BCT Editorial – 10/10/05

This page was last updated on October 10, 2005.

A dry well; Editorial; Beaver County Times; October 10, 2005.

This editorial is a case of “the pot calling the kettle black.” The editorial wants us to believe President Bush is beating a dead horse with respect to terrorism, yet doesn’t see a similar problem with repetitious editorials regarding public school funding, tax shifting, et cetera.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Bush use of terrorism scare tactics is coming back to haunt him

“President Bush’s 9/11 well has run dry.

“Since that awful September day in 2001, Bush repeatedly and shamelessly has dipped into the emotional reservoir created by the attacks on America to justify just about everything his administration has done - and to provide cover for its gross incompetence.”

[RWC] What a load of BS! Americans – and probably most people worldwide – have short attention spans. There’s nothing wrong with reminding Americans on a regular there are people out there trying to kill us and they’ve been at it for more than 20 years. While I understand why liberal partisans want us to forget we have enemies, it’s irresponsible.

“In fact, his excesses have reached the point that insightful political commentators such as John [sic] Stewart of the faux news program ‘The Daily Show’ openly mock the president’s flagrant exploitation of that tragedy, especially via its ‘terrorism’ mantra.”

[RWC] Is the author kidding? Jon Stewart is an “insightful political commentator?” I think Stewart is a funny guy, but he’s been mocking everything Bush for over four years and openly supported John Kerry for president.

“But two events last week in official Washington showed this source is drying up for Bush.

“On Wednesday, the U.S. Senate voted 90-9 to back an amendment to a $440 billion military spending bill that would prohibit the use of ‘cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment’ against anyone in U.S. government custody, regardless of where they are held.

“The White House bitterly opposes the ban, and Bush has threatened to veto the measure.

“Although the House could reject the amendment, look at the numbers in the Senate. Ninety senators, including Pennsylvania’s Arlen Specter and Rick Santorum, backed it. That kind of consensus is rare in Washington, and it is a reflection of how misguided the Senate and, we believe, the nation see Bush is on this issue.”

[RWC] The editorial wants us to believe the Bush administration supports torture. What the editorial omits is the amendment grants terrorists protection “by the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.”

“The administration’s effort to have the flawed USA Patriot Act renewed also has run into opposition - and not from a bunch of overly sensitive civil libertarians on the left and right. Bedrock American business groups have come out against it as it is presently constituted.”

[RWC] It’s clear the editorial would like us to believe this is new, but it’s not. An awful lot of people have believed for a long time that certain aspects of the Patriot Act should be revisited. Perhaps the editorial author should read his own newspaper.

“The Associated Press reports these groups, which include such red, white and blue organizations as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, and the National Association of Realtors, complained to Congress on Wednesday that the Patriot Act makes it too easy for the government to get confidential business records.

“Their opposition represents the first organized criticism of the act from the business sector, the AP reports.”

[RWC] Gee, and if we learned anything from the press coverage of Hurricane Katrina & New Orleans, the press always gets the story right – not.

“Bush is floundering because the words ‘terrorism’ and ‘9/11’ no longer resonate for many Americans when they come out of his mouth. He went to the well once too often and is now bewildered because his old tricks aren’t working. As the proverb goes, ‘You don’t miss your water till [sic] the well runs dry.’”

[RWC] The author provides no support for the statements in this paragraph.