You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (544)

PLAYS: (1259)

Rep. Pete Hoekstra told Fox News' Chris Wallace Sunday that it is "fair" to hold the Obama administration responsible for the a failure to detect an attempted terror attack. Friday, Hoekstra told the Detroit Free Press that the Obama administration needed to "connect the dots."

"You were quoted in the Detroit Free Press this morning as saying that, you know, the key is to connect the dots and maybe the Obama administration will now realize that. Is it really fair to hold the Obama administration responsible here?" asked Wallace.

"Yeah, I think it really is," replied Hoekstra. "Connecting the dots here is not really on this particular case. It's connecting the dots that we've seen over the last 11 months, over the last eight years."

John Amato:

What depths will these conservative hacks sink to as they attack President Obama? For what I have no idea. Hoekstra hasn't even been briefed on the attacks, but he has his talking points ready. Does he also hold Bush and Cheney accountable for the 9/11 attacks, the anthrax attacks and the shoe bomber attack? That would have been a proper follow up question from Chris Wallace, but that would never happen. And since no one was hurt in the newest try unlike what happened under Bush, Hoekstra should be praising Obama.

Maybe Broder should come out and ask conservatives to show some sanity and act more moderate---for once or comment on the fact that Hoekstra is a 'world-class buffoon' as Steven Benen notes:

How such a world-class buffoon became the ranking member on the House Intelligence Committee remains an open question, though it continues to be something of an embarrassment for the Republican caucus.

There are a couple of angles to this to keep in mind. First, Hoekstra would like people to believe the Obama administration isn't taking the terrorist threat seriously enough. The evidence to the contrary -- a.k.a. "reality" -- is overwhelming.

Second, when it comes to national security issues, Hoekstra has one of the more transparently ridiculous track records of any member of Congress in recent memory. We are, after all, talking about a partisan clown who held a press conference in 2006 to announce, "We have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq."

And third, yesterday's pettiness probably has something to do with Hoekstra's gubernatorial campaign -- he needs to impress the GOP base to win his primary, and he likely assumes cheap shots at the president in light of attempted terrorism is the way to get a bump in the polls.

One can hope the opposite will occur. Even Republican primary voters should be disgusted by Hoekstra's shameless hackery on this.

Yemen just happens to be an area that the Obama administration is focused on in terms of sheltering terrorists.

Rep. Peter King is trying to top Hoekstra on the laugh-o-meter and practically committed treason by publicly exposing the information he received as soon as he was informed.

Rep. Peter King (R-NY) was. And King — the ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee — wasted no time alerting the media to much of what he was told. King rushed to Fox and CNN last night to begin issuing blame against security officials who allowed the suspect to board. “His name was in a database indicating significant terrorist connections,” King said, adding, “I’m not trying to be a Monday morning quarterback here…but let’s see what was missed.”

And their buffoonery knows no bounds. King yesterday was complaining that President Obama didn't give a press conference and compared Friday's incident to George Bush not being bothered to hold a press conference after Hurricane Katrina hit that devastated New Orleans. My God!

You can view this video right here by getting the latest version of Flash Player!

DOWNLOADS: (120)

PLAYS: (276)

Bill Moyers weighs in on the right wing screechers crying about the possibility of the Fairness Doctrine being brought back. I think the bigger issue is media consolidation, which Bill has addressed in other shows, but did not do so here. Those complaining about the possibility of the Fairness Doctrine coming back will always have the biggest megaphone until these companies are broken up, and media ownership rules are revised.

Moyers: Do I think any conservative commentator wished for what happened in Knoxville last year, or to Doctor George Tiller in Wichita two months ago? Not for a minute. The killer who pulled the trigger is the guilty party. But do I wish the vendors of venom, and their sponsors, would think harder about how angry words become accomplices of foul deeds? Yes, I do. Most certainly. Especially as the words and crazy theories of militias and other elements of the lunatic fringe are given even a shred of credibility by their repetition in the conspicuous conservative media. God only knows the price we pay when we turn political opponents to be debated, into mortal enemies to be eliminated.

Now, when some of those who shout through the megaphone of right wing radio hear a critique like this, they immediately throw a fit. They claim that people like me are calling for a return to the Fairness Doctrine. Some of you remember the Fairness Doctrine, adopted 60 years ago by the Federal Communications Commission. It said that opposing points of view had to be presented on radio or TV in a way that was honest, equitable and balanced. If not, said the FCC, a station could lose its license.

Ronald Reagan abolished the doctrine in 1987, but mention it today and the Rush Limbaugh's of the world still scream like martyrs being stretched on the rack. These people earn millions inciting riots in the public mind. If they were required to be fair, they would soon be penniless, out on the street, cup in hand. So when we first telecast our report on the killings in Knoxville last year, some of them threw a tantrum, as if our criticism of their malicious rhetoric was a call for government censorship.

It's true that in this current climate of mean-speak some members of congress and others have called for reinstating the Fairness Doctrine. But I'm not one of them. The Doctrine is a throwback to a time when there were a lot fewer ways to hear news and opinion than there are in today's universe of websites, blogs, and tweets. Just last week, the two new commissioners to the FCC expressed their strong opposition to its restoration. The new FCC chairman is opposed, too.

Conservatives nonetheless wave the fallacious threat of its return as a bloody flag, lofted above the straw men they evoke to roil the faithful and keep the cash registers ringing.

So let me say it again: the first amendment protection of a free press extends to The Savage Nation as surely as it does to The Nation magazine. Anyway, you can't coerce taste; fairness is not a doctrine to be enforced, but a choice to be made, a responsibility to be honored.

That's it for this week, but the Journal continues at our website. Log onto PBS.org and click on Bill Moyers Journal, where you can find out more about the history of talk radio and free speech and follow the debate on health care reform.

I'm Bill Moyers. See you next time.