Dishonest Cokie Roberts

by Scott Shields, Mon Feb 20, 2006 at 02:46:34 PM EST

Senator Robert Menendez, Senator Hillary Clinton, Senator Lindsey Graham, and Balitimore Mayor Martin O'Malley. Those are the four politicians quoted in an AP story about opposition to the administration's plans to sell off six American ports to the a company based in the United Arab Emirates. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff. Those are the two administration officials quoted in the same story as being in support of the plans. For the record, that's three Democrats and one Republican against the sale and two Republicans for it.

And yet somehow, this morning on NPR, Cokie Roberts reported that opposition to the sale is coming largely from Republicans, with some token criticism coming from Chuck Schumer. It seems that, in Cokie's world, Democrats aren't really concerned about port security. Only Republicans are worried about losing in November. (Credit goes to Media In Trouble for listening to Cokie so you don't have to.)

"Now, you'd expect Democrat Chuck Schumer to come forward with families from September 11th to criticize this at the Port of New York, but you also see the Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, Peter King, saying 'terrorist infiltration is possible' and other Republicans saying it's 'politically tone deaf.' What you're seeing here, Renee, is Republicans really worried that they could lose the House of Representatives this year."

When the news of the sale was announced, Senator Schumer did in fact criticize it. However, for Cokie Roberts to treat that as some sort of political grandstanding is just appalling. This issue is a very serious one for anyone who lives within a few miles of one of these ports. And it just so happens that Schumer does indeed represent the New Yorkers who are understandably quite concerned about this.

Last Friday, Senators Clinton and Menendez announced that they would be introducing legislation to ban foreign companies from operating American ports. The fact of the matter is that Democrats have taken the lead on this issue, while Republicans are waiting for their marching orders from the White House, timidly shrugging over the administration approving the sale of port operations to a company based in a country with an incredibly poor record on terrorism.

So for Roberts to pretend that the only Democratic opposition to the Bush administration on this issue is coming from one lone Democrat shouting to the rafters is blatantly dishonest.

Tags: Bob Menendez, Democrats, Hillary Clinton, Martin O'Malley, Media, Port Security (all tags)

Comments

21 Comments

Sort by

permalink

Re: Dishonest Cokie Roberts

I would have thought by now most would realise that Roberts dishonesty is not merely aberrant behaviour from some screwball blond.

No, this is the way Corporate America wants it's news...all lies all the time. Carefully slanted to support the ReThugs who are wholly owned creatures of Corporate America.

What is so hard to understand about this.

We need to start our own news network...and we are.

by Pericles 2006-02-20 03:04PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Dishonest Cokie Roberts

And where's the NY Times on this story?

In the print edition of today's (Mon 2-20) paper, the controversy over a UAE company taking over American ports rated one story.

It was a small item on page A9; and it was by the AP, not a Times reporter.

Where's the Times? Just askin'...

by ovidsen 2006-02-20 03:05PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Dishonest Cokie Roberts

Not addressing the question of the Roberts reporting, concern about a port operator being based in an Arab state seems a little over-the-top to me - the UAE is certainly not Syria nor even Saudi Arabia.

Based on its location, the UAE has a significant number of ports in the Middle East which makes it vulnerable to transshipments of drugs and weapons, but that does not mean it is a hotbed of terrorism. Its foreign policy is actually moderate.

Perhaps that is why the Times was not overly concerned with this 'story.'

by Mr DC 2006-02-20 03:31PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: UAE

Ah... UAE harmless? Based on what evidence? Two of the Sept. 11 hijackers were from the UAE. Do you think that there are no Islamic fanatics left in the UAE?

by WNC 2006-02-20 05:09PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Dishonest Cokie Roberts

I thought the Think Progress link I gave established that the UAE is just as bad if not worse than Syria or Saudi Arabia.

by Scott Shields 2006-02-20 05:40PM | 0 recs

permalink

Gets Bush off the Hook

The point is that the ports remain wide open to terrorists and that port security has been a huge failure. Off course Chertoff and Bush are anxious to give the job to the UAE. Then they just shrug and say "It's not my job, man."

by bernardpliers 2006-02-20 04:00PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Dishonest Cokie Roberts

I think the real point is that this Cokie Roberts creep, is just LYING. I am 97% sure she used to work for WBAI in New York. Where I used to volunteer. That radio station was basically in indymedia mode at the time (probably still is). LYING LITTLE CREEP.

by blues 2006-02-20 04:14PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Dishonest Cokie Roberts

Not that I'm the least bit surprised. She has been carrying all this dirty water for neocons for well over a decade.

by blues 2006-02-20 04:45PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Dishonest Cokie Roberts

"Last Friday, Senators Clinton and Menendez announced that they would be introducing legislation to ban foreign companies from operating American ports."

I beleive I read elsewhere this morning that the six ports are now being run by a British company. Last time I looked, the UK was a foreign company. Although I would trust them much further than the UAE. Who knows if they would be offended by a longshoreman's remark and start kidnapping and killing people which seems to be the muslim response to anything they don't like.

by antiHyde 2006-02-20 04:16PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Dishonest Cokie Roberts

Personally, I don't care if we throw out the British baby with the international bathwater. In the interest of port security, I would think it's probably a good idea to ban foreign control of operation.

And I don't know if you were kidding, but the comment about "the muslim response to anything they don't like" was not appreciated.

by Scott Shields 2006-02-20 05:43PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Dishonest Cokie Roberts

I agree with you about the foreign control. However, consider this. Why are people upset about Arab control and not British control? Could it have anything to do with the fact that Britain last attacked us in 1814 and Arab extremists last attacked us in 2001? I do not count Iraqi "insurgents" as attacking us. That seems to be a legitimate response to an unprovoked invasion of their country. And no, I'm not rooting for the Iraqis to kill more American troops. I want our troops out of there post-haste and Bushco tried in the Hague for war crimes.

But as to the remark about muslims, what do you expect? Have you seen the attacks on US embassies and Westerners in general because of one offensive incident IN WHICH NO ONE WAS PHYSICALLY HARMED by one Danish newspaper. Newspapers print cartoons that are offensive to me every day. I'm not bombing and kidnapping and killing. From Salman Rushdie through the Israeli wall and 9/11 to the latest outrage, the muslim response is always violent. And now, so-called liberals want to curtail freedom of the press and speech because they are afraid of more muslim violence. Giving in to bullies never works.

I used to think that Islam was just another religious daydream, no more offensive than any other religion. But the events of the last five years have shown me that is as evil as fascism and communism. It is even MORE intolerant that Pat Robertson's Christianity.

by antiHyde 2006-02-21 04:35AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Dishonest Cokie Roberts

I know plenty of Muslims who would disprove your notion that all Muslims are inherently violent. And what they're seeing now infuriates them as it makes statements like yours sound reasonable.

The problems you're talking about have much more to do with the fact that there is a lot of social strife among Muslims all around the world, but especially in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia. But the millions of Muslims who live in this country aren't rioting, are they?

The western world has created a marginalized out group in the Islamic world. Does that excuse them for violence? No. But does that mean all Muslims should by decried as purely violent and evil? Not when the evidence would indicate otherwise.

by Scott Shields 2006-02-21 05:28AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Dishonest Cokie Roberts

It is not the Muslims that are evil (not everyone surely) but the religion. All Germans and Russians were not evil, either.

by antiHyde 2006-02-21 05:49AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Dishonest Cokie Roberts

I don't know if anyone's still paying attention to this conversation, but I think it's important to voice my disagreement with that statement, for whatever it's worth.

by Scott Shields 2006-02-21 05:03PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Dishonest Cokie Roberts

Your disagreement is noted and respected. See, that's the difference. I'm not calling for your death because you disagree.

by antiHyde 2006-02-22 04:31AM | 0 recs

permalink

NY Reps

Sadly, I'm not seeing much from NY Reps about this:

NY-06: Nothing
NY-07: Nothing
NY-08: Nothing
NY-09: Nothing
NY-10: Nothing
NY-11: Nothing
NY-12: Nothing
NY-13: Ah, something
NY-14: Nothing
NY-15: Nothing
NY-16: Nothing
NY-16: Nothing

NY-13, of course, is NYC's lone Republican, Vito Fosella. I'm not saying Cokie Roberts is legit - far from it, she's full of it. Vito's press release mentions (and quotes) Dodd, Schumer and Lautenberg.

But why total (apparent) silence on this from all of NYC's other congressmen?

by DavidNYC 2006-02-20 04:16PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Dishonest Cokie Roberts

I live in the NYC area (western CT), and I've seen Schumer talking about port security for 5 years now. He has dedicated himself to this, this is not political grandstanding on his part. In fact, the GOP's favorite Democrat, Joe Lieberman, parrotted the White House and said that there wasn't really anything to be concerned about in this deal. The true Democrats are angry.

by Max Friedman 2006-02-20 04:19PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Dishonest Cokie Roberts

Hold the presses!!! Here it comes!!! Bush selling Marines to China. Well maybe not quite yet. You can expect Cokie Roberts to be Bush's next press secretary, though.

by blues 2006-02-20 04:49PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Dishonest Cokie Roberts

Bush could probably use a blow job about now.

by Pericles 2006-02-20 05:08PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Dishonest Cokie Roberts

All I know about this is what I read this morning on Dkos, and what I took away from that discussion was that there's a pretty small pool of (commercial) candidates to run ports.

What I am sure of is that it would be very easy for BushCo. to declare that all your bases are belong to us and give the no-bid contract to a large firm which "provides a wide range of engineering, construction, operations and maintenance, logistics and project management services"
http://www.halliburton.com/kbr/index.jsp

by sandusky 2006-02-20 05:29PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Dishonest Cokie Roberts

Both NBC Nightly news and ABC WNT led with the port issue last night, and both ran clips of Menendez from his presser talking about it.

I guess Cokie wasn't watching. She also wasn't watching Lou Dobbs, who was scheduled to have Menendez on his show last night (I caught the teaser but not the actual interview).

by Newsie8200 2006-02-21 04:39AM | 0 recs