As we approach November we intend to follow them closely and
at least document for the future what they do.
As we said before The Telegraph cannot be trusted and we
will cite some examples from their past history as to why we feel that way.
That is exactly why we take issue with the ad The Telegraph
runs with a picture of George McCanless imposed on a beautiful back ground
of a dirt road and beautiful green trees. They then tout the ad with the words “Middle
Georgia – It’s Who We Are”.
Here we have to ask why The Telegraph gets away with this.
The answer is simple the people of middle Georgia let them get away with it.
This is somewhat difficult to understand as we have always found the people in
middle Georgia for most part to be honest hardworking people with a high regard for the integrity
and morality of their fellow citizens.
We can honestly say we do not see these traits at The
Telegraph, much to our sorrow.
The late Ron Woodgeard who at the time was The Telegraph’s editorial
page editor pointed out the bigotry at The Telegraph in a column as far back as
January 21, 2001.
Then as we move back in time to the early 90’s, January 28,
1992 to be exact, we find an editorial in The Telegraph titled: “Can one sleazy story
destroy Clinton candidacy?”
In the very first paragraph they issued instructions to the
people in middle Georgia on how they should respond to Clinton’s “bimbo”
situation.
They tell them: “Let’s be very careful and very specific in
judging Gov. Bill Clinton, a leading Democratic presidential candidate in trouble
with his past.”
In the second paragraph they absolve Clinton of all
responsibility as they explain: “His problems stems from allegations in a
sleazy supermarket tabloid that pays big money for its muck.”
To this day The Telegraph has not explained the difference
in a “…sleazy supermarket tabloid that pays big money for its muck” and a “sleazy”
newspaper who charges “money for its muck”.
We want to be very clear here, we do not care who The
Telegraph endorses. We do take exception to their disingenuousness and
dishonesty as long as they promote their self as a newspaper. If they want to be a propaganda arm for
political parties and special interest they have a moral obligation to be open
and honest about it. The people of middle Georgia spend their hard earned money
for the paper as a newspaper and they should get honest news and facts they can depend on for
this money.
Back on 09/28/2000 we hand delivered to The Telegraph office
for Jeanie Enyart who was then President and Publisher comments and criticism
of The Telegraph, which included the following comments.
On 09/28/2000 we wrote:
The Macon Telegraph and editorial board's endorsement of Clinton in 1992 may have been subjective. However, they are glaring examples of what I can only consider deception.
We are told in the 92 endorsement, Clinton "whose accomplishments as governor give him strong credentials in education issues"… this was not true. Even the most rudimentary inquiry would have shown Clinton had no "credentials in education". Had anyone checked they would have found this was Hillary's job, one that a reasonable person could have concluded was a failure. The inferred comparison to John F. Kennedy was ludicrous. (Looking back there were great similarities in the area of “bimbos” but at the time we did not know this.)
By the time the Macon Telegraph indorsed Clinton in 96 it had become clear to a person of average intelligence, something was badly wrong with the Clinton-Gore administration. For the most part the so-called national news media including the Macon Telegraph ignored the facts. They published puff pieces, distorted the truth and scammed the people of the United States.
It had become vividly clear that the "impressive array of friends and advisors with high academic and political credentials." which the 92 endorsement pointed out, had serious flaws. None of these individuals had any morals or integrity and honesty was completely foreign to them. They were willing to lie, deceive and even break laws in their struggle to hang on to power. Some of the" impressive array of friends and advisors with high academic and political credentials." even went to jail.
By the time of the 96 endorsement many of Clinton's dirty little secrets were out. It was well know that Clinton and Gore had used taxpayer money to hunt down, threaten and harass women in order to control the “bimbos" and prevent them from talking. The famous million dollar "limousine ride" with "James Riady" was well known. There were numerous questions about Chinese money floating around.
This is an example of what was known and the kind of thing
The Telegraph chose to ignore. This was nothing more than deceit by omission.
We are now experiencing the same thing with this administration,
only to a much greater degree and it has expanded to include both national and
local affairs which we can see at wearepolitics.com. In the local affairs The Telegraph is
covering up, they are not covering. As for national affairs they have chosen omission
as the preferred method of deception.
Then when we move forward to August 2003 The Telegraph is
telling people that his (Clinton) only sin was:
"Clinton lied about having an illicit sexual affair with a woman (other allegations of wrongdoing proved to be unsupportable after a lengthy and hugely expensive investigation by Special Prosecutor Kenneth Starr). There were insufficient Senate votes to convict him during an impeachment trial.”
{This is comical because if we go back to August of 2000 we
see where The Telegraph run a story about President Nixon who resigned from
office to avoid impeachment on August 9, 1974 and died on April 22, 1994. The
bigots at The Telegraph and AP (Associated Press) come up with a story about
how “Nixon beat wife, took drugs”. In
the very last paragraph of the story we find that it is based on “…no evidence,
only rumor and second and third-had [hand] hearsay by the dead” Typical
Telegraph! ( Added 0725/12)}
This is disgustingly dishonest and The Telegraph had to know
it. Also let us look at what the chief investigative counsel for the Clinton
Impeachment had to say about: “other allegations of wrongdoing [which] proved
to be unsupportable….”
By the way the Chief investigative Counsel for the Clinton
Impeachment was a lifelong Democrat named David P. Schippers. Amazingly, but yes
there are still a few democrats which believe in integrity and morality.
In appendix A of Mr. Schippers’ book “Sellout” we find that:
In making our case in the Senate trial, we were limited to the evidence from the Independent Counsel’s referral that had already been made public. Unfortunately, a great deal of evidentiary material was received in Executive Session and will remain under seal for fifty years unless the House Judiciary Committee releases it.”“Also excluded from the Senate trial was evidence my staff and I compiled in the course of independent investigations.”
Then in August 2004 when Charles Richardson was telling
everyone that the Bush administration was trying to connect 9/11to Iraq in
spite of no evidence to support this. In
an e-mail to him we pointed out where he was wrong about this and pointed out
where he had been wrong about the Clinton administration.
In his reply he chose to ignore the documented evidence and
tells us:
“I appreciate anyone who has the guts to challenge me even when they are wrong. First, please go back and read my columns and editorials on Bill Clinton. I guess calling for his resignation qualifies as supporting him. Hah.”
To this day Richardson has provided neither proof that the
Bush Administration ever tried to link the 9/11 to Iraq. Nor has he provided a
column or editorial where he called for Clinton’s resignation and if there is
one in the Washington Memorial Library we have not found it. Perhaps it is under Richardson’s
mattress.
This will be continued.
Have a nice day.
No comments:
Post a Comment