Home Store In Memoriam Deborah Newsletter Forum Topics Blogfeed Blogroll Facebook MySpace Contact Us About

Fred Barnes Rewrites History

Reported by Janie - January 31, 2007 -

David Bell of the Los Angeles Times penned an Op-ed this week titled "Putting 9/11 Into Perspective," which explores the horrific events of 9/11 while comparing them to other disasters through history while questioning if our response has been one of overreacting. The "All Star Panel" discussed the article during last night's (1/30) "Special Report", and regular guest Fred Barnes had an interesting, if not truthful, take.

Bell's Op-ed opened:

"Imagine that on 9/11, six hours after the assault on the twin towers and the Pentagon, terrorists had carried out a second wave of attacks on the United States, taking an additional 3,000 lives. Imagine that six hours after that, there had been yet another wave. Now imagine that the attacks had continued, every six hours, for another four years, until nearly 20 million Americans were dead. This is roughly what the Soviet Union suffered during World War II, and contemplating these numbers may help put in perspective what the United States has so far experienced during the war against terrorism.

It also raises several questions. Has the American reaction to the attacks in fact been a massive overreaction? Is the widespread belief that 9/11 plunged us into one of the deadliest struggles of our time simply wrong? If we did overreact, why did we do so? Does history provide any insight?"

Surprisingly, the "All Stars" didn't seem to attack Bell for his position, or for raising the question, which is surprising for Fox. Guest Fred Barnes however; wasn't keen on the article at all.

FB: "This is an example of the polio fallacy. That is, people don't get the vaccine anymore, or a lot of people don't, because they say gee, nobody gets polio anymore, what do I need this vaccine for?

Well, here we haven't had another serious terrorist attack, so people start saying gee, maybe the threats not that great. We don't have to do all these things like the Patriot Act, eavesdropping and so on through wiretapping, and things like that. I think this is an example of that."

Comment: No Fred, the problems with the Patriot Act and eavesdropping through wiretapping has nothing to do with complacency. No one doesn't want terrorists wiretapped, and no one wants to scrap the Patriot Act - what the American people wants is for everything to be done legally and above board. Barnes simply shows his ignorance here, by making it clear he doesn't understand what the arguments over the Patriot Act and warrantless wiretapping are about.

Barnes continued,…"Weapons of mass destruction. They exist, they're easily accessible. Saddam Hussein, one reason we attacked Iraq and deposed him, because he had had weapons of mass destruction and could give them to terrorists."

Mara Liasson: "So we thought."

BH: "He had had them."

FB: "We know he had them. He used them in the past. So, I don't think it's been an over reaction, it's been a successful reaction. And that's why people start to think the threats not that great."

Comment: First Barnes says the reason we went into Iraq was because Hussein had WMDs. When called on the fact Hussein didn't, Barnes tries to change the story and make the invasion about the WMDs Hussein had in the past - which was not one of the reasons we were told we were going to war. Barnes revisionist history was not corrected.