Thursday, August 10, 2017

CYBERALERTS 08/10/2017 MSM IN A TIZZY AS THEY NEVER HAD A PRESIDENT WILLING TO STAND UP TO BULLIES!

1. Nets More Terrified by Trump’s ‘Dangerous’ ‘Rhetoric’ Than North Korea


On Wednesday, the network morning shows portrayed President Trump’s stern warning to North Korea as being more “dangerous” than the rogue authoritarian regime threatening the world with nuclear weapons. Going into full panic mode, hosts and correspondents warned viewers that Trump was “going to make a bad situation worse” with his “blistering rhetoric.”

2. CBS Goes to Ex-Clinton Adviser to Claim Trump as ‘Crazy’ as Kim Jong-un


Who better than an ex-Hillary Clinton adviser who worked on the Iran deal to weigh in on the escalating conflict with North Korea? That’s who Charlie Rose turned to on Wednesday’s CBS This Morning. The co-hosts did not press Jake Sullivan on problems or scandals involving the Obama administration’s Iran negotiations. 

3. NBC Slam: Trump and N.K. Sound Like ‘a School Yard Squabble’


The war of words between the United States and North Korea continued on Wednesday, as the communist regime threatened an attack on the U.S. territory of Guam. And despite the fact that the North Koreans had successfully miniaturized a nuclear bomb to fit on a warhead, NBC Nightly News still thought it was a priority to slam President Trump for getting tough on the regime that had kidnapped American citizens.

4. Deranged: Matthew Dowd Compares Trump to Kim Jong-un, Speculates Europe Fears Trump More


ABC political analyst and faux Republican Matthew Dowd spent Wednesday afternoon with fellow liberal Republican Nicolle Wallace’s Deadline White House, serenading MSNBC viewers with the claim that Trump’s “fire and fury” statement could easily be said by North Korea dictator Kim Jong-un. Receiving zero pushback, Dowd also speculated that Europe is more scared of Trump than a murderous communist like Kim Jong-un.

5. Fake News: NYT’s ‘Leaked’ Climate Report Was Online for Months


A supposedly secret document that the New York Times on Tuesday claimed to expose, a climate change report that network journalists worried would be “suppressed,” was already online. According to Alex Pappas on FoxNews.com, “Scientists appear to have debunked The New York Times' claim it was leaked a secret, gloomy climate change report which it published amid fears President Trump would suppress it.” 

6. Nets Ignore Cuba Harassing, Trying to ‘Deafen’ U.S. Diplomats


There was bizarre news out of the U.S. State Department on Wednesday as the Associated Press reported that U.S. diplomats had to return home from Cuba after experiencing “physical symptoms,” which included “potentially permanent hearing loss.” The mysterious incidents led to the United States expelling two Cuba officials from their Washington, D.C. embassy. Despite the stunning revelations, the Big Three Networks (ABC, CBS, and NBC) gave the story zero time later that evening.
 
 
1

Nets More Terrified by Trump’s ‘Dangerous’ ‘Rhetoric’ Than North Korea

By Kyle Drennen

On Wednesday, the network morning shows portrayed President Trump’s stern warning to North Korea as being more “dangerous” than the rogue authoritarian regime threatening the world with nuclear weapons. Going into full panic mode, hosts and correspondents warned viewers that Trump was “going to make a bad situation worse” with his “blistering rhetoric.”
At the top of NBC’s Today, co-host Matt Lauer proclaimed: “War of words. North Korea threatens to attack the U.S. territory of Guam after President Trump warns the regime with his harshest language yet....What will bring the two sides back from the brink?” Moments later, fellow co-host Savannah Guthrie hyped the “rapidly developing North Korea crisis” with “ominous threats being exchanged by the U.S. and the North Korean regime.”
After noting how North Korea was threatening to attack the U.S. territory of Guam, Lauer suggested Trump was to blame by provoking the hostile nation: “So what was the timing of this? Well, it followed a harsh warning hours earlier from President Trump that any further threats from Kim Jong Un would be met with, quote, ‘fire and fury like the world has never seen.’”
In the report that followed, correspondent Andrea Mitchell asserted: “The North Korean threat, frighteningly routine for the rogue regime, was a chilling response to thunderous words from President Trump.” Later in the segment, she touted:
Meanwhile, the President’s strong language is being criticized by leading lawmakers of both parties. Democrat Dianne Feinstein calling his rhetoric “bombastic” and saying diplomacy is the only path. Republican John McCain cautioning Trump against making empty threats.     
Mitchell concluded that “the real fear is that the rhetoric is escalating from both sides.”
In a discussion with military analyst Jack Jacobs and MSNBC anchor Nicolle Wallace, Guthrie fretted: “Let’s talk about the rhetoric....Is this the President giving Kim Jong Un a taste of his own medicine, maybe his own vocabulary? Or is it going to make a bad situation worse?” Jacobs downplayed the importance: “Well, I think it’s irrelevant, actually.” However, he quipped: “When I first heard the remarks...I thought that Kim Jong Un had said those remarks.”
Guthrie pressed: “But is it dangerous? I mean, do the words matter in this context?”
As Jacobs continued to reject the fearmongering language being pushed by the anchor, Lauer jumped in:
Let’s not dismiss the words so quickly. We all remember “shock and awe” in Iraq. “Fire and fury,” as a military guy, Jack, what do you read into “fire and fury”? Is this conventional weaponry? Or is he threatening something else?
Meanwhile, Wallace was freaking out. “He has now drawn a far more stark, a far more inflammatory, a far more dangerous red line,” she declared of the President’s comments. “And he’s the kind of guy who would be sort of shamed into sort of keeping up with his own word,” Wallace added.  
She then incorrectly claimed: “So the language is so stunning because it contradicts all of the traditions of American military history.” In reality, in the midst of the Cuban Missile Crisis, President John F. Kennedy issued the following warning during an address to the nation on October 22, 1962: “It shall be the policy of this nation to regard any nuclear missile launched from Cuba against any nation in the Western Hemisphere as an attack by the Soviet Union on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon the Soviet Union.”
In addition, Trump’s language was very similar to remarks made by President Harry Truman following the bombing of Hiroshima, Japan in 1945.
On ABC’s Good Morning America, co-host George Stephanopoulos announced:
You know, that blistering rhetoric is a real break from past presidents and it is being met with concern from Republican and Democratic lawmakers. As a new poll shows that six out of ten Americans are uneasy about President Trump’s ability to handle North Korea.
Correspondent Martha Raddatz insisted: “This morning, some political leaders, even from the President’s own party, concerned that the commander-in-chief’s fiery warnings could further incite the already volatile North Korean leader.”
At least national security expert Steve Ganyard reminded the journalists of Truman’s words: “...this is really the first kind of fiery rhetoric we’ve seen out of a U.S. President since really Harry Truman.” Stephanopoulos acknowledged: “Steve mentioned that was the kind of rhetoric Harry Truman used after dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima.”
On CBS This Morning, fill-in co-host Vladimir Duthiers highlighted: “Some Republicans and Democrats say the President's strong words are not helping the situation. Mr. Trump echoed the tone of another presidential statement made as the U.S. attacked Japan with nuclear weapons 72 years ago this week.” Correspondent Major Garrett emphasized: “But beyond that Cold War imagery of fire and fury, the Trump administration has not articulated a policy to stop North Korea or defuse this crisis.”
Garrett went on to promote polling showing Americans “uneasy” with Trump as well as Democrats on the attack:
America’s appetite for conflict appears limited. Only 29 percent favor military action in a CBS News poll and 61 percent are uneasy about the President's ability to solve the crisis. Some Democrats took pause. Senator Ben Cardin of Maryland said Mr. Trump’s comments “once again show that he lacks the temperament.” And Senator Dianne Feinstein said Trump was bombastic and “is not helping the situation.”
In a report prior to Garrett’s, correspondent Ben Tracy parroted talking points from the Chinese government criticizing the President:
We actually just received this response from the Chinese government and in it they say, “The situation on the Korean Peninsula is highly sensitive, we hope the parties will be cautious with words and behavior and stop provoking each other and avoid escalation.” Now the Chinese government fears that this war of words could lead to a regional arms race and that already appears to be happening....Now keep in mind, China just agreed this past weekend to go along with the U.N. sanctions on Kim Jong Un’s regime, which will largely be up to China to enforce. Having the President of the United States throw more fuel on this fire may make China think about how far down the road it wants to go in supporting U.S. actions on North Korea.
Later in the 8:30 a.m. ET half hour, during an interview with former Hillary Clinton staffer Jake Sullivan, co-host Charlie Rose wondered: “You say North Korea is a land of lousy options. Where are we going? What is going to happen and does the language of the President help or hinder?” Unsurprisingly, Sullivan blasted Trump: “It just doesn't help when our allies and the countries in the region can’t tell whether it’s Donald Trump or Kim Jong Un who’s the crazier one.”
The biased reporting across all three networks was brought to viewers by PetSmart, Walmart, and Popeye's.
Here are excerpts of the August 9 coverage on the NBC, ABC, and CBS broadcasts:
Today
7:06 AM ET
SAVANNAH GUTHRIE: Let’s talk about the rhetoric, let’s pick it up where Andrea just left off. Is this the President giving Kim Jong Un a taste of his own medicine, maybe his own vocabulary? Or is it going to make a bad situation worse?
COL. JACK JACOBS: Well, I think it’s irrelevant, actually. When I first heard the remarks – I hadn’t read them before or heard them before – when somebody read them to me, I thought that Kim Jong Un had said those remarks. I think it’s just for consumption by each side, and consumption in Korea for the North Koreans.
GUTHRIE: But is it dangerous? I mean, do the words matter in this context?
(...)
MATT LAUER Let’s not dismiss the words so quickly. We all remember “shock and awe” in Iraq. “Fire and fury,” as a military guy, Jack, what do you read into “fire and fury”? Is this conventional weaponry? Or is he threatening something else?
(...)
LAUER: Nicolle, when someone says something like what President Trump said yesterday, he draws a line in the stand. And then the question is, do our adversaries cross that line? Shortly after he said that, North Koreans issued a statement and said they are looking at plans to attack Guam, which is a U.S. territory. By the very fact that they said that, didn’t they cross the line?
NICOLLE WALLACE: Sure. And listen, this president ran as someone who was going to almost in a Seinfeld-like way, be the opposite of Barack Obama in every way, shape, and form. Over and over again, he criticized President Obama for drawing that red line in Syria. He has now drawn a far more stark, a far more inflammatory, a far more dangerous red line. And he’s the kind of guy who would be sort of shamed into sort of keeping up with his own word. So the language is so stunning because it contradicts all of the traditions of American military history.
You talked about “shock and awe,” those were words used after the military phase had begun. Those weren’t words used –
JACOBS: By the media, as a matter of fact.  
WALLACE: But those weren’t words when we were still engaged in diplomacy. Those weren’t words when the debate about Iraq and whether or not they had WMD was at the U.N. Security Council, which is where this conversation was over the weekend. And this is a president that has now used language that he can’t put back in the toothpaste tube.
GUTHRIE: Okay, there’s a theory of the case – and I’ll see if either of you sign on to it – that perhaps this is all by design, this is strategic. The president uses this hot rhetoric so that the North Koreans feel like, “Hey, this guy might be – he might be willing to actually use that force.” And that’s the deterrent effect. Do you buy it?
JACOBS: No. This president does nothing – or does very few things by design. He shoots from the hip all the time. And I think his words are taken with a grain of salt.
(...)

Good Morning America
7:01 AM ET
(...)
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: You know, that blistering rhetoric is a real break from past presidents and it is being met with concern from Republican and Democratic lawmakers. As a new poll shows that six out of ten Americans are uneasy about President Trump’s ability to handle North Korea.
(...)        
7:03 AM ET
MARTHA RADDATZ: This morning, some political leaders, even from the President’s own party, concerned that the commander-in-chief’s fiery warnings could further incite the already volatile North Korean leader.
SEN. JOHN MCCAIN [R-AZ]: You gotta be sure that you can do what you say you’re gonna do. The great leaders that I’ve seen, they don’t threaten unless they are ready to act.
(...)
7:05 AM ET
ROBIN ROBERTS: Steve, you have also served in the State Department, so you know about the diplomatic side of things. And what is your take on the words, the language that President Trump has used with this?
STEVE GANYARD:  Robin, this is really the first kind of fiery rhetoric we’ve seen out of a U.S. President since really Harry Truman. And so, the President has made the decision to make a direct video appeal to Kim Jong Un to make him understand what the U.S. response will be. The question now is, does this ramp up, does the rhetoric continue to ramp up or do things begin to calm down? The next few days will be critical.
(...)
7:06 AM ET
STEPHANOPOULOS: Steve mentioned that was the kind of rhetoric Harry Truman used after dropping the atomic bomb on Hiroshima. We’re going to talk about it more now with our Senior White House Correspondent Cecilia Vega right here. You know, such a bracing moment yesterday to see the president kind of hugging himself as he said these words. But at least parts of the statement tightly scripted.
CECILIA VEGA: Very much so, George. And this was a question that was prompted – this was an answer that was prompted by a question from a reporter....Look, I am told this was very much a strategic answer by people in the White House, that the president knew that if he was asked about this, that he would have this answer ready to go. And if you watch that tape of the president, it seems as though during parts of it he looks down and is – seems to be reading a little bit. This as we’ve seen ramped-up rhetoric from the president over the course of North Korea.
(...)

CBS This Morning
7:07 AM ET
(...)
7:08 AM ET
VLADIMIR DUTHIERS: Some Republicans and Democrats say the President's strong words are not helping the situation. Mr. Trump echoed the tone of another presidential statement made as the U.S. attacked Japan with nuclear weapons 72 years ago this week. Major Garret is near the Trump National Golf Course in New Jersey. Major, good morning.  
MAJOR GARRETT: Good morning. President Trump broke from his working vacation to sound an alarm of sorts, using vivid imagery and rhetoric meant to capture the attention of nations throughout Asia, especially China. But beyond that Cold War imagery of fire and fury, the Trump administration has not articulated a policy to stop North Korea or defuse this crisis.
(...)
GARRETT: America’s appetite for conflict appears limited. Only 29 percent favor military action in a CBS News poll and 61 percent are uneasy about the President's ability to solve the crisis. Some Democrats took pause. Senator Ben Cardin of Maryland said Mr. Trump’s comments “once again show that he lacks the temperament.” And Senator Dianne Feinstein said Trump was bombastic and “is not helping the situation.”
GARRETT: But Republican Congressman Peter King said Trump’s comments send “a very strong deterrent signal to North Korea. To me, there’s more of a chance of war if the U.S. does not stand strong.” On Phoenix radio, Republican Senator John McCain was critical of Mr. Trump.
JOHN MCCAIN: The great leaders that I have seen, they don’t threaten unless they are ready to act. And I’m not sure that President Trump is ready to act.
(...)
8:34 AM ET
CHARLIE ROSE: [Former Hillary Clinton/State Department adviser Jake Sullivan] You say North Korea is a land of lousy options. Where are we going? What is going to happen and does the language of the President help or hinder?
JAKE SULLIVAN: Well, what we need right now is steady resolve, calm, and absolutely strong and consistent leadership and the problem with what the President said is it puts all the attention on the United States and what the United States is thinking. When right now the attention should be on north Korea and producing pressure to produce a diplomatic outcome. It just doesn't help when our allies and the countries in the region can’t tell whether it's Donald Trump or Kim Jong-un who's the crazier one.
(...)

2

CBS Goes to Ex-Clinton Adviser to Claim Trump as ‘Crazy’ as Kim Jong-un

By Scott Whitlock

Who better than an ex-Hillary Clinton adviser, someone who worked on the Iran nuclear deal, to weigh in on the escalating conflict with North Korea? That’s who Charlie Rose turned to on Wednesday’s CBS This Morning. The co-hosts did not press Jake Sullivan on problems or scandals involving the Obama administration’s Iran negotiations. 
Instead, Sullivan was allowed to get away with this smear: “ It just doesn't help when our allies and the countries in the region can’t tell whether it's Donald Trump or Kim Jong-un who's the crazier one.” The co-hosts had no follow-up or question to this attack. Instead, they moved on to other topics. 
Sullivan was the national security adviser to Vice President Joe Biden and involved in the secret negotiations on the Iranian nuclear deal. Rose and the other journalists could have brought up a blockbuster Politico report from April that exposed the buried secrets of Obama’s Iran deal giveaway. 
Politico senior investigative reporter Josh Meyer authored a more than 7300-word bombshell showing that Obama secretly released 21 Iranian prisoners (not the seven originally claimed), men who were deeply involved in Iran’s missile and nuclear program. This never came up in the interview. 
Instead, Rose seemed far more concerned on, you guessed it, why Hillary Clinton lost: 
If Hillary Clinton had been elected president, everybody assumes you would have had one of the principal roles around her. National Security adviser or something like that. We also ask this question and I'm sure she asks it and I’m sure you ask it. Why did she lose?   
After Sullivan cited a growing populist movement as one cause, a wounded Rose followed-up: 
Why didn't you see that and why didn't she see that? I mean, that’s the role of people who were principal advisers stories to a president. There were stories she was unhappy about that and so was her husband, the direction of the campaign speaking to those issues. 
If only he’d shown similar interest in the Iranian nuclear deal. Guest co-host Margaret Brennan instead wondered if Sullivan would one day run for office. These are not exactly examples of journalists speaking truth to power. 
[CBS’s biased segment was brought to you by Buick, Clear Choice Dental Centers and Visa.]
A partial transcript is below: 
CBS This Morning 
8/9/17
8:34
CHARLIE ROSE: [Former Hillary Clinton/State Department adviser Jake Sullivan] You say North Korea is a land of lousy options. Where are we going? What is going to happen and does the language of the President help or hinder? 
JAKE SULLIVAN: Well, what we need right now is steady resolve, calm, and absolutely strong and consistent leadership and the problem with what the President said is it puts all the attention on the United States and what the United States is thinking. When right now the attention should be on north Korea and producing pressure to produce a diplomatic outcome. It just doesn't help when our allies and the countries in the region can’t tell whether it's Donald Trump or Kim Jong-un who's the crazier one. 
ROSE: You have also said the likelihood of war is not North Korea but Iran. 
...
MARGARET BRENNAN: And we’re potentially looking at an October deadline for some sort of diplomatic crisis if as the President has said in interviews he chooses not to re-certify the nuclear deal that you are apart of. What actually happens if he says Iran's not abiding by the agreement?             
...
ROSE: And General Mattis has said about the Iran nuclear deal that he supports it even though he finds some flaws in it. And even President Obama probably finds some flaws in it, I assume.
...
BRENNAN: But at the end of the Obama administration, you and I both know people in that administration who would admit privately now that they missed opportunities with North Korea and they allows things to escalate? Why wasn’t there a diplomatic option at the time and what’s different now? 
...
ROSE: If Hillary Clinton had been elected president, everybody assumes you would have had one of the principal roles around her. National Security adviser or something like that. We also ask this question and I'm sure she asks it and I’m sure you ask it. Why did she lose?
JAKE SULLIVAN: That's a very difficult question that to this day keeps me up at night. I don't think there is any one reason. I think there's a combination of factors. Any one of which that had been changed on the day of, she would have won. Frankly if the election had been held one week earlier or later she might have won. There was a combination of outside factors, like Comey and Russia. And then there was the fact that, honestly, this country wanted dramatic change and there was a populist movement — 
ROSE: Why didn't you see that and why didn't she see that? I mean, that’s the role of people who were principal advisers stories to a president. There were stories she was unhappy about that and so was her husband, the direction of the campaign speaking to those issues. 
...
BRENNAN: Are you going to run, Jake? 
SULLIVAN: Run? 
BRENNAN: Run for office. You’ve pondered it before. 
SULLIVAN: It’s possible that someday I’ll run for office. 

3

NBC Slam: Trump and N.K. Sound Like ‘a School Yard Squabble’

By Nicholas Fondacaro

The war of words between the United States and North Korea continued on Wednesday, as the communist regime threatened an attack on the U.S. territory of Guam. And despite the fact that the North Koreans had successfully miniaturized a nuclear bomb to fit on a warhead, NBC Nightly News still thought it was a priority to slam President Trump for getting tough on the regime that had kidnapped American citizens.
If the stakes weren't so potentially grave, it might otherwise sound like a school yard squabble,” quipped Anchor Lester Holt as he came on the air. “The war of words escalating tonight between the United States and North Korea over nothing less than nuclear weapons.
Earlier in the day, Secretary of Defense James Mattis told North Korea to cease any actions that would endanger the U.S. or its allies or face “the end of its regime and the destruction of its people.”
It was a statement similar to the Presidents, but Holt didn’t seem to have a problem with it. “And now today Secretary of Defense Mattis with his own more artfully worded but no less threatening message,” he seemed to approve. The only real difference was the man saying it, so it proves the bias against the Commander-In-Chief.
Holt handed the first report of the evening off to Correspondent Bill Neely, who was live in South Korea. He immediately started his report by highlighting the anti-Trump marches occurring in the North. “On the streets of North Korea today, a show of defiance,” he explained. “The U.S. the enemy, Kim Jong-un and nuclear weapons their defense, they said, against the threat from President Trump.
Neely seemed skeptical of Secretary of State Rex Tillerson when he told the press that “the American people should sleep well at night.” He also seemed perturbed by Tillerson defending Trump’s “fire and fury” comments from the previous day.
In NBC’s third report on the unfolding situation with North Korea, they dedicated the entire segment to the backlash Trump had received for his threat. “As the President faces perhaps his greatest test of leadership yet, he's also spawned a backlash among some who feel his fiery threat to the North was out of bounds,” hyped Holt, as he led into the report by White House Correspondent Kristen Welker.
Welker touted the criticism of the President being flung by Republican Senator John McCain, who told her that “Teddy Roosevelt once said: “Walk softly but carry a big stick.” And that's not what's being employed here.
On Tuesday, NBC also glorified McCain’s criticism of Trump after he claimed he couldn’t think of another president who would have said what Trump said. But in reality, President Harry Truman said startlingly similar words before dropping the second nuclear bomb on Japan to end WWII.
The NBC Correspondent only managed to squeeze in one supporter of Trump’s statement, and only granting it a few measly seconds. She quickly played a clip of Obama-lapdog Ben Rhodes who smeared the President by saying: “This is the kind of thing you would expect to hear from the North Koreans, not from the president of the United States. And frankly, it's not the kind of rhetoric that will reassure our allies.
NBC’s reporting on North Korea here is viewed in a totally different light with the understanding that it’s their “job” “to scare people to death” with the fear of Trump and North Korea. As the network’s Brian Williams admitted to Tuesday night on MSNBC.
Transcript below:
NBC Nightly News
August 9, 2017
7:01:29 PM Eastern
LESTER HOLT: Good evening and welcome, everyone. If the stakes weren't so potentially grave, it might otherwise sound like a school yard squabble. The war of words escalating tonight between the United States and North Korea over nothing less than nuclear weapons. President Trump's “fire and fury” remarks met with North Korea's threat to attack a vital U.S. territory. And now today Secretary of Defense Mattis with his own more artfully worded but no less threatening message, warning North Korea against actions that could lead to, quote, “the destruction of its people.” Our Bill Neely is in South Korea tonight with the latest developments.
[Cuts to video]
BILL NEELY: On the streets of North Korea today, a show of defiance. The U.S. the enemy, Kim Jong-un and nuclear weapons their defense, they said, against the threat from President Trump.
DONALD TRUMP: Fire and fury, like the world, has never seen.
NEELY: And from the island of Guam, now directly threatened by North Korea, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson turning down the temperature.
REX TILLERSON: The American people should sleep well at night.
NEELY: And defending the President.
TILLERSON: What the President is doing is sending a strong message to North Korea in language that Kim Jong-un would understand because he doesn't seem to understand diplomatic language.
NEELY: That message reinforced today in another stark warning from Defense Secretary Jim Mattis that North Korea should stop considering “actions that would lead to the end of its regime and the destruction of its people.” It would, he said, “lose any conflict it initiates.” Mattis' comments followed a new, very specific threat from North Korea, that it's preparing military plans to strike the American Pacific island of Guam.
7:08:26 PM Eastern
HOLT: As the President faces perhaps his greatest test of leadership yet, he's also spawned a backlash among some who feel his fiery threat to the North was out of bounds. But while his choice of words may have taken some within his administration by surprise, the White House says it's underlying message did not. Here is Kristen Welker.
KRISTEN WELKER: Those words were his according to the White House, who said the president didn't discuss specific language with his top advisors but had previewed the tone, including with chief of staff John Kelly. Still, the President's combative remarks sparked a backlash from some lawmakers.
JOHN MCCAIN: Teddy Roosevelt once said: “Walk softly but carry a big stick.” And that's not what's being employed here.
WELKER: Privately, administration officials acknowledge they've spent the day trying to turn down the heat. But the President may have added to the mixed messaging, tweeting: “My first order as President was to renovate and modernize our nuclear arsenal. It is now far stronger and more powerful than ever before.”
WELKER: Tonight, some supporters say Mr. Trump's unconventional tough foreign policy talk shows strength.
REP. ADAM KINZINGER: This is how North Korea talks, so why not give it a shot to say: “Hey, we've got some fire and fury for you too if you want to play that game.”
WELKER: But critics warn:
BEN RHODES: This is the kind of thing you would expect to hear from the North Koreans, not from the president of the United States. And frankly, it's not the kind of rhetoric that will reassure our allies.
WELKER: The President's leadership facing its fiercest test yet in what’s shaping up to be one of the most dramatic standoffs since the Cuban Missile Crisis.
MICHAEL BESCHLOSS: Every president over the last 70 years has essentially felt that what matters in a crisis like this is not tough talk but tough action.


4

Deranged: Matthew Dowd Compares Trump to Kim Jong-un, Speculates Europe Fears Trump More

By Curtis Houck

ABC political analyst and faux Republican Matthew Dowd spent Wednesday afternoon with fellow liberal Republican Nicolle Wallace’s Deadline White House, serenading MSNBC viewers with the claim that Trump’s “fire and fury” statement could easily be said by North Korea dictator Kim Jong-un. 
Receiving zero pushback, Dowd also speculated that Europe is more scared of Trump than a murderous communist like Kim Jong-un, so there’s that for what passes as acceptable political rhetoric. Surely the reaction would different if someone stated that about Barack Obama.
Wallace did her part in teeing up fellow ex-Bush official:
Let me just ask you about the character of a president who would threaten fire and fury without having enough respect for his military leadership, for his national security adviser, for his chief of staff and for his secretary of state to give them a heads up.
Dowd began by imploring everyone to “end this whole story that keeps developing that somehow Donald Trump is going to change and be something different than he is” as no one or anything (even retired General John Kelly) have been able to change Trump. 
This set the table for part one of Dowd’s imprudent tangentt:
There weren’t a strategy in this. To me, if you read a paragraph in the beginning of the newspaper that said this. A bellicose, threatening, emotionally immature, insecure leader did “X,” a year ago would you have thought the President of the United States was that person or would you thought that the head of North Korea was that person? That's the problem today. 
He soon added, when taking into consideration “stable actors” versus unstable ones: “[I]t's hard for me to believe that the people in Europe aren't looking at this situation today and who are they more worried about? That's actually an honest question in this time that we have.”
Dowd is arguably correct in Trump’s ill-timing when it comes to the “fire and fury”comments in relation to the Nagasaki anniversary and his tweets about transgender people in the military. Fair enough. 
But putting a U.S. President who uses colorful language to someone who starves millions of people and used anti-aircraft guns to murder security officials? Give me a break. Spare us this pathetic attempt at moral equivalency.
This was not the first such piece of lunacy from Dowd. For frequent fliers here at NewsBusters, Dowd makes near daily appearances on our pages. Just this summer, Dowd has argued that Trump’s tweets are as distracting as skinny dippers and Congress is treating Trump “like a child” so he can’t “harm” them.
Dowd and Wallace continue to show on a daily basis why they’re such beloved members of the New York-Washington media elite. 
Whether it’s Wallace suggesting the Trump immigration policy push last week centered on “xenophobia” or Dowd touting single-payer health care, folks like these have become case studies in what the media want to see from conservatives and Republicans.

Here’s the relevant portions of the transcript from MSNBC’s Deadline: White House on August 9:
MSNBC’s Deadline: White House
August 9, 2017
4:16 p.m. Eastern
NICOLLE WALLACE: Let me just ask you about the character of a president who would threaten fire and fury without having enough respect for his military leadership, for his national security adviser, for his chief of staff and for his secretary of state to give them a heads up. 
MATTHEWS DOWD: So the first thing I hope we can end this whole story that keeps developing that somehow Donald Trump is going to change and be something different than he is, and he has some master strategy he's going to take over the world and make the United States – let's just end that. General Kelly made no difference, every speech that Donald Trump has made no difference, the statements that he’s made, yesterday — had made a lot of difference badly in this. But they weren't planned. There weren’t a strategy in this To me, if you read a paragraph in the beginning of the newspaper that said this. A bellicose, threatening, emotionally immature, insecure leader did “X,” a year ago would you have thought the President of the United States was that person or would you thought that the head of North Korea was that person? That's the problem today. When we talk about stable actors and people we can count on in all of this, it's hard for me to believe that the people in Europe aren't looking at this situation today and who are they more worried about? That's actually an honest question in this time that we have. The other thing that he doesn’t — I think Donald Trump does — I think he has no consent of history. Today is the anniversary of dropping the bomb on Nagasaki, right? That is the anniversary today. When he announced that transgender people were no longer to be in the military it was on the anniversary of Harry Truman desegregating the military. He has no concept of what he says in how it relates to history and what impact it has on the world.
SARA FAGEN: It goes to Nicolle's point there's no vetting process there because, in a normal White House somebody would look at the history of the issues that are being talked about and make sure that the President and the rest of the staff knew, hey, if we're going to do something on transgender people in the military, we might want to wait a week. 
WALLACE: And Michael Steele, just quickly, I bang my head on this table, but I did that a lot during the campaign and it actually hurts if anyone’s is wondering where the bleep are the Republicans? 
MICHAEL STEEL: I think right now the President is moving so fast during a congressional recess that there's not a lot of response. And here you see Senator McCain —
WALLACE: So fast. He's going in one direction. Down. 
STEEL: You see John McCain showing up about that. What's terrifying to the earlier points here, they're now comparing this to the Cuban missile crisis. In the Cuban missile crisis, the hinge between war and peace, was carefully chosen words between the president of the united States and we have to illusion that, in this situation, we will hear carefully vetted, appropriate words from the President of the United States. 
(....)
4:20 p.m. Eastern
DOWD: The only hope I have in this — the only hope I have in this, I think them as the five linemen protecting the Americans in the pocket.
WALLACE: Name them and then we’re going to have to hit pause.
DOWD: Nikki Haley, General Mattis, General Kelly, General McMaster, and Rex Tillerson, right? And I think those five — there’s like a trip wire, right? That's my hope that all of Donald Trump's belligerence and the stuff he does and not reacting — hoping he doesn't react emotionally the five people are between the American public and something really bad happening.

5

Fake News: NYT’s ‘Leaked’ Climate Report Was Online for Months

By Scott Whitlock

A supposedly secret document that the New York Times on Tuesday claimed to expose, a climate change report that network journalists worried would be “suppressed,” was already online. According to Alex Pappas on FoxNews.com, “Scientists appear to have debunked The New York Times' claim it has leaked a secret, gloomy climate change report which it published amid fears President Trump would suppress it.” 
He noted that the Times darkly fretted that the draft report “has not yet been made public” but “a copy of it was obtained by The New York Times.” Pappas explained: 
But those who worked on the report are pushing back against the claims, saying the version that was obtained and posted in full by the New York Times has actually been online and available to the public for months.
“It's not clear what the news is in this story,” Robert Kopp, a climate scientist at Rutgers University who is listed on the report as among the lead authors, said on Twitter.
The Internet Archive, a website that archives content published online, says it downloaded the report from the Environmental Protection Agency's website in January 2017.
The Times has since corrected its story: 
Correction: August 9, 2017 
An article on Tuesdayabout a sweeping federal climate change report referred incorrectly to the availability of the report. While it was not widely publicized, the report was uploaded by the nonprofit Internet Archive in January; it was not first made public by The New York Times.
On Monday, all three networks pounced on the story, speculating about the Trump administration’s nefarious plans. Good Morning America's George Stephanopoulos warned, “No word yet on whether they will suppress, dismiss, or endorse the report.” (Isn't it hard to suppress something that’s already public?)
On CBS This Morning, Major Garrett offered a lecture on what the document means: “The lack of comment from officials here and from those at some of the relevant federal agencies about this report's startling conclusions suggest not just skepticism but, at least initially, a lack of curiosity.” (On Tuesday night, the three evening reports all covered the story. CBS claimed the Times broke the story.) 
The three network morning shows did not inform their audiences on Wednesday that the secret report was not, in fact, secret. 

6

Nets Ignore Cuba Harassing, Trying to ‘Deafen’ U.S. Diplomats

By Nicholas Fondacaro

There was bizarre news out of the U.S. State Department on Wednesday as the Associated Pressreported that U.S. diplomats had to return home from Cuba after experiencing “physical symptoms,” which included “potentially permanent hearing loss.” The mysterious incidents led to the United States expelling two Cuba officials from their Washington, D.C. embassy. Despite the stunning revelations, the Big Three Networks (ABC, CBS, and NBC) gave the story zero time later that evening.
Meanwhile, on Fox News Channel’s Special Report, Anchor Bret Baier delivered a news brief on the developing story. “The AP says Cuba may have placed sonic devices that produce non-audible sound inside or outside the residences of several embassy staffers with the intent of deafening them,” he reported. “The Americans eventually came home.”
As reported by the AP, State Department Spokeswoman Heather Nauert told the press that the first of the incidents dated back to the fall of 2016, during the Obama administration. “She would not say what the symptoms were except that they were not life-threatening,” the AP added. Nauert would not go into detail about what had occurred, but FBI and Diplomatic Security Service investigators were looking into the matter.
“U.S. diplomats are among the most closely monitored people on the island,” the AP noted. “It’s virtually impossible for anyone to take action against an American diplomat without an element of the Cuban state being aware.”
The AP’s breakdown of the incidents, which came from an anonymous diplomat, painted a chilling picture:
In the fall, officials said the affected diplomats and their spouses began to experience symptoms of hearing loss so severe and puzzling that an investigation was launched, and it was determined that they were at risk. They were allowed to leave Cuba, the officials said. No children were affected, but at least some of the adults who were are believed to have suffered permanent hearing loss, according to the officials. They said the Cuban government had denied any involvement.
What made the Big Three Networks’ dead silence on the issue even more disgusting was the fact that they were in love with Cuba.
So when President Obama allowed travel to Cuba, the networks were all over it. NBC’s Kerry Sanders glorified his boarding of a cruise ship to the communist regime as ‘a pinch-me moment.’ ABC shamelessly threw aside the Cuban exiles living in America to hype Anchor David Muir getting on a plane to the island.
And when the murderous Cuban dictator, Fidel Castro died in November 2016, they wept with his communist supporters. In fact, 94 percent of their coverage ignored the “economic disaster” he created for the people there. As reported by the MRC’s Scott Whitlock at the time, CBS’s Charlie Rose “reported from Cuba on Tuesday, trumpeting the “legacy” of the “thunderous” Fidel Castro and the “anguish” over his death.”
And after Donald Trump was elected president, the networks feared he would “roll back” President Obama’s “legacy” in opening up Cuba. NBC’s resident Castro apologists, Andrea Mitchell bemoaned about how “Havana tonight open for business. But now on edge, afraid President Trump is about to shut the door once again to most U.S. travelers.”
Clearly, they have more of an affinity for Cuba than the welfare of U.S. diplomats there since ABC chose to report on hikers finding a mountain lion, CBS flipped for a new dinosaur getting a name, and NBC went gaga for Oprah’s new line of frozen food.
Transcript below:
Fox News Channel
Special Report 
August 9, 2017
6:21:51 PM Eastern
BRET BAIER: State Department officials say the department is expelled two Cuban diplomats from their country’s embassy here in Washington. It’s in response to a series of incidents that left American diplomats in Cuba with physical symptoms. Officials tell the Associated Press the symptoms include potentially permanent hearing loss.
The AP says Cuba may have placed sonic devices that produce non-audible sound inside or outside the residences of several embassy staffers with the intent of deafening them. The Americans eventually came home.

No comments:

Post a Comment