STILL don't think the media is biased against Bush?

JES
tinnitus
Posts: 1201
Joined: Mon May 19, 2003 10:31 am
Location: Montreal, PQ
Contact:

Re: STILL don't think the media is biased against Bush?

Post by JES » Tue Oct 26, 2004 2:59 pm

Mr Massive,

I'll gladly admit that CBS has completely screwed the pooch on its reporting, especially lately, if you will admit that the Bush administration is populated by lying sacks of shit, especially around taxes, education, the environment and Iraq.

Cordially,
--JES

SlabOLab
gettin' sounds
Posts: 105
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2003 1:20 am
Location: E. Bay

Re: STILL don't think the media is biased against Bush?

Post by SlabOLab » Tue Oct 26, 2004 3:02 pm

Nice one, cap'n!

lutopia
pushin' record
Posts: 200
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2004 3:12 pm
Location: Orange County, CA

Re: STILL don't think the media is biased against Bush?

Post by lutopia » Tue Oct 26, 2004 3:19 pm

My reponse is not aimed specifically at DD. I think many of the posters thus far hold similar opinions.
DD wrote:i just dont understand what kind of person can still back this administration.

it has not made any of us safer.
Just what indicator are we using to gauge whether or not we (I assume you mean the people of the Unites States) are in more danger after President Bush's administration?
it totally botched the war.
This is certainly a matter of perspective.
it has botched the environment.
This sounds like an overstatement, but I am open to hearing more about this. Also, references are always a plus.
its running us further and further into debt.
True. While I will be the first to criticize Bush AND our representatives for being fiscally irresponsible I am voting for Bush in spite of this.
vote for ANYONE but bush in '04.
you must really hate the President!
lfg

TrumpsHair
buyin' gear
Posts: 525
Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2004 1:47 pm

Re: STILL don't think the media is biased against Bush?

Post by TrumpsHair » Tue Oct 26, 2004 3:23 pm

Image
How brilliant is this? :lol:

tomhampton
gettin' sounds
Posts: 124
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2003 5:26 am
Location: philadelphia, pa
Contact:

Re: STILL don't think the media is biased against Bush?

Post by tomhampton » Tue Oct 26, 2004 3:35 pm

i really gotta stop by here more often....


MM said:

These weapons were gone before the U.S. got there, it was reported by an embedded NBC reporter in April of 2003, and now they're trying to make it sound like it happened yesterday.


first of all, dude, there were two visits to Al-Qaqaa by our forces, both after baghdad fell, one on april 4th and one on april 10th. one of the visits had an NBC embed along for the ride. here's what the embedded reporter had to say about it:

--------------------------------------

Amy Robach: And it's still unclear exactly when those explosives disappeared. Here to help shed some light on that question is Lai Ling. She was part of an NBC news crew that traveled to that facility with the 101st Airborne Division back in April of 2003. Lai Ling, can you set the stage for us? What was the situation like when you went into the area?

Lai Ling Jew: When we went into the area, we were actually leaving Karbala and we were initially heading to Baghdad with the 101st Airborne, Second Brigade. The situation in Baghdad, the Third Infantry Division had taken over Baghdad and so they were trying to carve up the area that the 101st Airborne Division would be in charge of. Um, as a result, they had trouble figuring out who was going to take up what piece of Baghdad. They sent us over to this area in Iskanderia. We didn't know it as the Qaqaa facility at that point but when they did bring us over there we stayed there for quite a while. Almost, we stayed overnight, almost 24 hours. And we walked around, we saw the bunkers that had been bombed, and that exposed all of the ordinances that just lied dormant on the desert.

AR: Was there a search at all underway or was, did a search ensue for explosives once you got there during that 24-hour period?


LLJ: No. There wasn't a search. The mission that the brigade had was to get to Baghdad. That was more of a pit stop there for us. And, you know, the searching, I mean certainly some of the soldiers head off on their own, looked through the bunkers just to look at the vast amount of ordnance lying around. But as far as we could tell, there was no move to secure the weapons, nothing to keep looters away.
But there was ? at that point the roads were shut off. So it would have been very difficult, I believe, for the looters to get there.

AR: And there was no talk of securing the area after you left. There was no discussion of that?

LLJ: Not for the 101st Airborne, Second Brigade. They were -- once they were in Baghdad, it was all about Baghdad, you know, and then they ended up moving north to Mosul. Once we left the area, that was the last that the brigade had anything to do with the area.

AR: Well, Lai Ling Jew, thank you so much for shedding some light into that situation. We appreciate it.
-------------------------------------------

the ordinance was there when the IAEA left, and the ordinance was there when we took over, and our own troops laid eyes on it not once, but twice.


you guys can parrot that crap about it being gone before we could get to it all you want, but that's just not the case. oh, and before you jump on the other bandwagon and start saying that it's a paltry amount compared to what's been captured and disposed of already, let's put this in context:

less than a hundred pounds of the same explosives in question were used to blow up Pan Am flight 180. we're talking about enough explosives to re-create the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City four thousand times over. so before we start comparing and contrasting, let's keep that in mind.

also, the reason this story is developing now could probably best be laid to rest with this excerpt from the Nelson Report, which initially broke the story:

Under heavy pressure from their sponsors in DOD and US occupation authorities not to cooperate with the IAEA, by confirming that all 350 tons of sealed explosives could not be accounted for, the Iraqi?s had to wait until the formal turnover of authority before notifying the IAEA, sources here suggest. So the Iraqis failed to act until Oct. 10, and the IAEA did not formally notified the US, by letter, until Oct. 15, according to the State Department?s official press guidance.

so it came to light because the interim Iraqi government stirred the pot with the IAEA, who had already informed the US of the cache of explosives when we got there.


now, the other thing....if you believe for a second that all those explosives disappeared in the month or so between the IAEA splitting and our taking over, then you'd have to believe that somehow, forty or so trucks, carrying a ton of this stuff a piece, were spirited away from there once a day for a month.

if we didn't pick up on that, what with all our "darn good intelligence", then our intelligence heads are farther up our asses than anyone wants to admit.

much, MUCH more likely is that it was taken away, a little bit at a time, by looters over a much longer period of time while we were busy ducking bullets and guarding the oil ministry.


MM, i respect the passion with which you're defending your viewpoints...but you really gotta look further than Drudge before you make your case, man.



everyone else: i'm really sorry for the long post. sometimes i get carried away.....



t

User avatar
wrenhunter
pushin' record
Posts: 276
Joined: Fri May 16, 2003 2:54 pm
Location: Boston, MA

Re: STILL don't think the media is biased against Bush?

Post by wrenhunter » Tue Oct 26, 2004 4:01 pm

lutopia wrote:Just what indicator are we using to gauge whether or not we (I assume you mean the people of the Unites States) are in more danger after President Bush's administration?
On the positive side, Bush invaded Afghanistan and got rid of the Taliban and terrorist camps.

On the negative:
  • it appears he did not kill Osama, who remains alive as a symbol to our enemies and free to direct attacks against us
  • by invading Iraq unilaterally (and badly, see below), he has cast us as, well, invaders and occupiers, confirming accusations by Muslim fanatics and allowing them to recruit
  • he delayed in founding the Dept of Homeland Security; continues to fund it poorly; and has not taken necessary steps (e.g. inspecting cargo containers) to secure our borders
  • he has squandered the good will nations felt for us after 9/11; we now have less "shoulders to lean on"
  • he's stretched our troops too thin, so that we are less ready to meet other dangers
  • the backdoor draft keeps National Guard troops in a country that never had the power to harm us, and away from their homes where they are first responders; hurts morale at home; and discourages interest in new volunteers
lutopia wrote:it totally botched the war. ..This is certainly a matter of perspective.
If by "perspective" you mean a 3-dimensional view that encompasses reality, then I agree. See above, plus:
  • he ignored advice from experienced military men (i.e. guys who don't just wear flight suits) re: manpower and planning
  • his own post-war economic and logistical plans were completely wrong (war would cost us nothing? disband the Iraqi army?)
  • the Abu Ghraib scandal dishonored our military, and tarnished our reputation; no one at the Pentagon has been fired
lutopia wrote:it has botched the environment...This sounds like an overstatement, but I am open to hearing more about this. Also, references are always a plus.
This is easy, but highlighs include:
  • blowing off the Kyoto Accord (Clinton did this too)
  • weakening the Clean Air Act (the Clear Skies bit is a joke)
  • doing little or nothing to encourage alternative energies, in fact, allowing the energy business to write its own regulation
  • denying that global warming exists
  • stacking key advisory committees, Park Service posts, and EPA posts, with ex-lobbyists for the energy industry
Check any of the major environmental group websites (Sierra Club, Conservation Law Foundation, etc.) and see who they're endorsing.
lutopia wrote:you must really hate the President!
Yep!

User avatar
jdsowa
pushin' record
Posts: 255
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2003 5:09 pm

Re: STILL don't think the media is biased against Bush?

Post by jdsowa » Tue Oct 26, 2004 4:35 pm

Regarding the window of time between when the IAEA last inspected Al-Qaqaa (on March 4th) and when the US visited it on April 4th, that window of time should've been the responsibility of the United States. If you boot out the inspectors and start a war, you have to take responsiblity for the situation you create. No doubt their very narrow focus was on 'winning the war'. There have been many conflicting statements as to when these particular weapons were looted. To say with any confidence at this point that the weapons were looted before the forces could secure it would be silly. But it would also fail to address the larger problem, which was a failure to effectively plan to secure these places.

Now, Charles Duelfer has come out and contradicted the White House's statement that they immediately ordered an inspection. He also said that there's so many weapons floating around over there that it hardly matters.

So, in summary:

1. The New York Times jumped on this story, blew it up, and put it on their front page without getting the opinion of resident experts like Duelfer. The Kerry camp is running with it in ads. Karl Rove would've done the same thing.

2. Matt Drudge and CNN jumped the gun on the now discredited follow-up story about the weapons already being gone.

3. The White House lied about requesting an inspection.

User avatar
foley
pushin' record
Posts: 251
Joined: Fri May 09, 2003 7:58 am
Location: Urbana, IL

Re: STILL don't think the media is biased against Bush?

Post by foley » Tue Oct 26, 2004 8:55 pm

The other thing to keep in mind is that this is not an isolated incident of incompetence. The Iraq thing has had a pattern of incompetence since the fall of Baghdad, and this kind of thing fits the pattern. Patterns are very important in history, as they allow us to better understand the motivations and (regrettably) the mistakes of the players. I believe that the pattern of incompetence needs to end in Iraq immediately, and can only end with a change in leadership.

Go Kerry.

saultime
pushin' record
Posts: 236
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 12:18 pm

Re: STILL don't think the media is biased against Bush?

Post by saultime » Tue Oct 26, 2004 9:15 pm

Anyone who posts a link to Drudge and expects us to believe it as fact can eat the corn out ouf my shit.

I'll check back in later. I've got the new Grand Theft Auto game to play....
When is the Douchebag Rapture?

User avatar
MASSIVE Mastering
buyin' a studio
Posts: 852
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 6:09 pm
Location: Chicago (Schaumburg / Hoffman Est.) IL
Contact:

Re: STILL don't think the media is biased against Bush?

Post by MASSIVE Mastering » Tue Oct 26, 2004 9:35 pm

saultime wrote:Anyone who posts a link to Drudge and expects us to believe it as fact can eat the corn out ouf my shit.

I'll check back in later. I've got the new Grand Theft Auto game to play....
Um... Drudge's sources on this story was CBS, NBC, NYT & CNN.

All your favorites.
John Scrip - MASSIVE Mastering

User avatar
Greenlander
steve albini likes it
Posts: 364
Joined: Tue Nov 04, 2003 1:02 pm
Location: NY. NY

Re: STILL don't think the media is biased against Bush?

Post by Greenlander » Wed Oct 27, 2004 4:30 am

This is total bullshit.

For every story you bring up that appears to indicate a liberal bias in the media, I bet I can find one that appears to indicate a conservative one. Come on, like you've settled the question of a liberal bias by quoting one story. Life would be so easy if all we had to do to settle a point was quote one instance that seemed to back us up. But life doesn't work that way.

This means nothing.
My setup: brain into muscles into hands into fingers into guitar into cable into pedal into cable into amp into air into mic into cable into box no 1 into cable into box no2

User avatar
lobstman
buyin' gear
Posts: 548
Joined: Fri May 16, 2003 12:36 pm
Location: Earth C-137

Re: STILL don't think the media is biased against Bush?

Post by lobstman » Wed Oct 27, 2004 5:31 am

Consider for a moment that perhaps the constant barrage of negative information about the Bush administration in the media isn't the media's fault- it's Bush's. Maybe the media isn't biased- maybe George Bush just sucks.
Steve Albini used to like it

bigtoe
deaf.
Posts: 1776
Joined: Tue May 13, 2003 5:13 am

Re: STILL don't think the media is biased against Bush?

Post by bigtoe » Wed Oct 27, 2004 6:01 am

"Um... Drudge's sources on this story was CBS, NBC, NYT & CNN."

it's how they slant the sources.

i heard on NPR (yes - very biased at times) that NBC said they did no official search for the missing items at that time.

it's gotten so bad i don't mind seeing lies about bush. i mean anyone who courts middle america by abusing human rights (specifically gay human rights) is a sicko. same with the war crimes/human right violations he and his admin have committed. i think he should be in a cell next to milosevic.

Mike

saultime
pushin' record
Posts: 236
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 12:18 pm

Re: STILL don't think the media is biased against Bush?

Post by saultime » Wed Oct 27, 2004 7:07 am

bigtoe wrote:"Um... Drudge's sources on this story was CBS, NBC, NYT & CNN."

it's how they slant the sources.

Mike
It's also how they FUCKING LIE ABOUT EVERYTHING!!!!

Drudge is a GODDAMN LIAR, and when the revolution comes, his punk ass will be one of the first against the wall. And I'm gonna laugh.

There was NO INSPECTION AT THE BASE. I hope the word of the unit commander is good enough: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/27/polit ... &position=

But let me guess, the goddamn liberal media made the unit commander say that.

Has anyone noticed that Bush hasn't mentioned al Qaqaa in 2 days? He won't answer questions.

The "it was gone when we got there" story is just a ruse, meant to distract us for 30 seconds from what an incompetent douche Bush is. Apparently 30 seconds is all it takes to distract Republicans.
When is the Douchebag Rapture?

User avatar
b3groover
deaf.
Posts: 1977
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 4:07 pm
Location: michigan
Contact:

Re: STILL don't think the media is biased against Bush?

Post by b3groover » Wed Oct 27, 2004 7:55 am

If anyone still believes the war in Iraq was about WMD's or freeing the Iraqi people, they are a tool. But I want to reply specifically to this:
lutopia wrote:
it has botched the environment.
This sounds like an overstatement, but I am open to hearing more about this. Also, references are always a plus.
Go do a google search for Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Nevermind, I'll do it for you:

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1120-01.htm

http://www.lansingcitypulse.com/041020/ ... /index.asp

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests