Libby and the Libs

I would never condone lying to investigators nor lying under oath. But I also don't think Libby's indictment is a black and white issue. There are many questions I would like answered. Why did Valerie advocate for her husband to go to Niger? What were his qualifications? Was he the most qualified person to examine the yellow cake claims? Is this a typical assignment for Joe Wilson? Why did he go alone? Why wasn't there a written report when he returned? Why did he write an op-ed in the New York Times? Speaking for myself, I'm not sure I'd write an opinion piece in a major paper if I were trying to keep my wife's identity a secret. I think the last thing I would do is make myself a household name. But Joe made himself a household name. People often want to know more about the author in these cases.

Part of the problem as I see it is that conservatives have a media blackout. The "mainstream" liberal media has lost all objectivity, and has also lost any desire to present all of the facts in a story. It is increasingly impossible for Bush to have his voice heard, and when he does try to make his voice heard, the liberal media is quick to parade a bunch of liberal senators and pundits that refute what the president had to say. The liberal media believe GW is a liar, and they can only report from that angle. They are a part of the problem, and they really need to take a look at their contribution to the hysterical state of politics. If the Bush administration strongly felt that Joe Wilson's claims in the op-ed piece were not accurate, and if they truly felt that it was essentially a boondoggle arranged by his wife at best and at worst an attempt to actively undermine the president, what is their defense? "Trust us"? "There's a lot we can't tell you and we can't tell you why we can't tell you, but trust us that the op-ed piece is inaccurate." Yeah, that would be effective. Their defense is that it was a boondoggle arranged by Wilson's wife. Nepitism. But unfortunately their defense fringes on illegal, and citing her by name did cross the line. The Wilsons with the help of the CIA did a beautiful job of putting the Bush administration in a corner, a corner that was impossible to get out of.

Why aren't we asking more questions about this trip? Is it proper for a CIA operative to advocate for her husband to do a job? Shouldn't someone else in the CIA decide who is the most qualified to go and gather the information, and leave Valerie out of it? Wouldn't that have been the most ethical? Most of the time the media jumps all over "cronyism", but on this issue of "cronyism", they are noticably quiet.

The Media is Out of Control

Why is our media not held accountable for their actions? I recently saw the "demon eyes" of Condoleeza Rice that was printed in USA Today. The original photo was doctored so that Condi's eyes were demon like and made her look evil. Why is this happening? Why is it allowed to happen? USA Today wrote it off as "sharpening and brightening" that had an unfortunate effect on Condi's eyes. The libs really do think we are all a bunch of idiots if they think we buy that.

It's not big secret that "mainstream" media is liberal. And they seem to be embracing their liberalism and the power that comes with it. Rather than challenge themselves to have TRUE diversity in the newsroom (a diversity of ideas, for the libs that think diversity in skin color but not in world view means true diversity) they instead glorify the fact that they have control of the major papers and the network news. How are Americans going to get unbiased news? How are we to get the facts? Not interpretation of the facts, but the true facts. Thanks to the internet, many of us can research the claims made in the news, but I shudder to think of what will happen to our ability to research should Hillary be elected President. She has already made it clear that she is unhappy with Americans ability to choose our own news. Her Hollywood friend George Clooney has backed her up on this issue. They long for the days when the "true" news professionals of the network news all reported the same thing from the same angle. Of course they do, it kept Americans in the dark.

Is There Such a Thing as "Mainstream"?

Senator Kennedy graced us with his presence this morning to express his deep shame at the "extreme wing" of the "President's party" for providing a "litmus test" for Harriet Meiers. Senator Kennedy thinks that Americans want a "mainstream" candidate that will represent "us" on the issues that we care about. Which begs the question: what is "mainstream"?

In this instance it is easy to see that Kennedy defines 'mainstream' as someone that is pro-choice or at least will not overturn Roe v. Wade should they have an "extreme" view of abortion. How does Kennedy identify being pro-choice as being mainstream? It seems that liberals tend to call their views mainstream. If Bush were to put a "mainstream" candidate on the bench, or at least one that Kennedy would view as mainstream, Bush would essentially be putting a liberal on the bench. Why do we conservatives roll over and play dead when liberals identify what is mainstream?

Can't we as conservatives turn the tables and identify conservative issues as mainstream? If Kennedy is basing his definition of mainstream on what he thinks most Americans want, then can't we say that it is mainstream to cut pork? Or it's mainstream to expect welfare reform, to expect that food stamps not be sold for drug money? How often do we get to hear a conservative view be identified as "mainstream" in the media?

Double Standard

Liberals tend to want one set of rules for you and me, and an entirely different set of rules for themselves. They feel that their actions are reasonable and justified, but actions of conservatives are not. Take this quote by Joseph Wilson: ``It is in the DNA of the people in (the Bush) administration to go after anyone who questions them..."

How about I re-phrase this statement? It is in the DNA of liberals to go after any conservative in higher office. If Bush is "questioned" (a liberal term for criticized), why doesn't Bush have the same rights Wilson affords himself? Why should Bush roll over and take it? Why does Wilson assume he is above being 'questioned'? Wilson has tried to spin a little tale of woe about his wife's career being compromised. The issue at hand is nepitism. Wilson questions Bush's reasons for going to war, the Bush administration questions Wilson's reasons for going to Niger. It's as simple as that, provided you're not liberal.

Wilson, being a Kerry campaigner and unashamed liberal, can't grasp the concept that the Bush administration has the same rights that he does, and that is to openly question motives and reasons and to make public the facts of a given situation. Instead of the press hammering the Bush administration, they should be questioning why the Bush administration doesn't have the right to openly question someone that is openly "questioning" them.

All things being equal

So the liberal media has been doing their best to hammer it into our heads that the Iraq war is a total mess, was unjustified, and could quite possibly be worse than the Vietnam War. Bush's approval ratings are plummeting. Is this really a surprise? If the media focuses solely on the negative, it would follow that Americans would also focus on the negative. Who else but the media are we going to get our information about the war from? Every time GW tells us his side of the Iraq war, the media is quick to tell us exactly why he's wrong. And really, isn't he just an idiot that misleads the American people so his oil cronies can become richer?

What I wonder, given all of this negative reporting on Iraq and the subsequent polls showing Americans growing displeasure with the war is this: why doesn't this translate into other areas of the news? My local news is filled with weekly reports of murders throughout the city-gangbangers, druggies, you name it, we have it. Sometimes we lose our police officers to these idiots. Why am I not being polled? Can't I say that my approval rating for the mayor's handling of the 'war on drugs' or the 'war on crime' is low? Why doesn't the media scrutinize the efforts of other elected officials? Why aren't they demanding that our "troops" pull out of those high crime, high murder areas? Why aren't they scrutinizing the plans our local elected officials have or don't have in place to fight crime? To save our "children" that are dying on the police force? Why am I supposed to assume that in my city, even though the news coming out of it is primarily bad, that overall it is still a good city? Wouldn't it stand to reason that if my city is overall a good city despite the plethura of bad news coming out of it, that Iraq can overall being going well despite the abundance of bad news that the media reports?