By Michael Reagan
May 01, 2005
In recent days there has been a series of examples of the media's propagandizing on behalf of the Democrats.
America woke up the other day to media reports that the CIA has ruled out the possibility that that Saddam's weapons of mass destruction had been secretly sent to Syria prior to the outbreak of hostilities. According to the media, the issue is now closed. The Washington Times, however, had a different take on the story, reporting that the CIA's chief weapons inspector Charles Duelfer said he cannot rule out the possibility that Iraqi weapons of mass destruction were secretly shipped to Syria before the March 2003 invasion, citing "sufficiently credible" evidence that WMDs may have been moved there.
According to the Times, speculation on WMDs in Syria was fueled by the fact that satellite images picked up long lines of trucks waiting to cross the border into Syria before the coalition launched the invasion., and that retired Marine Lt. Gen. Michael DeLong, the deputy commander of U.S. Central Command during the war has written that intelligence reports pointed to WMD movement into Syria. Moreover, in October, John A. Shaw, then the deputy undersecretary of defense for international technology security, told the Times that Russian special forces and intelligence troops worked with Saddam's intelligence service to move weapons and material to Syria, Lebanon and possibly Iran. "The organized effort was done in advance of the conflict," he said.
The Fifth column reported none of that.
Democrats, panicked at the thought that President Bush's judicial nominees might win confirmation if senators were allowed to vote on the nominees instead of being stymied by a filibuster, are attempting to make it look as if the Republicans were trampling on the Constitution by changing the rules to allow senators to cast their votes either for or against the nominees.
Ever eager to help their Democrat allies, big media have gone all-out to perpetuate the falsehoods being peddled by Harry Reid and company.
According to the spunky Media Research Council, ABC and The Washington Post paraded a new poll they said showed two-thirds opposed to a rule change to end Democratic filibusters of judicial nominees. But the poll, it seems, was a "push-poll," designed to get the results the pollsters wanted. The language of the question led to the media's desired answer. Here's how the questions were framed:
"The Senate has confirmed 35 federal appeals court judges nominated by Bush, while Senate Democrats have blocked 10 others. Do you think the Senate Democrats are right or wrong to block these nominations?" Right: 48 percent; wrong: 36 percent.
"Would you support or oppose changing Senate rules to make it easier for the Republicans to confirm Bush's judicial nominees?" Support: 26 percent; oppose: 66 percent.
MRC asks what the results would have been if the questions were honestly posed:
"In a change from long Senate tradition, Democrats have employed the threat of filibusters to block the confirmations of ten federal appeals court judges who would win majority support in an up-or-down vote. Do you think the Senate Democrats are right or wrong to use such tactics?"
"Would you support or oppose restoring the Senate's traditional procedures which provide for a majority vote of Senators to confirm judicial nominees?"
When House Speaker Dennis Hastert
announced that the GOP would rescind the rule changes to which
the Democrats objected and were using to prevent the Ethics Committee
from meeting, the media portrayed it as a slap in the face of
Tom DeLay that would subject him to an unwanted investigation.
They ignored the fact that DeLay has been calling on the committee
to investigate the charges largely made against him by the media.
Look for Mike's new book "Twice Adopted".
All Rights Reserved.
Distributed exclusively by Cagle, Inc. www.caglecartoons.com
to subscribers for publication.