Anyone watching C-SPAN?

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

Ok has anyone been watching C-SPAN at all today? There has been alot of mud slinging going on all day regarding immediate pull out of I-RAQ. I guess there will be a vote tonite and, the closing arguements are happening right now. Intriguing stuff.
edit: What I found uncalled for was how the representative called rep. Murtha a coward and, not ''marine'' enough. I couldn't believe she would say that to a man who served his country for 30 years and, a genuine war hero. :(

[oliegirl]

I was watching everything as it went down earlier with the lady from Ohio (I think) and her "inappropriate" comment, I thought the whole thing was ridiculous and annoying, but I guess it's pretty typical of what goes on a lot of times, but it did get pretty ugly.

[Flasch186]

Tom Osborne just rocked the house!!

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

Tom Osborne just rocked the house!!
He's aged terribly.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

Pelosi just gave an uppercut with her comment. Good and, tactful move.

[panerd]

Ok has anyone been watching C-SPAN at all today? There has been alot of mud slinging going on all day regarding immediate pull out of I-RAQ. I guess there will be a vote tonite and, the closing arguements are happening right now. Intriguing stuff.
edit: What I found uncalled for was how the representative called rep. Murtha a coward and, not ''marine'' enough. I couldn't believe she would say that to a man who served his country for 30 years and, a genuine war hero. :(

You would think a comment like this would have a huge negative impact. But I learned to be shocked by nothing when somehow a large number of voters were convinced that John Kerry's injuries from being shot while serving this country were a negative quality.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

Logically and, rhetorically the democrats are winning the arguements lets see what they vote on.

[Flasch186]

keep in mind, While I oppose the removal of troops, the Resolution being voted on is NOT what the Democrat had proposed yesterday, where he said around 6 months (which I dont agree with either)

[Buccaneer]

A representation democracy at work, for the most part. I like it. I hope what comes out of it is a planned withdrawal for next year.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

I have yet to find a copy of the resolution online. Anyone with better google skills and, eyesight than I do please post it here. thanks.

[Flasch186]

did they just pass this!?

[Galaxy]

How do you "force" a withdrawal? Doesn't the President have power, without needing Congress approval, over military decisions?

[Flasch186]

i think theyre voting on whether or not to have a vote?

[Flasch186]

I have yet to find a copy of the resolution online. Anyone with better google skills and, eyesight than I do please post it here. thanks.

apparently cspan.org

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

i think theyre voting on whether or not to have a vote?
I think its tied right now and, I think there will be another hour of debates and, then THE vote. I can't believe a big chiunk isn't even voting. I hope when or if they have a ''real'' vote they vote since the affects of a decision will impact the nation either way.

[Galaxy]

Where did this Troops withdrawal come from? I've been out of the news loop a few days (and generally don't follow politics too closely unless it's big).

[CraigSca]

I just hope they do what's popular and not what's right.

[st.cronin]

I just hope they do what's popular and not what's right.

If that's a joke, it's a funny one.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

Here is what transpired this morning between dems and, reps:

At one point in the emotional debate, Rep. Jean Schmidt, R-Ohio, told of a phone call she received from a Marine colonel.

"He asked me to send Congress a message — stay the course. He also asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message — that cowards cut and run, Marines never do," Schmidt said. Murtha is a 37-year Marine veteran.

Democrats booed and shouted her down — causing the House to come to a standstill.

[Flasch186]

here we go!!

[Flasch186]

Here is what transpired this morning between dems and, reps:

At one point in the emotional debate, Rep. Jean Schmidt, R-Ohio, told of a phone call she received from a Marine colonel.

"He asked me to send Congress a message — stay the course. He also asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message — that cowards cut and run, Marines never do," Schmidt said. Murtha is a 37-year Marine veteran.

Democrats booed and shouted her down — causing the House to come to a standstill.

it goes a little further back than that, I think :D

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

Rep. Curt Weldon! WOW! An awesome and, heart felt speech in front of congress.

[bronconick]

Murtha's pissed. It's nice to see people actually giving a crap about this and actually discussing it some, even if it's a crappy resolution going nowhere.

[Flasch186]

well its refreshing to see eventhough I disagree with him.

[st.cronin]

How do you "force" a withdrawal? Doesn't the President have power, without needing Congress approval, over military decisions?

That's true as far as I can tell, but a resolution by Congress would create massive political problems for the Executive branch. Also, there is always the possibility of a Supreme Court showdown, which at the very least would be entertaining.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

That's true as far as I can tell, but a resolution by Congress would create massive political problems for the Executive branch. Also, there is always the possibility of a Supreme Court showdown, which at the very least would be entertaining.
I havent had this much fun (or watched c-span) since the 2001-02 Presidential Election controversies. :)

[Flasch186]

thats horseshit, its not Murtha's referendum!!! The house leader said that is up to debate. BS


he got called out and had to admit it!!! that was BS...pooor leadership there.

[JonInMiddleGA]

At one point in the emotional debate, Rep. Jean Schmidt, R-Ohio, told of a phone call she received from a Marine colonel.

"He asked me to send Congress a message — stay the course. He also asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message — that cowards cut and run, Marines never do," Schmidt said.

Good for her, and for the Colonel who called her.

Democrats booed and shouted her down

Gee, now there's a friggin shock.

[Galaxy]

Good for her, and for the Colonel who called her.



Gee, now there's a friggin shock.

Pretty classless statement for her to make, regardless of the stance. Please, let me know when she knows what war is like and experiences it (as Murtha has). This is a not a pro or anti-Iraqi statement, just a statement on how pathetic our country is run with the Democrats vs. Republicans.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Pretty classless statement for her to make, regardless of the stance.

What it was was honest. And to the point. And spot on accurate.

[Flasch186]

Democracy is built on the people's right to dissent, even in times of war. While I may not agree with Murtha, his dissent is no more cowardly than it is patriotic to swim against the current and minutia that would keep any man or woman of lesser chutzpa, quiet in disregard to their or their constituents feelings. While I believe his opinion is wrong, remember that if it wasn't for dissent, the Puritans would've never gotten on the Mayflower. It is protection of opinions, freedom of speech, and the right of our people to dissent without fear of repurcussion that we are fighting for anyways. Good for him, for speaking his mind, should HIS bill ever come up for a vote, not this Republican laff-a-bill, I hope it is shot down promptly after debate.

[Dutch]

I haven't watched C-SPAN, but these quotes may be relevant.

http://media1.streamtoyou.com/rnc/111505.wmv

[Flasch186]

I haven't watched C-SPAN, but these quotes may be relevant.

http://media1.streamtoyou.com/rnc/111505.wmv

no doubt. We all believed it, so we hit them up with inspections. Low and behold they worked. He didnt and couldnt rebuild those WMD's. Whew, glad they worked so next time we can use them again before going.....oh wait.

BTW, I knew you couldnt see the forest. No wonder youre so consistent, I take pride in the fact that I am not. try it some time.

[ISiddiqui]

his dissent is no more cowardly than it is patriotic to swim against the current and minutia that would keep any man or woman of lesser chutzpa, quiet in disregard to their or their constituents feelings.No, didn't you hear? It is now cowardly and unpatriotic to disagree with the President in any way... of course this doesn't apply if there is a Democrat sitting as President.

And heaven forbid you actually fought for the US and then disagree with the President... then you are even bigger of a traitor (unless the President was Clinton or some other Dem, of course).

[Anthony]

so if Murtha is now considered a coward - but is an actual war vet...what does that make our President then, who got as close to combat as i want to get close to contracting an STD.

[Desnudo]

I just hope they do what's popular and not what's right.

You mean like you're supposed to do in a democracy? :p

[Glengoyne]

You mean like you're supposed to do in a democracy? :p
The United States is a Republic and a Representative Democracy. It is the Representative bit that ultimately means that what those representatives believe is right wins out over what the masses believe is popular.

[Glengoyne]

Pelosi just gave an uppercut with her comment. Good and, tactful move.
I didn't see it, but I doubt it. Pelosi is rarely tactful.

[Glengoyne]

You would think a comment like this would have a huge negative impact. But I learned to be shocked by nothing when somehow a large number of voters were convinced that John Kerry's injuries from being shot while serving this country were a negative quality. Hey, for years I felt like he was a genuine war hero. Three Purple Hearts, you're damn right he's a hero. He's even carrying around a piece of shrapnel, from one of those wounds. I recall when he was shouted down as a coward for an anti-war position when he showed up at a rally somewhere. I thought it was pretty unconscionable at the time(I still do), regardless of what he did when he returned from Vietnam or whatever his current position was.

Then I actually read about his injuries. Not what the Swift Boat Captains for truth said....They really didn't have much ground to stand on. It was what he released in response to those guys. The actual depictions of the combat actions where he was injured. Twice he received abrasions that were treated without stitches. Those abrasions were, as I recall, directly from shrapnel. The third Purple Heart came from a contusion received when the concussion of another boat hitting a mine knocked him down on his boat. The shrapnel he carries around isn't actually related to a purple heart. He got it when he didn't get in good enough cover after dropping one of his own grenades in a grain/rice store. I can't recall if that wound even required stitches, but the decision to leave the shrapnel in his ass was based on the fact that the surgery to remove it would have been worse than the wound itself. So yeah three purple hearts, and he was essentially never admitted to a hospital. He was an out-patient.

I didn't even realize you could get a Purple Heart for those types of injuries, but he filed the paper work for each one. I don't fault him for that. I would have done the same thing if I were in his shoes. "Heck three of these things, and I've done my time. I'm outta here." The deal is, it really isn't a very heroic attitude. I understand it, and probably would have done it myself, but the fact that he got out as soon as he possibly could drops him a few notches on the "hero" scale.

In other words, it wasn't that he served his country and was injured that some counted against him. It was that he got out of country as expediently as possible after collecting what essentially amounted to two scrapes and a bruise.

[oykib]

Kerry's Purple Hearts were just so much bullshit, really. But at least he wasn't a draft dodger. Now, just like with Kerry and the Purple Hearts, I don't fault Bush and most of his cronies from for dodging. I do fault his and their lack of humility regarding it.

I have a problem with him sending attack ads out on the quality of the service of his opponent-- who did actually serve. I think that shows a lack of character that I think is important. What choices people made in life and death situations when they were twenty aren't as important to me as how they represent them now.

I was disgusted with Kerry for the gutlessness he showed when confronted with such a shaky attack. I don't need a gutless President.

I was just as disgusted with Bush for making those attacks.

[CraigSca]

The United States is a Republic and a Representative Democracy. It is the Representative bit that ultimately means that what those representatives believe is right wins out over what the masses believe is popular.
Ding, ding, ding! If the politicians followed what the fickle public wanted 100% of the time we'd be in a heck of a lot of trouble.

Americans: "Save social security! Hands off social security! "More SUVs, I wanna feel safe!" "Where the hell are my fuel efficient cars?!" etc., etc.

You know, we as a whole really dislike our politicians, but I sometimes think that they have to dislike the public almost as much. It seems every 10 minutes we change our minds and play Monday morning quarterback with every decision they make. I realize it's human nature to do so, but the pols must be thinking, "jebus, Mr. and Mrs. Smith, make up your damn minds!"

[JonInMiddleGA]

It seems every 10 minutes we change our minds and play Monday morning quarterback with every decision they make.

"People generally get the kind of government they deserve."
Alexis de Tocqueville

[Dutch]

no doubt. We all believed it, so we hit them up with inspections. Low and behold they worked. He didnt and couldnt rebuild those WMD's. Whew, glad they worked so next time we can use them again before going.....oh wait.

Those inspections were run for 4 or 5 years under President Clinton and came to the same conclusion - that UN inspectors can only inspect what they have in front of them and are not WMD hunters. Saddam Hussein played the the same "cat and mouse" games then that he did in 2002. If it was the same intelligence that flawed Clinton, where was the Intel Reform in 1995 when Clinton launched Desert Fox instead of applying for the removal of Sanctions?

The bottom line remains that we are wiser now because of the invasion, not in spite of it. Does that mean there wasn't a problem or that problems can be solved by invading and "finding out"? Hell no. We need to reform our intelligence services so they are able to get the facts and the truth. But talking Intel Reform is a good game. But how do we make our Intelligence Community better? How do we make it stronger? How do we make it effective?

But in any event, while Saddam Hussein and his 5-7 year plan to acquire a nuclear device after the fall of UN Sanctions is only a "what if" scenario. Lot's of people came to that conclusion that is was more possible than a lot of other "what if" scenario's. Lot's of senators on the Intelligence Committee believed that Saddam was 5-7 years away, lots of Presidents, foreign nations, Republicans, Democrats, me and you believed it, hell prior to Bush winning election in 2000, I'll even bet Michael Moore believed it. But guess what, if by hook or by crook, the answer now is unequivocally--no. Saddam Hussein will not be building that nuclear bomb. That's because President Bush made a big decision as our President. He didn't do it for free gasoline, the Michael Moore and the Democrats need to stop bullshitting us with that nonsense.

[SFL Cat]

Good stuff, Dutch.

[Flasch186]

Those inspections were run for 4 or 5 years under President Clinton and came to the same conclusion - that UN inspectors can only inspect what they have in front of them and are not WMD hunters. Saddam Hussein played the the same "cat and mouse" games then that he did in 2002. If it was the same intelligence that flawed Clinton, where was the Intel Reform in 1995 when Clinton launched Desert Fox instead of applying for the removal of Sanctions?

The bottom line remains that we are wiser now because of the invasion, not in spite of it. Does that mean there wasn't a problem or that problems can be solved by invading and "finding out"? Hell no. We need to reform our intelligence services so they are able to get the facts and the truth. But talking Intel Reform is a good game. But how do we make our Intelligence Community better? How do we make it stronger? How do we make it effective?

But in any event, while Saddam Hussein and his 5-7 year plan to acquire a nuclear device after the fall of UN Sanctions is only a "what if" scenario. Lot's of people came to that conclusion that is was more possible than a lot of other "what if" scenario's. Lot's of senators on the Intelligence Committee believed that Saddam was 5-7 years away, lots of Presidents, foreign nations, Republicans, Democrats, me and you believed it, hell prior to Bush winning election in 2000, I'll even bet Michael Moore believed it. But guess what, if by hook or by crook, the answer now is unequivocally--no. Saddam Hussein will not be building that nuclear bomb. That's because President Bush made a big decision as our President. He didn't do it for free gasoline, the Michael Moore and the Democrats need to stop bullshitting us with that nonsense.


I was for the war, still am. I dont believe it was for free oil (thats just silly - and when I hear callers recite that crap I worry about their intelligence). However, I belive it is ok, to admit a mistake. I also believe it is ok, to adapt to changing situations. For example, I think MORe troops are necessary to expedite the cleansing process of Iraq so that eventually we can leave.

The weopans inspectors also reiterated that they had no evidence throughout that process that Saddam was able to act upon his desires and reconstitute any programs. "Cat and Mouse" sure but with the little evidence we had during that time, and the express evidence we got just before the bombs dropped, and the lack of evidence the Germans and French warned us about, "I Am Not Convinced!"....should have given us pause, on those grounds. I think we should've gone in and gotten Saddam out for Genocide, and I was gung ho just on that alone. A little more time would've gone a long way.

Now I think we need more troops, and more rebuilding officials.

With me its all about honesty. Lie to me and I will thrash you.

Last night, the Speaker of the House, when asked to clarify what bill they were debating. That it was NOT the democratic bill, but a Republican bill, the Speaker said that THAT is up for debate. He WAS LYING!!! It was the absolute Moral low point of the entire night, for me. It was NOT up for debate, it was factual and for him to say that exposedhis partisanship, his skewed vision, and his willingness to lie. I thought that THAT was despicable.

[Dutch]

Now I think we need more troops, and more rebuilding officials.

I'm sure that will go over great with everybody. How would the AP or Reuters article read, I wonder...

[Flasch186]

I'm sure that will go over great with everybody. How would the AP or Reuters article read, I wonder...

Didnt cross my mind because to me, you have to do what is required to get the job done. The current troop levels and policy building apparatus is not at a level wherein, I feel, the job can be done at the fastest pace possible w/o sacrificing quality. Therefore, I agree with McCain. I dont care how the newspapers write it...it is the right thing to do.

care to comment on the Republican speakers ass showing last night? I certainly hope you'll agree that it was a horrible comment he made.

[Dutch]

Didnt cross my mind because to me, you have to do what is required to get the job done.

I agree.

The current troop levels and policy building apparatus is not at a level wherein, I feel, the job can be done at the fastest pace possible w/o sacrificing quality. Therefore, I agree with McCain.

President Bush and Donald Rumsfeld take their advice directly about trooop levels directly from the field commanders. You know, the guys that are there and the guys that actually have to rotate in and out of theatre.

I dont care how the newspapers write it...it is the right thing to do.

I wish they would write it with both sides of the coin being represented fairly.

care to comment on the Republican speakers ass showing last night? I certainly hope you'll agree that it was a horrible comment he made.

I didn't watch it. I rarely watch C-SPAN. (I don't have a TV near my computer.)

[Flasch186]

President Bush and Donald Rumsfeld take their advice directly about trooop levels directly from the field commanders. You know, the guys that are there and the guys that actually have to rotate in and out of theatre.




Well, this administration is not known for taking advice or information well that doesn't fit exactly into their plan. This plays right into what the Dem. was saying was that, the Generals are saying one thing behind closed doors and another thing to their bosses, etc.

[Flasch186]

I didn't watch it. I rarely watch C-SPAN. (I don't have a TV near my computer.)

It was a lie, that was there for everyone to see. the place exploded and when he saw that it wasn't going to die down he had to coalesce and admit that it was not a Dem. bill but the republican one. It was explosive.

[Dutch]

Well, this administration is not known for taking advice or information well that doesn't fit exactly into their plan. This plays right into what the Dem. was saying was that, the Generals are saying one thing behind closed doors and another thing to their bosses, etc.

I don't think the generals are saying we need more troops. But maybe we could form a second American Army in spite of them, make it from remnants of the anti-Bush crowd after they scream with glee that we are doubling our forces in theater and no doubt start volunteering in droves.

[Chubby]

I don't think the generals are saying we need more troops. But maybe we could form a second American Army in spite of them, make it from remnants of the anti-Bush crowd after they scream with glee that we are doubling our forces in theater and no doubt start volunteering in droves.
See I would have thought that all pro-Bushers who have had a hardon for the war since before it started would have signed up to be overseas so there would be no shortage of soldiers and certainly no need to send people back for their 3rd and 4th tours but obviously that didn't happen. "We want war but uhhh I'm not going" seems to be pro-Bush side's mantra...

[Dutch]

See I would have thought that all pro-Bushers who have had a hardon for the war since before it started would have signed up to be overseas so there would be no shortage of soldiers and certainly no need to send people back for their 3rd and 4th tours but obviously that didn't happen. "We want war but uhhh I'm not going" seems to be pro-Bush side's mantra...

Since you forget, I was in Turkey supporing Operation Northern Watch and Iraqi Freedom and while I am currently in a unit that does not deploy (my slot anyway), my next assignment in Germany will more than likely have me heading over on deployment. Back in the day I supported Operation Southern Watch from Saudi Arabia.

Although I don't want to be confused with front line troops like the Army and Marines, the Air Force is learning new tricks including escort and guard duties.

But anyway, if troops levels are doubled, I would welcome your direct support.

[Chubby]

Since you forget, I was in Turkey supporing Operation Northern Watch and Iraqi Freedom and while I am currently in a unit that does not deploy (my slot anyway), my next assignment in Germany will more than likely have me heading over on deployment. Back in the day I supported Operation Southern Watch from Saudi Arabia.

Although I don't want to be confused with front line troops like the Army and Marines, the Air Force is learning new tricks including escort and guard duties.

But anyway, if troops levels are doubled, I would welcome your direct support.
There's a difference, I don't support the war and I never have. As I said, i don't see all the people yelling "YAY WAR!" jumping into recruiting tents since if they were, I doubt people would be getting sent over as many times as they are and we wouldn't hear about recruitment being down.

Wow, in Turkey? Germany? Can you possibly get farther away from the action? Must be guarding some valuable stuff in Germany :rolleyes: Big difference in being in Iraq/Afghan (not just front line but support there is far more dangerous as far as I can tell) and being in some other foreign country supporting from afar. Not to say that the support isn't needed but it's nowhere near the same thing. If you are so gungho about the war why haven't you gone to Iraq? Perhaps, you just want to be away from the action...

[Dutch]

There's a difference, I don't support the war and I never have. As I said, i don't see all the people yelling "YAY WAR!" jumping into recruiting tents since if they were, I doubt people would be getting sent over as many times as they are and we wouldn't hear about recruitment being down.

Wow, in Turkey? Germany? Can you possibly get farther away from the action? Must be guarding some valuable stuff in Germany :rolleyes: Big difference in being in Iraq/Afghan (not just front line but support there is far more dangerous as far as I can tell) and being in some other foreign country supporting from afar. Not to say that the support isn't needed but it's nowhere near the same thing. If you are so gungho about the war why haven't you gone to Iraq? Perhaps, you just want to be away from the action...

Thanks for that. I do want to be away from the action, that's why I joined the Air Force. But like I said, you still need to have people like me to help support those front line guys. You can join up and be a rear-echeolon comm troop yourself. But regardless, I've been in support roles enough to see buildings I was in bombed (Khobar Towers, a month after I left it) close enough to hear terror bombs going off in downtown Ankara at their justice department. I once had to search for my wife after she went shopping in downtown Ankara only to have a bomb go off in a coffee house in the exact same district she was in. One unidentified woman died and my wife was the only American the security forces could not make contact with for two-hours (her cell phone had simply been turned off), We had my apartment surveyed by Iraqi Intel Forces, my car was checked for bombs leaving our compound and also everytime we would go home. I've been close enough, enough to feel the fear anyway.

But I wasn't just there for no good reason. I did a lot of great work that I am proud of that increased the time Naval Task Forces in the Med could identify and interdict suspected shipping vessels. GWOT stuff.

Don't get me wrong, I haven't made the same sacrifices as the troops that are in Iraq and I've had plenty of good times in Turkey. But I want to at least think I've helped and done my part. And that is nothing that you should tell me I should be ashamed of.

[JonInMiddleGA]

And that is nothing that you should tell me I should be ashamed of.

Just consider the source & forget about it.

[st.cronin]

There's a difference, I don't support the war and I never have. As I said, i don't see all the people yelling "YAY WAR!" jumping into recruiting tents since if they were, I doubt people would be getting sent over as many times as they are and we wouldn't hear about recruitment being down.

Wow, in Turkey? Germany? Can you possibly get farther away from the action? Must be guarding some valuable stuff in Germany :rolleyes: Big difference in being in Iraq/Afghan (not just front line but support there is far more dangerous as far as I can tell) and being in some other foreign country supporting from afar. Not to say that the support isn't needed but it's nowhere near the same thing. If you are so gungho about the war why haven't you gone to Iraq? Perhaps, you just want to be away from the action...

Do you have any idea how stupid that post makes you look?

[Flasch186]

I don't think the generals are saying we need more troops. But maybe we could form a second American Army in spite of them, make it from remnants of the anti-Bush crowd after they scream with glee that we are doubling our forces in theater and no doubt start volunteering in droves.


LOL Have you heard it specifically from them to your face? If not, how can you believe it!! LOL if it goes one way, buy it, if it doesn't burn it...even though its the same. LOL

[Flasch186]

Since you forget, I was in Turkey supporing Operation Northern Watch and Iraqi Freedom and while I am currently in a unit that does not deploy (my slot anyway), my next assignment in Germany will more than likely have me heading over on deployment. Back in the day I supported Operation Southern Watch from Saudi Arabia.

Although I don't want to be confused with front line troops like the Army and Marines, the Air Force is learning new tricks including escort and guard duties.

But anyway, if troops levels are doubled, I would welcome your direct support.


I would not question your patriotism for being a professional soldier and I appreciate your sacrifices and opinion, and never have made light of that fact (although once you interpreted it as so). Please dont question my patriotism for not being a professional soldier and having a different opinion, I support the troops the best I can. This is not Red Dawn.

[MrBigglesworth]

I have yet to find a copy of the resolution online. Anyone with better google skills and, eyesight than I do please post it here. thanks.
This was a Republican political ploy that backfired. They took Murtha's resolution:
Whereas Congress and the American People have not been shown clear, measurable progress toward establishment of stable and improving security in Iraq or of a stable and improving economy in Iraq, both of which are essential to "promote the emergence of a democratic government";

Whereas additional stabilization in Iraq by U, S. military forces cannot be achieved without the deployment of hundreds of thousands of additional U S. troops, which in turn cannot be achieved without a military draft;

Whereas more than $277 billion has been appropriated by the United States Congress to prosecute U.S. military action in Iraq and Afghanistan;

Whereas, as of the drafting of this resolution, 2,079 U.S. troops have been killed in Operation Iraqi Freedom;

Whereas U.S. forces have become the target of the insurgency,

Whereas, according to recent polls, over 80% of the Iraqi people want U.S. forces out of Iraq;

Whereas polls also indicate that 45% of the Iraqi people feel that the attacks on U.S. forces are justified;

Whereas, due to the foregoing, Congress finds it evident that continuing U.S. military action in Iraq is not in the best interests of the United States of America, the people of Iraq, or the Persian Gulf Region, which were cited in Public Law 107-243 as justification for undertaking such action;

Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That:

Section 1. The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated and the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date.

Section 2. A quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S Marines shall be deployed in the region.

Section 3 The United States of America shall pursue security and stability in Iraq through diplomacy.
And rewrote it thusly:
RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that
the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately.

Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces
in Iraq be terminated immediately.
Astute observers will notice some differences. Yes, the GOP called the second the 'Murtha Resolution' and the 'Democrats resolution'. The GOP attempted to divide the Democrats on the question of pulling out of Iraq, but it backfired and the Dems were unified against it. The only tangible thing that happened was a freshman congresswoman needing to strike her comments from the record after calling Murtha a coward. Classy.

[MrBigglesworth]

What it was was honest. And to the point. And spot on accurate.
I don't see the connection. How are Murtha's comments cowardly? He isn't over there fighting. His life isn't on the line. He'll be fine if the war ends tomorrow or ten years from now.

Edit: Is this guy a coward too?

The top U.S. commander in Iraq has submitted a plan to the Pentagon for withdrawing troops in Iraq, according to a senior defense official.

Gen. George Casey submitted the plan to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. It includes numerous options and recommends that brigades -- usually made up of about 2,000 soldiers each -- begin pulling out of Iraq early next year.

[Galaxy]

I don't see the connection. How are Murtha's comments cowardly? He isn't over there fighting. His life isn't on the line. He'll be fine if the war ends tomorrow or ten years from now.

This is what I do not get. If the woman feels so strongly about the war, then she should join, not calling other people cowards, escp. to one who HAS served and knows what war is like.

[JonInMiddleGA]

If the woman feels so strongly about the war, then she should join, not calling other people cowards, escp. to one who HAS served and knows what war is like.

Just because someone HAS served doesn't mean that they've retained their courage, their judgement, or their intellect.

Still, as far as I can tell, he's not so much a coward as he is a damned fool ... but that seems to be a celebrated quality these days.

[MrBigglesworth]

Still, as far as I can tell, he's not so much a coward as he is a damned fool ... but that seems to be a celebrated quality these days.
Just look at the President.

/thanks for the set-up!

[Dutch]

Please dont question my patriotism for not being a professional soldier and having a different opinion

I never have, Flasch.

[Flasch186]

I never have, Flasch.

IMO, which as always could be wrong, your insinuation is that one cannot speak out in support/be against the war unless he or she is willing to sign up for said war and that this is a reflection of one's patriotism. While what I got from that could be wrong, it is an easy comment to insinuate when in such an emotional debate, and one that can be easily forgiven by people like me. If you didnt insinuate that from "direct support" than thats cool.

[ISiddiqui]

Just look at the President.

/thanks for the set-up!LOL! That was nice :D.

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

I wonder what historians will think of early 21st century America 100-200 years from now? Though against immediate pull out I respect rep. Murtha and, his questioning of the planning or lack thereof of any long term plans in I-RAQ.

[Dutch]

IMO, which as always could be wrong, your insinuation is that one cannot speak out in support/be against the war unless he or she is willing to sign up for said war and that this is a reflection of one's patriotism.

If you got that insinuation from me, I'm sorry. I have always supported getting ALL the facts and ALL the opinions. I am vehemently opposed to silencing anybody.

While what I got from that could be wrong, it is an easy comment to insinuate when in such an emotional debate, and one that can be easily forgiven by people like me. If you didnt insinuate that from "direct support" than thats cool.

And by "direct support", that was for Chubby not you. It would be eye-opening for him, if he chose to do so. There are plenty of Democrats in the armed services, but not so many far left wingers.

[JPhillips]

So what are the war shouters going to do next year?

The way I see it we will start some sort of pullout early to mid 2006 which will get us down to at least half our current strength by the year's end. This will be in part because we are failing so miserably in recruiting that we can't continue at current strength without a draft, and that isn't happening. It will also be needed to try to hold on to Rep. majorities in congress. The President really doesn't have any popular policies up his sleeve and the only big gun the party has is to neutralize the Iraq war. Without another large scale terrorist attack its the only way the Reps. can be resonably sure of holding onto congress.

I predict an announcement at the State of the Union that now that Iraq has held elections our work is nearing completion. We've won and now we can start to come home. A complete timetable won't be announced, but the first troops will come home no later than July and since they won't be in coffins Bush will be there to greet them.

When that happens will you call Bush a traitor? Will an extra two months really make that big a difference?

[Dutch]

So what are the war shouters going to do next year?

The way I see it we will start some sort of pullout early to mid 2006 which will get us down to at least half our current strength by the year's end. This will be in part because we are failing so miserably in recruiting that we can't continue at current strength without a draft, and that isn't happening. It will also be needed to try to hold on to Rep. majorities in congress. The President really doesn't have any popular policies up his sleeve and the only big gun the party has is to neutralize the Iraq war. Without another large scale terrorist attack its the only way the Reps. can be resonably sure of holding onto congress.

I predict an announcement at the State of the Union that now that Iraq has held elections our work is nearing completion. We've won and now we can start to come home. A complete timetable won't be announced, but the first troops will come home no later than July and since they won't be in coffins Bush will be there to greet them.

When that happens will you call Bush a traitor? Will an extra two months really make that big a difference?

Again, this is why I insist the media give both sides of the story.

[Flasch186]

they do, youve got AP and Reuters (written) and CNN...IYO representing the left

and WSJ and NYT (written) and FOXNEWS...IMO representing the right


Seems equal to me.

[st.cronin]

I'm a little bit suspicious of the 'recruiting problems' stories we keep hearing about. I saw a story a month or so back saying that the armed forces have already exceeded their RETENTION goals for the year, and I know about 1/2 dozen recruiters around the country - all of them have told me the stories are overblown.

[JPhillips]

What I have read shows that overall recruiting is under goals, but it isn't terrible. The real problem apparently is specific jobs that aren't getting filled. Special forces, translators and some other jobs are a third or more under goal. We can't keep up like that for very long.

But even if recruiting is solid we can't maintain this for much longer without changes in personnel structure. The guard and reserve are close to the breaking point according to the military and we can't stay deployed without them. We also are severely stretched right now and our ability to deal with a crisis is limited. How long can we afford to be "all Iraq" with little resources to spare if something unexpected occurred?

According to reports a withdrawal plan has already been submitted to Rumsfeld and the British are likely to start leaving in 2006. We can't cover their responsibilities so we either declare the south won and the rest not won or we join them. Really shortly after the elections may be our last time to leave on our timetable. What other event will signal that we've done our job? If we don't start leaving after the elections when can we without appearing to be cutting and running? We can't count on things ever getting completely stable and we certainly don't want to drift away ala Vietnam with no doubt that we're really just too tired to continue.

I will be shocked if these December elections don't lead to a phased pull-back. If they don't we're in for even deeper problems than we have now.

[st.cronin]

What I have read shows that overall recruiting is under goals, but it isn't terrible. The real problem apparently is specific jobs that aren't getting filled. Special forces, translators and some other jobs are a third or more under goal.

Special Forces has routinely been only 1/2 to 3/4 filled regardless of what the overall recruiting picture looks like. I served in Special Forces when the military was being downsized, and my unit was never at more than 1/2 capacity. I believe translators is a similiar situation.

[Dutch]

they do, youve got AP and Reuters (written) and CNN...IYO representing the left

and WSJ and NYT (written) and FOXNEWS...IMO representing the right


Seems equal to me.

ABC, CBS, and NBC are very anti-Bush.

Most major newspapers cater to their Democratic base, I suppose they have to do that. I'm not sure who reads the WSJ. I wonder how many people have access to the WSJ compared to say....the AP or Reuters?

The NYT's is a right-wing rag? That's news to me. I've got a book that has major NYT headlines from the past 100 years. The majority of the pages over the last 20 or 30 years are not what I would consider slanted right.

Actually, the following link shows research done on the NYT photo bias. It was done during the run-up to the election in the New England version of the NYT. Doesn't seem very right wing either, it's actually, it's kind of an interesting look at bias. (I admit I love thinking about shit like this.) Check it out. I have no idea what this site is about, I just stumbled across it doing a Yahoo! search last week.

http://www.velocityassociates.net/pages/Bushkerry.php

[Dutch]

Special Forces has routinely been only 1/2 to 3/4 filled regardless of what the overall recruiting picture looks like. I served in Special Forces when the military was being downsized, and my unit was never at more than 1/2 capacity. I believe translators is a similiar situation.

Translators, especially Arab linguists in today's world. The problem is finding people that can speak Arabic AND can manage a security clearance. No easy task. The choice then to to train people to speak Arabic, but that's a bitch because most of the terrorists use dialects (purposefully). It's not easy to get people in those slots.

[MrBigglesworth]

ABC, CBS, and NBC are very anti-Bush.
Actually, if that is your opinion, a more fair and balanced way to state it would be that they 'reflect the general view of the population'.

[Flasch186]

Actually, if that is your opinion, a more fair and balanced way to state it would be that they 'reflect the general view of the population'.

Considering poll numbers, that is not an inaccurate statement. One may say that, in general, news tends to be sensational and negative and, by luck of timing right now, "Anti Bush". However if a democrat were in office, I believe, the news would read the same and the dems. would be bitching too.

Dutch, I firmly believe that you can find the news youre looking for. You just have to turn to the right channel. Fox NEws has had many news items exposed as being popularized by the Republican party, whether true or not...I dont ask them to shut down. However to try and say that MOST news is "anti Bush" is ridonkulous. I smell a thread hijack anyways. The fact of the matter is:


Murtha made his opinion known.

Murtha stating that is no less patriotic or supporting of the troops than anyone else.

The republican senator, to her lack of experience, made a mistake. She is forgiven.

The resolution was a Republican political ploy intended to split the dems.

The vote showed that it didnt work in that regard.

The Speaker of the house lied on television (my Sensitivity)

The vote showed that the House does not want the troops pulled out immediately (Republican resoultion)

The vote did not reflect whether or not the house wants a timeline or gameplan (whether or not they do or dont was not shown by this resolution).

[Dutch]

Considering poll numbers, that is not an inaccurate statement. One may say that, in general, news tends to be sensational and negative and, by luck of timing right now, "Anti Bush". However if a democrat were in office, I believe, the news would read the same and the dems. would be bitching too.

If the news media is reflective of the general population, then why didn't Kerry win in 2004?

Here is the Center of Media and Public Affiars (CMPA) findings about the coverage provided by ABC, CBS, and NBC from September 7 to November 22 of 2004. It's an evaluation of 828 sound bites by sources and reporters and the analysis is done by CMPA and the study is a continuation of studies done by George Washington Researchers that developed this analysis during the 1980 and 1984 campaigns.

1. John Kerry - 58% positive evaluations vs 42% negative. According to this study, that's the best press any candidate has received since the study began in 1980.

2. George Bush - 36% positive evaluations vs 64% negative in the same period.

3. October Surprise? - Kerry received 77% positive evaluations in October '04 vs 34% for Bush.

4. Before John Kerry, the record holder for most positive press was Walter Mondale with 56% positive press (While Reagan in the same year received only 9% positive press). Incumbents don't always find themselves on the short end of the stick. In 1996, President Clinton received 50% positive compared to just 33% for Dole.

5. In the past 7 elections, the Democratic candidate has gotten significantly better press in four elections (Kerry, Clinton 92 and 96, and Mondale) while only Bush Sr (over Dukakis) received a higher press rating as a Republican. Bush/Gore and Carter/Reagan were considered even/fair press in 2000 and 1980 repsectively.

6. Majority is negative: 10 out of the 14 primary candiates have received primarily negative press, including all seven Republican candidates.

http://www.cmpa.com/documents/04.10.29.Kerry.Final.pdf

[Flasch186]

If the news media is reflective of the general population, then why didn't Kerry win in 2004?



Fear...remember the Bush campaign ad with the wolves in it, ready to prey on a weakened America. Vote for Kerry and you'll weaken America....and more. "Kerry voted to raise taxes" ~300 plus times. This counted a "NO" vote on the same bill multiple times, for each line itme that wouldve been reduced or increased...and the same bills that were unanimously (or close thereof) rejected by everyone. While not necessarily a blatant lie, perception or inferences DO exist and the spin geniuses and marketers know this...

The RNC had Zell Miller on stage to ream and ridicule Kerry on Live TV. unfortunately what most people didnt get to see, was the Zell Miller introduced Kerry at a convention in Georgia just a few years earlier as "a true hero" and "someone he is proud to introduce" and more accolades. All of this post 9/11 so he cant say, epiphany. He can say, changed mind, convinced otherwise, or lying.

Smear...The Swift Boat lies coupled with the Kerry camp's zombie like responses to them. BTW, the leadership of the Swift Boat group is linked with PAC's for indicted DeLay.

Queer...In many toss up states mailouts were sent that said that if Kerry were elected the bible would be banned and Gay Marriage would become a cornerstone of that community. Also, sprinkle in Rove's genius in pushing the churches to come out and vote against Gay Marriage ammendments. Little known is that many preachers used politics from the pulpit, a federal statute says if this occurs, that church would lose its Federal Tax exemption....that hasnt happened yet.

Those are just a few boiled down reasons (taken from Franken's book) but they existed and that is not rewriting history. That is factual stuff.




Ive already exhausted my explanation about the ADD America and the ability for the Republicans to boild their message down to a snippet. May be untrue in that snippet, ie. Iraq and Al Qaeda are linked prior to the invasion., but effective nonetheless (Cheney apologized the next day after the debate - but not on Live TV). The DNC's was unable to boil their message down and it became to long to explain as compared to the ease in which the RNC was able to do this.

[Dutch]

So then the news media being reflective of the population is inaccurate?

[Flasch186]

So then the news media being reflective of the population is inaccurate?

accurate only specifically today in that the majority of Americans feel it was a mistake to go to war (in hindsight) and the news media is exposing and exploiting the news regarding that matter. Keep in mind, I dont agree with their sentiment. I was and am for the war in Iraq.

News media can easily be manipulated AND I was not necessarily being specific to only NEWS in my statements. That included Advertisments, debates, speeches, etc. So I guess, I was only Specifically answering your question as a vanilla, "Why did Bush win?" sorry

EDIT to add: PLUS I hope youre not drawing a correlation between those that voted for Bush and those who are supporting the War in Iraq. People are alloowed to change their minds, evolve, adapt, Flip Flop, per se. So I hope youre not saying that a voice against the war is contradictory to a vote for Bush in the last election.

[Dutch]

accurate only specifically today in that the majority of Americans feel it was a mistake to go to war (in hindsight) and the news media is exposing and exploiting the news regarding that matter. Keep in mind, I dont agree with their sentiment.

How much of their opinion is based on the news coverage? Lots of bad press about Republicans, lots of bad press about Buhs, lots of bad press about "The Resistance fighting off US Troops and Iraqi Nationals" (i.e. Terrorists IED and Suicide Bombers).

Is the press attempting to mimick society or is the press attempting to manipulate society? The use of Mass Media to change peoples minds is as old as the Nazi Empire. That is why a Free Press is so important. But a free press isn't simply to be used against the government or worse yet, against one political party/endorsed by another. That's not it's purpose. It's purpose, as protected by the US Constitution is to tell us the truth. The whole truth. Sensationalism was never the goal of constitutional protection. For instance, if Cheney says he wants to torture people, by God, I want the press to tell me where he said that. Give me both sides of the story so I can be the judge. Don't leave me out of the process. The press needs to give all of us a chance to make our decisions about things. I don't want the press to tell me what they think, but what they know.

Who should we trust the most as moderates? It should be the Associated Press, Reuters, ABC, NBC, CBS and our city newspapers. But all of those respected institutions are strong endorsers of the Democratic party and have been for a long, long time. I doubt it will ever change, but I see no reason why people should not, at the very least, be aware of it.

I was and am for the war in Iraq.

And I was and am against the war. I simply saw and see no other course of action.

[Flasch186]

How much of their opinion is based on the news coverage? Lots of bad press about Republicans, lots of bad press about Buhs, lots of bad press about "The Resistance fighting off US Troops and Iraqi Nationals" (i.e. Terrorists IED and Suicide Bombers).

Is the press attempting to mimick society or is the press attempting to manipulate society? The use of Mass Media to change peoples minds is as old as the Nazi Empire. That is why a Free Press is so important. But a free press isn't simply to be used against the government or worse yet, against one political party/endorsed by another. That's not it's purpose. It's purpose, as protected by the US Constitution is to tell us the truth. The whole truth. Sensationalism was never the goal of constitutional protection. For instance, if Cheney says he wants to torture people, by God, I want the press to tell me where he said that. Give me both sides of the story so I can be the judge. Don't leave me out of the process. The press needs to give all of us a chance to make our decisions about things. I don't want the press to tell me what they think, but what they know.

Who should we trust the most as moderates? It should be the Associated Press, Reuters, ABC, NBC, CBS and our city newspapers. But all of those respected institutions are strong endorsers of the Democratic party and have been for a long, long time. I doubt it will ever change, but I see no reason why people should not, at the very least, be aware of it.



And I was and am against the war. I simply saw and see no other course of action.



deleted it all to say

I agree and disagree, the press IMO does shell it out equally to both sides, BUT slanted towards what is sensational and gets ratings. I believe it is a truth, and is not the cause of societies feelings but an expression of them. I venture to guess that you felt the same as I do, but with a different color in Congress and in the White House.

I DO NOT believe that for the most part the PRESS as whole supports the left. ITs just not true. Ask Rush....Or Bill, or Sean, or Fox News. Books, the Coultures, etc. Its even, BUT the sensational is what grabs time.

[Dutch]

deleted it all to say

I agree and disagree, the press IMO does shell it out equally to both sides, BUT slanted towards what is sensational and gets ratings. I believe it is a truth, and is not the cause of societies feelings but an expression of them. I venture to guess that you felt the same as I do, but with a different color in Congress and in the White House.

I DO NOT believe that for the most part the PRESS as whole supports the left. ITs just not true. Ask Rush....Or Bill, or Sean, or Fox News. Books, the Coultures, etc. Its even, BUT the sensational is what grabs time.

You keep coming back to FoxNews. Your entire definition of "equal balance" is one news station on channel 360? (On direct TV it is).

Just this week a girl at work says she watches TV by starting on channel 2 and going up until she finds something she likes. I bet she doesn't get a lot of FoxNews. :)

Rush Limbaugh? You consider him a respectable news source like the AP and Reuters? I don't. He's a right-wing hack, not a provider of news. He's no better than Michael Moore. Of course, now that we mention that, Michael Moore wins awards for his crap and gets exclusive interviews on CNN while Rush is well.....fairly called a political hack.

[Flasch186]

You keep coming back to FoxNews. Your entire definition of "equal balance" is one news station on channel 360? (On direct TV it is).

Just this week a girl at work says she watches TV by starting on channel 2 and going up until she finds something she likes. I bet she doesn't get a lot of FoxNews. :)

Jeez, well I guess you can only have one channel on one channel. If CNN were 300 and FoxNEws 301, I guess people would have something to bitch about too. Im sorry If I find that ridiculous....how about people who press up on the controller. Thats just silly.

Rush Limbaugh? You consider him a respectable news source like the AP and Reuters? I don't. He's a right-wing hack, not a provider of news. He's no better than Michael Moore. Of course, now that we mention that, Michael Moore wins awards for his crap and gets exclusive interviews on CNN while Rush is well.....fairly called a political hack.


While Im glad to see that you dont get your news from Rush but ALOT of people do. Mostly his base, but still. Moore makes films, if something is a good documentary, no matter the topic or slant, I assume it could be up for awards. To be honest, if Rush or anyone makes a documentary from the other slant, in quality, then I would assume it could be up for some awards too. I dont get my news from Moore, but I do get my News from sources, so anyways....

[Flasch186]

Very good.


Bush Lowers Temperature of Iraq War Debate

By TERENCE HUNT, AP White House Correspondent 1 hour, 40 minutes ago

BEIJING - After fiercely defending his
Iraq policy across Asia,
President Bush abruptly toned down his attack on war critics Sunday and said there was nothing unpatriotic about opposing his strategy.

"People should feel comfortable about expressing their opinions about Iraq," Bush said, three days after agreeing with Vice President
Dick Cheney that the critics were "reprehensible."

The president also praised Rep. John Murtha (news, bio, voting record), D-Pa., as "a fine man" and a strong supporter of the military despite the congressman's call for troop withdrawal as soon as possible.

Bush brought up the growing Iraq debate when he met reporters after inconclusive talks with President
Hu Jintao about friction in U.S.-China relations. Bush ran into stiff resistance from the Chinese to his call for expanding religious freedom and human rights.

He also reported no breakthroughs toward reducing China's massive trade surplus, overhauling its currency system or protecting intellectual property rights.

The president took satisfaction simply in the fact that Hu mentioned human rights when the two leaders made joint statements to the press. "Those who watch China closely would say that maybe a decade ago, a leader wouldn't have uttered those comments," Bush said. "He talked about democracy."

Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice complained that "we've certainly not seen the progress that we would expect" on a months-old U.S. request for action by China on specific human rights cases. Bush said the U.S. had presented a list of "dissidents that we believe are unfairly imprisoned."

China was the most anticipated stop on Bush's weeklong visit, which has included Japan and
South Korea.

Bush flies home on Monday after a four-hour stop in Mongolia, the first ever by an American president. The brief visit is a reward for Mongolia's pursuit of democracy and support for the U.S. fight against terrorism.

The president packed a lot into his Beijing visit.

In a country where the practice of religion is harshly restricted, Bush worshipped at a church and complimented the preacher on her sermon. He went mountain bike-riding with six young athletes vying for spots on China's Olympic team. "How do you say, `Take it easy on the old man,'" Bush joked.

When a reporter suggested Bush had seemed unenthusiastic in his joint appearance with Hu, the president responded, "Have you ever heard of jet lag?"

Thousands of miles from home, Bush and other White House officials have not let a day go by without a tough counterattack against Democratic critics of the president's Iraq policies. But the president replaced the no-holds-barred approach with a softer tone Sunday.

"I heard somebody say, `Well, maybe so-and-so is not patriotic because they disagree with my position.' I totally reject that thought," Bush said.

"This is not an issue of who's patriotic and who's not patriotic," he said. "It's an issue of an honest, open debate about the way forward in Iraq."

The Iraq war has undercut Americans' confidence in Bush's credibility and his response to terrorism and has helped drop his approval rating to the lowest point of his presidency. Nearly 2,100 members of the U.S. military have died since the Iraq war began in March 2003.

Bush came to the defense of Murtha, the hawkish congressman who has been denounced by Republicans for advocating withdrawal. Bush's own spokesman had compared the combat-decorated Vietnam veteran to war critic-movie producer Michael Moore and suggested Murtha was counseling surrender to terrorists.

On Sunday, Bush called Murtha a "fine man and a good man."

"I know the decision to call for the immediate withdrawal of our troops by Congressman Murtha was done in a careful and thoughtful way," the president said. "I disagree with his position."

Murtha told NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday he hoped the administration would take his proposal seriously and the president would "get a few of us to the White House and talk to us about this very difficult problem which the whole nation wants to solve with a bipartisan manner."

[Galaxy]

"I know the decision to call for the immediate withdrawal of our troops by Congressman Murtha was done in a careful and thoughtful way," the president said. "I disagree with his position."


Murtha's call for immediate withdrawal?

[Flasch186]

Murtha's call for immediate withdrawal?

he's (Bush) speaking incorrectly... Its politically motivated, luckily it seems most Americans are actually astute on this particular event. The Republican Resolution called for an Immediate removal, soundly rejected. Murtha's called for the pullout to be staged and hopefully be over in 6 months, not presented as a resolution.

[Dutch]

he's (Bush) speaking incorrectly... Its politically motivated, luckily it seems most Americans are actually astute on this particular event. The Republican Resolution called for an Immediate removal, soundly rejected. Murtha's called for the pullout to be staged and hopefully be over in 6 months, not presented as a resolution.

Being well informed is a beautiful thing.

[Dutch]

Jeez, well I guess you can only have one channel on one channel. If CNN were 300 and FoxNEws 301, I guess people would have something to bitch about too. Im sorry If I find that ridiculous....how about people who press up on the controller. Thats just silly.

I was pointing out how few people actually watch FoxNews for their news vs ABC, CBS, and NBC. I'll make a trade. Let the bias be for Republicans on ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, all major newspapers, the AP, and Reuters, and you can have FoxNews. At least it will still be equal, right?

[Tekneek]

"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

-- Hermann Goering

I used to vote Republican when there was no Libertarian candidate available, but they make me sick as they continue to take the Hermann Goering stance on dealing with criticism against the Iraq operation. I would probably have a hard time voting for a Republican for anything at this point.

[Flasch186]

I was pointing out how few people actually watch FoxNews for their news vs ABC, CBS, and NBC. I'll make a trade. Let the bias be for Republicans on ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, all major newspapers, the AP, and Reuters, and you can have FoxNews. At least it will still be equal, right?

Let me analyze this trade because initially I dont think the major News outlets or the major papers are slanted one way or the other, unequally, in that they aren't cancelled out by another paper elsewhere, or outlet.

.......

It wouldnt be a fair trade because you would be labeling some that I dont think are biased, as biased. The only one's that are certainly slanted are CNN and FOXNEWS. Whats funny is, righties hate CNN at times when the right is in power, because CNN would ask the tough questions and it would be vice versa when the left is in power.

You say its all not fair. I disagree. I wish I couldve heard you when you guys were drilling Clinton daily. Ill bet your tune was a lot different then.

[Flasch186]

DOLA LOL

I think the propblem is you view sensationalism, negative, or rating grabbing news as slanted. I view it as opportunistic and it would be the same no matter who is in power. Theyre all trying to expose something, get the news first, show something that hasnt been seen. That is not politically motivated as much as it is financially motivated.

[Dutch]

Let me analyze this trade because initially I dont think the major News outlets or the major papers are slanted one way or the other, unequally, in that they aren't cancelled out by another paper elsewhere, or outlet.

.......

It wouldnt be a fair trade because you would be labeling some that I dont think are biased, as biased. The only one's that are certainly slanted are CNN and FOXNEWS. Whats funny is, righties hate CNN at times when the right is in power, because CNN would ask the tough questions and it would be vice versa when the left is in power.

You say its all not fair. I disagree. I wish I couldve heard you when you guys were drilling Clinton daily. Ill bet your tune was a lot different then.

Okay, let's compromise. I don't think FoxNews is biased. Are we back on track?

Give me a break. I've shown you were ABC, NBC, and CBS are biased. I have seen nothing from you to say those numbers are wrong.

[Dutch]

Dola: Generally, Saturday and Sunday are really bad days for bias at the Yahoo! News site. Today they have been exceptionally balanced. Very unusual.

[MrBigglesworth]

Who should we trust the most as moderates? It should be the Associated Press, Reuters, ABC, NBC, CBS and our city newspapers. But all of those respected institutions are strong endorsers of the Democratic party and have been for a long, long time. I doubt it will ever change, but I see no reason why people should not, at the very least, be aware of it.
The mainstream media is not liberally biased.

[Flasch186]

Okay, let's compromise. I don't think FoxNews is biased. Are we back on track?

Give me a break. I've shown you were ABC, NBC, and CBS are biased. I have seen nothing from you to say those numbers are wrong.

I have said that it IS slanted towards sensarionalism and negative news in general. If a Dem. were in office they would be dragging him/her over the coals too. It is about moneya nd ratings, not political party.

[Glengoyne]

The mainstream media is liberally biased.
There. Now we agree.

[Buccaneer]

The mainstream media is not liberally biased.
and this was written by The Onion?

Here is the Center of Media and Public Affiars (CMPA) findings about the coverage provided by ABC, CBS, and NBC from September 7 to November 22 of 2004. It's an evaluation of 828 sound bites by sources and reporters and the analysis is done by CMPA and the study is a continuation of studies done by George Washington Researchers that developed this analysis during the 1980 and 1984 campaigns.

1. John Kerry - 58% positive evaluations vs 42% negative. According to this study, that's the best press any candidate has received since the study began in 1980.

2. George Bush - 36% positive evaluations vs 64% negative in the same period.

3. October Surprise? - Kerry received 77% positive evaluations in October '04 vs 34% for Bush.

4. Before John Kerry, the record holder for most positive press was Walter Mondale with 56% positive press (While Reagan in the same year received only 9% positive press). Incumbents don't always find themselves on the short end of the stick. In 1996, President Clinton received 50% positive compared to just 33% for Dole.

5. In the past 7 elections, the Democratic candidate has gotten significantly better press in four elections (Kerry, Clinton 92 and 96, and Mondale) while only Bush Sr (over Dukakis) received a higher press rating as a Republican. Bush/Gore and Carter/Reagan were considered even/fair press in 2000 and 1980 repsectively.

6. Majority is negative: 10 out of the 14 primary candiates have received primarily negative press, including all seven Republican candidates.

[Chubby]

I have said that it IS slanted towards sensarionalism and negative news in general. If a Dem. were in office they would be dragging him/her over the coals too. It is about moneya nd ratings, not political party.
I still can't believe how NBC, CBS, and ABC completely ignored the Clinton blowjob and the impeachment proceedings! :eek:

[Glengoyne]

I still can't believe how NBC, CBS, and ABC completely ignored the Clinton blowjob and the impeachment proceedings! :eek:
There is a well defined sex loophole. Anything to get the blowjob into primetime. Ratings paradise.

[Dutch]

and this was written by The Onion?

I think the silence means, "Well....besides that."

[SFL Cat]

Most of the accounts I have seen have described Murtha's position as one for immediate withdrawal. A quote pulled from the San Francisco Chronicle is as follows: "The U.S. cannot accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. It is time to bring them home," said Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania, a former Marine intelligence officer in Vietnam and the senior Democrat on the House appropriations subcommittee that oversees military spending.

"The war in Iraq is not going as advertised,'' said Murtha, who in October 2002 voted for the resolution authorizing President Bush to take military action to oust Saddam Hussein. "It's a flawed policy wrapped in illusion. The American public is way ahead of the members of Congress.''

While the man has every right to voice this opinion (to much delighted fanfare from the anti-Bush crowd if the blogs are any indication), such a withdrawal would be a complete tactical and moral error. There is a big difference between withdrawing troops when we believe that the Iraqi security forces are capable of taking over, and declaring defeat and withdrawing them according to a fixed time-table. That's why I oppose Jack Murtha's position. By removing Saddam, we created a power vacuum in Iraq. We own it. We have a moral responsibility to see this through. Also, the terrorists (I refuse to call them insurgents) would crow that once again the American devils (and yes, the militant Islamic radicals consider all us westerners devils, regardless of our religious or political views) have shown they don't have the will to wage a sustained conflict if casualties are too high. And since Vietnam, our tolerance for casualties has decreased with each successive conflict.

Likewise, Congresswoman Jean Schmidt (R-Ohio) had an equal right to respond to Murtha's comments. Her response: "I received a call from Colonel Danny Bubp, (an Ohio legislator and former Marine) he asked me to send Congress a message: Stay the course. He also asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message: that cowards cut and run, Marines never do." For the Dems to get upset over this statement...well, if nothing else it is rather hypocritical, especially if you examine some of the rhetoric that comes from them.

But there is a larger point here, that crops up again and again in American politics and the media--and that is the significance or lack thereof, of a politicians military experience. Murtha, it's implied, deserves some added credibility in his comments on the war because of his martial past. Not so. I remember a lecture that emphasized this point. It compared three different historical leaders. One was a decorated war veteran, teetotaler, vegetarian and celibate. The second had only brief and undistinguished military experience, was a functional alcoholic and manic depressive. The third had no military experience, was also a heavy drinker, and was a philanderer to boot. The three, in order, in case you didn't figure it already are Hitler, Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt.

[Flasch186]

There is a well defined sex loophole. Anything to get the blowjob into primetime. Ratings paradise.

right, have it both ways. Ratings when its a dem in office, but liberal slant when its not.

[Flasch186]

Likewise, Congresswoman Jean Schmidt (R-Ohio) had an equal right to respond to Murtha's comments. Her response: "I received a call from Colonel Danny Bubp, (an Ohio legislator and former Marine) he asked me to send Congress a message: Stay the course. He also asked me to send Congressman Murtha a message: that cowards cut and run, Marines never do." For the Dems to get upset over this statement...well, if nothing else it is rather hypocritical, especially if you examine some of the rhetoric that comes from them.



The insinuation, which is obvious even to the right considering their address of the exact underlying issue regarding her particular statement, was that if one speaks out against the war they are considered cowardly (and in some cases, perhaps, revenged against). Since the insinuation is so broadly accepted, I'd say her subsequent apology and retraction are deserved.

[SFL Cat]

That's why PC is so prevalent today. Nobody has the stomach to endure the cries of "outrage," whether they are valid or not.

[SFL Cat]

dola -- if I had been Schmidt, I would have told Murtha if he had a problem with the statement, he could take it up with the good colonel. Maybe they could take it out back and settle it like good jarheads.

[MrBigglesworth]

There. Now we agree.
The mainstream media is not liberally biased.

[MrBigglesworth]

and this was written by The Onion?
The mainstream media is not liberally biased.

[MrBigglesworth]

But there is a larger point here, that crops up again and again in American politics and the media--and that is the significance or lack thereof, of a politicians military experience. Murtha, it's implied, deserves some added credibility in his comments on the war because of his martial past. Not so. I remember a lecture that emphasized this point. It compared three different historical leaders. One was a decorated war veteran, teetotaler, vegetarian and celibate. The second had only brief and undistinguished military experience, was a functional alcoholic and manic depressive. The third had no military experience, was also a heavy drinker, and was a philanderer to boot. The three, in order, in case you didn't figure it already are Hitler, Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt.
So you are saying that Michael Moore would make a better president than John McCain? You don't have to of played professional football player to be an NFL football coach, but it definitely adds a bit of perspective.

[MrBigglesworth]

I think the silence means, "Well....besides that."
I didn't realize that I had an hour and a half, tops, to respond before being called out for being silent. I will try to be more accomodating to your schedule in the future. Sorry for any inconvenience.

[sterlingice]

C'mon, Bucc, you know better than that (some others I'm not so sure about). Rarely do you see a non-profit organization in Washington like that without an agenda. And, if they're going to say Kerry got great press, I think you know what team they are batting for. I'm not saying Kerry may not have gotten some bump in the media but I think we all know the American public is pretty stupid and if he had received the biggest media bias ever than I bet he would win handily.

It's not like the CMPA has a clean track record about reporting on this sort of stuff: link (http://mediamatters.org/items/200505190001).

SI

[Flasch186]

C'mon, Bucc, you know better than that (some others I'm not so sure about). Rarely do you see a non-profit organization in Washington like that without an agenda. And, if they're going to say Kerry got great press, I think you know what team they are batting for. I'm not saying Kerry may not have gotten some bump in the media but I think we all know the American public is pretty stupid and if he had received the biggest media bias ever than I bet he would win handily.

It's not like the CMPA has a clean track record about reporting on this sort of stuff: link (http://mediamatters.org/items/200505190001).

SI

brings me back to the thought that one can find whatever statistic theyre looking for soewhere. In hindsight, I actually am beginning to think that the best argument for the slantings of the media, may just be where they show up on the dial. Fox News, on DirectTv is surrounded by other media sources, like Bloomberg, CNBC, MSNBC, etc. while CNN is by those respectable faves like PPV (Girls Gone Wild Dormroom Fantasies - right now), UHD, HDnet, CourtTV.

[Tekneek]

CNN shows up around 200 because it is in their contract. Not for any other reason.

[JonInMiddleGA]

CNN shows up around 200 because it is in their contract. Not for any other reason.

Pretty much what he said on that point ... plus the fact that they're the oldest of the cable news networks & therefore were often placed in the 100's (or wherever) back when there were fewer channels than today.

Is it an advantage? Yeah, almost certainly it is ... but this happens to be one of the few cases where I don't see liberal bias being a major contributing factor.

[Dutch]

I'm sorry, did somebody want to point out counter-research that proved the CMPA research is faulty? I didn't think so.

[MrBigglesworth]

I'm sorry, did somebody want to point out counter-research that proved the CMPA research is faulty? I didn't think so.


It's not like the CMPA has a clean track record about reporting on this sort of stuff: link (http://mediamatters.org/items/200505190001).

SI

The mainstream media is not liberally biased.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2515

[sterlingice]

I'm sorry, did somebody want to point out counter-research that proved the CMPA research is faulty? I didn't think so.
Um... that was the whole point of the link. If you throw out the 95% of your data that you don't like, you're going to be able to get the results you want.

SI

[Flasch186]

LOL

Dutch, when pressed for the raw data, they wouldnt give it then when the data that they did use was analyzed it was riddled with holes and scientific inaccuracies. But you hold that up and say, "Am I wrong!? am I wrong!? I dont roll on shomar shabbas!" pooey on your partisanship and inability to view things with out your RNC 3D glasses on. Why cant you admit when both sides are wrong?

[SFL Cat]

So you are saying that Michael Moore would make a better president than John McCain? You don't have to of played professional football player to be an NFL football coach, but it definitely adds a bit of perspective.

Is this your roundabout way of saying Clinton sucked as CIC?

[Dutch]

This site is actually pretty interesting.
http://www.cmpa.com

CMPA Methodology: About Content Analysis

When many see CMPA study results about "positive press" on television or in the newspaper, they understandably ask "Who decides what is positive and what is negative?" It seems subjective.

It could be. But we don't let it. And as the citation above indicates, many experts believe our methodology involving the technique called "content analysis" is sound.

What is content analysis? It is a social scientific method for producing an objective and systematic description of communicative material. In order to be scientific, such analysis requires explicit rules and procedures that minimize a researcher's subjective predispositions.

It's not as subjective as you think. Take these examples from the 2004 Democratic Presidential Primaries:

“[John Edwards is] the man who made nice politics work."

Positive evaluation

“[Dean] flies off the cuff too much."
Negative Evaluation

Categories and criteria are rigorously defined and applied consistently to all material. Each system must be reliable, meaning that additional researchers using the same criteria should reach the same conclusions. Because it is both systematic and reliable, content analysis permits the research to transcend the realm of impressionistic generalizations, which are subject to individual preferences and prejudices.

CMPA researchers have honed their skills on a wide variety of projects since 1987, making them among the best trained and most experienced at news media content analysis. Researchers examine news stories on a statement-by-statement level, recording all overt opinions expressed by either the reporter or other individuals quoted in the story. Each opinion is catalogued according to the source of the comment, the target, and the issue under discussion.

Researchers do not assign overall positive and negative scores to entire stories, since such an approach is inherently subjective and fails to fully account for the nuances within each story. Individual statements are logged into a computerized database, allowing statistical analyses to fully describe the relationships among news sources, time periods, the focus of coverage and the tone of coverage.

Depending on the length and breadth of the study, CMPA's codebooks (which contain the categories and rules for coding) range from 100 to 300 pages long and include 20 to 50 different analytic variables. Research assistants are trained for between 150 and 200 hours before they begin work on a project. During the training process, researchers code sets of stories, and their work is compared to that of previous coders until a minimum reliability level of 80% is reached for all variables. That means that the new coders must reach the same conclusions as their counterparts at least four out of five times. For most variables, the level of agreement is much higher.

What Others Say About CMPA...

CMPA is appreciated by politicians, reporters, academics, advocates and citizens of all stripes--from Sam Brownback to Hilary Clinton; from media outlets like The Nation to The Weekly Standard. (For personal endorsements, please scroll down.)

Ideological?

CMPA is classified as a nonprofit, nonpartisan research organization. And we're the rare group that lives by that. Some groups' politics inform their work; we base our work in academically-accredited (and ideology-averse) "content analysis."

But being participants in an increasingly polarized political world, we're often accused of bearing a scarlet letter, the ultimate Washington, DC four-letter word: bias. More often than not, these allegations are more indictments of the people who issue them than serious criticism of CMPA's "agenda."

We are proud to be independent and nonpartisan. And we don't mind being tough to pigeonhole. Most Americans are.

Does CMPA Side With the 'Blue States' or The 'Red States?' It Depends On Who You Ask

“The conservative Center for Media and Public Affairs”
--Washington Post (December 13, 1999)

“The liberal think tank Center for Media and Public Affairs in Washington, D.C.”
--Los Angeles Daily News, The State (November 5, 2003)

“[Michael] Kelly's own slant begins with his description of Lichter's organization as "independent" -- a term that falsely suggests absence of [conservative] bias.”
--Salon.com (December 18, 2002)

“The left-leaning Center for Media and Public Affairs in Washington, D.C.”
--Denver Post (February 11, 2004)

Praise for CMPA

Beyond being cited daily by news organizations around the world, CMPA's media research is appreciated by media professionals and politicians alike.

“When people ask...who’s watching the watchdog, the best answer is the Center for Media and Public Affairs.”
– David Gergen, Journalist and Presidential Advisor

“Journalism’s premier watchdog”
– Insight

"CMPA is one of the many programs and organizations that work for children."
-Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY)

“The national media’s most vigilant watchdog”
– Robert Novak, columnist

“Excellent work”
– Senator Paul Simon (D-IL)

"You are doing valuable work...Congratulations.”
– Marvin Kalb, Harvard University

“Excellent, accurate and reliable”
– Richard Harwood, former Washington Post ombudsman

“What you are doing is enormously important.”
– Paul McCracken, Chairman, President’s Council of Economic Advisors

“My hat is off to you.”
– Ed Fouhy, President, Pew Center for Civic Journalism


I guess when you agree with them, they are fair and when you don't they are polar opposites. But the stats seem pretty fair to me. :) Regardless, I'm very open to hearing/seeing counter-stats. If anybody can show me some other research from a decent site that shows different numbers on the election, I think we will have something to work with.

As for www.mediamatters.org
http://mediamatters.org/etc/about.html
It's goal is to "progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media." So I think we know where they are coming from when they find something they disagree with.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

When many see CMPA study results about "positive press" on television or in the newspaper, they understandably ask "Who decides what is positive and what is negative?" It seems subjective.

It could be. But we don't let it. And as the citation above indicates, many experts believe our methodology involving the technique called "content analysis" is sound.


HAHA! That's funny. It's an inherently subjective question, and no amount methodology or technique will make it otherwise. Further, sterlingice's link was fairly damning. Additionally, there is no effort, that I can tell here to link press opinions to the reality of the subject they're reporting. As SI's link notes, the press consistently covered the fact that Bush's social security plan was unpopular. This was reflected by CMPA as negative coverage. Is that bias, or simply the press covering the story? Likewise, the Bridge to Nowhere has gotten overwhelmingly negative coverage. Is this because the press is biased against Ted Stevens (or Republicans generally) or because it is an incredibly stupid project? This approach to press analysis reminds me of the Daily Show spoof (circa the '04 election) of Bush's battle with reality.

[Jesse_Ewiak]

dola -- if I had been Schmidt, I would have told Murtha if he had a problem with the statement, he could take it up with the good colonel. Maybe they could take it out back and settle it like good jarheads.

Well, there is the small fact that um, the guy Schmidt was trying to use as a counter to Murtha as seen as many enemy bullets as I have...zero.

Taken from here -> http://kalamazoopride.blogspot.com/2005/11/danny-r-bupb-is-technically-marinebut.html

Here is how Danny R. Bupb lists his military service. He fought the war in Iraq from Tampa, Florida:

Military Service:
1978 - Commissioned as Second Lieutenant in the United States Marine Corps
1978-Present - Continues to serve in United States Marine Corps Reserve as a Colonel of Marines
1997-Present - Serves on the staff at the National Defense University, Washington, D.C. as Team Leader for the Reserve Component National Security Course
2003 - Graduate of Naval War College, Newport, Rhode Island
2003 - Served on the J-3 Staff at United States Central Command, Tampa, Florida for General Tommy Franks in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom

Bupb represents Ohio's 88th District in the state legislature. Even though he is a colonel in the Marine Reserves, he has never been overseas or in combat.
Amazing how he managed to go from '78 to now without ending up in combat once. Sure, it's been quite compared to previous decades, but still.

[MrBigglesworth]

Is this your roundabout way of saying Clinton sucked as CIC?
Are you purposefully missing the point?

[MrBigglesworth]

This site is actually pretty interesting.
http://www.cmpa.com





I guess when you agree with them, they are fair and when you don't they are polar opposites. But the stats seem pretty fair to me. :) Regardless, I'm very open to hearing/seeing counter-stats. If anybody can show me some other research from a decent site that shows different numbers on the election, I think we will have something to work with.

As for www.mediamatters.org
http://mediamatters.org/etc/about.html
It's goal is to "progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media." So I think we know where they are coming from when they find something they disagree with.
That's Dutch for you: if they say it, it must be true. CMPA says that they are non-partisan and Hillary Clinton loves them? Must be true. He obviously didn't bother to check the links for factual content, just ideological orientation. Mojo, no sense at all arguing. He is so emotionally entrenched in his position that the media is out to get conservatives that his self-esteem is intertwined with it. It's an emotional and not a rational decision, so arguing using logic an reason is a waste of time.

The mainstream media is not liberally biased.

[Flasch186]

okay, now we're fucked.....Im not in favor of us setting a time table or pulling out but those fuckers are asking for trouble. Just my opinion :)

Iraqi leaders call on U.S. to set withdrawal schedule
Statement says Iraq must first add more security forces

Tuesday, November 22, 2005; Posted: 8:11 a.m. EST (13:11 GMT)

CAIRO, Egypt (AP) -- Reaching out to the Sunni Arab community, Iraqi leaders called for a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S.-led forces and said Iraq's opposition had a "legitimate right" of resistance.

The communique -- finalized by Shiite, Kurdish and Sunni leaders Monday -- condemned terrorism but was a clear acknowledgment of the Sunni position that insurgents should not be labeled as terrorists if their operations do not target innocent civilians or institutions designed to provide for the welfare of Iraqi citizens.

The leaders agreed on "calling for the withdrawal of foreign troops according to a timetable, through putting in place an immediate national program to rebuild the armed forces ... control the borders and the security situation" and end terror attacks.

The preparatory reconciliation conference, held under the auspices of the Arab League, was attended by Iraq President Jalal Talabani and Iraqi Shiite and Kurdish lawmakers as well as leading Sunni politicians.

Sunni leaders have been pressing the Shiite-majority government to agree to a timetable for the withdrawal of all foreign troops. The statement recognized that goal, but did not lay down a specific time -- reflecting instead the government's stance that Iraqi security forces must be built up first.

On Monday, Iraqi Interior Minister Bayan Jabr suggested U.S.-led forces should be able to leave Iraq by the end of next year, saying the one-year extension of the mandate for the multinational force in Iraq by the U.N. Security Council this month could be the last.

"By the middle of next year we will be 75 percent done in building our forces and by the end of next year it will be fully ready," he told the Arabic-language satellite station Al-Jazeera.

Debate in Washington over when to bring troops home turned bitter last week after decorated Vietnam War vet Rep. John Murtha, D-Pennsylvania, called for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, and estimated a pullout could be complete within six months. Republicans rejected Murtha's position.

In Egypt, the final communique's attempt to define terrorism omitted any reference to attacks against U.S. or Iraqi forces. Delegates from across the political and religious spectrum said the omission was intentional. They spoke anonymously, saying they feared retribution.

"Though resistance is a legitimate right for all people, terrorism does not represent resistance. Therefore, we condemn terrorism and acts of violence, killing and kidnapping targeting Iraqi citizens and humanitarian, civil, government institutions, national resources and houses of worships," the document said.

The final communique also stressed participants' commitment to Iraq's unity and called for the release of all "innocent detainees" who have not been convicted by courts. It asked that allegations of torture against prisoners be investigated and those responsible be held accountable.

The statement also demanded "an immediate end to arbitrary raids and arrests without a documented judicial order."

The communique included no means for implementing its provisions, leaving it unclear what it will mean in reality other than to stand as a symbol of a first step toward bringing the feuding parties together in an agreement in principle.

"We are committed to this statement as far as it is in the best interests of the Iraqi people," said Harith al-Dhari, leader of the powerful Association of Muslim Scholars, a hard-line Sunni group. He said he had reservations about the document as a whole, and delegates said he had again expressed strong opposition to the concept of federalism enshrined in Iraq's new constitution.

The gathering was part of a U.S.-backed league attempt to bring the communities closer together and assure Sunni Arab participation in a political process now dominated by Iraq's Shiite majority and large Kurdish minority.

The conference also decided on broad conditions for selecting delegates to a wider reconciliation gathering in the last week of February or the first week of March in Iraq. It essentially opens the way for all those who are willing to renounce violence against fellow Iraqis.

Shiites had been strongly opposed to participation in the conference by Sunni Arab officials from the former Saddam Hussein regime or from pro-insurgency groups. That objection seemed to have been glossed over in the communique.

The Cairo meeting was marred by differences between participants at times, and at one point Shiite and Kurdish delegates stormed out of a closed session when one of the speakers said they had sold out to the Americans.

[flere-imsaho]

Flasch knows what's best for Iraqis. I like it.

[Flasch186]

Flasch knows what's best for Iraqis. I like it.

nope, just an opinion. Thank god we live in a country where we can have those.
:D

[flere-imsaho]

Here is how Danny R. Bupb lists his military service. He fought the war in Iraq from Tampa, Florida:

It should also be pointed out that Bupb & Schmidt are long-time allies on the violent, doctor-killing pro-life front. Bupb, despite his stateside military service, is basically just another right-wing operative.

[SirFozzie]

I saw a story that the Republicans spent 140 hours on testimony regarding allegations that Clinton was datamining the White House Christmas Card list for possible Democratic Party donors.. and 12 hours on Abu Graib. Not that I'm thuggin out on the Repubs.. if/when the Democrats have both sides, they'd act the same way.

I think the best for america is a split.. one side controlling the executive, one side controlling the legislative (to a point).. that prevents the party with supreme power from just steamrolling the opposition.

[Flasch186]

I think the best for america is a split.. one side controlling the executive, one side controlling the legislative (to a point).. that prevents the party with supreme power from just steamrolling the opposition.


I agree 100%

[flere-imsaho]

I'll bet Flasch knows better than this guy too:


What's Wrong with Cutting and Running?
by William E. Odom

If I were a journalist, I would list all the arguments that you hear against pulling U.S. troops out of Iraq, the horrible things that people say would happen, and then ask: Aren’t they happening already? Would a pullout really make things worse? Maybe it would make things better.

Here are some of the arguments against pulling out:

1) We would leave behind a civil war.

2) We would lose credibility on the world stage.

3) It would embolden the insurgency and cripple the move toward democracy.

4) Iraq would become a haven for terrorists.

5) Iranian influence in Iraq would increase.

6) Unrest might spread in the region and/or draw in Iraq's neighbors.

7) Shiite-Sunni clashes would worsen.

8) We haven’t fully trained the Iraqi military and police forces yet.

9) Talk of deadlines would undercut the morale of our troops.

But consider this:

1) On civil war. Iraqis are already fighting Iraqis. Insurgents have killed far more Iraqis than Americans. That’s civil war. We created the civil war when we invaded; we can’t prevent a civil war by staying.

For those who really worry about destabilizing the region, the sensible policy is not to stay the course in Iraq. It is rapid withdrawal, re-establishing strong relations with our allies in Europe, showing confidence in the UN Security Council, and trying to knit together a large coalition including the major states of Europe, Japan, South Korea, China, and India to back a strategy for stabilizing the area from the eastern Mediterranean to Afghanistan and Pakistan. Until the United States withdraws from Iraq and admits its strategic error, no such coalition can be formed.

Thus those who fear leaving a mess are actually helping make things worse while preventing a new strategic approach with some promise of success.

2) On credibility. If we were Russia or some other insecure nation, we might have to worry about credibility. A hyperpower need not worry about credibility. That’s one of the great advantages of being a hyperpower: When we have made a big strategic mistake, we can reverse it. And it may even enhance our credibility. Staying there damages our credibility more than leaving.

Ask the president if he really worries about US credibility. Or, what will happen to our credibility if the course he is pursuing proves to be a major strategic disaster? Would it not be better for our long-term credibility to withdraw earlier than later in this event?

3) On the insurgency and democracy. There is no question the insurgents and other anti-American parties will take over the government once we leave. But that will happen no matter how long we stay. Any government capable of holding power in Iraq will be anti-American, because the Iraqi people are increasingly becoming anti-American.

Also, the U.S. will not leave behind a liberal, constitutional democracy in Iraq no matter how long it stays. Holding elections is easy. It is impossible to make it a constitutional democracy in a hurry.

President Bush’s statements about progress in Iraq are increasingly resembling LBJ's statements during the Vietnam War. For instance, Johnson’s comments about the 1968 election are very similar to what Bush said in February 2005 after the election of a provisional parliament.

Ask the president: Why should we expect a different outcome in Iraq than in Vietnam?

Ask the president if he intends to leave a pro-American liberal regime in place. Because that’s just impossible. Postwar Germany and Japan are not models for Iraq. Each had mature (at least a full generation old) constitutional orders by the end of the 19th century. They both endured as constitutional orders until the 1930s. Thus General Clay and General MacArthur were merely reversing a decade and a half totalitarianism -- returning to nearly a century of liberal political change in Japan and a much longer period in Germany.

Imposing a liberal constitutional order in Iraq would be to accomplish something that has never been done before. Of all the world's political cultures, an Arab-Muslim one may be the most resistant to such a change of any in the world. Even the Muslim society in Turkey (an anti-Arab society) stands out for being the only example of a constitutional order in an Islamic society, and even it backslides occasionally.

4) On terrorists. Iraq is already a training ground for terrorists. In fact, the CIA has pointed out to the administration and congress that Iraq is spawning so many terrorists that they are returning home to many other countries to further practice their skills there. The quicker a new dictator wins the political power in Iraq and imposes order, the sooner the country will stop producing well-experienced terrorists.

Why not ask: "Mr. President, since you and the vice president insisted that Saddam's Iraq supported al Qaeda -- which we now know it did not -- isn't your policy in Iraq today strengthening al Qaeda's position in that country?"

5) On Iranian influence. Iranian leaders see US policy in Iraq as being so much in Teheran's interests that they have been advising Iraqi Shiite leaders to do exactly what the Americans ask them to do. Elections will allow the Shiites to take power legally. Once in charge, they can settle scores with the Baathists and Sunnis. If US policy in Iraq begins to undercut Iran's interests, then Teheran can use its growing influence among Iraqi Shiites to stir up trouble, possibly committing Shiite militias to an insurgency against US forces there. The US invasion has vastly increased Iran's influence in Iraq, not sealed it out.

Questions for the administration: "Why do the Iranians support our presence in Iraq today? Why do they tell the Shiite leaders to avoid a sectarian clash between Sunnis and Shiites? Given all the money and weapons they provide Shiite groups, why are they not stirring up more trouble for the US? Will Iranian policy change once a Shiite majority has the reins of government? Would it not be better to pull out now rather than to continue our present course of weakening the Sunnis and Baathists, opening the way for a Shiite dictatorship?"

6) On Iraq’s neighbors. The civil war we leave behind may well draw in Syria, Turkey and Iran. But already today each of those states is deeply involved in support for or opposition to factions in the ongoing Iraqi civil war. The very act of invading Iraq almost insured that violence would involve the larger region. And so it has and will continue, with, or without, US forces in Iraq.

7) On Shiite-Sunni conflict. The US presence is not preventing Shiite-Sunni conflict; it merely delays it. Iran is preventing it today, and it will probably encourage it once the Shiites dominate the new government, an outcome US policy virtually ensures.

8) On training the Iraq military and police. The insurgents are fighting very effectively without US or European military advisors to train them. Why don't the soldiers and police in the present Iraqi regime's service do their duty as well? Because they are uncertain about committing their lives to this regime. They are being asked to take a political stand, just as the insurgents are. Political consolidation, not military-technical consolidation, is the issue.

The issue is not military training; it is institutional loyalty. We trained the Vietnamese military effectively. Its generals took power and proved to be lousy politicians and poor fighters in the final showdown. In many battles over a decade or more, South Vietnamese military units fought very well, defeating VC and NVA units. But South Vietnam's political leaders lost the war.

Even if we were able to successfully train an Iraqi military and police force, the likely result, after all that, would be another military dictatorship. Experience around the world teaches us that military dictatorships arise when the military’s institutional modernization gets ahead of political consolidation.

9) On not supporting our troops by debating an early pullout. Many US officers in Iraq, especially at company and field grade levels, know that while they are winning every tactical battle, they are losing strategically. And according to the New York Times last week, they are beginning to voice complaints about Americans at home bearing none of the pains of the war. One can only guess about the enlisted ranks, but those on a second tour – probably the majority today – are probably anxious for an early pullout. It is also noteworthy that US generals in Iraq are not bubbling over with optimistic reports they way they were during the first few years of the war in Vietnam. Their careful statements and caution probably reflect serious doubts that they do not, and should not, express publicly. The more important question is whether or not the repressive and vindictive behavior by the secretary of defense and his deputy against the senior military -- especially the Army leadership, which is the critical component in the war -- has made it impossible for field commanders to make the political leaders see the facts.

Most surprising to me is that no American political leader today has tried to unmask the absurdity of the administration's case that to question the strategic wisdom of the war is unpatriotic and a failure to support our troops. Most officers and probably most troops don't see it that way. They are angry at the deficiencies in materiel support they get from the Department of Defense, and especially about the irresponsibly long deployments they must now endure because Mr. Rumsfeld and his staff have refused to enlarge the ground forces to provide shorter tours. In the meantime, they know that the defense budget shovels money out the door to maritime forces, SDI, etc., while refusing to increase dramatically the size of the Army.

As I wrote several years ago, "the Pentagon's post-Cold War force structure is so maritime heavy and land force weak that it is firmly in charge of the porpoises and whales while leaving the land to tyrants." The Army, some of the Air Force, the National Guard, and the reserves are now the victims of this gross mismatch between military missions and force structure. Neither the Bush nor the Clinton administration has properly "supported the troops." The media could ask the president why he fails to support our troops by not firing his secretary of defense.

■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■

So why is almost nobody advocating a pullout? I can only speculate. We face a strange situation today where few if any voices among Democrats in Congress will mention early withdrawal from Iraq, and even the one or two who do will not make a comprehensive case for withdrawal now.Why are the Democrats failing the public on this issue today? The biggest reason is because they weren’t willing to raise that issue during the campaign. Howard Dean alone took a clear and consistent stand on Iraq, and the rest of the Democratic party trashed him for it. Most of those in Congress voted for the war and let that vote shackle them later on. Now they are scared to death that the White House will smear them with lack of patriotism if they suggest pulling out.

Journalists can ask all the questions they like but none will prompt a more serious debate as long as no political leaders create the context and force the issues into the open.

I don't believe anyone will be able to sustain a strong case in the short run without going back to the fundamental misjudgment of invading Iraq in the first place. Once the enormity of that error is grasped, the case for pulling out becomes easy to see.

Look at John Kerry's utterly absurd position during the presidential campaign. He said “It’s the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time," but then went on to explain how he expected to win it anyway. Even the voter with no interest in foreign affairs was able to recognize it as an absurdity. If it was the wrong war at the wrong place and time, then it was never in our interest to fight. If that is true, what has changed to make it in our interest? Nothing, absolutely nothing.

The US invasion of Iraq only serves the interest of:

1) Osama bin Laden (it made Iraq safe for al Qaeda, positioned US military personnel in places where al Qaeda operatives can kill them occasionally, helps radicalize youth throughout the Arab and Muslim world, alienates America's most important and strongest allies – the Europeans – and squanders US military resources that otherwise might be finishing off al Qaeda in Pakistan.);

2) The Iranians (who were invaded by Saddam and who suffered massive casualties in an eight year war with Iraq.);

3) And the extremists in both Palestinian and Israeli political circles (who don't really want a peace settlement without the utter destruction of the other side, and probably believe that bogging the United States down in a war in Iraq that will surely become a war between the United States and most of the rest of Arab world gives them the time and cover to wipe out the other side.)

The wisest course for journalists might be to begin sustained investigations of why leading Democrats have failed so miserably to challenge the US occupation of Iraq. The first step, of course, is to establish as conventional wisdom the fact that the war was never in the US interest and has not become so. It is such an obvious case to make that I find it difficult to believe many pundits and political leaders have not already made it repeatedly.


Source (http://niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=ask_this.view&askthisid=129&stoplayout=true&print=true)

Author's Background: (http://www.hudson.org/learn/index.cfm?fuseaction=staff_bio&eid=OdomWill)

Lieutenant General William E. Odom, U.S. Army (Ret.), is a Senior Fellow with Hudson Institute and a professor at Yale University. As Director of the National Security Agency from 1985 to 1988, he was responsible for the nation's signals intelligence and communications security. From 1981 to 1985, he served as Assistant Chief of Staff for Intelligence, the Army's senior intelligence officer.

From 1977 to 1981, General Odom was Military Assistant to the President's Assistant for National Security Affairs, Zbigniew Brzezinski. As a member of the National Security Council staff, he worked upon strategic planning, Soviet affairs, nuclear weapons policy, telecommunications policy, and Persian Gulf security issues. He graduated from the United States Military Academy in 1954, and received a Ph.D. from Columbia University in 1970.

[flere-imsaho]

nope, just an opinion. Thank god we live in a country where we can have those.
:D

Not if Cheney has his way.

[Dutch]

So let me see if I have this straight. Flere and Mr Bigglesworth say that ABC, CBS, and NBC are unbiased. Do I have that much right? ;)

[Flasch186]

...and Dutch says they are. Neither holds weight.

[Dutch]

...and Dutch says they are. Neither holds weight.

That's why I prefer the CMPA method. They defined the test in 1980 and use that as a guide. And when the guide shows positive output towards the Republican candidate over the Democratic candidate, the research shows that. It's a lot better than Mr Biggleworth's methodology, at the very least. :)

[SirFozzie]

BTW, anyone see the story that the person that Schmidt said she quoted actually says now that he DIDN'T say that?

Sheesh.

Look.. I think the reasons we got into this war were wrong and misguided, but that's a seperate issue then what's happening now. We're not going to be there forever, and we're not going to pull out tommorrow. The Iraqis (not the insurgents, the people voted democratically in, or as democratically as Iraq is right now) have stated that they would like to work on a graduated pull out plan for US troops, because they are a rallying point for the insurgency.

The job's half done. If we pull out in shame with our tails between our legs (which is what some folks want). it will set back the region by decades.

We need to set a time table with the folks in power there.. to gradually ramp down troops..

[Flasch186]

That's why I prefer the CMPA method. They defined the test in 1980 and use that as a guide. And when the guide shows positive output towards the Republican candidate over the Democratic candidate, the research shows that. It's a lot better than Mr Biggleworth's methodology, at the very least. :)

maybe better than biggles but so what? When they were asked to hand over the raw data they balked. When a thorough analysis was done on their findings, it showed that they pigeon picked the data that lended to their conclusion. Why would they do that? Could it be that they were trying to prove a hypothesis? could be. the problem with that is scientists arent supposed to be rooting to prove their hypothesis. A null result is just as important and desired, until eventually null hypothesis results LEAd to a proven hypothesis. Regardless, the only NEws, IMO, that is biased is CNN and FoxNews. While they ALSO are effected by needing to get ratings (for you to ignore that fact in relation to the negative reporting or sensationalism, is ridiculous) they certainly wear their allegiances on their sleeves.

[Flasch186]

BTW, anyone see the story that the person that Schmidt said she quoted actually says now that he DIDN'T say that?

Sheesh.

Look.. I think the reasons we got into this war were wrong and misguided, but that's a seperate issue then what's happening now. We're not going to be there forever, and we're not going to pull out tommorrow. The Iraqis (not the insurgents, the people voted democratically in, or as democratically as Iraq is right now) have stated that they would like to work on a graduated pull out plan for US troops, because they are a rallying point for the insurgency.

The job's half done. If we pull out in shame with our tails between our legs (which is what some folks want). it will set back the region by decades.

We need to set a time table with the folks in power there.. to gradually ramp down troops..


not unusual for people in Congress to lie. SHOOT, the speaker of the hosue LIED on national TV and no one is saying anything about that. DUTCH!!??

[Dutch]

When a thorough analysis was done on their findings, it showed that they pigeon picked the data that lended to their conclusion.

That the 1980 and 2000 the reporting ended up being equal? That in 1988 Bush was favored over Dukakis? Using the same technique, the same baseline?

I didn't see www.mediamatter.org (who is used to slam CMPA) "sometimes" getting it wrong with their pigeon pickings. I'm guessing www.mediamatters.org probably isn't telling you the whole story and that's where you are getting confused.

[Flasch186]

BS

Ive told you, you can find any site out there to prove your theory if you want. In this case, the site you used was hammered and completely lost all credibility when the follow up post exposed their cherry pickin' ways. Seriously, you shouldnt hang your hat on that one or else that credibility loss will rub off on you too.

So when a site exposes this, automatically, that particular site is biased. Whatever. you can put anything you want in your partisan pocket, Im the openminded one who can see the good and bad of both sides. Media or not.

[MrBigglesworth]

So let me see if I have this straight. Flere and Mr Bigglesworth say that ABC, CBS, and NBC are unbiased. Do I have that much right? ;)
No, you didn't even get that much right. The mainstream media is not liberally biased. They have a corporate bias.

[MrBigglesworth]

maybe better than biggles but so what?
What methodology is mine?

[Flasch186]

What methodology is mine?

I was simply throwing a bone to show that it wouldnt matter. Youre no scientist either. His siting has been rebuked and now holds no weight, yet he continues to go back to it.

[Dutch]

Washington Times citing information I listed above.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20041101-122452-4025r.htm

Great interview-article about CMPA's history.
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_n15_v13/ai_19340523

[SirFozzie]

most people who only trust one organization (or even one viewpoint) to tell them the news (or how "The world really is") soon becomes like a bull with a ring in its nose.. easily led where ever the person on the end of the leash wants them to go

[Flasch186]

great point Foz.

Dutch....no point in devating anymore. YOu stick to Rush, Fox NEws, Sean, etc. and your cave will stay really nice. Keep in mind the rest of the country goes to shit but you have your pile o cash ;)

[Flasch186]

HA , a quick search of your posts in political threads says everything,....at least youre consistent. - Dutch

[SirFozzie]

That goes both ways. I'm talking about the DailyKosvites and the Freepers all at once.

There seems to be a movement in politics where it's completely black or it's completely white. If you don't drink the Religious Conservative as WELL as Back Bush Kool-Aid, you're a Republican In Name Only.

On the otherside.. If you don't think that america's army should be called away from Iraq in an expeditious schedule, or if you think that Howard Dean isn't the replacement for God with the ten Democratic Commandments on stone tablets, then you're a Democrat in Name Only.

Wish the RINOs and DINOs would govern from the center. seems there's a lot more of us there.

[Dutch]

That goes both ways. I'm talking about the DailyKosvites and the Freepers all at once.

There seems to be a movement in politics where it's completely black or it's completely white. If you don't drink the Religious Conservative as WELL as Back Bush Kool-Aid, you're a Republican In Name Only.

On the otherside.. If you don't think that america's army should be called away from Iraq in an expeditious schedule, or if you think that Howard Dean isn't the replacement for God with the ten Democratic Commandments on stone tablets, then you're a Democrat in Name Only.

Wish the RINOs and DINOs would govern from the center. seems there's a lot more of us there.

We all know there are two sides to every political argument/debate. Well, except for 'journalists'.

[Dutch]

HA , a quick search of your posts in political threads says everything,....at least youre consistent. - Dutch

Well, I am biased! How do you think I'm so good at recognizing it? :)

[flere-imsaho]

So let me see if I have this straight. Flere and Mr Bigglesworth say that ABC, CBS, and NBC are unbiased. Do I have that much right? ;)

You mean Flasch surely as I didn't say anything on that front.

On this, I actually agree with Karl Rove: (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2519-2005Apr19.html)

"I'm not sure I've talked about the liberal media," Rove said when a student inquired -- a decision he said he made "consciously." The press is generally liberal, he argued, but "I think it's less liberal than it is oppositional."

[JPhillips]

Dutch: Don't forget that when you cite the Washington Times you are pulling info from a paper owned by a man that hates freedom and wants democracy replaced with a one-world messiah-king. And just for good measure he also has given sizable money to the N. Koreans and the Dept. of Defense believes he helped them obtain submarines from the Russians. Oh yeah, he was also crowned in a ceremony in the Senate office building by members of the US House.

That source isn't credible.

[flere-imsaho]

I'm a little bit suspicious of the 'recruiting problems' stories we keep hearing about. I saw a story a month or so back saying that the armed forces have already exceeded their RETENTION goals for the year, and I know about 1/2 dozen recruiters around the country - all of them have told me the stories are overblown.

Really reading through what's been written on the issue, it seems the following conclusions can be made (and bear in mind, this is mostly about the Army, a little about the Marines, and not relevant to Air Force & Navy):

1. National Guard & Reserve recruiting is dead in the water. There are two reasons for this. First, both components rely on recruiting techniques that do not stress overseas deployment. The prospect of actually being sent to Iraq, plus the stories coming out of the Guard (insufficient training, poor equipment, etc...) have deadened recruiting. Second, see #2:

2. Retention is doing fine. In fact, for fiscal year 2004, Army retention was 107%. This is due in a large part to record re-enlistment bonuses. This, however is a double-edged sword. On one hand you keep experienced soldiers in the Active Army. On the other hand, the Guard & Reserves depend, in a large part, on "retiring" Active Duty soldiers to make up their ranks. So retention has also hurt the Reserves & Guard.

3. Things are OK now, but are trending badly for 2006. The Army is missing recruiting targets, but not a lot (though those targets have been changed). Ditto the Marines. But don't believe me on this particular point:

"Very frankly, in a couple of places our recruiting pool is getting soft," said Lt. Gen. Franklin L. Hagenbeck, the Army's personnel chief. "We're hearing things like, 'Well, let's wait and see how this thing settles out in Iraq,' " he said in an interview. "For the active duty for '05 it's going to be tough to meet our goal, but I think we can. I think the telling year for us is going to be '06."

"I anticipate that fiscal year '05 will be very challenging for both active and reserve component recruiting," Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a House Appropriations subcommittee Feb. 17.


The bottom line is that it's probably too early to tell what long-term effect this will have on the Active Army & the Marines. There's certainly been an aging of the force, and a loss of specialists and it remains to be seen if larger and larger re-enlistment bonuses is a workable strategy on a going-forward basis.

However, it's pretty clear that the war has probably dealt a heavy, perhaps mortal, blow to the National Guard and the Reserves. The long-term effect of this, of course, is that the Armed Forces, as a whole, will have less of a "buffer" in the future to call upon for important conflicts.

[SFL Cat]

No, you didn't even get that much right. The mainstream media is not liberally biased. They have a corporate bias.

Total BS. Most of the journalists who work in the TV and newspaper industry vote Democrat and tend to label themselves either as moderates or liberals.

In March and April 2005, the University of Connecticut’s Department of Public Policy surveyed 300 journalists nationwide — 120 who worked in the television industry and 180 who worked at newspapers and asked for whom they voted in the 2004 presidential election. In a report released May 16, 2005, the researchers disclosed that the journalists they surveyed selected Democratic challenger John Kerry over incumbent Republican President George W. Bush by a wide margin, 52 percent to 19 percent (with 1 percent choosing far-left independent candidate Ralph Nader). One out of five journalists (21 percent) refused to disclose their vote, while another six percent either didn’t vote or said they did not know for whom they voted.

When asked “generally speaking, do you consider yourself a Democrat, Republican, an Independent, or something else?” more than three times as many journalists (33%) said they were Democrats than said they were Republicans (10%).

Anyone who thinks an individual's personal beliefs and convictions don't color how that person views news events or how he/she represents those events to others, is simply clueless. Hell, just spend some time on this board and you'll know it to be true.

[Flasch186]

So what youre saying is that because someone holds a belief politically that they cannot be objective when reporting or speaking of the facts...Explain to me again, how one can subscribe to the above referenced study as evidence and then claim that the Administration would not skew their facts or be honest in their reporting. Perhaps theyre simply looking through RNC colored glasses right? Well, wouldnt that lend creedence to the idea that they skew their reports, their facts, their evidence...since you said one cant be both objective and human at the same time.

[MrBigglesworth]

Total BS. Most of the journalists who work in the TV and newspaper industry vote Democrat and tend to label themselves either as moderates or liberals.
That's like saying, "Most poor people are Democrats, so the entire country is liberally biased". The rich and middle class are Republican, so it evens it out.

In this case, the editors, management, and the owners are very Republican. Your study is factually accurate but completely misleading.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Total BS. Most of the journalists who work in the TV and newspaper industry tend to label themselves as moderates.

Fixed that. Look at your own numbers... You could just as accurately have said most journalists tend to lable themselves as moderate or conservative.

Anyone who thinks an individual's company agenda, management structure, and prospects of career advancement don't color how that person views news events or how he/she represents those events to others, is simply clueless.

Fixed that too...

[SFL Cat]

Most of the editors I know are journalists who have worked their way up the ranks.

While it's probably true that of lot of the people in "management" are MBA types, and thus (according to stereotype) Republicans, they aren't the gatekeepers as far as media content goes. They will be involved in deciding how many people are layed off before Christmas so the company's stock price goes up rather than what's on the front page of the paper or what story will lead off the evening TV news.

[MrBigglesworth]

Most of the editors I know are journalists who have worked their way up the ranks.
Editors are a higher pay grade. More money = more conservative. They are also closer to management. Closer to management = more conservative. It's like that in every industry.

[Glengoyne]

I think the corporate bias to the media is simply completely laughable. It really holds no water for non conspriacy theorists. I'd agree that the media in general is more oppositional with regard to the Whitehouse than liberal. I think the treatment that Clinton got, blowjob or no blowjob, bears that out.

I do believe there is a liberal bias to the media, but I think it is typically more subtle than the "memogate" incident. I like what Brian Williams, now manning the helm for NBC, said about the subject. He described that he and (some Jewish guy who used to be a Nightline correspondent) used to frequently lunch together in the ninties. They would go over transcripts and print media and often note incidents of bias. The example he gave was something along the lines of "Dogmatic Conservative Gnewt Gingrich and Democrat Ted kennedy...." A label had been applied to Gingrich while none was for Kennedy. There are subtle things like that, that point to a pervaisive bias. The people authoring the stories don't intend it, but their politics are reflected in what they write.

Edit to add that the Some Jewish guy comment..really wasn't meant as derogatory as it sounds when I read it now. I just can't remember the name, but I think it was a Greenberg or GreenStein or somesuch.....So really I should have said some guy who's name I don't remember, but I think he was Jewish.

[Dutch]

There are subtle things like that, that point to a pervaisive bias. The people authoring the stories don't intend it, but their politics are reflected in what they write.

That's probably a fair and reasonable conclusion.

[Buccaneer]

I think the corporate bias to the media is simply completely laughable. It really holds no water for non conspriacy theorists. I'd agree that the media in general is more oppositional with regard to the Whitehouse than liberal. I think the treatment that Clinton got, blowjob or no blowjob, bears that out.

I do believe there is a liberal bias to the media, but I think it is typically more subtle than the "memogate" incident. I like what Brian Williams, now manning the helm for NBC, said about the subject. He described that he and (some Jewish guy who used to be a Nightline correspondent) used to frequently lunch together in the ninties. They would go over transcripts and print media and often note incidents of bias. The example he gave was something along the lines of "Dogmatic Conservative Gnewt Gingrich and Democrat Ted kennedy...." A label had been applied to Gingrich while none was for Kennedy. There are subtle things like that, that point to a pervaisive bias. The people authoring the stories don't intend it, but their politics are reflected in what they write.
You see that all off the time, even here at FOFC, where the labels "far right", "extreme right" are used but not their exact (and just as prevalent) counterpart. It's all about opposition and demonizing.

Also, I take issue with the mainstream media during the Clinton years. I read more media coverage back then as oppose to now and while the sensatualism (sp?) was there, there were quite a bit of demonizing the Gingrich congress and holding Clinton up as an embattled warrior. Why do you think Peter Jennings called the 1994 election, "America's temper tantrum". Why would he do that (implying the negative)? Even later when even the NYTimes gave lukewarm support to Clinton for re-election (because of the cloud of scandals), there were far more editorials and commentaries giving him positive support against a "hostile" Congress and treating him with kid gloves so as to go after his enemies. Besides the BJ, the only constant negativity was portraying him as a "waffler". That's very tame stuff. Don't you remember any of that?

[SFL Cat]

More money = more conservative.

Someone please notify George Soros.

[Glengoyne]

You see that all off the time, even here at FOFC, where the labels "far right", "extreme right" are used but not their exact (and just as prevalent) counterpart. It's all about opposition and demonizing.

Also, I take issue with the mainstream media during the Clinton years. I read more media coverage back then as oppose to now and while the sensatualism (sp?) was there, there were quite a bit of demonizing the Gingrich congress and holding Clinton up as an embattled warrior. Why do you think Peter Jennings called the 1994 election, "America's temper tantrum". Why would he do that (implying the negative)? Even later when even the NYTimes gave lukewarm support to Clinton for re-election (because of the cloud of scandals), there were far more editorials and commentaries giving him positive support against a "hostile" Congress and treating him with kid gloves so as to go after his enemies. Besides the BJ, the only constant negativity was portraying him as a "waffler". That's very tame stuff. Don't you remember any of that?
I do remember the unfair demonization of Gingrich, but I think it was more the Dems in Congress than the media. Certainly the guys writing the editorials for the print media were piling on Gingrich as well, but those guys are only marginally more representative of what I consider the media, than Rush, Hannity, and Franken.

[Buccaneer]

Before the Internet news boom in the late 90s (it took a while before sites started updating in a timely manner), everything was centered around the Big 4 TV news stations and print media. I may underestimate the power of AM radio but I still think the influence of Big Media's editorial and news slants was/is noticeable. I accept it as very little of it spoke to my views but it does get me that it has gone beyond reporting the news to telling us how we should interpret and react to the news. Jennings' editorializing quips really got on my nerves and I have not watched network news since then.

[Flasch186]

right, ratings and Sensationalism dont play into the media. Just ask former Current Affair Anchor, Bill O'Reilly. He won a Peabody right? LOL

[MrBigglesworth]

Someone please notify George Soros.
I don't even know what to say, other than I hope you are joking.

[MrBigglesworth]

I think the corporate bias to the media is simply completely laughable. It really holds no water for non conspriacy theorists.
Does GM want to make money? Does Microsoft? Does GE (owner of NBC)?

But Time-Warner doesn't? Thinking that they do is a crazy conspiracy theory? C'mon Blen, you can't really believe that.

[SFL Cat]

I don't even know what to say, other than I hope you are joking.

:confused:

You must be an off-the-map leftist to imply that George Soros isn't a leftist.

[sterlingice]

You see that all off the time, even here at FOFC, where the labels "far right", "extreme right" are used but not their exact (and just as prevalent) counterpart. It's all about opposition and demonizing.
Maybe I missed the point of this, but are you trying to say that "far right" is used as a demonizing label but no one is going around calling anyone "liberal" or "Democrat" or "leftist"?

SI

[Glengoyne]

Maybe I missed the point of this, but are you trying to say that "far right" is used as a demonizing label but no one is going around calling anyone "liberal" or "Democrat" or "leftist"?

SI
If a day goes by and I don't, at the very least, insinuate that either Giggles, Flere, or Jesse Ewok is a freaking crazy liberal...I haven't spent that day at FOFC. It goes both ways here, but then again we aren't participants in a noble profession where we are attempting to impartially relay facts to the public.

[sterlingice]

Exactly my point- both sides get labels tossed around left and right (pun not intended) here and everywhere. But I'm guessing I misunderstood what Bucc was saying.

SI

[MrBigglesworth]

If a day goes by and I don't, at the very least, insinuate that either Giggles, Flere, or Jesse Ewok is a freaking crazy liberal...I haven't spent that day at FOFC. It goes both ways here, but then again we aren't participants in a noble profession where we are attempting to impartially relay facts to the public.
Blen I'm still awaiting your explanation on why the media having a corporate bias is crazy talk.

[MrBigglesworth]

:confused:

You must be an off-the-map leftist to imply that George Soros isn't a leftist.
Oh, it looks like you were serious. Check this out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistics

[SFL Cat]

:confused:

We're obviously not communicating, cuz I have no idea WTF a linked Wikipedia site about statistics has to do with George Soros.

[Dutch]

Here's a good example of the AP being biased.

Obama Calls for Troop Reduction in Iraq (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051123/ap_on_go_co/obama_iraq;_ylt=AuB1I5weKpI4tdvJjt9dyuhp24cA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl)

Here is Obama's Quote's in full.

"I believe that U.S. forces are still a part of the solution in Iraq," the Illinois Democrat said during a speech to the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations. "The strategic goals should be to allow for a limited drawdown of U.S. troops, coupled with a shift to a more effective counter-insurgency strategy that puts the Iraqi security forces in the lead and intensifies our efforts to train Iraqi forces."

Notice how he gets to be quoted in full since the article is about him.

There is one disconnected word where the AP filled in the blanks for us, the readers.

"shameful."

But overall, it's a fair article on what Obama wanted to say.

Here is Lieberman's quotes in another AP article.

Lieberman: U.S. to Finish Iraq Mission (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051124/ap_on_go_co/iraq_lieberman;_ylt=AkjplZ_xtUIeLSL9Kkx5Z2Vp24cA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl)

"We cannot let extremists and terrorists, a small number, here in Iraq deprive the 27 million Iraqis of what they want which is a better freer life, safer life for themselves and their children"

and most of this thought process here

"but the cost for America of failure in Iraq would be catastrophic — for America, for the Iraqi people and I believe for the world."

Cool! Thanks for that Lieberman and the AP. That's what I like to see. An article about somebody and they get to speak.

And now the word from the White House.

Officials More Hopeful on Iraq Draw Down (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051124/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iraq)

A Defense department spokesman was quoted as saying...

"very positive" w/ the AP filling in the rest.

Secretary of State Condaleeza Rice was quoted as saying...

"very much longer."

Donald Rumsfeld...

"...we'll see the coalition forces being able to pare down and pass over responsibility to Iraqi Security Forces on an orderly basis..."

But enough about whatever the Bush Admin says, let's move on to the non-partisan expert.

Dan Goure with the non-partisan Lexington Institute says...

"With the number of units available, they are coming to the point where they simply were not going to have enough brigades. There is a recognition that the number has to come down because of the stress that was being placed on the force. There is a plan that has been in the works for at least six months with the idea that we possibly could reduce the number of troops."

An article about the Bush Admin with full complete unabridged thoughts reserved only for a non-partisan expert, while the Bush Admin gets the AP's interpreted version. Why didn't the AP do this with Obama or Lieberman? It is my belief that bias like this fuels the disconnect the left feels from this White House and fuels my belief that the media isn't doing it's job fairly or with a sense of purpose towards it's responsability to everybody by presenting all the information all the time.

[flere-imsaho]

I think the corporate bias to the media is simply completely laughable. It really holds no water for non conspriacy theorists. I'd agree that the media in general is more oppositional with regard to the Whitehouse than liberal. I think the treatment that Clinton got, blowjob or no blowjob, bears that out.


Exactly. Everyone here is acting as if they're conveniently forgotten 1992-2000.

You see that all off the time, even here at FOFC, where the labels "far right", "extreme right" are used but not their exact (and just as prevalent) counterpart. It's all about opposition and demonizing.

I'm sorry, you've never seen the term "wacko lefty" or "moonbat liberal" on FOFC when talking about those of us on the left? You must miss a lot of posts. :rolleyes:

[Buccaneer]

I do miss a lot of posts but from what little I've seen, it's talking more about the poster instead of a real politician/activist where the label fits. Problem that I see is that when any one talks about any conservative, it's modified by radical or extreme. Why not do the same for any liberal.

By the way, both labels are a joke because if you look at the broad spectrum, there is no one in politics even coming close to approaching the extremes. For those that are calling any one (Bush, Limbaugh, Moore, Kennedy, etc.) radical or extreme is just being foolishly ignorant. On a scale of 1 - 10, they all fit within 3-7. There are no John Birch disciples elected, just as there are no Earth Firsters.

[MrBigglesworth]

Here's a good example of the AP being biased.

Obama Calls for Troop Reduction in Iraq (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051123/ap_on_go_co/obama_iraq;_ylt=AuB1I5weKpI4tdvJjt9dyuhp24cA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl)

Here is Obama's Quote's in full.



But overall, it's a fair article on what Obama wanted to say.

Here is Lieberman's quotes in another AP article.

Lieberman: U.S. to Finish Iraq Mission (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051124/ap_on_go_co/iraq_lieberman;_ylt=AkjplZ_xtUIeLSL9Kkx5Z2Vp24cA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl)



Cool! Thanks for that Lieberman and the AP. That's what I like to see. An article about somebody and they get to speak.

And now the word from the White House.

Officials More Hopeful on Iraq Draw Down (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051124/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_iraq)







But enough about whatever the Bush Admin says, let's move on to the non-partisan expert.



An article about the Bush Admin with full complete unabridged thoughts reserved only for a non-partisan expert, while the Bush Admin gets the AP's interpreted version. Why didn't the AP do this with Obama or Lieberman? It is my belief that bias like this fuels the disconnect the left feels from this White House and fuels my belief that the media isn't doing it's job fairly or with a sense of purpose towards it's responsability to everybody by presenting all the information all the time.
You take a newspaper quoting in full a Democrat quoting an administration talking point, and that is your liberal bias?

[MrBigglesworth]

:confused:

We're obviously not communicating, cuz I have no idea WTF a linked Wikipedia site about statistics has to do with George Soros.
Because you are saying that more money does not correlate with being more conservative, and to 'prove' this you give George Soros. So either you are being deliberately obtuse or aren't aware of statistics.

[Dutch]

You take a newspaper quoting in full a Democrat quoting an administration talking point, and that is your liberal bias?

Stop acting so naive, it's another example. You don't want examples, that's your problem, not mine.

[MrBigglesworth]

Stop acting so naive, it's another example. You don't want examples, that's your problem, not mine.
Please explain how quoting in full a Democrat quoting an administration talking point is liberal bias.

[SFL Cat]

Because you are saying that more money does not correlate with being more conservative, and to 'prove' this you give George Soros. So either you are being deliberately obtuse or aren't aware of statistics.

The Kennedy clan; Teresa Heinz Kerry; Barbara Streisand; Rob Reiner; Martin Sheen; Nancy Pelosi; Jay Rockefeller; Warren Buffet; Steve Jobs; Ben & Jerry; Bono; Larry David; Noam Chomsky; Susie Tompkins Buell (co-founder of Esprit); Bernard L. Schwartz (of Loral and Chinagate fame); C. Michael Armstrong (former chairman of Comcast); Steve Kirsch (founder of Infoseek); Haim Saban (of Power Rangers fame).....etc., etc.

[Flasch186]

The Kennedy clan; Teresa Heinz Kerry; Barbara Streisand; Rob Reiner; Martin Sheen; Nancy Pelosi; Jay Rockefeller; Warren Buffet; Steve Jobs; Ben & Jerry; Bono; Larry David; Noam Chomsky; Susie Tompkins Buell (co-founder of Esprit); Bernard L. Schwartz (of Loral and Chinagate fame); C. Michael Armstrong (former chairman of Comcast); Steve Kirsch (founder of Infoseek); Haim Saban (of Power Rangers fame).....etc., etc.


I think he's talking atatistically and stereotypically, which is derived from a common notion. Might not even be true, although I believe this one is, but the perception still exists so that even the most shallow of knowledge int he political arena might believe this.

[Dutch]

I think he's talking atatistically and stereotypically, which is derived from a common notion. Might not even be true, although I believe this one is, but the perception still exists so that even the most shallow of knowledge int he political arena might believe this.

Do you also believe that liberals are generally smarter than conservatives, based on that stereotype?

[Flasch186]

Do you also believe that liberals are generally smarter than conservatives, based on that stereotype?

I dont, but whether or not the masses do is up to perception and stereotypes. My opinion is that the greatmajority of things fall under opinions and are therefore acceptable as opinions. Its if/when someone is exposed as being criminal/unethical/hypocritical that that opinion can change to fact, for me. For example, I think that Bush and Cheney and Rove SHOULD want the leaker outed. exposed, and out of civil service. A leaker exists, and they should want them out because that leaker is of a unethical fabric. But thats just an example, you can cherry pick examples on both sides of the aisle, Im simply letting you know where i stand.

[SFL Cat]

Do you also believe that liberals are generally smarter than conservatives, based on that stereotype?

As far as political strategery? Based on recent election results, no.
:D

[Dutch]

I dont, but whether or not the masses do is up to perception and stereotypes. My opinion is that the greatmajority of things fall under opinions and are therefore acceptable as opinions. Its if/when someone is exposed as being criminal/unethical/hypocritical that that opinion can change to fact, for me. For example, I think that Bush and Cheney and Rove SHOULD want the leaker outed. exposed, and out of civil service. A leaker exists, and they should want them out because that leaker is of a unethical fabric. But thats just an example, you can cherry pick examples on both sides of the aisle, Im simply letting you know where i stand.

Fair enough, that's why we should always hear boths sides for maximum input and detail. To help the public form a correct opinion based on fact, not on perception. Whenever possible, that is.

[Flasch186]

but most dont....their perception is reality, whether right or wrong.

[MrBigglesworth]

Are Dutch and SFL Cat really arguing that income does not correlate with political orientation? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

[Dutch]

Are Dutch and SFL Cat really arguing that income does not correlate with political orientation? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.

So, if rich people vote for Republicans and I'm running for office, I expect my predecessors to make sure there are plenty of rich voters out there so we can continue to win elections.

[MrBigglesworth]

Vote by Income All Gore Bush Buchanan Nader
Under $15,000 7 % 57 % 37 % 1 % 4 %
$15-30,000 16 % 54 % 41 % 1 % 3 %
$30-50,000 24 % 49 % 48 % 0 % 2 %
$50-75,000 25 % 46 % 51 % 0 % 2 %
$75-100,000 13 % 45 % 52 % 0 % 2 %
Over $100,000 15 % 43 % 54 % 0 % 2 %
VOTE BY INCOME
BUSH
KERRY

Under $15,000 (8%)
36%
63% 0%

$15-30,000 (15%)
42%
57% 0%

$30-50,000 (22%)
49%
50% 0%

$50-75,000 (23%)
56%
43% 0%

$75-100,000 (14%)
55%
45% 0%

$100-150,000 (11%)
57%
42% 1%

$150-200,000 (4%)
58%
42% *

$200,000 or More (3%)
63%
35% 1%

[Dutch]

VOTE BY INCOME
BUSH
KERRY

Under $15,000 (8%)
36%
63% 0%

$15-30,000 (15%)
42%
57% 0%

Definately looks like you want less people making <$30k a year if you a Republican, eh?

[MrBigglesworth]

Definately looks like you want less people making <$30k a year if you a Republican, eh?
There is the rub. If you start promoting policies that help those making under 30k, the'll start to vote for you, but you will lose your rich base.

[Flasch186]

VOTE BY INCOME
BUSH
KERRY

Under $15,000 (8%)
36%
63% 0%

$15-30,000 (15%)
42%
57% 0%

Definately looks like you want less people making <$30k a year if you a Republican, eh?


and BLAMMO. You just lost all credibility with me. This is known throughout, statistically proven, and consistent in every election that the very wealthy are Republican and the very poor are democratic, with few exceptions.. If you wont accept that than honest, open discussion with you is not only a fruitless endeavour its also an impossibility. Go back to your cave sir.

[Dutch]

Flasch, I have no idea what your BLAMMO is all about. :)

I didn't disagree with the stats at all. I simply stated that it's in the Republicans best interest to reduce the overall number of poor folks because rich folks vote Republican. And I think they aim towards that goal with privatization vs socialization.

[Flasch186]

Flasch, I have no idea what your BLAMMO is all about. :)

I didn't disagree with the stats at all. I simply stated that it's in the Republicans best interest to reduce the overall number of poor folks because rich folks vote Republican. And I think they aim towards that goal with privatization vs socialization.

youve redemmed yourself by not arguing that fact, cool. I thought you just dove off th edeep end.

Ok, but making everyone rich is impossible BUT what is fact is that more wealthy americans vote per capita than do the poor, for a plethora of debatable reasons. Knowing this though, and being able to include a base that involves religion, tax cuts (generally for the wealthy), relaxed requirements for corporations, etc. etc. generally their platform will target a group of people that will vote. Maybe not 100% but comparatively a high number AND its specific and "tight" per se, easy to swallow.

So while not ebing able to make the poor rich what they can do, is divide up the middle. Some will be rich some will be poor, but those that go from middle to rich LIKELY will vote republican thereinafter, not 100% but HEY "How'd we get so rich?" Status quo. Those that go from middle to poor, again not 100%, become so disillusioned or "swamped" by the things on their plate, or depressed that "rocking the vote" isnt on the front burner.

Thats why the gap grows and grows and grows. This is not including a lot of debatable things, like abortion etc. simply sociodynamics.

Ill never forget I once sold a home to a lasy named Nancy Edwards. Bible beatin' republican. We used to debate right in front of her husband and most of the time when she stormed out he would turn to me and say, "You know what...youre right." Anyways, the thing that struck me was when she said (and I think some on here have reiterated this statement) "Youre a democrat now but just wait til you start making some money...then you'll change to be Republican." I thought that that was the most selfish, disingenuous thing about the whole thing. That the morals and ethics didnt matter it was all about the tax bracket and damned be thy neighbor. Anyways...Ive made more money, donate more, try to help out as much as I can and provide for my family and team(Friends family etc) and still a democrat. Ready to pay more taxes to help get us out of this hole we've dug ourselves into :)

First time in the history of the world a civilization has cut taxes during wartime. That is a wow moment.

[Dutch]

I've heard Democrats say a lot of things as well. I've spent a lot of time in Mississippi where I would see perpetually poor towns continually voting Democrats in as their Mayors and Representatives because....well, "What's a Republican ever done for us?"

The short answer is -- 'Bout the same as the Democrats. The reality is that the strength of the two-party system is when they play off of one another. The truth is that Democrats ignore just as important sector of our country as do the Republicans. This country isn't just great because of workers. It's also great because of business. It doesn't take a Harvard grad to understand why America is stronger economically than Bangladesh despite the same ammount of hard workers.

As for tax-cuts during war time. That's a soundbite and a half. It was tax-cuts during a recession to be more accurate.

There were great fears that we would be sucked into a recession because people stopped buying things at the mall, investments slowed on low-confidence, that the recession would last for a decade, or even worse, total collapse and a new depression.

The tax relief was an excess of money our government had in it's coffers. It was given back, with the hopes to stimulate a flattened economy following the Dot Com Bust before things got even worse. It may have only been a bandage to help stop the bleeding, but most of that money was re-spent on the economy.

Wars come and go and our economy doesn't need it's coffers stuffed full of peoples hard earned money to be prepared for such events. We are a nation currently that can afford to handle conflict when it arises. I think we've done pretty well considering.

[Glengoyne]

Blen I'm still awaiting your explanation on why the media having a corporate bias is crazy talk.

I'm pretty sure that the only folks who will agree with you are your other conspiracy theorists. Pretty much all you have to do is read a good portion of the output of the AP to determine that if anything there is a "left" leaning bias to the media. I believe it is subtle and not the result of some conspriacy. I believe that since most of the folks in the media lean to the left, that some of their own viewpoint actually seeps into their writing. Some moreso than others, and some more knowingly than others, I'm sure.

You are suggesting that the folks writing the articles are being forced by management policy (management implementing such policy under pressure from Corporate ownership) to steer the news to the "right". This is a conspiracy theory. For it to be true, there would be those in the system that are bucking the system. In other words some of these journalists would be shouting about such a policy from the mountain tops. There would be specific stories quashed by the corporate machine that whistle- blowing investigative reporters would be revealing to the public along with the fact that the corporate media machine tried to quash the story. Such tales do not exist, at least not with sufficient number or gravity to lend any credence to your proposal.

Your conspiracy theory simply doesn't have a leg to stand on. Around here a lot of folks like to throw around the adage that "If there is smoke there is fire." Often the real disagreement is about whether one side or the other is manufacturing the smoke to incriminate others. In your case...there is no smoke, just a lame conspiracy leaning up against the base of corporate America.


As for your complaints about SFL Cat and George Soros. Do you see anywhere that SFL is suggesting that Your assumption was wrong? I thought he was saying that someone should tell George Soros that he is helping advance the wrong agenda. It was, at most, a tongue in cheek argument that stereotypes shouldn't be held as absolute.

[ISiddiqui]

our economy doesn't need it's coffers stuffed full of peoples hard earned money to be prepared for such eventsCoffers stuffed full? If you hadn't realized we have this MASSIVE debt which at some point has to be paid off (at least a portion of it). So, no, the government's coffers aren't going to be stuffed with anything.

[MrBigglesworth]

I'm pretty sure that the only folks who will agree with you are your other conspiracy theorists. Pretty much all you have to do is read a good portion of the output of the AP to determine that if anything there is a "left" leaning bias to the media. I believe it is subtle and not the result of some conspriacy. I believe that since most of the folks in the media lean to the left, that some of their own viewpoint actually seeps into their writing. Some moreso than others, and some more knowingly than others, I'm sure.

You are suggesting that the folks writing the articles are being forced by management policy (management implementing such policy under pressure from Corporate ownership) to steer the news to the "right". This is a conspiracy theory. For it to be true, there would be those in the system that are bucking the system. In other words some of these journalists would be shouting about such a policy from the mountain tops. There would be specific stories quashed by the corporate machine that whistle- blowing investigative reporters would be revealing to the public along with the fact that the corporate media machine tried to quash the story. Such tales do not exist, at least not with sufficient number or gravity to lend any credence to your proposal.

Your conspiracy theory simply doesn't have a leg to stand on. Around here a lot of folks like to throw around the adage that "If there is smoke there is fire." Often the real disagreement is about whether one side or the other is manufacturing the smoke to incriminate others. In your case...there is no smoke, just a lame conspiracy leaning up against the base of corporate America..
Nice strawman. Nowhere did I say that the media is to the right. I said it has a 'corporate bias'. As in, they do what is in their best interests to make money. If there is a scandal that will sell papers, they will print it. If it is damaging to them, they will not. Just look at the so-called liberal NY Times. They have tried to hide nearly everything to do with the Judy debacle, even though it was her false stories that helped a Republican President falsely lead a country into war. But they printed the WMD stories, lies that they all were, to sell papers. And it has been like that since newspapers started. Marijuana is illegal because newspaper baron Hearst owned paper mills, and hemp was a cheap alternative, so they started an anti-pot campaign.

Saying the media has a left leaning bias is a laughable conspiracy theory with no leg to stand on.

[MrBigglesworth]

The short answer is -- 'Bout the same as the Democrats.
What a complete bunch of BS. Social security has greatly reduced elderly poverty. Walfare has greatly reduced poverty. Medicare and medicaid has helped the poor and the elderly to live healthier lives. Minimum wage laws have allowed the poor to earn a decent living. The GOP ideal IS the economy of Bangledesh, where rich barons pay the lowest wage possible and provide the worst conditions possible to make the most money. I'm not into the Dem ideal of high minimum wages and protected trade either. But don't tell me that the GOP is as good for poor people as the Dems. That's as laughable as saying that the Dems are as good for rich people as the GOP.

[MrBigglesworth]

I didn't disagree with the stats at all. I simply stated that it's in the Republicans best interest to reduce the overall number of poor folks because rich folks vote Republican. And I think they aim towards that goal with privatization vs socialization.
So if the GOP agenda is working for the poor, why don't they vote for them? Is it because they disagree with the values of the GOP? Is it because poor people are stupid? Or is it because the agenda really doesn't look out for them?

[Glengoyne]

Nice strawman. Nowhere did I say that the media is to the right. I said it has a 'corporate bias'. As in, they do what is in their best interests to make money. If there is a scandal that will sell papers, they will print it. If it is damaging to them, they will not. Just look at the so-called liberal NY Times. They have tried to hide nearly everything to do with the Judy debacle, even though it was her false stories that helped a Republican President falsely lead a country into war. But they printed the WMD stories, lies that they all were, to sell papers. And it has been like that since newspapers started. Marijuana is illegal because newspaper baron Hearst owned paper mills, and hemp was a cheap alternative, so they started an anti-pot campaign.

Saying the media has a left leaning bias is a laughable conspiracy theory with no leg to stand on.
Strawman..? Hell state a complete argument if you don't want people to assume you are a moron.
You spent the last two pages of this thread saying that people who have money are Republican...Corporations have money. Therefore a corporate bias was a Bias towards Republicans.

I think it is sort of silly to think everyone doesn't know that media outlets are there to make a buck. To call it a corporate bias may not be building a strawman, but it is a bit like crying out that the sky is falling. You are taking it to the next level suggesting the media uses untoward means to reach the objective of making money. I just don't think most folks are willing to take it to the next level.

Also. I understood that marijuana was outlawed initially because the poor blacks and hispanics were getting high all of the time instead of working meanial jobs for the man, and the Man needs to extract his measure. The bit about Hearst might actually have some truth to it though, he was a Media Mogul with plenty of untoward means to achieve his ultimate motive. You know, his actions were so overt, they actually passed laws to prevent that kind of abuse.

[Flasch186]

I assumed Corporate bias for the media meant ratings bias. Whoops.

Tax cuts during war time was a fact. We are the first civilization to cut taxes during a war. Sound bite or not. Throw out there recession, full moon, etc. we still are the first to accomplish this feat.

I second the coffers full statement. Not only are they not full, we actually see the bottom of the coffer, and have started to sell things from around the house. The republican argument is that the increased business will make up for the lost taxes and deficit in increased business and increased taxes from a wider range....The numbers dont bear out since most of the extra money is being blown out of every orifice we have.

[Glengoyne]

I assumed Corporate bias for the media meant ratings bias. Whoops. Its possible I could have overreacted last night. I was tired and surly, just too full of Prime Rib.



Tax cuts during war time was a fact. We are the first civilization to cut taxes during a war. Sound bite or not. Throw out there recession, full moon, etc. we still are the first to accomplish this feat.

I second the coffers full statement. Not only are they not full, we actually see the bottom of the coffer, and have started to sell things from around the house. The republican argument is that the increased business will make up for the lost taxes and deficit in increased business and increased taxes from a wider range....The numbers dont bear out since most of the extra money is being blown out of every orifice we have.

I'm not a fan of the rampant deficit spending, but I'm not as scared of deficits as a lot of people are. I've seen a good number of economists say that the trouble that a massive deficit would bring is well into the future. So there is no immediate danger. We have time to right the ship. Right now, I don't see much alternative to outrageous spending on Iraq and internal security. I do want to see an end to giveaways in Farm, Energy, and Transportation bills. My problem is that it really doesn't seem that either party is really interested in cutting spending. Also there is a possitive that the deficit might/should eventually yield. The inevitable pressure that the deficit eventually causes will hopefully force the government to reduce spending.

[flere-imsaho]

On this topic, a very interesting editorial from the NYT: (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/24/business/24scene.html?ei=5070&en=dfb4805ef74e0096&ex=1133154000&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1133028776-qdX5JUgv2QK3hKrUdSsXjg&pagewanted=print)

Sometimes, a Tax Cut for the Wealthy Can Hurt the Wealthy

By ROBERT H. FRANK

WHEN market forces cause income inequality to grow, public policy in most countries tends to push in the opposite direction. In the United States, however, we enact tax cuts for the wealthy and cut public services for the needy. Cynics explain this curious inversion by saying that the wealthy have captured the political process in Washington and are exploiting it to their own advantage.

This explanation makes sense, however, only if those in power have an extremely naïve understanding of their own interests. A careful reading of the evidence suggests that even the wealthy have been made worse off, on balance, by recent tax cuts. The private benefits of these cuts have been much smaller, and their indirect costs much larger, than many recipients appear to have anticipated.

On the benefit side, tax cuts have led the wealthy to buy larger houses, in the seemingly plausible expectation that doing so would make them happier. As economists increasingly recognize, however, well-being depends less on how much people consume in absolute terms than on the social context in which consumption occurs. Compelling evidence suggests that for the wealthy in particular, when everyone's house grows larger, the primary effect is merely to redefine what qualifies as an acceptable dwelling.

So, although the recent tax cuts have enabled the wealthy to buy more and bigger things, these purchases appear to have had little impact. As the economist Richard Layard has written, "In a poor country, a man proves to his wife that he loves her by giving her a rose, but in a rich country, he must give a dozen roses."

On the cost side of the ledger, the federal budget deficits created by the recent tax cuts have had serious consequences, even for the wealthy. These deficits will exceed $300 billion for each of the next six years, according to projections by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. The most widely reported consequences of the deficits have been cuts in government programs that serve the nation's poorest families. And since the wealthy are well represented in our political system, their favored programs may seem safe from the budget ax. Wealthy families have further insulated themselves by living in gated communities and sending their children to private schools. Yet such steps go only so far.

For example, deficits have led to cuts in federal financing for basic scientific research, even as the United States' share of global patents granted continues to decline. Such cuts threaten the very basis of our long-term economic prosperity. As Senator Pete Domenici, Republican of New Mexico, said: "We thought we'd keep the high-end jobs, and others would take the low-end jobs. We're now on track to a second-rate economy and a second-rate country."

Large deficits also threaten our public health. Thus, despite the increasing threat from micro-organisms like E. coli 0157, the government inspects beef processing plants at only a quarter the rate it did in the early 1980's. Poor people have died from eating contaminated beef but so have rich people.

Citing revenue shortfalls, the nation postpones maintenance of its streets and highways, even though doing so means having to spend two to five times as much on repairs in the long run. In the short run, bad roads cause thousands of accidents each year, many of them fatal. Poor people die in these accidents but so do rich people. When a pothole destroys a tire and wheel, replacements cost only $63 for a Ford Escort but $1,569 for a Porsche 911.

Deficits have also compromised the nation's security. In 2004, for example, the Bush administration reduced financing for the Energy Department's program to secure loosely guarded nuclear stockpiles in the former Soviet Union by 8 percent. Sam Nunn, the former United States senator, now heads a private foundation whose mission is to raise private donations to expedite this effort. And despite the rational fear that terrorists may try to detonate a nuclear bomb in an American city, most cargo containers continue to enter the nation's ports without inspection.

Large federal budget deficits and low household savings rates have also forced our government to borrow more than $650 billion each year, primarily from China, Japan and South Korea. These loans must be repaid in full, with interest. The resulting financial burden, plus the risks associated with increased international monetary instability, fall disproportionately on the rich.

At the president's behest, Congress has already enacted tax cuts that will result in some $2 trillion in revenue losses by 2010. According to one recent estimate, 52.5 percent of these cuts will have gone to the top 5 percent of earners by the time the enabling legislation is fully phased in. Republicans in Congress are now calling for an additional $69 billion in tax cuts aimed largely at high-income families.

With the economy already at full employment, no one pretends these cuts are needed to stimulate spending. Nor is there any evidence that further cuts would summon outpourings of additional effort and risk taking. Nor, finally, does anyone deny that further cuts would increase the already high costs associated with larger federal budget deficits.

Moralists often urge the wealthy to imagine how easily their lives could have turned out differently, to adopt a more forgiving posture toward those less prosperous. But top earners might also wish to consider evidence that their own families would have been better off, in purely practical terms, had it not been for the tax cuts of recent years.

Robert H. Frank has taught introductory economics at Cornell University since 1972. He is co-author, with Ben S. Bernanke, of "Principles of Microeconomics.

I found the bolded part of the author's mini-bio particularly interesting though I'm not suggesting these are the views of Bernanke.

[MrBigglesworth]

Strawman..? Hell state a complete argument if you don't want people to assume you are a moron.
You spent the last two pages of this thread saying that people who have money are Republican...Corporations have money. Therefore a corporate bias was a Bias towards Republicans.
I thought that what I wrote in post 171 cleared up all ambiguity:
Does GM want to make money? Does Microsoft? Does GE (owner of NBC)?

But Time-Warner doesn't? Thinking that they do is a crazy conspiracy theory? C'mon Blen, you can't really believe that.
Or did you assume that I thought that only Republicans wanted to make money? And you are correct, a lot of times the corporate bias does tend to lend itself to a bias towards Republicans on economic issues.

But I am curious as to why you think that the media being biased in favor of the right is a 'crazy conspiracy theory without a leg to stand on', all while thining the media is left-leaning. After all, talk radio is dominated by the right. More conservative pundits appear on talk shows. More conservative pundits are employed at major newspapers. The only unabashedly biased news network tilts to the right. A large portion (maybe a majority, not sure) of the local radio and TV stations are owned by overtly conservative companies (ClearChannel, Sinclair Broadcasting).

[-Mojo Jojo-]

On this topic, a very interesting editorial from the NYT: (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/24/business/24scene.html?ei=5070&en=dfb4805ef74e0096&ex=1133154000&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1133028776-qdX5JUgv2QK3hKrUdSsXjg&pagewanted=print)



I found the bolded part of the author's mini-bio particularly interesting though I'm not suggesting these are the views of Bernanke.


I'm sure the guy is bright, but it's not a very good editorial (and I'm on the same side of these issues that he is). He says that the tax cuts are of no value based on a psychological evaluation of rich people. I don't know that the happiness of rich people was ever an important measurement criteria for the cuts. They were done either to appease wealthy Republican constituents or for their secondary economic impacts (buying bigger houses may not have made the wealthy people happy, but it did employ builders), or (most likely) a combination of the two.

Likewise, the lack of basic science funding due to the budget deficit is a bad thing, but Frank puts too much emphasis on it, and seemingly from that point alone concludes that we're on our way to a second-rate economy. Whether or not I agree with his conclusion, the supporting argument is awfully weak. We never spent that much money on basic research..

He blew through monetary stability in less than a sentence, and never mentioned impending liabilities in social security and medicare/medicaid. I think those are the strongest points to present...

All in all, it could have been better...

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Dola.

The media bias argument is about as tedious as they come, with ample anecdotal evidence for everyone to support their claims and no definitive answers. If there is any takeaway on that topic, I think it's the fact that news outlets generally have cut back on reporting staff over the past 10+ years and refocused on talking heads and fluff pieces (celebrities, human interest stories, car chases, and homicides). The point is, it doesn't matter who the press favors because they are largely incompetent and increasingly irrelevant.

[Dutch]

Dola.

The media bias argument is about as tedious as they come, with ample anecdotal evidence for everyone to support their claims and no definitive answers. If there is any takeaway on that topic, I think it's the fact that news outlets generally have cut back on reporting staff over the past 10+ years and refocused on talking heads and fluff pieces (celebrities, human interest stories, car chases, and homicides). The point is, it doesn't matter who the press favors because they are largely incompetent and increasingly irrelevant.

Well, I agree journalism is not very good these days.

Iran President: Charge Bush for War Crimes
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051126/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_us

In the area of not being very clear, check out the beginning of this article. (Oh, and the writer, Nasser Karimi, was kind enough to quote full sentences of the Iranian President, something that the AP generally loathes when coming to President Bush.)

TEHRAN, Iran - Iran's hard-line president said Saturday the Bush administration should be tried on war crimes charges, and he denounced the West for pressuring Iran to curb its controversial nuclear program.

"You, who have used nuclear weapons against innocent people, who have used uranium ordnance in Iraq, should be tried as war criminals in courts," Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said in an apparent reference to the United States.

Ahmadinejad did not elaborate, but he apparently was referring to the U.S. military's reported use of artillery shells packed with depleted uranium, which is far less radioactive than natural uranium and is left over from the process of enriching uranium for use as nuclear fuel.

The article quotes the Iranian President as saying the US has used nuclear weapons against innocent people, but doesn't explain to it's readers that the only time that happened was in the very beginning of the nuclear age to end World War II.

For crying out loud, how can you possibly allow that article to go through without clarifying certain aspects for your readers? In Iran, they are apt to believe that the US used nuclear weapons on Iraq!

Also, by 'reported use' does this mean it was reported by journalists that the US uses depleted uranium shells or does it mean 'alleged' use?

Piss-poor journalism designed to "incite" not to inform.

[Flasch186]

ill agree, reported should not have been used synonymously with Alleged, if thats what he intended.

I will also agree that generally Journalism has gotten very remedial in the past 10-15 years, but again...simply for ratings or circulation count(s). Catering to the lowest common denominator in print, and sensationalism for ratings sake on TV.

[Chubby]

Well, I agree journalism is not very good these days.

Iran President: Charge Bush for War Crimes
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051126/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_us

In the area of not being very clear, check out the beginning of this article. (Oh, and the writer, Nasser Karimi, was kind enough to quote full sentences of the Iranian President, something that the AP generally loathes when coming to President Bush.)



The article quotes the Iranian President as saying the US has used nuclear weapons against innocent people, but doesn't explain to it's readers that the only time that happened was in the very beginning of the nuclear age to end World War II.

For crying out loud, how can you possibly allow that article to go through without clarifying certain aspects for your readers? In Iran, they are apt to believe that the US used nuclear weapons on Iraq!

Also, by 'reported use' does this mean it was reported by journalists that the US uses depleted uranium shells or does it mean 'alleged' use?

Piss-poor journalism designed to "incite" not to inform.
It's a quote, last time I checked you weren't supposed to clarify a direct quote from someone.

Do you honestly think that the people in Iran are going to get their news from Yahoo news and not see that quote elsewhere? :rolleyes:

[Dutch]

Do you honestly think that the people in Iran are going to get their news from Yahoo news and not see that quote elsewhere?

You're right, if I saw how they got their news, I probably wouldn't have anything bad to ever say about our journalists again. However, I hold our journalists to higher standard than those in Iran. Not that they are reaching that standard, but it does exist and should be strived for.

[MrBigglesworth]

Well, I agree journalism is not very good these days.

Iran President: Charge Bush for War Crimes
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051126/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_us

In the area of not being very clear, check out the beginning of this article. (Oh, and the writer, Nasser Karimi, was kind enough to quote full sentences of the Iranian President, something that the AP generally loathes when coming to President Bush.)



The article quotes the Iranian President as saying the US has used nuclear weapons against innocent people, but doesn't explain to it's readers that the only time that happened was in the very beginning of the nuclear age to end World War II.

For crying out loud, how can you possibly allow that article to go through without clarifying certain aspects for your readers? In Iran, they are apt to believe that the US used nuclear weapons on Iraq!

Also, by 'reported use' does this mean it was reported by journalists that the US uses depleted uranium shells or does it mean 'alleged' use?

Piss-poor journalism designed to "incite" not to inform.
Dutch, I know there are stupid people in this world, but does it really need to be said every time nuclear weapons are mentioned that we haven't used one since WWII? Isn't that something that should be considered common knowledge? During the lead-up to the war, I don't remember every WMD article stating that Saddam had never used nuclear weapons. Because everyone that was paying attention knew that already.

[Dutch]

Dutch, I know there are stupid people in this world, but does it really need to be said every time nuclear weapons are mentioned that we haven't used one since WWII? Isn't that something that should be considered common knowledge? During the lead-up to the war, I don't remember every WMD article stating that Saddam had never used nuclear weapons. Because everyone that was paying attention knew that already.

I'm not really worried about me and you. I'm worried about the people who don't know, that's where misleading/crappy journalism pays off.

[MrBigglesworth]

I'm not really worried about me and you. I'm worried about the people who don't know, that's where misleading/crappy journalism pays off.
But what I am saying is, you seem to want them to put every possible relevant fact into a news article that needs to fit into a finite space. There are probably hundreds of quotes and/or facts that needed to be left out or were edited out more important than informing people of a fact that even middle-aged people learned in elementary school. We don't need to remind people that gravity makes things fall in every story about airlines.

[Glengoyne]

...
But I am curious as to why you think that the media being biased in favor of the right is a 'crazy conspiracy theory without a leg to stand on', all while thining the media is left-leaning. After all, talk radio is dominated by the right. More conservative pundits appear on talk shows. More conservative pundits are employed at major newspapers. The only unabashedly biased news network tilts to the right. A large portion (maybe a majority, not sure) of the local radio and TV stations are owned by overtly conservative companies (ClearChannel, Sinclair Broadcasting).
I believe the liberal media bias is the basis of journalists letting their prejudiced views seep into their writing. There are a number of examples of it happening. I believe it is genuinely there, but not that it is some sinister conspiracy. I believe it is human nature.

As for the talk radio folks and conservative pundits.....In my opinion they aren't any more a part of the media that Al Franken and his ilk. They are, for the most part, entertainers and not journalists. There is a difference.

[Flasch186]

Glen:

For whatever wight in your head you throw on the journalists side of the scale as being liberal, you certainly would admit to an equivalent counterbalance on the right when it comes to radio journalism?

I dont necessarily agree with either, at this point, but if you refuse to accept ratings as being the tantamount bible when it comes to television media then you must admit that radio journailsm or punditry is heavilt laden and bullied by the conservative side of the spectrum. no?

[Dutch]

But what I am saying is, you seem to want them to put every possible relevant fact into a news article that needs to fit into a finite space. There are probably hundreds of quotes and/or facts that needed to be left out or were edited out more important than informing people of a fact that even middle-aged people learned in elementary school. We don't need to remind people that gravity makes things fall in every story about airlines.

Here's Bush speaking in his radio address and the newswriter's additional comment. We all know Cindy Sheehan's stance on Bush. But it was re-iterated here to defuse any message Bush may have been trying to provide.

"This week we also extend our gratitude to our military families, who are making great sacrifices to advance freedom's cause," Bush said in his weekly radio address. "They can know that we will honor that sacrifice by completing the noble mission for which their loved ones gave their lives."

His words gave little comfort to protester Cindy Sheehan, who lost her son Casey in Iraq last year and who has become a major figure in the peace movement after a 26-day vigil outside Bush's ranch in the summer.

Bush honors fallen troops, activists rally (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20051126/pl_nm/iraq_bush_dc;_ylt=ApX3Ye8eupt7Nel106kbpYcb.3QA;_ylu=X3oDMTA4NGRzMjRtBHNlYwMxNjk5)

[sterlingice]

Should I go back and start parsing every single thing said about Clinton? You feel the need to post every single article that is inflamatory towards the President. He's not getting adversarial press because he's Republican, he's getting it because he's the President. Again, if a Democrat were in office, I could do the exact same thing. However, there are no Democrats nearly as high profile as Bush so there are a lot more examples of Bush right now.

This doesn't prove a liberal media but a ratings-driven media who brings home their checks because someone is watching their program as they try to stir up controversy.

SI

[Dutch]

That would actually be kind of cool, just to see how things looked then. Do you know where to find AP/Reuters articles from the 90's? Obviously a lot of the coverage would deal with sex scandals, but there's Bosnia, North Koreak, Iraq, and Global Warming issues that would be interseting to look through as well.

[sterlingice]

Yeah, unfortunately, not nearly as much went online then. You can find certain newspapers with stuff from back then and there's some AP stuff to glean from that which is presumably what we're talking about since they're supposed to be neutral. But there just isn't nearly as much stuff to sift through since it was before the internet really became mainstream in the late 90s and many industries didn't get copious amounts of material online until after 2000. I know the Lawrence Journal World has stuff online going as far back as the early 90s, but they aren't that great of a paper, particularly for this, being a small local thing.

SI

[Dutch]

Yeah, unfortunately, not nearly as much went online then. You can find certain newspapers with stuff from back then and there's some AP stuff to glean from that which is presumably what we're talking about since they're supposed to be neutral. But there just isn't nearly as much stuff to sift through since it was before the internet really became mainstream in the late 90s and many industries didn't get copious amounts of material online until after 2000. I know the Lawrence Journal World has stuff online going as far back as the early 90s, but they aren't that great of a paper, particularly for this, being a small local thing.

SI

I just found an AP Archive, but you have to pay $1.50 to read any particular article. I guess my interest level dipped a bit when it said it would cost me.

Ugh.

[Glengoyne]

Glen:

For whatever wight in your head you throw on the journalists side of the scale as being liberal, you certainly would admit to an equivalent counterbalance on the right when it comes to radio journalism?

I dont necessarily agree with either, at this point, but if you refuse to accept ratings as being the tantamount bible when it comes to television media then you must admit that radio journailsm or punditry is heavilt laden and bullied by the conservative side of the spectrum. no?
I don't consider radio talk shows to be journalim. I don't think they are part of the media. They are partisan voices preaching, for the most part, to their own choirs.

Also I don't know what I said that would indicate that I don't believe that the media corporations aren't out to make money. They certainly are. Earlier, I attempted to make the point that only a moron would think otherwise. Perhaps I made that point so poorly as to confuse the issue. Or perhaps I clouded the issue by saying that while I'll agree wholeheartedly that the media companies are out to make money, I don't think that has any real effect on the content of their coverage. They go for lowest common denominator, for sure, salascious sells. I just don't think media companies are quashing stories because they make the parent entity look bad. In otherwords...I believe that media corporations are out to make money, I just don't think the fact that bad news and sex sell constitutes a "bias."

[Flasch186]

oh, so were in agreement, Glen, you dont think that there is a liberal Bias. You threwme when you said....

"I believe the liberal media bias is the basis of journalists letting their prejudiced views seep into their writing. There are a number of examples of it happening. I believe it is genuinely there, but not that it is some sinister conspiracy. I believe it is human nature."


So youre saying that if it were a Dem. in the office, they would get the exact same sensational treatment. Its just now there is a Rep in the WH so the journalists Liberal views come out, instead of their conservative views because it makes better ratings? So as soon as the Left comes to power we can expect the same sensationalism with a right slant (If you think there is aleft slant now).

[Glengoyne]

oh, so were in agreement, Glen, you dont think that there is a liberal Bias. You threwme when you said....

"I believe the liberal media bias is the basis of journalists letting their prejudiced views seep into their writing. There are a number of examples of it happening. I believe it is genuinely there, but not that it is some sinister conspiracy. I believe it is human nature."


So youre saying that if it were a Dem. in the office, they would get the exact same sensational treatment. Its just now there is a Rep in the WH so the journalists Liberal views come out, instead of their conservative views because it makes better ratings? So as soon as the Left comes to power we can expect the same sensationalism with a right slant (If you think there is aleft slant now).
Not exactly. If a Dem were in office there would certainly be oppositional press. I believe that is the nature of the business. I still believe that there is a bit of a liberal bias in the press as well. Just because the majority of journalists have a liberal bent, their politics seeps into their writing. As I have said there are a number of examples that don't rise to the level of Memogate/Rathergate. See my post regarding Brian Williams earlier. It is there, it just isn't some insidious plot or some overt "liberal" agenda

[Flasch186]

BTW

You may not view Rush, Sean, etc. as NEWS but a MAJORITY, I would bet, of their listeners do. Maybe not the only source but they would put it in the same category as news. Remember, most voters or even listeners are not well learned on most issues so listening to pundits like Rush, would be considered enlightening and journalistic. Just saying you dont, doesnt make the fact that most do, unimportant.

[Glengoyne]

To me the question of whether Rush, Hannity, or Franken are journalists, isn't even up for debate. Jouranlists have standards of impartiality among others, and those folks don't even get past the 20 yard smell test for impartiality.

They aren't journalists, they are entertainers, and if those that listen to them believe they are journalists, then they are probably susceptible to actually believing most of the partisan crap they spew. Just because someone considers them to be journalists, doesn't mean that I feel any pressure to do so. If a good number of people felt the sky was green, it wouldn't sway my opinion on the subject either.

[Crapshoot]

I'm curious if you've read what Rove said on the issue Glen. When asked if he thought there was a liberal bias in the press - he said no, he thought there was a oppositional (I can't recall the word he used) press. Now, I'm paraphrasing this from memory, but it does call things into question. I do think the press corps is more liberal, but the howling about the "liberal bias" is bigger than the "bias" itself.

[Glengoyne]

I'm curious if you've read what Rove said on the issue Glen. When asked if he thought there was a liberal bias in the press - he said no, he thought there was a oppositional (I can't recall the word he used) press. Now, I'm paraphrasing this from memory, but it does call things into question. I do think the press corps is more liberal, but the howling about the "liberal bias" is bigger than the "bias" itself.
That actually fits pretty well with what I'm saying. I agree that there is a natural oppositional(I think that was Rove's word) bias, but that there is also a healty liberal bias. However the liberal bias is not the all consuming movement it is painted to be. Some of it is political correctness(not using the word terrorist or terrorism), and sometimes it is a journalist's political feelings turning what could have been a news story into an editorial.

[MrBigglesworth]

Just because the majority of journalists have a liberal bent, their politics seeps into their writing.
But the majority of editors and owners having a conservative bent has no effect?

[Glengoyne]

But the majority of editors and owners having a conservative bent has no effect?
So are you now arguing that the corporate bias really is a conservative bias?

To answer your question without the above point being addressed. No. If the owners or editors were quashing stories or even directing the "spin" of stories, we would be hearing about it. I do believe that journalists actually have relatively high standards that govern their conduct. Those standards would force them to speak out against the forces acting upon them.

[Chubby]

So are you now arguing that the corporate bias really is a conservative bias?

To answer your question without the above point being addressed. No. If the owners or editors were quashing stories or even directing the "spin" of stories, we would be hearing about it. I do believe that journalists actually have relatively high standards that govern their conduct. Those standards would force them to speak out against the forces acting upon them.
So they only have high standards when going against their editors, they don't have high standards when being impartial? oooooooooook

[Glengoyne]

So they only have high standards when going against their editors, they don't have high standards when being impartial? oooooooooook
How is that hard to believe? In one instance I'm saying they allow their own feelings, agendas, and prejudices to flavor their stories. That is human nature, I'm saying that they are acting essentially subconsciously. On the other hand you have management dictating the stories they are actually reporting on, and in fact directing their presentation.

Seems like a slam dunk to me.

[MrBigglesworth]

So are you now arguing that the corporate bias really is a conservative bias?
No, I'm talking in the constructs that you have established. You say that the journalists are liberal, which automatically makes them biased. But the editors are conservative, but that doesn't automatically make them biased according to you, for reasons left unexplained. The editors that pick the stories and edit what the journalists write have no bias, but the journalists that write it do. That sounds like confirmation bias to me. You can prove virtually anything that way.

[Chubby]

No, I'm talking in the constructs that you have established. You say that the journalists are liberal, which automatically makes them biased. But the editors are conservative, but that doesn't automatically make them biased according to you, for reasons left unexplained. The editors that pick the stories and edit what the journalists write have no bias, but the journalists that write it do. That sounds like confirmation bias to me. You can prove virtually anything that way.
Exactly. Negative against the other side? It's correct. Negative against his side? Obviously bias :rolleyes:

[Glengoyne]

Exactly. Negative against the other side? It's correct. Negative against his side? Obviously bias :rolleyes:
What the hell? That isn't what I've said at all. I've either got to work on my communication skills or you and Giggles need to do some serious work on your reading comprehension. I believe I've expressed my views somewhat clearly. Make an effort to actually read what I've typed, and I'll help clear up any miscommunications.

[MrBigglesworth]

Blen, you mentioned earlier that you considered corporations to be biased towards Republicans. But based on your journalism theory, since unions are overwhelmingly liberal wouldn't that make corporations liberally biased?

[Glengoyne]

Blen, you mentioned earlier that you considered corporations to be biased towards Republicans. But based on your journalism theory, since unions are overwhelmingly liberal wouldn't that make corporations liberally biased? There you go with reading comprehension problems again. The only times I made any reference to a corporate bias being a "Republican" bias was in the midst of unraveling one of your convoluted assertions like the one above.

[Chubby]

What the hell? That isn't what I've said at all. I've either got to work on my communication skills or you and Giggles need to do some serious work on your reading comprehension. I believe I've expressed my views somewhat clearly. Make an effort to actually read what I've typed, and I'll help clear up any miscommunications.
You stated one group lets their "prejudices flavor" their job while another somehow doesn't. Oddly strange how only the liberal reporters are prejudiced yet the conservative editors aren't :rolleyes:

[MrBigglesworth]

There you go with reading comprehension problems again. The only times I made any reference to a corporate bias being a "Republican" bias was in the midst of unraveling one of your convoluted assertions like the one above.
Would you say that large corporations with unions have a liberal bias?

[Flasch186]

why do you keep calling him Blen? at first I thought it was a slip but now its all the time.