Pssst, pssst, over here I got some really good stuff to sell

El_Gato · Post by **El_Gato** » Fri Oct 29, 2004 1:31 pm

velo,

Please keep in mind that I'm not defending nor a fan of Bush. But the "sanctions were working"?

Give me a break. Ever hear of the Oil for Food program? Can you deny that this was anything more than a sham and that it was actually making Saddam stronger? Please. I'm not a Demo or a Republican; I hold ALL sides accountable but this whole mess is making me sick.

Call me naive but I simply cannot believe that ANY man in the White House would put our military in harms way based on a lie. I believe that based on ALL the data they had at their disposal, Bush & Co. truly believed there were WMD's and/or the ability to make & use them in Iraq. Were they wrong? It would appear so. Does that make the effort to find & eliminate them wrong? I personally don't think so.

BTW, speaking of discrediting the NY Times, velo, did you happen to catch much of the latest on the so-called missing explosives? It's absolutely sickening & disheartening that Kerry, Edwards, AND the media are so quick to use stories to attack Bush, without even ATTEMPTING to verify them or get to the bottom of the issues. It appears that this entire story is a load of CRAP! But let's not let the truth get in the way of the Frenchman & the Ambulance Chaser!

GOD HELP US!

BobCatFan · Post by **BobCatFan** » Fri Oct 29, 2004 1:35 pm

You Said

[I get a kick out of the efforts to discredit the NY Times. The truth hurts and is not found on Fox News.quote]

I think the NY Times, along with CBS have been caught red handed a few times this election season. With the lastest being the missing explosives. They have not proved anything and they are just trying to stir the pot against GW.

I do not remeber any Fox News story that has been discredit. Please let me know if I am wrong. Please support your story with facts.

So who is telling the truth? NY Times and CBS does not have any creditibility imop. These two groups should just come out and say "we support Kerry and will do and say anything to help Kerry. If we have to lie, thats ok, it is politics."
[/quote]

Post by **SonomaCat** » Fri Oct 29, 2004 2:03 pm

BobCatFan wrote:You Said

[I get a kick out of the efforts to discredit the NY Times. The truth hurts and is not found on Fox News.quote]

I think the NY Times, along with CBS have been caught red handed a few times this election season. With the lastest being the missing explosives. They have not proved anything and they are just trying to stir the pot against GW.

I do not remeber any Fox News story that has been discredit. Please let me know if I am wrong. Please support your story with facts.

So who is telling the truth? NY Times and CBS does not have any creditibility imop. These two groups should just come out and say "we support Kerry and will do and say anything to help Kerry. If we have to lie, thats ok, it is politics."

[/quote]

Well, we just went to war over assertions that turned out to be untrue, so I'm willing to let the NYT report on the likelihood of missing explosives without them having time lapse photos of terrorists actually taking them away. Of course, it is a fact that they weapons are no longer there, so it seems reasonable to ask the question as to where they are. If we knew where they were, then it would kill the story. It's hard to prove a negative (as in "We have proof in hand that we do not know where the weapons are").

Fox News hasn't been busted for printing or airing things that are false (especially since they don't really seem to report any news other than what is on the wires -- they are a network of talking heads, not journalists). They are undoubtably, though, biased in their selective reporting of stories and by the overwhelmingly conservative opinions they air. I don't think they try to hide the fact that they are the Republican news channel. They're proud of it. If you are looking for conservative propoganda, you go to Fox News. If you are looking for unbiased news reporting, you must go elsewhere.

El_Gato · Post by **El_Gato** » Fri Oct 29, 2004 2:07 pm

But Bay, please don't try to tell me that the NY Times, CNN, ABC, CBS, and/or NBC are any less unbiased than Fox.

BozoneCat · Post by **BozoneCat** » Fri Oct 29, 2004 2:07 pm

While we are talking about the NY Times, did anyone happen to catch the story they ran last week about a poll done by the University of Pennsylvania in which they estimate that ~75% of people in the military are voting for Bush? Not to mention the recent article in which General Tommy Franks defends and endorses President Bush.

Kind of makes you think that maybe things are going a little differently over in Iraq than we are being led to believe...

Post by **SonomaCat** » Fri Oct 29, 2004 2:13 pm

El_Gato wrote:But Bay, please don't try to tell me that the NY Times, CNN, ABC, CBS, and/or NBC are any less unbiased than Fox.

Yes, they are less biased. I am not saying that they are 100% unbiased, but they are certainly less biased than Fox. Perhaps not out of ideological preference (as most journalists are, in fact, Democrats), but because they hold themselves out as journalists, which adds at least a little objectivity to the equation. Fox doesn't have that, as they don't really do news.

Post by **SonomaCat** » Fri Oct 29, 2004 2:16 pm

BozoneCat wrote:While we are talking about the NY Times, did anyone happen to catch the story they ran last week about a poll done by the University of Pennsylvania in which they estimate that ~75% of people in the military are voting for Bush? Not to mention the recent article in which General Tommy Franks defends and endorses President Bush.

Kind of makes you think that maybe things are going a little differently over in Iraq than we are being led to believe...

The military always votes Republican by wide margins, so that poll simply shows that this hasn't changed. Republicans also tend to spend a lot more money on the military... there's a correlation there.

El_Gato · Post by **El_Gato** » Fri Oct 29, 2004 2:24 pm

I disagree, Bay, and believe that the "mainstream" media's bias is FAR more insidious & harmful than Fox's...

Fox is laughable in their claim to be "fair & balanced", I'll admit, but they are VERY obvious which way they lean; they really aren't going out of their way to convince us otherwise.

The traditional media, on the other hand, WANTS us to believe that they are unbiased & are very less "in your face" about their political leanings, but EVERYTHING they do & report has the effect of "brainwashing" the viewer/reader/listener...

I'd have far more respect for Rather, Brokaw, Jennings, et al if they simply dropped the disguise of trying to appear unbiased. The damage they do "subliminally" is far more harmful to the average American than anything Fox does, in my humble opinion.

BozoneCat · Post by **BozoneCat** » Fri Oct 29, 2004 2:25 pm

Bay Area Cat wrote:
BozoneCat wrote:While we are talking about the NY Times, did anyone happen to catch the story they ran last week about a poll done by the University of Pennsylvania in which they estimate that ~75% of people in the military are voting for Bush? Not to mention the recent article in which General Tommy Franks defends and endorses President Bush.

Kind of makes you think that maybe things are going a little differently over in Iraq than we are being led to believe...
The military always votes Republican by wide margins, so that poll simply shows that this hasn't changed. Republicans also tend to spend a lot more money on the military... there's a correlation there.

Yeah, but if everything over there was as horrible and as poorly run as Dems would have you believe, don't you think they would maybe want to vote for someone else. My friends in the military tell me that the real picture is far different than the one being painted in the news. They volunteered for this, they are welcomed by MOST of the people in Iraq, and they want to stay and finish the job, even if it is a crappy job that isn't fun or safe.

BobCatFan · Post by **BobCatFan** » Fri Oct 29, 2004 6:42 pm

If you are looking for unbiased news reporting, you must go elsewhere.[/quote]

Please give name the unbiased news reporting sources?

'93HonoluluCat · Post by **'93HonoluluCat** » Fri Oct 29, 2004 7:17 pm

BAC wrote:
BozoneCat wrote:
While we are talking about the NY Times, did anyone happen to catch the story they ran last week about a poll done by the University of Pennsylvania in which they estimate that ~75% of people in the military are voting for Bush? Not to mention the recent article in which General Tommy Franks defends and endorses President Bush.

Kind of makes you think that maybe things are going a little differently over in Iraq than we are being led to believe...
The military always votes Republican by wide margins, so that poll simply shows that this hasn't changed. Republicans also tend to spend a lot more money on the military... there's a correlation there.

Please don't tell me those of us in the military vote predominantly Republican because of money...have you checked out the military pay scales?

Everyone in the military, like--gasp!--the rest of American society, votes the way they do for different reasons; but I can guarantee you that money is not one of them.

I personally trust President Bush's leadership more than the stances of a man that choses to say what makes the best sound bites--even if it means contradicting something he said just the week before.[/quote]

Post by **SonomaCat** » Fri Oct 29, 2004 9:33 pm

'93HonoluluCat wrote:
BAC wrote:
BozoneCat wrote:
While we are talking about the NY Times, did anyone happen to catch the story they ran last week about a poll done by the University of Pennsylvania in which they estimate that ~75% of people in the military are voting for Bush? Not to mention the recent article in which General Tommy Franks defends and endorses President Bush.

Kind of makes you think that maybe things are going a little differently over in Iraq than we are being led to believe...
The military always votes Republican by wide margins, so that poll simply shows that this hasn't changed. Republicans also tend to spend a lot more money on the military... there's a correlation there.
Please don't tell me those of us in the military vote predominantly Republican because of money...have you checked out the military pay scales?

Everyone in the military, like--gasp!--the rest of American society, votes the way they do for different reasons; but I can guarantee you that money is not one of them.

I personally trust President Bush's leadership more than the stances of a man that choses to say what makes the best sound bites--even if it means contradicting something he said just the week before.

[/quote]

I think it is consistent for every employee of a government agency to be more likely to support the party that is perceived to be more supportive of their agency. How do the parties support agencies? By appropriations. Does the military appreciate politicians who support them merely by saying kind words, or do you suppose that appropriations matter? It is the same whether you are a social worker or a soldier.

Of course it is about money to some degree. This doesn't mean that anybody at the ground level is getting rich from it, but more money is always better than less money in any organization.

'93HonoluluCat · Post by **'93HonoluluCat** » Sun Oct 31, 2004 4:56 am

There seems to be a few conversations going in this thread.

BAC, you --and others reading the posts in this thread, I'm sure--assert the press is, and has been, fair and equitable in reporting this election season. Members of the press itself disagrees. Check out this article from the US News & World Report.

The open partisanship of big media organizations in trying to hurt Bush and help Kerry--a phenomenon that, as Leo notes, is not limited to CBS and RatherGate, but extends to places like The New York Times--is very troubling. The loss of credibility that results will come back to haunt the press in a lot of ways, no matter who wins. I doubt that, in retrospect, they'll think it was worth it, but I don't think it was ever calculated, exactly. I think they just can't help themselves.

DCC2MSU · Post by **DCC2MSU** » Sun Oct 31, 2004 12:00 pm

To me it is ignorant to expect anyone who covers politics as a career not to have an opinion. Just reading this message board it is clear that most people have their mind made up one way or the other and choose to only use stories that back their opinion. If you truly care about what is going on, a person needs to read both sides. If you only watch CBS because you think Fox is too biased or vise versa, that is a shame. By doing that you only play into the agenda that particular media chooses to put forward. I know people who listen to Rush because "He gives you the true story", whereas CNN only reported things that favored Clinton. What a load of crap. That is no better than voting strictly by party rather than person, yet expecting the lawmakers to not play politics and be bipartisan.

velochat · Post by **velochat** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 9:42 am

When I said the sanctions were working, I was referring to the fact that Saddam got rid of his so-called WMDs. The other side is that the sanctions caused great suffering by the Iraqi people, which is a shame; we should have allowed food and medical help.

As the Iraqis feared, we have brought them chaos. I agree that some people jumped too quickly onto the "lost" explosives story, but the more that comes out, the more that incompetence is verified. Maybe they were too busy looking for "WMDs" to bother with securing explosives. I don't blame the soldiers at all; they took their orders (faulty) and now here we are, in the mess we deserved from such brilliant planning.

Bleedinbluengold · Post by **Bleedinbluengold** » Mon Nov 01, 2004 7:40 pm

El Gato; I've almost read all of Morris' book - he's a snake oil salesman in my opinion, and I give little credance to what he claims he knows.

Velo: you're right - the war in Iraq has brought a host of terrorists to that country...and with all due respect, that is where they will die. Where they die is just a matter of geography, but they will die in Iraq, or Afghanistan, or Chechnya, or America, or wherever they choose to muster.

I'm curious. Is it your belief that being wrong about Iraq's WMD trumps taking Hussein out?