), but this kind of stupidity is the reason PBS has such very low ratings, except for the nature and science shows and the children's things like Sesame Street and Barney.

Posted by trailing wife 2007-04-21 07:39|| 2007-04-21 07:39|| Front Page Top

#6 Only a matter of time before this old dolt puts out a "documentary" on the Bush staging of 9/11.

Posted by regular joe 2007-04-21 08:01|| 2007-04-21 08:01|| Front Page Top

#7 "I hate newspapermen. They come into camp and pick up their camp rumors and print them as facts. I regard them as spies, which, in truth, they are. If I killed them all there would be news from Hell before breakfast."

William Tecumseh Sherman

Posted by doc 2007-04-21 08:24|| 2007-04-21 08:24|| Front Page Top

#8 but this kind of stupidity is the reason PBS has such very low ratings, except for the nature and science shows and the children's things like Sesame Street and Barney.

Slow bleed 'em.

That or take off and nuke the whole site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure...

Posted by badanov 2007-04-21 08:32|| http://www.freefirezone.org]">[http://www.freefirezone.org] 2007-04-21 08:32|| Front Page Top

#9 but this kind of stupidity is the reason PBS has such very low ratings, except for the nature and science shows and the children's things like Sesame Street and Barney.

Slow bleed 'em.

That or take off and nuke the whole site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure...

Posted by badanov 2007-04-21 08:33|| http://www.freefirezone.org]">[http://www.freefirezone.org] 2007-04-21 08:33|| Front Page Top

#10 From the article:

While much of the evidence of the media's role as cheerleaders for the war presented here is not new, it is skillfully assembled, with many fresh quotes from interviews (with the likes of Tim Russert and Walter Pincus) along with numerous embarrassing examples of past statements by journalists and pundits that proved grossly misleading or wrong. Several prominent media figures, prodded by Moyers, admit the media failed miserably, though few take personal responsibility.

The war continues today, now in its fifth year, with the death toll for Americans and Iraqis rising again -- yet Moyers points out, "the press has yet to come to terms with its role in enabling the Bush Administration to go to war on false pretenses."

Good grief... the sheer dishonesty of these paragraphs is overwhelming.

"Cheerleaders for the war"??? We have here, archived on Rantburg, thousands upon thousands of articles from the establishment media over the past five and a half years, in which they act as anything BUT cheerleaders. The media in this country have been on a non-stop campaign to undermine the war by sowing fear, uncertainty, doubt and distrust, right from the moment the WTC towers fell.

"False pretenses"??? Anyone who did not spend the entire 1990's in a deep coma, or jerking off, was acutely aware of the menace posed by Saddam Hussein; night after night throughout that decade, the news was full of stories about his refusal to cooperate with the United Nations WMD inspection teams; and the rationale for getting rid of him was not articulated first by George Bush, but by Bill Clinton years before. What happened- did all these media people suddenly develop complete amnesia the moment George Bush took the oath of office? Are they mentally ill? Or are they just lying?

Posted by Dave D.">Dave D. 2007-04-21 09:31|| 2007-04-21 09:31|| Front Page Top

#11 I'll take lying for $500, Alex.

Posted by badanov 2007-04-21 09:59|| http://www.freefirezone.org]">[http://www.freefirezone.org] 2007-04-21 09:59|| Front Page Top

#12 Yeah, that's my take as well. They're certainly not stupid; I suppose it's possible they're insane, as some psychiatrists have proposed (notably Charles Krauthammer, who gave us the term "Bush Derangement Syndrome", and Dr. Pat Santy, of the Dr. Sanity blog, who goes into great detail on what she believes ails these people); and I guess it's also possible that they could all be having selective amnesia about Bill Clinton's own 8-year-long struggle with Saddam during the '90's.

But the simplest explanation, to me, is that they are simply lying. They are dishonest people.

The media have a leftist political agenda (these are the people who go into journalism "to make a difference" and "to make the world a better place", and in many newsrooms over 80% of them are Democrats) and they have collectively made a knowing, conscious, deliberate decision that the success of their political mission is more important than the truth.

They have become what author M. Scott Peck called, "People Of The Lie".

Posted by Dave D.">Dave D. 2007-04-21 10:11|| 2007-04-21 10:11|| Front Page Top

#13 80% would be a blessing Dave D. Figure more like 95%.

Posted by Shipman">Shipman 2007-04-21 10:29|| 2007-04-21 10:29|| Front Page Top

#14 What happened- did all these media people suddenly develop complete amnesia the moment George Bush took the oath of office?

One thing that's become apparent is that the press is so utterly corrupt they truly believe they decide what is true and what is not. What is true, what gets reported, depends entirely on the political advantage they can make for the Democrats.

Moyers, though, is a special class, alongside Lord Haw Haw.

Posted by Rob Crawford">Rob Crawford 2007-04-21 10:29|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/] 2007-04-21 10:29|| Front Page Top

#15 Naw upon further review you may be correct. 80% Democrat, 15% CPUSA.

Posted by Shipman">Shipman 2007-04-21 10:30|| 2007-04-21 10:30|| Front Page Top

#16 Moyers made his bones working for the most corrupt politician ever to win the Presidency. Landslide F**king Lyndon. (Pee Upon His Grave).

Posted by Shipman">Shipman 2007-04-21 10:32|| 2007-04-21 10:32|| Front Page Top

#17 "One thing that's become apparent is that the press is so utterly corrupt they truly believe they decide what is true and what is not."

!!!!

Thinking about it, I do believe you're right. Perhaps they're drunk on their perceived power to manufacture consensus.

Posted by Dave D.">Dave D. 2007-04-21 10:34|| 2007-04-21 10:34|| Front Page Top

#18 Perhaps they're drunk on their perceived power to manufacture consensus.

I believe you have hit the nail on the head, Dave.

Concensus for the good of the little people, of course. Goes without saying.

Posted by Bobby 2007-04-21 10:44|| 2007-04-21 10:44|| Front Page Top

#19 Mr. Moyers hasn't gotten as far as analyzing the run-up to the invasion of Iraq (although no doubt he will, if this one on Afghanistan does well in his cocktail party circle). Something that was brought to my attention the other day is that the journalism people are completely focussed on tomorrow morning's headlines. As far as they're concerned, the archives really are a memory hole; the world to them is effectively created anew every single day. They live on a floating island of Now, extending a a short time in both directions. What to us is the solid reality of six years of Rantburg archives, to them is a void, misty and unformed, not even the waters above separated from the waters below. ;-) Which makes it really easy to believe whatever their chosen sources of information put in front of them as Truth. The consensus, I think, simply happens because they are completely innocent of memory and that smattering of broadbased knowledge that give context. Mr. Moyers is something else, of course -- he manufactures reality to fit his desires.

I was thinking about this as I read the story Bobby posted yesterday about the Marine who received the Medal of Honour (I think it was). The story mentioned the Wall Street Journal reporter who wrote a book about him. I'd read the book because of a friend-of-a-friend connection. The sad truth -- sad because the reporter had embedded with that unit for the invasion and beyond, and wrote with the passion of admiration and love -- was that the reporter, despite having been on the staff of the WSJ for a number of years, and having reported at their behest about a number of complicated stories in the depths of Africa and other remote and exotic places, he had never grasped how large organizations work, nor how the Armed Forces work, nor even how the Marines work. He was furious that his friend had given his life for an imperfect organization based on incomplete information, that he'd put all on a bet that if he put his helmet over the grenade and held it down with his body, he would both save his fellows and survive intact... not at all understanding that had he known the helmet was inadequate to the task, he'd have done the same anyway. The reporter is a brilliant man at the top of his field, and yet had lived four decades without grasping that perfection doesn't happen when people are involved, and that there are those who willingly make the highest sacrifice that others might carry on the necessary task.

Sorry for the verbosity. Perhaps I'll be more capable of succinctness later in the day.

Posted by trailing wife 2007-04-21 11:54|| 2007-04-21 11:54|| Front Page Top

#20 Mac, just to clarify, I never served in uniform, though I worked closely with many doing so (obviously). I was a REMF, never went looking for trouble by kicking in doors or trying to draw fire like the blessed, wonderful Marines and many in the Army - that is, I didn't get to have the big fun like they did!

I did deal with press quite a bit, actually. Not sure how to bread down the %, but in addition to stupid and dishonest, there's a large chunk simply blinkered by a mindset. It's especially important at the upper editorial levels. I saw many instances of reporters in the field (and many do seek opportunities to get out with the troops, not sit back at the bureau) whose stuff was distorted by being crammed into the same old template back in New York, Washington, or London.

Having said that, the moral imbecility and inability to see the things right in front of them was in some cases simply breath-taking. We've never faced a less interesting, more thoroughly repugnant and despicable enemy. Yet so many somehow manage to affect a "neutral" stance, with frequently a tilt towards the murderous thugs.

Posted by Verlaine 2007-04-21 12:00|| 2007-04-21 12:00|| Front Page Top

#21 Sorry for the verbosity.

TW: never apologize for your verbosity - it's always a breath of fresh air, IMO.

Posted by xbalanke 2007-04-21 12:23|| 2007-04-21 12:23|| Front Page Top

#22 We've never faced a less interesting, more thoroughly repugnant and despicable enemy. Yet so many somehow manage to affect a "neutral" stance, with frequently a tilt towards the murderous thugs.

A "tilt"? I'd say out-and-out preference.

Which press releases get more play -- and are treated as if they have more credibility -- the US military's or the jihadis'? How much play do they give to the merest accusation of crimes by US forces, compared to the clear evidence of war crimes as policy among the jihadis?

Posted by Rob Crawford">Rob Crawford 2007-04-21 12:48|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/] 2007-04-21 12:48|| Front Page Top

#23 TW: superb.

Posted by Steve White">Steve White 2007-04-21 13:59|| 2007-04-21 13:59|| Front Page Top

#24 Mac, just to clarify, I never served in uniform...

Verlaine, we always looked forward to your reports here at the 'Burg when you were in Baghdad! for real.

..and that goes for all RBees who have served and are currently serving.

~~~~~~~~
Verlaine,
In recognition of your Civilian Service to the United States of America while serving in the Baghdad theater of operations I'd like to award you an RB-CIB for going up against our Nation's Enemies [the MSM!] many times often with only your wits as weapons.

;-)

Ima sure others will sign on to your award..

thanks again..

;-)

Posted by RD">RD 2007-04-21 14:09|| 2007-04-21 14:09|| Front Page Top

#25 Bill Moyers has offically been put added to the "Shit on Their Grave World Tour".

Posted by Icerigger">Icerigger 2007-04-21 14:27|| 2007-04-21 14:27|| Front Page Top

#26 I'll sign on to that, RD. Only what does CIB stand for?

Xbalanke, Dr. Steve, y'all flatter me enormously. Verlaine, did you ever meet that WSJ reporter? Michael something, his name was, tall and lean, blond... he wrote a wonderful series of reports about the part "his" Marine unit played in the invasion.

Posted by trailing wife 2007-04-21 14:33|| 2007-04-21 14:33|| Front Page Top

#27 I was well into the first paragraph and hadda scroll down ... yep! It's TW!

But I don't remember posting said article.

Anyway, never apologise for your words, kiddo, but a couple a more carriage returns wouldn't hurt. ;-> And you blushed when I called you ever-intelligent!

Posted by Bobby 2007-04-21 15:45|| 2007-04-21 15:45|| Front Page Top

#28 It's possible I'm confused, Bobby dear. These days I generally assume that if it's worth remembering, I must have read it here. And it felt like something you'd post. First Marine to be awarded the Medal of Honour (that is the one that's our Military's highest honour, right?)in decades, and if I recall correctly only the second such award in this war. In the ceremony the award was presented to the man's parents, with President Bush standing by to honour them all.

Posted by trailing wife 2007-04-21 18:46|| 2007-04-21 18:46|| Front Page Top

#29 Moyers has had his own ethical issues

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2007-04-21 20:30|| 2007-04-21 20:30|| Front Page Top

#30 Frank thanks for posting that. Good read on Moyers!

Posted by Icerigger">Icerigger 2007-04-21 21:13|| 2007-04-21 21:13|| Front Page Top

23:52 Zenster
23:52 Glereque Scourge of the Leprechauns6947
23:52 Pappy
23:50 Zenster
23:48 RD
23:42 RD
23:10 Zenster
23:00 Frank G
22:57 Jackal
22:56 Frank G
22:55 UN Peacekeepers
22:48 Zenster
22:47 OldSpook
22:45 Zenster
22:41 Jan
22:39 Zenster
22:26 Zenster
22:23 RD
22:16 Anonymoose
22:12 Zenster
22:06 Zenster
21:59 Frank G
21:59 Zenster
21:57 Zenster