Janet Napolitano, Secretary of Homeland Security, sat for an interview recently with Der Speigel Online. The following exchange in that interview had the folks at Fox & Friends talking this morning:
SPIEGEL: Madame Secretary, in your first testimony to the US Congress as Homeland Security Secretary you never mentioned the word “terrorism.” Does Islamist terrorism suddenly no longer pose a threat to your country?
NAPOLITANO: Of course it does. I presume there is always a threat from terrorism. In my speech, although I did not use the word “terrorism,” I referred to “man-caused” disasters. That is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur.
On the heels of a brief discussion about Jessica Simpson’s weight gain came Fox & Friends’s debate of Napolitano’s “Nixing [of the] T-Word,” (as one of the segment’s many chyrons put it):
BRIAN KILMEADE: Let’s talk about something else, very consequential I think, especially if you’re hoping to win the war on terror. I got news for you, it’s not called the war on terror. The Homeland Security Secretary has renamed it. Of course, she chose to tell us about this renaming [in] Der Spiegel…
STEVE DOOCY: We have a transcript, Ainsley?AINSELY EARHARDT: [Reads exchange above].
DOOCY: [“Man-caused disasters?”] Are you kidding me? That’s like a fashion emergency.
EARHARDT: So our question is, are you stupid? Of course we know that terrorism exists. Look at 9/11. We all survived that. You know, we know that terrorism is out there. So call a spade a spade. If there is terrorism and that is a threat let us decide if we should live in fear.
DOOCY: That’s so odd that’s the terminology of the person in charge of the cabinet post to protect us? It’s not terrorism? These people with bombs and airplanes that fly into buildings those are man-made disaster-makers?
KILMEADE: Don’t tell that to Germany where the Hamburg cell gave birth to this entire plot or helped ferment the entire plot. Even by the question you could tell there, Der Spiegel, the reporter knew, are you missing something here?
EARHARDT: [Napolitano] goes on to say we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy being prepared for all risks that could occur.
DOOCY: Just call it terrorism! …[W]e have been talking about how some of the history books will not refer to Islamic terrorists — as they were— but, instead, you know, they call them trouble-makers and stuff like that. [But] for the person who is in charge of that department to call it man-made disasters rather than terrorism, that is just wack as my kids say.
How will people be able to “decide” for themselves “if [they] should live in fear” if they aren’t regularly hearing the words “terror” and “terrorism?”
These would be fascinating times for reporters on the rhetoric beat (were there some).
I thought journalists learned to be stupid on the job. Now I find they learn political correctness at Columbia. If only Orwell had lived to the see the day! According to the Obamanites, there would have been no Holocaust & no Gulag, just "man-made disasters." Imagine what a picnic World War 2 would have been without Nazis. If you can't define your enemy with precision, you can't defend yourself. I am a graduate of a fairly good Journalism schoool (Northwestern), though I went straight and practiced law so I could protect the 1st Amendment, even if that benefits fools who do not realize when their country is under attack. Or who is attacking.
#1 Posted by Joel J. Sprayregen, CJR on Tue 17 Mar 2009 at 08:25 PM
I thought contemporary journalists learned to be stupid on the job. Now I fined they learn political correctness @ Columbia. In Obamanite jargon, there would have been neither Holocaust nor Gulag, just "man-made disasters." Fortunately, Orwell was around then. How we need him when the Homeland Security chieftaness tells us the equivalent of "war is peace." What a picnic World War 2 would have been without Nazis. If can't define your enemy and the threat posed, you can't defend yourself. I went to a pretty good journalsim school (Northwestern), but I went straight and practiced law so I could defned the 1st Amendment, even if that benefits fools who don't know when their country is under attack. Or who is attacking.
#2 Posted by Joel J. Sprayregen, CJR on Tue 17 Mar 2009 at 08:42 PM
I thought contemporary journalists learned to be stupid on the job. Now I fined they learn political correctness @ Columbia. In Obamanite jargon, there would have been neither Holocaust nor Gulag, just "man-made disasters." Fortunately, Orwell was around then. How we need him when the Homeland Security chieftaness tells us the equivalent of "war is peace." What a picnic World War 2 would have been without Nazis. If can't define your enemy and the threat posed, you can't defend yourself. I went to a pretty good journalsim school (Northwestern), but I went straight and practiced law so I could defned the 1st Amendment, even if that benefits fools who don't know when their country is under attack. Or who is attacking.
#3 Posted by Joel J. Sprayregen, CJR on Tue 17 Mar 2009 at 08:43 PM
The terrorists are now in control of congress and the senate and the Washington bureaucracy. Self agrandizing, ego-maniacs with, THE AGENDA, "Let's get me reelected" or in this case toe that party line, Ms. Janet napolitano, liberal fascist. It doesn't matter what the topic happens to be, there will always be a bureaucrat (elephant or jackass) with a view diametricly opposed to common sense, because for them it is all about being self actualized not working for the people. Horrors of human beings in positions of power and with the love and lust for money. The best thing that they could do for all of us is join Janet in Germany. At least they wouldn't be spending money, making obtuse ill-informed decisions or making political doublespeak. And, Janet et al...we would be a lot safer here without ya.
#4 Posted by paul, CJR on Wed 18 Mar 2009 at 12:05 AM
From this post, we learn several things:
1) Fox and Friends consistently shows the intellectual capital that a weatherman and a former beauty queen can bring to a serious topic.
2) Lawyers don't have to be bright or make well-reasoned arguments (not a surprise)
3) Right-wingers don't understand the whole posting comments just once thing.
#5 Posted by Andrew Harmon, CJR on Fri 22 May 2009 at 11:22 AM