Echoing DeLay, Hume called Democratic Party "unserious about national security"
On Fox News Sunday, Brit Hume echoed a previous comment by Rep. Tom DeLay, claiming that the Democratic Party is "as a whole, unserious about national security."
Echoing Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX) during the April 2 broadcast of Fox News Sunday, Fox News Washington managing editor Brit Hume said the Democratic Party is "as a whole, unserious about national security." During a speech at the July 2003 national meeting of the College Republicans, DeLay said: "The Democrats' problem is not a lack of patriotism, it's a lack of seriousness ... We're in the middle of a global conflict over good and evil, and they're in the middle of a Michael Dukakis lookalike contest."
From a panel discussion about the political judgment of Sen. Russ Feingold's (D-WI) proposal to censure President Bush for authorizing the National Security Agency (NSA) to eavesdrop on U.S. persons without warrants, on the April 2 broadcast of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday:
HUME: Well, he [Feingold] may have better political judgment in terms of what's going to appeal to a broad cross-section of a Democratic Party which is, as a whole, unserious about national security. As to whether he has better political judgment about what appeals to the country as a whole, I doubt. I think the Feingold position and the Feingold attitude toward this is politically very dangerous for Democrats. Juan [Williams, National Public Radio correspondent] is correct. It tends to underscore the notion that Democrats, really when it gets down to it, are very persnickety about what America does in the world, but not much concern about America's enemies.
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
I'm sure I'm not the only one completely unsurprised by this one. Faux news, just at it again. Just the mis-statements and lies on Faux is enough to keep MMfA busy. I don't want to see Bush Censured, I want to see him jailed - that's my personal opinion, but until we have the opposing party in power, there will be no oversight, just mock outrage by the righties to attempt to separate themselves from a politically damaged president to further their own aspirations, while their paid minions, like Hume, continue to make up their own facts on where the Democrats really stand on things such as National Security. The Dems positions on the issues are pretty easy to figure out - just take a look at the DNC website, and it's all there - that is, if anyone in the MSM bothered to look.
...going to repeat facts. BushCo was warned about planes plowing into skyscrapers, day after day. They did nothing before 9-11 to avert this specifically delineated threat and after 9-11, they built military bases atop some of the world's largest oil reserves, borrowing 2 trillion to finance imperialism and decadence. I am old enough to have ducked and covered: crawled under my desk in grade school on the teacher's command to practice for nuclear war. I remember the Bay of Pigs and many other events that edged us close to war. But I have never felt less secure than I do now. This neocon sense of security is something I can't comprehend.
I also remember ducking and covering, the Bay of Pigs, The Cuban Missile Crisis, The Gulf of Tonkin, Vietnam, and all of the other things that traumatized our generation. I also have never felt less secure than I do now.
While we were having these experiences in the 1960's, my parents, aunts and uncles were hopeful. They were optimistic. They had lived through the depression and World War II, yet they could still look to a bright future, even as they were seeing their sons sent to Vietnam.
My mother passed away last year. She was amazed that George W. Bush was re-elected and that a war hero's service was denigrated by those who did not serve their country. She was angry that America had pre-emptively invaded Iraq and everyone wasn't outraged. Her generation had Edward R. Murrow and Walter Cronkite, and in her last years, she had to sit through the lies of O'Reilly and Matthews. She commented frequently about how we were being misled by the Media and the religious right.
I wish I could be as hopeful for my kids and grandkids as my mother was for me. My only hope is that I've always taught them to think, not to accept and to reason, not just believe.
Today, there was a glimmer of hope. I read that Tom DeLay is dropping out of his race to keep his seat in Congress.
I can sometimes feel a little crazy in my rising fear, but I've seen anarchy. I've seen the streets of Cleveland ground into chunks by tank treads. I've seen tear gas tossed at college students (Ohio State University). My father was in Detroit when it burned: he described on the phone what he saw from his hotel. I've been in the bomb shelters of my childhood playmates.
But GWB seems the greatest danger of my life: greater than the Cold War and Vietnam and the strife of the civil rights struggle. They position themselves as strong on security, but I've never felt more insecure. His appetite for war and vengence seems boundless. I just wish he had been drafted and served in Vietnam. The same with Cheney and Rummy. I think they'd be different men: peacemakers instead of warmongerers. Or if they were truly Christians, that would also work. If they believed in the morality of the Christ rather than just his divinity, they'd be compelled to serve peace rather than submit to war.
Hume is echoing a man who is resigning his seat in Congress because he wasn't serious about having ethics, so who could expect it to be the truth?
I am sure Brit would point to how the Republican Party has shown how serious they are about national security. Especially when they captured the mastermind behind 9/11. Or how they have transformed the Middle East into nothing but flourishing democracies. Maybe he would point to the port security and how we now examine close to 100% of the cargo coming into the US. I know, he could point to how much has been done since 9/11 to secure our borders. It least we are ready in case of a national disaster, like a dirty bomb or a hurricane. Anyone else thing of any examples of how serious the Republicans have shown they are about national security?
More great examples of "Republicans making us safer..."
[link to www.msnbc.msn.com]
Read that...then "ask yourself a question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk?"
The government also was very forthcoming during the cleanup in Lower Manhattan after the towers collapsed. They were monitoring the air for hazardous materials the whole time that the cleanup was underway. No asbestos or other contaminants were found at the time.
The fact that a lot of the rescue workers are coming down with illnesses from breathing those materials is probably just a coincidence.
Also just as coincidental is the fact that political appointees are overruling scientists at NASA, the EPA, NOAA, the CDC and the NIH. All of the above are National Security concerns, but in every case, political expediency trumps security.
Brit ever serve in the military? Or serve the nation in any way ?
"He obtained a student deferment from the Vietnam War draft, and in 1965 graduated from the University of Virginia."
And from [link to www.azcentral.com] ...
"Brit Hume, Fox News anchor No military service."
I think Hume sees Fox correspondent Major Garrett working under him and figures that makes him a General.
It is always easier to rehearse others than to think of smears yourself. That is what Hume was probably thinking.
Further, DeLay is one of the most right-wing partisan politicians around these days who twisted (and still twists) every word a democrat or a liberal says or writes. He is a favorite child (or parent) or the religious right and happely destroys the democratic party to inject religion into politics. Any comment from him on ideas of democrats or standpoints of democrats are always biased and therefore unethical to refer to when arguing how strong the democrats are on security. It is actually the same to say your an eye-witness because you heard the story from your grandmother who had it from her neighbour who new the niece of the postman that sometimes cut the grass from those living three blocks away fdrom the victim.
Why don't you report on the Democrats positions and plans, Brit, and then let us< decide whether they're "unserious about national security".
I know MM will delete this post, as they should, but I want some of you to read the exhange between Leatherhelmet and me in the "ho" thread.
for your comment in the L thread.
Read it, Holly. Thanks for your thoughtful, intelligent remarks.
Dave and Yellow Bird.
Glad to see that Brit's hooked his wagon to DeLayish comments like the "unserious about national security" bullscat.
Next step for Brit? Do journalism a big favor and step down, just like your Hammer hero.
At a time when running for President costs more and more, the Republicans don't have to bother putting ads on Fox; just let the corporate advertisers pay Fox for doing the propaganda for the Republicans.
You say this stuff with such a straight face, I can't help but believe YOU actually believe it!
I'll best "as a whole, you're not very serious about national security" yourself. Seeing that you failed to ever contribute to it - like so many of your rightwing, pro-war (until it means me) cronies!
Just more more Bush league talking points/propaganda masquerading as news delivered by an empty suit posing as a reporter. Too bad so many have been conditioned to see this as somehow legitimate and not for what it really is.
Waas Bush "serious" about nat'l security when he went on vacation in Crawford rather than attend a NSA briefing a month before 9-11 where the subject was BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO STRIKE US?
Was Bush "serious" about nat'l security when he continued to read fiction to a second grade classroom in FL while an aide informed him the nation's capital and largest city were under attack?
Was Bush "serious" about nat'l security when he was initially opposed to the formation of the DHS?
Was Bush "serious" about nat'l security when he {a} intially tried to block the formation of the 9-11 commission, {b} refused to testify himself, and {c} allowed his then-NSA and current SecState to testify only after certain conditions were met?
Was Bush "serious" about nat'l security when he thus far hasn't implemented any of the recommendations of the 9-11 commission?
Was Bush "serious" about nat'l security when he attempted to have a corporation based in the UAE - where money that financed the 9-11 attacks was funneled and where two of the nineteen 9-11 hijackers were from - take charge of port security in 21 U.S. ports?
Was Bush "serious" about nat'l security when he admitted in March 2002 that he "didn't know where he [bin Laden] is . . . didn't think much about him . . .", and didn't consider his capture "a priority," in direct contrast to a statement days after 9-11 that the capture of bin Laden was "our number one priority"?
I guess when it comes to national security, my definition of "serious" is different from that of a Texas oilman/governor/CEO/guardsman/MBA from Yale . . .
Note to Brit Hume: Considering what Tom DeLay has done, and may possibly be going, you'd be wise to echo someone else . . .
... on Hume, Bush, Cheney or DeLay to "KEEP US SAFE" by being serious about our national security ...
we'd be SCREWED. These "men" are cowards, who avoided serving in combat while America was at war.
Luckily, we had Americans like Kerry, Murtha, Gore, and Clelland to wear the uniform and place themselves in harm's way in our defense.
HOW FRIGGIN DARE THESE CHICKENHAWKS defame "Democrats" from their position of being craven cowards? HOW DARE THEY???!!!??!
...makes one a "coward?"
So you're calling Bill Clinton a coward.
HOW DARE YOU!!!!!
You're off-topic. You responded to Tex's post which stated that if we were to depend on the current crop of Chickenhawks in the media and the government, we'd be screwed.
Clinton is not and has not been in the government for more than 5 years. He didn't pre-emptively attack another country based on faulty intelligence. He didn't change the reason for the invasion after his original reason was found to be inaccurate. He isn't the one who has lost more than 2,500 of our young people in a senseless war. He isn't the one who sent more than 10,000 to be maimed. He did not denigrate the service of those who fought in Vietnam. He did not cut health care benefits for veterans. He did not cut heath care benefits for the families of the troops currently serving. He did not allow his minions to attack John McCain, John Kerry, John Murtha and Max Cleland who all did serve their country by going to Vietnam while GWB did not. While Dick Cheney did not. While Tom Delay did not. While Brit Hume did not.
This has nothing to do with Bill Clinton and everything to do with George W. Bush and the Chickenhawks now serving at the top of our government and in the pulpits of our media centers.
First, you are misnamed. You are not honest.
Second, there were approximately 60 million American men eligible to be drafted to serve in VietNam. Only about a million and a half were called and served.
Would I say that only two in sixty American men of that generation were COWARDS? I certainly would NOT.
However, a certain percentage of those who did not serve make it their business to criticize other's patriotism, to question their loyalty, and to claim they are NOT INTERESTED in National Defense.
It is that group, who DID NOT SERVE THEMSELVES, but feel self-righteous enough to smear those who DID serve ... whom I address.
And guess what, genius? Bill Clinton did not engage in smearing and belittling our troops. He did not accuse his political opponents of being traitors, unconcerned with National Defense. Plus, he did not openly SUPPORT the VietNam war, as the Chickenhawks of the Right did (while they did not serve).
So, "Political DISHonesty" would be a better moniker for you. "What about Bill Clinton?" only works if the comparisons of the issues at hand are apt. To invoke Clinton when the "comparison" is invalid, well, that's politically dishonest.
"How Dare I?" Easily, because the facts are on MY side.
Calling me names certainly is consistent with the tactics of smearing and belittling that you claim to be so gravely offended by. And rebutting an inference I never made can only be defined as intellectually dishonest. Further, the tedious claim that conservatives, Bush Administration officials, et al “make it their business to criticize other's patriotism” is yet another silly exaggeration that undermines your pretense of moral indignation.
My comparison is completely valid, because Clinton’s opposition to the Vietnam war and his avoidance of the draft were serious points of contention when as president he neutered the military, catered to the Soviet Union’s interests to preserve the ABM treaty, and sold ballistic missile technology to the Chinese. He was HATED by the military for his policies that undermined our national security. His avoidance of the military during Vietnam was defended as irrelevant by liberals at the time, yet now these same liberals wrap themselves in the flag and criticize Republicans/conservatives that didn’t serve. These facts, inconvenient as they are to your argument, are on the side of history – I stake no egoistic claim to them. In other words, genius, if you claim that it was cowardice to avoid service during a war, you should be honest enough to apply it to everyone.
I won’t hold my breath waiting for an honest admission, and I won’t waste any more breath on arguing the point further. Go ahead and have the last word. I’m sure it’ll make you feel very righteous.
Boy, it sure is a good thing all the other networks don't let any bias leak into their news reporting. I sure am glad only right-wingers are guilty of that. It sure was fun talking into this little echo chamber here.
...remembering Dan "The Memo Was Accurate" Rather and countless other examples...
Is unserious about journalism.