August 27, 2003
The Weekly Standard vs. BuzzFlash.com and Sidney Blumenthal: Part I
A BUZZFLASH EDITORIAL
A while back the Wall Street Journal called BuzzFlash "the shrillest and most dimwitted political site on the web." We are regular targets of invective from the right wing shills (who are cousins to the kind of journalists who staffed Pravda under Soviet rule). So we werenít surprised when the Rupert Murdoch Neo-Con rag, The Weekly Standard, accused BuzzFlash and Sidney Blumenthal of slander.
Here is an excerpt from the September 1st edition of the Murdoch publication (available only to paid subscribers), entitled "Another Phony Anti-Bush Slander":
The Weekly Standard was reacting to two excerpts from Blumenthalís scrupulously documented book, "The Clinton Wars," which were recently posted on BuzzFlash [LINK].
Here was our introduction to the second excerpt from "Clinton Wars":
BuzzFlash contacted Sidney Blumenthal to get his response to The Weekly Standard attack.
"September 11th was the biggest security failure in American history and it was George W. Bush who neglected the issue and was the president that failed," Blumenthal told BuzzFlash. "The right is trying to blame President Clinton and Democrats generally for the lapses of the Bush administration. Bush has spent his whole life ducking responsibility, having his father's friends cover up his escapades and advance his career and portfolio, and having a political machine blame others and make excuses for his incompetence while hailing him as a great leader. But it's Bush who bears the responsibility. The buck stops there."
As for the BuzzFlash response to The Weekly Standard, one editorial won't be sufficient. But weíll start off by quoting from a recent BuzzFlash editorial [LINK]:
And beyond the known lies about Bush failing to prevent 9/11, there are all the details that the Bush Cartel still refuses to share with the American public. Insiders on the Congressional 9/11 commission have indicated that much of this information would be damning to Bush.
It is vital to remember that The Weekly Standard is owned by Rupert Murdoch. The attack (on Blumenthalís valid assertions that the Bush administration did almost nothing to fight Al-Qaeda prior to 9/11) was reprinted in the New York Post, owned by Rupert Murdoch. No doubt, it will resurface on the always "Unbalanced and Unfair" FOX News, owned by Rupert Murdoch. Murdoch is very skilled at creating an echo chamber for his pro-Bush views. He does the same thing in England, where he uses multiple media outlets to support pro-war, pro-privatization, and pro-deregulation positions. Most importantly, he uses his interrelated media outlets to attack individuals who challenge the puppet government of the Bush administration. If there weren't the Rupert Murdochs of the world running news organizations that are really vehicles for pro-Bush and pro-Blair propaganda, both governments would have collapsed long ago.
In the United States, when you combine the media clout of NewsCorps with other pro-Bush media empires like Clear Channel radio, you have, in essence, a privatized government propaganda dissemination service. Clear Channel, after all, is still organizing pro-Bush rallies (in the guise of "supporting our troops," even when Bush is abandoning them to die), most recently in the Pacific Northwest as Bush made his fundraising rounds there.
So why then would The Weekly Standard react in such a nervously defensive manner to Blumenthalís assertion that Bush was asleep at the wheel in fighting Al-Qaeda before 9/11?
A recent Harvard University study might touch upon at least part of the answer: "While the pages [of newspapers] are more or less equally partisan when it comes to supporting or opposing a given presidential administration's policy pronouncements, the conservative pages are more partisan -- often far more partisan -- with regard to the intensity with which they criticize the other side. Also ... conservative editorial pages are far less willing to criticize a Republican administration than liberal pages are willing to take issue with a Democratic administration." [LINK]
That means supporting the figurehead running the government, even if he daily reveals himself to be an uninformed puppet. Take, for instance, Bushís remarkable ignorance about whether or not we have increased or decreased troops in Afghanistan, as reported in the Washington Post:
Itís like having a blind, brain-damaged parakeet as president. All the Chickenhawk Neo-Con "endless war" advisors sit around the parakeet and recommend war, deregulation, rollback of environmental protections, government contracts for campaign contributors, making America into an official Christian state, and so forth. Because the parakeet is mentally deficient, he keeps nodding his head all the time. The advisers interpret his nodding head as approval for their destructive plans. The Bush corporate media shills prop up the parakeet by insisting that his head nods are proof of his decisiveness and wisdom. This is what passes for good government with the Republicans and their media enablers!
It doesn't even matter if it means America was and is at greater risk for terrorism with a brain-damaged, nodding parakeet sitting in the White House. It doesn't matter that he is a puppet for reckless fundamentalist zealots, driven by narrow-minded illogical ideology. All that matters is rabidly supporting the "team effort." Maybe the team is being led over the cliff, but thatís a mere trivial complaint -Ė a sign of flaccid weakness.
So The Weekly Standard, a propaganda broad sheet for Rupert Murdochís efforts to shape the U.S. government to meet his own needs and world views, criticizes Sidney Blumenthal rather than admitting the sad truth: Cheney and Bush were too preoccupied with larding up the pantry for their corporate contributors to notice that America was about to be attacked by terrorists.
Indeed, just prior to September 11th, Bush was taking his annual month-long vacation at his faux, photo-op ranch, where he is right now.
And while The Weekly Standard fills up its pages with panicky criticisms of BuzzFlash and Blumenthal, our soldiers continue to die in Iraq and Afghanistan.
With the death Monday, August 25, of another U.S. soldier in Iraq, the number of U.S. troops who have died there since May 1, when President Bush declared an end to major combat operations, rose to 138, more than those who died BEFORE Bush declared "Mission Accomplished." Since Monday, three more U.S. soldiers have died. At least 76 American soldiers have died in Iraq since Bush recklessly declared, "Bring them on." Remember how the deaths of the Saddam sons were supposed to slow down attacks on our soldiers? 48 U.S. soldiers have died since that time. And that doesn't include the hundreds that have been wounded. [LINK]
The pages of The Weekly Standard are more than just fish wrap for the Murdoch agenda; they are bloodstained broadsides that defend the indefensible.
A BUZZFLASH EDITORIAL
otherwise noted, all original