During the Iraq war, a Senator who was writing a highly controversial pro-war bill became concerned about his opposition. A private company, at the request of its customers researched how the bill would be bad for Americans and provided that information to the public. The Senator, upon hearing that, went to President Bush and complained about the company. The Administration then started an investigation of the private company, an action that served to intimidate and silence the company. Please note that simultaneously, the CBO came out with results that the company was right. The bill’s goal would be harmful to Americans.
How many ethics problems do you see? How oppressive has our government gotten? What does this say about freedom in America when people who oppose the government get the wrath of that government. Probably the biggest question is where was Press to tell on the government when all that happened?
Well the answer to the last question is easy. The Press was on the side of the President and so it covered up the news of the oppressive government agency retribution.
Do you believe that? Well actually I lied. That did not happen. But it just happened under the Obama Administration regarding its own war; Health Care. And Obama’s storm troopers have indeed jumped all over a private company that dared to publish information for the benefit of its customers that was critical of a Senator’s plans. This should be a headline. No matter what your party affilitation, you should be outraged. We are Americans and we have a right to freely express our opinions about any Senator’s or President’s proposed legislation without fear of retribution by government agencies. Ten years ago this would have been all over the headlines. It would have been exposed in the halls of our Capital. It is un-American. And it is being done without shame by our Government.
13 comments:
"Ten years ago this would have been all over the headlines."
I completely disagree.
Ten years ago no one would have known about the bully tactics. The intimidation would have taken place, and everything would have passed quietly into the night. It's only with the advent of the internet, good search engines, and the blogosphere that these stories come out. Only after they get a following on the web, and everyone already knows about it does the MSM begrudgingly cover the "news".
Yes the web was around 10 years ago, but it was not the source of information it is today. And it was certainly not as big a part of daily life as it is now.
Think about it, would any one have found out about Acorn's antics without the web?
Thanks Freedom,
We should definitely keep an eye on that. A govt. official or office should never threaten or intimidate private citizens or organizations.
By the way I wanted to help you with your mythical story of such a thing happening in the previous administration. It wan't necessary for you to make a story up.
You've got A.G. Gonzalez firing attorneys who weren't "Bushies". Then there's Valerie Plame's CIA career ruined because her husband spoke the truth about yellow cake from Africa. What about the literally thousands of govt. subsidied scientists who complained of working under a constant threat of retribution if they mentioned anything about human-caused global warming.
And of course there's the right wing's wonderful Faith Based Initiative funding for humanitarian and health groups -- as long as they showed the "right faith" about abortion, homosexuality, etc.
And then I googled "Bush, intimidation", and I found this ironic gem:
MEDICARE ACTUARY THREATENED WITH FIRING IF HE TOLD TRUTH TO CONGRESS: "The government's top expert on Medicare costs was warned that he would be fired if he told key lawmakers about a series of Bush administration cost estimates that could have torpedoed congressional passage of the White House-backed Medicare prescription-drug plan. Richard S. Foster, the chief actuary for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services told colleagues last June that he would be fired if he revealed numbers relating to the higher estimate to lawmakers." [Source: Knight-Ridder, 3/11/04]
When are you conservatives going to realize that if you want to regain any credibility, you've got to confess Bush's sins and completely divorce yourself of that contemptible administration?
Killer . . . Regain credibility . . . you mean like Obama has? No President in the history of this country has plummeted in credibility like Obama has.
Those things you spoke of were extensively reported by the press. No hiding it. You recalled for us widely reported issues. Good for you. Things I am finding as OrangRecneps states wouldn't be discovered if it wasn't on the Internet because the press covers it up! The question of credibility extends far from the White House and has far reaching implications. And since you seem to be the one who measures credibility for us, I am sure you agree and would be applauding efforts to expose the truth that the press tries to cover up.
OK Freedom, could you pause from attacking your liberal media windmills long enough to answer a question?
GE, Viacom, Rupert Murdoch, Walt Disney, Sony. These are the big media owners. They are also extremely conservative mega business conglonmerates. How do they figure into your world of liberal media conspiracy?
Or could it actually be an ironic reality if liberals and their battles against big business, and conservatives and their battles against government and the liberal media are in fact fighting opposite sides of the same windmills and don't even know it?
Killer, I am beginning to understand the disconnect now. In this new age, some people still think that big conglomerate = extremely conservative. That is just not true. GE is as big as they come and it is well documented that their management is purposefully in the tank for the President's agenda. The following quote comes from an Aug 26 article in the Washington Examiner.
"Rep. Charlie Rangel of Harlem received $2,000 from GEPAC. He is not in electoral danger, but he is chairman of the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee. Rep. Henry Waxman of Hollywood also doesn't need GE's help getting elected, but the $1,000 from GEPAC might make Waxman, who's chairman of the Commerce Committee, more amenable to a GE-friendly climate bill or health care reform bill.
Of the six House members who have received more than $4,000 from GEPAC this cycle -- all Democrats -- only Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., faces a tough re-election next year, thanks to accusations that he has used his chairmanship of the Defense Appropriations subcommittee to benefit donors and patrons. GE is a top defense contractor.
The other top recipients are all safe incumbents in powerful positions: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Budget Committee Chairman John Spratt, House Majority Whip Steny Hoyer, Ways and Means member Richard Neal, who chairs the subcommittee on Select Revenue Measures, and key appropriator Norm Dicks.
The "intersection between GE's interests and the government's actions" is plenty crowded. GE is betting on climate change legislation, high-speed rail funding, electric car subsidies, embryonic stem cell grants, expanded federal health care spending, subsidies for renewable energy, defense contracts and continued financial bailouts."
Rupert Murdoch? You got me. But he is not a conglomerate. He owns Fox. Enough said.
Viacom? Conservative? Same as GE.
Walt Disney? Conservative? I looked but I don't see where it has ever been labeled conservative. Too many references to the contrary.
What I see isn't windmills. It isn't perspective or a the pot calling the kettle black. I appreciate your view that it is just all Coke versus Pepsi, but it is clear to me that it is more.
Freedom Fighter,
You said it's clear to you that it is more (than just Coke vs Pepsi). I'll say it's more!
Without a moral compass, how can a person lead? When you veto basic human rights (3rd term abortion), you have thrown away your compass, and you're now leading the country into dangerous territory. Everything else is consequential.
This is definitely not Coke vs Pepsi, or the other side of the same anything!
Anonymous Sister
Well, perhaps you partially made my point. Your data hardly proves that GE is a liberal entity. It is not uncommon for corporations to play both sides of the political aisle depending on who has the power.
But perhaps that is the point. It's not about liberal or conservative to them. It's about advantage/disadvantage, profit/loss. GE likes the bulk of Obama's energy bill as much as Exxon hates it. And they paid Waxman to NOT lean too far to the left on health care.
And I don't think they really care about what the left media says so long as it doesn't appear to be a threat.
You're right about GE as a defense contractor. Phil Donahue had his show on MSNBC until he was one of the very first to suggest there were no WMD's in Iraq. And his show was suddenly pulled.
I tried the "media is a funhouse mirror" illustration on you and that didn't work.
Let me try another. If you're a fireman with a hose, the media is the spectacular top of the flames. But you need to still aim your hose at the base. Who is at the base? Just follow the money.
I believe conservatives, by and large, are good, well meaning people. But you are misguided and wasting energy and resources when you blame the media. They are not the SOURCE of the problems in this world. When conservatives attack the media, you end up looking like --and I know this is cold -- but you end up looking like the Washington State Cougars. --kb
Killer Bee,
Who said the media was the source of the problems in the world? (They are not the source of anything, including reponsible reporting.)
But the mainstream media jumped on the leftist bandwagon many years ago (probably before you were born) and are playing their pipes for all they're worth. Or they're the spectacular flames (as you put it), on a hay wagon.
They don't own the wagon. They never will, but the nature of their job is to continually jump on one leftist wagon after another to attract attention of the masses and get them moving in a certain direction.
You are right. The media is not the source of our problems. They are the advertising company, bought & paid for, and they don't come cheap.
Anonymous Sister
I love you, Killer Bee
I love you too, Anon Sister. But "Who said the media was the source of the problems in the world?" Are you kidding?
Which former Speaker of the House (Freedom Fighter got his pic with him.) wanted to cut funding to NPR because it was too liberal for him? What crusty old senator from the south (He's dead now. I can't remember his name but you know him) wanted to buy CBS just to get Dan Rather off the air?
Who of you still insist to this day that Sarah Palin was "ambushed" by Katie Couric and Charles Gibson with hard questions designed to make her look stupid?
And furthermore, are you going to suggest that only liberals pull the media strings?
Cheney made it his 24/7 job to control the "truth" from the White House. And he had the FOX team and Robert Novak to mule his messages.
The point I've been trying to make all this time is that 1) I believe the media is not nearly the "group of organized liberal conspirators" that conservatives think it is. And 2) Even if they are mostly liberal, it's irrelevant.
Flames on a burning hay wagon? Point your hose at the hay wagon!
We should probably stop talking about this now because this is the very high pitched subject FF and I were talking about when he blew a hose in his head. And we both love him too. --kb
Heh,
Thanks Killer, but be assured. We are all much more concerned about you.
Killer,
Why is it that even when I agree with you, you still argue?
"Come to Me, all you who labor, and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For My yoke is easy and My burden is light."
That's who I listen to.
Anonymous Sister
I'LL STOP ARGUING WITH YOU AS SOON AS YOU STOP AGREEING WITH ME! YOU KOOKY CONSERVATIVES ARE THE REASON FOR ALL THE . . . Hey what's that smell? . . . Is that toast? . . . . . . AUUUUUUUUGGGHHH . . . . .
Killer,
Sorry but you're not making sense to me. Now you don't want me to agree with you. I don't get it.
Anonymous Sister
Post a Comment