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

Hawk Jed Babbin calls New York Times "media activists, " "pretty close to" traitors

Reported by Chrish - July 10, 2007 -

O'Reilly Factor guest Jed Babbin came within a hair of accusing the New York Times of treason in a discussion on the show last night 7/9/07. The other guest, NYU Professor of International Affairs Patricia Degennaro, easily refuted O'Reilly's leading questions.
With video.

Asked what they'd do in Iraq if they were US president, (what's this, fantasy journalism?) Degennaro said she'd immediately get most of the troops out of the cities in Iraq and onto the borders, where they could stop the flow or weapons into the country. O'Reilly disputed her plan, saying the surge deserves until September and withdrawing now would lead to greater death and destruction for Iraqis who no longer had the protective layer of US troops (paraphrasing.) She disputed his assertion that terrorists would move in once our troops move out, saying "not necessarily."

Babbin said he'd give General Petraeus until September, and he would "do what Bush has never done:" he would define who the enemy is and what victory looks like (compelling the nations who sponsor terrorism to stop it), and take the fight to the center of gravity of the enemy, Syria and Iran. But what he's really saying is

"If we cut and run from Iraq soon, this war's not over. The media, the Democrats, all those guys don't seem to realize that. If this thing in Iraq is over tomorrow, it ain't over."

Turning to Degennaro, O'Reilly said that the thing for Democrats is to win the White House, so they're going to paint as bleak a picture of Iraq as they can - with the exception of Lieberman and "a few others." He asked her if she thinks there are elements in the media who want America to lose in Iraq, for political and ideological reasons? Degennaro looked stunned for a moment, and stammered that she didn't believe that.

Asked the same question Babbin replied "of course I do!"

JB: Look at the New York Times, for just one example...

BOR: Wait, wait, I want to be very specific: You belive the editors of the New York Times want the USA to lose in Iraq.

JB: I think the editors of the US, New York Times want us to lose in Iraq, and they don't really care if we lose the overall war. Bill...

BOR: (shrill) Really?

JB: They have leaked, published the leaks,not actually leaked, they published the leaks...

BOR: They say people have the right to know. That's a provocative statement. You're almost accusing them of being traitors.

JB: Well, I,( shrugs), let's go pretty close to that. These people are so active in the media, they're not reporting the news, these guys are media activists. They want to get George Bush out of the White House and a Democrat in, they don't care what the price is, Bill, and they'll do anything, leak anything, publish anything, to get that to happen."

O'Reilly turned again to Degennaro, who said the media doesn't make policy, the government does, and O'Reilly again countered her by saying that the media can undermine policy. But he's surprised that she doesn't see the vehemence and hatred in the debate over Iraq; doesn't she go to the websites?

She looked indignant and replied that she is an academic and an intelligent person; she sees both sides, and doesn't see anyone not supporting the troops and hoping for the best possible outcome. O'Reilly acted surprised again but backed off and gave Babbin the last word. He said the war in Iraq isn't going to be won anytime soon, it could be decades, and agreed with O'Reilly that the American people are not going to stand for that.

Comment: Coordinated as it was with the anti-NYT Talking Points Memo right before it, this was obviously set up to have a vehement reinforcement of O'Reilly's attacks on the paper of record. The exchange where O'Reilly carefully laid out "Babbin's" position wreaked of pre-planning.