BUSH AND THE MEDIA: PARAMOUNT-CRITICAL QUESTIONS ARE SIMPLY NOT BEING ASKED! Non-challenging interviews, same as before Iraq war.

(Photos:Google Images)

The news media is not livng up to the traditions of reporters such as CBS' Edward R. Murrow by asking hard-tough questions and not letting politicians off the hook so easily before they get a straight answer. Prime example is the one-on-one interviews with President Bush.

The most paramount-critical questions that would provide a deeper insight into how President Bush thinks and formulates his foreign policy decisions in his role as president of the U.S.A. are not being asked by any of the media people in their one-on-one/face-to-face- interviews that I have seen. The interviews are either weak, moderately strong, non-thought provoking and non-challenging. It seems the media will ask certain questions to give the impression they are being tough, but in fact their hidden agenda appears to be to tacitly allow the interviewee to continue down the same flawed path of giving scripted answers, so there will be more interviews in the future, perhaps: “We can’t do anything to upset the President, or make him dislike us. He might not give us another interview, or he may not invite us to another party.” Those are some of the impressions I am normally left feeling after seeing such interviews.

I recently watched Wolf Blitzer of CNN interview the President in a one-on-one right after his September 19th speech before the United Nations (UN) in New York . Wolf Blitzer covered quite a few important areas, one in particular concerning Iran and its nuclear program. And why the President refuses to meet with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran since he was currently in the U.S.A. and also in New York as well after giving a speech before the UN some several hours after President Bush made his presentation on the same day.

Wolf Blitzer reminded the President that leaders such as Sadat of Egypt and Nixon of the U.S.A. had seized the moment by stepping up to the plate and taking the lead during times when there were tensions or serious disagreements with other leaders of the world, For example, Blitzer stated, President Nixon reopened the doors to China with his historic visit there in 1972. And Anwar Sadat visited Israel in 1977. Two perfect examples. However, President Bush remained entrenched in his myopic position that he would not communicate directly with any official of the Iranian government, including President Ahmadinejad, until they have suspended their uranium enrichment. “They know my position, already,” the President stated, with his usual arrogant smirk.” Admittedly and respectfully, Wolf Blitzer was firm and to the point, but not consistent and tough enough with follow-up questions.


Plainly stated, Wolf simply failed to ask the President a few paramount-critical and relevant questions, such as: “Mr President, you represent the U.S.A., a super power, but is just one of the many sovereign countries belonging to the UN. Could you, sir, share with the American people and the rest of the world, exactly from where do you or the U.S. get the authority or right to unilaterally dictate and threaten another sovereign country and member of the UN as to what that country must do or not do? Sir, why are you or the U.S. and not the UN telling Iran what is or is or is not acceptable? And if the Iranian government doesn’t comply, what the consequences will possibly be? And one last question, which is clearly related to the previous ones. President Chavez of the Venezuela during his castigating speech against you before the UN on September 20th, in which he stated, and I quote: “ He speaks as if he is the owner of the world.” Does he have a point? Do you think you are the owner or policeman of the world? Is there any truth to that charge, sir?

No one that I can recall has openly challenged the President with those types of tough, to-the-point, hard questions. Not those that normally get one-on-one-interviews. The only news person that comes to mind that will challenge the Bush administration with pure boldness and tenacity is Helen Thomas (columnist for Hearst News Service). Quite naturally Ms Thomas never gets a one-on-one interview, not that I am aware, with the President because she is a relentless interviewer. And also due to the fact she is actually hated by the White House; or more likely, feared. As one DailyKos blogger asked: "Where the hell is Helen Thomas to conduct a REAL interview when we need her....or a David Gregory even.. I fervently pose the same sane question(?).

It’s doubtful-of course- if posing hard-tough questions would sway the President to change his Evangelican driven mind or alter his fixed-stubborn positions and perspectives. But at least the public will know and appreciate the fact he is being put to the real test by the media. And that it is no longer “deja vue” all over again in which the media failed to hold President Bush’s feet to the fire with probing questions leading up to the Iraq war. You decide!
_______________
Read more about Helen Thomas and Edward R. Murrow, respectively, at: http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2002/thomas-1106.htmlln
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_R._Murrow

DailyKos Blogger's comments: http://docgonzo.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/9/7/05247/63319

LINDA CHAVEZ: SHAME, SHAME ON YOU! For being more concerned about politics and winning elections than saving U.S. military lives.

(Photos: Googles & Yahoo Images)

PRFACE: This post was inspired by Linda's September 18, 2006 Yahoo News Opinion article, excerpted: .......... "With an election just around the corner, the president has some tough choices. .......Or he can do what is necessary to win the war, which means sending more troops to Iraq. History will not be kind if he chooses the former."
___________________

First, I like Linda, because she is a New Mexican. I spent quite a few years serving in the military in New Mexico, and I still have fond memories and much respect for the citizens of that state. And I enjoy reading Linda's writings as well. Whether she is right or wrong, I respect her for taking positions on controversial and heated issues of the day.

But I am absolutely astounded at the fact that Linda hasn't grown after all these years of being on the Washington scene, into a woman that is not only practical, reasonable and one that can face reality, but someone that places the interest of this Nation and its military men and women above "politics and winning elections." It's always easy for those sitting on the sidelines, who probably have not served one day in the military, to urge those in power to commit more troops into harms way for a War that was totally unnecessary, based on lies and deception, which has been badly mismanaged-as she now correctly and belatedly admits. A condition that continues to worsen day-by-day, with our troops being caught up in an unstoppable civil war; despite the Adminsitration's wanton contravening denials.
Congressman John Murtha is right, just as most Americans are now realizing, in that the War on terror is in Afghanistan and we should turn over defense and protection of Iraq to the Iraqis without delay, not cut-and-run, but organized and carefully calculated-time wise. And move on to putting the USA first, coupled with a significant change in foreign policy. Let the peoples of Iraq determine their own destiny, without having one imposed on them by the West,
or by the USA. or by the USA-specifically.
Linda, don't you and the William "Bill" Krystols get it?
The peoples of the Middle East or tired of the West dictating to them and controlling their lands. Take a close look at history. This is a brand new day, an ever evolving era. The USA has to recognize that fact, just as most European leaders are now doing. It is clear Bin Laden or al Qaeda doesn't hate the USA simply because of its wealth and geographical location, but because of its policies and attempt to dominate the world-especially Islamic countries-and support of despotic royal regimes. Only blind followers would advocate a different perspective.

We as Americans must stop believing that those who disagree with current Administration policies are unpatriotic or stupid. Linda, a true patriot is one that will ask hard questions of government officials, and challenge them to do better at a higher moral and ethical level; than simply disingenuously putting spin on serious matters that affect us all and continuing down an endless-spiraling path of mistake-after-mistake, abysmally.

Furthermore, don't forget that the ongoing insurgency in Iraq is being led, primarily, by Iraqi former military officers and Saddam Hussein loyalists; which should be looked at separately in relationship to whether U.S.forces should stay or leave, than the actual terrorism or civil war that are now reaping havoc on the peoples of Iraq.

One last question, please, Ms Chavez: Are the peoples of Iraq, as a whole, better off today as far as having to experience constant mayhem and chaos, than they were before the invasion of March 2003? The clear answer is not simply no, but "hell" no. Last but not least, Linda, I doubt if this brief lesson will change your mind being the staunch committed conservative that you are. But I will admit, you have definitely soften your positions over the years in some areas; which shows some progress at least. There is hope yet.Thank God!

As the old adage goes: "Despite your faults,I love you still;" metaphorically. And yes, because you are a New Mexican, foremost.

______________
Read Linda Chavez' Yahoo Opinion article:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/uc/20060913/cm_uc_crlchx/linda_chavez20060913

Learn more about Congressman Murtha's positions on Iraq War: http://www.house.gov/murtha/iraq.shtml

See Tom Hayden's Article on William Krystol: http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=3349

FOX NEWS CHANNEL’S HAWKS: Not as hawkish and arrogantly supportive of Bush policies as before! An Epiphany? Did reality set in?

(Photos: Google Images)

I noticed on the Neil Cavuto’ show this morning, Fox News Channel, as he interviewed Congressman


Barney Frank (D) of Massachusetts, that he was more of a respectful listener than he has been in the past when I saw some of his interviews. I vividly recall how he used to jump to the defense of the Administration in a combative manner, as if he was a member of the Bush team assigned to the White House staff.

Similarly, I have seen pretty much the same type change in attitude and humility with Bill O’Reilly of Fox News, host of the popular show, The Factor. Just the other day, I watched O’Reilly offering the Democrats advice on what campaign strategies and tactics they should employ if they really want to defeat the Republicans in this November’s general elections. Now that is a new one. But he appeared to be genuinely well meaning.

Admittedly, I can’t and don’t watch each and every telecast. But those I have seen on occasions, in particularly Cavuto and O’Reilly, show “some” of the Hawks to be more reserved and cautious about lending their unconditional support to the President and his flawed policies.

What is the bottom line? Why the apparent change? No doubt, “some” of FOX News Channel’s Hawks have seen the errors of their ways, and cannot zealously support as before the blatant mistakes and miscalculations in foreign policy that the Administration has made, and continues to make almost daily in the name of fighting terrorism. Not only in the case with the tragic mishandling of the Iraq fiasco, but the Middle East Policy in general.

This was evident, especially, during the Israelis massive-disproportionate bombing of Lebanon’s infrastructures, coupled with the slaughter of many innocent Lebanese citizens. When the Bush Administration refused to call for an immediate cease fire, practically, the entire world was aghast at the callousness of the Administration’s inhumane non-diplomatic approach. But how could the Administration demand an abrupt cease fire of Israel, when it had given the “green light” to go ahead with its campaign in Lebanon to effectuate a proxy war on behalf of th USA. Perhaps, the Hawks were not privy to that tidbit of important and relevant news item. Were they left out of the insiders' informtion sharing loop?

I suppose “some” of the most vociferous Hawks have finally come to face reality, in that they realized they couldn’t support such wide scale mayhem that was occurring in Lebanon, and at the same time condemn the terrorists in Iraq for their random and indiscriminate killing of Iraqi citizens along with U.S. military personnel. One can now see on their faces, respectively, a demeanor reflecting a bit of humility, melancholy, tolerance, respect and less defiance and in your face arrogance that was so prevalent day in and day out on Fox News. At times their approach was down right intimidating to some guests, with their out right admonishments of “I dare you challenge or question the President.”

Even if the Hawks have had an experience of epiphany, they will never say “you all were right all along and we were wrong” to those whom they openly and viciously criticized, humiliated and even accused of being unpatriotic at times. Obviously they have come to the clear conclusion that the Administration has simply not lived up to all the hype that they spewed out, whether it be the WMDs or the present War in Iraq. And that the Hawks avid, and unconditional-blind support, is no longer warranted nor deserved. You decide!

STEVE IRWIN- THE CROCODILE HUNTER: Does his tragic death vindicate critics?

(Photos: Google Images and The Times/UK)

I remember a couple years ago when Steve Irwin was shown on television holding his son in his arms while taunting a crocodile during a show in front of an audience and cameras, January of 2004 in Brisbane, Australia.

This image of an apparent thoughtless and careless fatherly act was compared to that of Michael Jackson dangling his infant son over a hotel balcony for fans to see while visiting Berlin, Germany in November of 2002. Michael received worldwide condemnation.

Just as Jackson was severely admonished forwhat appeared to many as a senseless act of putting his son’s life in harm's way, Steve also felt the wrath of public outrage. And he too, like Jackson, responded vociferously and defensively. His paraphrased Michael Jackson’s echo was: “I' m a caring father and I would never do anything to place my son’s life in jeopardy. I know these animals like the back of my hands,” and so on. Yea right! Forgetting that anyone can misjudge, miscalculate or simply, make a mistake. And that animals are unpredictable-just like humans.

The circus world is a prime example of things going awry when dealing with captive wildlife animals that still-basically-are primitive by natural instinct.

And so, while on a filming assignment-down under-in Australia, Steve met his fate from an unlikely nemesis, as The Times-UK reported-Tuesday September 5, 2006. Hearing of his death saddened me because I truly enjoyed his television series , with his jovial, carefree, I ‘m not afraid attitude, and crazy antics. But he-seemingly- tested his bravery to the limits one time too many.

Reportedly, Steve came up against a smooth stingray fish, Dasyatis brevicaudata, one which is placid, rarely attacks except when frighten or threatened, and only stings in defense, normally. The stingray pierced Steve’s heart with its poisonous barb tip while swimming in shallow Australian waters, purportedly, reported The Times. No one gave an accurate account as to precisely what happened. And to protect his daring reputation from his critics, especially, I doubt if his handlers or producer will provide an exact scenario for the heartfelt public and media. But if the stingray normally doesn’t sting unless when threaten, it would not be a stretch of the imagination nor reckless speculation to surmise that more-likely-than-not, Steve probably challenged the fish in his playful manner, and to his own detriment.

Recalling how he would challenge animals on his shows, doesn’t leave much doubt. His critics are probably saying: “I knew it would happen eventually.” Or I told you so! He pushed his luck too far.” But I suppose none of his critics are happy that their words have come true. Too bad, for his family, in particularly, and worldwide fans as a whole. Steve was a consummate environmentalist, a caring and loving husband and father and a dedicated protector of animals. Foremost, he was a great entertainer as well.

But still his critics had valid reasons to criticize, warn, admonish and to give pause. As the saying goes: "Only time will tell." You decide!