"Media Matters"; by Jamison Foser
Thumbs on the scale
During a speech to the Israeli parliament yesterday morning, President Bush attacked Barack Obama, comparing him to Nazi appeasers for the Illinois senator's willingness to hold discussions with Iran.
One problem: Bush's speech came just hours after The Washington Post reported that Bush's defense secretary, Robert Gates, said that the United States needs to "sit down and talk with" Iran. Not only that, Gates added, "We can't go to a discussion and be completely the demander."
Oops.
Naturally, then, a media firestorm erupted, with the Bush administration and its political allies questioned all day about whether Bush has any idea what he is talking about, whether he has lost control over the Pentagon, whether Gates will be fired, what Gates thinks about Bush's comparison of those (like Gates) who advocate dialogue between the United States and Iran to appeasers of Adolf Hitler, and whether the fiasco will remind voters that the Bush administration's foreign policy has been marked by incompetence and dishonesty, thus doing irreparable electoral damage to John McCain and other Republican candidates.
Sorry -- what was I thinking? That didn't happen.
Instead, much of the news media got busy pretending the Post article didn't exist and that Gates had not undermined Bush's political attack on Obama. Instead, many news outlets simply rushed to repeat Bush's assault over and over again, as though it had merit.
A quick look at ABC's The Note -- which claims for itself the responsibility for providing "editorial guidance on the leading political stories of the day" -- demonstrates how thoroughly Gates' comments were ignored in coverage of Bush's attack. Yesterday's edition of The Note didn't mention either Bush's comments (which came after The Note was finished) or Gates'. But a later posting did devote 341 words to Bush's criticism of Obama without bothering to mention Gates' comments about meeting with Iran. Today, The Note included 560 words about Bush's remarks -- but still no mention of Gates.
Though The Note boasts (unfortunately with some accuracy) of setting the agenda for the rest of the media, it reflects other news organizations' priorities as much as it sets them, and this is no exception. The Note's "Must-Reads" today included links to five articles about the "appeasement controversy" -- one each from The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Boston Globe, and the Los Angeles Times, and Time. None of those articles -- not one -- even mentioned Gates' name. The Washington Post's failure to mention Gates' comments in its article is most striking, since the paper reported his comments yesterday. (The Note also attempted to link to a Joe Klein article or column or blog post -- it isn't clear which -- but did not provide a direct link to the piece in question. Klein has not mentioned Gates' comments on Time's website, as far as I can tell.)
Politico's Mike Allen writes another of the most widely read political tipsheets. Allen has mentioned Bush's attack on Obama in his daily "Playbook" each of the past two mornings -- but didn't mention Gates in either. Allen has, however, devoted a full paragraph to Hannah Montana and 272 words to American Idol.
Nor were Gates' comments mentioned on the ABC or CBS evening news broadcasts last night -- both of which did segments about Bush's attack.
But the most striking disappearance of Gates' comments came on CNN. On yesterday's American Morning, host John Roberts interviewed Obama communications director Robert Gibbs. Gibbs twice brought up Gates' comments -- though when CNN aired clips of the interview later in the day, the cable network edited Gibbs' comments to include the sentence before he mentioned Gates, and the sentence after he mentioned Gates -- but to omit any reference to the defense secretary.
Here's what Gibbs actually said, which CNN did air in its entirety the first time:
GIBBS: Obviously this is an unprecedented political attack on foreign soil. It's quite frankly sad and astonishing that the president of the United States would politicize the 60th anniversary of Israel with a false political attack. I assume he also is going to come home and fire his secretary of defense who was quoted in The Washington Post just yesterday saying we need to figure -- quote, "We need to figure out a way to develop some leverage and then sit down and talk with them." Them being Iran. Look, we have come to expect, and we've seen from this administration over the last eight years this type of cowboy diplomacy. Again, we've come to expect it. But over the past eight years it's made this country far less safe than we were.
But twice during the day, CNN again aired that clip of Gibbs -- except that it edited out the portion in bold, in which Gibbs pointed out the Bush administration's hypocrisy. Several other times, CNN aired a portion of Gibbs' comments, without the references to Gates.
CNN covered the controversy over Bush's attack on Obama with numerous segments throughout the day, but the only times viewers were told of Gates' comments were when they were mentioned by Gibbs and Sens. Joe Biden and John Kerry -- and one report in which CNN reporter Zain Verjee quoted Gates. On Anderson Cooper 360, Cooper mentioned written comments Gates made in 2004 about the importance of contact with Iran. Cooper then noted, "That was back in 2004. He says the situation has changed." But Cooper didn't mention that just that morning, The Washington Post reported new comments by Gates about the need to talk to Iran.
This morning brought further evidence of right-wing hypocrisy: video of John McCain saying two years ago that the United States should talk to Hamas. Yesterday, McCain embraced Bush's attack on Obama, adding, "I think that Barack Obama needs to explain why he wants to sit down and talk with a man who is the head of a government that is a state sponsor of terrorism, that is responsible for the killing of brave young Americans, that wants to wipe Israel off the map, who denies the Holocaust. That's what I think Senator Obama ought to explain to the American people."
So, McCain was for talking with people who want to "wipe Israel off the map" before he was against it.
Here's how CNN's Dan Lothian dealt with this fresh evidence of McCain's hypocrisy this afternoon:
LOTHIAN: Now, you know, already, we have seen Senator John McCain bring up this issue. He was going after Obama yesterday, attacking him. And then more controversy today when an op-ed piece in The Washington Post by Jamie Rubin, who worked in the -- former President Bill Clinton's administration, is a Clinton supporter, is a leading Democrat, as well. And he suggested that Senator McCain was flip-flopping because two years ago, he talked about negotiating with Hamas. Of course, the McCain camp had to respond immediately, saying that it wasn't true.
Lothian indicated that the evidence of McCain flip-flopping consisted of an op-ed by a Clinton supporter and presented the matter as a he-said/she-said situation in which Rubin suggested McCain flip-flopped and the McCain campaign denied it. But there is video of the McCain comments in question -- video that had been widely available online for more than 12 hours at the time of Lothian's report. There was no reason to present the situation as a dispute between Rubin and McCain's campaign; Lothian could have read McCain's actual comments. Or even, through the magic of cable television, played the video for viewers!
And it turns out, McCain also supported talking to Syria -- another state sponsor of terrorism.
We know what the media would do if the candidate who blasted his opponent for being willing to engage in diplomatic talks with state sponsors of terrorism despite having previously argued in favor of talks with Syria and Hamas was named John Kerry or Al Gore. They would flay him mercilessly as a flip-flopper, as someone willing to say and do anything to win.
So far, they've treated John McCain a little more gently: They've frantically covered up evidence of hypocrisy.
It's quite frankly sad and astonishing that the president of the United States would politicize the 60th anniversary of Israel with a false political attack.
It's Bush....... so actually..... its not! Anything less than politicizing every and all events that Bush goes to would be an absolute shock if he doesn't do so!
So far, they've treated John McCain a little more gently: They've frantically covered up evidence of hypocrisy.
Hey media...... thanks for nothin'!!
None of this is surprising. The corporate media is run by Republicans. The people out in front are only highly paid shills. They didn't get into these jobs because they made waves. This kind of thing is straight out of C. Wright Mills.
The solution? Get everyone to ignore them. When the issues get bigger than the personalities, there will be hope.
I agree POV. It was about Carter meeting with Hamas.
But what does it say when the Democrats immediately go on the defensive thinking the speech was about them? Newt said it right on H&C, all the Dem's had to do was agree on his 3 points, and they would be in the clear. But all they've done is bring themselves into the light by defending the obvious bogus stances they have.
I agree with you both. Bush is a foreign policy genius. He should fire Sec. Gates immediately, so that this issue will be resolved. His only mistake thus far is hiring that buffoon!
McCain is also right on this one. Hopefully he doesn't change his mind tomorrow.
You're out of your arrogant mind. Republican foreign policy has been an absolute disaster.
Though White House aide Ed Gillespie said the target, if there was a target, of President Bush's speech yestreday was Jimmy Carter, Obama spokesman Bill Burton passed along two "crystal clear examples" of the White House saying that the speech was intended to suggest, without naming, Barack Obama. The examples are laundered through the brains of two very well respected White House correspondents.
NBC (John Yang): Speaking on background, a senior administration official says the president's language to anyone -- the official specifically mentioned Obama and former President Jimmy Carter's suggestion that the U.S. talk to Hamas -- who has suggested engaging with rogue states or terrorist groups without first getting some leverage.
CNN (Ed Henry): While the words Barack Obama were never used White House aides privately admit the President referring not just to Barack Obama but other Democrats like Jimmy Carter, for example, who has recently suggested himself has sat down with Hamas leaders and has suggested that the U.S. government to should sit down with Hamas. So, the inference is clear. Although the President didn't name names, administration officials are privately acknowledging this was a shot at Barack Obama and other Democrats.
With respect: Gillespie and Dana Perino are ... contradicting the SAOs who briefed Ed Henry and John Yang. SAOs tend to be more forthcoming. Make of it what you will.
Not about Obama, eh?
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/obama_camp_white_house_has_its.php
I see a reactionary, touchy and high-strung presidential campaign this summer, if this "appeasement" thing is any indication. In this instance, we have George W. Bush addressing Members of the Israeli Knesset. The exact words of the President are important, because in the high-strung chatter that accompanies these things, everybody substitutes their own vague impressions of what was said, and substitutes hear/say, in place of the exact words.
After the President invoked "the fight against terror and extremism" and "the founding charter of Hamas calls for the elimination of Israel" and "Osama bin Laden teaches that the killing of Jews and Americans is one of the biggest duties" and "the President of Iran dreams of returning the Middle East to the Middle Ages and calls for Israel to be wiped off the map" (and if you're following these words closely, then you might agree that the President is showing no hesitation in the least, in working on the emotions of his audience: the Israeli Knesset)... he then says:
"There are good and decent people who cannot fathom the darkness in these men and try to explain away their words.
It's natural, but it is deadly wrong.
As witnesses to evil in the past, we carry a solemn responsibility to take these words seriously.
Jews and Americans have seen the consequences of disregarding the words of leaders who espouse hatred.
And that is a mistake the world must not repeat in the 21st century.
Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along.
We have heard this foolish delusion before.
As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared:
"Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided."
We have an obligation to call this what it is:
the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."
...that's it, that's the whole thing, in it's context, not "paraphrased" or tainted by vague impressions or hear/say.
1. I believe that there is too little in these words to explain any kind of "firestorm" or even controversy. It's mostly just rhetoric, and if it's noteworthy at all, it's for the audience that this rhetoric was spoken to: the Knesset.
The president invoked "nazis" and "Hitler" (both by name!) "Hamas" "the killing of Jews" "calls for Israel to be wiped off the map"... "evil", and in the voice of some anonymous American senator, "The LORD"...
All in front of the Members of the Israeli Knesset.
It reads strange for that context, and maybe inappropriate, and even shameless... it's par for George W. Bush's course, and hardly controversial for him.
2. As far as the word "appeasement" was concerned: I believe the controversy over this word is contrived, and false... I believe when the President made his speech before the Knesset, at about 8 AM eastern time USA on Thursday morning, that the "firestorm" that followed, came mostly from the media, and from the White House itself: "Did you just hear what the President said about Mr. Obama? Did you hear what he called him?" And then Bush administration hacks lend their voices: "The President wasn't necessarily talking about Mr. Obama."
I believe it's a case of someone contriving a controversy, and then baiting the Obama campaign into a pained response.
There was nothing to respond to, except the media's and the administration's contrived chatter... read the words of the President: there's nothing there but rhetoric (a strange rhetoric, for what it invoked, and to whom).
As for the President's use of the word "appeasement", please consider this:
After the attacks of September 11, 2001, when the President appeared he was not going to confront saudi arabia in this matter, or even demand an explanation, and instead he sent Rumsfeld to the Middle East, to form a "coalition against terror", and that he was even inviting saudi arabia into this "coalition against terror" (instead of confronting them over the attacks of 9/11!)...
Prime Minister Sharon of Israel, on October 4, 2001, delivered a speech about the Bush administration's response to 9/11, a response of forming a "coalition against terror" that includes saudi arabia:
In an extraordinary speech, the Israeli prime minister had poured scorn on the campaign aimed at building an Arab consensus behind the campaign against terrorism.
Mr Sharon said: "Don't repeat the terrible mistake of 1938 when the enlightened democracies of Europe decided to sacrifice Czechoslovakia for a temporary solution. Do not try to placate the Arabs at our expense... Israel will not be Czechoslovakia."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/06/israel
The word "placate" there, was also interpreted as "appeasement" in other reports: the two words are synonyms, and of course Mr. Sharon did not deliver his speech in English.
The next day, October 5, 2001, the administration responded to Mr. Sharon's "appeasement" (or "placate") description. At a White House Press Briefing, Press Secretary Ari Fleischer was immediately asked about it:
Q Ari, would you tell us what the President's reaction was to Prime Minister Sharon's comments yesterday?
MR. FLEISCHER: Yesterday, Prime Minister Sharon issued a statement in which he said that the United States should not repeat the mistakes of the West in 1938, and appease the Arabs at Israeli expense. He said, "Do not try to appease the Arabs at our expense," warning that Israel, "will not be Czechoslovakia." And the President believes that these remarks are unacceptable.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/10/20011005-3.html
That's way back in 2001, that George W. Bush found "unacceptable" (some reports said he was furious) at PM Sharon's characterization of Bush's "coalition against terror" including saudi arabia, as "appeasement".
Thank you, POV and Columbus. You've absorbed your GOP instructions well.Nap time now.
And thank you, Newt. Free advice, and worth the price. All a Dem has to do is completely agree with the brain-dead GOP agenda, and you'll stop talking sh*t about them. I can't believe they're not listening to you.
The White House background people admitted that it was about Barack Obama. Only when they realized that it backfired on them did they put out the talking points that it wasn't about Obama.
President Bush was interviewed by NBC's great mideast reporter Richard Engel, and refused to deny that it was about Obama when he was given the chance by Engel.
http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/05/sunday_shows_turning_the_page.html
Bush responded to Engel's question by saying his "policies haven't changed but the election calendar has." He purposely avoided saying that it wasn't about Obama because it clearly was.
"I agree POV. It was about Carter meeting with Hamas."
Even if it was, what difference does it make? MMFA's point is that Gates contradicted him, no matter WHO it was about.
Nice try in attempting to shift the argument.
Columbus and POV,
Are you sure he was talking about Carter:
On the record, White House officials issued disingenuous denials that Bush was talking about Obama. But on background, they admitted as much.
CNN's Ed Henry reported that "White House aides privately acknowledged the remarks were aimed at the presidential candidate and others in his party."
Sasha Issenberg writes for the Boston Globe: "White House officials indicated that the criticism applied to Obama."
Brian Williams reported on the NBC Nightly News that "it was clear to those listening that it was in part to make a point about Barack Obama back home." NBC correspondent John Yang then added: "Privately, White House officials said the shoe fits the Democratic frontrunner."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100879.html
Whatever. As if that's supposed to make it all good? It wasn't about Barack, so what's the prob?
Well, sorry it doesn't cut it. If Bush wants to go onto foreign soil and launch political attacks on his fellow Americans, if he wants to assail liberal values from a distance, all you Republicans who back him should go ahead and get used to this kind of unified deomocratic response.
Also, how hypocritical can the right be? You guys flipped your gourds over the Dixie Chicks much tamer criticism. Now suddenly you're down with this bs?
Phony.
Roundhouse
I love your ultimate defense...."whatever"...that great debating point.
It was about Carter, and it makes a huge difference. Carter went against the adminstration and held talks that were not in our interests. He was a horrible president 30 years ago, and he is no better now. He needs to go back to buliding houses for the poor....that he is good at.
Who cares that he did it overseas....Carter met with terrorists overseas, and the looney left did not seem to mind then.
But..in your profound words......whatever.
Guys like you pretend to be so respectful of the office of the President until it really counts.
Guys like you are all about political survival through fear and division.
The game is over. Thanks for playing
Your point of view seems to be "whatever"-- as long as you can attack someone else for their point of view.
Only people with comprehension of what compassion and humanity might mean actually appreciate Jimmy Carter's many contributions.
Mary
I would not argue that he has made many great contributions since leaving office. His humanitarian work since leaving office is probably the greatest of any ex president.
In office, he was a total disaster, and his latest move was mis-guided at best.
Aha. So that's why it's alright for Bush to launch political rocket attacks from foreign lands on fellow Americans. It's because you THINK Carter wasn't a good president.
Roundhouse, I love your ultimate defense...."whatever"...that great debating point. (POV)
the problem here is that "whatever" was not Roundhouses "ultimate defense". It was one word as an introduction to a post where he addressed your points.You pretty much threw up the white flag of surrender when you tried to create a straw man out of one word, while ignoring everything else in RH's comments.
Do you cons really think this stuff fools anybody else? That's just insulting.
They'll foucus on half sentences or a few words to create a sputtering, thoroughly decontextualized response.
I couldn't be happier about it because it's an indication that the positions they are being forced to take have taken them out of mainstream thought and into utter incoherence. While it may be frustrating to think about just how thick their noggins are it's comforting to know that persuadable people are probably pushed closer to common sense liberal thinking by these rightwing inconsistencies.
POV,
Say what you will........ but you know perfectly well that if this had been Bill Clinton that had said this about a prominant Republican, you and all those right-wing self-righteous clowns would be having a collective heart attack over it and would be foaming at the mouth on TV demanding his head on a platter!
You know it and can't deny it!
If everyone would simply take the approach..... treat others as I would like to be treated.......
We might all be able to live together and be able to all come to realize that we are human beings living on a tiny little marble in a fairly large fish tank!
It was about Carter, and it makes a huge difference.
No it doesn't. The point is that Gates contradicted Bush the very same day, and that the MSM is ignoring this little problem.
Is clear thinking and Republicanism mutually exclusive? ( definition: mutually exclusive means they can't go together...)
CNN claims it was about Obama according to Bush's aides and McCain himself reacted as if they were about Obama. Why are you guys so chickensh!t about taking on Obama head-on? Why are you trying to weasel out of it?
Too funny!
Yep, the Clinton News Network is a good place to find hatred of and false attacks against the Clintons.
There isn't a single pro-Clinton outlet in the country besides Paul Krugman, Gene Lyons, and about 1% of liberal websites.
So true, sadly.
But any kind of Clinton-sympathy is reason for hatred, among so many of these Obama fans. And it's going to doom this election.
The time for cyincism is behind us. We get it that Hillary is a professional politicain and all the crap that got flung in the primary is nothing more than part of the game. She fought like hell to win but just like her, you need to understand that once the game is done, there's no hard feelings. It's called professionalism. Look into it.
POV wrote:
>>Sorry if I dont accept the CNN Clinton News Network version of events.
In other words, you are completely wrong and don't want to admit it.
Why would I be surprised that not only are you pro-hypocrisy, you are pro-chickensh!t as well. Hahahaha.
Another gaffe by Pres. Bush, presented by the media as not really a gaffe.
What is Hillary's view about this?
Whatever, the stars seem to be portending a landslide Obama victory in November.
Foser typifies the lying pathology that defines Media Matters. Without a shred of evidence, he writes: "During a speech to the Israeli parliament yesterday morning, President Bush attacked Barack Obama, comparing him to Nazi appeasers for the Illinois senator's willingness to hold discussions with Iran." Nowhere in Bush's speech is Obama even mentioned. If you have evidence that Bush was refering to Obama, provide it. You don't even mention in this blog that the Bush administration denied that Bush was referring to Obama.
The dishonesty has to stop.
You claim he wasn't talking about Barack, he was just, in effect, attacking Obama's personal beliefs. As if that's how presidents ought to behave in front of foreign audiences. I mean, is he trying to convince the rest of the world that they shouldn't take the U.S. seriously unless Republicans are running the show? Talk about naive. Talk about dangerous.
That the shrub called naive the act talking to those the shrub considers enemy, that he painted diplomacy, negotiation as weakness is sick enough. That the shrub compared to nazi symathizers the liberal traditions of treating others as equal himan beings, worthy of rational discussions toward peaceful solutions, is nothing less than eliminationist rhetoric. He created the framework for the dangerous game of fearing the enemy within. In this case he was talking about liberals as the enemy.
You boys should be ashamed of Bush's speech.
THERE WAS NO OUT CRY BECAUSE IT WAS NOT OBAMA OR RIGHT-WINGER HILLARY ALSO WHO SAID IT. BUT LET THAT HAVE BEEN OBAMA OR HILLLAY WHO MADE THOSE COMMENTS.
...two minutes of browsing the web on the subject of Appeasement
would prove to any reasonable person that the current administration
is abeyant in its leadership responsibilities and that almost every member of the
Fox News Team should be fired.
The RWnut meme seems to be, "Oh no, he wasn't slandering Obama. He was slandering Carter."
He also agrees that this appeasement talk coming out of the ultra-conservatives has rarely ever been based on historical fact.
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-scoblic17-2008may17,0,647492.story
"But if there is anything that has been discredited by history, it is the argument that every enemy is Hitler, that negotiations constitute appeasement, and that talking will automatically lead to a slaughter of Holocaust-like proportions. It is an argument that conservatives made throughout the Cold War, and, if the charge seemed overblown at the time, it seems positively ludicrous with the clarity of hindsight.
The modern conservative movement was founded in no small part on the idea that presidents Truman and Eisenhower were "appeasing" the Soviets. The logic went something like this: Because communism was evil, the United States should seek to destroy it, not coexist with it; the bipartisan policy of containment, which sought to prevent the further spread of communism, was a moral and strategic folly because it implied long-term coexistence with Moscow. Conservative foreign policy guru James Burnham wrote entire books claiming that containment -- which, after the Cold War, would be credited with defeating the Soviet Union -- constituted "appeasement.""
Foser's initial paragraph and the basis for this column is incorrect:
"During a speech to the Israeli parliament yesterday morning, President Bush attacked Barack Obama, comparing him to Nazi appeasers for the Illinois senator's willingness to hold discussions with Iran." Foser
In fact, Bush never even mentions Obama's name in the speech. Furthermore, Bush's press secretary clarifies in this AP article:
"In turn, White House press secretary Dana Perino denied that the Knesset remark was aimed at Obama. In fact, the language is fairly typical for Bush speeches, and Gordon Johndroe, a national security spokesman for the president, said Bush was referring to "a wide range of people who have talked to or suggested we talk to Hamas, Hezbollah or their state sponsors" over a long period of time.
One such person most recently was former President Carter, who held talks with Hamas leaders, leading to criticism from Bush officials as well as Obama and McCain.
Even as the White House said Bush meant no dig at the Democrat, Perino couldn't resist the opportunity to get in a small one.
"I understand when you're running for office you sometimes think the world revolves around you. That is not always true. And it is not true in this case," she said."
"Methinks thou doth protest too much"