Tag Archives: christiane amanpour

ABC’s Amanpour Trumpets ‘Tax Us More’ Liberal Democratic Quartet

At a time when the American mood has turned against excessive government spending, Christiane Amanpour devoted Sunday’s This Week to four liberal Democratic billionaires, though she failed to identify their political orientation, who want higher income tax rates on the wealthy. Unmentioned during the pre-taped interviews with Warren Buffett, Bill and Melinda Gates, Ted Turner and Tom Steyer revolving around their participation in “The Giving Pledge” – the promise to give away at least half their wealth: how they are free now to give all the money they want to the federal government. Amanpour began by touting: “Warren Buffett has been practically begging the country, begging Congress to tax him more. In fact, many of the richest Americans like Buffett, Bill and Melinda Gates and Ted Turner say that they should pay higher tax.” In between letting Buffett expound at length on why taxes should be hiked, she fretted to Bill Gates: “If people aren't going to pay for the services that they need, how are those services going to get funded, do you think?” read more

Go here to read the rest:
ABC’s Amanpour Trumpets ‘Tax Us More’ Liberal Democratic Quartet

Robert Reich: Palin ‘Realistic Candidate’ for President, Not Clear GM Bailout Was Necessary

Former Clinton labor secretary Robert Reich made a couple of rather startling comments on ABC's “This Week” Sunday. During the Roundtable segment, the devout liberal not only defended former governor Sarah Palin as a “realistic candidate” for president, but also questioned whether or not the government bailout of GM was necessary (video follows with transcript and commentary): read more

Read the original:
Robert Reich: Palin ‘Realistic Candidate’ for President, Not Clear GM Bailout Was Necessary

Peter Schiff — Purveyor of Libertarian Principles … When Convenient

For the past several years, we’ve heard the doom-and-gloom prognostications coming from perma-bear Peter Schiff: The Federal Reserve is the root of all evil. Inflation will be the United States’ undoing. Invest in gold and overseas because the American stock market is toast. Perhaps that’s a legitimate view, but Schiff argues a more libertarian approach to prevent these supposed calamities. He argues for a different way of handling monetary policy , less spending by the federal government and a rethinking of how regulation is handled . Yet, when a political campaign is waged in the halls of Congress by a partisan member against one of his competitors , he turns a blind-eye to the abuses of government power. “You know, I have my own gold company and it bothers me what they’re going to do,” Schiff said to CNBC’s “The Kudlow Report” fill-in host Michelle Caruso-Cabrera on the Sept. 24 broadcast. “I think that companies like, you know, like Goldline, you know that are basically marking up their gold coins 67 percent or whatever – it’s outrageous. I mean, most companies mark-up 2 or 3 percent, which is what I do. These type of companies give the whole industry a bad name. What I’m afraid of is we’re going to have a lot of regulation.” Caruso-Cabrera asked Schiff in these circumstances if it was a case of buyer beware. However, Schiff suggested it was fraudulent for coin companies to charge these prices for what by any measure of the law would be a legal transaction if a consumer chose to purchase coins from such a company. “If there’s fraud, it’s not buyer beware,” he continued. “But what I’m afraid of is I don’t want government regulating the coin industry so that people like me have to raise our prices to cover all the extra cost of regulation.” But assuming Schiff’s assumption were correct, wouldn’t he has a competitor be able to move in on the market and offer the same product for a lower price? Isn’t that how the free market operates? Schiff conceded that point, but complained he was getting beat because he couldn’t afford the advertising. “I mean, I think the free market should ferret out these companies that are grossly overcharging people who don’t know any better. You know, that’s the problem. People haven’t bought gold in so long and see how well it’s doing and get conned by these commercials that are all over television. But most gold companies like mine, we can’t afford to run commercials because we’re not charging that much.” Schiff makes regular appearances on all the cable news networks, with his firm’s logo Euro Pacific Capital on the backdrop and raised more than $3 million for his failed effort to win the Connecticut Republican U.S. Senate nomination. So is it fair to complain about his firm’s inability to market its products, if indeed they’re at lower prices than the competition’s products.

See the original post here:
Peter Schiff — Purveyor of Libertarian Principles … When Convenient

George Will Schools This Week Panel on Tea Party Causing GOP Civil War

George Will on Sunday gave a much-needed education to the entire “This Week” panel about how the Tea Party is moving the GOP in a positive direction that could alter politics in this nation for years to come. As Christiane Amanpour and her Roundtable guests – Democrat strategist Donna Brazile, National Journal’s Ron Brownstein, and Republican strategist Matthew Dowd – all fretted about the so-called Civil War brewing in the GOP, Will was once again the voice of reason.  “At the beginning of the year, the question was, will the Tea Party people play nicely with others and will they obey the rules of politics? Who’s sort of not playing nicely?” asked Will. “Mr. Crist starts losing the primary to a Tea Party favorite Rubio. He suddenly discovers that he’s an independent and changes all his views overnight,” he continued. “Mrs. Murkowski loses a primary and suddenly discovers that she has a property right in her Senate seat and she’s going to run as a write-in. Senator Bennett thought of that in Utah, Senator Castle in Delaware is thinking of a write-in candidate. Who are the extremists?” (video follows with transcript and commentary):  DONNA BRAZILE, DEMOCRAT STRATEGIST: But, you know, the Republicans have a great story right now to tell. Excuse my voice. I was up watching the LSU game, clearly. But the — the problem I have — and the Republicans should — should understand — is that there’s still an eternal civil war going on within the Republican Party. In Washington state, in Delaware, and Colorado, many of the mainstream Republican candidates have not endorsed the Tea Party candidates. They’ve provided enthusiasm, they’ve provided a lot of energy and organization for the Republican Party, but we don’t know yet if the Republicans can heal those wounds and provide the kind of turnout they need to beat the Democrats. MATTHEW DOWD, REPUBLICAN STRATEGIST: I think that if you gave most Democrats truth serum and they said who’s place would they rather be in, they would pick the Republicans’ place in this year’s election as opposed to their own place in this year’s election. The problem I think for this class that’s coming in for the Republicans is for Mitch McConnell, who just talked to, is his ability to herd them is going to be like herding quail, because these folks are coming to Washington and think, “I’m not going to be part of this. I’m not going to listen to the leaders. I’m going to do what the voters want me to do,” and they’re not going to be — they’re not going to be acquiescent to what the leadership wants. CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, HOST: And that’s what I actually — I wanted to ask, because in today’s newspaper, there’s a quote by a senior Republican, you know, consultant that, after the elections, it’s going to be basically all-out war, a struggle for the heart and the soul of the Republican Party. You’re shaking your head. GEORGE WILL: They’ve been writing this story for eight months about what a problem the Tea Party is for the Republican Party. You know what the problem… (CROSSTALK) AMANPOUR: Well, Tom Ross basically told us that they lost because of that and they might lose. WILL: On balance across the country, the Tea Party is enormous help for the Republicans. At the beginning of the year, the question was, will the Tea Party people play nicely with others and will they obey the rules of politics? Who’s sort of not playing nicely? Mr. Crist starts losing the primary to a Tea Party favorite Rubio. He suddenly discovers that he’s an independent and changes all his views overnight. Mrs. Murkowski loses a primary and suddenly discovers that she has a property right in her Senate seat and she’s going to run as a write-in. Senator Bennett thought of that in Utah, Senator Castle in Delaware is thinking of a write-in candidate. Who are the extremists? (CROSSTALK) RON BROWNSTEIN, NATIONAL JOURNAL: Donna, I would say, look — I mean, I think clearly this class of Republicans do not feel they are being sent here to Washington to compromise with Barack Obama or to follow the Republican leadership. So in that sense, there’s going to be tension. And I quote Ken Buck in my story as saying so. But if you look at what they are actually going to be voting on, in all likelihood, over the next two years, there is remarkable unanimity in this class. And despite all the focus on the civil war, I think that is kind of a — what the long-range vision of what the federal government should be doing or not doing is where you will see diversity. (CROSSTALK) BROWNSTEIN: But in the near term — in the — in the near term, I think — in terms — the main thing that the Republicans, I think, are being sent here to do is to block and try to roll back whatever they can what Obama did. I think the spending thing will continue to be a challenge for them, because if you want to reduce the deficits and extend the Bush tax cuts, that does point you back toward cutting Medicare and Medicaid, which is exactly the problem they got into in ’95, and they may end up in that same cul-de-sac next year. But I actually believe there is more commonality in this class than is often assumed. And in the near term, they are going to be a very formidable and, I think, cohesive force. WILL: And look at the not-so-near term. In the next two cycles, 2012 and 2014 combined, the Democrats are defending 43 Senate seats, Republicans 22. So the Republican wave that’s now starting is just starting. Indeed. As Will accurately stated, the media have been “writing this story for eight months about what a problem the Tea Party is for the Republican Party.” The liberal press are always trying to figure out a narrative that paints the GOP in the most negative light.   First we were told the Tea Party represented an inconsequential fringe of racists and homophobes that will have no impact on elections. Now that its candidates have produced shocking results across the fruited plain, and have reinvigorated conservative voters like nothing we’ve seen in many years, the movement is going to produce a Civil War within the Republican Party that will either hurt it in November or make it impossible for it to govern if its successful at the polls. This is clearly why you could see Will either shaking his head or seemingly laughing to himself as his colleagues waxed philosophically about some as yet unrealized though oft-predicted calamity associated with this movement. Less than two years after Barack Obama and the Democrat Party won a landslide victory that had the potential of being a political realignment shifting the balance of power in this country to the left for many years nay decades, the Republicans are on the precipice of shocking the world by taking back the Congress. Is it any wonder the media are doing their darnedest to figure out a way to undermine it or that Will is getting such a kick out of watching them try?

View post:
George Will Schools This Week Panel on Tea Party Causing GOP Civil War

Tea Parties Will Lead to 1964-Like Goldwater Debacle…No, Make that a 1972-Like McGovern Drubbing

On Wednesday, CBS’s Bob Schieffer contended the rise of Tea Party candidates “is very much like 1964” when the Republican Party nominated Barry Goldwater who “was far to the right of most of the people in his party, and they lost in a landslide.” On Sunday morning, another liberal media thinker moved ahead eight years to forward George McGovern’s 1972 Democratic debacle as the proper analogy: “Sarah Palin is really the Republicans’ George McGovern.” (So, does that make Barack Obama the modern day Richard Nixon?) On ABC’s This Week, when host Christiane Amanpour wondered if the Tea Party is “a fad” or “something much deeper?”, Peter Beinart , former top editor of The New Republic and now a senior political writer for The Daily Beast , as well as an associate professor of journalism and political science at City University of New York, asserted:  The Tea Party is now the Republican Party. I mean I think what we’re seeing in the Republican Party is something akin to what happened to the Democratic Party between 1968 and 1972 in which the forces of George McGovern took over the Democratic Party, overthrew the Democratic Party establishment and moved it substantially to the left. From the Sunday, September 19 This Week with Christiane Amanpour on ABC: CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR: So is this a fad as, Mayor Bloomberg has said? Is the Tea Party a fad or is it something much deeper that one shouldn’t under-estimate? PETER BEINART: No, the Tea Party is now the Republican Party. I mean I think what we’re seeing in the Republican Party is something akin to what happened to the Democratic Party between 1968 and 1972 in which the forces of George McGovern took over the Democratic Party, overthrew the Democratic Party establishment and moved it substantially to the left. What they didn’t realize was that while they were able to take over the Democratic Party, they were pushing that party further away from where average Americans are. The Republicans will do great in 2010, but I think Sarah Palin is really the Republicans’ George McGovern, and when they go to a general election against Barack Obama in 2012 with a divided party, with lots of people like this gentleman here [Tom Ross, Delaware Republican Party Chairman], in fact, not very happy about the direction of the Republican Party, they will see that this has not been a positive development for them.

More here:
Tea Parties Will Lead to 1964-Like Goldwater Debacle…No, Make that a 1972-Like McGovern Drubbing

Michelle Obama’s Burden and the Obamas’ Hard Hearts

It’s tough being the wife of the most powerful man in the world, just ask Michelle Obama. Carla Bruni, who seemed to reveal her distaste for the First Lady in previous pictures, reveals Michelle’s whiny comments in her recent book [Aside: why is a sitting world leader’s spouse writing a tell-all? What tawdriness.] Anyway,  here’s what was allegedly said: Michelle Obama thinks being America’s First Lady is ‘hell’, Carla Bruni reveals today in a wildly indiscreet book. Miss Bruni divulges that Mrs Obama replied when asked about her position as the U.S. president’s wife: ‘Don’t ask! It’s hell. I can’t stand it!’ Details of the private conversation, which took place at the White House during an official visit by Nicolas Sarkozy last March, emerged in Carla And The Ambitious, a book written in collaboration with Miss Bruni. Well, of course the job is difficult-prepared meals, jet-setting, specially designed clothes, lecturing the American people on eating apples is exhausting work. Also, it’s awful. Not out-of-a-job awful. Not repo awful. Not foreclosure awful. Not hungry awful. But, yeah, being First Lady is awful. Michelle Obama and that husband of her’s just don’t quite cast an empathetic image, do they? NPR kvetches about this problem : Is President Obama too rational to be likable? Obama comes across as so self-contained that his personality almost seems like a bubble around him – perhaps even more so than the bubble that surrounds any president, thanks to the Secret Service and all the trappings of the White House. “Obama’s analytic style of decision-making and his unwillingness to show emotion makes it hard for people to relate to him,” says Stephen J. Wayne, a government professor at Georgetown University. If a president is in power during hard times, his relative likability won’t matter so much as his overall job performance. But every president gets judged to a greater or lesser degree according to his personality. Perhaps no president would be doing well in the polls with unemployment near double digits throughout his term. But Obama’s inability to connect on an emotional level with many people has been an additional drag on his approval ratings. Oh yes. It’s the President’s cerebral nonchalance that’s making connection so difficult. How about this idea: Michelle and Barack Obama just don’t care. When an entitled person feels perpetually ripped off, they tend to feel less empathy for those they perceive as ripping them off. So, that lack of empathy; that attitude of being put-upon? That’s genuine no matter how the lib press wants to  rationalize  it away. Stories like these, from  the Politico  help nothing: The White House is fighting back against claims its offshore drilling moratorium will cause dramatic job loses along the Gulf Coast with a new report that says most jobs aren’t gone forever. Only 8,000 to 12,000 jobs will be lost along the Gulf Coast , and most will return once deepwater drilling resumes, says the report to be presented to a Senate panel Thursday. That’s right. ONLY 12,000 families will face the desperation of a lost livelihood and face the stress and strain of keeping their homes during this economic crisis. ONLY. Do the Obamas not grasp the gravity of the economic situation in America today? Do they not grasp their enormous educational, cultural and social privilege long before they ever lucked into the presidency? Or, are they so brainwashed by their own imagined persecution complex that they simply cannot see their remarkable lives for what they are: lucky and fortunate. Michelle Obama is not burdened. The woman doesn’t know from burden. And Barack Obama is not mis-perceived by the American people. They are seeing his cold nature for what it is: hard hearted. No amount of fawning press can obscure what is becoming more obvious. UPDATED: Michelle Obama’s office denies Carla Bruni’s revelation .

Visit link:
Michelle Obama’s Burden and the Obamas’ Hard Hearts

MRC Study: ABC, CBS and NBC Tilt Ground Zero Mosque Debate by Smearing Americans as ‘Islamophobic’

By a wide margin — 66 percent to 29 percent, according to the most recent ABC News/ Washington Post poll — the public is opposed to building that proposed $100 million Islamic cultural center near the site of the destroyed World Trade Towers. This is not a lightly-held opinion: more than half (53%) told ABC news they are “strongly opposed” to building it near Ground Zero, vs. only 14 percent who report being “strongly” in favor. (Scroll to Question 30 .) So in the face of such obvious public sentiment, are the big broadcast networks reflecting such public sentiment in their coverage? Or are journalists implicitly repudiating their viewers by touting accusations that opposition to the mosque is motivated by America’s supposed “Islamophobia”? To find out, MRC analysts reviewed all 52 stories about the Ground Zero mosque on the ABC, CBS and NBC evening newscasts from August 14 through September 13 — the first month after President Obama propelled the issue into the headlines with his remarks at a White House dinner. The results show that the networks have tilted in favor of mosque supporters and against public opinion, with more than half (55%) of all soundbites or reporter comments coming down on the pro-mosque side of the debate, vs. 45 percent for opponents. Even those overall numbers fail to show how the debate has grown increasingly tilted over time. During the first week (August 14-20), the networks actually provided more visibility to mosque opponents — 55 percent of soundbites, vs. 45 percent for mosque supporters. But in the following weeks (August 21 to September 13), the networks’ coverage lurched in the other direction, with mosque supporters receiving a 63 percent to 37 percent advantage. (See chart.) Our analysts tallied as “pro-mosque” all statements and soundbites that either: supported the idea of building the Islamic center on its currently proposed site; defended or praised the project’s organizers (mainly the Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf); or criticized the other side as bigoted or “Islamophobic.” Anti-mosque statements/soundbites presented the other side: criticized the plans to build the center and/or the project’s organizers, or defended mosque opponents from charges of bigotry. The shift in coverage occurred after mosque proponents began tarring their opponents as bigots. A pair of protests on Sunday, August 22 — one in favor of the mosque, one against — drew coverage on all three network newscasts, and all three highlighted the accusation from pro- mosque demonstrators that a contrary stance was evidence of what Time magazine’s cover story that week dubbed “Islamophobia.” What had been a relatively even-handed debate about balancing the sensitivities of 9/11 families with America’s tradition of religious freedom morphed into a one-sided story about beleaguered Muslims facing hardship at the hands of bigoted Americans. On the August 23 Nightly News , for example, NBC’s Ron Allen picked up how “many Muslim-Americans insist this debate is more evidence of religious intolerance.” On the August 25 CBS Evening News , fill-in anchor Jeff Glor linked the stabbing of a cab driver to the mosque debate: “That alleged hate crime took place in the shadow of a heated and divisive debate over whether a mosque should be build near Ground Zero….Other controversies over new mosques in Wisconsin and Kentucky have led some to question: Is America becoming Islamophobic, a prejudice against Muslims?” Four days later, on ABC’s World News, correspondent Steve Osunsami cited “a string of recent incidents suggesting that many Americans don’t care for Muslims — the back and forth over the Islamic center near Ground Zero, the cab driver who was stabbed simply for being Muslim.” “Critics say all the rhetoric is fueling anti-Muslim violence,” ABC’s Dan Harris chimed in on the September 5 World News . ABC and CBS both touted exclusive interviews with organizers of the Ground Zero mosque project, but never gave the same privilege to mosque opponents. These interviews were hardly probing. CBS’s Scott Pelley interviewed Sharif el-Gamal, the real estate developer who bought the property two blocks from Ground Zero, excerpts of which were shown on the August 27 and August 30 Evening News . “This facility that is being debated all around the world is universally known as the Ground Zero mosque,” Pelley told el-Gamal. “What do you call it?” “It should be universally known as a hub of culture, a hub of co-existence, a hub of bringing people together,” el-Gamal enthused. ABC’s Christiane Amanpour interviewed Abdul Rauf for the September 12 This Week , with excerpts shown on the September 9 World News . She quoted Abdul Rauf as arguing that failing to proceed with his mosque concept would “strengthen the radicals in the Muslim world, help their recruitment. This will put our people, our soldiers, our troops, our embassies, our citizens, under attack in the Muslim world. And we have expanded and given and fueled terrorism.” Seemingly deaf to what she just heard, Amanpour characterized Abdul Rauf’s statement this way: “So, he said he wasn’t making any threats or predicting any terrible worst case scenario.” Alone among the three evening newscasts, ABC’s World News also offered soundbites to Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesman for the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) to propose that Americans were prejudiced against Muslims. (NBC’s Today on September 9 also featured a CAIR representative to speak out against Americans as bigoted.) CAIR is currently listed by federal prosecutors as an unindicted co-conspirator in their investigation of funding for Middle Eastern terrorist groups such as Hamas. “I’ve really never seen the level of Islamophobia that we’re experiencing today,” Hooper blasted on the August 16 World News , a soundbite that was repeated on the August 29 broadcast. A week later, on the September 5 World News, Hooper was back to condemn the “hysterical atmosphere we’re in right now.” Parsing the numbers a different way provides some insight into how the networks seem to conceptualize the issue of balance: Debate about the Islamic center itself and/or its organizers was almost perfectly balanced (57 soundbites arguing against the project, vs. 54 soundbites in favor, or a 51-49% split). But the “debate” about whether opposition reflected Islamophobia was almost perfectly one-sided: 27 soundbites (93%) leveling that accusation, with just two soundbites (7%) offering a defense. In other words, the networks permitted a balanced debate about a proposed real estate project, but allowed mosque supporters to attack the majority of Americans as “haters” and “bigots” without adequate debate. That’s yet another sign that the liberal, elite media are hopelessly out of touch with the public they ostensibly serve.  

Read the original here:
MRC Study: ABC, CBS and NBC Tilt Ground Zero Mosque Debate by Smearing Americans as ‘Islamophobic’

Amanpour Uses ABC’s This Week to Continue Her Crusade to Smear America as Islamophobic and Tout Rauf’s Cause

ABC’s Christiane Amanpour used Sunday’s This Week to again shame Americans for their presumed irrational intolerance and Islamophobia as she railed against the ignorance of too many Americans, provided a friendly forum to Iman Faisal Abdul Rauf, whom she prompted to ridicule Sarah Palin, and then brought aboard a group of three “leading thinkers on faith” to “discuss religious tolerance and Islamophobia in America.” That brings Amanpour’s show tally to six guests in favor of the Ground Zero mosque versus zero opposed (four today, two on the August 22 program). Unmentioned by Amanpour or her guests: A report presented Friday by former 9/11 Commission Co-Chairs Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton about, according to Reuters , a needed “wake-up call about the radicalization of Muslims in the United States.” The report warned: “The U.S. is arguably now little different from Europe in terms of having a domestic terrorist problem involving immigrant and indigenous Muslims as well as converts to Islam.” At the top of Sunday’s show, Amanpour noted the 9/11 anniversary and used it to frame her agenda: “Nine years later, the growing hostility towards American Muslims.” In a lengthy set-up piece leading into Rauf, Amanpour fretted that “the plans to build an Islamic center close to Ground Zero have whipped up anti-Muslim sentiment” and insisted: “Not since 9/11 has the country seen such anti-Muslim fervor.” She asserted “Muslim-Americans are feeling vulnerable, with attacks on mosques in California, Wisconsin, and Tennessee. And the latest fuel poured on the fire, a threat to burn Korans…” And “these tumultuous events have created a global backlash. From Washington, to the Vatican, to Afghanistan.” She cued up Rauf: “Sarah Palin made a famous tweet saying please reconsider, the feelings are too raw. What did you think about that?” Rauf rejected the advice as he regurgitated Amanpour’s spin: “I thought it was disingenuous to a certain extent. The fact of the matter is, this has been used for political purposes and there’s growing Islamophobia in this country.” Amanpour tried to portray a nefarious trend: “In the latest poll that ABC’s conducted, only 37 percent of those who were asked expressed a positive feeling about Islam. Do you think that Muslims, people such as yourself, others here, can actually have a place to practice their religion freely, to live freely as Americans, given that figure? It’s the lowest figure since 2001.” But, it’s “the lowest figure since 2001″ by “just two points,” within the margin or error, ABC’s polling chief, Gary Langer, pointed out on ABCNews.com . Nonetheless, she empathized: “Do you think Muslims feel more afraid today, here in America, than they did right after 9/11?” She next set up her panel of “leading thinkers on faith” to “discuss religious tolerance and Islamophobia in America,” namely: “ Eboo Patel , he serves as an inter-faith adviser to the President, by Irshad Manji , author of The Trouble with Islam Today, and by Richard Cizik, founder of the New Evangelical Partnership for the Common Good.” Citing “this fervor that is being whipped up, this rising tide of anti-Islamic sentiment,” she highlighted a poll number that’s actually held steady since 2003: Eboo, you have done a lot in interfaith dialogue, trying to really build bridges here since the disaster of 9/11. What does this say to you, this fervor that is being whipped up, this rising tide of anti-Islamic sentiment in this country? Because let me read you, actually, some of the poll numbers which are interesting here. ‘Mainstream Islam encourages violence against non-Muslims.’ That was a question by ABC News and 31 percent of the respondents said yes. The next question, ‘do you have a good basic understanding of the teachings and beliefs of Islam?’ 55 percent of the respondents said no. So what has all your work done over the last nine years? Langer: “Just 54 percent call Islam a peaceful religion, while a substantial minority, 31 percent, thinks mainstream Islam encourages violence against non-Muslims. This view has held steady since 2003.” (Manji, while in favor of proceeding with Rauf’s project, is at least a critic of moderate Muslims for not doing more to denounce radical Islam.) From Thursday night: “ Amanpour Paints Rauf’s Protection Racket as ‘a Matter of Vital National Security ‘” My August 22 NB posting, “ Amanpour on One-Sided This Week: ‘Profound Questions About Religious Tolerance and Prejudice in the U.S .’” Amanpour’s set-up leading into the session with Rauf pre-recorded Thursday in New York City: CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR: As much as the President wanted to talk about the economy this week, he also found himself having to speak to the country about religious tolerance. Yesterday, at Pentagon ceremonies to observe the 9/11 anniversary, the President reminded Americans that they’re not at war with Islam. The plans to build an Islamic center close to Ground Zero have whipped up anti-Muslim sentiment to the extent that a pastor with a handful of followers can cause an international incident. In an ABC News poll released this week, nearly 50 percent of Americans say they have an unfavorable view of Islam now. Not since 9/11 has the country seen such anti-Muslim fervor. President Obama is now calling for religious tolerance, just as President Bush did in 2001. PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH, SEPT 17, 2001: The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That’s not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace. JOHN ESPOSITO, GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY: America has a significant Muslim problem. And I think that what we’ve seen now really shows what is the tip of the iceberg. A reality that most people didn’t notice. Unleashed out of Manhattan, then becomes a series of acts, hates, protest. MAN: I feel like Islam has been under attack. WOMAN: I think there’s definitely an increased level of fear because it used to that we’d just walk around and be a normal citizen, a normal part of American society and now you get a lot more suspicion. PROTESTER: No mosque here! AMANPOUR: Muslim Americans are feeling vulnerable. With attacks on mosques in California, Wisconsin, and Tennessee. And the latest fuel poured on the fire, a threat to burn Korans by a fringe pastor with a flock of 30. I went to what’s become the flash point in this debate, the proposed Islamic center just blocks from Ground Zero where I found visitors from out of town. MAN: Certainly it’s a time to draw together, not do things that would divide us and make us more divisive. It sends the wrong message around the world. WOMAN: That is not America. That is not what Americans are about. AMANPOUR: And journalists from around the world. WOMAN: This whole thing is like a huge international issue. MAN, YELLING: We don’t have to agree with Islam. We have to agree on the constitution. WOMAN: I lost both my parents! AMANPOUR: These tumultuous events have created a global backlash. From Washington [Hillary Clinton], to the Vatican, to Afghanistan [Karzai]. ESPOSITO: We have two dangers right now. One is that the civil liberties of Muslim Americans will be even more eroded. Two, and more broadly, we will wake up one day and realize that the America we like to celebrate, you know the America we point to people around the world when we look down on them and say, we’re a democracy, we believe in pluralism, we believe in human rights. That, in fact, all of that, with the exception of this group. And that’s a very dangerous and slippery slope to go down. AMANPOUR: And in New York City yesterday, 9/11 ceremonies were marked by protests for and against plans to build that Islamic center nearby. The imam in charge of the project says that he has no intention of moving it right now, or of meeting with the controversial pastor who wants to burn Korans. I sat down for an exclusive interview with Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf.

See the article here:
Amanpour Uses ABC’s This Week to Continue Her Crusade to Smear America as Islamophobic and Tout Rauf’s Cause

ABC’s Amanpour Takes Dig at Bush: Relations w/ Muslim World ‘Devastatingly Damaged Over the Previous Eight Years’

It’s one thing to acknowledge that the Muslim world has had a negative reaction to America ‘s war effort in Afghanistan and Iraq, but, when one starts referring to “the previous eight years” before the Obama administration, it starts to sound like partisan Democratic talking points. As ABC’s Christiane Amanpour appeared on Sunday’s Good Morning America to talk about President Obama’s predicament regarding his speech on the proposed mosque near Ground Zero, Amanpour at one point recounted that relations with the Muslim world had suffered during the “previous eight years” before Obama became President. After host John Berman queried as to “how is this playing in the Muslim world,” Amanpour at one point asserted: “But clearly President Obama from the very beginning went out of his way to try to repair relations with the Islamic world which had been so devastatingly damaged over the previous eight years.” The war in Afghanistan was only seven years old when Obama took office, so her “previous eight years” crack could only be interpreted as a reference to the entire Bush presidency rather than the war itself. Below is a transcript of the relevant portion of the Sunday, August 15, Good Morning America: JOHN BERMAN: There is, of course, another audience here, the international audience, how is this playing in the Muslim world? CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR: Well, all of this will inevitably play. How precisely these last two days of comments and change in comments will play, we’ll wait to see. But clearly President Obama from the very beginning went out of his way to try to repair relations with the Islamic world which had been so devastatingly damaged over the previous eight years . He not only mentioned that in his inauguration speech, in his first interviews, but also with that big speech in Cairo, and obviously, talking about trying to get moderate Muslims also to stand up for their faith and to stand against extremism. And, in fact, the people who are in charge of building this have spoken out against 9/11, have condemned terrorism and are viewed as those in the moderate community. So it’s clearly something that has come a cropper, if you like, since they were able to build this and protests have started. But the question, is vital. What does it actually mean, how far away is suitable? Can a mosque be built there? There are other mosques in that general area. What does it precisely mean when you strip it all down, this political furor that’s been started over this?

Read more:
ABC’s Amanpour Takes Dig at Bush: Relations w/ Muslim World ‘Devastatingly Damaged Over the Previous Eight Years’

Harris on ‘This Week’: Giving Bush Credit for Iraq Too Much for Obama to Swallow

Christiane Amanpour on Sunday asked a rather surprising question of her “This Week” panel concerning President Obama’s speech earlier in the week about the troop draw down in Iraq:  Do you think everybody is taking a lot of credit but not giving credit where credit is due? Obviously, “everybody” in this instance meant the current White House resident who chose not to give credit to former President George W. Bush for the success in Iraq or to even mention “the surge” in his address. After former Bush speechwriter now Washington Post contributor Michael Gerson said, “I didn’t find the speech to be a particularly generous speech…he’s attempting to take credit for something that he opposed,” some truly shocking statements were made by Amanpour and Politico’s John Harris (video follows with transcript and commentary):  CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, HOST: Before turning to domestic news, I want to start with Iraq, because we just heard from General Odierno we know that the draw down, President Obama makes a speech today reaffirming the draw down, rather this week. Do you think everybody is taking a lot of credit but not giving credit where credit is due? MICHAEL GERSON, WASHINGTON POST: I didn’t find the speech to be a particularly generous speech. I mean, this is really the implementation of the status of forces agreement that was agreed to in 2008 under the Bush administration. Barack Obama, people forget, actually voted against funding for the troops. He opposed the surge. He gave a speech without mentioning the surge or General Petraeus. I think that that’s probably, you know, he’s attempting to take credit for something that he opposed. AMANPOUR: The surge, let’s face it, has worked up until now. We can see that it’s had a huge, huge impact on stability in Iraq, despite a spike of violence. Do you think that it would have been even politically expedient to actually praise the surge, because the future of Iraq is this president’s future? Imagine that. Amanpour actually said the surge has worked. This wasn’t the tune she was singing on September 10, 2007, just before Petraeus spoke to Congress about how this strategy was doing: CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Well, in short, they’re very worried, because they see, as, in fact, General Petraeus himself admits in an open letter to his own troops ahead of this report on Congress, that, yes, they are making some progress in some areas. He’s said to his own troops, we have the ball and we’re driving it down the field. But in short, we are a long way from our goal. They are happy, of course, the change at the moment in the Anbar province, which used to be the most dangerous. But it’s now much more safe because some of the sheikhs and would-be insurgents have switch sides and joined the U.S. against al Qaeda. But then they see at other parts of Iraq how sort of as the surge is squelching some activity in some parts of Iraq, it’s sort of coming up and showing itself in other parts, the violence. So, around the world people are looking at that and wondering how this is going to proceed. The British themselves, who are the main coalition partners of the United States, have withdrawn their troops from a high of 30,000 during the war and the immediate aftermath of the war to now less than 5,000, and they have withdrawn completely from the urban area they were responsible for, Basra in the south. And they are at an air base. And, of course, that’s being carefully looked at as to see the effect of that and what that might mean for the future. But in short, the rest of the world is exceptionally anxious. Leaders in the region do not think that there can be potentially any progress. They are very concerned about this administration. They feel that it’s a lame-duck administration, and they are very concerned about the future of Iraq, because it has massive ripple effects in this whole region.  Now, almost three years later, all that anxiety was proven unwarranted. Regardless, here’s how Harris answered Amanpour’s question:  JOHN HARRIS, POLITICO: Well, probably the more cynical thing to do, or sort of a more Machiavellian thing to do for President Obama, would have been to lavish credit on President Bush. I mean, one of the central parts of Obama’s brand at least when he came into Washington was that he was a bridge builder and could sort of drain politics. He would have therefore sort of cut off the conservative critique that he’s, which is out there, that he is leaving too soon, and looked gracious in doing so. I don’t know, I think that may have been, that doesn’t come naturally to him. It might have been a little too much to swallow. Hmmm. So admitting he was wrong doesn’t come naturally to Obama, nor does praising a former President whose strategy ended up being a huge success? Those seem like significant character flaws for the most powerful man in the world, wouldn’t you agree? Even so, it sure was nice to see two members of the mainstream media admit that our current President was taking credit for something he didn’t do especially given the other player involved. 

Read more from the original source:
Harris on ‘This Week’: Giving Bush Credit for Iraq Too Much for Obama to Swallow