Thoughts about the "liberal media"

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

It's interesting that the anti-war claim that WMD's are what SOLD people on the war. That may have been true of the doubtful.

 

But most people who were supportive recognize that the other factors were of EQUAL importance:

 

-Iraq in breach of a 17th UN resolution

-The demonstrated connection of Iraq & Al Qaeda

-Fighting tyranny

-Fighting terrorism

 

And Bush can't stop Americans from being stupid... he never said Iraq participated in 9/11, he never implied it. He never said WMD's were found, he never implied. The fact "imminent threat" has been taken out of context is interesting. And the humanitarian justification was listed ALONGSIDE the others (b/c it is crucial in fighting terrorism), the anti-war just CHOSE to see it as secondary.

 

 

JOTW, perhaps you forgot how confused the press was on election night when their trusty, objective exit polls predicted a big Kerry victory, and the result was quite different. And I'll find you a daily example of liberal bias in the AP if you like.

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

And Bush can't stop Americans from being stupid...

He can certainly take advantage of it, though.

 

Which is exactly what my entire post said. It was a clever manipulation of words, images, and associations to portray the situation as something it wasn't. This is becoming clearer by the day now; all you have to do is, like I said, examine all the dialed-down rhetoric in the administration's speeches on the subject these days. But you won't do that, so I'm not sure why I'm bothering.

 

-The demonstrated connection of Iraq & Al Qaeda

 

You keep saying this, and NoCalMike has challenged you to produce it. The President saying "there's a connection" doesn't count. I'll use your own words here and say

 

The text HAS to be online. Find a quote.

[NoCalMike 0]

And Bush can't stop Americans from being stupid...

He can certainly take advantage of it, though.

 

Which is exactly what my entire post said. It was a clever manipulation of words, images, and associations to portray the situation as something it wasn't. This is becoming clearer by the day now; all you have to do is, like I said, examine all the dialed-down rhetoric in the administration's speeches on the subject these days. But you won't do that, so I'm not sure why I'm bothering.

 

-The demonstrated connection of Iraq & Al Qaeda

 

You keep saying this, and NoCalMike has challenged you to produce it. The President saying "there's a connection" doesn't count. I'll use your own words here and say

 

The text HAS to be online. Find a quote.

The fact that McHaggis is still stuck on "Bush didn't imply this" is a sign that our work is done here, and the cause is hopeless.

[Guest sek69]

More examples of the liberal media:

 

Brian Williams, who replaced Tom Brokaw as anchor and managing editor of NBC's Nightly News on December 2, 2004, said in an interview with C-SPAN founder, president, and CEO Brian Lamb: "it's my duty to listen to [nationally syndicated radio host] Rush" Limbaugh and that "Rush has actually yet to get the credit he is due."

 

From the December 26, 2004, interview:

 

WILLIAMS: I do listen to Rush. I listen to it from a radio in my office, or depending on my day, if I'm in the car, I will listen to Rush. And he will tell you I've been listening for years. I think it's my duty to listen to Rush. I think Rush has actually yet to get the credit he is due, because his audience for so many years felt they were in the wilderness of this country. No one was talking to them.

 

[...]

 

Rush said to millions of Americans, you have a home. Come with me. For three hours a day you can listen and hear the like-minded calling in from across the country, and I'll read to you things perhaps you didn't see that are out there. I think Rush gave birth to the FOX News Channel. I think Rush helped to give birth to a movement. I think he played his part in the Contract with America. So I hope he gets his due as a broadcaster.

[NoCalMike 0]

It's interesting that the anti-war claim that WMD's are what SOLD people on the war. That may have been true of the doubtful.

Not just the WMDs, it was the supposed "threat" that Iraq imposed to OUR american livelihood. There was nothing said about the poor Iraqis and their torture chambers and/or mass graves, until after the WMD claims were starting to prove to be a bunch of bologna, so they switched strategies. You do remember Bush saying if this conflict wasn't resolved soon, it would "end with a mushroom cloud" Yes, Bush said "mushroom cloud" impying Iraq was going to launch nuclear weapons at us.....LOL. Bush and his administration wanted to spread a notion of fear because when people are in fear, or believe they SHOULD be in fear, they will stop thinking rationally. Vwala.......Public Support for the Iraq war. What do the latest polls say, 70/30 favor of people saying THE IRAQ WAR WAS NOT WORTH IT. It took the general public awhile, but they are coming around, but of course it is too late as the mess has been created and we are stuck.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

JOTW, perhaps you forgot how confused the press was on election night when their trusty, objective exit polls predicted a big Kerry victory, and the result was quite different.

Hold on a minute. Let's go look at the polls, taken on election eve, from COMMIE NEWZ:

 

 

Non white women, not shown here, was very heavily tilted towards Kerry, but only counted as 6% of the vote.

[Vyce 0]

Dude, EVERY news channel I watched on election night - and I watched ALL of them - talked about their exit polls predicting a big Kerry victory. And they weren't just talking about the non-white woman voters.

[Highland 0]

Was this the fault of the media or potential fraud with the exits polls?

And about the Iraq-9/11 connection: Cheney did strongly imply that there was a connection, but he didn't say it outright. Quite clever actually: he got his message out, but is able to use plausible deniability because he didn't actually say it outright.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Vyce, perhaps that's what the analysts said, yes. I saw Pat Buchanan on one of the channels say that if Bush doesn't win PA, he's doomed, and I don't think Pat Buchanan is an admirer of John Kerry's career.

 

Still, I'm not talking about talking heads trumpeting meaningless statistics, I'm talking about the actual exit polls, which (at least for CNN) showed Bush winning in Ohio, liberals in control or no.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Pat B. doesn't seem to be a big fan of the Right nowadays either.

 

And regarding the Brian Williams quote sek brought up, I've heard that, too. In addition, I remember Rush being on NBC for election-night analysis years ago. Is it any surprise that NBC is the leader in network news. (and for the record, I like Williams and Russert, and if forced to pick out of the Big 3, I would go with NBC's nightly snooze...)

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

JOTW, perhaps you forgot how confused the press was on election night when their trusty, objective exit polls predicted a big Kerry victory, and the result was quite different.

Hold on a minute. Let's go look at the polls, taken on election eve, from COMMIE NEWZ:

 

 

Non white women, not shown here, was very heavily tilted towards Kerry, but only counted as 6% of the vote.

Those polls actually weren't conducted by CNN. They were conducted by an independent polling firm, Mitofsky. And that is probably the adjusted exit poll data. At one point in the evening, CNN adjusted the data on their website to conform to the "official" vote results.

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

A George Tenet letter used in this OMGNEOCONFUNDYBIASED! article:

 

"Credible information indicates that Iraq and al Qa'ida have discussed safe haven and reciprocal non-aggression. Since Operation Enduring Freedom [in Afghanistan], we have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of al Qa'ida members, including some that have been in Baghdad. We have credible reporting that al Qa'ida leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to al Qa'ida members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs."

 

 

The actual "imminent threat" line, immediately followed by "the poor Iraqis and their torture chambers":

 

"Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.

 

The dictator who is assembling the world's most dangerous weapons has already used them on whole villages -- leaving thousands of his own citizens dead, blind, or disfigured. Iraqi refugees tell us how forced confessions are obtained -- by torturing children while their parents are made to watch. International human rights groups have catalogued other methods used in the torture chambers of Iraq: electric shock, burning with hot irons, dripping acid on the skin, mutilation with electric drills, cutting out tongues, and rape. If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning."

 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...0030128-19.html

 

 

The actual "mushroom cloud" line:

 

"Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."

 

http://www.sacbee.com/24hour/special_repor...p-6932886c.html

 

 

Don't let the truth stop you, though. Also, we need to clear up a little English usage re: Imply vs. Infer. IMPLY is what a speaker does to his listener. Only the speaker KNOWS what he's implying. A listener INFERS what he thinks the speaker is saying. You, NCM, inferred that Bush was saying Iraq would launch nukes at us.

 

In addition, It seems that you ignored the whole logical argument for why Iraq fit into the war on terror.

[C Dubya 04 0]

Give me a break. It is clear what was being implied there. You can lead people to infer certain things, which was obviously done.

[Jingus 0]

"Credible information indicates that Iraq and al Qa'ida have discussed safe haven and reciprocal non-aggression. Since Operation Enduring Freedom [in Afghanistan], we have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of al Qa'ida members, including some that have been in Baghdad. We have credible reporting that al Qa'ida leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to al Qa'ida members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs."

One way this statement could've worked:

 

 

Random Al Quaida messenger: "Hey Saddam, can we come hide in your country?"

 

Saddam: "Let me think... how about NO."

 

RAQM: "Well, can you teach us how to use weapons of mass destruction?"

 

Saddam: "Don't spill any chemicals on you, don't breathe in deadly gases, and make sure you throw the grenade after you pull the pin. And don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out."

 

 

The above conversation would make all of Tenet's assertations true.

 

The actual "mushroom cloud" line:

 

"Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."

 

Don't let the truth stop you, though. Also, we need to clear up a little English usage re: Imply vs. Infer. IMPLY is what a speaker does to his listener. Only the speaker KNOWS what he's implying. A listener INFERS what he thinks the speaker is saying. You, NCM, inferred that Bush was saying Iraq would launch nukes at us.

 

Yes, it certainly sounds like Bush said Iraq would soon launch nukes at us. How else are we supposed to interpret that very clear statement?

[NoCalMike 0]

I also don't get the "Safe haven in Iraq" reasoning. I mean, lets be blunt here, some of the 9/11 hijackers lived in America for over a year or more before 9/11 and even LEARNED HOW TO FLY PLANES in AMERICA. Does that mean America was a nation giving safe harbor to terrorists, and training them? Terrorist taking up residence in your country does not mean you are protecting them or keeping them safe. It just may happen that terrorists are keeping a low profile and happen to live within your borders. Also, it has never been elaborated on ever, where exactly these "Al Qaeda training camps" were located, or if they even existed in the first place. We have terrorist training camps here in America right? I mean militias live in the backwoods and train their members how to use assault rifles, military weapons and other various weapons that are illegal for civilian use. I don't see a huge effort to bring them down, but I certainly wouldn't say that means our government is giving them "safe haven" or "harboring" them. I mean, how exactly do you classify a "terrorist training camp" a bunch of guys with machine guns, running on an obstacle course out in the middle of the desert? Something tells me maybe the Iraqi government technology was not sophisticated enough to monitor every inch of their country.

[NoCalMike 0]

The actual "mushroom cloud" line:

 

"Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."

 

http://www.sacbee.com/24hour/special_repor...p-6932886c.html

 

 

Don't let the truth stop you, though. Also, we need to clear up a little English usage re: Imply vs. Infer. IMPLY is what a speaker does to his listener. Only the speaker KNOWS what he's implying. A listener INFERS what he thinks the speaker is saying. You, NCM, inferred that Bush was saying Iraq would launch nukes at us.

 

In addition, It seems that you ignored the whole logical argument for why Iraq fit into the war on terror.

Uh-huh and under what basis did George Bush even have in the first place to use the "mushroom cloud" reference? What DO YOU think he was implying? What do you think Bush and his administration would be the reaction of the GENERAL PUBLIC hearing such a reference. I am leaning towards it having the implication that if we didn't go to war and bomb the hell out of Iraq, that we might be nuked by them in the future, as ludicrous as that is, it seemed to have quite the effect on people.

 

All your research did was support my argument, in the way Bush twisted words, and purposely misled people. And to think Bush once accused Gore of "fuzzy math"

[Justice 0]

Sensationalistic Crap, useless comparisions, etc, etc...

A fairly good listing of the connections between Iraq and al Qaeda.

 

Most links nowadays come from captured Iraqis, who have things like this to say:

 

A former army officer now under the protection of the anti-Saddam Iraqi National Congress has repeated to numerous U.S. officials and reporters his tale of a camp at Salman Pak, just outside Baghdad, run by the Iraqi secret police as a training school for potential terrorists from across the Arab world. Among other things, he said, the camp uses the fuselage of a Boeing 707 to practice hijackings. Early this year Mohamed Mansour Shahab, a mercenary now in Kurdish custody who says he worked for Saddam's secret police, told interviewers that in 2000 the regime set aside $16 million for nine terrorist operations, including a scuttled suicide attack Shahab was supposed to organize against a U.S. Navy ship in the Persian Gulf.

 

And right now I'm sure your trying to dig up the 9/11 Commission, which is irrelevent: They only concentrated on whether Iraq helped out in 9/11. This is even stated by the Chair. Nice try, but it really doesn't work.

 

All in all, there was a decent link between the two. They might not have been the closest of allies, but an ally is an ally nonetheless.

 

Oddly enough, for all those who thought that the Iraq War was JUST about WMDs, let's check out the bill that was passed to let us go in:

 

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;

...

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

...

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;

 

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;

 

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

...

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

 

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

 

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

 

Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region: Now, therefore, be it

 

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

 

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002’.

 

Wow, that's the second listing. Before anything on Al Qaeda, even.

[Spicy McHaggis 0]

I also don't get the "Safe haven in Iraq" reasoning. I mean, lets be blunt here, some of the 9/11 hijackers lived in America for over a year or more before 9/11 and even LEARNED HOW TO FLY PLANES in AMERICA. Does that mean America was a nation giving safe harbor to terrorists, and training them? Terrorist taking up residence in your country does not mean you are protecting them or keeping them safe. It just may happen that terrorists are keeping a low profile and happen to live within your borders. Also, it has never been elaborated on ever, where exactly these "Al Qaeda training camps" were located, or if they even existed in the first place. We have terrorist training camps here in America right? I mean militias live in the backwoods and train their members how to use assault rifles, military weapons and other various weapons that are illegal for civilian use. I don't see a huge effort to bring them down, but I certainly wouldn't say that means our government is giving them "safe haven" or "harboring" them. I mean, how exactly do you classify a "terrorist training camp" a bunch of guys with machine guns, running on an obstacle course out in the middle of the desert? Something tells me maybe the Iraqi government technology was not sophisticated enough to monitor every inch of their country.

This argument MIGHT be credible except for the fact that you are putting Iraq on the same level as the U.S. Relativism doesn't cut it. Iraq allowed terrorists in, I'm not going to give Hussein the benefit of the doubt that "the Iraqi government technology was not sophisticated enough to monitor every inch of their country". I actually can't believe you wrote that. Like Iraq was some lawful, responsible place. The U.S. obviously was not consciously allowing terrorists to train here, unless you've got some conspiracy theory.

 

Uh-huh and under what basis did George Bush even have in the first place to use the "mushroom cloud" reference? What DO YOU think he was implying?

Apparently faulty intelligence from the U.S., UN, and foreign countries that was solid at the time. I inferred that the risk of Iraq possibly acquiring a nuke and passing it off to terrorists was too great to allow a brutal dictator, who already had a multitude of reasons to be removed, to stay in power. Remember, 17 UN Resolutions put the burden of proof on Hussein to open up his country completely and show us he had no WMDs. Yet he continued to pose as if he had something to hide.

 

My research exposed the bs that WMDs were the only reason given to go to war.

[NoCalMike 0]

I also don't get the "Safe haven in Iraq" reasoning. I mean, lets be blunt here, some of the 9/11 hijackers lived in America for over a year or more before 9/11 and even LEARNED HOW TO FLY PLANES in AMERICA.  Does that mean America was a nation giving safe harbor to terrorists, and training them?  Terrorist taking up residence in your country does not mean you are protecting them or keeping them safe.  It just may happen that terrorists are keeping a low profile and happen to live within your borders.  Also, it has never been elaborated on ever, where exactly these "Al Qaeda training camps" were located, or if they even existed in the first place.  We have terrorist training camps here in America right? I mean militias live in the backwoods and train their members how to use assault rifles, military weapons and other various weapons that are illegal for civilian use.  I don't see a huge effort to bring them down, but I certainly wouldn't say that means our government is giving them "safe haven" or "harboring" them.  I mean, how exactly do you classify a "terrorist training camp"  a bunch of guys with machine guns, running on an obstacle course out in the middle of the desert?  Something tells me maybe the Iraqi government technology was not sophisticated enough to monitor every inch of their country.

This argument MIGHT be credible except for the fact that you are putting Iraq on the same level as the U.S. Relativism doesn't cut it. Iraq allowed terrorists in, I'm not going to give Hussein the benefit of the doubt that "the Iraqi government technology was not sophisticated enough to monitor every inch of their country". I actually can't believe you wrote that. Like Iraq was some lawful, responsible place. The U.S. obviously was not consciously allowing terrorists to train here, unless you've got some conspiracy theory.

 

Uh-huh and under what basis did George Bush even have in the first place to use the "mushroom cloud" reference? What DO YOU think he was implying?

Apparently faulty intelligence from the U.S., UN, and foreign countries that was solid at the time. I inferred that the risk of Iraq possibly acquiring a nuke and passing it off to terrorists was too great to allow a brutal dictator, who already had a multitude of reasons to be removed, to stay in power. Remember, 17 UN Resolutions put the burden of proof on Hussein to open up his country completely and show us he had no WMDs. Yet he continued to pose as if he had something to hide.

 

My research exposed the bs that WMDs were the only reason given to go to war.

My point was that it is plenty reasonable to think terrorist camps, could be conducted without Saddam's knowledge. How is that not plausible? THis has nothing to do with whether Saddam is a nice guy or not, he is an evil bastard either way, but to me it isn't unreasonable to think that a group of thugs took advantage of some land out in the middle of the desert beyond civilization. Oh and no, I am not comparing our government to Iraqs. I was just simply trying to get a clear definition of what a terrorist training camp is.

 

Also, I didn't say there weren't any other reasons for war with Iraq. What I said was what GEORGE W. BUSH said in his speeches in the beginning, and how he mainly used fear and a make-believe imminent threat to get over on the american people, and when that strategy was falling flat, due to mostly....the TRUTH, he switched reasons and started talking about "liberation" and "spreading democracy"

[Guest Cerebus]

OMG

[NoCalMike 0]

OMG

Oh that lovable billionaire Ted Turner~! He must know his CNN brand of news is not really much better...

[Highland 0]

A FOXNEWS spokesperson responded: "Ted is understandably bitter having lost his ratings, his network and now his mind -- we wish him well."

 

[NoCalMike 0]

Well to be fair, is this much different then conservatives referring to CNN as COMMIE NEWS NETWORK? I mean, the fact that TED TURNER himself stooped down to that level and said it, is hilarious, but I mean I wouldn't put it past pundits to jab each other back and forth using these tactics.

[Highland 0]

Yes, I have to agree that the moral indignation gets tiresome. Both sides are guilty of mudslinging and degenerative name calling.

[The Czech Republic 0]

Well to be fair, is this much different then conservatives referring to CNN as COMMIE NEWS NETWORK? I mean, the fact that TED TURNER himself stooped down to that level and said it, is hilarious, but I mean I wouldn't put it past pundits to jab each other back and forth using these tactics.

I've liked CNN more and more lately.

[teke184 0]

A FOXNEWS spokesperson responded: "Ted is understandably bitter having lost his ratings, his network and now his mind -- we wish him well."

 

I think that Fox needs to license the old Billionaire Ted skits from Vince...

[The Czech Republic 0]

That or show the episode of Family Guy where Peter plays poker with Ted

[cbacon 0]

I'm not going to go through everything in this thread right now but i'd like to point out that:

 

First, Bush specifically linking Al Qaeda to Iraq numerous times is a downright deplorable tactic to mislead Americans into thinking there was a link between the group and 9/11. Tugging on the fragile heart strings and what have you.

 

Second, McHaggis mentions that the 'side bar' reasons for going to war involved Iraq violating one of the UN's 17 resolutions. Of course it's absurd for the US to use this excuse, yet at the same time defy the UN's stance for heading into an 'illegal war' and especially when UN inspectors did report substantial evidence of WMD's. The UN is a great asset for United States foreign policy issues, when it's convenient of course.

 

The 'fighting terrorism and tyranny' fall under the same hypocritical and totally unbelievable vain. A convincing argument for such a stance simply cannot be made.

[Vern Gagne 0]

Well to be fair, is this much different then conservatives referring to CNN as COMMIE NEWS NETWORK?  I mean, the fact that TED TURNER himself stooped down to that level and said it, is hilarious, but I mean I wouldn't put it past pundits to jab each other back and forth using these tactics.

I've liked CNN more and more lately.

I like Lou Dobbs. Too bad he's on against the Hypnotic Brit Hume. One of the other anchors on network news I like.

[LessonInMachismo 0]

Calling FNC right-leaning is one of the new liberal straw man arguments and rallying cries, similar to "Fox is entertainment news, so it doesn't count." The reason people deny liberal bias in the mainstream media is because they are so out of touch that they don't step back from their myopic view of the big picture. I don't think anyone can watch anything on ABC, CBS or NBC, be it their evening news shows or their primetime investigative shows, and say that it isn't slanted. Sometimes the mere tone of their voice does it. I listen to Rush every day and at the top of every hour, the local ABC affiliate runs the New York ABC news update and they are the worst. Some reporter last week told us that after Boxer asked her questions (of which they did not play a clip), Condoleeza "fired back!" They then played a clip of Condi when her voice was raised for all of three seconds.

 

Considering that most of the US is either reasonable or anti-liberal, this comes off as being out of touch with them, and they lose viewers. Is FNC the top-rated cable network because Dubya is using behind-the-scenes manipulation to make it that way? I think it's because they report all facets of news (including reporting the good work being done in Iraq) and because they are much more energetic than the corpse-like talking heads on the network news.

 

How do I know the mainstream media is liberal? I watch it and see it.