Wash. Post identified Harman as "strong-on-defense" Democrat
In a November 29 article about incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's (D-CA) decision to pass over Reps. Jane Harman (D-CA) and Alcee Hasting (D-FL) to chair the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence in the 110th Congress, The Washington Post identified Harman as a "strong-on-defense 'Blue Dog' Democrat," drawing an implicit distinction with the average, presumably "weak-on-defense" Democrat. The Post's characterization echoes a practice previously noted by Media Matters for America of the media's labeling of those in favor of the Iraq invasion as "pro-military" or supportive of the troops, in implicit contrast with those who opposed it or now support withdrawal as somehow "anti-military" or not supportive of the troops.
In contrast with its characterization of Harman as "strong-on-defense," the Post identified Hastings in the same paragraph simply as "an African-American."
Pointing out the dubious implication of being "weak-on- defense" is a purely defensive response. Instead, perhaps the "strong-on-defense" should henceforth be labeled as "militaristic," i.e., inclined toward militarism. Then remind people of the meaning of militarism. [link to en.wikipedia.org] Some useful excerpts:
militarism asserts that civilian populations are dependent upon — and thereby subservient to —the needs and goals of its military
Militarism connotes the drive to expand military culture and ideals to areas outside of the military structure —most notably in areas of private business, government policy, education, and entertainment.
Militarism is ideologically rooted in or related to concepts of alarmism, communism...extremism, fascism...protectionism...totalitarianism...warmongering.
Is this an absurd implication? Probably (PNAC excepted), but that's partly my point.
It's 2006 and the Washington Post still needs to find itself label individuals as African Americans, as if it supposed to mean something.
I can't wait until we can move past such dubious labels and ridiculous shallow indicators that just take up word space in a story. If I can't label myself as a Primate-American, then by golly no one else should get the distinctions. We're Americans, that should be enough.
Democrats are weak on defense, unless otherwise stated.
People in general are white, unless otherwise stated.
I must have missed that memo.
Congresspeople are white (and male) unless otherwise noted.
being "wise on defense" as evidenced by this 5 byear old Iraq debacle. As a matter of fact, Malaki last night expressed a desire for the US Armed forces to leave I raq immediatelly and pay for the build up of his ( Malaki ) armed forces. The words don't translate into a " happy meeting ".
Thank you MMFA for noting the liberal bias in this piece. By identifying Hasting "simply" as an African American, the Post completely glosses over the ethical failures in this mans past, something MMFA would certainly point out if Hasting was a Republican. Really, let's play fair. Somehow they missed it, and the Post missed it.
"In 1989, after being acquitted in a criminal trial, Hastings was stripped of his position as a federal judge -- impeached by the House in which he now serves and convicted by the Senate -- for conspiring to extort a $150,000 bribe . . ."
No fewer than 5 paragraphs were devoted to Hastings' issues, including the following:
"The original case against Florida's first black federal trial judge was circumstantial. A federal grand jury charged Hastings with conspiring with Washington lawyer William A. Borders Jr. to sell a lenient sentence to two convicted Florida racketeers for $150,000.
A sequence of meetings, telephone calls, judicial actions and taped conversations in 1981 convinced federal investigators that Hastings was on the take. But after 17 1/2 hours of deliberations at the end of a three-week trial, jurors voted not guilty."
Are you claiming that the Post's report is inaccurate?
That was MY mistake. My previous post was in error. The article does describe Hasting in more detail than simply "African-American" as MMFA states. I only read the MMFA write-up.
provide the link
Fine response to an ignorant rant... a rant typical of the worthless noises made by the hack "media".
So all it took was to wait 24 hours from the appearance of the above item, to make all the rants about Rep. Hastings a waste of time... Mr. Reyes shall chair the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
Good.
He's a co-author of the Congressional Joint Inquiry's Report on the Attacks of September 11, 2001... his having been a member of the House Intel Committee at that time.
That means he knows what's in the classified (suppressed!) findings of that Report...
Which means you're about to see the hack "media" try and smear or otherwise intimidate this choise to chair that all-important committee.
And make no mistake about it... as important as Iraq is to the American People right now, and as important as Congressional Ethics are also to them (important enough to turn out the previous Congressional majority)...
So are all things Intel every bit as important to the American People right now.
Because it is under the cover of Intelligence that not only have the American People (and their Congress) been lied to, and into, an invasion and occupation of Iraq (an action those People and their Congress were easily persuaded to, as a result of the attacks of 9-11)...
But it is Intelligence that tells us who financed and directed the attacks of September 11, 2001...
Which is knowledge the American people would very much like to hear, and would in the process explain to them, why we are in Iraq, and why we have not gotten JUSTICE for the attacks of 9-11...
Again, all things Intel being all-important in the 110th Congress (as they were in the previous Congresses, so mislead about Iraq and 9-11, as were the American People), this choice for the chair of that committee is important...
And will no doubt be attacked by the hack "media", as advocate of the administration and defender of their criminal activities...
Criminal activities conducted, under the cover of Intelligence, and in the guise of National Security.
(I think they shall try to criticize this choice, based upon his previous votes in Congress, in the matters of the so-called "Patriot Act" and on Immigration and Border Security... which are besides the point of his qualifications on the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence... and besides which also, he has too many years experience in the Border Patrol, and too many allies in that field, for the hack "media" to even go there. Stay tuned.)