News What's the game, Mr. President?

Zero

Originally posted by russ_watters
The liberal media bias isn't a lie and it isn't even hidden. Its right there for you to see if you choose to. Many big names in the media are very open about their political afiliation. They make speaches, write books, give commentaries, etc. And thats just those in TV. In print, its for some reason even more acceptable to report your opinion as news mixed in with other news.

Zero, I'll certainly give you that Fox leans to the right. But the reason there is a backlash against them is they are the ONLY major news source that leans to the right. You can measure how far a news source leans to the left by how much attention they give Fox (or Rush for that matter).
That's pretty well wrong, Russ. There isn't some huge liberal media machine. Some celebs are liberal, some are conservative. The editors and owners, the ones in control, are predominantly conservative. Generally, the media is liberal only compared to the people who call it liberal. Being to the left of Fox News doesn't make you liberal. Most of the center and moderate right is also left of the right-wing minority. Since they don't want to admit that they are the minority, they claim a bias against them. Like usual, though, claiming victim status is a standard strategy for a minority seeking a break.

And, the reason for a backlash against Fox is because there isn't a whole lot of journalism going on there...a whole lot of mouthpieces for Bush selling America their right-wing lies, though. Fox isn't a news channel at all, it is a visual op-ed page, with a serious right-wing bent and a lack of objectivity or respect for the truth.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

kat

12
0
Originally posted by Njorl


I think one reason that conservatives think the press is liberal is because the press is fairly incompetent. Conservatives seem to think incompetence is a liberal trait.[/B} The explosion of press outlets has led to a drastic decrease in the quality of reporting. If airline pilots had the same level of competence it would be raining Boeings. Consider how often the ENTIRE press corps gets a story wrong, and how rarely you hear a story about the entire press corps getting a story wrong. They are a bunch of self-protective, poorly educated, glory mongers with average intelligence who portray themselves as oracles.

Njorl

Lol, thanks for the chuckle. I think you may have hit the proverbial nail right on the head.
 

Zero

I know the media is incompetent...and that is a completely different thread, I'm telling you! Stay on topic, folks, come on!
 
137
0
... liltle out focus too but nice

One the few good things of Bush is imo that he pushed the bumper sticker industry.
Check the Bush parody website http://www.gwbush.com .
Some very creative people there. I special like the bumpersticker (An American flag with:) I Don't Have to Like Bush to Love America.
Another nice one is: DEMOCRACY ... was getting old anyway.

enjoy.
:wink:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
137
0
Originally posted by kat
I did read what you said and I have no interest in helping you spread nasty rumors about jews ruling the United States. Iraq or the world for that matter.
Kat, as you can read below that this idea lives in Iraq, and it will have it's influence. Maybe you will say that what is written is not exactly what I argued to be happening in Iraq. You can claim now that Mariam Fam of Associated Press is also spreading nasty rumors. Maybe you can ask here for hard proof or a written transcript?
-----
http://www.boston.com/dailynews/314/world/Some_Mosul_mosques_in_the_fron:.shtml [Broken]

Some Mosul mosques in the front line of the battle with Americans By Mariam Fam, Associated Press, 11/10/2003 01:58

MOSUL, Iraq (AP) It was Friday prayers at Haibat Khatoun mosque, and the imam faced worshippers to deliver a fiery sermon accusing American troops of insulting the Muslim holy book and trampling the honor of women.
''It's not enough for them to defile the land, they also wanted to defile God's book and then violate the sanctities of Muslims,'' the preacher shouted, his words carried into the street by loudspeakers. ''The grandsons of monkeys and pigs, who don't know their mothers or fathers, trespass on the book of God!''
Moustafa Mohammed, a 19-year-old college sophomore squatting in the mosque, listened in anger and pain. ''Islam today is being humiliated,'' he said. ''We ask God to make us victorious. They are hurting Muslims. ... It's horrible.''
...
A group of Sunni clerics in Mosul, the Association of Muslim Scholars in Iraq, issued a statement Friday warning people against cooperating with U.S. forces. ''Beware of supporting the occupiers and know that contacting them, without a legitimate necessity, is sinful,'' it said.
...
Sheik Abdel Jawad Mohammed Safo: ''I always stress that the people ruling over us are nonbelievers,'' he said. ''We always say that this war is a religious war. ... It's a war between Arabs and Jews; America is a mere toy in the hand of the Jews.''
...
Lt. Col. Chester C. Egert, a chaplain with the 101st Airborne Division, said some imams also argue ''that U.S. soldiers or coalition forces are causing decadence and a decrease in morality.'' ''Occasionally there will be during the calls for prayer, out of the minaret, there will be some type of call for an uprising against coalition,'' he said.
Egert said not all mosques are centers of opposition. He said many clerics support U.S. forces and urge worshippers to cooperate, while others don't venture into politics in their sermons. ''In general, I don't think the population is inclined to buy into jihad or fighting against the coalition,'' Egert said.

Saleh Khalaf, director of the office that oversees mosques and other places of worship, traces anti-U.S. sentiment to nonreligious sources.''The talk of the preachers is a result of the social pressure in their areas,'' he said. ''For instance, the neighborhood lacks services and there's a lot of unemployment. If these things are taken care of, I promise ... that 95 percent of the problems between the coalition forces and the people will be solved.''
 
Last edited by a moderator:

russ_watters

Mentor
18,992
5,146
Originally posted by Njorl
I would have thought that the last presidential election would have laid to rest the whole "liberal-media bias" myth. The press crucified Gore, even the NY Times gave more favorable press to Bush than to Gore.
What did you make of the fact that virtually the entire press corps called the election in favor of Gore at 8:00pm? Yes, thats incompetence, but the direction of the incompetence is telling to me: wishful thinking. When they err, they err to the left.
That's pretty well wrong, Russ. There isn't some huge liberal media machine.
I never said there was, Zero. Though you may think everything is a conspiracy, don't assume everyone else does too. The liberal media bias isn't a conspiracy, hidden adjenda, or otherwise. Its mostly a reflection of the personal beliefs of those in the media. Incompetent or not, the members of the media are humans. So what they do and say will reflect their personal beliefs.

Now, I said "mostly" because its a little bit of a chicken or egg scenario. Does the media make reporters liberal or are liberals more likely to become reporters than conservatives? I would suggest the latter. Certain fields tend to attract certain types of people.

Now, to what Njorl said:
There was a survey done about 10 years ago in which 92% of journalists self-identified as liberal. This was hyped by conservatives to no end. What conservatives left out of their ravings was that the same survey showed that 84% of editors self-identified as conservative.
Setting aside the difference in the quantity of editors compared with the quantity of reporters and the fact that people in management jobs need to wear different "hats," editors are managers and businessmen. And the higher you go on the corporate ladder, the more conservative people become. This goes right along with what I said above.

I read somewhere (if you really want me to, I'll find it) that 92% of those in the media voted for Clinton in 1992.
Some celebs are liberal, some are conservative.
Don't even get me started on that (your statement though literally true is highly misleading, but thats not my main complaint). The place celebs hold in politics is disgraceful, even criminal. Why Jane Fonda (for example) wasn't arrested and charged with treason is beyond me. Sean Penn at least apologized (he realized what an ass he was). I'll give him props for that. The jury is still out on Jennifer Anniston (J.A., lol) and Brad Pitt though (I won't hold my breath).
 
Last edited:

Zero

Hmmm...no matter how you slice it, there really isn't much of a liberal media bias going on...unless you think the right-wing represents the center.
 
137
0
BBC Video interview (http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/video/39575000/rm/_39575031_bush09_frost_full_vi.ram). Bush tried to make a (prudent) smile to Europe, talking about more cooperation with Europe (and France and Germany). Bush understands that he must find some allies to solve his Iraq problems (Plan B*). Once all 'contracts' have been signed to rebuild Iraq ... then others may join.

But Bush (and with him USA) has lost confidence of almost the entire planet. Bush said that 'Saddam was considered a dangerous man', but many many people in the world consider Bush also to be a dangerous man (unilateral attack on Iraq, mini-nukes program, biological weapons program US, Patriot Act, snake talks, misrepresentations, unlawful economic favoritism in Iraq, bringing people to justice (!), religious craziness, favors Israel, International Court...) because he really has WMB weapons and a lot of negative technology. Next to that Bush multiple actions creates more and more emotional 'contra reactions'. He is setting up 1,3 muslims against US and ... feeds himself future terror by imposing his perception of 'freedom' and 'peace' with the tough hand. Many consider Bush as a megalomanic who puts himself above international law (for personal gain, pride and ... probably because he was personally elected by God too) and infiltrates US economic structure inside other nations.

His statement like '...a world that is more free, and more peaceful, human rights ... American lead there ...' come over as hypocrite and just marketing. There is a different hidden agenda.
And about his 'I have a fine team of decent people', when these fine advisors say:' Yes Mr. President we will be executing' ... they mean by 'executing' maybe something different.

"In a poll published in The Times Tuesday, 59 percent of respondents said America's standing in the world has diminished under Bush's presidency, while 60 percent disapproved of his handling of the situation in Iraq." http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/11/11/britain.bush.poll.ap/index.html [Broken]
(*) Plan B: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3274009.stm

Example of international mistrust against Bush: (http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1068937808510&call_pageid=968332188854&col=968350060724)
"Jean Chrétien, to a standing ovation during his farewell speech at the Liberal convention in Toronto.
The Prime Minister can't say it, but more than unilateralism, it was dishonesty that doomed George W. Bush's war on Iraq and soured much of the world on America.
Incompetence — exacerbated by imperial arrogance and cultural ignorance — turned the occupation into a nightmare.
Now, all those traits are in play in the American plan to ostensibly turn Iraq over to the Iraqis.
The decision to hasten self-rule has little to do with installing real democracy. That's the patina the president needs to cover the panic suddenly gripping the White House.
The insurgency in Iraq is growing in intensity and expanding in geography. It will get much worse, according to a bleak assessment just offered by the Central Intelligence Agency."

Example of playing with fire:
The full text of the SPEECH BY THE PRIME MINISTER OF MALAYSIA of 16 OCTOBER 2003 AT 10.00 A.M. on: http://www.bernama.com/oicsummit/speechr.php?id=35&cat=BI [Broken]
"39. We are actually very strong. 1.3 billion people cannot be simply wiped out. The Europeans killed 6 million Jews out of 12 million. But today the Jews rule this world by proxy. They get others to fight and die for them."
Of course he refers to Bush who sent his young people to this second Vietnam.

And one of the many: http://www.publicintegrity.org/dtaweb/home.asp [Broken] U.S. Contractors Reap the Windfalls of Postwar Reconstruction
(WASHINGTON, October 30, 2003) — More than 70 American companies and individuals have won up to $8 billion in contracts for work in postwar Iraq and Afghanistan over the last two years, according to a new study by the Center for Public Integrity. Those companies contributed more money to the presidential campaign of George W. Bush—more than $500,000—than to any other politician over the last dozen years, the Center found."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
137
0
20 Questions for George W. Bush:
Americans Must Demand Straight Answers from Their President
by Glenn Scherer

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1115-08.htm [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
137
0
Livingstone says Bush is 'greatest threat to life on planet'
By Nigel Morris, Home Affairs Correspondent

18 November 2003

Ken Livingstone, the Mayor of London, launched a stinging attack on President George Bush last night, denouncing him as the "greatest threat to life on this planet that we've most probably ever seen".

His provocatively timed comments, on the eve of Mr Bush's arrival in London tonight, threaten to create severe embarrassment for the Prime Minister. They also come with talks under way on whether to re-admit Mr Livingstone to the Labour Party before his five-year exile ends.

more on: http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=464783 [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Zero

And to think, some people think that Bush is a 'leader', simply because he gets all intense when he reads from a Teleprompter...some mistake his intensity for passion, when it is really his concentration on not jumbling up the words.
 
137
0
Originally posted by Zero
And to think, some people think that Bush is a 'leader', simply because he gets all intense when he reads from a Teleprompter...some mistake his intensity for passion, when it is really his concentration on not jumbling up the words.
Correct.
Do you think there are sufficient causes to start an impeachment?
 
137
0
impeachment?
Zero maybe a poll?
 

Zero

Originally posted by pelastration
Correct.
Do you think there are sufficient causes to start an impeachment?
Oh, I'm sure we could find something pretty easily...but it will never happen. Since Clinton, the sole standard for impeachment has been 'whatever the majority decides on, regardless of law'.
 
137
0
Originally posted by Zero
Oh, I'm sure we could find something pretty easily...but it will never happen. Since Clinton, the sole standard for impeachment has been 'whatever the majority decides on, regardless of law'.
.... and this would happen during a war (where national unity must be expressed).

Interessing: http://www.news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=2189254 [Broken]

Italian Launches Bitter Attack on Coalition

An Italian member of the US-led coalition has resigned, accusing the Bush administration of inefficiency and failing to understand Iraq.

His resignation came as US forces killed six alleged rebels in Saddam Hussein’s home town, Tikrit, as they pressed their search for a former Saddam deputy believed to be orchestrating attacks on Americans.

Before resigning, Marco Calamai, a special counsellor of the Coalition Provisional Authority in the southern province of Dhi Qar, criticised Paul Bremer’s administration for its handling of Iraq. The charges come as Russia and France objected to the US timetable for handing over power to the Iraqis by July 1.

Rising casualties added new urgency to the task. Three American soldiers died yesterday – one in an ambush on a patrol, another by a roadside bomb and a third from a non-hostile gunshot wound.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Zero

We know that Bush doesn't understand Iraq...this is simple truth, derived from every action taken so far. It is only odd that it takes a seemingly long time for other governments to wise up to the fact...but they will, in time.
 

amp

Pelastration, Arabs are descendents of Abraham

From first page
It was given to the descendents of Abraham, Isaac ...
As such they have the promise made to him by 'God' extended to them as well.
 
137
0
Re: Pelastration, Arabs are descendents of Abraham

Originally posted by amp
As such they have the promise made to him by 'God' extended to them as well.
Nice ;-). Thanks amp.
 

amp

De nada...

I remember now Pelastration, Your theory is very fascinating. It appears to offer an explanation for many of the problems string theory has run into. Why don't you post in the Strings,branes ect threads?
 
137
0
Originally posted by amp
I remember now Pelastration, Your theory is very fascinating. It appears to offer an explanation for many of the problems string theory has run into. Why don't you post in the Strings,branes ect threads?
;-) Thanks amp. Appreciate your reaction. Indeed it offers a logic and inter-connective concept, and ST hasn't such engineering picture. ST is to me a bite like shooting with skeet ammunition in the air and hoping that some pigeons fly over. But my theory is on PF Theory development (General Physics), and that's OK to me. It's like Sheldrake's Morphic fields ... it spreads (slowly). Last week I explained it in Belgium to Alan Wallace (also interpreter of the Dalai Lama) who works with MIT on experiments with consciousness. He was very intrigued. Lubos Motl (also sometimes on PF under nick lumidek) looks also into it. And others too. ;-). And I believe a number of these PF guests might be famous guys looking for some new ideas or inspiration. Everyone wants the overview and to understand what's happening in this 'reality'. So if there is a logic alternative (without uncertainty) ...
We can continue on Theory development if you want. This post is really off topic here. ;-). Sorry Zero.
 
137
0
Check this out: http://bushflash.com/ma.html [Broken]

(a flash movie ... so you need that plug).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
137
0
Specially for Jonathan:
Lies and More Lies by John Pilger September 29, 2003
( http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=40&ItemID=4279 [Broken] )

quote: EXACTLY one year ago, Tony Blair told Parliament: "Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction programme is active, detailed and growing.

"The policy of containment is not working. The weapons of mass destruction programme is not shut down. It is up and running now."

Not only was every word of this false, it was part of a big lie invented in Washington within hours of the attacks of September 11 2001 and used to hoodwink the American public and distract the media from the real reason for attacking Iraq. "It was 95 per cent charade," a former senior CIA analyst told me.

An investigation of files and archive film for my TV documentary Breaking The Silence, together with interviews with former intelligence officers and senior Bush officials have revealed that Bush and Blair knew all along that Saddam Hussein was effectively disarmed.

Both Colin Powell, US Secretary of State, and Condoleezza Rice, President Bush's closest adviser, made clear before September 11 2001 that Saddam Hussein was no threat - to America, Europe or the Middle East.

In Cairo, on February 24 2001, Powell said: "He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours."

This is the very opposite of what Bush and Blair said in public.

Powell even boasted that it was the US policy of "containment" that had effectively disarmed the Iraqi dictator - again the very opposite of what Blair said time and again. On May 15 2001, Powell went further and said that Saddam Hussein had not been able to "build his military back up or to develop weapons of mass destruction" for "the last 10 years".
America, he said, had been successful in keeping him "in a box".

Two months later, Condoleezza Rice also described a weak, divided and militarily defenceless Iraq. "Saddam does not control the northern part of the country," she said. "We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."

So here were two of Bush's most important officials putting the lie to their own propaganda, and the Blair government's propaganda that subsequently provided the justification for an unprovoked, illegal attack on Iraq. The result was the deaths of what reliable studies now put at 50,000 people, civilians and mostly conscript Iraqi soldiers, as well as British and American troops. There is no estimate of the countless thousands of wounded.

In a torrent of propaganda seeking to justify this violence before and during the invasion, there were occasional truths that never made headlines. In April last year, Condoleezza Rice described September 11
2001 as an "enormous opportunity" and said America "must move to take advantage of these new opportunities."

Taking over Iraq, the world's second biggest oil producer, was the first such opportunity.

At 2.40pm on September 11, according to confidential notes taken by his aides, Donald Rumsfeld, the Defense Secretary, said he wanted to "hit" Iraq - even though not a shred of evidence existed that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with the attacks on New York and Washington. "Go massive," the notes quote Rumsfeld as saying. "Sweep it all up. Things related and not." Iraq was given a brief reprieve when it was decided instead to attack Afghanistan. This was the "softest option" and easiest to explain to the American people - even though not a single September 11 hijacker came from Afghanistan. In the meantime, securing the "big prize", Iraq, became an obsession in both Washington and London.

An Office of Special Plans was hurriedly set up in the Pentagon for the sole purpose of converting "loose" or unsubstantiated intelligence into US policy. This was a source from which Downing Street received much of the "evidence" of weapons of mass destruction we now know to be phoney.

CONTRARY to Blair's denials at the time, the decision to attack Iraq was set in motion on September 17 2001, just six days after the attacks on New York and Washington.

On that day, Bush signed a top-secret directive, ordering the Pentagon to begin planning "military options" for an invasion of Iraq. In July 2002, Condoleezza Rice told another Bush official who had voiced doubts about invading Iraq: "A decision has been made. Don't waste your breath."

The ultimate cynicism of this cover-up was expressed by Rumsfeld himself only last week. When asked why he thought most Americans still believed Saddam Hussein was behind the attacks of September 11, he replied: "I've not seen any indication that would lead me to believe I could say that.

It is this that makes the Hutton inquiry in London virtually a sham. By setting up an inquiry solely into the death of the weapons expert David Kelly, Blair has ensured there will be no official public investigation into the real reasons he and Bush attacked Iraq and into when exactly they made that decision. He has ensured there will be no headlines about disclosures in email traffic between Downing Street and the White House, only secretive tittle-tattle from Whitehall and the smearing of the messenger of Blair's misdeeds.

The sheer scale of this cover-up makes almost laughable the forensic cross-examination of the BBC reporter Andrew Gilligan about "anomalies" in the notes of his interview with David Kelly - when the story Gilligan told of government hypocrisy and deception was basically true.

Those pontificating about Gilligan failed to ask one vital question - why has Lord Hutton not recalled Tony Blair for cross-examination? Why is Blair not being asked why British sovereignty has been handed over to a gang in Washington whose extremism is no longer doubted by even the most conservative observers? No one knows the Bush extremists better than Ray McGovern, a former senior CIA officer and personal friend of George Bush senior, the President's father. In Breaking The Silence, he tells me: "They were referred to in the circles in which I moved when I was briefing at the top policy levels as 'the crazies'."

"Who referred to them as 'the crazies'?" I asked.

"All of us... in policy circles as well as intelligence circles... There is plenty of documented evidence that they have been planning these attacks for a long time and that 9/11 accelerated their plan. (The weapons of mass destruction issue) was all contrived, so was the connection of Iraq with al Qaeda. It was all PR... Josef Goebbels had this dictum: If you say something often enough, the people will believe it." He added: "I think we ought to be all worried about fascism (in the United States)."

The "crazies" include John Bolton, Under Secretary of State, who has made a personal mission of tearing up missile treaties with the Russians and threatening North Korea, and Douglas Feith, an Under Secretary of Defence, who ran a secret propaganda unit "reworking" intelligence about Iraq's weapons. I interviewed them both in Washington." (end of quote)

.... and more on that webpage.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Related Threads for: What's the game, Mr. President?

Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
17
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
13
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
39
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
12
Views
1K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
45
Views
4K

Hot Threads

Top