Character assassination 101
“ First of all, I'm not coming at this from an ideological point of view. There are some great liberal thinkers in America who recognize the grave danger worldwide terror is posing, but enough is enough with this Barbara Boxer, a far left partisan who has crossed the line into destructive politics.
Full Article
Let's see. Faced with savage terrorists bent on killing Americans, Senator Boxer wants to modify the Patriot Act is against coerced interrogation of illegal combatants, against the war in Iraq, against funding the action in Afghanistan, and opposes just about every other anti- terror measure currently in the U.S. arsenal. ”
Bill O'Reilly, in deference to his Republican masters, takes aim at Senator Boxer -- not at the questions she posed to Rice about WMDs, but at the senator herself. That's what O'Reilly likes to call "character assassination."
Read On! |
 |
|---|---|
|
Sen. Boxer has done nothing for homeland security. "Talking Points analyzed Boxer's record since 9/11. And the senator has been active. She authored the Airport Security Bill, the one that shakes down grandma before she gets on the plane. She proposed all American jetliners install anti-missile systems. That got nowhere. And she sponsored a bill demanding that Syria stop funding terrorism. Since that passed, Syria has stepped up its terrorist activities. What say you, Senator Boxer?" |
O'Reilly's technique to defend the appointment of Rice is to attack Sen. Boxer, who was reelected recently by a wide margin. This is, of course, irrelevant to the substance of the questions Boxer poses to Rice, but that's what we get from O'Reilly -- ad hominem. But in this case, Boxer has been one of the most active senators in homeland security, especially rail and port security -- where still only 5% of containers are inspected. Her bills had bipartisan support, and as Media Matters documents, Rice herself thanked Congress for passing her bill on Syria. I guess the only measure Bill would support is invading a country. |
What is O'Reilly talking about? Let's try a little reading comprehension exercise. Here's how O'Reilly presented things, according to the FOX transcript.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. BARBARA BOXER (D), CALIFORNIA: The fact is that the reconstituting were based on the yellow cake and the aluminum tubes, both of which proved to be false. And when I asked you about aluminum tubes...
CONDOLEEZZA RICE, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: And balancing equipment, and the accounts out of which these came, and his keeping nuclear scientists together. Let's have the entire picture.
BOXER: OK. And I think if you ask the average American, you know, was Saddam worth one life, one American life, they'd say no, he's the bottom of the barrel. And the fact is we've lost so many lives over it.
RICE: I probably, more than most, because I did have a role in the president's decision to go to war, mourn every day the people that are lost.
It was the total picture, senator, not just weapons of mass destruction that caused us to decide that post September 11, it was finally time to deal with the threat of Saddam Hussein.
BOXER: Well you should read what we voted on when we voted to support the war, which I did not but most of my colleagues did. It was WMD, period.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
(You can also read Boxer's opening statements.) Now, clearly Boxer is questioning Rice about the justification for the Iraq war. And as you can see, Rice is dodging questions about WMD. But why would Boxer mention "was Saddam worth one life"? I think it's pretty clear that she is making a case that Iraq was a mistake, and thus that it's worthwhile to question what went wrong. Even if Saddam was a bad guy, that's not enough of a reason for us to go to war.
At this point in the O'Reilly Factor, you have have been wondering, why am I watching this clip? You've just heard O'Reilly editorialize against Boxer, saying that she would rather attack Republicans than terrorists. You might see this rare instance of open defiance as an "attack," since she's not giving Rice due deference to her dodges.
(Following directly)
[O'REILLY:] Now there's nothing wrong with grilling Condoleezza Rice about policy, but implying Dr. Rice is not sympathetic to the troops is way over the line.
This is the "O'Reilly Factor" at work -- show a clip, and immediately tell viewers what to think.
comments@polianna.com
