Media uncritically reported Bush's false claim that Dems "just say no" to spying on, detaining terrorists
SUMMARY: Numerous news outlets -- including the Los Angeles Times, ABC, CNN, and CNBC -- uncritically reported President Bush's false claim that Democrats oppose "listening to," "detaining," "questioning," and "trying the terrorists." In fact, Democrats have repeatedly acknowledged the need to eavesdrop on, detain, question, and try terrorists, while objecting to specific Bush administration antiterrorism policies that they consider to be violations of current U.S. or international law, or unwarranted expansions of presidential powers.
In their coverage of an October 30 rally in Statesboro, Georgia, numerous news outlets -- including the Los Angeles Times, ABC, CNN, and CNBC -- uncritically reported President Bush's false claim that Democrats do not want to detain, interrogate, and try terrorists, nor eavesdrop on their communications. "When it comes to listening to the terrorists, what's the Democrats' answer?" Bush asked the audience. "It's, just say no. When it comes to detaining terrorists, what is the Democrats' answer? Just say no." But contrary to this common line of attack, while Democratic critics of Bush's warrantless domestic surveillance program have raised concerns about the White House's decision to bypass the law governing foreign intelligence, they have repeatedly acknowledged the need for U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies to eavesdrop on suspected terrorists, as Media Matters for America has noted. Further, Democratic opponents of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 did not object to the government detaining, questioning, and trying terrorists, as Bush suggested, but rather criticized provisions of the bill allowing the president to hold detainees indefinitely without the ability to challenge their detention and authorizing the use of controversial interrogation procedures.
From Bush's speech at the October 30 "Georgia Victory 2006" rally:
BUSH: When it comes to listening to the terrorists, what's the Democrats' answer? It's, just say no. When it comes to detaining terrorists, what is the Democrats' answer? Just say no. When it comes to questioning terrorists, what's the Democrats' answer?
AUDIENCE: Just say no!
BUSH: When it comes to trying the terrorists, what's the Democrats' answer?
AUDIENCE: Just say no!
BUSH: So when the Democrats ask for your vote, what's your answer?
AUDIENCE: Just say no!
During the past year, Bush has repeatedly used this line of attack against Democrats, as have other senior GOP officials, including White House senior adviser Karl Rove and Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman. For instance, in an October 3 speech in California, Bush said, "If you don't think we should be listening in on the terrorists, then you ought to vote for the Democrats. If you want your government to continue listening in when Al Qaeda planners are making phone calls into the United States, then you vote Republican." He went on to claim that most Democrats -- in opposing the Military Commissions Act of 2006 - "voted to stop the men and women of the CIA from continuing a program to get information from terrorists like Khalid Shaikh Mohammed about planned attacks on the United States of America." These remarks appeared in an October 4 article by Washington Post staff writer Peter Baker. But Baker pushed back against Bush's claims:
Bush's language, though, characterizes Democratic positions through his own prism. Critics of the surveillance program have not argued against listening to terrorist phone calls but say the government should get warrants from a secret intelligence court. Likewise, many critics of the tribunal measure did not oppose interrogating prisoners generally, as Bush said, but specific provisions of the bill, such as denying the right of habeas corpus or giving the president freedom to authorize what they consider torture.
In a separate appearance that week, Bush repeated his claim that Democrats do not want to eavesdrop on suspected terrorists, stating, "One hundred and seventy-seven of the opposition party said, 'You know, we don't think we ought to be listening to the conversations of terrorists.' " And in an October 5 article, Baker again challenged the basis for Bush's comments:
Asked about the president's statement, White House aides could not name any Democrat who has said that the government should not listen in on terrorists. Democrats who voted against the [Military Commissions Act] legislation had complained that it would hand too much power to the president and had said that they wanted more checks in the bill to protect civil liberties.
But in contrast to Baker's past rebuttals, numerous news outlets reported Bush's October 30 attack on Democrats without challenge. For instance, in an October 31 article, Los Angeles Times staff writer James Gerstenzang highlighted the "just say no" portion of Bush's speech. Rather than note that Democrats have not, in fact, opposed "eavesdropping on suspected terrorists, detaining them, or trying them," Gerstenzang merely quoted Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid's (NV) general response to Bush's remarks: "Americans are just saying no to his administration's no-plan, no-end approach to Iraq":
Bush listed several key anti-terrorism measures opposed by Democrats, noting that when it came to eavesdropping on suspected terrorists, detaining them or trying them, members of that party "just say no."
"So when the Democrats ask for your vote, what's your answer?" he asked his audiences here in Texas and earlier in Statesboro, Ga., where more than 5,000 supporters gathered at Georgia Southern University.
"Just say no!" the crowd roared at each stop.
The office of Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) issued a terse response: "Contrary to the president's intentions, Americans are just saying no to his administration's no-plan, no-end approach to Iraq."
Similarly, in a segment on the October 30 edition of ABC's World News with Charles Gibson, White House correspondent Martha Raddatz uncritically aired a clip of Bush claiming that Democrats have opposed "trying the terrorists":
RADDATZ: Tomorrow, the President travels to Georgia again, and later in the week, Montana and Nevada, where the strategy is the same.
CHARLES BLACK (GOP strategist): And you wanna go into places where you can make a difference in turning out the Republican base without doing any harm to the candidate.
[begin video clip]
BUSH: Just say no.
RADDATZ [voice-over]: In every one of these places, the president will deliver his new rallying cry: Just say no to Democrats.
BUSH: When it comes to trying the terrorists, what's the Democrats' answer?
AUDIENCE: Just say no.
[end video clip]
RADDATZ: But there are plenty of Republican candidates who have said "no" to George Bush, feeling his presence, with the black cloud of Iraq hanging over him, can only hurt their chances.
Meanwhile, CNN repeatedly aired Bush's "just say no" attack on the October 30 edition of CNN's The Situation Room.
From correspondent Kathleen Koch's report on the speech:
KOCH: The president drew perhaps his biggest response by insisting Democrats were soft on terrorists.
[begin video clip]
BUSH: When it comes to detaining terrorists, what's the Democrats' answer?
AUDIENCE: Just say no!
BUSH: When it comes to questioning terrorists, what's the Democrats' answer?
AUDIENCE: Just say no!
BUSH: When it comes to trying the terrorists, what's the Democrats' answer?
AUDIENCE: Just say no!
BUSH: And, so, when the Democrats ask for your vote on November 7, what's your answer?
AUDIENCE: No!
[end video clip]
KOCH: President Bush will be on the road campaigning every day but one right up until Election Day, trying to make sure those predictions that some disillusioned Republican voters will stay home don't come true.
Earlier in the show, correspondent Jeanne Moos devoted an entire segment to Bush's use of the phrase "just say no":
MOOS [voice-over]: Multiple choice, just say yes to the true originator of --
BUSH: Just say no.
NANCY REAGAN: Just say no.
BUSH: Just say no.
MOOS [voice-over]: But just because the correct answer is Nancy Reagan.
REAGAN: What will you do if someone offers you drugs?
AUDIENCE: Just say no!
MOOS [voice-over]: Doesn't mean George Bush can't use it at rallies to tweak Democrats for, in his view, being soft on terrorism.
BUSH: When it comes to listening in on the terrorists, what's the Democratic answer? Just say no. When it comes to questioning terrorists what's the Democrat's answer?
AUDIENCE: Just say no.
BUSH: When it comes to trying terrorists what's the Democrats' answer?
AUDIENCE: Just say no.
MOOS [voice-over]: The technique is called call and response and it led up to this punchline.
BUSH: So when the Democrats ask for your vote on November 7th, what's your answer?
AUDIENCE: No!
Furthermore, on the October 30 edition of CNBC's Kudlow & Company, host Larry Kudlow began a discussion of the current political climate by airing Bush's attack on Democrats:
KUDLOW: All right, "Your Money, Your Vote." Just eight days until Election Day, and the campaigner in chief, George W. Bush, was out again today, hammering his message home. Here it is.
[begin video clip]
BUSH: The Democrats just follow a simple philosophy. Just say no. When it comes to listening to the terrorists, what's the Democrats' answer? It's just say no. When it comes to detaining terrorists, what is the Democrats' answer? Just say no. When it comes to questioning terrorists, what's the Democrats' answer?
AUDIENCE: Just say no.
BUSH: When it comes to trying the terrorists, what's the Democrats' answer?
AUDIENCE: Just say no.
BUSH: So when the Democrats ask your for vote, what's your answer?
AUDIENCE: No!
[end video clip]
KUDLOW: All right. There's a lot of optimism out there. The president's got it. They're trying to transmit a message to the troops for turnout day on the ground. The vice president in my interview was also very optimistic. The question is can this optimism truly rally the GOP faithful, and, and, and, and will the United States be absolutely resolute on winning the war in Iraq?
that only by rallying the GOP can US be resolute on winning the war in Iraq. Is THIS the so-called liberal bias CNN supposedly has?
This speech is enough to give you the willies in that it reminds of Hitler's speeches to his cadre of brown shirts, and anti-semintites at an Octoberfest beer hall singing songs of the "Fatherland" and chanting to their leader.
These taxpayer paid trips around the nation that exclude attendance based on party affiliation is beyond the pale, and has nothing to do with the American democractic process.
Fascism!! The American Fascist Party is in the White House, and have control of the Republican Leadership, face it.
This is our last chance to hold onto our freedoms, our civil liberties, our democracy.
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
Just keep tellin' it, 'cause we still need to hear it.
And, come next Tuesday, I'll be votin' Democratic.
and they will tell you this is exactly how it happend back then. Everyone that did not join the nazi party and did not support the party or the troops, was branded a traitor. The jews and the communists were blamed for everthing and were locked away in concentration camps after a phony trial and stripped of any rights. Also the nazis 'clensed' the language by replacing foreign names with german meanings. Freedom fries anyone?
Liberals just say YES to the fourth amendment and the rule of law.
why do you have to come to a web site like this to get the truth? is it not the duty of the media to report the truth? to have someone providing the other side to what bush says? it's the media that allows these misconceptions to grow in the public mind. like the "dean scream" and the bush team claiming that the votes had already been counted "five or six times" in florida in 2000. these are false stories and phony talking points that could be cleared up in ten minutes by providing both sides of the story. but the media does not provide it. just like they all fell into line when bush's first cousin called the 2000 election at fox, based on a phone call from cousin jeb.
that our angry disposition toward Bush is baseless.
This guy loves us and wants to unite all Americans, he would never resort to scare tactics to retain power. Would he?
after all, it worked so well in the "war on drugs", didn't it?
is pretty high after 6 years of this pinhead representing my country, but I saw this speech and it's at a whole new level.
All of these stump speeches in Texas & wherever he's going, take a look at the crowds behind him. Slack jawed, glassy eyed, extra fingers. Stinkin HAY BALES all over the place, and the chimp in chief training his inbred base to chant "just say no" to a bunch of made up strawmen, simplistic caricatures of the world outside his retarded bubble.
I apologize to retarded and inbred people for the above remarks, I just get a little riled thinking that video of this p*ssy preppy meathead President are shown all over the world, and one of these cretins with a "W" sticker on their bumper jumping up and down in a gymnasium, cheering because Bush has slogans they can remember, canceled out my vote.
Yet 33 House Democrats voted to allow Bush to torture people and there has been NO action against him from the Democrats on either issue, the torture or the wiretapping.
He didn't.
What he took an oath to do was to protect & defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign & domestic.
It was his first official lie as President. He has done everything in his power to UNDERMINE the Constitution since being thrust illegaly in to office. He is a coward & a traitor, & has gone about systematically stripping hard won & long cherished liberties from the people that he claims to protect. The specter of the Nuremburg Rally is eerily conjured as he sternly leads his bug-eyed minions through their obedient paces.
If we f*ck up & allow the blackshirts to hold onto complete power come next Tuesday, history will judge us as a people just as harshly as it has those of Hitler's Germany & Mussolini's Italy. Most of us grew up thinking that this was an unimaginable scenario. We were confident that had WE lived in those times, we would have made a difference. Well, THOSE time have now become THESE times, & its up to us to make a stand for freedom.
The question soon to be answered is whether we're up to it.
That was what Nancy Reagan used in the 1980's. These lame charlatans can't even come up with something new. The fact that a rally involving George Bush could still fill up a gymnasium is stunning beyond belief. The fact that there are still enough morons who support this fool to fill up a bathroom is telling of how there will probably always be a certain narrow sliver of Americans who simply won't let go of the cliff of idiocy and laziness and fall onto the cushion of reality. Therein lies the irony: if they let go, there is a cushion waiting. A nice cushion called reality which involves intellectual honesty, thinking for yourself, and supporting the military in real ways besides putting a magnet on the back of your gas-guzzling S.U.V. next to your W'04 bumper sticker.
THANK YOU. njguy93@yahoo.com
that I would hear "Just say no" resurrected. When I was in elementary school, I had to march in a parade around our elementary school shouting "Just say no", and I wore t-shirts that read "Just say no." I have come full circle. I never thought that it would be this way. Someone using something that conveyed a good message in it's original inception in order to splatter propoganda with Orwellian and Goebbels-like strains in them in and see if the splattered propoganda sticks anywhere and manages to get a few votes stuck to it, in order to help a criminal regime hold onto a rubber-stamp, enabling Congress that has at times acted like the Iraqi National Parliament under Saddam Hussein.
THANK YOU. njguy93@yahoo.com
President Bush reduces nearly every argument to the degree it eventually bears no resemblance at all to what is really being debated.
President Bush should be in marketing.
to those we have to thank for supporting Saddam, the Taliban or Osama & the mujahedeen, to name a few!
Those that stood by as Saddam gassed the kurds and iraqis. Those that supported the Taliban in hope to build a gas pipeline and controll the optium production.
Those that were freedomfighters as long as it was russians they were blowing to shreds.
Those that happily sold weapons to the Iranians in the Iran-Iraq war when the US's favor of Saddams was wobbling.
Thos that helped the murder of millions of iraqis so they can liberate the oil, the only thing of importance.
Those who claim to be saving us from are the SAME people we have to thank for supporting them.
Rumsfeld and his cohorts should be standing trial right next to Saddam for the support of that regime.
Wake up people, these guys are oppertunist gangsters and would not hesitate to sell us out.