Dan Rather was interviewed on British TV last night where he expressed his fears that the current wave of over-the-top US patriotism is threatening to destroy US values. He said that journalists are now afraid to ask questions and that the Pentagon is using the current atmosphere to control the media. He is making some serious claims about what is happening and admits to self-censorship himself.

This is worrying, and the US government appears to be adopting 'similar measures to totalitarian governments' as Rather says. The US people are not receiving the full picture:

Dan Rather Interview (http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/audiovideo/programmes/newsnight/newsid_1991000/1991885.stm)

I think what he said is very true. We can see it happeing again with the White House trying to put a clamp on any probes into the current alligations that Bush knew something about Sept. 11 before it happened. I was watching a news conference by V.P Dick Cheney where he pretty much threatened the media and democrats not to take this matter up in commitees and investigations and to let it die. Makes me wonder what the Bush administration is trying to hide.

We can start to paint the pictures in the history books that will look back on this time fifty years from now. I've noticed a lack of public opinion polls on Bush, well, anywhere! Does anyone have very recent ones, or know where I could find some? I'd really like to see if we still have a 90% approval rating.

According to USA Today, 68% of people said these new blown-out-of-proportion tales of a Bush conspiracy to make money by allowing 9/11 to happen have no bearing on their opinion of Bush. I suppose people actually do realize that a vague, "There may be planes hijacked at some point in time" letter cannot give adequate information to actually know when an attack will occur.


WHAT DID HE KNOW …. AND WHEN?
Today’s top story will certainly be the news that President Bush received an intelligence briefing indicating that Osama Bin Laden’s terrorist goons might try to hijack a commercial airliner. A spokesman for the CIA says that these warnings are routinely passed on during the president’s intelligence briefings.

Today there will be many Americans who are going to come away believing that Bush was warned of the specifics; that he was told an airliner would be hijacked and crashed into the World Trade Towers. That is not what is being said. All we know is that he received a generalized warning of possible hijackings – and that he then acted to put US law enforcement agencies on a higher state of alert.

In truth --- the news really isn’t all that shocking. But …..

... THE DEMOCRATS WILL CAPITALIZE
There is a sense of desperation within the ranks of the Social Democratic Party. George Bush’s continuing popularity poses a threat to what should have been a Democrat slam-dunk – gaining seats in the house and Senate in this off-year election.

Rest assured that every effort will be made to use these new revelations to undercut support for Bush. What better way to attack Bush than on the very issue that has contributed so much to his high approval ratings?

...


WHERE THE REAL FAILURE WAS
One word. Profiling. Now it seems that George Bush received a generalized intelligence briefing that some radicals associated with Osama Bin Laden might try to hijack an American airliner. Alerting law enforcement is one thing. Bush did that. But allowing law enforcement to use the most effective means possible to address the threat is another. Is that where Bush failed? Possibly so.

What would happen if those warnings were made in a world ruled by common sense instead of political correctness? Airport security personnel would immediately be instructed to pay special attention to all passengers of Middle Eastern appearance. Extra searches, pat-downs, luggage searches, background checks … the works. You have information that Arabs are going to try to hijack airplanes --- you subject Arabs to extra security measures.

And what happens when these warnings are made in a world ruled by political correctness? You search airline pilots and blue-haired grandmothers while Middle Eastern men and women proceed through the checkpoints with one-way tickets and box cutters.




Neal Boortz http://www.boortz.com

I think from the media's point of view, no one wants to be accused of being a decisive force, a la Vietnam, specially with regards to a war which most American view as righteous and necessary. As such the more recent froms of "militainment" is just thier attempt to do something in support of the troops and to boost moral, no different than in any other major war. I could argue that "militainment" isn't exactly a new phenomena in media; from the Wings channel to movies like 'Top Gun' or 'Pearl Harbor' the different branches of the military all take advantage of them for recruiting purposes.
I agree with Rather on one point, the current administration seems very eager in trying to deflect any criticism as being unpatriotic or treasonous. Which is funny because in the name of the war on terror, he has undermined the Constitution which he sworn to uphold and protect.

Which is funny because in the name of the war on terror, he has undermined the Constitution which he sworn to uphold and protect.

I have yet to see anyone actually censored by the government - the government just doesen't give the media all the details of the war itself, which hasn't happened since Vietnam (nor should it happen, if the government doesen't want it to). No one is being stopped from saying what they want; they simply choose not to out of their own fear of rebuttle. If they were so smart, there wouldn't be room for rebuttle in the first place; a completely valid argument has a hard time being shot down.

The perception is that since Israelis are ahead in military technology as applies to terrorists, and still can not do much about it - we are practically sitting ducks. So anyone questions why we are is subject to criticism.....

The scenery is not about to change anytime soon.....