Who’s Behind the Mask?

I got an email this morning pointing the way of enlightenment; an article produced to “prove” that Bush lied regarding the facts in order to get the United States of America into a war with Iraq. I read the article and then did some research; I wanted to find out who these folks were, these folks who were hiding behind the mask of non partisan investigational journalism.

“A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations found that President Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks.

The study concluded that the statements "were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses."

The study was posted Tuesday on the Web site of the Center for Public Integrity, which worked with the Fund for Independence in Journalism.”

So, who are these folks that are called the Center for Public Integrity and the Fund for Independence in Journalism; after all, their title makes them sound as pure as the driven snow and they both claim to be non partisan in nature. I looked them up on Google and followed the smell, pardon that slip, I followed the trail.

The Center for Public Integrity has as Chairperson, Geneva Overholser. I’d heard the name before; but had to do some more investigating to locate where. Overholser is a full fledged left leaning liberal who has written articles for the New York Times and the Boston Globe. Overholser wrote about her negative feelings for President Bush back on April 12, 2001, long before the events of 911.

“For one thing, you're not seeing how unsure of himself George W. Bush appeared to be -- how guarded, how tense, even programmed. Or how uncertain about important issues.”

I’m not the first to pick up on Overholser’s lack of journalistic integrity. Brent Bozell III observed back on February 5, 2004:

“The latest sad anti-Fox outburst came when the National Press Foundation
decided to honor respected Fox news hound Brit Hume with its "Broadcaster of the Year" award, Geneva Overholser, a former ombudsman of the Washington Post and a whining liberal windbag if there ever was one, resigned in protest since she felt Hume and Fox practice "ideologically committed journalism."

How controversial was the Hume selection?

Consider the previous winners of this award: "moderate" Dan Rather, fired New York Times editor Howell Raines, loopy leftist Ted Turner, tiresome PBS propagandist Ken Burns, and NPR bias legend Nina Totenberg, who tried to destroy conservative hero Clarence Thomas with phony-baloney sexual allegations and wished AIDS on conservative hero Jesse Helms in a TV appearance.

No one, including Overholser, resigned over any of them.

But wait, there’s even more phoniness in this take-my-ball-and-go-home protest. In the November 28, 1992 edition of Editor & Publisher magazine, Overholser complained that there wasn’t enough ideologically committed journalism out there. "All too often, a story free of any taint of personal opinion is a story with all the juice sucked out. A big piece of why so much news copy today is boring as hell is this objectivity god," she complained. "Keeping opinion out of the story too often means being a fancy stenographer."”

So much for Overholser’s claim to be non partisan; who else has the mask of non partisan journalism on while in fact desires to promote a specific ideological form of journalism? Mark Reading – Smith is the Senior Research/Editor of The Fund for Independence in Journalism.

“In 2002, he served as an intern at the Center for Public Integrity and conducted research for their national best-selling book, The Buying of the President 2004.”

Isn’t that convenient, I mean; the two non partisan organizations responsible for calling George W. Bush and his administration liars just happen to come from the same bolt of cloth. I guess anyone can call themselves non partisan and parade it around as if it meant something.

In case you might have forgotten some of the “other players” with sound reasons for the United States of America to become involved in an extended war with Iraq, may I refresh your memory?

"Together we must also confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons, and the outlaw states, terrorists and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade, and much of his nation's wealth, not on providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them." President Clinton, Jan. 27, 1998.

Perhaps I should quote from a different source, one more reliable or trustworthy.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998.

Perhaps I should quote from a different source, one more reliable or trustworthy; but I already used that line a moment ago, maybe some other influential Democrat will have something worth the effort.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct. 10, 2002.

I guess the only reason the facts are now called lies is because the wrong person won the presidency, and we all know that the real president should have been Al Gore; he got cheated by Bush and his cronies. All I can say is that around where I come from, if it stinks like it and looks like it you don’t want to step in it.