Zach Vargo

As you all heard in recent news, former Vice President Cheney is in hot water with Congress about the apparent coverup of a proposed CIA program. All the Liberals would like to see Cheney jailed for breaking the law, but let’s be realistic here, where did Cheney break the law? And who is really at fault?

In order to find out the truth, you have ask these questions. Was the program actually implemented? Why is the CIA coming out now? And, is this the truth?

The law is that in order to create a CIA counterterrorism program you must go before Congress to seek approval. So did the CIA implement a top secret assassination squad to kill Al-Queda leaders? We have no proof of this and no documents have been presented to Congress. Right now its just finger-pointing and ass covering.

Now this raises the question: why bring it up now, after 8 years of hiding it? If Cheney was really breaking the law, why did the CIA just give in and keep it a secret? Wouldn’t they have enough balls to confront Cheney about overstepping his bounds or even go public with this information? Unless, it was only a mere suggestion during a meeting and the agency had no intention to take it to Congress. Or better yet, they couldn’t trust Congress.

So is there reason to believe that this is the truth? No. I personally believe that this is another ploy to repair the reputation of Panetta and Pelosi. It makes sense, does it not? Pelosi already called the CIA a bunch of liars and Panetta is doing a good job of protecting her by singing like a canary. Is this an acceptable behavior of a Department Head? Oh wait, Mr. Panetta only inherited the lies.

Despite what the Liberals want you to believe, Cheney hasn’t done anything wrong and won’t be put in jail. Not even President Obama wants to put him in jail. I guess the evil Republicans won again.

Now, what if I am wrong and Cheney actually told the CIA to keep quiet about the program and they actually utilized it in Afghanistan? GOOD FOR CHENEY. The reason why Covert Operations work so well is that very few people know about. There is a reason why Covert Operatives, whether in the CIA or the United States military, hate politicians. They have a big mouth and people die when information is leaked. So would it be wise to tell Congress in the first place? No, and for good reasons. Could you trust a politician to keep their mouth shuts on such a risky operation? Not in today’s government. Besides, we all know that the Democrats would tell the MSM or some liberal newspaper about how ridiculous the idea was in the first place, so it would never have been approved. Instead of being used as a way to ensure victory on the Global War On Terror, it would be used as another “bullet in the gun” pointed at the Bush Administration.

Instead of targeting President Obama this time, they are attacking the publicity of Michael Jackson’s death.  The first one to speak out against the mass media coverage was Rep. Pete King of Long Island, NY.  I was reading other people’s blogs about Rep. King’s video and some of the comments are just amazing.  People are saying that King was a racist and a hateful person.  One person even exclaimed, “I guess PETER KING is JEALOUS since Michael Jackson is always on TV.”  Do people actually think before they write?  Rep. King was just tired of the media’s overzealous coverage of Michael Jackson.  How does that make him a racist? I know, he’s a Republican.

Before you go spewing about how Rep. King is a racist, first you must be educated with the word’s definition. I took the liberty for you all; it is “a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.”

Where in Senator King’s statement does he mention race? His description could be of a male or female, black, white or Hispanic person.

A day before New York Rep. Peter King called Michael Jackson a “pervert” unworthy of nonstop media coverage, the aunt of a U.S. soldier killed in Afghanistan on the same day Jackson died asked why her nephew’s death went virtually unnoticed while the King of Pop got memorial shrines across the country. “Mr. Jackson received days of wall-to-wall coverage in the media,” Martha Gillis wrote to the Washington Post. “Where was the coverage of my nephew or the other soldiers who died that week?”

Like Rep. King is, I am tired of always hearing about Michael Jackson.  I will say that he was a talented and inspiring artist, and I still listen to his music.  His death is tragic, but it is time to move on.  The media moved on when Robert McNamara died, only really saying, “And today former Defense Secretary Robert McNamara died today at the age of 93.  He is famously known as the ‘Architect Of The Vietnam War.’  Coming up is more information on Michael Jackson…”  They did the same for Karl Malden and Ed McMahon.  Granted that they all died of old age, while Michael Jackson was only 50.

But if age is the factor of making Michael Jackson’s death a bigger deal, then how about Billy Mays.  Billy Mays was 50, I don’t hear anything about him.  He was a great pitchman, and when I think of advertising, Billy Mays usually pops up in my head.  However, when I think of great musicians, I don’t immediately think of Michael Jackson.  I can name a bunch of other artists who are significantly more talented than Michael Jackson.  I guess Billy Mays doesn’t get media coverage because he wasn’t accused of molesting children.

Rep. King was not being hateful or racist, he was just simply speaking out, exercising his 1st Amendment right.  He believes that the media should glorify the brave men and women who put their lives at risk everyday. MJ never served in the military, made millions because of his entertaining talent, spent foolishly, abused illegal drugs and was accused of child molestation and settled out of court. He also showed disregard towards his race by sanctioning the artificial insemination of his wife with white person’ sperm. So who is the racist? And the media portrays MJ as a hero? Perhaps that is one of the problems with America in that our role models are drug offenders and child molesters who have no clue about budgets and finance. We cut Rep. King down because is right?

It is time for the news networks to move on from the old and start covering something new. Isn’t that what the news is for? And if you want to still make a big deal about it, don’t worry he’ll be back. I will guarantee you his name will pop back up when the US government has to bail out California because they forked out millions for his memorial service.

For five straight weekends, Obama has been out on the golf course.  The media’s reaction? They love it.  When Bush was golfing in 2003, the media slammed him for golfing while the troops were fighting and dying for their country.  Obama is golfing when troops are dying in GWOT, Iran is murdering protestors, and North Korea is trying to wipe the United States off the face of the Earth.  Does anyone see the problem here?

I do not criticize Obama for golfing, there is only so much he can do with current events and golf is a relaxing sport.  However, when the media becomes hypocritical, then I have a serious problem.  The media pretty much forced Bush to lay down the clubs, but now seem to be encouraging Obama to play more often.

In August 2003, Bush gave up golfing after receiving word of the United Nations headquarters was bombed in Iraq.  The media had a field day criticizing Bush for making the “huge” sacrifice in support of the troops.  Bush said, “I don’t want some mom whose son may have recently died to see the commander in chief playing golf. I feel I owe it to the families to be in solidarity as best as I can with them. And I think playing golf during a war just sends the wrong signal.”  Veterans got angry over that statement, one even went as far as saying “Thousands of Americans have given up a lot more than golf for this war. For President Bush to imply that he somehow stands in solidarity with families of American soldiers by giving up golf is disgraceful. It’s an insult to all Americans and a slap in the face to our troops’ families.”  Honestly, what more could Bush do?  Did people expect Bush to pick up a weapon and fight on the front lines?  It was just another easy attack by the media, especially since Bush did not actually give up golfing until October 13, 2003.  It has been recorded that Bush only played 24 rounds of golf during his 8 year tenure.

As for Obama playing golf, he has gotten more than plenty of praises for it.  The Washington Post posted an article on June 9, 2009 with the headline that read “Just the Sport for A Leader Most Driven.”  Obama has played 11 rounds of golf since taking office 6 months ago.  Obama has more on his plate right now than Bush did 6 years ago.  With all the threats from Iran and North Korea along with the wars we are already fighting, he still finds time to grab his clubs and hit the course.  

Our media should be fair and balanced, but of course they give all of their efforts to praise Obama.  The hypocrisy is becoming even more sickening.  I honestly do not think that a President playing golf should even be considered as a media topic.  I am sure that being our nation’s leader is a pretty stressful and hectic job, and they should be allowed to take a vacation or time out of their busy schedules to relax and clear their heads.  Constantly being under stress starts clouding your judgement and we do not need a leader who breaks downs during a critical time.  It is good that the media stands behind our president, but shouldn’t it stand behind ALL of our presidents? I am also curious as to why Obama gets a lot of credit?  

http://thenationalscene.com/media-critical-obamas-golf-trips-par/comment-page-1/#comment-76

http://www.newjerseynewsroom.com/nation/media-cheers-obamas-golf-outings-but-used-to-criticized-bushs-trips-to-the-course

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/may/15/georgebush.usa

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/13/bush-i-gave-up-golf-for-t_n_101595.html

http://forthardknox.com/2009/06/25/golf-obama-vs-bush/