« Puppy Love | Main | Tex in the City For Sale »
July 22, 2003
Censorship Anyone?
Here's an interesting letter from the Lawyers from the "Republic National Guard" to Television stations in Wisconsin airing an ad which focuses on the erroneous assertion that Iraq bought Uranium in Africa in the State of the Union earlier this year. This ad will run nationally soon.
It's almost laughable how far these tyrants are willing to go to keep their good time boy in the White House. Say what you will about the appropriateness or stupidity of including the statements in the State of the Union, their attempts to squelch free speech is deplorable. Following is the text of the commercial and the responding letter.
The Commercial
In his State of the Union address, George W. Bush told us of an imminent threat.
BUSH: Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.
America took him at his word. But now we find out that it wasn't true.
The CIA knew it. The State Department knew it. The White House knew it. [New York Times, 7/6/03; NBC News, 6/26/03]
It's time to tell the truth. Hold President Bush accountable with an independent, bipartisan investigation. Go to www.democrats.org/truth to sign the petition. Because America deserves the truth.
The Republican National Committee's Lawyer sent this letter to TV stations airing the above commercial.
Dear Station Manager:
It has come to our attention that your station will begin airing false and misleading advertisements on July 21, 2003, paid for by the Democratic National Committee. The advertisement in question misrepresents President George W. Bush's January 28, 2003, State of the Union address. The advertisement states that President Bush said, "Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." In fact, President Bush said, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." By selectively quoting President Bush, the advertisement is deliberately false and misleading. Furthermore, the British government continues to stand by its intelligence and asserts that it believes the intelligence is genuine.
The Democratic National Committee certainly has a legitimate First Amendment right to participate in political debate, but it has no right to willfully spread false information in a deliberate attempt to mislead the American people. These advertisements will not be run by legally qualified candidates; therefore, your station is under no legal obligation to air them. On the contrary, as an FCC licensee you have the responsibility to exercise independent editorial judgment to not only oversee and protect the American marketplace of ideas, essential for the health of our democracy, but also to avoid deliberate misrepresentations of the facts. Such obligations must be taken seriously.
This letter puts you on notice that the information contained in the above-cited advertisement is false and misleading; therefore, you are obligated to refrain from airing this advertisement.
Respectfully,
Caroline C. Hunter
Counsel
I don't know. That "you are obligated to refrain from airing this advertisement" coupled with mention of being an FCC licensee sounds like a not-so-veiled threat to me. Hmm. I wonder what other parts of the constitution and bill of rights these "patriots" are going to annihilate in the next year and a half.
That's allright. We'll have a 554 Billion dollar deficit to keep us cozy.
Posted by mermu at July 22, 2003 09:30 AM
Comments
I was just talking to my boss about this today. He was denying that Bush did not say what I said he was saying. I told him I was going to research his speech and get back with him on it. So, when I read your blog entry and the comments, I decided to copy and paste them to an email and send them to him. I am sure I will hear more about this tomorrow. Or today, after he has a chance to read the email.
Posted by: Rita (aka mom) at July 22, 2003 08:19 PM
Yeah. To me the argument as to whether or not Bush was lying is completely different from the argument that the Republicans are using power to squelch free speech. For my part, I do think he deliberately misled the public for a personal end. But I do see the "loophole strategy" of what he said.
I think the Dems have every right to make a statement though and the Republican strong arm tactics are not appropriate. From a marketing perspective, it was a big mistake on the Repubs part. They are showing their true colors when it comes to freedom and signaling in their zeal to cover up the ads the validity of the Democrats' questions.
Posted by: Mermu at July 22, 2003 11:02 AM
You know, they sort of have a point about Bush's words being taken out of context. Of course, most people listening to the State of the Union address didn't notice the "the British government has learned that" bit, so literally taken, Bush didn't lie when he said it. Amd that was the whole point of putting it that way.
The administration knew these claims were bogus--they had tried to use the uranium-out-of-Africa story in another speech earlier and the CIA protested too much. So they put it in a way where the CIA couldn't complain and where Bush would be covered. And the people would still think that Bush had proof that Saddam had recently try to buy Uranium in Africa. Pretty ingeniuous, eh?
Posted by: stepan at July 22, 2003 10:50 AM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)