Media Undermining the Bush Administration Again

When the Bush Administration was fighting terrorists in ways that some liberal journalists did not approve, the old line media decided to reveal not just to the nation, but to terrorists around the world, classified anti-terrorism programs monitoring terrorist communications and banking.

Conservative legal guru Ann Coulter pointed out how ludicrous it was that the media would defy the requests of the commander in chief not spill the beans to our enemies regarding classified anti-terrorism programs in the middle of a war between our nation and the terrorists.

As Ann quipped in HUMAN EVENTS last June: “When is the New York Times going to get around to uncovering an al Qaeda secret program?”

The New York Times had many allies in their efforts to undercut the Bush anti-terrorism programs (besides al Qaeda, Hezbollah and Hamas.) The San Francisco Chronicle seemed to enjoy seeing Bush and his advisors on the defensive, having to explain why they were monitoring the phone calls and banking records of both confirmed and suspected terrorists. That this was not obvious to the reporters and editors at newspapers like the San Francisco Chronicle is helpful in understanding why so many media outlets seem to openly root for the defeat of American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

On January 9, 2006 the Chronicle thought it newsworthy to report on Democrats’ efforts to tie the wiretapping program to then Supreme Court nominee, Samuel Alito. On March 1, 2006 the Chronicle ran a report on the efforts by the liberal San Francisco County Board of Supervisors to advocate for the impeachment of President Bush for the terrorist wiretapping program. The Chronicle also reported on a liberal judge’s rejection of the terrorist wiretapping plan on August 18, 2006.

There were many other reports by the Chronicle that painted the Bush administration in an unflattering light for trying to fight terrorism.

My favorite one has to be their decision to publish an August 6, 2006 Op-Ed by Democrat Senators Dianne Feinstein (Calif.) and Russ Feingold (Wis.), that criticized the Bush administration’s wiretapping program. It was headlined, “Stop the Bush Administration’s Power Grab.”

Can you guess how many stories the San Francisco Chronicle, and their partners in the old line liberal media, have written about the ethics scandal involving Senator Dianne Feinstein, which reportedly forced her to resign from the Military Construction Appropriations subcommittee (MILCON)?

The correct answer would be zero, zip, zilch, nada, none.

The tribulations involving Senator Feinstein’s military appropriations scandal first came to light in January of this year when the left-leaning Metro Newspapers group published a report called “Senator Feinstein’s Iraq Conflict” that detailed Feinstein’s supervision of appropriations of billions of dollars for military construction projects.

As reported by Metro Newspapers, two defense contractors were “largely controlled” by Feinstein’s husband, Richard C. Blum.

These Blum-tied companies made enormous amounts of money from the projects that Feinstein’s MILCON subcommittee oversaw. Metro Newspaper’s Peter Byrne noted that one of the companies tied to Feinstein’s husband earned $792 million from military construction and cleanup projects approved by MILCON, while the other earned $759 million.

The scandal deepend when it was revealed that a top Feinstein legal advisor and long-time business partner of Feinstein’s husband, Michael R. Klein, was telling Feinstein about which of the upcoming contracts being reviewed by MILCON had a connection to the work being done by the companies tied to Feinstein’s husband. Amazingly, after being supplied this list Diane Feinstein managed to guess right about which projects to support that just so happened to be undertaken by the companies “largely controlled” by Feinstein’s husband.

The left-wing news journal, Dissident Voice, sums up the scandal this way: “There is absolutely no question — Sen. Dianne Feinstein has a plethora of ethics violations she needs to account for at once.”

Surely the San Francisco Chronicle, Washington Post, New York Times, Los Angeles Times and all the other media outlets that were breathless about the Bush administration’s nerve to go after terrorists, might want to pretend to be legitimate journalistic entities and report on the Feinstein scandal, but they haven’t.

In fact, the San Francisco Chronicle told me last week that only now, after an outcry from both conservative and liberal media watchdogs, that the newspaper would “check out the reports” involving Feinstein. One of the representatives for the newspaper told me that he, “wouldn’t be able to turn such a story, if there’s a story to turn, as quickly as some of my correspondents might like.”

Perhaps the Chronicle should have started looking into the “reports” back in January, when it was being scooped by an alternative newspaper group. Perhaps the Chronicle could have shown even 1/10th the interest in tracking this appearance of wrongdoing as they did in trying to politically undermine the war on terror by a president who they obviously despise.

Perhaps instead of publishing Sunday OpEds by Dianne Feinstein undermining the war on terrorism, the mainstream media could have been doing their jobs by monitoring the potentially corrupt actions by one of the leading Democrats in the U.S. Senate.