»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
Who's Afraid of the Big, Bad Fox?
| The Alley |
|
Who's Afraid of the Big, Bad Fox? |
|
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA 
|
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Nevada Democratic Party officials said on Friday they were canceling a presidential debate co-sponsored by Fox News, following a joke chairman Roger Ailes made about Democratic candidate Barack Obama In a letter sent to Fox, Nevada State Democratic Party Chairman Tom Collins and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (news, bio, voting record) said Ailes "went too far" with comments made the night before. The letter also does not specify which comments by Ailes lead to the decision, but a Democratic source told Reuters it was a joke Ailes made about Obama and President Bush during a speech on Thursday night. The letter makes no reference to a crusade by the liberal activist group MoveOn.org to boycott Fox, which it calls a "right-wing mouthpiece." Fox News Vice President David Rhodes responded with a written statement criticizing the Democrats for caving in to MoveOn.org. "News organizations will want to think twice before getting involved in the Nevada Democratic Caucus, which appears to be controlled by radical fringe out-of-state interest groups, not the Democratic Party," David Rhodes said in the statement. "In the past, MoveOn.org has said they 'own' the Democratic Party. While most Democrats don't agree with that, its clearly the case in Nevada," he said. The joke by Ailes came during a speech to the Radio and Television News Directors Foundation First Amendment Dinner on Thursday night and -- while playing on similarity between Obama's name and Osama Bin Laden -- appears to be directed more at Bush than the senator. "It's true that Barack Obama is on the move," Ailes said during the speech. "I don't know if it's true that President Bush called Musharraf and said 'Why can't we catch this guy?"' During his remarks, Ailes also took indirect swipes at both MoveOn.org and Edwards, saying pressure groups were now urging candidates to "only appear on those networks and venues that give them favorable coverage." I have to agree with that. This is obviously an incredibly weak excuse to not appear on Fox, where Democratic-stroking is not assured. Forget that Fox is the most-watched news channel in the country.....without assurances that Democrats will not receive special treatment, they are willing to by-pass even that incredible coverage. Maybe MoveOn.org should form their own political party - but, then again, why should they? They already have one.  |
||
| © Copyright 2007 Michael Mack - All Rights Reserved | |||
Mistletoe Angel 
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
I certainly can't blame the Democrats for wanting to back away from this debate offering, as this is far from the only time the network and many of its pundits have demonized the party, as it has been a frequent pattern of behavior from the beginning, and I for one certainly can't remember the last time I ever even visited MoveOn.org, which in any case has been a long time (probably in September of 2004 and only to see that commerical of Bush joking about WMD"s not being found in Iraq)   That leaked Fox News memo written by their vice president John Moody following last November's mid-term elections epitomizes the true colors of the network; those in charge prepare an agenda, and expect all their pundits to line up rank and file to push its talking points in their programming, as just one example of it is revealed in an excerpt of Martha MacCallum on that day the memo was released: YouTube: Fox News Excerpt: November 15, 2006 This is also the same network that has delivered the following memorable video caps:    Not to mention other leaked memos revealing other agenda items of theirs, from how they cover Iraq to how they cover the 9/11 Commission, which have been documented by the Washington Post. * Gauging by the network's well-documented history of defending the White House and attempting to humiliate much political opposition, I'm sure it wasn't the networks intent to merely co-sponsor a debate and give the Democrats greater access to the national megaphone, but rather to continue attempting painting them into a corner and slandering them on-air in front of several million people. Reflecting on this another way, how would you feel if you were a Republican hopeful for president and Bill Maher wanted to moderate one of your party's debates? Wouldn't the only conclusion you could possibly come to be that Maher wants to take that opportunity to throw every piece of shrapnel he could against every candidate in the hope many candidates would look weak on camera, and then millions more could watch those moments of embarrassment on YouTube over and over again and get additional coverage on cable news political programming? How would that make any Republican feel? I'm an Independent and I would feel most upset and offended by that, no matter if it was Bill Maher or Bill O'Reilly moderating. Besides that, if the Nevada Democratic Party had agreed to go ahead with this, it would only give greater legitimacy to the network for being an authentic news outlet. I would have no problem at all with a conservative source or publication wanting to sponsor such an event; that was not the issue at all to begin with, but rather that Fox News is a White House propaganda outlet. In fact, I've heard the Beltway Boys have already been bashing away at Democrats because of their decision and have claimed their actions as junior-grade Stalinism. I happen to agree with the decision of the Nevada Democratic Party on this one. Let each debate for both parties be sponsored and represented by more genuinely fair and balanced individuals. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" Mother Teresa |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Not sure I understand your point on your examples, Noah. "Rumsfeld had a previous speaking engagement in Kansas. He ought to be in a fine mood. Can one fake smile hide that much frustration? We'll take that, too." That sounds to me like more of a jab at Rumsfeld than the Democrats, no? (Rumsfeld is a Republican, btw )And let's be on the lookout for any statements from the Iraqi insurgents, who must be thrilled at the prospect of a Dem-controlled congress. What's wrong there. There WERE documents uncovered in Iraq BEFORE the elections from insurgent leaders to followers calling for beefed-up terrorist activity with the aim of swaying the Congressional elections in the US. They wanted the Democrats in....yes, something the Democrats would not care to have aired but factual, nontheless. The question of the day is what's the Dem plan for Iraq? Certainly nothing wrong with that. Amid the maelstrom of Democratic criticism of how the war was being handled, not one would come out with alternatives. The Dems simply said they HAD plans, dodging any efforts to have to explain just how they proposed to do anything. Indeed, even now, they cannot come up with anything substantial. Is that so biased and unfair - asking them to be specififc on these "solutions" they claimed to have? In the House, the newly-empowered Dems will shed some fraterrnal blood before settling in. Murtha will challenge Hoyer for the leadership... Isn't that exactly what happened, Noah? We'll continue to work the Hamas threat to the US that came hours after the election results Actually, there WAS a Hamas threat, Noah. Something wrong with the public being made aware of it? No, the Democrats would not to see any of that aired, for sure. They prefer to paint a rosy picture that the world is a happy place just because they now control Congress and the local networks will aid them in painting that pic. If having a news network that shows both sides is distateful to them or you....tough patooties. Just because the Dems won, the war on terror isn't over. No kidding. Your video caps make less sense as valid examples. Noah, what do you think you might see if you were to come across the inter-office memos of CBS, NBC or ABC? How about 60 Minutes, Dateline or 20/20? The networks have missed no opportunity to put Bush and his administration in the hot seat whenever possible. Should Republican candidates, then, refuse to appear on those networks, claiming biased reporting? FOX gives BOTH sides of the issues. When Clinton was interviewed 2 months ago and was asked a direct question relating to bin Laden, his response was "THIS I get questioned about?? On FOX news??" and was very indignant The interviewer later replied that the real question was - why wasn't it asked on any OTHER news program?? FOX does not give them the easy way out and free passes they demand and, when they don't get them, they cry foul and then goo home to watch reruns of Fahrenheit 911. The entire thing is incredible. Move-On.org, arguably the most-biased and vilest politically-affiliated organization in history doesn't want the Democrats to be on FOX, citing bias. Lord love a duck!  Besides that, if the Nevada Democratic Party had agreed to go ahead with this, it would only give greater legitimacy to the network for being an authentic news outlet Don't look now, Noah, but FOX is the most watched news network on television today, far surpassing any of the Big Three. You don't call them authentic and you are in communications and broadcasting???? Why is it the most watched? Bush has what? A 30% popularity rating? The Iraq situation maybe at 20-25%? That's 70% disfavoring Bush and about the same against the direction of the Iraq war and yet the majority of news viewers watch Fox, not because it is mouthpiece for the right but because they can get both sides of the news there. Yes, the Democrats SHOULD stay away from it. They are used to screaming foul whenever they are put in an unfavorable (or even realistic) light and asked direct questions while, at the same time, they conduct "investigations and hearings of the day" over any topic they can come up with to smear Bush or the White House. They can only dish it out...... If you don't think this was all a MoveOn.org decision, bless you, my friend. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: It also insidiously doesn't mention Newton's third law. I noticed Mike, that you make no reference in your post to when you stopped beating your wife. |
||
Ratleader
since 2003-01-23
Posts 7026Visiting Earth on a Guest Pass |
It's no surprise whatsoever. The party that made blacklisting famous, continues apace. This is an extension of their basic operating strategy, which is to attack the person, not the ideas he presents -- a carryover from the methods they learned during the time when the American Left celebrated Nazism. ~~(¸¸¸¸ºº> ~~(¸¸¸¸ºº> ~~(¸¸ ¸¸ºº> ~~~(¸¸ER¸¸ºº> |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
quote: It IS a right-wing mouthpiece, and I certainly don't think you have to be a MoveOn or Daily Kos activist to see that. It baffles me you can't see the blatant bias behind such memo lines as "let's be on the lookout for any statements from the Iraqi insurgents, who must be thrilled at the prospect of a Dem-controlled Congress" or "Just because Dems won, the war on terror isn't over.", and then see those talking points regurgitated by their pundits (especially Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and the Beltway Boys). It appears clear as day. quote: I strongly believe two things in particular explain their ratings (which have been significantly on the decline recently): 1) although the president's popularity is stalling between 30-35% approval, there's STILL one-third of Americans who approve of him, which is obviously a non-scientific statistic, but pretending as though 1/3 of all Americans still supported Bush, that would be approximately 100 million Americans. Of course only about 40-45% of Americans vote traditionally, so that would still be about 40-45 million Americans supporting the president, which can still certainly pack a poignant punch. This network has offered the red meat the staunchest supporters of this president and the war in Iraq in particular have craved to begin with, and so if you happen to be among the fraction of those approximately 40 million Americans who still support Bush generally speaking, except perhaps on the issue of immigration where Fox News pundits will offer rare criticisms of the administration, chances are you haven't felt alienated, and so while I think their ratings decline is largely due to more moderate and libertarian audiences recognizing the slant in their coverage, the fact is they have been consistent in playing to their core ideological base, thus explaining their resilience as a network. Secondly, I happen to believe some Americans like to tune on and off out of sheer curiosity to hear what the latest, often laughable soundbytes are, just as some Americans often do in approach to AM radio and, most recently, the MSNBC program "Countdown with Keith Olbermann", which has been designed as a slanted left-wing, anti-war alternative to the Fox News and AM radio line-up, which has been soaring in the ratings as of late from previous rock-bottom obscurity, both because the rising trend of anti-Iraq war Americans want to hear something that reflects their frustrations with the war and the current administration, and that some also tune in out of curiosity, particularly when Olbermann makes his "Special Comments", to hear what strong or crazy things he will say. Thus, I believe those two factors best explain Fox News's remaining strength ratings-wise in the cable-news environment. A combination of red-meat delivery and on-air spectacle and curiosity can certainly deliver great attention and controversy that in result translates into ratings success. However, you may be right on one point above; Fox News DOES give BOTH sides of the story. Quoting Stephen Colbert at last year's White House Correspondents Dinner: "Fox News gives you both sides of every story: the president's side, and the vice president's side."  * Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" Mother Teresa |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
There you have it, Noah. People tune in to hear laughable soundbytes, one of the main reasons Fox has the highest ratings....thanks for such a well-thought out (and incredible)response. LR, if Newton's Third Law or my beating my wife had any bearing on the topic, you would have a reasonable point. MoveOn.Org DOES have bearing, unless you want to keep pretending they have nothing to do with this decision...and, since you give the impression that the Libby case was not partisan, you very well may. Noah, you can make jokes about Fox as much as you want. You have complained before that the networks do not show enough good points about actions in Iraq. Fox is the only one that does. Fox doesn't have a Dan Rather, getting booted out for biased and unsubstantiated stories. You think the general public would flock to a good left-wing news agency? Anyone seen Air America lately? Oh, yes, they declared bankruptcy for lack of interest. They found out that planes can't fly with just a left wing. The Democrats are acting like whining crybabies and it won't help their image at all....and their image could use a lot of help with Pelosi, Murtha, Gore, Kerry, Kennedy and Hillary as their front line. They are basically telling the American people that they will not go where someone might require that they back up their statements, as if that's a no-no (which it is for local networks). The American poeple are not as dumb as you may think. If Democrats went on Fox and were picked on or treated harshy or disrespectfully, viewers would see it and it would favor the Dems more than it would Fox. No, they are afraid of normal questions, of being asked to explain their views and comments, which local networks carry so readily without question. "It's true that Barack Obama is on the move," Ailes said during the speech. "I don't know if it's true that President Bush called Musharraf and said 'Why can't we catch this guy?"' Nevada State Democratic Party Chairman Tom Collins and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (news, bio, voting record) said Ailes "went too far" with comments made the night before. Tell me, Noah. Do you, in all honesty, do you believe that attempt at humor is enough to have the Democratic party refuse to appear on Fox in presidential debates? It's like little Billy saying, "Mommy, Tommy just called me a ninny!" Their act actions are childish and will be seen as such by many citizens on both sides of the fence. What will they do next? Threaten to hold their breath until they turn blue? |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: So then, you're still beating your wife? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
LR, your attempt to focus the point of the entire thread on one sentence ain't working... |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
quote: Believe me, we'd all like to see more of those stories regarding our young men and women in uniform in Iraq and Afghanistan serving for the common good in their communities. The fact Fox News does report some of those kinds of stories is great, and while I still absolutely believe the news networks don't offer nearly as much coverage of those stories as they should overall, I do indeed see positive stories regarding our young men and women on the other networks as well. The problem is, Fox News resorts to the same sort of bias and lack of substantiation in their stories in a different way. In fact, on January 27th of this year at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, the chairman and CEO of Fox News Corp, Rupert Murdoch, was part of a media discussion panel, where he lamented what he described as a “loss of power” due to the rising popularity of the Internet and other new media. World Economic Forum Podcast: "Who Will Shape The Agenda?" It was there where Murdoch was asked if News Corp. had managed to shape the agenda on the war in Iraq. This is what he said: “No, I don’t think so. We tried.” When the host Charlie Rose asked him to elaborate, he said: “We basically supported the Bush policy in the Middle East...but we have been very critical of his execution.” * So the bottom line is, regarding shaping the whole Iraq agenda, they tried. * Moreover, other leaked Fox News memos from John Moody reveal other intentions they had toward covering the war on Iraq from the very beginning: *  "The pictures shown in the Times and NY Post today of the dead American contractors are exactly what we chose NOT to use yesterday. Please don't get sucked into this taste race to the bottom." *  "The events in Iraq Tuesday are going to be the top story, unless and until something else (or worse) happens. Err on the side of doing too much Iraq rather than not enough. Do not fall into the easy trap of mourning the loss of US lives and asking out loud why are we there? The US is in Iraq to help a country brutalized for 30 years protect the gains made by Operation Iraqi Freedom and set it on the path to democracy. Some people in Iraq don't want that to happen. That is why American GIs are dying. And what we should remind our viewers." *  "If, as promised, the coalition decides to take Fallujah back by force, it will not be for lack of opportunities for the terrorists holed up there to negotiate. Let's not get lost in breast-beating about the sadness of the loss of life. They had a chance." * * Anyway, I for one am glad Air America is struggling, as I don't want to see yet another cavity-ridden agenda coalition rise into mainstream prominence. quote: No, I don't. A long and well-documented history of slander, on the other hand, I believe justifies refusal in showing up. Tommy name-calling Billy a ninny is no biggy. Tommy resorting to a frequent pattern of bullying toward Billy, however, that's a problem, and if you were Billy, would you want to accept putting up with this bullying and all those proverbial purple-nurples, wet willies, swirlies, wedgies and pantsies the whole rest of elementary school? That's exactly what Fox News does. If Bill Maher, Janeane Garofalo or Michael Moore wanted to host a Republican debate, whether I was a Republican or not, the only conclusion I could come to is not that Maher or Garafalo or Moore genuinely wanted to offer the GOP field a wider audience, but rather to attempt to throw every piece of shrapnel they could toward all the candidates in hope of humiliating or at least embarrassing the party on camera in front of millions of people, and subsequently millions times more on YouTube. Could you blame anyone for feeling that way? Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" Mother Teresa |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
So....um....where are all the 'leaked' memos and such from ABC, CBS, NBC and other acronymic news channels? It was ONLY FOX doing this? For shame. And yet they still beat the pants off the other syndicated cable news channels, and have done so for a decade. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
You got me there, Noah. I confess I have no idea what a purple-nurple is! |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
quote: I never suggested that the other networks don't resort to these sorts of tactics also. I simply pointed the aforementioned examples out to show that Fox News has an agenda of their own, despite continuing to carry the tattered "fair and balanced" banner. Just because the entry for "Fox News" at Conservapedia says they report the news in an unbiased manner and then allows the viewer to decide doesn't make it true. The bottom line is, this is just my opinion, but I believe virtually ALL cable-news are NOT authentic news outlets in that they have a slant in their coverage that projects a subjective, one-dimensional viewpoint. Sean Hannity has his slant on Fox News, while Keith Olbermann has his slant on MSNBC. Lou Dobbs has his slant on CNN, while Glenn Beck has his slant on CNN Headline News. And so forth. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" Mother Teresa |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
Right right. Howsoever, I was pointing to the stark scarcity of memos and sundry from the other network news organizations. For some reason, it all seems to be from Fox. Perhaps there's a reason for such, as the more 'leaked' information, the more exposure and the more people tune in to see if it's true. I would not be surprised at all by this tactic, as it has worked in other historical enterprises. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Noah, at the risk of replacing LR as the cut-n-paste Cowboy King of PIP, let's examine how the news agencies handled topics in the Clinton white house. The following involves the "disappearance' of over 400 FBI files on Republications and the creation of a "Clinton enemies" list. Filegate Lacking on Networks Three related items today, all on coverage of Whitewater and the FBI files discovered in the White House: 1) "Harsh" is the term chosen by Bob Schieffer of CBS News to describe the leaked report from the Republican staff of the Senate Whitewater committee. 2) Washington Post media reporter Howard Kurtz asserts that FBI file story would have "rocketed to the front page a whole lot quicker" if it involved the Reagan administration. 3) A day by day chronology since the FBI file story broke of what happened each day and how the network evening shows did or did not cover the revelations. http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/1996/cyb19960617.asp ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------- Let's check out what the major news agencies covered and what they didn't..concerning the disappearance of the FBI files and the "enemies list" Bill Clinton compiled with the files - Friday June 7: White House admits collecting FBI background reports on 338 Bush and Reagan officials. ABC WNT: No story CBS EN: No story CNN TWT: No story NBC NN: 4th story, an anchor-read item. Brokaw relays White House "mistake" line as if not in dispute: "The White House said pulling the files was a procedural error by a member of the White House security detail, an army employee. However, those confidential files did make it all the way to the White House before this mistake was discovered." Sunday June 9: Chief of Staff Leon Panetta appearing on Meet the Press apologizes, sort of. ABC WNT: Lead story by Jerry King. Anchor Carole Simpson's introduction: "President Clinton, traveling out West, had to battle to keep his own issues on the agenda. It was thanks in large part to his likely opponent, Bob Dole, who hammered away at the latest issue in the campaign, those FBI background files that ended up in the White House." CBS EN: Lead story, a full report which makes Republicans look like the desperate aggressors: "For a year and a half, the Republican-controlled Congress has been bent on holding one hearing after another, investigating the Clinton White House. This provides them fodder for yet another. Sharyl Attkisson, CBS News, Washington." CNN TWT: Anchor-read brief item NBC NN: Lead story, full story by Jim Miklaszewski Monday June 10: Bill Clinger, Chairman of the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee, says the White House may have received more than the 339 files. ABC WNT: #3. Full story on the scandal by Brit Hume. CBS EN: Full story by Bill Plante who reported that Clinton out campaigning, but "the partisan fight over the White House search of FBI files continued." CNN TWT: Anchor-read brief. NBC NN: #2. Full story from Brian Williams who referred to a "small firestorm about FBI files." - Tuesday June 11: Two former WH counsels, Fred Fielding and C. Boyden Gray, say they are baffled by how files got into White House; Washington Times reports that FBI procedures violated. ABC WNT: Anchor-read brief from Peter Jennings. CBS EN: No story CNN TWT: No story NBC NN: No story Wednesday June 12: President Clinton apologizes, says "I'm sorry that it occurred" and that he "would never tolerate or condone any kind of enemies list." ABC WNT: No story CBS EN: Apology noted at beginning of story by Bill Plante on Clinton going to a re-built church, and mention of Dole attacking Clinton over the files in conclusion. CNN TWT: Anchor-read brief. NBC NN: No story -- Thursday June 13: Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch announces hearings would be held; a former FBI agent writes Wall Street Journal op-ed saying White House explanation "is really too much for this FBI veteran to believe;" FBI announces overhaul of procedures; New York Post reports that civilian army staffer Anthony Marceca was specifically requested by WH and has ties to Democratic politicians. ABC WNT: No story CBS EN: No story CNN TWT: * All Freemen coverage * NBC NN: No story -- Friday June 14: FBI Director Freeh issues report that charges White House with "egregious violations of privacy," says he and FBI were "victimized," reveals that 408 files obtained, up from 339. ABC WNT: Lead story. CBS EN: Lead story. Unlike ABC and NBC, CBS reporter Bill Plante notes political connections of Marceca. CNN TWT: Lead story NBC NN: Lead story -- Saturday June 15: Day after stunningly critical FBI report that contradicts initial WH line. ABC WNT: No story CBS EN: Sharyl Attkisson story -- about two-thirds on Dole's ties to tobacco PACS, one-third on FBI files CNN TWT: No story, but full story on GOP Whitewater report NBC NN: No story -- Sunday June 16: ABC WNT: No story, but full story on GOP Whitewater report CBS EN: No story, but full story on GOP Whitewater report NBC NN: Full story by Joe Johns looking at upcoming hearings (June 11) at the National Press Club, Tom Brokaw insisted: "Someone said to me on the way in here today...that there's not enough outrage out there about the FBI files, for example, that have ended up in the Clinton administration and the Clinton White House, at the moment. It's not because the press hasn't publicized this." NBC Nightly News didn't air a FBI story that night, or the next, or the next. Another one ran three days later -- on Friday when Freeh's report came out. Can you imagine what the networks would have done with a story like that if it were to occur in a Republican white house era? Clinton got a complete free pass, even though Hillary is going to be grilled over it during this campaign.....count on it. Agencies like Fox news are vital to get the stories out the networks give free passes to. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Cowboy King? Are you attempting to divert my attention from the fact that you beat your wife? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Anyone remember Chinagate? http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/1999/cyb19990609.asp O’Leary Leaked Secrets?; Lou Dobbs Quits CNN; Media Will Protect Hillary 1) All but FNC skipped Chinagate developments Tuesday night. NBC’s Robert Hager highlighted how "two environmental groups warned that global warming is heating the ocean, choking off marine life..." 2) Only FNC’s Carl Cameron picked up on the charge that former Energy Secretary Hazel O’Leary personally leaked secret nuclear weapons data to a magazine in 1995 and that Clinton plans to ease export controls on super-computers. 3) Lou Dobbs resigned Tuesday from CNN. A couple of weeks ago he battled with CNN chief and Clinton friend Rick Kaplan about carrying live on Moneyline a pedestrian Clinton speech. 4) "No one in the elite media," Peggy Noonan predicted in the Wall Street Journal, "will go after" Hillary Clinton. "They don't like her, but they associate themselves with her politics." The Russian agreement on a Kosovo peace deal led all the networks Tuesday night but only FNC relayed the latest on Chinagate: The revelations that former Energy Secretary Hazel O’Leary was suspected of personally leaking classified nuclear weapons design information and that the Clinton administration plans to loosen export rules in order to allow more than 100 countries to buy super-computers. What did the other news agencies cover that night? Instead of covering the developments FNC caught, ABC’s World News Tonight featured stories on how Amnesty International is complaining about an electric shock belt used by prisons, theater owners promising to enforce the age rules on admission to R-rated movies, the heat wave and how one in four elderly are supposedly mentally ill. The June 8 CBS Evening News also highlighted the theater owners and the drought. CBS added a piece on gun control which Diana Olick began: "As temperature soared in Washington, the Republican leadership tried to cool debate within its ranks on gun control." CBS viewers also enjoyed a full story on efforts to have auto makers put internal release mechanisms inside all car trunks and an elderly Detroit man who spent his life as a blue collar worker but managed to give away $1 million, mainly for college scholarships. NBC Nightly News jumped on the global warming crusade, demonstrating all liberal groups need to do to get their claims covered is hold a press conference. Monday night the CBS Evening News blamed the eastern heat wave on global warming, citing the left-wing Environmental Defense Fund as its authority. (See the June 8 CyberAlert.) Tuesday night, June 8, NBC’s Robert Hager just credited unnamed "environmental groups" with this wisdom. In an "In Depth" story on the hot weather and how drought conditions in the mid-Atlantic are hurting crops, Hager asserted: "All this as just today two environmental groups warned that global warming is heating the ocean, choking off marine life, endangering the future of salmon in the Pacific, melting polar ice, cutting down feeding grounds for polar bears, leaching coral and interfering with the food chain." NBC ended with a piece by Lisa Myers on a study showing mothers with school age kids spend 17 days a year behind the wheel. At one point in the story NBC showed, with a camera looking from in front of the vehicle through the windshield, Myers driving a car. Prominently on display on the windshield: a Virginia inspection sticker. It showed an expiration date of 1/99. Also on last night on PBS in many cities, including Washington, DC, another hour of liberal preaching from Bill Moyers. An ad for the show, in Tuesday’s Washington Post, announced: "Big corporations spend millions of media dollars to influence legislation and drown out the voices of those who disagree with them. Is this their First Amendment right, or is it wrong? Mutual of America is proud to sponsor Bill Moyers’ special report, Free Speech for Sale." You saying the other stations don't have an agenda, Noah? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2520 Here's a call that went out from the Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting Organization.. ACTION: Please contact the nightly news programs and ask them to investigate and report on the new evidence that the Bush administration manipulated intelligence to support its plan to invade Iraq. CONTACT: ABC World News Tonight Phone: 212-456-4040 PeterJennings@abcnews.com CBS Evening News Phone: 212-975-3691 evening@cbsnews.com NBC Nightly News Phone: 212-664-4971 nightly@nbc.com PBS NewsHour with Jim Lehrer Phone: 703-739-5000 newshour@pbs.org Think there might be an agenda there, Noah? |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
quote: That is an interesting point, and though I'm not sure to what extent it may be true, it is intriguing for instance the timing in which the previous memo was released; almost immediately following the November mid-term elections. I think the answer would rest in, as with the earlier YouTube excerpt I linked, how closely the line-up regurgitated those talking-points word-for-word or close to it. I have reservations with the fillmaker Robert Greenwald in that I believe he has too much of an ideological bias, but I've heard about his documentary "Outfoxed", and how it actually too chronologicizes the memos and shows indeed how exact or similar the language of the pundits is to the language of the memos. Hypothetically, I think your view of this tactic makes great sense, and indeed it usually translates into a success of sorts. I also think it can greatly explain how the blogsophere has become a mighty force in cultural politics. In fact, you can look back to the 2006 election cycle, where the Democratic Party establishment originally was planning to focus on a smaller number of House races and recruiting candidates that were very much pro-establishment and asked to be cautious in their language toward the Iraq war, then the progressive blogosphere responded by saying basically, "Forget that!" and dedicated much time widening the campaign field, pushing more populist, "big-tent Democrat" candidates like Jon Tester and James Webb, and then encouraging them to run on an aggressive anti-war platform. And this strategy certainly appears to have paid off for the Democrats, in that they not only have the House currently, they also have control of the Senate, which people would be laughing at you if as recently as six months ago you predicted that would happen. I think historically, actions indeed cause reactions, and that has essentially been the driving force and evolution of politics. I believe the Republican Party had every right to be upset before and after the 1994 mid-term elections of the huge abuses of power the Democrats made as a majority, and were tired of the New York Times and such appearing to suck up to them. So, the frustration culminated into their own sort of grassroots movement to build their own sort of media infrastructure, which is now of course Fox News in particular, to counter the mainstream fog. I think now Democrats and progressives are feeling like the Republicans were in the '90's, and thus they've looked to the increasing influence of the Internet to promote their ideas and agendas. Look at the major role YouTube played in the 2006 campaign; if not for YouTube, George Allen would still be in the Senate today. I think essentially that's what this Nevada Democratic Party vs. Fox News match-up was all about; attempting to prove what Fox News is, rather than merely trying to evade them. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" Mother Teresa |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Perhaps, Noah, but I will still contend that it is not so much the Democratic Party vs Fox news...it is MoveOn.org. Let's face it. MoveOn owns the party. Sauros has already made that claim and it was not refuted. If they want his money and resources, they will be expected to perform as he dictates. He does not want them to have any association with FOX. They have cancelled their debate on FOX. You see no connection there? It's not the Democrat party standing up for their ideals....it is them paying the price for being Sauros' mistresses. |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
quote: I explicitly stated in response to Alicat's initial point in Response #12 of this thread that "I believe virtually ALL cable-news are NOT authentic news outlets in that they have a slant in their coverage that projects a subjective, one-dimensional viewpoint." Virtually every news program out there has an agenda, and is NOT an authentic news program. It's not about reporting the news, it's about talking about the news. And when you talk about the news, obviously you can expect for the content to sound editorialized. I look at biases all the time from both the left-wing media watchdog Media Matters For America and the right-wing media watchdog NewsBusters. They're everywhere and so common it's beyond embarrassing, and like you pointed quite eloquently and rightfully in the example above of FAIR encouraging the four major news outlets to enhance coverage of the manipulation of intelligence to the Iraq war, there are grassroots movements from both sides of the aisle who try tirelessly to push their agendas through the corporate media. MoveOn does it from the left side, Move America Forward does it from the right side. Michael Moore does it from the left side, David Horowitz does it from the right side. United For Peace & Justice does it from the left side, Focus On The Family does it from the right side. And so on... The problem with this particular Fox News case is that Fox News continues to promote itself as "fair and balanced" programming, when obviously it is not. Thus that's where I came in, pointing out just several examples of their bias, and coming to the conclusion that I can understand why the Democrats declined the debate offer. Lest we forget, both sides certainly play this game. As was commented on one blog, I'm sure some on the right would make noise about a CNN/MSNBC-sponsored debate any day now if announced. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" Mother Teresa |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
quote: Sure, and I happen to believe a great debate can be made regarding how close to that activist site the Democratic Party is, and if it has been devoured hook, line and sinker by it or not. I believe myself that both parties have been hijacked by corporate lobbyists and special interest groups. I do believe a considerable number of Democrats are tied too closely to that organization, as well as questionable environmental and labor special interest groups in particular, just as I believe a considerable number of Republicans are tied too closely to Focus On The Family, as well as the Federalist Society and corporate and neoconservative interest groups. That's primarily why though my views are closer to the current Democratic Party than with the current GOP overall (the three main exceptions being on the issues of immigration, gun ownership and prayer in public schools), I resent some of the ideological impositions of the Democratic Party and thus am a registered Independent. I'm no fan of George Soros, MoveOn or the Hollywood elite, and I too happen to believe the mountains of evidence of ideological bias in Fox News is so great that agreeing to do that debate would only offer them greater legitimacy as that "fair and balanced" news network they claim to be. That's just my opinion, and I know others may not look at it quite the same way, but that's just what I believe. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" Mother Teresa |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
well, Noah, if you believe that both sides play the same game then do you believe that Bush or the republican Party would be right in having nothing to do with ABC, NBC, CBS or CNN, citing the same reasons the Democrats are using to reject FOX? |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
quote: Why of course. That was one of my main points to begin with. If the Democrats don't want to affliate themselves with Fox News in a debate, that's fine with me. If the Republicans don't want to affliate themselves with the New York Times in a debate, that's equally fine with me. And so forth. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" Mother Teresa |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
 |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
What? You're ignoring me? Just because I told a tasteless, moronic joke and made you the butt of it? Some people are just sensitive eh? Soldiers getting all upset because Kerry said that if students didn't stay in college they could end up in Iraq. Democrats don't want to go on Faux News because the friggin chairman of the comapany insinuates Barak Obama is Osama Bin Laden -- the most hated man in American History save Hitler -- it was just a joke Harry... c'mon. You, all upset because I call you a wife-beater?? It's almost like Newton's third law DOES apply... for every action an equal and opposite reaction... hmmm.. kinda makes you think |
||
|
Alicat Member Elite
since 1999-05-23
Posts 4094Coastal Texas |
Maybe I'm sheltered, but the first instance I heard of Obama Usama was from Senator Kennedy (D-MA) about Senator Obama (D-IL). By the by, I respects ya, Reb, even if you do inundate me with cut-n-paste. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
That's a possibility Cat. But, then, half of the senior Senator from Mass.'s diction is inaudible anyway -- for at least the last 20 years or so. It's almost like the man drinks or something. And hey -- I know that YOU aren't a liar -- I'm just really confused sometimes that a source would think they could get away with some of those things... Peace bro.. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Actually, reb, if you read the comment said, it was making fun of Bush confusing Obama's name with Bin Laden.....there was no comparison of the two as your comment insinuates. Sensitive? Me? I just didn't see anything to respond to. I only do tasteless and moronic on Fridays Bothered you would refer to me as a wife-beater? Hardly....I'm not married |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: So, uh, whose wife didn't you stop beating yet? |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
Poor Barack Obama. I bet he was teased a lot in school. It must have been hard for him. People need to stop bullying him about his name. "Bush" is so much better. Gosh Mike. I've always considered you the nicest of fellows and I'm really disappointed to find out that you beat your wife, who's not your wife anymore. Who knows what you did with her. Please tell me there's still hope. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Regina, there's hope! There's hope!  As usual, LR and Ron only give half of the story....I DID beat my wife - in pinocle, canasta, bowling, ping-pong and parcheesi. Poor gal didn't have a chance Are you competitive, by chance?  |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
"I DID beat my wife, in pinocle, canasta, bowling, ping-pong and parcheesi. Poor gal didn't have a chance. Are you competitive, by chance?" Ah, sure. Sure. Yall ain't right. HaHa! Me? Competitive? Yeah. But I'm not usually out for blood. I prefer my card games at tables with fine cigars, easy hands and heavy chips. The balls have to be bigger than a tennis ball, you know, baseball, softball, soccer, volleyball, and basketball. Bowling is definitely doable. Board games are fun, but my favorite is Scrabble. Yep, I'm a word-nerd. I'm happy there's hope for all of us. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: "appears" Mike. Osama Bin Laden isn't even mentioned by name Mike -- yet -- somehow we know what Ailes meant. I didn't insuate a comparison -- I expressly stated an insuation. What are you insinuating? |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
 Do they really need another reason not to go along with Fox's co-sponsorship of a debate? The Pew Research Center: March 26, 2007 Especially when almost 6 in 10 Americans are in agreement with supporting legislation that calls for a withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq by August 2008? Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" Mother Teresa |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Excuse me, Noah. Are you claiming that's an invalid statement? |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
quote: No. That is up to debate, which we have indeed argued time and time again here. I'm claiming that is a biased statement, and if you can't see that as opinion on Fox News, I don't know what will. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" Mother Teresa [This message has been edited by Mistletoe Angel (03-27-2007 11:24 PM).] |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
“Excuse me, Noah. Are you claiming that's an invalid statement?” “I'm claiming that is a biased statement” The difference being? . By the way, if anyone hasn’t noticed, the two oceans don’t protect us from the rest of the world anymore. . |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
So, then, what you're saying John is that if we leave Iraq -- the sectarians who are intent on killing each other are going to stop killing each other, jump into the ocean, and swim over here and start killing us? |
||
|
Not A Poet Member Elite
since 1999-11-03
Posts 3885Oklahoma, USA |
Don't think the actually have to swim. The world is definately becomming smaller every day. Remember the WTC? Those formerly really big things in NYC? They have those big silver flying thingies now. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
So the sectarian fighters are going to stop killing each other when we leave -- hijack silver thingies and come here and kill us instead? |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
quote: When something is invalid, it means there is no foundation to an argument and is indefensible. When something is biased, it is influenced by prejudice and/or unreasoned judgement. The intention is more active in the latter, while more passive in the former. The Library of Congress: HR 1591 The bottom line is, I don't believe the argument whether the Democrats are legislating defeat in Iraq is as clear as night and day as some may make it out to be. When you read the US Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health and Iraq Accountability Act (HR 1591) very closely, it strikes me as fair and reasonable language overall. It specifies clearly it "provides funds to enable military commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan to respond to urgent humanitarian relief and reconstruction requirements." It specifies that "Congress will fully support the needs of members of the Armed Forces who the Commander in Chief has deployed in harm's way in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom, and their families." It specifies that Congress accepts that the U.S Constitution grants the President as the sole role of Commander In Chief and that Congress has the sole power to declare war. And it specifies that it directs "the President to transmit to Congress by specified dates certain determinations and certifications with respect to conditions to be met by the Government of Iraq." and "requires redeployment of the armed forces from Iraq if any of such conditions is not met." which the language requiring U.S combat troops within four months of enactment, with a goal of withdrawal completion by March 31, 2008, helps push the Iraqi government to begin putting control of their country in their own hands and stop stretching our own military thinner and thinner. About three in five Americans support such a timetable for withdrawal, and this bill does just that while also, as Hagel made clear today, doesn't cut off funding for our troops nor encourage an abrupt complete withdrawal but rather a gradual, phased one. None of this strikes me personally as "legislating defeat in Iraq", nor "cutting and running", nor "slow-bleeding", nor "micro-managing" or any other banana sticker soundbytes some of the most ardent proponents of the war toss out. If anything, the main critique I would have of the bill is all that other pork that's attached to it. Most of that pork is actually important things like avian flu preparation, agricultural disaster assistance and AmeriCorps funding, but shouldn't be attached to this particular sort of legislation. That is my central critique of the bill, though I generally agree with it. So to cut a long lecture short, I do believe that Fox News banner message is completely biased, despite the network continuing to deny so and claim itself "fair and balanced". Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" Mother Teresa |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
And yet, I'm still confused, how language specifying timing for our withdrawal from Iraq prompts Saudi citizens to board domestic air flights and turn them into missiles against U.S. soft targets? |
||
|
Not A Poet Member Elite
since 1999-11-03
Posts 3885Oklahoma, USA |
No, all we have to do is stick our collective head in the sand (or some other place where the sun don't shine) and all will be well. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
What does Iraq have to do with the WTC, Pete? |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
I think that there is a magic force-field that stays activated while our troops are in Iraq that prevents terrorist cells that are dispersed throughout the globe from attacking us here at home Ron. Whereas -- if we leave Iraq -- that's bound to make Islamist extremists real mad and they've just been waiting for the force-field to be de-activated.  |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Gee, tag-team matches are fun, aren't they, guys, especially with cutesy?  I'll have to try that one day  [This message has been edited by Balladeer (03-28-2007 04:35 PM).] |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
I may have inadvertently set up Reb's punch line, Mike, but I wasn't being cutesy. It was a serious question. Cutesy would have been asking how the Democrats could possibly legislate a defeat in a war Bush already lost? |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Aww, Mike thinks I'm cute  -- but, I don't like you in that way... I'm not so sure about that Ron. Would it be more accurate to say we won the war but lost the peace? The military objectives were acheived -- ousting Saddam and Sons, eliminating the threat of WMD's (an easy one), but it's the political objectives that remain undone? Or am I looking at this wrongly? |
||
|
Not A Poet Member Elite
since 1999-11-03
Posts 3885Oklahoma, USA |
Had to stretch a bit there didn't you Ron? Here's the quote again. quote: Where did I mention Iraq? This was nothing more than a dumb-A response to LR's dumb-A comment about swimming. But I think you knew that. Hmm, here's another one, and from the same source too. quote: Well, it seems to have worked so far then hasn't it? As long as the sheet-head Islami-nazis are up to their collective ass in 'gators (no offense Mike) they may not have much oportunity to swim over here and blow us up. Yeah, why don't we just remove all those alligators for them and see if that makes them suddenly like us a lot more? |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Well Mike thought I was cute! Please -- someone -- explain in detail how the Iraq war is protecting us from terrorism. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: You mean -- Hamas was too pre-occupied with the Iraq war to create havoc with Isreal in Lebanon? |
||
|
Not A Poet Member Elite
since 1999-11-03
Posts 3885Oklahoma, USA |
How far did they have to swim? Your metaphor, not mine. Or did you not intend it metaphorically? Hard to tell with some of what you have come up with lately. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. Iraq is sugar to the fly Or perhaps some would prefer New York . |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: So then you're saying the oceans do protect us? |
||
|
Not A Poet Member Elite
since 1999-11-03
Posts 3885Oklahoma, USA |
"Read my lips." That whole swim stuff was yours. Remember the silver things? We already know that works for tehm. What protects us is keeping them too busy on the defensive (fighting on their own ground) to form an attack. Look, it appears all we can accomplish here is throw semi-comic ridiculous remarks back and forth. I actually have better things to do. I think I'll step away until you hae something worthwhile to say. |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
I once saw a big white garage shed on the side of the road somewhere out in the country. The owner had spray painted giant words, in red, all across both sides of it: “Private Property. Keep out you thieving bast@rds!” I’m sure he wrote that out of frustration after someone had already broken in. But if someone really wanted to break in and steal from him, they’d probably just get a good laugh out of the owner’s angry words. They’re on a mission to take whatever they can find of value, even if it’s just to prove to someone else they can do it. I bet they don’t even care about the firepower behind the threat. That just adds to the challenge. The rest of the warning read: “I will shoot your a@@.” Sad thing is; it’s probably his neighbor, who’s probably told him how he saw a band of gypsies come through, but didn’t think anything about it. There’s always talk about town between people that cultivates hatred of foreigners. All it takes is one mean spirited local to plant a seed, even if he’s the one terrorizing his neighbor’s sense of ownership. It helps him if the owner of the building hates anyone who looks “strange” or foreign, though now the victim is plotting revenge. He’s even bragging about burning down the new neighbor’s barn, because he’s foreign. I agree. The world is getting smaller, and it seems we’re not getting any smarter. No one can ever dismiss 911. It happened. We were all seized with terror and heartbreak. Mission accomplished. But how do we outlive and overcome? Everything we’ve put into play was always an option or already enforced, before they ever attacked us. Invasion, air assault, ground forces, bombs, borders, spies, cavity searches, and a bunch of other stuff now increased for our security. What’s decreased? Our sense of security. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Well, LR, at the risk of incurring your cutsieness (which is actually one of your more endearing qualities ) let me explain it to you in the way I - and many others- believe and then you can have fun with it, too. I'll write it in cutsie-ese so you can better understand. Once upon a time there were a group of bad fellows who decided that the United States was a big, bad wolf who needed to be brought down so they went on a crusade of attacks over a period of time. They attacked American interests, enemies and even a Navy ship. Encouraged by the lack of desire on the part of the wolf to even scratch the itch these little sand fleas caused, they decided to go for the big one and the walls came tumbling down. This was finally too much for the wolf to ignore and troops were sent to the lands of the evildoers to put them out of business. The sand fleas had set up a nice little sanctuary in Afghanistan with a government who, when taking time out from butchering their own people, supported them. The wolf huffed and puffed and blew them off their Ozymandius-style perch and pursued the evil ones, who scattered throughout the mountains and sought safe haven in some other sand castle. Where could they go?...a dilemma indeed. But wait! There was a kingdom nearby which professed hatred for the wolf as strongly as they did. This kingdom was as ruthless towards it's peoples as the fallen one was, even gassing them by the thousands at the king sand flea's whim. Not only that, this leader had proclaimed to the world that he possessed weapons even more powerful than box-cutters! Who could ask for anything more? The big, bad wolf was in a quandry. The nogoodniks were on the run, stopping only long enough to make periodic tapes for Al-Jazeera announcing that there would be many more attacks on the land of the fallen WTC. They needed sanctuary and they needed means to continue their meanness. Surely they could strike up some kind of deal with their fellow wolf-hater with the billions of sand dollars at their command. After all, this flea had thumbed his nose at the United Nations for years. He wouldn't let the wolf at them and they could set up shop once again where they would not be inconvenienced by ariel assaults, cruise missiles, infantry division, and all of those little things that make their job a little more difficult than need be. Not only that, they could shop at this Wal-Mart of weaponry, home of falling bombs and prices. Barring any cooperation from this new safety zone, there would still hundreds of miles of mountains and caves where they could sit and watch CNN report the non-progress of their capture on their laptops. Still reeling from the videos of bodies falling dozens of stories to their certain deaths, the wolf made the decision to change the management of this potential Club Med for terrorists and did so. Was he right? No one can really say, can they? All we really know is that the terrorist sand fleas have been on the run, hunted down in many countries, ever since. All we know is that the turbanned big banana has not been seen since. All we know is that, in the six years since, his threats of future maniacal mayhem straight out of his Death to America playbook has not occurred. What does Iraq have to do with future WTC-type actions? Maybe nothing. Maybe everything. The terrorists ain't talking....they're too busy running and convincing their kids to blow themselves up. It would be an interesting fairy tale......too bad it's not. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Cutesy would have been asking how the Democrats could possibly legislate a defeat in a war Bush already lost? I have an interesting little outlook to inject here, Ron. Let me preface it by saying it it not necessary my way of thinking and I neither support or disclaim it....just telling it like it is. A long-time customer of mine is a doctor. He was a captain in the Army in Nam in a hospital in a small town a few miles down the road from DaNang. Last month he and his wife returned there for the first time since the war. He had taken pictures of the town, hospital and residents when he was there and was looking forward to seeing how much things had changed and if he may find anyone still around who had been patients of his. Needless to say, the place had changed over the years. The city was huge (by their standards) with a lot of modern architecture, new constructions under way and a bustling economy. He toured the hospital and, although he found no one on his visit he had connections with from his past there, the people were captivated by the photos of the hospital and town from the 60's. Everywhere he went he was treated as royalty. Everywhere he went he was thanked. He ended his conversation with me saying, "There were those who said Viet Nam was a defeat for the United States. They are wrong." Success and defeat can mean different things to different people, perhaps? If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you can read it in English, thank a soldier. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Sorry, Mike, but it indeed turned into a fairy tale the minute you tried to tie Al Qaeda to a pre-invasion Iraq. There's no evidence they were there and plenty of evidence that they weren't welcome there. Bush may not have invited Al Qaeda into Iraq, but he certainly opened the door for them. The public record seems pretty clear to me. We didn't invade Iraq in hot pursuit of terrorists. We didn't invade to save the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein. And in spite of strident assertions to the contrary, we didn't invade Iraq to establish a democratic foothold. Those claims are just revisionist history. President Bush told me and the rest of this country, in no uncertain terms, that we needed to go to war to prevent the use of weapons of mass destruction. We believed him. Three thousand American lives later, twenty-four thousand American wounded later, and we still haven't found any WMD. I see absolutely no correlation between the war in Iraq and the absence of successful terrorist attacks in America (you have to stipulate successful because there've been some few foiled attempts, which we shouldn't have seen if all the terrorists were so busy in Iraq). quote: I'm glad to hear Vietnam is economically doing well today, Mike. But I guess I'm missing your point. The American goal in Vietnam was to halt the spread of Communism. We utterly failed in that goal. I honestly don't know how anyone can stand back thirty years after the fact and say, "Gee, they're not starving or anything, so maybe we did okay after all." Wikipedia: "Upon taking control, the Vietnamese communists banned other political parties, arrested people believed to have collaborated with the U.S. and sent them to reeducation camps. The government also embarked on a mass campaign of collectivization of farms and factories. Reconstruction of the war-ravaged country was slow and serious humanitarian and economic problems confronted the communist regime. Millions of people fled the country in crude boats, creating a humanitarian crisis." If that's anyone's idea of us winning a war, Mike, I'd sure hate to see what they think losing would be like. None of that has anything to do with Iraq, however. Unless . . . you want to put forth the argument that Iraq is another Vietnam? |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
quote: I agree with that. As long as we are on the subject of abstract words, it reminds me of the whole Pat Tillman saga again, and what "honor" really is, where April 22nd will be three years since this corporal passed away in Afghanistan. The first version of this story was that Tillman was killed in an ambush by hostile forces in Afghanistan. Then, after his memorial service at the end of May of 2004, after this professional football star's memory was used as psuedo-patriotic jujitsu intended to drive up recruitment and even romanticize the war in Iraq, the Army revealed a second version of the story; that Tillman had not been killed by the Taliban, but instead by friendly fire. One year later, version three of the story came out, when the Army admitted it was friendly fire from virtually the day he died. And on Monday, unfortunately yet another version, version four, was revealed; where nine officers, four generals among them, knew, including at least one who attended Tillman‘s memorial service, but decided to say nothing to the family about the truth while he was there. Coming on three years later, even his parents say they are STILL not getting the truth from U.S military officials, why testimony is restricted to those in that group that accidentally killed her son, why one day U.S military officials told Tillman's parents his diary had been lost but then later on says "Ohhhhhhh wait, thhaaaaatttt diary, rrrigghhtttt, the one that was burned with his clothes after that tragic ordeal!" It's absolutely mind-boggling to me. What I really want to know is, if there was indeed a cover-up, which I believe there was, WHY did they even bother with it, why was it necessary to have undertaken it? Tillman was ALREADY a hero from the very beginning, simply by genuinely serving our country and volunteering truly is patriotism in its purest and most unadulterated form, and ended up giving as much as anyone ever could. That just because he happened to have died from friendly fire, how does that diminish ANYTHING he did whatsoever? Pat Tillman didn't deserve that Silver Star by that artificial patriotic window dressing that was made up. Tillman deserved that Silver Star simply because he was Pat Tillman, selflessly serving boldly and honorably for his country. Tillman forever deserves our honor and sincerest respect. Unfortunately, "honor" seems to mean differently to a selective few that make up a portion of the Pentagon. Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" Mother Teresa |
||
|
Mistletoe Angel
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816Portland, Oregon |
Apparently that's the most popular fairy-tale over at Fox News! World Public Opinion: October 2, 2003 Oh wait, you mean they DO believe there's a link as clear as day from the very beginning? And they still parrot that soundbyte, despite the president himself acknowledging there's no link between Iraq and 9/11? The dish must have ran away with the runcible spoon! Sincerely, Noah Eaton "If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other" Mother Teresa |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
So, FOX is: Full Of X-files? and their slogan should be, "The truth is out there." Not here. But some still want to believe! Noah~ Thousands have died by friendly fire. More will suffer the same fate. Casualties of war. The military doesn't pick off their own, normally, but when it happens they usually don't stop and wait for CSI to come and investigate the death. And no, I don't think that friendly fire makes a difference in decoration. The medals tend to mean more to others than they do the soldier. They will stand, fight, and die whether they get one or not. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
We didn't invade Iraq in hot pursuit of terrorists. We didn't invade to save the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein. And in spite of strident assertions to the contrary, we didn't invade Iraq to establish a democratic foothold. True enough, Ron, and I didn't use any of those reasons in my tale. What I used was we eliminated a plausible safe haven for the terrorist groups and also a potential customer for the WMD's. Yes, I know....what WMD's? I'm referring to the ones you, I, Congress and the world in general believed were there, the ones that Hussein bragged about having. Over the past seven years, mindsets have changed but remember how they were back then. An attack on the United States, threats that there would be more, a leader, vocal in his hatred of the U.S, claiming to have weapons of mass destruction, Al Qaida being chased out of Afghanistan......believe me, if Bin Laden had gotten hold of weapons from Hussein and hit the US with them, you and millions of others would be screaming, "How did Bush let this happen? Why didn't he take out Hussein like Clinton proposed to do in 1998?" Say it ain't so. No, as I said, I was trying to make no particular point in relating my customer's account of his visit not did I say I agreed with it. I don't know exactly what he saw there or all that made him issue such a claim. All I say is that he was a soldier there during a rough time and he is still able to give that opinion. You have yours and I have mine. That's how opinions works. The only reason I brought it up at all was your reference to the "lost" war in Iraq. Not everyone agrees with that as, apparently, there are people that don't agree that Viet Nam was a complete failure, either. That's the connection that made me think of it. You will continue calling it a lost war and soldiers will continue coming home, proud of what is being accomplished there. Tell THEM how lost it is..... |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
