Peter_Puget Posted October 17, 2003 Posted October 17, 2003 this time about liberal bias in media. Check this out! Bob Edwards: This is Morning Edition from NPR news. I’m Bob Edwards. Increasingly it seems the Bush Administration’s foreign policy is running into trouble. The post-war picture in Iraq and Afghanistan is highly unstable. The road map to peace in the Middle East is in tatters. There’s growing unease over the possibility that North Korea and Iran are pursuing nuclear weapons. Friends of the United States are not supportive. Overall, the policies of the United States are still very unpopular around the world. The Bush Doctrine, a preference for unilateral military action and a disdain for multinational diplomacy, is under scrutiny more than ever. NPR’s Mike Shuster reports. PP Quote
mattp Posted October 17, 2003 Posted October 17, 2003 If I listened to any number of a.m. radio stations this morning I bet I could have found just as striking an endorsement of Mr. Bush's foreign policy, no? Quote
Peter_Puget Posted October 17, 2003 Author Posted October 17, 2003 Sure but mostly from editorialists like Sean Hannity, or however is filling in for Rush. Quote
mattp Posted October 17, 2003 Posted October 17, 2003 Why would the fact that NPR starts out with a provocative and partisan leader indicate that "the media is liberal?" What kind of partisan messages do you hear on leaders to news stories on FOX? Do fewer people listen to Rush's show? Or is it less credible? How many conservative pundits speak on NPR radio as compared to the number of liberal pundits who speak on AM talk radio? How are the conservatives treated on the "liberal" NPR as opposed to how the liberals are treated on AM talk radio? Quote
allthumbs Posted October 17, 2003 Posted October 17, 2003 they're all egocentric gasbags with personal agendas Quote
Jim Posted October 17, 2003 Posted October 17, 2003 Bob Edwards: This is Morning Edition from NPR news. I’m Bob Edwards. ****Seems straight-forward. Increasingly it seems the Bush Administration’s foreign policy is running into trouble. ****Does anyone think it's going smoothly? The post-war picture in Iraq and Afghanistan is highly unstable. ****Simple fact The road map to peace in the Middle East is in tatters. ****No question here. There’s growing unease over the possibility that North Korea and Iran are pursuing nuclear weapons. ***True Friends of the United States are not supportive. *****Very True Overall, the policies of the United States are still very unpopular around the world. *****Except with our "coalition" of states such as Israel, micronesia, and that powerhouse of Costa Rica Overall, the policies of the United States are still very unpopular around the world. The Bush Doctrine, a preference for unilateral military action and a disdain for multinational diplomacy, is under scrutiny more than ever *****Hard to argue with that. Seems like if you just report the facts w/o the usual spin you get a bit uncomfortable PP. The US media is bascially divided into the far-right such as the Murdock new agecies - Washington Times, FOX; the mild middle that feels the obligation to have balanced opinions - NY Times, NPR, Washington Post, LA Times ect. There is no easily accessible left media in the US. Even Israel has a greater diversity of TV, radio, and newspaper. You're stretching PP. If you haven't traveled much or subscribe to those rightwing screwball newsletters you have a narrow view. Maybe it was just the drugs that were talking to Rush, eh? Quote
bunglehead Posted October 17, 2003 Posted October 17, 2003 ???? That O'Reilly guy was on All things considered a few weeks ago for an interview. Quote
scott_harpell Posted October 17, 2003 Posted October 17, 2003 trask said: they're all egocentric gasbags with personal agendas finally the voice of reason... and it is trask. Quote
iain Posted October 17, 2003 Posted October 17, 2003 The report does go on to quote that there is much to admire in Bush's "bold" view towards changing governments dangerous to the United States, and that the president and admin acknowledge some setbacks, but have been resolute to stick to their guns, so to speak . It is quite condemning of the administration's ability to interact with other governments. Do you disagree with the report as a whole? Was it an inaccurate picture of the relationship between the US and other countries? They quoted a number of folks who were supportive of the admin too. Quote
Al_Pine Posted October 17, 2003 Posted October 17, 2003 From google search for "Foxnews.com" FOXNews.com Wed. 11 pm ET "Hunting for Bambi" was shut down for shooting naked women with paintball guns. Bill has an update on what the company is up to now. ... Description: Online site of Fox cable news network. Category: News > Breaking News Quote
bunglehead Posted October 17, 2003 Posted October 17, 2003 trask said: they're all egocentric gasbags with personal agendas Agreed. Quote
mattp Posted October 17, 2003 Posted October 17, 2003 Good job there, Jim. I immediately assumed PP was on to something at least as far as the idea that the "leader" he recited was pro democrat and anti-Bush, but I think you have correctly pointed out that to state, in a succinct manner, the truth about what is going wrong with Mr. Bush's war policy sounds partisan to us -- and the reason is because we are so consistently presented with a positive misstatement of things whenever any administration official is on the air. Think about it. If you heard a similar statement that consisted of postitive remarks about the success of Bush's foreign policies, many if not most Americans would be less like to immediately identify it as partisan because it would quite closely resemble what we hear daily from Bush, Rice, Rumsfeld: Good morning. Now, six months after the war in Iraq ended, we are seeing great progress toward peace and stibility in the region, the world has become a safer place, and America's prestige as a peacemaking nation is growing daily, .... What do you want to bet, I could find a fox news story that begins with exactly this kind of leader. But you couldn't make the same kind of point-by-point argument that these statements are accurate, could you? Quote
chucK Posted October 17, 2003 Posted October 17, 2003 Hey Mattp, is that a real quote from Bush? Check out the links to see what that liberally biased Foxnews.com has to say about it, then see what you think. "Good morning. Now, six months after the war in Iraq ended, we are seeing great progress toward peace and stability in the region, , the world has become a safer place, and America's prestige as a peacemaking nation is growing daily, ...." Quote
mattp Posted October 17, 2003 Posted October 17, 2003 I'm having trouble wlith your links, there, Mr. ChucK. I bet you found something interesting, though. I just made that quote up. Quote
chucK Posted October 17, 2003 Posted October 17, 2003 Maybe Foxnews.com doesn't like you! They are all links from the front page, recent stories (today or yesterday). In order: 4 Amercans killed in Bagdad, more reserves called up, oil pipeline bombed in Iraq, nation put on new terror alert (top headline), Bush thanks Japan for money for Iraq. Quote
Jim Posted October 17, 2003 Posted October 17, 2003 Oh you're bailing a sinking ship if you're going to try and defend FOX. At least try a slightly harder target. Flat out lies should be confronted ~ Bill O'Reilly; Fox News Channel; May 22, 2003 Since the Iraq conflict began on March 20, Fox News has been on a mission to legitimize it. One problem for Fox's protracted apologia is that despite promises of evidence of current weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) by the Bush Administration, the evidence has been ambiguous at best. Unfortunately for the network, I’ve been keeping a scratch diary of their reports since the war began. Keep in mind that in the first three weeks of March, before the bombs started officially dropping, Fox was spreading all sorts of Pentagon propaganda. Iraq had "drones" that it could quickly dispatch to major U.S. metropolitan areas to spread biological agents. Saddam was handing out chemical weapons to the Republican guard to use against coalition troops in a last-ditch red-zone ring around Baghdad. Given what we now know about Iraq, these reports seem to be laughable fantasies, but they were effective in securing public backing for the war. The following is a short chronicle of lies, propagation of lies, exaggerations, distortions, spin, and conjecture presented as fact. My comments are in brackets [ ]s. March 14: On The Fox Report anchor Shepard Smith reports that Saddam is planning to use flood water as a weapon by blowing up dams and causing severe flood damage. March 19: Fox anchor Shepard Smith reports that Iraqis are planning to detonate large stores of napalm buried deep below the earth to scorch coalition forces. Fox Military Analyst Major Bob Bevelacqua states that coalition forces will drop a MOAB on Saddam's bunker [!!] and give him the "Mother of All Sunburns." March 23: The network begins 2 days of unequivocal assertions that a 100-acre facility discovered by coalition forces at An Najaf is a chemical weapons plant. Much is made about the fact that it was booby trapped. A former UN weapons inspector interviewed on camera over the phone downplays the WMD allegations and says that booby-trapping is common. His points are ignored as unequivocal charges of a chemical weapons facility are made on Fox for yet another day (March 24). Only weeks later is it briefly conceded that the chemicals definitively detected at the facility were pesticides. [Jennifer Eccleston has to be the worst reporter employed by any network. She began one segment with a "Hi there!" – in no response to any segue from the relaying anchor at Fox headquarters in New York. Her bangs are long and constantly blowing in her face in the wind. Her head wobbles from side to side with her nose tracing out a figure 8 all the while arbitrarily syncopating a monotone voice with overemphasis on the last syllables of different words (e.g., Bagh-DAD’). The old, white-haired flag-waving yahoos like her not for her professionalism – she has none – but because of her innocent Britney Spearsesque beauty; i.e., she's a typical young piece of meat which dirty old men with too much time on their hands fantasize about.] March 24: Oliver North reports that the staff at the French embassy in Baghdad are destroying documents. [How could he know this?] March 24: Fox and Friends. Anchor Juliet Huddy asks Colonel David hunt why coalition forces don't "blow up" Al Jazeera TV. [The context of the discussion makes it clear that she doesn't know the difference between Al Jazeera and Iraqi TV!!!! Juliet Huddy is a beautiful woman but not very bright.] March 28: Repeated assertions by Fox News anchors of a red ring around Baghdad in which Republican Guard forces were planning to use chemical weapons on coalition forces. A Fox "Breaking News" flash reports that Iraqi soldiers were seen by coalition forces moving 55-gallon drums almost certainly containing chemical agents. April 7: Fox, echoing NPR, reports that U.S. forces near Baghdad have discovered a weapons cache of 20 medium-range missiles containing sarin and mustard gas. Initial tests show that the deadly chemicals are not "trace elements." [in the coming weeks, this embarrassing non-discovery is quickly stomped down the Memory Hole. The missiles were never mentioned again.] April 9: The crowd around coalition troops toppling the Saddam statue in Baghdad looks strangely sparse despite the network's assertions to the contrary. The perspective is always in close and even then there is no mob storming the statue to hit it with their shoes. Just a handful of people. It's constantly asserted that there's a huge crowd. [i'm perplexed. Where's the huge crowd?!] April 10: Fox "Breaking News" report of weapons-grade plutonium found at Al Tuwaitha. [in the coming weeks this "discovery" was expeditiously shoved down the Memory Hole as well.] April 10 (2:59 EDT): A report noting with surprise "how little" the Iraqis were celebrating the coalition invasion. [An interesting contradiction of the allegations of widespread celebration just the day before with the toppling of the Saddam statue.] April 10 (3 p.m. EDT: Reporter Rick Leventhal) Fox "Breaking News" report: A mobile bioweapons lab is found. Video of a tiny tan truck—about the size of the smallest truck that U-Haul rents – which had its cargo bed and fuel tank shot up with bullets after a looter tried to drive it away. Repeated assertions that this is most definitely a "bioweapons" lab. A graphic sequence is shown of a large Winnebago-type vehicle that is massive compared to the tiny truck found. The irony of this escapes the Fox newscasters and defense "experts." [This was the first "bioweapons lab" found, not the larger one later found in Mosul. A week later it is briefly conceded that the tiny truck was probably never a bio weapons lab, but promises that real ones will pour forth from the landscape continue. The second phantom lab, a large tractor-trailer truck was discovered around May 2 by Kurdish fighters.] April 10: To show that France is in bed with Saddam Hussein, Fox begins running old footage of Saddam Hussein's September 1975 trip to Paris to meet with Jacques Chirac and tour a nuclear power plant. [because Fox strives so hard to be "Fair and Balanced," it's all the more curious how it fails to inform its audience about another trip four years later, this one to Baghdad on December 19, 1983 made by Reagan envoy and then former secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld (see pic below). The network again, because it's so very "Fair and Balanced," also inexplicably forgot to tell its audience about another trip by Rummy to Baghdad, this time on March 24, 1984, the very same day that a U.N. team found that Iraqi forces had used mustard gas laced with a nerve agent on Iranian soldiers. Rummy obviously wasn't too concerned about the charges of gassing, as in 1986 when he was considering a run for the Republican presidential nomination of 1988, he listed his restoration of diplomatic relations with WMD-using Iraq as one of his proudest achievements. But all that's an eternity ago for Imperial Conservatives with a 20-second attention span. The Fox newscasters rename Jacques Chirac "Jacques Iraq"(yuk, yuk, yuk – what a side splitter!) and keep going.] April 7: Repeated ominous footage of barrels buried in a below-ground shed near Karbala. The implication is that the Iraqi landscape is replete with these types of shelters, all of them brimming with evidence of chemical weapons. [These were revealed to be agricultural chemicals as well.] April 13: Fox Graphic: "Bush: Syria Harboring Chemical Weapons." [My favorite Fox war commentator is definitely Colonel David Hunt. From my canvassing of all the cable network war coverage, it's hard to find an analyst who is more dogmatic. When coalition forces weren’t greeted with hugs and kisses like he predicted and instead encountered stiff resistance from Iraqi forces in Basra and other places, Davey was all denial. Everything’s going perfect. Rummy is God, hallelujah and praise Dubya! There's not a problem in Iraq that can't be solved by blowing some Iraqi's brains out.] April 15: Fox analyst Mansoor Ijaz claims that the top 55 Iraqi leaders (along with the whole stash of chemical and biological WMDs they have taken with them) are now living it up in Latakia, Syria. [This is the same 55 that appeared on the deck of cards and is still being captured – far from all living it up in Syria.] On The Fox Report anchor Shepard Smith completely breaks with any pretense of objectivity and openly mocks actor Tim Robbins after playing an excerpt of Robbins' speech to the National Press Club. "Oh, that was so powerful!" Smith mocked. [impressive objectivity there, Mr. Smith.] April 16: Fred Barnes on Special Report with Brit Hume blames the looting of the Iraqi National Museum on the museum staff. [Right now there are so many claims and counterclaims about the looting it's hard to tell what happened. In a Fox segment on May 19 a coalition official asserted that 170,000 items were definitely not missing. Of course he refused to give a ballpark estimate of what was missing, which he'd surely have in order to plausibly deny that the original estimate was wrong.] April 18: Bill O'Reilly opens his show calling Iraqis "ungrateful." April 21: Bill O'Reilly opens his show calling Iraqi Shiites "ungrateful SOBs" and "fanatics." He concludes that "[we] can't tolerate a fundamentalist state" in Iraq. [Whoa, O'Reilly. I thought we promised the Iraqis that we were going to implement democracy, not democracy that gives the U.S. the election results it wants. That's not democracy, now, is it? By now it's quite clear that despite the spinning on The No Spin Zone, Iraq is descending into chaos.] April 22: Lt. Colonel Robert Maginnis states on The O'Reilly Factor that the probability of finding WMDs is a 10 out of 10. [This is the same Robert Maginnis who predicted a double-ring defense of Baghdad in the Washington Times on January 7.] O'Reilly states that if no WMDs are found within a month from today, then that spells big trouble. O'Reilly promises to explore the issue a month later. [Cool, let's hold his feet to the fire on that promise. On an earlier show he said that U.S. credibility would be "shot" if no WMDs were found. ] May 8: Fox News Military Analyst Major General Paul Vallely states on The O’Reilly Factor that "Middle East agents" have told him that Iraq’s WMDs along with 17 mobile weapons labs (1 of which was captured around May 2) are now buried in the Bakaa Valley in Syria 30 meters underground. He also claims that France helped Iraqi leaders escape to Europe by providing them with travel papers [a charge that even the Pentagon later denies although it's apparent that's where Vallely got his information]. May 11: On The Fox Report with Rick Folbaum it is conceded that the nefarious captured trailer contains not a shred of evidence of WMDs, but Folbaum hints that what’s important is that the trailer could have been used to make them. [Hmmm. I thought we went to war for actual WMDs, not for the ability to make WMDs.] May 16: Special Report with Brit Hume. Muslims, citing Islam's ban of alcohol, are torching liquor stores and threatening their Christian owners. Under Saddam's secular regime, Christian names were banned and schools were nationalized, but guns and alcohol were freely available; there was tolerance for Iraq's 1 million Catholic and Protestant Christians. In New and Improved Neocon Iraq, there's a letter circulating in Baghdad threatening violence to even the families of women who refuse to wear the traditional Muslim head covering. [The report is yet another interesting and reluctant concession of unintended consequences.] May 19: O'Reilly discusses a number of inflammatory and bogus charges that were floated in the U.S. media about France (e.g., France supplied Iraq with precision switches used in nuclear weapons, French companies sold spare parts to Iraq for military planes and helicopters, France possessed illegal strains of smallpox, France helped Iraqi leaders escape to Europe by providing them with travel papers). Recall this last charge was made by Major General Paul Vallely on May 8 on The O'Reilly Factor. Again, the Pentagon denies all such charges although much of the Beltway thinks it's obvious that the Pentagon is the source of them. O'Reilly claims that Vallely is only irresponsible if the charges don't turn out to be true. O'Reilly refers to documents that prove that the French government was briefing Saddam right until the war started. [briefed on what?] May 20: O'Reilly concedes that the Private Jessica Lynch rescue story could be a fraud, as asserted by the BBC and Los Angeles Times columnist Robert Scheer. "Somebody is lying," he states. He says that if the U.S. military has concocted a fraud, then it will be a terrible scandal but if the BBC and Scheer are wrong, nothing will happen to them. He says he is skeptical of the BBC and Scheer. To prove his point he brings on no other than Colonel David Hunt. [Geez. Transcript here.] Over and over, Hunt calls the allegations of staged rescue an "assail on the finest soldiers in the world." He claims that the ambulance with Lynch in it that drove up to a Marine checkpoint was never shot at, its drivers demanded $10,000 for information on Jessica, Saddam Hospital was guarded by uniformed Iraqi soldiers and Fedayeen, Jessica's life was saved, and coalition forces didn't trash the hospital. What were his sources for this information? The special ops members on the raid, some of whom are his friends and former colleagues. Over and over Hunt kept saying, "They're the best soldiers in the world, they're the best in the world. Why would they make this up?" [What followed next was an exchange that's priceless and one of many that goes by far too un-analyzed on Fox every day:] Hunt: In my opinion it's an assault, an effrontery to the finest men and women in our service, it's an assault on Jessica, it's an assault on these great guys, these great special operations guys ... at a minimum we should no longer buy the L.A. Times, no longer buy the Toronto Free Press, and shut the BBC off. It's a government to government issue...this is calling into question the veracity of the finest soldiers in the world and it's uncalled for, it's absolutely unbelievable." O'Reilly: If you [Hunt] turn out to be right, nothing will happen to Scheer...he'll just go along blithely printing his lies and living his life and getting paid for it. [To the Colonel: U.S. special ops soldiers may be the best in the world at what they do, but how does it logically follow from that assessment that particular actions taken during the raid were not excessive and unjustified? How is the BBC's story an assault on Jessica?! What do you mean when you mention a "government to government issue" given that the U.S. government now controls Iraq?! Is the Pentagon the most effective check on its own possible misdeeds? How convenient if you're suggesting that it is. Who is your source that Iraqi doctors were trying to ransom Jessica? Why hasn't this allegation made its way into any other news reports?] [To O'Reilly: If the raid does turn out to be mostly staged, there'll be no terrible scandal precisely because you, Fox News, and the Pentagon will assert just the opposite and allow yet another embarrassment to slide into the Memory Hole. This is exactly why your demand for accountability from the BBC and L.A. Times is so hollow and hypocritical. Instead of plumbing the U.S. military to investigate itself, why don't you interview Iraqi doctor Harith al-Houssona as the London Times did on April 16 (where the story was first broken, not by the BBC or Robert Scheer) who actually saved Lynch's life instead of the U.S. special ops who could have jeopardized it? The doctor testifies that all Iraqi forces left the day before the raid and that Jessica was delivered by an ambulance that had to return to the hospital because it was shot at by Marines. Why would he lie? You say you automatically trust the Pentagon. Why, when tales of Lynch's heroics in fighting off 500 Iraqi soldiers with one hand while severely wounded and tales that she had amnesia have already been proven bogus?] May 22 (5:54 a.m. CDT): Richard King, a military doctor, appears on Fox and Friends with promises by the show's hosts that he will verify that the Jessica Lynch rescue wasn't staged. King doesn't prove anything. He states that he arrived at Saddam Hospital the day after the rescue, concedes damage and mal-treatment of doctors at the hospital, and that he "was told " that the hospital was guarded by hostile forces but doesn't specify who told him. [The testimony of the hospital staff contradicts this last hearsay.] May 22: O'Reilly fails to live up to his promise to make a big stink if no WMDs are found by today. In his Talking Points Memo he wonders why the U.S. has caught such informed Iraqis as Dr. Germ and Ms. Anthrax and has gotten no leads. He states that more time is needed [contradicting what he said more than a month ago, when he said that if no WMDs were found after 2 months U.S. credibility would be "shot" and there would be big trouble]. He ends his Memo saying Bush must candidly address the situation soon. June 2: [unfortunately for O'Reilly, Bush isn't candidly explaining anything.] A video clip on Fox and Friends is shown with Bush in Poland claiming that "[w]e found" weapons of mass destruction. His evidence? Two trailers found near Mosul that were supposedly used as mobile bioweapons labs. [A June 7 article by the Times' Judith Miller reports serious doubts by some analysts that the two trailers were used as mobile bioweapons labs. Said one senior analyst about the initial CIA report, it "was a rushed job and looks political." Yes, they violated U.N. resolutions but this is another red herring to suggest WMDs.] June 4: O'Reilly's Talking Points Memo: [surreal.] O'Reilly says that the WMD issue has now been politicized [!!]. The war was a just war because there's now great progress between Palestinians and Israelis and that alone made the war worthwhile [?!!]. Also the mass graves and other horrors discovered add to the case for war. The intelligence was either wrong or more time is needed to find the WMDs. [Again contradicting what he said on and before April 22.] June 11: Fox reports a bus blast in Jerusalem caused by Hamas, killing 15 and wounding at least 100. [Looks like the real reason for war according to O'Reilly (Israeli-Palestinian peace) has also disintegrated, but don't expect O'Reilly to admit it.] Quote
mattp Posted October 18, 2003 Posted October 18, 2003 I would expect them to have stories about US soldiers getting shot at, chucK - of course they do. But my argument was that if I listen to Fox news on the radio for a week, I bet I can find an introduction to a story that is more biased than that cited by Puget - especially if you look at it the way that Jim did and ask yourself, "which if any of these statements can be said to be incorrect?" I just made up an imaginary statement from a reporter introducing, say, a story about the latest even promoted by Wolfowitz or somebody, wherein the report parrots the lines that are told us daily by Rice, Bush and Rumsfeld. Is that an unlikely scenario? Quote
chucK Posted October 18, 2003 Posted October 18, 2003 (edited) Is that a Bill O'Reilly quote? It looks like it from the start of your post. ETA: I was referring to Jim's post. Edited October 18, 2003 by chucK Quote
mattp Posted October 18, 2003 Posted October 18, 2003 Nope. 'Just made it up. Should I apply for a job writing text for O'Reilly? Quote
chucK Posted October 18, 2003 Posted October 18, 2003 Actually, my point was that Bush's rhetoric is so out there that he's not even backed up by the righty Foxnews.com. I guess my point was undercut though by the fact that that wasn't a real piece of Bush rhetoric. Oh well Look at PP's troll got the libs arguing amongst themselves, sorta like those dumb democrat presidential hopefuls. Quote
chelle Posted October 18, 2003 Posted October 18, 2003 From the NY Times last Saturday. Although PP may have issue with the title, it sounds to me like they're reporting what went on at the speech and gave the guy plenty of ink...Only the last 3 paragrahs are for the response from the "other" side. (posted full article 'cause you need a login to access) - - - - - -- - October 11, 2003 Cheney Lashes Out at Critics of Policy on Iraq By ERIC SCHMITT WASHINGTON, Oct. 10 — Vice President Dick Cheney lashed out on Friday at critics of the Bush administration's Iraq policy, ridiculing their arguments against the war as naïve and dangerous in a speech that was a culmination of a campaign by the White House to regain support for the postwar effort. Mr. Cheney's remarks came at the end of a contentious week that included President Bush's announcement of a reorganization intended to give the White House more control over the Iraq occupation; a public spat between Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice, the president's national security adviser, over control of the mission; and growing violence on the ground in Iraq. The vice president's appearance before an invited audience of 200 people at the conservative Heritage Foundation here capped a weeklong White House public-relations offensive aimed at rebutting a new wave of criticism of the war and the postwar effort. In his 25-minute speech, Mr. Cheney defended the administration's handling of Iraq policy and its larger vision in combating global terrorism. His searing statements came across as direct attacks on critics in Congress and among the Democratic presidential candidates. "Some claim we should not have acted because the threat from Saddam Hussein was not imminent," Mr. Cheney said. "Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike?" He continued, in his deep monotone: "Had we followed the counsel of inaction, the Iraqi regime would still be a menace to its neighbors and a destabilizing force in the Middle East. Today, because we acted, Iraq stands to be a force for good in the Middle East." In remarks on Friday at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and Museum in Simi Valley, Calif., Mr. Rumsfeld joined in the administration chorus, rapping the media for dwelling on bad news out of Baghdad. "The part of the picture that's negative is being emphasized, and the part of the picture that's positive is not," Mr. Rumsfeld said. Mr. Cheney rarely speaks in public, except at fund-raisers, and when he does, it is usually a sign that the White House has decided that it needs to deliver a message with exceptional impact. His speech on Friday was a sharper version of a revamped stump speech he gave at fund-raisers in Iowa and Pennsylvania last week. He took no questions on Friday. The vice president picked up where Mr. Bush left off a day earlier, when the president told listeners in Portsmouth, N.H., "The challenges we face today cannot be met with timid actions or bitter words." Ms. Rice also gave a speech on Iraq this week. Like a similar speech by Mr. Cheney on July 24, his comments on Friday sought to cast the Iraq war as part of the broader campaign against terror, a linkage that administration officials say puts its actions in a better political light for them. He repeated his assertion that Mr. Hussein actively supported Al Qaeda operations in Iraq, an assessment that some intelligence analysts say is overstated at best. "He cultivated ties to terror, hosting the Abu Nidal organization," Mr. Cheney said. "He also had an established relationship with Al Qaeda, providing training to Al Qaeda members in the areas of poisons, gases, making conventional bombs. Saddam built, possessed and used weapons of mass destruction." He dismissed critics who say the failure so far of American inspectors to find those unconventional weapons in Iraq undercut the administration's main reason for going to war. He said a team of 1,200 specialists headed by Dr. David Kay, the chief weapons inspector in Iraq, had yet "to examine more than a hundred large conventional weapons arsenals, some of which cover areas larger than 50 square miles." He added, "Finding comparatively small volumes of extremely deadly materials hidden in these vast stockpiles will be time-consuming and difficult." Mr. Cheney cited examples from Dr. Kay's preliminary findings, including a prison laboratory complex, possibly used in human testing of biological weapons agents, as proof that Mr. Hussein had repeatedly violated United Nations resolutions and posed a menace to America and its allies in the Middle East. The vice president dared critics to refute the assessment that Iraq without Mr. Hussein was better off than before. "There would still be active terror camps in Iraq," he said, "the regime would still be allowing terrorist leaders into the country, and this ally of terrorists would still have a hidden biological weapons program, capable of producing deadly agents on short notice." Ignoring Mr. Hussein's appetite for illicit weapons would have only courted disaster, he insisted. "Weakness and drift and vacillation in the face of danger invite attacks," he said. "Strength and resolve and decisive action defeat attacks before they can arrive on our soil." Mr. Cheney said it was dangerous to rely too heavily on reaching international consensus before acting against terrorists, saying that approach "amounts to a policy of doing exactly nothing." He added: "The United States is committed to multilateral action wherever possible, yet this commitment does not require us to stop everything and neglect our own defense merely on the say-so of a single foreign government. Ultimately, America must be in charge of her own national security." Just as notable on Friday was what Mr. Cheney did not say. There was no mention of the 94 Americans killed in Iraq since Mr. Bush declared the end of major combat on May 1. Nor did he discuss the uphill efforts to persuade allies to contribute troops and funds for the occupation, or the growing tensions with the Iraqi Governing Council over security. Democrats said on Friday that Mr. Cheney had used disingenuous arguments and false choices out of growing desperation to prop up his speech. "What they realize is the situation in Iraq is very, very perilous, their justification for war has not materialized, and that people are concerned," said Senator Jack Reed, a Rhode Island Democrat on the Armed Services Committee. "As we keep sustaining casualties, there'll be questions in the public's mind whether we are in the control of the situation there." Quote
Fairweather Posted October 18, 2003 Posted October 18, 2003 mattp said: Why would the fact that NPR starts out with a provocative and partisan leader indicate that "the media is liberal?" What kind of partisan messages do you hear on leaders to news stories on FOX? Do fewer people listen to Rush's show? Or is it less credible? How many conservative pundits speak on NPR radio as compared to the number of liberal pundits who speak on AM talk radio? How are the conservatives treated on the "liberal" NPR as opposed to how the liberals are treated on AM talk radio? NPR portrays itself as unbiased news. It's ad sponsors are a veritable "who's who" of liberal and left wing foundations, (ie: The Pew Charitable Trust) ... with the exception of the American taxpayer! None of the conservative radio talk shows try to claim political neutrality, and none of them are "news" shows. They are up-front, provacative, and a nice addition to the national debate. Micheal Medved actually takes calls almost exclusively from opposing points of view and, of course, challenges them. Rush Limbaugh is primarily entertainment, with witty political satire. It is a hilarious show! ....but then, most who bash him have probably never actually listened to his full show, and merely rely on snippets and out of context quotes, fourth-hand, for their spoon-fed opinions. Sean Hannity is basically a juvenile idiot, with little in the way of debating skills or brains. Pure garbage. Bill ORilley is interesting and somewhat more balanced in his views, but his "know-it-all" attitude wears thin. (As opposed to Limbaugh's, which is always tounge-in-cheek.) Micheal Savage is beyond redemption. An extreme right winger in every sense. Don't forget Dave Ross (local) on KIRO AM....liberal. Also Mike Webb on KIRO....leftist. There are others too. The AM dial is not 100% "conservative". Regardless, talk shows are not news! (You seem to have a hard time with this concept, Matt.) FOX is surely right-leaning.....because there is a market for it. But they are no more right-of-center than CBS, NBC, ABC are left-of. Why is it, in the media, that conservatives are perfectly happy being called just that, while liberals never want to reveal or admit to such? Or they rename themselves "progressive" or some other innocuous label? Why is it that liberals are always the first to cry out for censorship (ie: talk radio) when they hear views with which they disagree? BTW Matt, I finished Blinded by the Right the other day. I'll let you know my thoughts soon. For now, I'll just say it was a good bathroom read. Really helped me with my nightly purge. Also, Kudos to CC.com for "promoting" PP to moderator. It's nice to have someone here to counter the views of another- certain-moderator who's name I shall not mention. Quote
hakioawa Posted October 18, 2003 Posted October 18, 2003 Fairweather said: NPR portrays itself as unbiased news. It's ad sponsors are a veritable "who's who" of liberal and left wing foundations, (ie: The Pew Charitable Trust) ... with the exception of the American taxpayer! None of the conservative radio talk shows try to claim political neutrality, and none of them are "news" shows. Fair enough. I know this has been posted befor, but I would say it shed light on this issue. Liberal vs. Conservative, Left vs. Right, Thinking vs. Reactionary, one wat to judge a news organization is determine its listeners/viewers/readers ability to judge realitiy. A recent poll indicates that 80% of frequent FOX news views have one or more major misconceptions about the war in Iraq whereas only about 23% of NPR listeners hold these same beliefs. To the extent that any of these news source tell the truth NPR is much closer to it than most and FOX as way out there. link You can argue that the study was conducted by the "liberal media" but if you accept it, its hard not to admit more liberal the media the less biased they are. Quote
Fairweather Posted October 18, 2003 Posted October 18, 2003 hakioawa said: Fairweather said: NPR portrays itself as unbiased news. It's ad sponsors are a veritable "who's who" of liberal and left wing foundations, (ie: The Pew Charitable Trust) ... with the exception of the American taxpayer! None of the conservative radio talk shows try to claim political neutrality, and none of them are "news" shows. Fair enough. I know this has been posted befor, but I would say it shed light on this issue. Liberal vs. Conservative, Left vs. Right, Thinking vs. Reactionary, one wat to judge a news organization is determine its listeners/viewers/readers ability to judge realitiy. A recent poll indicates that 80% of frequent FOX news views have one or more major misconceptions about the war in Iraq whereas only about 23% of NPR listeners hold these same beliefs. To the extent that any of these news source tell the truth NPR is much closer to it than most and FOX as way out there. link You can argue that the study was conducted by the "liberal media" but if you accept it, its hard not to admit more liberal the media the less biased they are. Good lord! "Truth Out.com" is your personal information source these days? I propose that you have no business bashing FOX if you get even a portion of your news diet from a site like that. Additionally I propose, that contrary to your statement, those on the left are more reactionary than thinking as demonstrated by their recent hysterics which rival those of the Michigan Militia! Quote
hakioawa Posted October 18, 2003 Posted October 18, 2003 Never been to that site before. I googled cause I remembered the study. I couldn't load the PDF from web page Yeah that site is a bit left of my taste. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.