Click. Print. Bang.
Greg Mitchell, editor of Editor & Publisher, asks the media do what it can to overthrow the Bush Administration. Within legal bounds, of course:
Lacking an impending election, or a real impeachable scandal, what does Mitchell plead?
No matter which party they generally favor or political stripes they wear, newspapers and other media outlets need to confront the fact that America faces a crisis almost without equal in recent decades. Our president, in a time of war, terrorism and nuclear intrigue, will likely remain in office for another 33 months, with crushingly low approval ratings that are still inching lower. Facing a similar problem, voters had a chance to quickly toss Jimmy Carter out of office, and did so. With a similar lengthy period left on his White House lease, Richard Nixon quit, facing impeachment. Neither outcome is at hand this time.
What are you asking for, Mr. Mitchell? Are you asking you friends in the professional media to gin up outrage and hysteria, in hopes that in a nation of 300 million... no, you couldn't be. It seems possible:
The alarm should be bi-partisan. Many Republicans fear their president's image as a bumbler will hurt their party for years. The rest may fret about the almost certain paralysis within the administration, or a reversal of certain favorite policies. A Gallup poll this week revealed that 44% of Republicans want some or all troops brought home from Iraq. Do they really believe that their president will do that any time soon, if ever? Democrats, meanwhile, cross their fingers that Bush doesn't do something really stupid -- i.e. nuke Iran -- while they try to win control of at least one house in Congress by doing nothing yet somehow earning (they hope) the anti-Bush vote. Meanwhile, a severely weakened president retains, and has shown he is willing to use, all of his commander-in-chief authority, and then some.
Start the discussion. Urge the media. Confront Bush. And then… Right?
I don't have a solution myself now, although all pleas for serious probes, journalistic or official, of the many alleged White House misdeeds should be heeded. But my point here is simply to start the discussion, and urge that the media, first, recognize that the crisis—or, if you want to say, impending crisis -- exists, and begin to explore the ways to confront it.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 01:00 PM
Comments
Posted by: Retired Navy at April 20, 2006 01:17 PM (Mv/2X)
Strawman, anyone?
Posted by: TexasRainmaker at April 20, 2006 01:19 PM (TwSjW)
Posted by: Old Soldier at April 20, 2006 01:31 PM (X2tAw)
Posted by: Ed at April 20, 2006 02:20 PM (V/JOf)
Not sure how he's "severely weakened," though. Sounds more like someone at E&P is severely delusional and paranoid.
I do believe it is much more likely than most people think that Bush will be assassinated. The media pretty much ignored the unsuccessful attempt on his life in the republic of Georgia, which failed only because the grenade thrown at him was a dud.
Posted by: TallDave at April 20, 2006 02:22 PM (t55h2)
Not sure how he's "severely weakened," though. Sounds more like someone at E&P is severely delusional and paranoid.
I do believe it is much more likely than most people think that Bush will be assassinated. The media pretty much ignored the unsuccessful attempt on his life in the republic of Georgia, which failed only because the grenade thrown at him was a dud.
Posted by: TallDave at April 20, 2006 02:25 PM (t55h2)
Posted by: Shambles at April 20, 2006 02:28 PM (r77Gr)
Poll numbers are a much used and influential indicator. As much as politians say they don't listen to the polls, they listen to the polls.
I do believe it is much more likely than most people think that Bush will be assassinated. The media pretty much ignored the unsuccessful attempt on his life in the republic of Georgia, which failed only because the grenade thrown at him was a dud.
Who believes the president will be assasinated? How can you say such a thing?
And, the attempt on the presidents life in Georgia was not ignored by the media at all. You get a number of things wrong here. First, the news that a grenade was found 100 feet from the podium where the president was speaking was not released until 24 hours after the fact. Second, when it was released, it was done by the Georgian Security serives, which apparently did not report the event correctly. (The grenade was "found" on the ground, not thrown, and was "not live", "a dud". There was no video of the event of course, at least, none was released to the media.
Finally, a week later, the FBI released the results of their findings, which were in stark contrast to the Georgian services information.
FBI Agent Bryan Paarmann was charged with finding the truth...
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/05/18/bush.georgia/
"A hand grenade was tossed in the general direction of the main stage and landed within 100 feet of the podium," Paarmann said in the statement on the U.S. Embassy's Web site.
"From initial qualified inspection, this hand grenade appears to be a live device that simply failed to function due to a light strike on the blasting cap induced by a slow deployment of the spoon activation device," Paarmann added in the statement.
In Washington, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Bush was fully briefed on the situation Tuesday evening and again Wednesday morning, the second time by FBI Director Robert Mueller and Homeland Security Director Michael Chertoff.
The device was inspected by Georgian and American experts, who will complete a report on the incident, the statement said.
The grenade was wrapped in a "dark tartan-colored cloth," the embassy statement said.
"We consider this act to be a threat against the health and welfare of both the president of the United States and the president of Georgia as well as the multitude of Georgian people that had turned out at the event," the statement added.
All indicators at the time from the White House were that the incident was not to be heavily covered.
For what it's worth, on average, there are several attempts on the presidents life every year, and the Secret Service prefers to keep such information close to the vest. We simply do not hear about them, which is as it should be. When we do hear about it, as in the Georgia attempt, it's because the action has gone public. But, even so, the Secret Service and the FBI make concerned attempts to keep the information guarded, in order to maintain a proper investigation. In this case, it seems to have worked as it should.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/07/20/world/main710460.shtml
Now, whether the Georgians are to be trusted to actually deliver the actual assassin or set someone up to take the fall to appease the situation is an entirely different issue...
Posted by: Bob the Elder at April 20, 2006 03:08 PM (r77Gr)
Posted by: Brainster at April 20, 2006 03:47 PM (hEScd)
Tell me, how is that different from what they, the media, already do? One of the media's main problems is that they have cried 'wolf' falsely so many times that in a real crisis, many will not listen to them.
Posted by: docdave at April 20, 2006 04:10 PM (0HeoE)
Posted by: Tom TB at April 20, 2006 05:46 PM (Ffvoi)
3 years of Cheney as prez would be acceptable to me.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at April 20, 2006 05:49 PM (4MB5o)
Processing 0.0, elapsed 0.0071 seconds.
18 queries taking 0.0042 seconds, 20 records returned.
Page size 13 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.