The Tragedy, Failures and Shame of American Journalism: ‘Czar Putin’ and Christiane Amanpour as the Typical Bush Lapdog!
© By Professor Amechi Okolo, Ph.D.
© By Professor Amechi Okolo, Ph.D.
This paper is my reaction to the investigative report by Christine Amanpour on CNN in December 2007 titled, “Czar Putin”. The report is a good expose of the dictatorial practices and tendencies of President Putin of Russia. It showed the many things that Putin was doing to limit democracy in Russia and how the Fall 2007 elections in Russia were not free and fair. In all, the report was good and useful; and I enjoyed watching it and wish she could do something like that on George Bush to be called, “King Bush”. Or does Ms. Amanpour not know that we Americans and the world need to know more about how Bush has trashed and is trashing American constitution since he was selected to be our president by his five criminal and shameless Supreme Court friends in 2000[1]. Let me help by suggesting some areas “King Bush of America” could cover:
· How Bush trashed American Constitution and democratic electoral processes by stealing the presidential elections of 2000 and 2004 in broad daylights. If she is not aware that those elections were stolen and/or fixed, she should read these books:
1. Greg Palast, The Best Democracy Money Can Buy (London: Pluto Press, 2002)
2. Vincent Bugliosi, The Betrayal of America: How the Supreme Court Undermined Our Constitution and Chose Our president) (New York: Thunder’s Mouth Press/Nation Books, 2001)
3. Alan M. Dershowitz, Supreme Injustice: How the High Court Hijacked Election 2000 (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001)
4. Mark Crispin Miller, Fooled Again: How the Right Stole the 2004 Election & Why They’ll Steal the next One Too -- Unless We Stop Them (New York: Basic Books, 2005).
5. Bob Fitrakis & Harvey Wasserman, How the GOP Stole America’s 2004 Election & Is Rigging 2008 (Columbus, OH: Free Press, 2005).
6. Bob Fitrakis, Steve Rosenfeld and Harvey Wasserman, eds. Did George W. Bush Steal America’s 2004 Election? Essential Documents – Includes the Conyers Report (Columbus, OH: Free Press, 2004).
7. Tracy Campbell, Deliver the Vote: A History of Election Fraud, An American Political Tradition (New York: Carroll & Graf Publishers, 2005).
Tracy Campbell’s book (#7 above) is a chilling/shocking history of electoral frauds in America which every journalist who reports on election fraud in other countries must read. The problem is that most journalists do not read or research their topics well or they are just interested in massaging Bush ego, thereby feeding thrash and propaganda to the American public. Journalism to be useful must be critical and introspective, which many of them lack.
I think that Ms. Amanpour’s academic preparation for the job is inadequate, which is the problem with many journalists in America. Without doubt, there are many topnotch journalists in America. Paul Krugman is just one of the many very good journalists in America, but many are mediocre and ill prepared for the job. For example, I do not think that a BA degree in journalism, like she has, is adequate preparation for CNN to hire and throw her into the world to pollute the world with half-baked propaganda and punditry masquerading as journalism. To worsen things, they shower her with accolades, awards, fattest paychecks, etc., as evidence of her superb journalism, which is a farce and façade to mask her role as an apologia, guard and defender of Bush and the American orthodoxy. She must therefore do the, “King George Bush,” report to complement her, “Czar Putin” so as to salvage her reputation as a journalist, otherwise she is nothing but a political hack. That she is knighted by the Queen or that she is the highest paid journalist does not impress those of us who know what good journalism is and should be.
I am not against CNN hiring Ms. Amanpour or anyone with BA in Journalism as a reporter but they must have a structure in place for their further training and education that would include a graduate degree in journalism. Just a bachelor’s degree is not enough to allow for her unfettered global operation as a journalist, which is why they feed us with the half-baked garbage, which they call investigative reports. Think of it, journalism must be the only serious profession where first degree or no degree at all is required to practice. Law, medicine, teaching, accounting and many others normally require higher degree and/or certification or accreditation before practice. Besides, many other top professions like journalism should still require on-going in-service professional development to qualify for continued service.
Let us take teaching as a typical example. To become a public school teacher in America, one must have a master’s degree plus many hours of professional development. A bachelor’s degree plus some professional development hours might secure a provisional and temporary position with continuing mentors for a lucky and well-connected candidate, but he must complete his masters to secure a permanent tenured teaching position. The point I am making is that it is because journalism has very low entry standard that accounts for its low performance in America of which Christine Amanpour is typical.
Ms. Amanpour is therefore the typical example of the Bush ‘lapdog’ whom Eric Boehlert talked about in his book. She simply operates as Bush’s lapdog. Any journalist who ignores the fact that Bush is a rogue president – that he stole the 2000 and 2004 elections, that he illegally and criminally invaded Iraq and has continued to thrash our constitution through his various criminal acts – only to be ranting on the actions of a far away President Putin of Russia, is useless to Americans and simply a Bush lapdog. As Americans, we need good journalists to expose Bush shenanigans and atrocities in America. Charity begins at home. Therefore, exposing bad, illegal, criminal, unjust and unfair governance must also start from home -- here in America where Bush personifies everything that is bad, deplorable and awful about governance and about America. Hence, nobody has done more harm to America's global image than George W. Bush.
Ms. Amanpour also talked about how Putin destroyed Russia’s press. She must be very dishonest or completely naïve not to know that our press in America is a disgrace and lapdog to Bush. How journalists cover Bush is a shame to free press. Read, Eric Boehlert, Lapdogs: How the Press Rolled Over for Bush (New York: Free Press, 2006).
Let me say a few more things on her jab at Russia’s judiciary under Putin. She also talked about how Putin destroyed or politicized Russia’s judiciary but said nothing about how the Supreme Court selected President Bush in 2000. The five audacious, criminal and shameless Supreme Court judges who voted to select Bush as the president on December 12, 2000 in violation of American constitution and their cardinal and preferred ‘states rights’ laws were Justices William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Anthony Kennedy and Sandra Day O’Connor. According to Vincent Bugliosi:
The stark reality, and I say this with every fiber of my being, is that the institution Americans trust the most to protect its freedoms and principles committed one of the biggest and most serious crimes this nation has ever seen – pure and simple, the theft of the presidency. And by definition, the perpetrators of this crime have to be denominated criminals.[2] (Emphasis mine).
Continuing, he said:
Considering the criminal intentions behind the decision, legal scholars and historians should place this ruling above Dred Scott Case and Plessy v Ferguson in egregious sins of the Court. The right of every American citizen to have his or her vote counted, and for Americans (not five unselected justices) to choose their President was callously and I should say criminally jettisoned by the Court’s majority to further its political ideology. If there is such a thing as a judicial hell, these five justices won’t have to worry about heating bills in their future.[3]
For Vincent Bugliosi, the man who prosecuted Charles Manson and one of the biggest legal heavyweights of this country, to reach such dare and desperate conclusions, need to be taken seriously by CNN and the media. I am a dedicated CNN fan. I watch it always; and will like to see Amanpour or the CNN say something about that grand ‘theft’ rather than ranting about Putin, but she would not because she is Bush’s lapdog. I will however, love Amanpour or CNN to prove me wrong here by doing a detailed incisive critical report of that grand theft of our presidency by Bush and the five criminal justices of the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court justices did not only steal the presidency for their friend, George Bush, they also actively engaged in the biggest cover-up of their crime. Crimes are not only punishable, but their cover-ups are also equally offensive and punishable in this country. This is because successful cover-ups encourage crimes, which is why the system vigorously goes after crimes and their cover-ups.
Supreme Court Justices Cover-Up Their Crime: Now the question is how did the Supreme Court Justices cover-up their crime of selecting George Bush as the president on December 12, 2000? The answer is simple. They also included in the ruling that the case should never be cited as a precedent in any future court case or ruling in any court in the country, not even in Supreme Court cases. Part of the ruling was that the Supreme Court limited the Case to Case only, which means that nobody is allowed to ever refer or reference the Case in any judicial proceedings in the country, even including in any future Supreme Court case. No body should ever refer or reference the Case, ever and ever and ever. The five justices, in essence, simply said,
“Yes, we did it, we have selected our friend George. That’s it. Damn the law or whatever we have been doing or said in the past about ‘state’s rights’; and we do not want anybody to ever talk about it. Moreover, since we are the Supreme Court, we make the law and we are the law. The law now is that nobody is permitted to ever talk about this Case. Get over it and move on.[4]”
Not only was the above a very arrogant posture, it was unprecedented in the history of judicial rulings that the principles of a case, let alone a Case of such gigantic importance should be limited to only the Case. Such limit does not make sense. Besides, it violates the principle of judicial proceedings and court arguments where both the prosecutors and the defendants often depend on immense citations of precedents to prove their cases.
The decision of the five judges to limit their ruling in the Bush v Gore to only the case is a criminal cover-up because it was a deliberate, conscious and planned attempt to forestall or impede any continued or future discussions of the crime. They therefore, deserve not just to be charged for the crime of stealing our presidency, but of covering their act and of pre-meditated cover-up. By outlawing its mention or use as precedents in courts, the five justices also guaranteed its non-use, mention or study in law schools since law professors and law students will not waste their times studying a case, which they will never use in court or in practice. Thus, according to the Harvard professor of law, Alan Dershowitz:
The majority ruling in Bush v. Gore marked a number of significant firsts. Never before in American history has a presidential election been decided by the Supreme Court. Never before in American history have so many law professors, historians, political scientists, Supreme Court litigators, journalists who cover the high court, and other experts – at all points along the political spectrum – been in agreement that the majority decision of the Court was not only “bad constitutional law” but “lawless,” “illegitimate,” “unprincipled,” “partisan,” “fraudulent,” “disingenuous,” and motivated by improper considerations.[5]
He continued:
In addition to the remarkable expert consensus regarding this case, there is also widespread popular outrage at what the high court did. Though the level of this outrage tends to mirror party affiliation, it is safe to say that the degree of confusion over what actually happened is not limited to one party. There are millions of Americans who do not strongly identify with the Democratic Party – indeed, even some who voted for George W. Bush – but who cannot understand how five justices could determine the outcome of a presidential election. Moreover, the furor within the Supreme Court itself – among some justices and law clerks – is unprecedented in the annals of this usually harmonious institution.[6]
Alan Dershowitz, himself also a renowned law professor, was quoting the professional observations, conclusions and decisions of other law professors and other various other experts that the Supreme Court decision was bad constitutional law, lawless, illegitimate, unprincipled, partisan, fraudulent, disingenuous, and motivated by improper considerations. So where then does Bush derive the legitimacy of his presidency? Nowhere. He has none. His legitimacy is as strong as the robber who is clinging to his loot because he has the gun – because he controls the state power. In law, it is called force majeure, which is a principle that recognizes ones control of territory because of his actual physical presence and control of the territory and not because of any legitimate principle. It is the same principle, which says that “possession is nine-tenths of law.” Bush is therefore simply a rogue, lawless, illegitimate, unprincipled, partisan, fraudulent president. Therefore, the most noteworthy first for Bush is that he is the first American president with zero legitimacy.
George W. Bush is therefore our president with his gang not because they won the 2000 presidential election nor via any recognized legal instruments of presidential ascension but because of the various premeditated unconstitutional, lawless, illegitimate, fraudulent and partisan acts of his gang starting from his brother Jeb, who was the Governor of Florida at the time through the five Supreme Court justices. It is for all the above overwhelming evidence, that I call Bush, a rogue president for short.
This is because the worst thing that we can do for this country is to concede our presidency to a rogue who stole it, which will be like agreeing that the guy who broke in and stole your property owns it just because he has a gun and you cannot get it back from him.
I am powerless to get the presidency back from the Bush gang, but like the baby, whose priced possession was forcibly taken away by an inconsiderate, recalcitrant and charging mindless bully, I will continue to cry and lament my stolen treasure simply because it is mine and I treasure it. I love democracy. It is our pride and America’s most valuable treasure. Therefore, when Bush stole American democracy, he stole America’s heart and America’s essence. Democracy is the raison d’être for our existence and I remain profoundly saddened by the great loss, and will continue to grieve for America and for her great loss.
This is why Bush v. Gore has been rarely discussed in academic circles, in classrooms or even in public. Hence, CNN and Christine Amanpour who are so keen to expose the judicial transgressions of Putin’s Russia should devote their energy at exposing the world’s greatest judicial heist -- the daylight hijacking and robbery of America’s presidency by the Bush gang in 2000. America is not perfect and we should never claim to be. In fact, no country is perfect, which is why there are journalists as watchdogs for the society. Actually, if countries were perfect there would have been no need for journalists. There would only have been Information Officers (IOs) whose job is to publicize what the government is doing. In the United States, they are called, Press Secretaries, or Spokesman or Spokesperson, etc. We see them in the White House, in the State Department and other government agencies and departments. For example, James Rubin, Christine Amanpour’s husband was the Spokesman for the State Department under President Bill Clinton. Most large Corporations have Public Relations Departments and Public Relations Officers (PROs) to sanitize their public images. We are full of dirt that need to be exposed and cleaned, which is what good journalism is all about. Journalists are not supposed to be lapdogs like Christine Amanpour and CNN and others, they are supposed to be watchdogs.
While the job of the PROs, IOs, Press Secretaries, Spokesman or Spokesperson is to project their bosses and the policies of their bosses to the public in ways that will ensure maximal positive acceptance and consumption, the role of the journalist is essentially the opposite. The journalist is the systems’ watchdog. He/She must exist in uncomfortable symbiotic relationship with the systems bosses because he is there to pry and question their actions and policies for the public. The bosses must therefore, be sore, itchy and nervous with the journalist because he is there to expose what the bosses are doing – to ask them uncomfortable questions about their policies and actions – essentially to ask them those questions they normally would not want to be asked, and to pull out answers and facts they would normally not want to make public.
The tragedy and shame of America’s journalism, which is the tragedy and shame of Christine Amanpour is that she has become too cozy with the Bush administration. Thus, she has abandoned her watchdog role to become Bush’s lapdog -- in-bed and embeded with the Bush gang. Embedded journalism, Bush’s overt strategy of journalist’s control, ensures that America’s journalists are in-bed with the Bush gang and copulating with them. Hence, Bush’s transgressions are often covered up by the media because they are embedded, in-bed with the administration since people rarely aggressively go after those they are in-bed and copulating with. Thus, most American journalists have become a bunch of jellyfish, suckering and pandering to the bosses they are supposed to monitor and report for the public. Christine Amanpour, Dan Rather, Wolf Blitzer and many other media mainstream bigwigs are part of this unabashed, docile, pathetic bunch who abandoned their service to the society and jumped into bed, naked, shameless and unadulterated with the Bush gang like cheap street, lowly prostitutes.
I just want to say a few things about Dan Rather who is now suing CBS for seventy millions dollars because they fired him and “tarnished” his reputation according to him. Of course, CBS has dismissed his suit as a joke and without merit which I completely agree with. Of course, the courts will still determine whether his suit has substance or not, but personally, I do not think he has any case for the following reasons: First of all, Dan Rather has no reputation as a journalist so there is no way anyone can damage his reputation as a journalist. Dan Rather was clearly the dominant modern face of America’s television as the Anchor of CBS Evening News for decades from late 1970s, after he took over the position from the venerable Walter Cronkite. I still remember twitching with shock and wonderment, the day Dan Rather announced that he must support “my President” when George Bush illegally invaded Iraq in March 2003 with his most brutal and barbarous “shock and awe” strategy.
I am powerless to get the presidency back from the Bush gang, but like the baby, whose priced possession was forcibly taken away by an inconsiderate, recalcitrant and charging mindless bully, I will continue to cry and lament my stolen treasure simply because it is mine and I treasure it. I love democracy. It is our pride and America’s most valuable treasure. Therefore, when Bush stole American democracy, he stole America’s heart and America’s essence. Democracy is the raison d’être for our existence and I remain profoundly saddened by the great loss, and will continue to grieve for America and for her great loss.
This is why Bush v. Gore has been rarely discussed in academic circles, in classrooms or even in public. Hence, CNN and Christine Amanpour who are so keen to expose the judicial transgressions of Putin’s Russia should devote their energy at exposing the world’s greatest judicial heist -- the daylight hijacking and robbery of America’s presidency by the Bush gang in 2000. America is not perfect and we should never claim to be. In fact, no country is perfect, which is why there are journalists as watchdogs for the society. Actually, if countries were perfect there would have been no need for journalists. There would only have been Information Officers (IOs) whose job is to publicize what the government is doing. In the United States, they are called, Press Secretaries, or Spokesman or Spokesperson, etc. We see them in the White House, in the State Department and other government agencies and departments. For example, James Rubin, Christine Amanpour’s husband was the Spokesman for the State Department under President Bill Clinton. Most large Corporations have Public Relations Departments and Public Relations Officers (PROs) to sanitize their public images. We are full of dirt that need to be exposed and cleaned, which is what good journalism is all about. Journalists are not supposed to be lapdogs like Christine Amanpour and CNN and others, they are supposed to be watchdogs.
While the job of the PROs, IOs, Press Secretaries, Spokesman or Spokesperson is to project their bosses and the policies of their bosses to the public in ways that will ensure maximal positive acceptance and consumption, the role of the journalist is essentially the opposite. The journalist is the systems’ watchdog. He/She must exist in uncomfortable symbiotic relationship with the systems bosses because he is there to pry and question their actions and policies for the public. The bosses must therefore, be sore, itchy and nervous with the journalist because he is there to expose what the bosses are doing – to ask them uncomfortable questions about their policies and actions – essentially to ask them those questions they normally would not want to be asked, and to pull out answers and facts they would normally not want to make public.
The tragedy and shame of America’s journalism, which is the tragedy and shame of Christine Amanpour is that she has become too cozy with the Bush administration. Thus, she has abandoned her watchdog role to become Bush’s lapdog -- in-bed and embeded with the Bush gang. Embedded journalism, Bush’s overt strategy of journalist’s control, ensures that America’s journalists are in-bed with the Bush gang and copulating with them. Hence, Bush’s transgressions are often covered up by the media because they are embedded, in-bed with the administration since people rarely aggressively go after those they are in-bed and copulating with. Thus, most American journalists have become a bunch of jellyfish, suckering and pandering to the bosses they are supposed to monitor and report for the public. Christine Amanpour, Dan Rather, Wolf Blitzer and many other media mainstream bigwigs are part of this unabashed, docile, pathetic bunch who abandoned their service to the society and jumped into bed, naked, shameless and unadulterated with the Bush gang like cheap street, lowly prostitutes.
I just want to say a few things about Dan Rather who is now suing CBS for seventy millions dollars because they fired him and “tarnished” his reputation according to him. Of course, CBS has dismissed his suit as a joke and without merit which I completely agree with. Of course, the courts will still determine whether his suit has substance or not, but personally, I do not think he has any case for the following reasons: First of all, Dan Rather has no reputation as a journalist so there is no way anyone can damage his reputation as a journalist. Dan Rather was clearly the dominant modern face of America’s television as the Anchor of CBS Evening News for decades from late 1970s, after he took over the position from the venerable Walter Cronkite. I still remember twitching with shock and wonderment, the day Dan Rather announced that he must support “my President” when George Bush illegally invaded Iraq in March 2003 with his most brutal and barbarous “shock and awe” strategy.
Thus, that Dan Rather, the supposed consummate journalist, the pride and public face of America’s journalism, proudly and publicly announced that it was his duty to support "his President" when multiple questions about the war being asked by millions of "his fellow" citizens remained unanswered, when million of Americans were actively protesting, questioning and opposing the war with marches, posters, lectures, etc., when most of the world was outraged about the war, was a height of journalistic idiocy, incompetence, ignorance and imbecility. That Dan Rather's statement, which was the general stance of mainstream media in America during the Iraqi war, was the watershed in the progressive decline and proclivity of America’s journalism. If such a granddad and icon of America’s journalism, as Dan Rather, could publicly and proudly declare, in the face of such a major national contentious policy and debates, that it was his duty to support "his President," what would younger minions and upstarts like Christine Amanpour do? The point is that Christine Amanpour’s journalistic opprobrium are deeply rooted, endemic and systemic.
It was therefore a joke for me to watch Dan Rather sue CBS for character defamation when he had none as a journalist. He had been a prostitute journalist in bed and in copulation with the Bush gang just like his CBS bosses. This means that neither the CBS bosses nor Dan Rather who was their public face has any claim to journalistic integrity – they are all journalistic prostitutes in the service of money which the Bush gang provides them in abundance. The only problem was that either that the Bush gang ordered the CBS bosses to fire Dan Rather for his little indiscretion by airing the uncomplimentary news about Bush’s non-military service even though the news was correct or that the CBS bosses fired Dan Rather themselves to please the Bush gang. Either way, the reason, message and effects are same. Dan Rather must be fired to serve as a reminder and warning to other journalistic minions that the system would not tolerate any embarassment of the big boss or any challenge to his authority or the dissemination of any unflattering, disparaging or unfavorable news about them – especially about Bush, the chief mafia boss, himself.
The ultimate mafia boss or the Bush gang therefore used Dan Rather to set the example that no one, who is in bed, in copulation with them and enjoying their patronages and largesse, should ever think of challenging or embarrassing them even in any slightest way. Simply put the firing of Dan Rather, the biggest, supposedly, the most secure; and the “most patriotic” of all journalists in America for airing correct but unattractive, unappealing, embarrassing and unflattering news about Bush’s nonmilitary military service was designed to announce a policy of zero tolerance of journalistic free will. If the mighty Dan Rather could be so easily, publicly and quickly disgraced, turned into a “pariah journalist,” and finally booted, what would happen to other minions?
Hence, others must immediately comply, and not just the journalists -- other media organizations, NBC, ABC, CNN, etc rushed to comply. This was how Christine Amanpour and CNN lost their focus.
There are many other things the “King George Bush” report could address, like FISA, Patriotic Act, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, Destruction of CIA tapes, Mike Huckabee’s use of “arrogant bunker mentality” to characterize Bush’s foreign policy, and many others. It does not have to use all of the above, but these will provide more than enough materials to do a two-hour report of “King George Bush” to complement the “Czar Putin” report. Such will not only be good journalism but will also be good business for Amanpour, CNN and any other media that want to do it.
There are many other things the “King George Bush” report could address, like FISA, Patriotic Act, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, Destruction of CIA tapes, Mike Huckabee’s use of “arrogant bunker mentality” to characterize Bush’s foreign policy, and many others. It does not have to use all of the above, but these will provide more than enough materials to do a two-hour report of “King George Bush” to complement the “Czar Putin” report. Such will not only be good journalism but will also be good business for Amanpour, CNN and any other media that want to do it.
Social Studies teachers in public schools and professors of social sciences and humanities, will like to show and discuss them in their classes; libraries will acquire them and the public will generally like to watch them. Moreover, doing a good, bold, critical expose of the Bush gang will be healthy for the system; for Christine Amanpour, for CNN and for America’s journalism.
More importantly, the report will improve America’s national interests and national image abroad. It will let the world know that there are critical Americans who do not agree with everything that Bush is doing. Presently America’s world image is at an all time low, which Karem Hughes could not even improve. Our very low global image is caused by two reinforcing facts and false perceptions about America. The first is because the world is disgusted with Bush’s criminal actions in Iraq and around the globe and the second is the world’s wrongful perception that all Americans support Bush. The first reason is a fact and cannot be changed, but the report will shatter the second reason. It will show that there are deep cleavages, and serious contentions about Bush’s actions within the US. It will show that all Americans are not zombies who blindly agree and follow Bush’s bad and horrible governance. So our global image is now very low because the world sees the horrible things Bush is doing and thinks that all Americans blindly agree, support and follow him. The report is therefore, very important because it will shatter the false perception.
I liked Christine Amanpour when she first started reporting for CNN because she was young, dynamic, objective and like a breath of fresh air on America’s journalism. I was also proud to see a minority female with her exotic slight foreign accent doing good reporting on America’s mainstream media. However, over the years, I am saddened to watch her degenerate and become a mere mouthpiece, propaganda agent and lapdog of Bush and western media, which is a shame because she has the capacity to do better.
I know that her husband worked for the State Department but that is no reason why she should not do objective and critical journalism on Bush administration like she did on Putin or is she afraid of Bush and his gang? If she wants to work for Bush administration or for the government like her husband did, she should then come out and take a job with him. I am sure he will be very glad to offer her a job now that there are many vacant propaganda jobs available in his administration. I will recommend Ms. Amanpour to replace Karen Hughes who is leaving her propaganda job at the State Department after fruitless efforts to change minds in the Middle East. I feel that Christine Amanpour would do a better job for Bush than Karen Hughes, so I will gladly recommend her to switch to George Bush instead of continuing to operate undercover for Bush. I will then understand her job as a Bush operative and propagandist instead of doing the same job now while masquerading as a journalist. You know that Tony Snow was masquerading as a journalist in Fox News before he came out of the closet and took a job as Bush’s Press Secretary. So what I am urging Ms. Amanpour now is to come out of her own closet and become an open Bushie[7] or become the real journalist, which she pretends to be.
Again, Amanpour’s report, “Czar Putin” is a good and bold expose of Putin’s Russia. She must now also do an equally good and bold expose of “King George Bush of America,” to salvage her reputation as a journalist, which is now zero. Or she might want to sue somebody for imputing her refutation as a journalist – to which I will retort that she has no credible reputation as a journalist just like Dan Rather – they are both journalistic prostitutes in the service of big money, in bed and in copulation with the Bush mafia gang for all the money they can get.
I am a social science professor, and will discuss this paper in my class with my students, where I hope it will evoke and generate critical reactions. If CNN and/or Christine Amanpour reacts to and/or responds to this article, I will also gladly share it with my students for our further critical discussions and reactions. All I know is that I firmly believe that a report titled something like, “King George Bush of America,” is long overdue. I am offering this suggesting to Christine Amanpour, CNN or any other media organization with adequate national and global reach.
[1] Read, Bugliosi, passim.
[2] Bugliosi, p. 48.
[3] Bugliosi. p. 61.
[4] This is my imaginary arrogant posture and statement of the five Supreme Court justices after their criminal ruling.
[5] Alan M. Dershowitz, Supreme Injustice: How the High Court Hijacked Election 2000 (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), p. 5.
[6] Ibid, pp. 5-6.
[7] A Bushie is a Bush sycophant or one of his minions who parade and masquerade themselves in the media, the academia and in many other professions who have shamelessly forfeited their professions and saw their jobs as defenders and propagandists for Bush.
More importantly, the report will improve America’s national interests and national image abroad. It will let the world know that there are critical Americans who do not agree with everything that Bush is doing. Presently America’s world image is at an all time low, which Karem Hughes could not even improve. Our very low global image is caused by two reinforcing facts and false perceptions about America. The first is because the world is disgusted with Bush’s criminal actions in Iraq and around the globe and the second is the world’s wrongful perception that all Americans support Bush. The first reason is a fact and cannot be changed, but the report will shatter the second reason. It will show that there are deep cleavages, and serious contentions about Bush’s actions within the US. It will show that all Americans are not zombies who blindly agree and follow Bush’s bad and horrible governance. So our global image is now very low because the world sees the horrible things Bush is doing and thinks that all Americans blindly agree, support and follow him. The report is therefore, very important because it will shatter the false perception.
I liked Christine Amanpour when she first started reporting for CNN because she was young, dynamic, objective and like a breath of fresh air on America’s journalism. I was also proud to see a minority female with her exotic slight foreign accent doing good reporting on America’s mainstream media. However, over the years, I am saddened to watch her degenerate and become a mere mouthpiece, propaganda agent and lapdog of Bush and western media, which is a shame because she has the capacity to do better.
I know that her husband worked for the State Department but that is no reason why she should not do objective and critical journalism on Bush administration like she did on Putin or is she afraid of Bush and his gang? If she wants to work for Bush administration or for the government like her husband did, she should then come out and take a job with him. I am sure he will be very glad to offer her a job now that there are many vacant propaganda jobs available in his administration. I will recommend Ms. Amanpour to replace Karen Hughes who is leaving her propaganda job at the State Department after fruitless efforts to change minds in the Middle East. I feel that Christine Amanpour would do a better job for Bush than Karen Hughes, so I will gladly recommend her to switch to George Bush instead of continuing to operate undercover for Bush. I will then understand her job as a Bush operative and propagandist instead of doing the same job now while masquerading as a journalist. You know that Tony Snow was masquerading as a journalist in Fox News before he came out of the closet and took a job as Bush’s Press Secretary. So what I am urging Ms. Amanpour now is to come out of her own closet and become an open Bushie[7] or become the real journalist, which she pretends to be.
Again, Amanpour’s report, “Czar Putin” is a good and bold expose of Putin’s Russia. She must now also do an equally good and bold expose of “King George Bush of America,” to salvage her reputation as a journalist, which is now zero. Or she might want to sue somebody for imputing her refutation as a journalist – to which I will retort that she has no credible reputation as a journalist just like Dan Rather – they are both journalistic prostitutes in the service of big money, in bed and in copulation with the Bush mafia gang for all the money they can get.
I am a social science professor, and will discuss this paper in my class with my students, where I hope it will evoke and generate critical reactions. If CNN and/or Christine Amanpour reacts to and/or responds to this article, I will also gladly share it with my students for our further critical discussions and reactions. All I know is that I firmly believe that a report titled something like, “King George Bush of America,” is long overdue. I am offering this suggesting to Christine Amanpour, CNN or any other media organization with adequate national and global reach.
[1] Read, Bugliosi, passim.
[2] Bugliosi, p. 48.
[3] Bugliosi. p. 61.
[4] This is my imaginary arrogant posture and statement of the five Supreme Court justices after their criminal ruling.
[5] Alan M. Dershowitz, Supreme Injustice: How the High Court Hijacked Election 2000 (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), p. 5.
[6] Ibid, pp. 5-6.
[7] A Bushie is a Bush sycophant or one of his minions who parade and masquerade themselves in the media, the academia and in many other professions who have shamelessly forfeited their professions and saw their jobs as defenders and propagandists for Bush.
