OT: Gloomy Outlook In Iraq

[Leebo33]

I’m sick and tired of hearing things
From uptight, short-sighted, narrow-minded hypocritics
All I want is the truth
Just gimme some truth
I’ve had enough of reading things
By neurotic, psychotic, pig-headed politicians
All I want is the truth
Just gimme some truth

No short-haired, yellow-bellied, son of tricky dicky
Is gonna mother hubbard soft soap me
With just a pocketful of hope
Money for dope
Money for rope

No short-haired, yellow-bellied, son of tricky dicky
Is gonna mother hubbard soft soap me
With just a pocketful of soap
Money for dope
Money for rope

I’m sick to death of seeing things
From tight-lipped, condescending, mama’s little chauvinists
All I want is the truth
Just gimme some truth now

I’ve had enough of watching scenes
Of schizophrenic, ego-centric, paranoiac, prima-donnas
All I want is the truth now
Just gimme some truth

No short-haired, yellow-bellied, son of tricky dicky
Is gonna mother hubbard soft soap me
With just a pocketful of soap
It’s money for dope
Money for rope

Ah, I’m sick and tired of hearing things
From uptight, short-sighted, narrow-minded hypocrites
All I want is the truth now
Just gimme some truth now

I’ve had enough of reading things
By neurotic, psychotic, pig-headed politicians
All I want is the truth now
Just gimme some truth now

All I want is the truth now
Just gimme some truth now
All I want is the truth
Just gimme some truth
All I want is the truth
Just gimme some truth

- John Lennon

[anchester]

pk...i am fully aware of the libertarian platform. I would say that in day to day life, a republican is closer to to a libertarian than a democrat. Democrats want the govt to be huge, control everything, and redistribute wealth. Repubs and Libertarians want to minimize gov't. I am all for minimization. Govt basically sux.

Libertarians and Dems are both socially liberal, which I agree with. Repubs need more swarteneggar types. But this issue is not that important since they will never overturn Roe Vs Wade.

Libertarians and Dems also are pacifists and non-interventionists in foreign policy. I don't think this will solve the fact that radical islam (over 100 million people. Over 1 billion Islams and about 10% are radical) are actively pursuing or supporting the demise of modern civilization. These radicals only respect force and pray on weakness. The media loves to show how effective they are (and let's face it, terrosism is effective and is the only way they can fight).

Another solution would be to completely isolate the middle east and other primarily islamic countries, stop buying oil from them, don't allow immigration of islams into any civilized society, and let them kill themselves. This is actually more of a Dem or libertarian strategy. Not sure if it is realistic, however.

Radical Islams are only getting bigger everyday, b/c they see the effectiveness of their terror and their birth rate is 3x higher than the west.

The Dem platform is this: criticize, criticize and offer no solutions. Be light on facts and big on rhetoric and get that rhetoric out in the liberal media. In fact, they love to see bad things happen to america so they can take over. I am suprised that there are significant numbers of intelligent people that agree with the Dem platform (like Seanmac). All young and ignorant, dumb people, criminals, vagrants, idolents will vote the Dem platform (or at least they would if they would make it to the polls). OK, this remark was inflammatory, but true. Fortunately for the rest of the educated, hard working folks, it appears that Bush will beat Mr. Kerry.

[Jared]

The Dem platform is this: criticize, criticize and offer no solutions. Be light on facts and big on rhetoric and get that rhetoric out in the liberal media. In fact, they love to see bad things happen to america so they can take over. I am suprised that there are significant numbers of intelligent people that agree with the Dem platform (like Seanmac). All young and ignorant, dumb people, criminals, vagrants, idolents will vote the Dem platform (or at least they would if they would make it to the polls). OK, this remark was inflammatory, but true. Fortunately for the rest of the educated, hard working folks, it appears that Bush will beat Mr. Kerry.

Anchester,

Have you actually read the Democratic platform? You can look it up. Here's a link:

http://www.democrats.org/platform/

Read it and tell me if this is "criticize, criticize, and offer no solutions". Or why don't you ask some of the Democrats here if they "love to see bad things happen to america so that they can take over". Or that "young and ignorant, dumb people, criminals, vagrants, idolents will vote the Dem platform". If you're going to say things that are completely stereotypical of millions of Americans, then maybe you should take some time to actually inform yourself as to what they might actually believe before wrapping yourself up in stereotypes about what other people think.

It's stupid when people say people are idiots for supporting Bush, and it's stupid when people say the same about people supporting Kerry (or Badnarik, or Nader, or whoever). But it's absolutely pathetic when people say inexcusable things that tar a group of millions of Americans as people that love to see bad things happen to America. That's pathetic. So if you mean what you say, back it up. Look into what the other side actually has to say.

[Jared]

And as for "liberal media bias", news organizations will go out of their way to try and nail the big people on both sides. And because they're after the big "scoop", they'll sometimes will rush to get stuff out when they shouldn't. It's not like these things only happen to Bush. Look at the Clinton administration. Whitewater, Vince Foster, and other charges against Clinton were baseless but were put out against him. People will publicize things to take people in high places down before they should, and it happens on both sides.

[Slumberland]

pk...i am fully aware of the libertarian platform. I would say that in day to day life, a republican is closer to to a libertarian than a democrat. Democrats want the govt to be huge, control everything, and redistribute wealth. Repubs and Libertarians want to minimize gov't. I am all for minimization. Govt basically sux.

I'm interested to know if you felt like government controlled your life under previous democratic adminstrations. The "huge, control everything" remark seems like a profound overstatement, along the lines of how all liberals want socialism. I'm not a socialist, but I do believe in elements of a mixed economy. My fear is that the current administration wants to return to a pre-FDR economy, and I think that's a mistake that would result in widespread poverty.

Libertarians and Dems are both socially liberal, which I agree with. Repubs need more swarteneggar types. But this issue is not that important since they will never overturn Roe Vs Wade.

That's comforting to hear you say that, but if Bush continues appointing federal judges and appoints an anti-abortion judge as head justice of the Supreme Court (say, Clarence Thomas) then I feel like there's a definite possibility it could be overturned. I'm not for abortion, per se, but I do not think it should be criminalized.

Libertarians and Dems also are pacifists and non-interventionists in foreign policy. I don't think this will solve the fact that radical islam (over 100 million people. Over 1 billion Islams and about 10% are radical) are actively pursuing or supporting the demise of modern civilization. These radicals only respect force and pray on weakness. The media loves to show how effective they are (and let's face it, terrosism is effective and is the only way they can fight).

I'm not against the use of force when dealing with terrorists. Let's simply be smart about it, and attack actual threats.

Radical Islams are only getting bigger everyday, b/c they see the effectiveness of their terror and their birth rate is 3x higher than the west.

And you think we can kill all of them?

While I'm at it just when did Bosnia, Kosovo and Somalia attack us?

The difference being, we were not misled into those conflicts. But interesting that you bring these up. I thought Dems were non-interventionists?

Interesting about these recent polls, notably the CBS/NYT poll... they canvassed a larger number of Republicans than Democrats, under some notion that the number of self-identified Republicans has increased in the last four years. Now, maybe this is true, but they don't offer any evidence for it. And here's the breakdown of how the people polled voted in the last presidential election:

Gore - 28
Bush - 36
Buchanan - 1
Nader - 1
Voted, won't say - 1
Didn't vote - 32

Based on the popular vote of the 2000 election, would you say that that's a fair sampling? And this from the "liberally biased" NYT and Bush-hating CBS news division!

[pk500]

>>>That we're sitting ducks (btw, I also agree we are not "safer")? Those people were going to hate us no matter what we did. 3,000 innocent people are dead but let's just not do anything about it, okay? The terrorist might get mad if we do.<<<

Ah, this is the classic "light switch" foreign policy that all Bush supporters love to use as a defense. And what a flawed defense it is.

To Bush fanatics, diplomacy consists of either doing nothing and being a candy-ass or starting a war and killing to stem the flow of Islamic radicals. There's nothing in between. There's no attempt at understanding that cultures in the Middle East are vastly different than those in the West. There's no attempt at using existing law enforcment and military organizations to stem terrorism without creating a big, bloated Cabinet agency and starting a war.

In other words, there's zero tact and zero touch. Unlike Teddy Roosevelt, Bush likes to speak loudly and carry a big stick.

The Bush Administration's utter lack of understanding of foreign policy and diplomacy, other than on the end of a gun barrel, is vividly illustrated by the pre-war descriptions of Cheney and other fools who claimed that ordinary Iraqis would great Americans trying to shove Western government down their throats by dropping their arms and showering our troops with love.

Sadly, our brave fighting men and women are the ones who are suffering from the utter lack of wisdom and planning by the idiots running the show in Washington. The lack of planning for post-war Iraq is appallling, and another one of the reasons proving that Bush is not up to the job. Who knows if Kerry is -- probably not.

But as others have said in here, most Republicans always point to "Well, Kerry will be really bad in office" when pressed to name Bush's accomplishments and why Bush should be re-elected.

That's not a very solid platform on which to stand, if you ask me.

As Slumber said, I'm all in favor of fighting back against those who attacked us. That's why I'm a staunch supporter of U.S. military efforts in Afghanistan. I say we should torch every cave in that country until we get Bin Laden.

But Iraq? It's Bush's Folly, which has cost more than 1,000 American lives.

Take care,
PK

[Granatofan]

Vagrants and Criminals (felons) cannot vote. Even if they would vote Dem it is a moot point.

Ted

[blueduke]

Ah, this is the classic "light switch" foreign policy that all Bush supporters love to use as a defense. And what a flawed defense it is.

To Bush fanatics, diplomacy consists of either doing nothing and being a candy-ass or starting a war and killing to stem the flow of Islamic radicals. There's nothing in between.

What's "light switch" about going and taking out a dictator who supported these nuts and offered compensation to the families of anyone who used suicide tatics against the west? What's "light switch" about taking out this same dictator who was trying to accquire (and probably had at one point) wmd's? Where's the flaw here, friend?

Over 3,000 innocents are dead and they're threatening to do it again. Is there anything you're willing to fight for? These radicals want us dead. all of us. There is "nothing in between" of taking out as many as we can and stopping them from accuiring a means to use mass death against us again.

There's no attempt at understanding that cultures in the Middle East are vastly different than those in the West.

Oh we "understand" all right. Do you? They want and are trying to kill us. But let's be "candy ass" about it though. We don't want to make them mad. The only thing they've (radicals) ever understood is the working end of a gun. [/i]

[pk500]

>>>What's "light switch" about going and taking out a dictator who supported these nuts and offered compensation to the families of anyone who used suicide tatics against the west? What's "light switch" about taking out this same dictator who was trying to accquire (and probably had at one point) wmd's? Where's the flaw here, friend?<<<

The flaw is that Saddam isn't the only dictator in the world who is doing this. What about China? What about North Korea, which is proven to have WMD's? What about Vietnam? What about other areas where dictators are brutalizing people?

There's a simple reason why Bush went after Iraq: It was Daddy's unfinished business, and he grossly misjudged that it would be an easy conflict.

So when are we going to invade North Korea? Hell, that's too tough. They have nukes and have threatened to use them against us. They have an army that might put up a fight.

Don't you see the hypocrisy, how one dictator is supposedly more dangerous than others?

>>>Over 3,000 innocents are dead and they're threatening to do it again. Is there anything you're willing to fight for?<<<

Sorry that reading comprehension is a tough skill for you. Did you read the previous post above in which I said I fully support aggressive and ruthless military action against Al-Queda in Pakistan and Afghanistan? After all, we KNOW they used and had three weapons of mass destruction against us -- three U.S. passenger jets.

>>>Oh we "understand" all right. Do you? They want and are trying to kill us. But let's be "candy ass" about it though. We don't want to make them mad. The only thing they've (radicals) ever understood is the working end of a gun.<<<

OK, fine. Since Iraq has been such an unqualified success story, what country should be next on Bush's hit list? What about North Korea, which is way more dangerous than Iraq ever has been because of its nuclear weapons, its more powerful army than Iraq and its overt aggressive stance toward the U.S.?

So when are we plowing north of the DMZ since we've got Iraq under control?

Better yet, when are we going to catch Bin Laden? Why don't we have 100,000 troops in Afghanistan trying to find that c*cksucker?

It doesn't bother you one bit that we haven't killed the guy who was DIRECTLY responsible for the loss of 3,000 innocents yet we did capture a guy who may have had connections to it?

I don't oppose military action when it's warranted, as it is in the hunt for Bin Laden and other Al-Queda operatives. But the hypocrisy of the war hawks, who see North Korea as a "different" kind of threat than Iraq, is humorous and scary.

If you think America is the world's policeman, which you clearly do, isn't there another beat for Uncle Sam to walk and kick ass in? Is Iraq the only hot spot that is run by a brutal dictator who tortures his citizens?

Sh*t, why don't we overrun Havana next week? Damn, that's a Communist country that hates America, just 90 miles from Key West.

It makes complete sense in Bush's foreign policy vision. After all, the invasion of Iraq initially was about getting WMD's. Well, that proved to be unfounded. Then it became about toppling a dictator. That was done, and Yanks still continued to die. So it became all about bringing freedom and democracy to oppressed people.

Last time I checked, Cuba has few freedoms, is Communist and run by a guy who has caused great opppression for his people.

So what do you say? Havana and Castro toppled by Thanksgiving? Why not? It fits the exact same parameters as Baghdad and Saddam. And if we run low on troops, we can always draft some Cuban exiles in South Florida to take up the cause, saving our National Guard for duty in Iraq.

Sounds like a plan! Then we'll flip a coin between Tehran and Panmunjon.

Take care,
PK

[pk500]

>>>Oh we "understand" all right. Do you? They want and are trying to kill us. But let's be "candy ass" about it though. We don't want to make them mad. The only thing they've (radicals) ever understood is the working end of a gun.<<<

And what about the millions of Iraqis who aren't trying to kill us and don't hate us yet whose lives have been ended or ruined by this military occupation?

What about them? Or is every Iraqi a radical who hates America?

Hardly, from the detailed stories that Jackdog has told me from his two tours of service over there.

But let's f*cking kill 'em all, right, Blueduke? Every damn one of 'em!

The problem with Americans is that they never look at it from the perspective of someone whose country is being invaded without just cause. Think hypothetically if you were an average American and there were people around you who hated Canada, which was the superpower of the world. And let's say Canada invaded the U.S. because it thought we had WMD's and thought Bush was a bad guy and had to be removed. And let's say Canada really trashed our country's infrastructure during the invasion, which had very limited global support, and that invasion spawned desperate, despicable acts of violence from the minority radical fringe of Americans who really hated Canada, and that violence claimed hundreds, if not thousands, of innocent American lives.

You'd be a little bit pissed at Canada and Canadians, in general, wouldn't you?

The part about this war that few of the hawks realize is that the vast majority of Iraqis are decent, kind human beings who just want to be left alone to live their lives without foreign intervention. They're grateful Saddam is gone, but they aren't greeting Americans as liberators.

Not every Iraqi is a turbaned terrorist, sworn to kill the evil infidel America, despite what Bush and his henchmen want us to think. The vast majority of them are regular folks, like us, and just want to live in peace and in a Middle Eastern culture.

Take care,
PK

[blueduke]

The flaw is that Saddam isn't the only dictator in the world who is doing this. What about China?

Oh so China offers safe haven along with compensation to Al Queda? Anxiously awaiting pk's big source on this one.

What about North Korea, which is proven to have WMD's?

How do you know they're not next? Oh btw, Thanks Mr Clinton. Through your hard work NK is now a member of the nuke club.

And what about the millions of Iraqis who aren't trying to kill us and don't hate us yet whose lives have been ended or ruined by this military occupation?

They're worse off b/c the one who gassed, tortured, raped, and starved them is on out of commision? They all seemed to be euphoric over it not too long ago. There is alot of these people grateful that we came than didn't judging from what I've heard from people who have actually been there as opposed to pacifists on message boards. Btw, I've read Jackdog's posts too and he painted a whole lot different picture than what you're trying to. So have others whom I'm close to.

The problem with Americans is that they never look at it from the perspective of someone whose country is being invaded without just cause.

Over 3.000 dead and threats of more. Sadaam gave these people money, training, safe haven. Tough sh!t for Sadaam.Al Queda invaded us. We're not killing innocent Iraqi citizens on purpose, friend.

Not every Iraqi is a turbaned terrorist, sworn to kill the evil infidel America, despite what Bush and his henchmen want us to think

Are you drunk? Do you really believe this? Bush wants "us" to believe all Iraqis want our demise? you've got to show me where you came up with this one too. Your "what if" concerning Canada is too silly to even bother addressing. Just who in the hell is rebuilding their infrastrucure, pk? We are that'a who. I don't have to play "what if" concerning the US. It's already happened.

[anchester]

Democratic platform "Strong at home, respect

I didn't mean to say all Dem voters want bad things to happen to US, just the kerry campaign. His platform is that bush is bad, ha ha look at this bad event. I have no answers, but who cares, bush is an evil conservative. Please repeat this media.

To say that the media is not liberal is ridiculous. Please don't even try to suggest otherwise. It has been documented a million times. 90+ % of registered media vote democratic. That is an unbelievable stat. What kind of stories do you think get more play, little guy gets unfairly treated by big guy or look at rich martha go do in flames. I like they quote from the NY Times reporter after Nixons landslide victory over goldwater...."I am shocked at this victory, none of my friends voted for Nixon".

Why do i think that Gov't is getting bigger. Well overall tax liabilities have gone up from the first 1% income tax on the richest americans in the 1920's to the ever increasing taxes we see today (fedreal and state income taxes, payroll taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, fuel taxes, and on and on). When will it stop. Answer: it won't. The only reason that we aren't as socialistic as Europe is that we are a newer country. Each european country has economic stagnation, high unemployment, ridiculous taxes ($5 / gallon tax anyone), and crappy socialized medicine. We are heading their way. Socialized medicine is already on the horizon. The majority of people will always want to take from the upperclass b/c it benefits them personally and in the shortrun.

And PK while I agree that the maniac in N. Korea is troubling, if you read the news, it appears to me all the problems in the world related to radical islam. The first step in combating a problem is to define it. I like the "lets try to understand them" argument. Its like the political joke, a deranged mad man approaches a man shouting i will kill you and swinging a knife....the democrat says, what did i do to cause his anger, is there anything i could have done, perhaps I can reason with him, maybe he was unfairly treated....

The republican says nothings except "Bang".

[pk500]

>>>Oh so China offers safe haven along with compensation to Al Queda? Anxiously awaiting pk's big source on this one.<<<

If you see Al Queda as the biggest threat to the U.S., which it is, then why aren't you up in arms that we haven't caught Bin Laden and instead are diverting our efforts to catch him and other Al Queda operatives in Afghanistan with this Iraqi war?

And I thought this war was about bringing liberty and freedom to Iraqis, not about Al Queda? That's what Bush says -- we're bringing freedom to Iraqis. So why isn't bringing freedom to China and North Korea next?

And do you want to eliminate Al Queda or liberate Iraq? They're quite different objectives.

>>>There is alot of these people grateful that we came than didn't judging from what I've heard from people who have actually been there as opposed to pacifists on message boards.<<<

And that's exactly what I wrote despite your best efforts at reading comprehension. The vast majority of Iraqis just want to live in peace; it's the radical fringe that is causing the trouble. But our occupation has thrown the radical fringe into desperation mode, which is killing tons of innocent Iraqis and American military personnel.

And thanks for the pacifist label. Again, reading comprehension isn't your strong suit. I want the U.S. military to hit Al Queda in Afghanistan and other regions of the world HARD. Very HARD. The whole terrible swift sword.

But the last time I checked, Bin Laden is still alive and on the loose, and top Al Queda operatives are still on Al-Jazeera making threats against the U.S. Meanwhile, Americans die in Iraq.

Where's the focus? Where's the planning? What's the objective? Why did the objective all of the sudden shift from the aggressive action in Tora Bora and Kabul to Iraq when the job in Afghanistan wasn't finished? Because plumes of smoke and dust towering from caves or Tora Bora doesn't look as good on CNN as toppling Saddam's statue in Baghdad or seeing Saddam pluck bugs from his beard after his capture?

Here's what I don't get: Afghanistan's infrastructure and economy were just as messed up as Iraq's after our military intervention there. So why aren't we spending as much time, effort and money to rebuild Afghanistan, which was ruled by a brutal group of dictators much like Iraq was ruled by one brutal dictator, as we are Iraq? Especially when we're not talking about links between Afghanistan and Al Queda like Iraq -- we KNOW Afghanistan was the home, the incubator, of many of these terror organizations.

Is it because Afghanistan has less of a strategic location in the Middle East? Is it because Afghanistan doesn't have the oil of Iraq? Is it because Afghanistan's leadership didn't taunt the father of the current president 10 to 15 years ago?

What is it?

Because I think a strong, democratic, rebuilt Afghanistan is just as important as a rebuilt Iraq, probably more important. The spread of democracy and liberty in Afghanistan will go further toward stifling Al Queda than similar circumstances in Iraq because Al Queda had connections to Iraq while they were BASED in Afghanistan. That country was the incubator, the core, the epicenter, so it makes a lot more sense to work hard to institute democracy there, where it all starts, than in Iraq.

The Taliban provided a direct pipeline to Al Queda, where the best connection we have between Saddam and Al Queda is tacit support, not overt like the Taliban. Both the Taliban and Saddam are gone, and that's good. But isn't it as important -- or more important -- to ensure that civil war doesn't occur in Afghanistan so another Taliban can spawn and provide direct, overt assistance to Al Queda?

Afghanistan is still an unstable mess. It's quite bad there. But you never hear about it in the media anymore because it's not the main front. Hell, it's barely a front at all if you compare the U.S. military presence and infrastructure rebuilding funds there to those in Iraq.

Finally, you totally misunderstand my position on military action, but that's not surprising. Like most hawks, you have selective vision and hearing. I want the U.S. to eliminate the REAL enemy, and he's not in Iraq.

Take care,
PK

[pk500]

Anchester:

I respect your opinion on the positions. At least you appear to put some thought into it unlike others who just play Lee Greenwood CD's all day and think we should turn the Middle East into a parking lot.

Take care,
PK

[Brando70]

Wow, so many places to begin:

--There is liberal bias in the media. Just like there is conservative bias. But saying "the media is liberally biased" is not accurate. It's like the difference between saying "there's oxygen in the air" and "air is oxygen." Ironically, blueduke's posting of Bozell's op-ed (which sounded like one of his Townhall pieces) shows his conservative bias. Not every expert says the memos were fake the way he claims. And while he says Killians widow and son say he wouldn't write these, CBS interviewed his colleagues and many said those memos reflected Killian's thinking at the time. Also, if there was universal liberal bias, why are "liberal" news orgs like ABC and the Wash. Post running stories about potential forgery. Furthermore, in order to cry liberal bias, you have to ignore two words: Bill Clinton. He hardly got an easy ride from those liberal journalists.

--I don't want to mollycoddle terrorists, but the idea that terrorist only understand the end of a gun is a bit simpleminded. For a century, the British followed that notion in Ireland and got nowhere. The Russians have been doing that in Chechnya and have only seen more and more daring terrorist attacks. That's not to say that you shouldn't fight terrorists -- obviously, there are hardcore Islamists out there who are never going to stop hating us. We can't negotiate with Osama bin Laden. But the idea that you're going to stop terrorism by shooting all the terrorists is not realistic.

--It is almost impossible to create a peaceful democracy amid the condidtions we're seeing in Iraq. Democracies such as ours happen after wars, not in the middle of them. Even the Iraqi police can't protect themselves -- you think they're going to be able to protect polling places? Think about the upcoming election. Would you go out and vote if you thought someone might blow up the poll? Would you want your loved ones to do so? I think, sadly, that Iraq is going to have to fight it out among it's factions before it can decide what nation (or nations) it wishes to be.

--I don't see what George Bush has accomplished in Iraq that's so swell. He removed Hussein. Anybody could have done that. Seriously, the Iraqi army was no match for us. I think people didn't invade, not because of a lack of resolve, but because they had no idea what to do after Hussein was toppled. Many studies on the subject predicted civil war, which is not so hard to believe. Second, regarding WMD. Either the weapons weren't there to begin with, or they have been moved. In either case, the Bush administration failed and, I would argue, having the WMD moved to undisclosed locations is actually worse than Hussein having them. Meanwhile, we've seen Iran and North Korea emboldened, not chastened, by our actions in Iraq. And our "ally" in anti-terror, Pakistan, pardoned the man who's done more for third-world nuclear proliferation than any other person in the world. Bravo, Mr. President, bra-vo.

[anchester]

ok Brando, this "there is no liberal Bias in the media" thing is really bothering me. How do you explain the fact that 90% of the registered media vote democratic. Saying the media is not liberal is like saying Hollywood is not liberal. Just obviously not true.

Have you read the book "Bias" by Bernard Goldberg. Goldberg was a well respected reporter for 20 years at CBS. He had voted Democratic all his life. He began to notice the liberal bias and pointed it out. His career was the railroaded. Example of a Dan Rather interview of Steve Forbes running for President....."mr Forbes. how do you possibly think such as risky scheme as a flat tax would work". Is that a slanted question or what.

Sure, the media loved to talk about Bill's sexcapades but so what. Most of america didn't care about that. They never suggested he was doing a bad job. On the contrare, they loved him.

Look at Newsweek and its weekly conventional wisdom poll (arrow up means doing good, down the opposite). It has been documented the democratic people get the arrow up twice as often as republicans. Even when bush gets an arrow up (like after he had the convention bounce), the newsweek comment is always backhanded like "Bush plays a smart hand at convention and gets a bounce. Great job of deflecting real issues like economy and quagmire in Iraq."

The majority of editorials in major news are liberal as hell.

I am sure the media try to be balanced. It is impossible though when 90% believe one way. The bias will come out unintentially.

If you listen to the media you would think the economy is terrible when all statistics say that it is very solid and getting better post 9/11 and dot.com bubble. I can't stand Lou Dobbs who constantly harps about outsourcing. What about Insourcing. Is there any analysis of how many jobs come in to the US. What about the benefits of outsourcing (cheaper products, raising the International standard of living, ability of US to create different and often better jobs). Are these ever mentioned.

The whole Martha Stewart debacle was a joke. A modern day Marie Antoinette beheading by the ignorant crowd. Kill the rich b*tch. Here crime was so miniscule. Selling some stock after some insider told her to. What would you do if an insider told you a stock was going to crash. Was it wrong, yea. Was it right to waste millions of tax dollars on a trial and media circus and throw her away for 6 months. In the mean time collapsing a once successful company who employed hundreds and has to let go many of these people. Martha and most entrepeneurs are not the privlidged people, most rich people in fact are products are there extremely hard work and ingenuity.

[dbdynsty25]

Please god, let the election happen already so we can eliminate the circle-jerk political threads.

[Brando70]

Anchester, I didn't say there wasn't liberal bias in the media. There is, and some orgs (like the New York Times) are more liberal than others (The Wall Street Journal). You will have some type of bias in every single story you read or see. There is no way around that.

Like I said, what I disagree with is that there is some monolithic liberal media conspiracy. Goldberg's two books were horribly researched, and used a lot of anecdotal evidence and stuff from places like the Media Research Center, which is a conservative organization set up solely to discredit the mainstream media. The 90% Democrat stat you cite is not accurate, I believe the last ASNE survey had it around 61% -- down from a high of 80% in the 80s. It is true that there are more Dem journalists than Republican, but you also have to keep in mind who runs news orgainzations. Those execs wield a lot more power than the guy on the ground. I think TV journalism -- cable in particular -- has gotten much, much conservative, thanks to the success of Fox.

I also don't buy your argument about Clinton and the Press. The press hounded Clinton, sometimes for good reason, sometimes because the RNC realized gullible reporters would chase any rumor as long as it was juicy. I don't remember Reagan getting that kind of treatment, and even with Iran-Contra, the press was fairly relucatant to accuse the President of knowing about it. There was also a study of the 2000 election that showed Al Gore received far more negative press coverage than Bush did. I think Bush essentially received favorable coverage from his candidacy up until the Iraq invasion. At that point, you did see the coverage attack the President more. That is not surprising, however, considering how things in Iraq have turned out.

I think the media these days is more lazy than liberal. They're more likely to run with a story as long as it's hot. That's obviously what CBS did and because of that, they're going to swallow a huge bite of humble pie. (BTW, when I first saw those memos, I thought they made a big mistake to run them. They just looked very unofficial and suspicious to me.)

[Brando70]

Please god, let the election happen already so we can eliminate the circle-jerk political threads.

DB, you really need to disable that "auto-read all threads" option on your browser.

[dbdynsty25]

Please god, let the election happen already so we can eliminate the circle-jerk political threads.

DB, you really need to disable that "auto-read all threads" option on your browser.

No sh*t huh...I just like reading about everyone's flawed views of society. It's funny how everyone argues one point or another and yet this country never gets better. You guys are the ones voting...everyone's got an opinion and yet the same dumbass candidates keep getting elected. That says something for society in and of itself.

Like I said, it's one big circle jerk, and I'm not one to stay on the outside looking in...I wanna get my rocks off too!

[Andy76]

First, although you can make an argument that Iraq was an enemy of America, you cannot make the argument that Iraq was a radical islamic state. Al-Quaeda "did not have a collaborative relationship" with Iraq because Saddam ran a secular state, and they hated each other. We were told we were going in there to get the WMD; all the other reasons being given are just posturing after the fact.

Second, waiting until all the kids are home before saying the war is a mistake is unquestionably ridiculous. Don't question our leaders or their policies? Sounds like fascism to me.

[blueduke]

If you see Al Queda as the biggest threat to the U.S., which it is, then why aren't you up in arms that we haven't caught Bin Laden and instead are diverting our efforts to catch him and other Al Queda operatives in Afghanistan with this Iraqi war?

First off still waiting for your info on your ridicuous claim that China supports terroroists such as Al Queda. I'm not holding my breath however. Al Queda is the biggest threat to the US.....for now. In another few years that will change when China utilizes all the nuclear info obtained from us thanks to Mr Clinton. And yes I am disappointed Bin Laden hasn't been apprehended (you pissed Bill didn't take him? Don't take near as much to get you pissed at Bush). You are aware we're still in Afghanistan hunting him, no? Wouldn't know from your gem posted above.

So why isn't bringing freedom to China and North Korea next?

That's a little bit complicated since both countries have nukes. Duh. MAD. Ever heard of it (wouldn't that be a very good reason to make sure nutjobs like Hussein never gets them)? Though NK nuke program is still in their infancy and may be knocked out. Who knows? I know you don't.

And that's exactly what I wrote despite your best efforts at reading comprehension. The vast majority of Iraqis just want to live in peace; it's the radical fringe that is causing the trouble. But our occupation has thrown the radical fringe into desperation mode, which is killing tons of innocent Iraqis and American military personnel.

Maybe you need to try a little reading comphre yourself there, pk (always find it amusing the "tolerance" crowd is ALWAYS first when tossing insults in a disagreement). I said these people were glad we came. GLAD. You seem to be SAD that we got rid of a murderer who enslaved them and they're somehow worse off. It's not our fault their dictator gave money and safe haven to AQ. And it's there radical fringe causing all the problems there now. That's who we're fighting. The "radical fringe" just may be scared sh!tless that their new government leaves them out of power, not over our "occupation". Maybe it's about all about who will have the power after we're gone? Wouldn't it be in their best interests to cause chaos now? You're right. I TOTALLY don't understand your position on military action------if you have one.

Here's what I don't get: Afghanistan's infrastructure and economy were just as messed up as Iraq's .....yada yada yada

Afghanistan never has been a military threat to US interests. Not likely ever to. You seem to pick and choose countries you wring your hands over, pk. Why no despair over what's been going on in Sudan? You know----slavery, genocide, and all the rest?

Still waiting for your smoking gun linking China to Al Queda

[blueduke]

I don't remember Reagan getting that kind of treatment, and even with Iran-Contra, the press was fairly relucatant to accuse the President of knowing about it.

If I had a nickle for everytime the press gave access to people saying "Reagan wants to starve schoolchildren", "Reagan created the homeless", "AIDS is out of control thanks to Reagan", "Reagan will get us in a nuclear confrontation", "Reagan wants to take grandma's social security" etc without EVER challanging these people and at the very least ask them how they came about these claims and compare it with what Reagam was actually doing I'd be a trillionaire.

Benard Goldberg's books "poorly researched"? His books were based on what he saw and heard while working at CBS.

[Brando70]

Benard Goldberg's books "poorly researched"? His books were based on what he saw and heard while working at CBS.

No, they were broader than that -- he tried to use "research" to show that there was a systematic problem of liberal bias in the media. His most embarassing gaffe involved an example of a New York Times story which he believed was anti-male. This was Goldberg writing in Bias in 2002:

"Take a story by Times reporter Natalie Angier that begins this way: 'Women may not find this surprising, but one of the most persistent and frustrating problems in evolutionary biology is the male. Specifically…why doesn’t he just go away?' (p. 140)

Problem is, Goldberg didn't go beyond the lead. However, the next few sentences showed how far off Bernie was:

Angier: "But evolutionary biologists point out that most mutations are potential trouble, and the entire system of copying chromosomes from one generation to the next has evolved to prevent accidental alterations to the genetic text, not to court them. Thus, Dr. Redfield’s new calculations underscoring the mutational guilt of the male put a heavier burden than ever on theorists seeking to explain the purpose of sex."

That's right, this was an article about insects, not about male bashing. So lazy Goldberg simply did a Lexus-Nexus search to plug an example into a pre-formed thesis. L-A-Z-Y. Throughout the whole book he cherry picks examples and then says these prove liberal bias, ignoring all along things that disprove his thesis. Amazingly, when Michael Moore does that, he's called dishonest. When Bernie Goldberg does it, he's championed for telling it like it is.

[blueduke]

A bug story justifies in your eyes Goldberg is on par with Micheal Moore? Now THAT'S amazing. The only thing "amazing" about Micheal Moore is his lack of guilt.