More Tales From the Fringe: "Said Rumsfeld"

The Contrived News Story - Jed Babbin

Just to feed Kevin Whited's own obsession, I'll take the bait and give a plug for this comical read on the conclusive proof of a liberal media bias. Kevin's intellectual discourse upon reading this went as follows:

But... but... but the reading-challenged community says this sort of thing is just imaginary, and that the media is REALLY bent towards helping conservatives? How can this be?

That's real deep thinking, obviously. The irony of it all is that while I do offer countless examples in this blog about how the myth of a liberal media is just that - a myth, I don't go on to follow that it is a conservative bias they represent. Then again, anyone who knew how to read would know that. Right?

Anyways, the article itself. Penned by the magnificent mind that authors books entitled "Showdown: Why China Wants War with the United States" and "Inside the Asylum: Why the UN and Old Europe are Worse than You Think" your first two clues as to the degree of insanity are already firmly established. If I throw in the fact that both books are published by Regnery, I could be so bold as to suggest that be a solid strike three. Be that as it may, Kevin seems to accept the writer's premise that the media are still biased ... and overwhelmingly in favor of liberals. Egads!

Nevermind that it took the New York Times two solid days before they realized a very evident reporting error in a Hillary Clinton's speech that totally got the story wrong. Nevermind that the New York Times devotes page one space, above the fold to rumors and innuendo of such weight issues as the Clinton marriage. Nevermind that New York Times writers can't keep their individual story straight as to whether "Democrats are in Disarray" or "Democrats are united" in foreign policy. Nevermind that New York Times reporters call the wrong William Gardner when looking for a quote by the New Hampshire Secretary of State.

No, about the best example of a "liberal media" that Babbin comes up with is that reporters had the temerity to blame George W. Bush for the response to Katrina.

Wow.

I should stand corrected for ... that?

Yeah, you're right to laugh about now. Because Babbin's article is just that funny. It would seem that if Kevin were so bent on proving the concept of a liberal media he'd at least try harder than to link to an awful argument such as this. While it tries to trot the argument forth that a recent AP story regarding Rumsfeld testifying to the Senate Armed Serives committee, even the central point is lost in the laughability of the moment.

Here's Babbin:

Rumsfeld never said he was too busy to bother with the Senate. The story quoted only Hillary Clinton and Ted Kennedy.

Here's the story:

Rumsfeld's decision drew protests from committee Democrats who said much had changed in the six months since he last testified and took questions from the committee. The request for his appearance came from the committee chairman, Sen. John Warner, R-Va., and the top Democrat, Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan.

Rumsfeld suggested that complaints about his decision could be politically motivated.

"Let's be honest: Politics enters into these things, and maybe the person raising the question is interested in that," said Rumsfeld, without identifying anyone.

"Said Rumsfeld" says it all. If a Regnery writer just rolls out the names Clinton & Kennedy, Republican bloggers are too busy slapping on the blinders to note the details.

Way to go Kevin. I'm sure such astounding feats of intellect sway the other 9.99% of Houstonians (and who know how many others) who rail against the machine as you do. In the meantime, at least this blogger will continue to believe that reporters are capable of doing their job professionally, so as to leave most occurrences of bias on the cutting room floor. There's a host of other problems with the mainstream media of course - several of which I'd agree with Kevin on. But that doesn't result from bias ... it results from a deadline-oriented, editor-based news format that makes the final product, too often, just plain bad. Being bad doesn't make them biased.

Unfortunately for Kevin, being biased does make him very intellectually-challenged. If more evidence on that front is needed, I'm sure he'll offer up more gems in the future.

ADD-ON: Just for more laughter today, here's some more quotes and comments that Donald Rumsfeld most certainly did not offer in the AP story:

In the six months since, the number of U.S. troops in Iraq has dipped but now is back up to about 133,000, as part of an effort to quell the violence in Baghdad. The total could exceed 135,000 in the weeks and months ahead.

In other comments, Rumsfeld and Pace, citing intelligence concerns, sidestepped a question about whether they have seen evidence that Iran is supporting Hezbollah in its fight against Israel.

Rumsfeld said it is evident that Hezbollah is using Iranian weapons, adding, "Hezbollah's a terrorist organization, and Iran's their principal financial and military supplier and supporter. The linkage is tight."

Rumsfeld also offered an explanation for why as many as two-thirds of the Army's brigades and many National Guard units are rated not ready for combat. He said the Pentagon is wrestling with standards that would best describe the condition of the units. And he noted that highly experienced units coming home from Iraq leave a lot of equipment behind, and as a result are considered not combat ready.

"The Army today is vastly better than it was two, four, six or eight years ago," he said. "It has much more equipment, much better equipment, and it's better trained and more experienced."

He and Pace also said that funding to address the National Guard's needs — which equal about $21 billion through 2011 — has been included in budget plans over the next five years.

So much for the silent treatment ;-)