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

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

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

Post by MASSIVE Mastering » Tue Oct 26, 2004 9:18 am

There it is - CBS planned, by their own admission, to report this 19-month old story (the same one the NYT ran Monday) the day before the election.

No bias, indeed...

http://drudgereport.com/nbcw6.htm
John Scrip - MASSIVE Mastering

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 9:33 am

STILL planning to vote for a president and administration that didn't report this until they got caught? And now Bush says he wants to 'find out the facts first'?

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 » Tue Oct 26, 2004 9:38 am

i think this says volumes more about how the news is sold than anything pertaining to bush. they're marketing it.

i'll tell ya - the papers are so light on republicans and their scandals. they are afraid of being called liberal.

i think we should switch the term liberal to "smart and well informed." real freask should be called liberals.

republicans keep this myth going by posting stuff like this.

bias? how did that guy get into office? his whole schtick is bias for his friends.

this is the best you can come up with? please.

Mike

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 9:40 am

In case you weren't paying attention, NBC reported this 19 MONTHS AGO.

This (U.N. inventoried) stuff was gone BEFORE the U.S. entered.

This is an old story, brought up specifically to bring him down. CBS, NYT admit this by waiting. NBC backs it up by admitting that the story is 19 months old. This is blantant, this is HUGE.

But this is typical to anyone who pays attention.
i'll tell ya - the papers are so light on republicans and their scandals. they are afraid of being called liberal.
Whuh?
John Scrip - MASSIVE Mastering

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 » Tue Oct 26, 2004 9:48 am

you know...call someone something so their credibility is tested everytime they say the truth.

like the kerry flip flop thing. flip flop? how about evolve, moron.

what a load of shit...a bullying tactic. lame but very republican.

the papers should be trumpeting that bush is a complete moron. they aren't. feel lucky.

Mike

User avatar
joeysimms
ears didn't survive the freeze
Posts: 3838
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2003 10:10 am

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

Post by joeysimms » Tue Oct 26, 2004 10:11 am

they should also be trumpeting that the fucker really believes he's doing god's work out there, planting the seeds of terrorism everywhere he goes..
beware bee wear

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 10:14 am

You say:
This is an old story, brought up specifically to bring him down. CBS, NYT admit this by waiting.
But in Drudge's article he says the media only received this "tip" last wednesday. Why would a media outlet need a tip from an outside source to run an old story? Does that make any sense?

You can't have it both ways. If this story is 19 months old why did the administration try to cover it up and why is the president holding off comment until he can 'get the facts' as if they had just heard about it the same time the Times did? Perhaps he would've had the facts ready to report on Nov 3rd.

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 10:30 am

What the hell are you talking about? Someone from the U.N. sent the "tip" to NBC ten days ago (The U.N.!!!) about a story that WAS reported.

IT WAS REPORTED 19 MONTHS AGO!!! IT WASN'T COVERED UP!!!

Am I talking to walls here?

As for the "moron" comments, that's typical also. Name calling is a favorite weapon of the libs. I, as a former Lib, will attest to that.

And I state again - I'm not a Pub. I'm an Indie. But any ("moron") can see what's happening here. 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.

This is probably THE most blatant attempt at manipulation in the media I have ever seen. Not even counting the admitted attempt at the timing - Just the story being pushed is SO bogus...

The libs would say that even BUSH could see it.
John Scrip - MASSIVE Mastering

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 » Tue Oct 26, 2004 11:09 am

shit takes a while to surface. particularly with the stranglehold corporations have on the media in general.

naming? just calling them how i see em. that guy should be tarred and feathered. he's not my president. i would like to see him and a few more of his admin tried in the world court.

and manipulation? man you can't get to see the president while he's out an about without signing a pledge that you're on his side. that guy is a complete freak. take him down and run him out of town. he's two stones from hitler.

Mike

Brian Brock
buyin' a studio
Posts: 875
Joined: Wed May 21, 2003 2:50 pm
Location: Laveen, AZ
Contact:

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

Post by Brian Brock » Tue Oct 26, 2004 11:20 am

This is a classic case where Mr. Mastering is arguing specifics, and all these dang commie pinko liberal putzes are arguing the generality.

Clearly, there is some sort of anti-Bush bias among some people at the NYT and CBS, and for that matter, on Democracy Now and at Greenpeace.org.

On the other hand, the media as a whole, especially the corporate media as a whole, can hardly be said to be biased towards liberal views of things. For example, look at the fact that Mr. Bush is at best a divinely inspired dimwit, and at worst a tool of intelligent evil people who use his faith in God and Jesus as a means to manipulate him into accomplishing their designs on world domination. The "media" actually portrays him as a President in the same league as Clinton, Nixon, FDR or whosoever ye chooses. The "media" also neglects to inform us of the dangers of the administrations environmental poison policy, in which among other things it has become easier for factories to emit mercury into the air. As I understand it, mercury leads to breast cancer.

But really, the old "liberal media" tag is just a meme force fed to people to make them more distrustful of information, and if you believe the recently posted statistics about how many Republicans believe that the Doefler report claims that Iraq had WMD (exactly the opposite of what it claims), the rank and file Republicans are seriously distrustful of information. This leaves them no choice but to blindly follow the Republican song and dance of follow the leader.

This is why the Democrats trying to coopt the follow the leader message is so wrong-headed - that position is founded on the destruction of truth-seeking in America.

User avatar
YOUR KONG
buyin' a studio
Posts: 872
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2003 6:57 am
Location: CT & NYC
Contact:

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

Post by YOUR KONG » Tue Oct 26, 2004 11:23 am

"The U.N. nuclear watchdog, which monitored Saddam Hussein's nuclear sites before last year's Iraq war, informed the U.N. Security Council this week that equipment and materials that could be used to make atomic weapons have been vanishing from Iraq but neither Baghdad nor Washington had noticed."

So this is timely - not dredged (or Drudged) up just for politics. It was officially confirmed this week.

Apparently this was in "The Nelson Report," which broke the story and I've never heard of:
What also emerges in the Nelson Report is that the Defense Department has been trying to keep this secret for some time. The DOD even went so far as to order the Iraqis not to inform the IAEA that the materials had gone missing. Informing the IAEA, of course, would lead to it becoming public knowledge in the United States.

And The Nelson Report may not be the most reliable source, but dude - you're quoting DRUDGE?!
Last edited by YOUR KONG on Tue Oct 26, 2004 11:25 am, edited 1 time in total.

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 11:24 am

It certainly is curious how the IAEA would report this finding to the Iraqi govt and US govt in October of 2004 when it was supposedly public knowledge in April 2003 that these weapons were missing. Why would the IAEA do this? I'm confused here. Are we concluding that they have an agenda?

The weapons were under the supervision of the IAEA inspectors right before the invasion. The IAEA and UN inspectors left the country in March of 03. The US has not allowed them back in since. Clearly, this should've placed the responsiblity on the United States to keep these weapons secure.

The question of whether the explosives were looted before the troops got a chance to secure the base is in dispute. From an article on MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6323933/):

"At the Pentagon, an official who monitors developments in Iraq said U.S.-led coalition troops had searched Al-Qaqaa in the immediate aftermath of the March 2003 invasion and confirmed that the explosives, which had been under IAEA seal since 1991, were intact. The site was not secured by U.S. forces, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity."

Either way you slice it, this amounts to a failure to plan to adequately in advance to secure known weapons depots. Whether the failure was a misalocation of resources (securing weapons bases vs. oil lines), or just a lack of manpower in general is debatable.

From the CNN article linked on Drudge:
White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Monday that five days after the IAEA received the letter from the Iraqi government, the agency alerted U.S. officials in Vienna, who in turn told national security adviser Condoleezza Rice. She then alerted Bush, McClellan said.

Once U.S. officials were alerted, the multinational force in Iraq and the Iraq Survey Group, charged with hunting for weapons in Iraq, were both ordered to investigate what was missing and the possible circumstances, according to State Department spokesman Adam Ereli.
Why did Rice have to alert Bush to something that was already reported 19 months ago? Why was an investigation into the missing weapons ordered by US officials if it was already known? This is what I mean. You can't have it both ways. If you claim that the 'liberal media' dug up an old story to take out Bush, then you have to, in turn, admit that the administration looks incompetent for ordering an investigation into something that they should've known about 19 months ago. Either way, one thing is clear: post-war preparation by this administration was a sweeping failure.

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 » Tue Oct 26, 2004 11:26 am

that's well said, brian.

i do think you have specific and not looking at the whole picture confused...but you nkow...

i'm a dang commie pinko liberal putz and i'm tired of watching bush and co play hard ball and cry baby when someone shines the flashlight where it should be. if america didn't notice the first time - shine it brighter when you have a chance.

if he was getting his dick sucked in the whitehouse by an intern i wouldn't care...in fact i wish he was.

i should say i was someone who supported his invasion of iraq. he really fucked up there. why more people aren't outraged and calling for his head is completely beyond me.

why doesn't France sue us or something? :)

Mike
Last edited by bigtoe on Tue Oct 26, 2004 11:31 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
YOUR KONG
buyin' a studio
Posts: 872
Joined: Thu Jul 10, 2003 6:57 am
Location: CT & NYC
Contact:

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

Post by YOUR KONG » Tue Oct 26, 2004 11:29 am

jdsowa wrote:It certainly is curious how the IAEA would report this finding to the Iraqi govt and US govt in October of 2004 when it was supposedly public knowledge in April 2003 that these weapons were missing. Why would the IAEA do this? I'm confused here. Are we concluding that they have an agenda?
Again, I know not how reliable this is, but from Talking Points Memo
What also emerges in the Nelson Report is that the Defense Department has been trying to keep this secret for some time. The DOD even went so far as to order the Iraqis not to inform the IAEA that the materials had gone missing. Informing the IAEA, of course, would lead to it becoming public knowledge in the United States.

If the IAEA was kept out, they might have been able to know for certain until now?

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 11:46 am

The info is coming out far too fast to keep up with -

CNN had much of this info (on that weapons site) in JANUARY of 2003.

It gets deeper and deeper - All public knowledge over a year and a half ago, repackaged just days before a Presidential election.

Kerry is already producing commercials using this old, dated information trying to make it seem current. Amazing. All of a sudden Kerry thinks we waited too long?

God, I wish he'd make up his mind...
John Scrip - MASSIVE Mastering

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests