Another Murdoch journalist bends the facts to support John Kerry
Gerard Jackson
Why do so many people despise George Bush and support John Kerry? I believe the problem lies with the mass media, meaning journalists. These leftwing bigots have painted a grossly distorted picture of the Bush the man — and the public has largely bought it.
Phillip Coorey is a glaring example of what I mean. In Cheney seizes on terrorism bogy (Herald and Weekly Times 21 October) Coorey reported that Dick Cheney had accused Kerry of not being tough.
Coorey's response to Cheney's charge was to toe the Dem line and attack Cheney by telling readers that "the Bush Government had allowed the threats posed by Iran and North Korea to grow while fighting an unnecessary war in Iraq." Coorey is lying.
The Korean threat was caused by Clinton's cowardly diplomacy that allowed Kim Jong-il to cheerfully continue with his nukes weapons program. It was Clinton that tried to buy off the homicidal Kim by promising him two light-water nuclear power plants plus buckets of aid.
And what did Kim do, Mr Coorey? He took the bribe (sorry, I meant to say aid) and then, like any good communist, he cheated. As Madam Halfbright told NBC's Meet the Press on 12 September this year: [W]hat they were doing, as it turns out, they were cheating."
Despite the evidence that Clinton's policy of appeasing Kim aided his nuke program John Kerry and Richard Holbrooke have the gall to accuse President Bush of jeopardizing the Clinton's North Korean brilliant diplomacy and undoing all the good work.
How do they get away with this lying? The answer lies with the journalistic likes of Mr Coorey. This clown's ethics can be measured against the fact that he neglected to tell readers that Kerry said that if elected president he would sell nuclear fuel to the murderous mullahs of Tehran — the same thugs who sponsor international terrorism and threaten Israel with annihilation.
But then Mr Coorey seems to think terrorism is a Republican "bogy" meant to scare those dimwitted fundamentalist rednecks who infest the Midwest.
In Cheney seizes on terrorism bogy (Herald and Weekly Times 21October) Coorey not only repeats the Kerry canard that Bush is responsible for the growing threat from North Korea and Iran he also claimed that "the net loss of jobs under Mr Bush" equals "a feat not achieved since President Herbert Hoover during the Great Depression." This is another lie
Apart from the fact that job losses started in the latter half of 2000 (something I have written about extensively) there are more people employed now than there were four years ago.
Last March the Bureau of Labor Statistics published a table showing that when Clinton left office 137.6 million people were working. The same statistical table also showed that under Bush 138.3 million people were working. Since then the number of people at work has expanded further.
(For those of you whose knowledge of economic history is a little shaky, under Hoover unemployment rose to 25 per cent. It is now about 5.6 per cent. When Clinton ran for a second term in 1996 it was 5.4 per cent. So how does the brilliant Mr Coorey manage to equate Bush's economic record with Hoover's? Furthermore, why did Coorey omit any mention of Kerry's car legislation that would have savaged the industry and employment?)
When bigoted lefties like Coorey get going there is just no stopping them. In Heat turned up in fierce finish to US election he stated that "Because of serious flaws in the Florida punch-card system, the 2000 election was unresolved for 36 days until the US Supreme Court ordered the state's recount stopped and Mr Bush was declared the winner."
There is not a single word of truth in that statement. Gore insisted on a second recount, as he was entitled to do, because of the Bush's slender margin of victory. When he still lost turned to legal shenanigans to overturn the result.
Regardless of what the intrepid Coorey say's there was no state recount. What Gore and his cronies kept pushing for were recounts in several heavily pro-dem counties. (The Gore campaign also acted to disenfranchise absentee votes from military personnel). Moreover, Bush still won every recount.
The New York Times, CNN and the Washington Post did a post-election study of all votes cast in Florida. Guess what, Mr Coorey? No matter how they counted them Bush still beat Gore.
Writing about WMDs Phillip 'Kerry' Coorey misrepresented, to the advantage of Kerry, the Duelfer Report (Iraq had no WMDs, admits US, 8 October 2004). According Coorey the report proved that "Hussein was not a threat when the US led the invasion of Iraq, America's top weapons inspector has found."
Obviously readers were meant to conclude that the war was pointless and that Bush lied. To make sure that readers got the second point Coorey quoted generously from leading dems, the same ones who not only voted for the war, including Kerry, but who had agreed with Bush that Hussein had WMDs.
It's a pity Coorey hid from his readers the fact that Duelfer told Congress that when the US invaded in March 2003 Saddam had an active nuclear weapons program. To quote Duelfer: "Saddam aspired to develop a nuclear capability — in an incremental fashion, irrespective of international pressure and the resulting economic risks. ..."
Page 80 of the report states:
"Saddam would have restarted WMD programs, beginning with the nuclear program, after sanctions, according to [Deputy Prime Minister] Tariq Aziz. Saddam never formally stated this intention, according to Aziz, but he did not believe other countries in the region should be able to have WMD when Iraq could not. Aziz assessed that Iraq could have a WMD capability within two years of the end of sanctions".
As Saddam was successfully using oil revenue as bribes to get sanctions lifted it would only have been a matter of time before he would have been armed with nukes. This is something that the Duelfer Report makes clear. (Incidentally, Coorey, the report is available online).
An honest reading of the Duelfer Report shows that its findings support President Bush, not Kerry. But since when have lefty journalists been concerned with honesty? Robert Lusetich, The Australian's Los Angeles correspondent, pulled a similar stroke by arguing that the report showed Saddam was not a danger (Red light for Kerry in Bush terror ad, 12 October).
Now Coorey faithfully quoted both Edwards and Carl Levin's sickening misuse of the report to attack Bush. But what Coorey did not tell us is that both these creatures held exactly opposite views before the war.
Senator Edwards publicly declared in September 2001 that Saddam Hussein was "the most serious and imminent threat to our country". Even as recently as September 2002 Levin, a mendacious, bitter partisan hack, stated:
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the UN and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Regardless of the evidence the lefty likes of Coorey will always exonerate Kerry and his supporters.
Coorey said that Kerry had "been besmirched by photos falsely linking him with anti-Vietnam War activist Jane Fonda."
Two points: First, Kerry was an associate of Fonda when he was a prominent member of the pro-communist Vietnam Veterans Against the War organisation. Second, Fonda was not an "anti-Vietnam War activist" but an active supporter of the communist invasion of South Vietnam. In other words, she was a collaborator.
Everyday thousands of lefty journalists throughout the world, particularly in the West are pouring out malevolent anti-Bush agitprop. No wonder the vast majority of non-Americans have a viciously skewed picture of the man.
But the days when the likes of Coorey could get away with their outrageous dishonesty are over. Nevertheless, it will still be a long and hard struggle to fully expose media corruption.
Gerard Jackson is Brookes' economics editor
BrookesNews.Com
Monday 25 October 2004