Media: National security is a right-wing value
SUMMARY: Several journalists and media figures have taken to describing Democratic criticism of the Bush administration's approval of a deal allowing state-owned Dubai Ports World to assume control of six major U.S. ports as an attempt by Democrats to move "to the right" of President Bush and Republicans in Congress on issues of national security. In fact, some of the Democrats who have most strongly denounced the deal have been among the most active proponents of enhancing port security since the 9-11 terrorist attacks.
In recent weeks, several journalists and media figures have taken to describing Democratic criticism of the Bush administration's approval of a deal allowing state-owned Dubai Ports World to assume control of six major U.S. ports as an attempt by Democrats to move "to the right" of President Bush and Republicans in Congress on issues of national security. Implicit in this characterization of the Democrats' actions is the assumption that national security is a conservative value, and Republicans care more than Democrats about protecting the country against terrorism. In fact, as Media Matters for America has previously noted (here and here), some of the Democrats who have most strongly denounced the deal have been among the most active proponents of enhancing port security since the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
The claim that Democrats who speak out on national security are trying to position themselves to the right of Bush is hardly the sole province of conservative commentators. Media figures from Time and Newsweek magazines, NBC News, Fox Broadcasting Co., Fox News, and The Washington Times have all echoed this characterization in recent weeks.
A Media Matters review has identified the following examples of this characterization since the controversy erupted:
- Time national political correspondent Karen Tumulty
During a discussion of the port deal on the February 24 edition of PBS' Washington Week with Gwen Ifill, Tumulty stated:
TUMULTY: All of these things suggest that at least the symbolism of this and the politics of this are terrible, and the Democrats, who have -- are already on warning that the Republicans plan to use national security as an issue against them in this election, immediately rushed in to have the chance to get to the right of the Republicans, and the Republicans, the last thing they wanted to do was be sitting in a situation where [Sens.] Hillary [Rodham] Clinton [D-NY] and Teddy Kennedy [D-MA] look stronger on national defense than they do.
- Newsweek assistant managing editor Evan Thomas
On the February 26 edition of Inside Washington with Gordon Peterson on WJLA, a Washington, D.C.-based ABC affiliate, during a panel discussion that featured National Public Radio legal affairs correspondent Nina Totenberg and Washington Post nationally syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer, Thomas stated:
THOMAS: One thing that strikes me is -- it is hilarious to watch the Democrats, who are all against racial profiling except in this case, where they're racially profiling an entire country --
TOTENBERG: But I don't think it's --
THOMAS: -- and the Hillary Clintons -- there's a lot about Hillary Clinton in the other subtext here. Hillary and the Democrats need to get somehow to the right of President Reagan on something.
PETERSON: President Bush.
TOTENBERG: They have.
THOMAS: President Bush, excuse me -- need to get to the right of President Bush on something, and so, they have picked this moment.
- NBC News Washington bureau chief Tim Russert
During an interview with co-host Katie Couric on the February 22 edition of NBC's Today, Russert said:
RUSSERT: That's the lesson that Democrats say they have learned from the Bush administration. That is, there is a post-September 11th mentality. That's what [White House senior adviser] Karl Rove warned about, and they are playing it. And House Republicans and Senate Republicans, Katie, are saying, "Oh, my God, mid-term elections coming. We can't let the Democrats get to our right on national security. We're going to join this fray as well."
- Fox News Sunday host Chris Wallace
On the February 19 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday, Wallace claimed:
WALLACE: I mean, one of the things about this, Mara [Liasson, NPR national political correspondent], that I have to say I enjoy -- isn't this a perfect free shot politically for Democrats to play hawk, to attack George W. Bush from the right, "We're more concerned about security than you are?"
- Fox News Washington managing editor Brit Hume
During a discussion on the port deal on the February 22 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, Hume stated:
HUME: Now, this issue has clearly enabled Democrats to appear at least to be to the right of the president on a domestic -- on a -- on a "war on terror," homeland security issue. If this decision -- if this goes on as it appears it's going to, will that stand and make a difference say in the fall election? Or by the fall election?
- Fox News host John Gibson
Interviewing Sen. John Warner Jr. (R-VA) about the port deal on the February 22 edition of Fox News' The Big Story with John Gibson, Gibson asked:
GIBSON: Senator, I'm out of time but I've got to ask you one more question. I've got to ask you one more. There's an election in November. Things are dicey for Republicans anyway. Are you comfortable with the idea that Democrats can run to the right of Republicans on national security on this issue?
On the February 23 edition of The Big Story, Gibson asked Chicago Sun-Times nationally syndicated columnist Robert D. Novak:
GIBSON: Well, the Republicans hadn't been informed about the deal, and it turns out neither had the president. This whole process sort of -- is carried out in official secret status for awhile. But isn't it true that this gives the Democrats a chance to run to the right of Republicans on homeland security?
- Washington Times staff writers Stephen Dinan and Charles Hurt
And finally, in their February 23 Washington Times article, Dinan and Hurt wrote:
President Bush is on the defensive on national security for the first time in his presidency over his administration's decision to approve a Middle Eastern company's bid to manage U.S. ports, leaving Democrats and Republicans all running to his right on the issue.
Did Evan Thomas really say "Hillary and the Democrats need to get somehow to the right of President Reagan on something"?
We mistakenly omitted the part of the transcript where Thomas is corrected and acknowledges that he misspoke. Thanks for pointing this out.
... at least MMFA has confirmed my belief that, while FOX NEWS clearly dominates, stupidity is a value widely shared throughout the media.
I caught one of these "moved-to-the-right-of-Bush" lines on some show the other day. Amazing. Amazing how these commentators -who are apparently free of independent thought and analysis- have absorbed the Karl Rovian-like propaganda that security concerns are exclusive property of the "right".
There has to be insiders in every major media outlet that genuflects to Rove propaganda. It is totally amazing (and impressive in an evil sense) how fast language gets into the media pipeline that favors BushieCo. The button pushers on the Repub propaganda side are insidious b*stards. As long as there message is king, the USA and the world can go to hell.
A plain and simple case of defacating in the ears of the public till people's heads are so full of crap there's no room for truth or reality. This is in keeping with Chomsky's brilliant analysis of how governments control the public without the use of force. Just like Enron, they cook the books in favor of certain fabricated realities then let the public, who are typically too busy or ambivalent to challenge misinformation, soak it up. This scheme, however, would fail if the media would be more skeptical of government claims, or, as we observe in the USA, allow skeptical, alternative views to flourish verses burying them on page 24 or redacting them entirely. Sites like MMFA help dilute the mind pollution but it's a losing battle when confronted with the leviathan of mendacity that is the MSCM (Main Stream Corporate Media).
I've come to believe is the ONLY conservative value. You can bet your last dollar that Bush & Co are making a fortune off of this port deal.
If we had a truly independent press, they would follow the money to see what member(s) of the administration may be getting rich off this deal, either now or in the future. I doubt that they'd have to dig very deep.
This is what I want to know. How is this port deal in OUR best interests? Who's getting paid. No Righty is yet to give me a good reason why any of us should support this awkward deal.
And, I say Righty because I've only gotten tangential reasoning or confusing statements...and, of course, reference to Clinton -- I can only assume these folks support Bush and his antics.
The Dubai deal, on the surface, will heap almost SEVEN BILLION DOLLARS on some folks in England.
See, England NOW holds the contract. England, where Tony Blair, warned that the intelligence was "FIXED" around Bush's determination to invade, ignored that and instead offered his support. England, where the LAST Prime Minister, Majors, now sits on the board of the CARLYLE GROUP beside GW Bush's daddy GHW Bush.
Not to say that individual bribes and "incentives" might not have been made directly to the White House and strategic friends to "grease the tracks" for this "deal", a la Abramoff (GHW Bush's library boasts over a MILLION from Dubai), but a TRUE investigation would be examining INTERNATIONAL quid pro quos.
Bush owes Blair. Blair smooths the sale of the Brit company to Dubai, allowing an influx of 7 billion. Bush has to smooth it from THIS side. Once consumated, who THEN owes whom? Has Blair assured himself a spot on the Carlyle Board, and the vast riches that means? Is this "deal" his personal retirement program? Is GW set to join his daddy in Carlyle, too? Is it just a coincidence that the BIN LADENS sat for years on the Carlyle board as well?
So, an investigation into this deal cannot be limited to just potential bribes to Americans (to sell out the best interests of the American People). This deal is HUGE, and has vast international implications, in power centers which are hopelessly intertwined.
This was all planned years ago by members of the Bilderberg club.
"Depending on the ideological prism applied, the Bilderberg club may be considered an ultra-VIP international lobby of the power elite of Europe and America, capable of steering international policy from behind closed doors; a harmless "discussion group" of politicians, academics and business tycoons; or a capitalist secret society operating entirely through self interest and plotting world domination.
The Bilderberg club is regarded by many financial and business elites as the high chamber of the high priests of capitalism. You can't apply for membership of such a club. Each year, a mysterious "steering committee" devises a selected invitation list with a maximum 100 names. The location of their annual meeting is not exactly secret: they even have a headquarters in Leiden, in the Netherlands"---Asia Times
There is a society within the society called the Pentavalent. They have an offshoot meeting area called "The Meadows". It is made up of the Getty's, the Rothschild's, the Pope, the Queen mum, and Col. Sanders, before he went Tango Uniform.
They have devised a way of mind control to help steer the media to push a conservative agenda. It is implemented through cell phone towers. Ever notice how many are now popping up? Every time you talk on your cell, the tower sends a alternate signal that your sub-conscience picks up. In this way the Pentavalent will bring the industrialized world to its knees.
We must resist. To the bitter end.
I got an invitation from the "steering committee"... but, they wanted me to order at least 10 magazine subscriptions, so I threw it out. Damn!
Your attempt to discredit any "conspiracy" is noted, and you have ample wacky conspirators to aid in your sarcasm (Tri-Lateralists, UFOers, and "Grassy Knoll" JFK buffs come to mind).
However, the conspiracy to undermine democracy by many ways including breaking into the Watergate offices of the DNC turned out to be FACT, as did that zany conspiracy theory that had rogue U.S. military personnel trading arms to the Iranians while illegally supporting the contras. That turned out to be FACT as well.
So, just because something is a THEORY, doesn't make it wrong. In truth, all that is called for is an investigation, which this administration has a deathly aversion to.
You say, HOG, "They have devised a way of mind control to help steer the media to push a conservative agenda."
RESPONSE: That "way of mind control" has been identified. Armstrong Williams (among dozens of others) have said their minds are strictly FOR SALE, and "cash" works far better than any zany network of broadcasting towers. That's the same CASH that was given to Cunningham, was handed out by Abramoff, fills the coffers of politicians coast to coast, funds the MULTI-BILLION dollar enterprises on "K" street, and was no doubt spread around by Dubai like the proverbial drunken sailor.
So, your attempt to minimize (discredit) questions about this multi-billion-dollar deal is really "cute". However, the grownups recognize that suspicions are always "theories" until objectively investigated. Then, they have a nasty habit of turning into plain old corruption, as lofty and wildly improbable as a mugging or knocking off the neighborhood liquor store.
Here is an old article from Newsmax...it says it better than I could:
"Corruption is accepting campaign cash from the Chinese in exchange for military hardware. Corruption is accepting campaign cash as bribes from Indonesian power brokers, from Buddhist Monks, from corrupt corporate moguls. Corruption is defined by the myriad criminal acts and practices of the Clintons and the Gores and their corrupt Democrat minions.
Corruption is the land grabs, the power grabs, the gun grabs, the bribery, the shady deals, the high crimes and treason. Corruption is the theft of campaign dollars through forced labor union deductions. Corruption is the systematic indoctrination of several generations of our youth with socialist dogma via government school systems. Corruption is the removal of God from public life and substituting the homosexual/feminist agenda and the destruction of moral society. Corruption is lying to the public about global warming and the selling of the Kyoto treaty. Corruption is giving up our national sovereignty to the United Nations. Corruption is the abuses of office, obstruction of justice, lying, perjury and subornation of perjury.
The Democrat Party is thoroughly corrupt"
______________________________________________
I guess there is enough corruption to tar both sides of the aisles.
Was CEO of CSX Railway when it was sold to ??? Guess who?? DP World. The sale took place about a year before Snow became Secretary of the Treasury. From what I have been able to find, Snow made around $14MM off the deal. With the Bush family's strong ties in the UAE, there is absolutely no way that they aren't making multi millions off of this deal. And it'll all be there waiting for the Smirking Chimp when he leaves office, you can be sure. These are sick, evil people. Sorry, no other way to see it as far as I'm concerned. How else can you view an administration that will allow 2300+ of our servicemen and women to die and another 19000+ to be maimed and injured in a for profit war? The saddest part is that the people making the most off of this fiasco, off of taxpayer dollars, got a tax cut at the same time. It's a blatant shift of wealth to the top, and the rest of us will be left to pick up the tab.
Why ELSE would the Shrub come out SO STRONGLY in support of it, when he didn't even KNOW about it until afterwards?
BIG, BIG money in this for them, American security clearly has no bearing on the deal.
The left has ALWAYS been better on security than the right, but the GOP propoganda is better, thus, they are "the party of security".
This deal clearly and definitely puts "BUSTED" to this myth.
Your examples of the unfair framing of issues that extremists have succeeded in doing really makes you an indispensable source of analysis. Good work!
How well so called "objective" journalist's have ingested GOP talking points and made them reality. I mean the propaganda machine these neo-cons have going is really remarkable....scary, but remarkable.
Lou Dobbs ( CNN ) reported yesterday afternoon that the deal is going to close March 3, which would make a 45 day delay a muter point. No wonder Dubai went along with the 45 day delay, means nothing and sounds like a good deal. Last time we were at war ( real war ) german submarines were within sight of NewYork and german spies were observing the shipping lanes . Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it.
Isn't it interesting how all the major media marches in lockstep to the beat of the GOP drum? Is Right really right? I hope a prominent Democrat gets up and says that they are very far to the left of the GOP on this issue because they actually care about SECURITY and not about corporate back room deals and fleecing of American Tax dollars.
The Decoycrats are a fake opposition. Any real opposition would have plowed under Bush in the 2000 election.
I know, I know -- the elections are stolen. Know how you can tell the Decoycrats are a fake opposition? They really don't seem to care all that much that the elections were stolen.
Mind you, rank and file (who are being played as suckers by the Decoycrats) really are upset about it. But the leaders of the party never seem to mention it. Decoycrats and Repugs are the right and left pockets of the same pair of pants -- they're just competing PR firms trying to land the corporate account.
The reality is THAT OPPOSING THE PORT SALE IS TO THE *LEFT* OF THE ADMINISTRATION because it puts higher value on common good like national security over greed and corporations.
Don't hold your breath for the Decoycrats to say it's to the Left -- choosing between the Decoycrats and Repugs is choosing between syphillus and gonherrea.
Vote Third Party.
again, an attempt to paint this as a purely Democratic issue... the GOP have had issues with this, too... guys, are your followers really THAT dumb?
Hmnnnn...
Considering this administration's track record with regards to national security - the support in commentary made about such sounds most dubious at best. Why does none of the so-called national media even acknowledge this administrations failures with regards to issues that are associated with national security?
Maybe national security will eventually be sold to the highest bidder..???
Only there weren't any bids.
You wouldn't be thinking of a company that a certain Vice President worked for. A company by the name of Halliburton??
I almost forgot about them - shame on me..
Next on Hannity and Coulter: (Hannity)- Remember back in February when the Democrats took a cheap shot at the administration by pretending to be MORE concerned about national security? Thank goodness all RESPONSIBLE media outlets proved without a doubt that they were actually two-faced racists who were hell bent on bringing an end to John Smith's noble capitalistic vision, and with it, the heavenly utopia we call 'America'.
(Ann)- I swear to God I will have Dali's head on a platter by sundown...
for the first time in his presidency . . ." - Dinan and Hurt
The FIRST time in his presidency???!! Let me put it this way: he didn't exactly seem on the offensive that sunny Tuesday when he continued to sit on his arse and read fiction to a bunch of second-graders with a blank look on his face after an aide informed him the nation's capital and largest city were under attack . . .
and yet this has been his issue for years. he did nothing before 9-11, unlike clinton, he ignored warnings and retreated to his ranch and met with no one during the summer the 9-11 commission said the "system was blinking red". the media totally distorted the 9-11 report and implied that clinton and bush were equally criticized. which is untrue, it's full of bush's non actions and failings. i never bought that he was some great leader because he stood on the rubble of the wtc. but in the end it's the american public who have refused to look at the man behind the curtain, as a famous movie goes.
MJH and MEFIRST thanks for hitting the nail on the head. I am so tired of hearing how "the left", "democrats", "liberals" are so unpatriotic, don't support the troops, hate Bush. The truth is, I don't hate Bush, I hate what Bush is doing.
The BIG LIE promoted by the Propagandists of the Rightwing ... to include the White House and the Media ... is that the LEFT is SOFT on national defense.
As the old country song goes, "That's their story, and they're sss--sssttt---stickin' TO it."
Despite any common sense, despite all evidence to the contrary, despite TRUTH and REALITY and HISTORY, the Rightwing and their promoters will continue to tell this BIG LIE, because their patron saint GOEBBLES tells them it is necessary in order to make a LIE into the "TRUTH".
Luckily, the American People are fed up. The GOP have lost the "TRUST" of the great majority of the America people in the "defense" arena, and once that trust is lost, it simply cannot be regained.
Bush at 30% and falling, and the GOP Congress LOWER, in "job performance". At this point, the greatest threat to America's SECURITY is the Republican Party.
Is a right wing value. On the other hand, doing something about it, is not.
We are to the right and left of Cheney- Bush. on the right we support tough foreingn policy and responsible budgets.On the left , we are for tugh foreign policy and responsible budgets. Cheney-Bush are nuts.
Cheney-Bush are to the right on anti-science and aiding billionaires and on the left in irresponsible budgets for big government. Yes , we can hit them on the right !We can hit them everywhere.
Cheney-Bush -left on bloate pork budget.
nothing left about it. balanced budgets under clinton.
We've known since the base closings that National Security only applies to the red states. The only news here is that Miami is on the do-not-protect list. Not all that surprising as Miami is on the Gulf Coast.