The Christian Broadcasting Network

Browse Videos

Share Email

Hurricanes 'Don't Care' About a President's Approval Rating: Critic Slams WaPost 'Trump Complicit' Op-Ed

Hurricanes 'Don't Care' About a President's Approval Rating: Critic Slams WaPost 'Trump Complicit' Op-Ed Read Transcript

- Well, Curtis Houck is themanaging editor of NewsBusters.

He joins us now from work.

Curtis, do you think it's irresponsible

for the editorial boardof the Washington Post

to call the President complicit

with regard to thisextreme weather condition?

- [Curtis Houck] It's stunning.

Well first of all, thehurricane hasn't even

hit land when this editorial was written.

He was still at least, you know,

a day and a half out.

Looking at the forecast,and things change,

hurricanes don't care what aPresident's approval rating is,

and they don't care whostays and who doesn't.

Storm surge doesn't thinkabout whose house they hit

before the surge, and thewater, and the flooding

come through.

The hundred mile an hourwinds don't really care

who they're affecting.

So to say that this Presidentis already complicit

in something that hasn't even hit land yet

is just so irresponsible,

and the fact that theymentioned Barack Obama's

environmental legacythat he's going after,

it just shows pettiness on the part

of the news media here,

and it's the Washington Post,

Democracy Dies in Darknessas their slogan goes.

I don't even have words to describe

how ridiculous this is.

And really it's gotten a lot of traction

on NewsBusters because people just simply

cannot believe what they're reading.

That the WashingtonPost would go that far.

- I think you raise a valid point.

The fact that a lot ofPresident's opponents

would criticize his decision to pull out

of the Paris Climate Accord Agreement,

but that was just recently,so to attribute blame

for climate change andthis particular hurricane

might seem a little bit of an overreach.

- Right, okay. So the Paris Climate Accord

is just a piece of paper at this point.

It is a bunch of countries that said,

we will do x, we will do blank,

we promise to in so many years

depending on our part of the Accord,

we will do this much by this time.

And we will fix carbonemissions by this time.

And so I did a little research

looking at hurricanes specificallythat hit the Carolinas.

And going back through, in 1984,

we had a hurricane caused65.5 million dollars

of damage at that time.

Hurricane Hugo, categoryfour storm from 1989,

9.7 billion dollars of damage.

Hurricane Emily, 1993, 35billion dollars of damage.

And moving forward to the present,

Hurricane Isabel, 2003, 5.5billion dollars of damage.

So this is something that happens.

That is part of the weather, you know.

There's a reason that hurricanes

trigger so much fascination among people,

in their minds and why people

tune in to the weather channel,

but to say that thePresident is responsible

for what's going onhere because he withdrew

from a Paris Climate Accord,

and he's loosing restrictions

on natural gas in this countryand parts of the country,

not having to do with the Carolinas,

it's just this level of stupidity.

- The editorial board saidthe President and the GOP

have cemented their legacy when it comes

to climate change.

What are your thoughts on that?

- When you're going this far,

to kind of connect the President

to a hurricane and storm surge,

that Presidents almost wantthese hurricanes to prosper

or something like that,

that's what they're lookingat the President's word

describing this hurricaneas it's coming close to land

and they're saying, oh heseems almost excited about it,

as Jen Psaki formally withthe Obama admistration

said on CNN a few days ago.

So it's this pattern, andit's just kind of building

avalanche of rhetoric coming out

of the news media that thisPresident is responsible,

that he's almost excited about this,

a hurricane that is likely to, God forbid,

but most hurricanes do leave a death toll

in their wake of some sort.

To automatically assign blame here

just shows how blind,

it's not really aboutinforming the public then,

it's not about keeping people safe,

it's about forwarding an agenda

that can lessen thisPresident's credibility,

and eventually cause his partyto lose seats in Congress,

or to remove him from office.

So again, this rhetoricis just so dangerous,

it's so irresponsible, andto use the word complicit,

everybody knows what that word means,

it means that you'reresponsible for something

and that you played a part in it.

And people know that.

And it's just, again,I just run out of words

to describe how absurd this is.

- Well, Curtis Houck, of NewsBusters,

thank you for joining us today.

- No problem, anytime.


Related Podcasts | Do You Know Jesus? | Privacy Notice | Prayer Requests | Support CBN | Contact Us | Feedback
© 2012 Christian Broadcasting Network