Moyers the Flamethrower: Bushies Were Basement 'Burglars' and 'Arsonists'

Photo of Tim Graham.

If PBS omnipresence Bill Moyers wanted to cultivate an appearance of fairness and balance, he's not doing a very good job of it. On the PBS talk show Tavis Smiley on Monday night, Moyers compared Team Bush to a "burglar in the basement" that the watchdog media didn't bark at, or if you prefer, the media was the fire department, and Team Bush was the "arsonist." In fact, he charged "the press was in cahoots with the arsonist."

When Smiley pressed Moyers on whether his show is fair and balanced, he slammed Fox News Channel: "Fox News has so poisoned the meaning of fair and balanced that I can't even understand those terms anymore, but anybody who watches this documentary will see that we lay out the evidence." Smiley also catered to Moyers by asking him if the Bush adminstration was the most secretive in American history.

Moyers explained that his show would explain the "Mission Accomplished" picture and "the way the press bought into that photo opportunity and pronounced the war over before all these tens of thousands of casualties, is symbolic of how the press bought the war four years ago and is complicitous in what has happened since then."

Smiley asked: "You think the majority of Americans gets that, or needs to see a piece like this to understand how that happened?"

Moyers replied: "Well, I hope a lot of people watch this, Tavis, because if the watchdog doesn't bark, how do you know there's a burglar in the basement? And the press is supposed to be a watchdog. I'll put it another way: if you think that the fire department in your neighborhood is in collusion with the arsonist, you want to know about it. And the fact of the matter is, in the build-up to the war the watchdog didn't bark and the fire department - in this case the press - was in cahoots with the arsonist."

Unlike NPR interviewer Terry Gross, Smiley at least addressed the issue of the Moyers tilt, but Moyers used the usual dodge that since he blasts nearly everyone (for being to the right of his left-wing pole), he's the fair one:

SMILEY: I paused there deliberately for just a second at the end of your remark to see if you were going to go further, and I paused because I suspect there's some watching right now who are saying, "There goes Bill Moyers again." You start with the conservative press, you come to the middle, and you stop as if there is no liberal media bias.

MOYERS: Well, in this case when you watch the documentary Wednesday night, you will see that we're as tough on the liberal "New Republic" as we are on the conservative "Weekly Standard." I believe very strongly in laying out a case before reaching any conclusion. And I'll tell you that they're not gonna be happy in liberal America in the liberal press when they see this documentary, because the truth hurts.

And it hurts the Republicans and conservatives in this case because they went along, and it hurts some liberals and the Democrats, because they were wrong. In fact, one of my most interesting scenes in the documentary is of ambitious Democrats like Hillary Clinton and John Kerry going along, essentially, with the intelligence that was given them by the administration.

Smiley pressed further on the fairness front:  

SMILEY: In advance of people seeing this on Wednesday night, what assurance do you give the people that the piece - pardon the pun - is fair and balanced? And I ask that against the backdrop of what you've just shared now. You were very forthright and very honest, which I appreciate, about your being skeptical of the war to begin with, skeptical of how the media covered or didn't cover the war. How, then, does one who has your point of view put together a fair and balanced piece about this provocative question?

MOYERS: You gather the evidence. Fox News has so poisoned the meaning of fair and balanced that I can't even understand those terms anymore, but anybody who watches this documentary will see that we lay out the evidence. And I ask everybody who watches - I ask everybody who's watching tonight to watch the documentary and ask yourself as you go along if the evidence isn't being laid out, and then reach your own conclusion.

That's really why I did the documentary. I wanted to go back, review - and I've interviewed Dan Rather for this documentary, Tim Russert for this documentary, Walter Isaacson, who was the president of CNN at the time of the invasion of Iraq, Bob Simon of "60 Minutes," and I want the audience to listen to those interviews, look at the evidence, and then reach your own conclusion about what you think, not what Bill Moyers thinks. That's not that important.

This is a fairly funny answer. I've interviewed all the liberal media stars, and I think you can conclude from that slanted slate that I'm fair? At the end, Smiley sounded more like a typical liberal:

SMILEY: Finally, is it just me or is this administration the most secretive of all time? You've worked in the White House. I wonder to what extent, again, their modus operandi - which is secrecy at all costs - has anything to do with the story that you're going to unveil for us on Wednesday night?

MOYERS: Well, Lyndon Johnson signed the Freedom of Information act back in 1964. He signed it reluctantly, because having been in Congress for so many years he was a man with a passion for secrecy, too. But there's no question but that this administration - and I'm not the only one saying this - there are a lot of people who say this - historians and other journalists say this is the most secretive administration that anyone can remember.

And you know what? That's come home to haunt it, because if you are so secret and you keep things to yourself, when it starts coming out, as this is now coming out about what's happened in Iraq and other things - the Justice hearings - the House tumbles pretty quickly. And when people realize they've been lied to, they don't trust you anymore and your credibility goes sinking like the Titanic.

SMILEY: So again, Wednesday night on most PBS stations across the country, "Buying the War," the premiere episode of "Bill Moyers' Journal" and its return to PBS. That's Wednesday night on most stations. A 90-minute special, and then of course on Friday nights it will resume its regular time slot. Bill Moyers, as always, an honor to have you on the program. Thanks for your insight and for your time, sir.

MOYERS: Thank you, Tavis. And my guest on Friday night, by the way, will be Jon Stewart of "The Daily Show" because I think he's one of the most significant analysts of the news and information of our time.

That would pretty much seal Stewart with a kiss as a big liberal.

—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

If Bush II is not the most se

If Bush II is not the most secretive Administration in American history, which is?

How long did it take President Bush to hide the papers of President Reagan and Vice President Bush?  What was he afraid of?  The truth about Iran Contra?

For more about the present Administration's fear of sunshine and the truth:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/bush/index.html

Oh for cryin out loud.Save a

Oh for cryin out loud.

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

"

"By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws
of the United States of America.."

frank, the above sentence preceeds every executive order. If you don't like it, take it up with the founding fathers.

"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...

Hey, J. Fred, if you're going

Hey, J. Fred, if you're going to hitch your wagon to the FAS (Federation of American Scientists), then you have to also accept their website's publishing other documents-like this one, namely the complete text of the Clinton Administration's Federal Indictment claiming a working relationship between Usama bin Laden and Iraq, which they published in 1998.

http://www.fas.org/irp/news/1998/11/98110602_nlt.html

By the way, your intellectual dishonesty is showing here-at the time Bush "hid" the papers of Pappy and Reagan, he did the same thing with Clinton's papers too. Why did you omit that fact?

"Intellectual dishonesty

"Intellectual dishonesty?"  Spoken like a true Sheer Insanity running dog.

I didn't hide anything.  AG and the other members of Bush II's posse couldn't figure out a way to leapfrog President Clinton's papers - or they certainly would have.

Meanwhile, you missed the point.  If 43's administration isn't the most secret Presidency yet - which one is?

The Clinton Administration wa

The Clinton Administration was the most corrupt in history!  Sandy Burglar was stuffing his socks with classified defense documents, for God's sake!!!!  And that's just the tiny tip of a humongous iceberg...  All you Libtards have on Bush is false accusations by liars like Joe Yellowcake Wilson and sore losers like Al the sky is falling Gore. 

Get real buddy.

Off topic - the topic is secr

Off topic - the topic is secrecy, not corruption.  FYI - more corrupt administrations certainly include US Grant's and WG Harding's.  And Ronald Reagan's, of course...And the most famous document stuffer remains Fawn Hall - Col. North's secretary.  Oh - by the way - have Nancy Reagan and Col. North ever managed to get their stories straight about Iran Contra?

PS:   Dick Cheney made Joe Wilson.  If the Veep had the brains - and the decency - to shut up that op-ed would have blown over in a day or two...but then, no one ever accused Big Time of being subtle.

Whew, Frankie, you are a howl

Whew, Frankie, you are a howl. Keep on posting links to leftie-funded groups like the Federation of American Scientists, fronted by a Clintonista and a nutjob (among other people), funded by such sources as the Kirsch Foundation.

Good stuff.

Your own overwhelming, intens

Your own overwhelming, intense, powerful FEAR of points of view that do not mesh completely with your Socialism is plain as day on your posts where you advocate the complete SHUTTING UP of everything and everyone in the media and elsewhere that disagrees with you in the slightest. 

I have a sense that if the government was wholly dedicated to pampering and babying you (and doing everything for you from choosing your doctor to selecting the clothes you wear everyday), which is what you desperately want, you wouldn't be whining about secrecy. 

"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???."  - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)

you don't have to be a wacked

you don't have to be a wacked liberal to know that bush has only sent the gop and conservatism back years. i'm sick of him and cheney.

america needs true conservative leaders, and now becuase of this idiot in office, who thinks the usa is best served by the disolving of our borders and sovereignty so corporate america can benifit, a liberal like hilary might win

Newt - thompsan ticket 08

sajc...I'm not as critical of

sajc...

I'm not as critical of our president as you are but I agree it's time for real conservative leadership. BTW... Newt cannot win. Fred Thompson however could!

Run Fred....RUN!

The liberal MSM has become an enemy of the USA.

CT What can conservatives

CT

What can conservatives look at with the bush adm and be happy about...alito and roberts is all i can think of...

foriegn policy is a joke, we are losing two wars over seas, iran and n.korea are more defiant than ever, china is growing militarily and economicaly and the own all our debt, and we import all of our food now which we see some of it might be tainted, and bush laid off epa people that are supposed to inspect food.

gov't is bigger than ever before in history, taxes cut wars waged and NO programs or waste cut by the pres.

its sad when the smartest thinkers in our country can't get elected. newt would clean up this country.

The old Newt may have been ab

The old Newt may have been able to clean up, but the new Newt has lost his fangs.

GWB has made mistakes, but I for one, do not think the war in Iraq or Afghanistan are in that category.

The liberal MSM has become an enemy of the USA.

Sounds to me you are hardly c

Sounds to me you are hardly conservative, or else you wouldn't be going on and on about "true conservatives". 

Your little crack on corporate American tells me that you depsise any entity that makes a profit, and that your deepest wish is to punish them and steal from them early and often. 

We are losing two wars overseas?  How?  Name the last battle we lost to either Afghanistan (that ballyhooed spring offensive the Taliban were supposed to be putting together - what happened to it?) or to the Iraqis.  Perhaps it is because you desperately WANT the United States to lose. 

Iran has to be defiant.  They are frightened of the United States, as they should be.  The one reason we aren't going in full-board right now is because that while the government is anti-American, its people are not.  As for North Korea, I sure would love to hear what bright ideas you have to resolve that situation, considering the DPRK has lots of guns held to the heads of 15 million people in the ROK.  I should know, having spent a year there.

Sounds to me like you want the entire world to LOVE the United States.  I do not.  The United States should be feared around the world, and as far as foriegn policy goes, that is one of the bright spots of this administration. 

Really?  China owns all our debt?  That's news to me, considering foreigners only own 1/3 of our debt: and that is EVERYONE outside the United States, to include China.  I am willing to bet the Japanese own more debt than China does.  It would be nice if you populists would do a little research from time to time.

We import ALL of our food?  Why, the Canadian Wheat Board, the Australian Wheat Board, the EU, and other nations around the world would dearly love to hear when THAT happened.  So would the agricultural states of the United States.  So would the cattle ranchers of my own state of TX. 

Taxes should be cut: it is something called the Laffer Curve.  You may want to look at that sometime.

Wars sometimes must be waged, unfortunately.  It is a sad fact, but it is a fact nonetheless. 

No programs or waste is being cut because the American people LOVE it.  Or at least, they aren't demanding Congress, no matter which party, spend our tax dollars as efficiently as possible. 

"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???."  - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)

Unsane...I must have missed t

Unsane...

I must have missed the part about importing all of our food in his post the first time I read it. Now that I reviewed his post I can see that he's trying his best (which is not very good) to be a comedian.

The liberal MSM has become an enemy of the USA.

To the closed-minded, debate-

To the closed-minded, debate-is-over Left, anything that does not actively promote or propagate the Left-wing dogma is either blatantly conservatively biased, or is failing in it's journalistic mission. To these doctrinaire Libs, all opposing views are invalid. Therefore, all attacks against anyone holding, promoting or even merely airing those views are not just O.K., they're a religious duty. The idea of an open-minded exchange of ideas is as foreign to the modern Left as it was to the Inquisition.

You know why people film docu

You know why people film documentaries on controversial topics? So they can dilute criticism. They claim to be even-handed because they mention a contrary opinion, but the producers select the opposition, and place the criticism where it does the least damage. Documentaries are the most biased form of journalism, and that's why Moyers and Moore and Gore and all the other thin-skinned liberals choose it -- because they can't stand to be contradicted.

Moyers preaches through documentaries because he doesn't want to deal with a real opposing point of view. You never see him in a fair fight. When he produces his documentaries, he wants to tell you his opinion, and he wants you to listen only to him. He epitomizes the fascism he claims to oppose.

His documentary doesn't hav

His documentary doesn't have to be balanced... as long as he lays out the facts and proves his point. A documentary, by definition, is about something specific. But, none of you will watch because a) you aren't open minded enough, b) it will show you what criminals are in the white house (and prove you wrong), and c) you will be busy blogging your lives away.

Don't take your anger out on the journalists... they just report (however weakly) what the criminals are doing.

I Blame you - I'm tired of

I Blame you - I'm tired of blaming the media - it's the people like you who buy everything hook line and sinker that are the problem.

edit: - and sorry I'm flamethrowing myself and have to run, but it's no worse than your hero Moyers. Catch you another time

What time do the triple suns

What time do the triple suns rise on your world? According to Webster's Dictionary, a documentary must be objective.

Function: adjective
1 : being or consisting of documents : contained or certified in writing <documentary evidence>
2 : of, relating to, or employing documentation in literature or art; broadly : FACTUAL, OBJECTIVE

Wrong

You see Blame... you have it all wrong. It's really not too surprising to see, but whatever I guess.

A. -- To begin with, your "reasoning" as to why it would not be watched by anyone, is severely flawed, and shows your lack of tolerance in the matter. You blindly accept this idea of "manmade Global Warming" as the gospel truth. You use the phrase "not open minded enough" as merely a code for, "you don't blindly agree with it," as that is what "open minded" means. "Open minded" merely means everyone MUST agree with your position, or else they are "close minded" individuals. Wrong theory, stupid idea, and ludicrous to assume that people cannot have differing opinions on a subject that is not proven beyond any sort of reasonable doubt.

B. -- Criminals in the White House, etc. -- Uh-huh. Right. You bet. Another lame excuse for an attempt at a reasonable argument. What evidence do you have, in your almighty posession, that would show criminals in the White House? If this were true, then Bush would already be behind bars. Since he is not, and since there is no evidence of any criminals... there is little more to discuss here.

C. -- Busy blogging your lives away -- And you're on here blogging your life away.... because... you're what? Better then everyone else?


"Stop global warming! Asphyxiate a liberal!" -
Show us how far you're willing to go to stop "global warming"

Outstanding post, Mr. Bishop!

Outstanding post, Mr. Bishop!

I've been watching bits and p

I've been watching bits and pieces of drunken driver Moyers' "documentary" on PBS this evening, and it's absolutely SAD.

He's trotting out far-left doofuses to try and advance his theories, even bringing out Phil Donahue, who claimed that PMSNBC fired him for not supporting what Bush was doing. Truly hallucinogenic!

BTW, my reference to Moyers as a "drunk driver" refers to his being pulled over by cops in Socialist Bernie Sanders' state of Vermont for driving while impaired a few years ago. He got off.

only problem i have

Only one i have a problem with is C. I wont be blogging I will be drinking my life away. thank you.

only problem i have

Only one i have a problem with is C. I wont be blogging I will be drinking my life away. thank you.

For Blame

a) Why is it that those who whine the loudest about being "open minded" are themselves the most close minded people on the planet?

b) Really?  What crimes have they committed?  Be specific and think for yourself.  Oh, let me guess: they trample on the Bill of Rights and have suspended the wirt of habeas corpus, from your past posts.  Of course, when the NBers call you on it, the silence from you and your Leftist cohorts is deafening.  Oh, here's some other crimes: not helping people.  That's right: you view government as a big fat United Way, there to pamper and coddle people like you.

c) Of course, you never blog you life away here.  (Mr. Bishop's response echoes my sentiments.  I tip my hat to him.) 

"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???."  - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)

Secretive?  Wasn't Bill Moye

Secretive?  Wasn't Bill Moyers a member of an Administration whose FBI Director was wire-tapping Dr. Martin Luther King and infiltrating anti-war groups?  ;-)

Not only that, but Moyers him

Not only that, but Moyers himself tried to get FBI Director at the time J. Edgar Hoover to try and dig up dirt on possible homosexual activity in 1964  (Republican) Presidential candidate Barry Goldwater's camp. This was after one of Lyndon Johnson's aides was arrested in a Washington DC restroom for trying to do the same thing.

Moyers might be excused for such behavior, as he was in fact an ordained Baptist minister and in fact taught a course on "Christian Ethics" at Baylor University during the same time frame, although I'm sure if he had a "R" as his party desigination he would be condemned for doing so.

So secretive the way Moyers lays it out ....

So secretive is the Bush administration, the way Moyers lays it out .... will be without fact or evidence, but of course, what do you expect when you're dealing with the the most secretive administration in the history of the USA?

 ( Moyers rantings have nothing behind them {as evidenced on PI with liar Maher the other day}, it will be another empty flakey liberal twisted tinfoil skullcap show. )

 I guess I will be shocked if any of these libs ever come up with real evidence for any of their nutball ideas.