Paul Krugman writes:
Hmm. I’ve long been accustomed to receiving a lot of crazy mail, accusing me of being a commie, a traitor, an idiot who doesn’t know any economics, etc.. But the flow peaked a long time ago; after around 2005, as the number of people in major news outlets actually willing to criticize Dear Leader grew, I seemed to stop being Public Enemy #1.
Lately, however, it’s been starting to feel like the good old days. Maybe I’m just getting my pro-rata share of the general craziness of Obamaparanoia. But something is definitely going on.
Although I don’t get emails about politics, I was just thinking yesterday that the anger of conservatives have been over the top recently. I remember being asked a question propagandized by Fox, “Why are liberals so angry??” Yet whatever anger the anti-war protesters had has been greatly dwarfed by the tea-baggers outrage over… the economy being saved? And they’re so concerned about the federal debt that they want to increase it by giving the rich yet another tax cut. And now it seems that God has answered the call to “Drill, Baby, Drill” by letting BP open up a gateway directly into HELL. So, naturally, the Right is now making comparisons to Katrina and grabbing hold of whatever conspiracy theories they can to hold on to their article of faith that “oil drilling is safe.”
In case we forgot how crazy bad Bush’s response was, here’s a timeline of the government response to Katrina. I agree that Obama should not have believed BP when they said that the situation was under control, but it’s not like the media did any better and other than get those ineffective rubber barriers out a little sooner, there wasn’t much that could be done. Even O’Reilly points out the comparison to Katrina is insane.
After suggesting that environmentalists snuck on the platform and caused the disaster to stop offshore drilling, Rush went on to explain how massive oil spills were completely natural and how this one will fix itself if just left alone. Now he’s falsely claiming that the Times Square bomber was a registered Democrat.
Then “Heckuva Job” Brownie is suggesting Obama purposely held back his response so that the damage of the catastrophe would be maximized. This is because Obama was “never for offshore drilling.” So now he has an excuse to shut it down, making himself look like an idiot for coming out in support of offshore drilling immediately before. Makes perfect sense.
Again, to give O’Reilly credit, he said he would have slapped him. Chris Matthews actually did (metaphorically).
Before that, Eric Boiling on Fox and Friends brought up the scenerio, saying, “conspiracy theorists would say, ‘maybe they’d let it leak for a while, and then they addressed the issue,” but then legitimized the idea by adding, “That would be a humongous accusation and probably the net result would be no different, but if they’re going to try and pull drilling, that may be the way they do it.”
Really? If Obama wanted to pull the offshore drilling idea, the best way to do it is to cause a multi-billion dollar catastrophe that’s probably going to destroy Louisiana’s fishing industry and hit the country with yet another financial disaster?
In related news, VoteVets has been airing ads promoting clean energy by linking our oil consumption to the funding of Muslim terrorists on MSNBC and CNN. Not surprisingly, Fox has declined to show the ads. Although they gave no official comment on the subject, VoteVets claims that Fox told them the ad was ‘too confusing.’ Obviously, any ad touting that connection is bad for the worldview being promoted by Fox, but there may be another reason….
Shortly after the 9/11 attacks, a Saudi Prince by the name of Al-Waleed bin Talal, an oil tycoon and nephew to the king, offered 10 million dollars to help in the relief efforts. But with it, Al-Waleed also said that America “must address some of the issues that led to such a criminal attack,” and “re-examine its policies in the Middle East.” Based on these comments, Guilliani took it upon himself to refuse the money. Sean Hannity, Mara Liasson, and Bill Sammon from Fox News praised Guilliani, saying he did the right thing. Hannity said it was “such an egregious, outrageous, unfair offense that I would have nothing to do with his money either.”
Eight years later, Rupert Murdoch purchased 10% of the prince’s stake in Rotana, an Arab Media company for $70 million, plus the option to buy another 10%. Following the deal, Talal is now the second-largest shareholder of Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp.
So, as a recap, Fox thinks it’s a good thing to tell a Saudi prince trying to blame American foreign policy on 9/11 to take his 10 million dollars designated for 9/11 victims and shove it right up his ass, but that doesn’t mean Fox can’t themselves give him 70 million dollars.
Talal has already bragged about the influence he has, claiming that he was able to change a banner on Fox about “muslim riots” in France to “civil riots.” Imagine if any other news network from the “liberal media” changed their banner because of what a Saudi prince told them. The way Fox News tars and feathers liberals as being too pro-Muslim is ridiculous, especially with the fake outrage brought onto those who guessed the Times Square bomber was homegrown. It reminds me of how the Pharisees are portrayed in the gospels: After trying to trap Jesus into looking too pro-Roman by asking his position on taxes, they have no problem going and making secret deals with Pontius Pilate.