Last night MSNBC's Joe Scarborough devoted a whole segment
to attacking veteran journalist, and co-presenter of ABC's
The View, Barbara Walters over Rosie O'Donnell's
now public stance that 9/11 was an inside job.
In a vicious and vitriolic hit piece, Scarborough
enlisted two of his core simpering yes men to attack Walters
for "defending Rosie's radical rants" when Walters
has merely stated several times on The View that
Rosie O'Donnell is entitled to her opinion.
The segment, cheaply entitled "The
sad demise of Barbara Walters" once again betrayed
the fact that on the subject of 9/11 the establishment
media, and the baseless debunkers, will not and cannot
challenge the facts and choose every time to resort to
child like name calling and character assassination.
Although labeling O'Donnell's comments as
"unhinged ravings", Scarborough and his right
hand men do not debate or counter what she is actually
saying but instead choose to attack and attempt to end
the career of an elderly woman who was reporting meaningful
and insightful news items while they were still in college.
Watch the video (you may need a sick bag)
Such hypocritical and cowardly journalism
is made all the worse by the fact that Walters is of the
old school true form of media that commands a level of
respect that Scarborough and his ilk can only dream about
being able to achieve. They know they never will and so
they have cast away any moral base they ever had in favour
of unrivalled success as the kingpins of biased and uninformed
Scarborough, along with his buddies Matthew
Felling, media director for the Centre of Media and Public
Affairs, and MSNBC media analyst Steve Adubato were seen
to engage in a ten minute back patting session which no
one could have seriously taken as any form of debate.
The highlights of their ignorance are condensed
The Internet leader in activist media - Prison
Planet.tv. Thousands of special reports, videos, MP3's,
interviews, conferences, speeches, events, documentary
films, books and more - all for just 15 cents a day! Click
here to subscribe! Find out the true
story behind government sponsored terror, 7/7, Gladio
and 9/11, get
Claim - Scarborough states that Rosie
O'Donnell "misstating facts left and right"
suggested that alleged 9/11 plotter Khalid Sheikh Mohammed
is innocent and also that O'Donnell "compared Christianity
to radical Islam". Scarborough proceeds to show video
of O'Donnell questioning torture and the degradation of
human rights, advocating the impeachment of Bush, and
then throws in a clip taken out of context where O'Donnell
imitates an Asian accent.
Reality- At no point did O'Donnell
suggest KSM was innocent, she merely suggested the KSM
"confession" was unreliable, a sentiment
echoed by all corners of the media. O'Donnell actually
said that radical right wing Christianity, such as the
kind George Bush promulgates, is as dangerous as radical
Islam. Other attack pieces such as that of Fox News'
John Gibson have resorted to the same baseless slur,
we begin to see a pattern emerging.
Claim - Scarborough and friends accuse
Barbara Walters of allowing Rosie O'Donnell to cover 9/11
truth as she is "hungry for relevance". They
then agree that Walters has sunk to a new low and is finished.
Reality - The View has gained
600,0000 new viewers since O'Donnell took the helm.
Scarborough et al even go on to admit this and then
have the gall to say Walters is finished? Who is really
"hungry for relevance"? Walters creating her
own booming and successful new audience or Scarborough
losing viewers by the thousands and resorting to attacking
the success of others?
Claim - Smiley faced yes man Matthew
Felling states that 9/11 skepticism is akin to believing
"Fillings in your teeth are a mind numbing government
plot against you". Scarborough then insinuates that
all 9/11 skeptics such as O'Donnell are "siding with
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed". The other analyst states
that "you should challenge someone on that stuff,
not just say its their point of view you should go after
them like crazy".
Reality - Challenging someone on a
topic you do not agree with them on should not amount
to insulting them and comparing them to lunatics and
terrorists. The only reason one would do this is if
one did not have any basis of fact to challenge and
debate with. Has there ever been a TV or newspaper hit
piece on the 9/11 truth movement that doesn't heavily
lean on ad hominem insults along with bias and misleading
emotional rhetoric? You will never see it. See yesterday's
hit piece for the same stench of BS.
Claim - Scarborough attacks Walters
for soft balling "the dictator" Hugo Chavez
when she recently interviewed him and shows two clips
of her being polite to Chavez. the MSNBC analyst goes
on to bemoan Walters saying she could have asked Chavez
about "all sorts of things he has done against the
Reality - Hugo Chavez is not a dictator,
he has been unanimously voted into power by the people
of Venezuela three times and his popularity has increased
exponentially. Whilst the CIA
reportedly continues to operate covertly inside Venezuela
in attempts to oust Chavez, no evidence has emerged
to suggest Chavez has done anything to the US other
than bad mouth its President who's approval rating is
at an all time low and has twice relied on a huge team
of spin masters and lawyers to become President.
The sickening attack piece ends with smily
repeater Mattthew Felling, media director for the Centre
of Media and Public Affairs, stating of Walters "I
don't think she's losing control I think she's sold her
soul to the ratings".
On its website, CMPA claims to be politically neutral:
"The Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA) is
a nonpartisan research and educational organization which
conducts scientific studies of the news and entertainment
For someone in Felling's position, one in
which he is supposed to stand as a neutral mediator, to
engage in such a blatantly one sided piece of propaganda
and then suggest that a veteran like Barbara Walters has
sold her soul is truly the reason the word 'hypocrite'
Anyone who performs a cursory online search
for the CMPA will recognize that although it claims to
be politically neutral, it is anything but. President
Robert Lichter is a paid consultant to Fox News and a
former fellow of the American Enterprise Institute, a
right wing think tank commonly recognized as a center
base for many neo-conservatives. Funding comes almost
exclusively from right wing foundations and according
to investigations by Salon.com,
"the seed money for [the] center was solicited by
the likes of Pat Buchanan and Pat Robertson".
In a similar fashion to O'Reilly's assurance
that Charlie Sheen's career will end if he pursues 9/11
truth, Scarborough and his baby boys suggest it is "an
embarrassment to see someone like Walters end her career
like this because it is going to end like this".
These neocon lap dog fools really and truly believe that
they speak for the majority of Americans and that they
"know this country" when they make such declarations.
Wake up call - reading an auto cue 8 hours a day and telling
people what to think does not make you a "man of
This Scarborough attack piece is the latest
cringe inducing example in a smattering of hit jobs that
have emerged since O'Donnell's public 9/11 skepticism
and the new angle on the Charlie Sheen story have broken.
All such pieces have once again been notable only for
their 3rd grade level research and kindergarten name calling.
We will continue to bring you the facts
and the informed analysis, they will continue to bring
you the tripe and the empty headed baseless junk that
you have come to expect from your mainstream establishment