Center for Public Integrity Strikes Again: Left Wing Bias in the Blood
by PETER GADIEL
May 24, 2011
The mass murders of September 11, 2001 were greatly facilitated by the negligence, incompetence and corruption of numerous public officials. Not surprisingly, neither Republicans nor Democrats want proper blame assigned to their guy in the Oval Office, Bush or Clinton.
The Clintons and their allies on the Left would have us believe that nothing that happened in the eight years of Bill and Hillary's joint Administration from 1993 to 2001 had any connection to 9/11. Some Bush partisans would have us overlook his failures in regard to 9/11, not to mention his policies which kept our borders wide open to terrorists and other violent felons among the hordes of illegal aliens which he invited to break our law.
As president of one the major associations of 911 family members I have been asked for my opinion on many issues relating to that event, and I thus have an extensive public record of criticism directed at many of those who have collected federal paychecks while ignoring their duties. My record is completely non-partisan, with my targets including Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, members of Congress and many others, both Democrats and Republicans. Therefore, when I'm asked for a comment by a publication that has a distinct bias toward the Left or the Right I'm immediately alert for questions designed to elicit a view that blame for 9/11 can be assigned solely to either the Clinton or the Bush Administrations, while utterly absolving the other of any fault.
Last week I was called by Peter Stone of iWatch, the online ezine of the generally far left Center for Public Integrity. Mr. Stone asked for my opinion on the refusal of George W. Bush to attend the Obama festivities at Ground Zero after the killing of bin Laden. Mr. Stone suggested that Bush's excuse, 'other commitments,' was somehow dishonest given that he was in New York City a few days later giving several speeches at more $100,000.00 per. Stone did note as an aside that Clinton had also declined the Obama invitation citing the same excuse, and that he too was in the City shortly after giving equally lucrative speeches.
I responded that I thought it was inappropriate for Obama to be at Ground Zero considering that he had tried to get the Guantanamo prisoners, who have already admitted guilt, removed to civilian trials in Lower Manhattan. Also that Obama's self glorification was hypocritical since harsh interrogation had led to bin Ladin and Obama was still pursuing prosecutions against the very same CIA agents whose methods obtained that information.
I also emphasized to Stone that I would not want my comments to be part of a one sided denunciation of Bush, since, as he himself pointed out, Clinton was exploiting his ex-presidency in exactly the same way as Bush. Mr. Stone assured me that his piece was to be unbiased, critical of both.
Microsoft Word informs me that Stone's article is 1051 words in length. All but three sentences of it are devoted to attacking G.W. Bush. As an additional example of 'lack of bias,' next to the column is a sidebar called "Top 10 Failures of the Bush Administration" with a live link to an article on that subject.
Little more could be expected from an outfit supported in part by George Soros's Open Society Institute, and which lists among other foundation supporters the Ford Foundation, Huffington Post, Joyce Foundation, John D. & Catherine T. Mac Arthur Foundation, Stewart R. Mott Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, and Newman's Own Foundation.
Also providing funds are several taxpayer supported entities: Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) and the University of Delaware. Why are these institutions using taxpayer money to fund propaganda?
It should also raise a few eyebrows that another institutional funder is the Associated Press, a supposedly neutral "news service."
Center for Public Integrity and Peter Stone prove again that as garbage in yields garbage out, left wing money in yields left wing bias out.