The Most Trusted Names In News

The Most Trusted Names In News
Vol: 22 Issue: 22 Tuesday, July 22, 2003

Earlier this month, former CNN News Group Chairman Walter Isaacson gave an interview to Chris Matthews on MSNBC’s Hardball. In it, he described the organization he used to run in glowing terms; CNN is a pure journalistic network that tries and has ingrained in its DNA, good reporting, straight, et cetera, whereas, I think cable is very good with provocative, opinionated stuff. CNN, when I was there and now, still doesn t want to have opinionated talk show hosts.

A few hours AFTER that, CNN’s Aaron Brown and CNN correspondent David Ensor discussed the latest news ‘scoop’; There is, as you know, a story that s been circulating on the Web today that there was at some point a conversation between the President and a CIA consultant where the consultant directly told the President that this African uranium deal was bogus. Do you have any reporting that supports the idea that the President was directly told it was fake before he included it in the State of the Union speech?

Ensor’s reply sounded very professional: I have no way to confirm that story, and it is somewhat suspect I would say, but we ll have to check it.

So you see, CNN is good, straight, unbiased reporting. Except the story had been discredited as a hoax by that same internet site that allegedly ‘broke’ the story. The site had printed a full retraction four hours earlier.

But as long as the ‘charge’ was phrased as a ‘question’ and the ‘fair and balanced reply’ was that it was ‘unconfirmed’ instead of completely discredited, the message came through loud and clear. The Bush administration is dishonest. Honest!

CNN’s non-opinionated Aaron Brown opened his July 14 Newsnight broadcast with this tease: “The President campaigned for the job in part on the notion that he was the anti-Clinton, a man who said what he meant, meant what he said, no sentence parsing needed. Square that with today and critics who say you ve got a bonanza for sentence parsers and at least the makings of a credibility gap.

After eight years of non-stop serial lies and deception under Bill Clinton (so beloved by CNN that its critics used to call it the Clinton News Network), Brown finds the ‘sentence parsing’ of the Bush administration (said ‘parsing’ being a repeating of the original 16 words accurately instead of selectively) as ‘at least’ the ‘makings’ of a ‘credibility gap’. (I would agree, but it is Aaron Brown whose credibility is on the line).

CBS News’ July 10 website headline screamed, “Bush Knew Iraq Info Was False. Wow!

Peter Jennings teased ABC’s July 8 program thusly: On World News Tonight, the Bush administration admits that a vital argument for going to war against Iraq was not true.

ABC says more Americans get their news from ABC News than from any other source. It must be true, since ABC scooped the rest of the world. How does Peter Jennings know that the British intelligence cited in the speech isn’t true when British intelligence still believes that it is?


I continue to be amazed at how easy a job it is to convince the public that up is down and black is white by the simple expedient of repeating it over and over until people start repeating it back. I know I’ve been almost single-minded about this, but SOMEBODY has to tell the truth.

The latest polls suggest that just over half the country now believes that George Bush lied in his State of the Union speech expressly to deceive the country into going to war with Iraq. Half the country!

Half the country believes that when the president said that British intelligence ‘believes’ Saddam tried to get uranium from Africa, Bush was lying. British intelligence STILL believes it, according to British intelligence. But what do THEY know?

Maybe Bush ‘knew’ — the mainstream liberal press sure wants you to believe that he did. But the fact is, NOBODY knows yet. Not only is it impossible to prove a negative, but Saddam DID get uranium from Niger in the 1980’s. Real uranium. That is a historical fact.

So when the British develop intelligence — independent of the US — that not only confirms US suspicions, but dovetails with his historical pattern, (intelligence Britain STILL stands behind) how then does it follow that the White House knowingly mislead the country?

There may come a time when it is proved that this administration DID mislead the country, But this isn’ it.

This is spin, pure and simple. It ignores 12 years of reasons, twelve years of almost daily conflict, not to mention 18 UN resolutions and an unfulfilled ceasefire agreement.

The proof is in the watching. Have you heard any newscast dwell on all the other reasons for war? Or has whether or not Saddam sought uranium from Africa become the single most important reason for heeding Clinton’s 1998 call for regime change in Iraq?

This is the Principle of the Big Lie at work. Test it out for yourself. Ask anybody you meet if they think Bush may have lied in his speech. See how many of them think so. Then ask them about what. Then look at how sincerely they believe it, even when they aren’t sure what it is he lied about. Then remind yourself of WHO his accusers are.

Behold, the power of propaganda!

“Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:” 1 Peter 5:8

This entry was posted in Briefings by Pete Garcia. Bookmark the permalink.

About Pete Garcia

Christian, father, husband, veteran, pilot, and sinner saved by grace. I am a firm believer in, and follower of Jesus Christ. I am Pre-Trib, Dispensational, and Non-Denominational (but I lean Southern Baptist).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s