Accuracy in Media

Much has been made of which foreign leaders endorse John Kerry for president. Kerry refuses to name them. Another sensitive matter, which has received far too little attention from the major media, is how Kerry has appealed for direct support from the illegal drug lobby.

However, the new book, ?Marijuana and Madness,? scheduled for release this May and published by Cambridge University Press, could put Kerry?s campaign for ?the marijuana vote? on the defensive. One of the editors, Prof. Robin Murray of Britain?s Institute of Psychiatry, cites studies and evidence from around the world, some of it going back 40 years, linking the use of marijuana?supposedly a ?soft? drug?to mental illnesses, including schizophrenia and psychosis.

Marijuana is the most used illicit drug in the United States. An average of 10 million Americans use marijuana each month. These people have a vested interest in voting for candidates who will make it easier for them to do their drugs of choice and easier for dealers to peddle their poison to our children. President Bush is not their man. He strongly opposes drug legalization and used his State of the Union address to promote drug testing of students.

Kerry, by contrast, is supported by billionaire George Soros, who promotes legalization of marijuana, cocaine and other drugs.

Backed by drug-legalizer Soros, a President Kerry could decide to pursue a new national drug policy of ?tolerance? toward drug users.

The Drug Policy Alliance, a Soros-funded group, recently promoted an on-line chat with Ram Dass on the subject of ?What would God smoke?? A follower of eastern religious practices, he is well known for his ?experimentation? with LSD. He endorsed Dennis Kucinich in the Democratic presidential primaries.

On the pro-dope website, cannabisnews.com, one user expressed the hope that Kerry would win, appoint Kucinich as his ?Secretary of Compassion,? and do away with the Drug Enforcement Administration.

The illegal drug lobby is very active this year.

A Medical Marijuana Political Action Committee, which promotes marijuana as ?medicine,? is now making financial contributions to political candidates. And a national group called ?Vote Hemp,? another term for marijuana, is also active on the political scene.

Charles Hurt of the Washington Times did note in a recent article about Kerry and other candidates admitting marijuana use that the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) had given Kerry ?a green thumbs up? for his support of so-called medical marijuana. NORML, whose slogan is ?Smokers Vote in 2004,? also praised Kerry for ?mild support for decriminalizing small amounts of marijuana for personal use.? Kerry says he tried marijuana only after coming back from <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = “urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags” />Vietnam.

But in comments that delighted the dope lobby, Kerry told Rolling Stone magazine that he has little problem with the so-called responsible use of marijuana, saying, ?I?ve met plenty of people in my lifetime who?ve used marijuana and who I would not qualify as serious addicts?who use about the same amount as some people drink beer or wine or have a cocktail. I don?t get too excited by any of that.? The Rolling Stone interviewer, Will Dana, excitedly told CNN that Kerry ?doesn?t think marijuana?s that big a deal??

At a Kerry campaign event in Iowa, it was reported that Peter Yarrow of the singing group Peter, Paul & Mary was getting ready to perform ?Puff the Magic Dragon,? a song that some interpret as referring to smoking marijuana. As the song was about to begin, cameras caught Kerry as he took his index finger to his thumb, pursed his lips and then raised his fingers to his lips, as if he was inhaling from a marijuana cigarette. To use drug jargon, this is called ?toking.?

In an article titled, ?Kerry Toke Draws Little Smoke,? Sharon Kehnemui of Fox News quoted Washington Post reporter Ceci Connolly, who was at the event, as saying, ?This was a light moment, this was not any sort of serious campaign business.? Connolly said the incident was an example of Kerry ?starting to enjoy the race? for president. She said there are ?bigger issues? than Kerry pretending to smoke marijuana.

Back in 2000, when Vice President Gore was running for president, he claimed that his use of marijuana, which began in college, had been ?infrequent and rare.? Then, an old friend of Gore?s, John Warnecke, came forward to say, ?He smoked a lot and he liked it.? Warnecke worked with Gore on the Tennessean, a Nashville newspaper, in the 1970s. A story about Warnecke?s charges appeared in a Post story co-authored by Ceci Connolly. Kerry?s ?light moment? on the campaign trail, as described by Connolly, could turn out to be something more significant as well. Clearly, however, journalists are not interested in covering that.

Moyers Flaks For Communist Front

The March 5th edition of the ?NOW with Bill Moyers? show on the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) was greeted with euphoria at the headquarters of International ANSWER, the front group of the communist Workers World Party. The show featured a segment on ?the government?s criminalizing of dissent,? starring a member of the ANSWER steering committee.

It was also interesting for another reason. Moyers served in LBJ?s administration and was involved in efforts to spy on Johnson?s political opponents and others, including Martin Luther King, Jr. Of course, that wasn?t mentioned on the show.

ANSWER was ecstatic because of the interview with Mara Verheyden-Hilliard. She is a member of the national Steering Committee of the ANSWER Coalition and co-chair of a committee of the National Lawyers Guild, a one-time identified communist front.

The theme was that groups of peaceful demonstrators against U.S. foreign policy were being infiltrated by undercover law enforcement agents. This was seen as a return to the bad old days of the FBI under J. Edgar Hoover. Moyers should know something about that, having worked with Hoover?s FBI to dig up dirt for LBJ. But that wasn?t mentioned.

The show also didn?t mention that Bill Clinton?s FBI director, Louis Freeh, had delivered testimony on the threat of terrorism before the Senate Appropriations committee on May 10, 2001. In the section on ?domestic terrorism,? Freeh said that anarchist and ?extremist socialist groups? such as the Workers World Party ?have an international presence and, at times, also represent a potential threat in the United States.”

Attacking Law Enforcement

This testimony has bothered the radical left. In an article in the socialist newspaper, In These Times, Hank Hoffman said that Freeh offered ?no justification? for the naming of Workers World Party, ?a Marxist group,? as a threat. He quoted?guess who?Verheyden-Hilliard, as saying that authorities were ?demonizing this movement and suggesting these folks pose a threat? in order to declare ?some form of martial law [during large demonstrations].”

Of course, Workers World Party is an international Marxist group whose leaders frequently travel to countries with governments hostile to the U.S. Their latest cause is rallying support for Jean-Bertrand Aristide, the Marxist former president of Haiti.

As we explained in our last AIM Report, it wasn?t a big story when John Kerry said that he would have risked U.S. lives to maintain Aristide in power. And except for columnist Robert Novak, there hasn?t been any discussion in the mainstream media of why Kerry chose such a controversial course of action. Novak noted evidence of ?Aristide?s gold-plated U.S. connections.? He explained, ?He is close to Kerry?s influential friends, the Kennedy family of Massachusetts, and is the unconditional favorite of the Congressional Black Caucus.? The Black Caucus openly collaborated with ANSWER in efforts to save the Aristide regime.

As expected, the communist role in the March 20 ?anti-war? protests in the U.S. and other countries was ignored by the media. Once again, however, the U.S. demonstrations were initiated and organized by ANSWER and United for Peace and Justice, the latter group run by Marxist Leslie Cagan. Dozens of Arab and Muslim organizations co-organized the New York City protest.

The notion advanced by the Moyers program that ?anti-war? groups do not constitute a threat was set back by the arrest and indictment of an anti-Iraq war activist who had worked for four Democrats on Capitol Hill and several news organizations. She was charged with taking money from Saddam Hussein?s Iraqi intelligence service both before and after the U.S. invaded Iraq. Witnesses said that a car in her driveway featured anti-Iraq war bumper stickers. We don?t expect Bill Moyers to do a story about her. That would undermine his thesis that anti-war activists are no threat to anyone.

Moyers has since announced that he will be leaving the ?Now? show after the November elections. Between then and now, look for more attempts to undermine the war on terrorism and help his fellow Democrats.

What?s more, American taxpayers are making it possible through tax ?contributions? to the public broadcasting establishment.

Cronkite Advises Kerry to Embrace Liberalism

He turned the country against victory in Vietnam and anchored a newscast known for its slant against spending on national defense. Now retired, Walter Cronkite is still spouting the liberal philosophy. A supporter of world government, Cronkite even says, only half-jokingly, that he could have married another man.

Every time Cronkite opens his mouth these days, some new loony left utterance is put on the public record. The San Francisco Chronicle recently asked him why he has been married so long to his wife Betty and he said, ?I do think one of the factors was we were of different sexes.? As laughter swept the room, he added, ?That doesn?t mean I wouldn?t have been happy to be married to several friends I had of the same sex. It just never came up in our particular relations.?

As funny as that may be, Cronkite?s role in America?s Vietnam defeat?and the deaths in vain of over 58,000 young Americans?can?t be forgotten. The Chronicle, being a liberal paper, put a different spin on it. The paper said, ?In 1968, after witnessing the post-Tet Offensive buildup of American forces in Vietnam, Cronkite concluded a televised report with an unprecedented and carefully couched editorial counseling negotiated withdrawal. ?If I?ve lost Cronkite,? President Lyndon Johnson was famously quoted as saying, ?I?ve lost middle America.? Five weeks later, Johnson announced he would not run for re-election.?

In fact, what Cronkite did was portray an enemy defeat at Tet as a communist victory, demoralizing our side. It was a turning point in the war. He misled tens of millions of Americans. Not only did 58,000 Americans die, the American withdrawal urged by Cronkite opened the door to the slaughter of millions of people throughout Southeast Asia.

In a related matter, the Ethics & Public Policy Center had documented how his newscast was biased in favor of cuts in national defense. Clearly, Cronkite has done enough damage to America. Yet, he continues to rant. He?s no longer in the anchor chair but is still on the CBS payroll.

Corporate Decision

Cronkite told the Chronicle that, at the time of his editorializing about Vietnam, he ?was reluctant to break the implied covenant of objectivity at the time and did so only at the urging of the CBS news division president, Richard Salant.? Cronkite said, ?It never occurred to me it was going to have the effect it had. President Johnson?s comment after watching from the Oval Office gave it an importance that I don?t think anybody really thought it had.?

Looking back, one would hope that Cronkite would at least offer a simple, ?I?m sorry,? for contributing to the Communist takeover of Vietnam and Cambodia. But no. He considers that a high point in his life.

He didn?t say so, but one has to conclude that Cronkite, a fundraiser for the World Federalist Association, is a backer of John Kerry for president. Kerry turned against the war, as Cronkite did, and they both share unbridled enthusiasm for United Nations control of U.S. foreign policy.

?I?m an internationalist,? Kerry told The Harvard Crimson newspaper in 1970. ?I?d like to see our troops dispersed through the world only at the directive of the United Nations.?

Now a syndicated columnist for King Features, Cronkite wrote a March 18 piece urging Kerry to embrace?and not disavow?the liberal label. He noted that when the National Journal said that Kerry?s Senate record made him the most liberal member of the Senate, Kerry called that ?a laughable characterization? and ?the most ridiculous thing I?ve ever seen in my life.?

Cronkite told Kerry, ?What are you ashamed of? Are you afflicted with the Dukakis syndrome?that loss of nerve that has allowed conservatives both to define and to demonize liberalism for the past decade and more??

While Kerry flip-flopped on the Iraq war, Cronkite has been adamantly against it.

However, we could find no record of Cronkite?s criticism of President Clinton?s war on Yugoslavia. That was a unilateral military action, conducted without congressional or U.N. approval, through NATO. While the war on Iraq was conducted to protect the American people from an aggressive Arab regime with terrorist ties seeking weapons of mass destruction, Yugoslavia never threatened the United States at all. In fact, the Serbs were U.S. allies during World War II.

Yugoslavia was trying to exert control over a rebellious province, Kosovo, and a civil war was occurring that took a couple thousand lives. Clinton?s war was an intervention on behalf of the Muslims there. Cronkite has been silent about that during his public appearances. However, he has praised France for refusing to join the Bush administration?s ?pretty dark doctrine? of military intervention in Iraq.

Cronkite seemed unconcerned that France had operated under a doctrine that permitted it to send several thousands troops to the Ivory Coast last year without U.N. approval, and that it has intervened in Africa dozens of times in the last 40 years.

So Cronkite?s concern about a so-called unilateral foreign policy appears to be directed only at the U.S. and its current president. He clearly has an anti-Bush bias.

Lies About Kosovo

Clinton actually went to war on behalf of the Muslims twice, in Bosnia and then Kosovo. He wanted to appease the powerful Arab/Muslim bloc of nations and the Europeans who wanted to call the shots on U.S. foreign policy. The U.S. still has thousands of troops in Bosnia and Kosovo. That?s fine with Cronkite.

In Kosovo, the American people were told by the Clinton administration that the U.S. had to act through NATO because hundreds of thousands of ?ethnic Albanians? in Kosovo were victims of ?ethnic cleansing? or even ?genocide.? This was a lie. Investigators have determined that between 2,000 and 3,000 died in the Kosovo civil war, with several hundred of those deaths being Serbs.

The media failed to cover a recent Washington conference at which Serbian Orthodox Bishop Artemije of Kosovo described how the ?ethnic cleansing? that was supposedly ended by the war has continued, with the Serbs being the victims. The pre-war population of 250,000 Serbs in Kosovo has declined to less than 100,000. He produced documentary evidence, a book entitled Crucified Kosovo, showing that more than 100 Christian churches have been destroyed, and graves and tombs have been desecrated, by the Muslim extremists there.

Yet the Kerry campaign is proud that Kerry backed Clinton?s war, asserting that the senator ?was a strong proponent of U.S. participation in the NATO intervention that put an end to the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo.? Kerry is never challenged on this blatant falsehood.

Liberal partisan James Carville, a co-host on CNN?s Crossfire show, has claimed that, in contrast to the Iraq war, in Kosovo ?We won that war? and ?We leveled with the American people.?

Whose Credibility Gap?

As long as the media allow Kerry and Carville to get away with such whoppers, any discussion of the Bush administration?s ?credibility gap? on Iraq has to be dismissed as just a campaign tactic by the Democrats and their media lackeys.

Carville & Company may reply that the U.S. didn?t lose one American soldier?s life in Kosovo, in contrast to Iraq, as if the thousands of Serbs who died in the NATO bombing campaign didn?t matter. The fact remains that in Kosovo the U.S. illegally intervened militarily in the internal affairs of a sovereign state when U.S. national security interests were not in any jeopardy.

No Light at The End of Tunnel

Five years later, there is no end to this intervention/occupation in sight. In fact, mid-March saw another phase of anti-Serb ?ethnic cleansing,? with more Orthodox Christian churches being targeted for destruction, more Serbs being killed, and thousands more driven from their homes. NATO deployed even more troops to the area.

Gregory R. Copley, writing in the Defense & Foreign Affairs Daily, said the anti-Serb violence was ?planned by radical Islamist leaders in Bosnia, Albania, Iran and in the Islamist areas of Serbia, and directly linked with the various al Qaeda-related mujahedin and terrorist cells in the area.?

Ironically, the rationale that was used to falsely justify U.S. intervention in Kosovo can more legitimately be used to explain America?s war in Iraq. After all, more than 300,000 people died in Iraq at the hands of Saddam Hussein and his thugs.

Kerry, who supported the Kosovo war but has flip-flopped on Iraq, has the real credibility gap. But that?s not an issue for the elite media.




Ready to fight back against media bias?
Join us by donating to AIM today.

Comments