The anger over Chris  Matthews comment that Osama bin Laden in his new video sounds like  Michael Moore, and the resulting campaign demanding  that Matthews apologize, arises from much more than a single comment, and has  little to do with Moore himself. The Matthews smear illustrates the fact that it  has become routine in our national political dialogue, and among our nation's  journalists, to equate opposition to George Bush with subversive treason,  and support for Al Qaeda.
The national media has truly adopted this  dissent-quashing dichotomy created by the Bush White House: one is either a  follower of George Bush who praises his war and terrorism policies, or one is an  enemy of the United States who is on the side of Al Qaeda. That is not  hyperbole. This is the manipulative and decidedly un-American view that is  re-enforced again and again
. In the lead-up to the 2004 Presidential  elections, it became the conventional wisdom of prominent "journalists" like  Matthews that the bin Laden was rooting for Kerry to win. The bin Laden video  which emerged in the days before the election was described by these  journalists as proof that bin Laden was endorsing, and even campaigning for,  John Kerry. Every cable news show, including Matthews', featured commentary  equating bin Ladens video with the Democratic Partys foreign policy  views.
This is all part of a broad, ongoing and potent campaign to equate  opposition to George Bush with being pro-terrorist, and the origin of this  campaign is the Administration itself. Bush himself thus uses the language of  treason -- treason -- to instruct  us that we are permitted to criticize his policies only on the narrowest  grounds and with the utmost respect, otherwise we are guilty of aiding the  enemy: 
Yet we must remember there is a difference between responsible and irresponsible debate -- and it's even more important to conduct this debate responsibly when American troops are risking their lives overseas. . . . When our soldiers hear politicians in Washington question the mission they are risking their lives to accomplish, it hurts their morale. In a time of war, we have a responsibility to show that whatever our political differences at home, our nation is united and determined to prevail. . . . So I ask all Americans to hold their elected leaders to account, and demand a debate that brings credit to our democracy -- not comfort to our adversaries.
From the NSA scandal to the war in Iraq, the President and his followers repeatedly accuse those who oppose the President of aiding the terrorists and being on the side of Al Qaeda. And it is this smear  that anyone who opposes Bush is not just weak on national security but literally a supporter of the terrorists  that is the only argument which Bush followers have and its the only one theyve needed. They have won two straight national elections wielding this McCarthyite filth and with the 2006 elections approaching, they are bidding for a trifecta:
Karl Rove, the president's chief political adviser, gave nervous Republicans here a preview on Friday of the party's strategy to maintain its dominance in the fall elections . . . And he left little doubt that in 2006 - as in both nationwide elections since the Sept. 11 attacks - he was intent on making national security the pre-eminent issue.
Mr. Rove called for civility in politics in his speech to the Republican National Committee, and then for 26 minutes offered a lacerating attack on Democrats . . . "The United States faces a ruthless enemy," Mr. Rove said, "and we need a commander in chief and a Congress who understand the nature of the threat and the gravity of the moment America finds itself in. President Bush and the Republican Party do. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for many Democrats."
Rove's strategy has repeatedly worked because our national media stars -- even the ones like Chris Matthews who are held out as objective journalists -- propagate the repugnant smear that opposition to George Bushs terrorism and war policies puts one on the side of Al Qaeda. That's why it's so vital to aggressively protest such comments when they come from "journalists" like Chris Matthews....read on
--posted by Glenn Greenwald
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
No comments:
Post a Comment