► Show Top 10 Hot Links

Posts Tagged ‘ABC News’

Radicals at ABC News Continue Jihad Against CIA

by Phantom Ace ( 118 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Leftist-Islamic Alliance, Liberal Fascism, Progressives at August 25th, 2009 - 4:20 pm

The radical Progressives at ABC News are not content with Attorney General Holder’s investigation of the CIA.  They now are releasing more documents, and harping about dead or missing Arab Imperialists.  This is all orchestrated by the totalitarian Obama regime to discredit the CIA with the American public.

The CIA and the Obama Administration continue to keep secret some of the most shocking allegations involving the spy agency’s interrogation program: three deaths and several other detainees whose whereabouts could not be determined, according to a former senior intelligence official who has read the full, unredacted version.

Of the 109 pages in the 2004 report, 36 were completely blacked out in the version made public Monday, and another 30 were substantially redacted for “national security” reasons.

Of the 109 pages in the 2004 report, 36 were completely blacked out in the version made public Monday, and another 30 were substantially redacted for “national security” reasons.

Read the rest.

This is very disturbing, why should we care about dead Islamic militants?  They want to kill us, however Progressives don’t look at it this way. They want the CIA destroyed and neutered, as they have a deep seated hatred for our defense and intelligence establishment.  They view the Islamo-Fascists as allies, and thus are going after the CIA with a vendetta.  They are defending their friends and pleasing their Marxist base.

ABC News Hid Important Parts of Palin Interview

by Phantom Ace Comments Off on ABC News Hid Important Parts of Palin Interview
Filed under Election 2008 at September 13th, 2008 - 3:45 pm

It won’t come as a surprise to LGF readers, but Charlie Gibson’s interview with Sarah Palin was heavily edited by ABC News to make Palin appear more hawkish and less knowledgeable. Mark Levin has the complete transcript, and what ABC News tried to pull here is a textbook example of media malfeasance: Gibson Interview.

Also see: ABC News Edited Out Key Parts of Sarah Palin Interview.

The interview was so egregiously biased, even UPI is calling out ABC News for their blatant double standards: ABC’s Gibson grilled Palin hard, but it may backfire.

The double-standard Gibson applied to Palin, compared with the uncritical media platforms repeatedly offered to Obama, who has had zero executive experience running anything, was especially striking. ABC and Gibson focused on Palin as if she were running right now for the presidency rather than the vice presidency. He and other media pundits, by contrast, have never asked the Democratic vice presidential nominee, Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware, if he has ever had to make a decision on anything.

Gibson’s aggressive approach appeared to take Palin by surprise: He was clearly attempting to put her on point by presenting her as having extreme religious views. This again, however, appears to be a double-standard, as Palin grew up in the Assemblies of God, one of the largest Christian denominations in America with 16 million members, and is now a member of the Wasilla Bible Church. Even now, Obama has yet to receive any comparable grilling on his 20-year attendance in the congregation of the notoriously racist Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

(Hat tip:Carlie Manson the LGF Cult Leader)

Krauthammer: Charlie Gibson’s Gaffe

by Phantom Ace ( 11 Comments › )
Filed under Election 2008 at September 12th, 2008 - 9:24 pm

Charles agrees with me that Charlie doesn’t know the real meaning of the “Bush Doctrine.” And Charles should know; he coined the term: Charlie Gibson’s Gaffe.

The New York Times got it wrong. And Charlie Gibson got it wrong.

There is no single meaning of the Bush doctrine. In fact, there have been four distinct meanings, each one succeeding another over the eight years of this administration — and the one Charlie Gibson cited is not the one in common usage today. It is utterly different.

He asked Palin, “Do you agree with the Bush doctrine?” She responded, quite sensibly to a question that is ambiguous, “In what respect, Charlie?”

Sensing his “gotcha” moment, Gibson refused to tell her. After making her fish for the answer, Gibson grudgingly explained to the moose-hunting rube that the Bush doctrine “is that we have the right of anticipatory self-defense.”

Wrong.

I know something about the subject because, as the Wikipedia entry on the Bush doctrine notes, I was the first to use the term. In the cover essay of the June 4, 2001, issue of the Weekly Standard entitled, “The Bush Doctrine: ABM, Kyoto, and the New American Unilateralism,” I suggested that the Bush administration policies of unilaterally withdrawing from the ABM treaty and rejecting the Kyoto protocol, together with others, amounted to a radical change in foreign policy that should be called the Bush doctrine.

Then came 9/11, and that notion was immediately superseded by the advent of the war on terror. In his address to the joint session of Congress nine days after 9/11, President Bush declared: “Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.” This “with us or against us” policy regarding terror — first deployed against Pakistan when Secretary of State Colin Powell gave President Musharraf that seven-point ultimatum to end support for the Taliban and support our attack on Afghanistan — became the essence of the Bush doctrine.

Until Iraq. A year later, when the Iraq war was looming, Bush offered his major justification by enunciating a doctrine of preemptive war. This is the one Charlie Gibson thinks is the Bush doctrine.

It’s not.

Read the whole thing…

(Hat tip:Charlie Manson of the LGF Cult)

ABC News Interview with Sarah Palin

by Phantom Ace ( 5 Comments › )
Filed under Election 2008 at September 12th, 2008 - 3:13 pm

YouTube is flooded with edited versions of Charlie Gibson’s interview with Sarah Palin, subtitled with mocking comments and nasty insults. Here’s a clip that seems to be free of this leftist garbage.

And by the way, the one who was confused about the “Bush Doctrine” was Gibson. Even Wikipedia’s description of the Bush Doctrine is more accurate than Charlie Gibson’s.

(Hat tip:Charles our #1 Contributor!)