Anyone watching C-SPAN?

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Well, this administration is not known for taking advice or information well that doesn't fit exactly into their plan. This plays right into what the Dem. was saying was that, the Generals are saying one thing behind closed doors and another thing to their bosses, etc.

I don't think the generals are saying we need more troops. But maybe we could form a second American Army in spite of them, make it from remnants of the anti-Bush crowd after they scream with glee that we are doubling our forces in theater and no doubt start volunteering in droves.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I don't think the generals are saying we need more troops. But maybe we could form a second American Army in spite of them, make it from remnants of the anti-Bush crowd after they scream with glee that we are doubling our forces in theater and no doubt start volunteering in droves.

See I would have thought that all pro-Bushers who have had a hardon for the war since before it started would have signed up to be overseas so there would be no shortage of soldiers and certainly no need to send people back for their 3rd and 4th tours but obviously that didn't happen. "We want war but uhhh I'm not going" seems to be pro-Bush side's mantra...

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Chubby

See I would have thought that all pro-Bushers who have had a hardon for the war since before it started would have signed up to be overseas so there would be no shortage of soldiers and certainly no need to send people back for their 3rd and 4th tours but obviously that didn't happen. "We want war but uhhh I'm not going" seems to be pro-Bush side's mantra...

Since you forget, I was in Turkey supporing Operation Northern Watch and Iraqi Freedom and while I am currently in a unit that does not deploy (my slot anyway), my next assignment in Germany will more than likely have me heading over on deployment. Back in the day I supported Operation Southern Watch from Saudi Arabia.

Although I don't want to be confused with front line troops like the Army and Marines, the Air Force is learning new tricks including escort and guard duties.

But anyway, if troops levels are doubled, I would welcome your direct support.

[Chubby]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Since you forget, I was in Turkey supporing Operation Northern Watch and Iraqi Freedom and while I am currently in a unit that does not deploy (my slot anyway), my next assignment in Germany will more than likely have me heading over on deployment. Back in the day I supported Operation Southern Watch from Saudi Arabia.

Although I don't want to be confused with front line troops like the Army and Marines, the Air Force is learning new tricks including escort and guard duties.

But anyway, if troops levels are doubled, I would welcome your direct support.

There's a difference, I don't support the war and I never have. As I said, i don't see all the people yelling "YAY WAR!" jumping into recruiting tents since if they were, I doubt people would be getting sent over as many times as they are and we wouldn't hear about recruitment being down.

Wow, in Turkey? Germany? Can you possibly get farther away from the action? Must be guarding some valuable stuff in Germany Big difference in being in Iraq/Afghan (not just front line but support there is far more dangerous as far as I can tell) and being in some other foreign country supporting from afar. Not to say that the support isn't needed but it's nowhere near the same thing. If you are so gungho about the war why haven't you gone to Iraq? Perhaps, you just want to be away from the action...

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Chubby

There's a difference, I don't support the war and I never have. As I said, i don't see all the people yelling "YAY WAR!" jumping into recruiting tents since if they were, I doubt people would be getting sent over as many times as they are and we wouldn't hear about recruitment being down.

Wow, in Turkey? Germany? Can you possibly get farther away from the action? Must be guarding some valuable stuff in Germany Big difference in being in Iraq/Afghan (not just front line but support there is far more dangerous as far as I can tell) and being in some other foreign country supporting from afar. Not to say that the support isn't needed but it's nowhere near the same thing. If you are so gungho about the war why haven't you gone to Iraq? Perhaps, you just want to be away from the action...

Thanks for that. I do want to be away from the action, that's why I joined the Air Force. But like I said, you still need to have people like me to help support those front line guys. You can join up and be a rear-echeolon comm troop yourself. But regardless, I've been in support roles enough to see buildings I was in bombed (Khobar Towers, a month after I left it) close enough to hear terror bombs going off in downtown Ankara at their justice department. I once had to search for my wife after she went shopping in downtown Ankara only to have a bomb go off in a coffee house in the exact same district she was in. One unidentified woman died and my wife was the only American the security forces could not make contact with for two-hours (her cell phone had simply been turned off), We had my apartment surveyed by Iraqi Intel Forces, my car was checked for bombs leaving our compound and also everytime we would go home. I've been close enough, enough to feel the fear anyway.

But I wasn't just there for no good reason. I did a lot of great work that I am proud of that increased the time Naval Task Forces in the Med could identify and interdict suspected shipping vessels. GWOT stuff.

Don't get me wrong, I haven't made the same sacrifices as the troops that are in Iraq and I've had plenty of good times in Turkey. But I want to at least think I've helped and done my part. And that is nothing that you should tell me I should be ashamed of.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Dutch

And that is nothing that you should tell me I should be ashamed of.

Just consider the source & forget about it.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Chubby

There's a difference, I don't support the war and I never have. As I said, i don't see all the people yelling "YAY WAR!" jumping into recruiting tents since if they were, I doubt people would be getting sent over as many times as they are and we wouldn't hear about recruitment being down.

Wow, in Turkey? Germany? Can you possibly get farther away from the action? Must be guarding some valuable stuff in Germany Big difference in being in Iraq/Afghan (not just front line but support there is far more dangerous as far as I can tell) and being in some other foreign country supporting from afar. Not to say that the support isn't needed but it's nowhere near the same thing. If you are so gungho about the war why haven't you gone to Iraq? Perhaps, you just want to be away from the action...

Do you have any idea how stupid that post makes you look?

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I don't think the generals are saying we need more troops. But maybe we could form a second American Army in spite of them, make it from remnants of the anti-Bush crowd after they scream with glee that we are doubling our forces in theater and no doubt start volunteering in droves.

LOL Have you heard it specifically from them to your face? If not, how can you believe it!! LOL if it goes one way, buy it, if it doesn't burn it...even though its the same. LOL

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Since you forget, I was in Turkey supporing Operation Northern Watch and Iraqi Freedom and while I am currently in a unit that does not deploy (my slot anyway), my next assignment in Germany will more than likely have me heading over on deployment. Back in the day I supported Operation Southern Watch from Saudi Arabia.

Although I don't want to be confused with front line troops like the Army and Marines, the Air Force is learning new tricks including escort and guard duties.

But anyway, if troops levels are doubled, I would welcome your direct support.

I would not question your patriotism for being a professional soldier and I appreciate your sacrifices and opinion, and never have made light of that fact (although once you interpreted it as so). Please dont question my patriotism for not being a professional soldier and having a different opinion, I support the troops the best I can. This is not Red Dawn.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by CHEMICAL SOLDIER

I have yet to find a copy of the resolution online. Anyone with better google skills and, eyesight than I do please post it here. thanks.

This was a Republican political ploy that backfired. They took Murtha's resolution:

Whereas Congress and the American People have not been shown clear, measurable progress toward establishment of stable and improving security in Iraq or of a stable and improving economy in Iraq, both of which are essential to "promote the emergence of a democratic government";

Whereas additional stabilization in Iraq by U, S. military forces cannot be achieved without the deployment of hundreds of thousands of additional U S. troops, which in turn cannot be achieved without a military draft;

Whereas more than $277 billion has been appropriated by the United States Congress to prosecute U.S. military action in Iraq and Afghanistan;

Whereas, as of the drafting of this resolution, 2,079 U.S. troops have been killed in Operation Iraqi Freedom;

Whereas U.S. forces have become the target of the insurgency,

Whereas, according to recent polls, over 80% of the Iraqi people want U.S. forces out of Iraq;

Whereas polls also indicate that 45% of the Iraqi people feel that the attacks on U.S. forces are justified;

Whereas, due to the foregoing, Congress finds it evident that continuing U.S. military action in Iraq is not in the best interests of the United States of America, the people of Iraq, or the Persian Gulf Region, which were cited in Public Law 107-243 as justification for undertaking such action;

Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That:

Section 1. The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated and the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date.

Section 2. A quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S Marines shall be deployed in the region.

Section 3 The United States of America shall pursue security and stability in Iraq through diplomacy.

And rewrote it thusly:

RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that
the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately.

Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the deployment of United States forces
in Iraq be terminated immediately.

Astute observers will notice some differences. Yes, the GOP called the second the 'Murtha Resolution' and the 'Democrats resolution'. The GOP attempted to divide the Democrats on the question of pulling out of Iraq, but it backfired and the Dems were unified against it. The only tangible thing that happened was a freshman congresswoman needing to strike her comments from the record after calling Murtha a coward. Classy.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

What it was was honest. And to the point. And spot on accurate.

I don't see the connection. How are Murtha's comments cowardly? He isn't over there fighting. His life isn't on the line. He'll be fine if the war ends tomorrow or ten years from now.

Edit: Is this guy a coward too?

The top U.S. commander in Iraq has submitted a plan to the Pentagon for withdrawing troops in Iraq, according to a senior defense official.

Gen. George Casey submitted the plan to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. It includes numerous options and recommends that brigades -- usually made up of about 2,000 soldiers each -- begin pulling out of Iraq early next year.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

I don't see the connection. How are Murtha's comments cowardly? He isn't over there fighting. His life isn't on the line. He'll be fine if the war ends tomorrow or ten years from now.

This is what I do not get. If the woman feels so strongly about the war, then she should join, not calling other people cowards, escp. to one who HAS served and knows what war is like.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

If the woman feels so strongly about the war, then she should join, not calling other people cowards, escp. to one who HAS served and knows what war is like.

Just because someone HAS served doesn't mean that they've retained their courage, their judgement, or their intellect.

Still, as far as I can tell, he's not so much a coward as he is a damned fool ... but that seems to be a celebrated quality these days.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Still, as far as I can tell, he's not so much a coward as he is a damned fool ... but that seems to be a celebrated quality these days.

Just look at the President.

/thanks for the set-up!

[Dutch]

Please dont question my patriotism for not being a professional soldier and having a different opinion

I never have, Flasch.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I never have, Flasch.

IMO, which as always could be wrong, your insinuation is that one cannot speak out in support/be against the war unless he or she is willing to sign up for said war and that this is a reflection of one's patriotism. While what I got from that could be wrong, it is an easy comment to insinuate when in such an emotional debate, and one that can be easily forgiven by people like me. If you didnt insinuate that from "direct support" than thats cool.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Just look at the President.

/thanks for the set-up!

LOL! That was nice .

[CHEMICAL SOLDIER]

I wonder what historians will think of early 21st century America 100-200 years from now? Though against immediate pull out I respect rep. Murtha and, his questioning of the planning or lack thereof of any long term plans in I-RAQ.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

IMO, which as always could be wrong, your insinuation is that one cannot speak out in support/be against the war unless he or she is willing to sign up for said war and that this is a reflection of one's patriotism.

If you got that insinuation from me, I'm sorry. I have always supported getting ALL the facts and ALL the opinions. I am vehemently opposed to silencing anybody.

While what I got from that could be wrong, it is an easy comment to insinuate when in such an emotional debate, and one that can be easily forgiven by people like me. If you didnt insinuate that from "direct support" than thats cool.

And by "direct support", that was for Chubby not you. It would be eye-opening for him, if he chose to do so. There are plenty of Democrats in the armed services, but not so many far left wingers.

[JPhillips]

So what are the war shouters going to do next year?

The way I see it we will start some sort of pullout early to mid 2006 which will get us down to at least half our current strength by the year's end. This will be in part because we are failing so miserably in recruiting that we can't continue at current strength without a draft, and that isn't happening. It will also be needed to try to hold on to Rep. majorities in congress. The President really doesn't have any popular policies up his sleeve and the only big gun the party has is to neutralize the Iraq war. Without another large scale terrorist attack its the only way the Reps. can be resonably sure of holding onto congress.

I predict an announcement at the State of the Union that now that Iraq has held elections our work is nearing completion. We've won and now we can start to come home. A complete timetable won't be announced, but the first troops will come home no later than July and since they won't be in coffins Bush will be there to greet them.

When that happens will you call Bush a traitor? Will an extra two months really make that big a difference?

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

So what are the war shouters going to do next year?

The way I see it we will start some sort of pullout early to mid 2006 which will get us down to at least half our current strength by the year's end. This will be in part because we are failing so miserably in recruiting that we can't continue at current strength without a draft, and that isn't happening. It will also be needed to try to hold on to Rep. majorities in congress. The President really doesn't have any popular policies up his sleeve and the only big gun the party has is to neutralize the Iraq war. Without another large scale terrorist attack its the only way the Reps. can be resonably sure of holding onto congress.

I predict an announcement at the State of the Union that now that Iraq has held elections our work is nearing completion. We've won and now we can start to come home. A complete timetable won't be announced, but the first troops will come home no later than July and since they won't be in coffins Bush will be there to greet them.

When that happens will you call Bush a traitor? Will an extra two months really make that big a difference?

Again, this is why I insist the media give both sides of the story.

[Flasch186]

they do, youve got AP and Reuters (written) and CNN...IYO representing the left

and WSJ and NYT (written) and FOXNEWS...IMO representing the right


Seems equal to me.

[st.cronin]

I'm a little bit suspicious of the 'recruiting problems' stories we keep hearing about. I saw a story a month or so back saying that the armed forces have already exceeded their RETENTION goals for the year, and I know about 1/2 dozen recruiters around the country - all of them have told me the stories are overblown.

[JPhillips]

What I have read shows that overall recruiting is under goals, but it isn't terrible. The real problem apparently is specific jobs that aren't getting filled. Special forces, translators and some other jobs are a third or more under goal. We can't keep up like that for very long.

But even if recruiting is solid we can't maintain this for much longer without changes in personnel structure. The guard and reserve are close to the breaking point according to the military and we can't stay deployed without them. We also are severely stretched right now and our ability to deal with a crisis is limited. How long can we afford to be "all Iraq" with little resources to spare if something unexpected occurred?

According to reports a withdrawal plan has already been submitted to Rumsfeld and the British are likely to start leaving in 2006. We can't cover their responsibilities so we either declare the south won and the rest not won or we join them. Really shortly after the elections may be our last time to leave on our timetable. What other event will signal that we've done our job? If we don't start leaving after the elections when can we without appearing to be cutting and running? We can't count on things ever getting completely stable and we certainly don't want to drift away ala Vietnam with no doubt that we're really just too tired to continue.

I will be shocked if these December elections don't lead to a phased pull-back. If they don't we're in for even deeper problems than we have now.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

What I have read shows that overall recruiting is under goals, but it isn't terrible. The real problem apparently is specific jobs that aren't getting filled. Special forces, translators and some other jobs are a third or more under goal.

Special Forces has routinely been only 1/2 to 3/4 filled regardless of what the overall recruiting picture looks like. I served in Special Forces when the military was being downsized, and my unit was never at more than 1/2 capacity. I believe translators is a similiar situation.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

they do, youve got AP and Reuters (written) and CNN...IYO representing the left

and WSJ and NYT (written) and FOXNEWS...IMO representing the right


Seems equal to me.

ABC, CBS, and NBC are very anti-Bush.

Most major newspapers cater to their Democratic base, I suppose they have to do that. I'm not sure who reads the WSJ. I wonder how many people have access to the WSJ compared to say....the AP or Reuters?

The NYT's is a right-wing rag? That's news to me. I've got a book that has major NYT headlines from the past 100 years. The majority of the pages over the last 20 or 30 years are not what I would consider slanted right.

Actually, the following link shows research done on the NYT photo bias. It was done during the run-up to the election in the New England version of the NYT. Doesn't seem very right wing either, it's actually, it's kind of an interesting look at bias. (I admit I love thinking about shit like this.) Check it out. I have no idea what this site is about, I just stumbled across it doing a Yahoo! search last week.

http://www.velocityassociates.net/pages/Bushkerry.php

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Special Forces has routinely been only 1/2 to 3/4 filled regardless of what the overall recruiting picture looks like. I served in Special Forces when the military was being downsized, and my unit was never at more than 1/2 capacity. I believe translators is a similiar situation.

Translators, especially Arab linguists in today's world. The problem is finding people that can speak Arabic AND can manage a security clearance. No easy task. The choice then to to train people to speak Arabic, but that's a bitch because most of the terrorists use dialects (purposefully). It's not easy to get people in those slots.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Dutch

ABC, CBS, and NBC are very anti-Bush.

Actually, if that is your opinion, a more fair and balanced way to state it would be that they 'reflect the general view of the population'.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

Actually, if that is your opinion, a more fair and balanced way to state it would be that they 'reflect the general view of the population'.

Considering poll numbers, that is not an inaccurate statement. One may say that, in general, news tends to be sensational and negative and, by luck of timing right now, "Anti Bush". However if a democrat were in office, I believe, the news would read the same and the dems. would be bitching too.

Dutch, I firmly believe that you can find the news youre looking for. You just have to turn to the right channel. Fox NEws has had many news items exposed as being popularized by the Republican party, whether true or not...I dont ask them to shut down. However to try and say that MOST news is "anti Bush" is ridonkulous. I smell a thread hijack anyways. The fact of the matter is:


Murtha made his opinion known.

Murtha stating that is no less patriotic or supporting of the troops than anyone else.

The republican senator, to her lack of experience, made a mistake. She is forgiven.

The resolution was a Republican political ploy intended to split the dems.

The vote showed that it didnt work in that regard.

The Speaker of the house lied on television (my Sensitivity)

The vote showed that the House does not want the troops pulled out immediately (Republican resoultion)

The vote did not reflect whether or not the house wants a timeline or gameplan (whether or not they do or dont was not shown by this resolution).

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Considering poll numbers, that is not an inaccurate statement. One may say that, in general, news tends to be sensational and negative and, by luck of timing right now, "Anti Bush". However if a democrat were in office, I believe, the news would read the same and the dems. would be bitching too.

If the news media is reflective of the general population, then why didn't Kerry win in 2004?

Here is the Center of Media and Public Affiars (CMPA) findings about the coverage provided by ABC, CBS, and NBC from September 7 to November 22 of 2004. It's an evaluation of 828 sound bites by sources and reporters and the analysis is done by CMPA and the study is a continuation of studies done by George Washington Researchers that developed this analysis during the 1980 and 1984 campaigns.

1. John Kerry - 58% positive evaluations vs 42% negative. According to this study, that's the best press any candidate has received since the study began in 1980.

2. George Bush - 36% positive evaluations vs 64% negative in the same period.

3. October Surprise? - Kerry received 77% positive evaluations in October '04 vs 34% for Bush.

4. Before John Kerry, the record holder for most positive press was Walter Mondale with 56% positive press (While Reagan in the same year received only 9% positive press). Incumbents don't always find themselves on the short end of the stick. In 1996, President Clinton received 50% positive compared to just 33% for Dole.

5. In the past 7 elections, the Democratic candidate has gotten significantly better press in four elections (Kerry, Clinton 92 and 96, and Mondale) while only Bush Sr (over Dukakis) received a higher press rating as a Republican. Bush/Gore and Carter/Reagan were considered even/fair press in 2000 and 1980 repsectively.

6. Majority is negative: 10 out of the 14 primary candiates have received primarily negative press, including all seven Republican candidates.

http://www.cmpa.com/documents/04.10.29.Kerry.Final.pdf

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Dutch

If the news media is reflective of the general population, then why didn't Kerry win in 2004?

Fear...remember the Bush campaign ad with the wolves in it, ready to prey on a weakened America. Vote for Kerry and you'll weaken America....and more. "Kerry voted to raise taxes" ~300 plus times. This counted a "NO" vote on the same bill multiple times, for each line itme that wouldve been reduced or increased...and the same bills that were unanimously (or close thereof) rejected by everyone. While not necessarily a blatant lie, perception or inferences DO exist and the spin geniuses and marketers know this...

The RNC had Zell Miller on stage to ream and ridicule Kerry on Live TV. unfortunately what most people didnt get to see, was the Zell Miller introduced Kerry at a convention in Georgia just a few years earlier as "a true hero" and "someone he is proud to introduce" and more accolades. All of this post 9/11 so he cant say, epiphany. He can say, changed mind, convinced otherwise, or lying.

Smear...The Swift Boat lies coupled with the Kerry camp's zombie like responses to them. BTW, the leadership of the Swift Boat group is linked with PAC's for indicted DeLay.

Queer...In many toss up states mailouts were sent that said that if Kerry were elected the bible would be banned and Gay Marriage would become a cornerstone of that community. Also, sprinkle in Rove's genius in pushing the churches to come out and vote against Gay Marriage ammendments. Little known is that many preachers used politics from the pulpit, a federal statute says if this occurs, that church would lose its Federal Tax exemption....that hasnt happened yet.

Those are just a few boiled down reasons (taken from Franken's book) but they existed and that is not rewriting history. That is factual stuff.




Ive already exhausted my explanation about the ADD America and the ability for the Republicans to boild their message down to a snippet. May be untrue in that snippet, ie. Iraq and Al Qaeda are linked prior to the invasion., but effective nonetheless (Cheney apologized the next day after the debate - but not on Live TV). The DNC's was unable to boil their message down and it became to long to explain as compared to the ease in which the RNC was able to do this.

[Dutch]

So then the news media being reflective of the population is inaccurate?

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Dutch

So then the news media being reflective of the population is inaccurate?

accurate only specifically today in that the majority of Americans feel it was a mistake to go to war (in hindsight) and the news media is exposing and exploiting the news regarding that matter. Keep in mind, I dont agree with their sentiment. I was and am for the war in Iraq.

News media can easily be manipulated AND I was not necessarily being specific to only NEWS in my statements. That included Advertisments, debates, speeches, etc. So I guess, I was only Specifically answering your question as a vanilla, "Why did Bush win?" sorry

EDIT to add: PLUS I hope youre not drawing a correlation between those that voted for Bush and those who are supporting the War in Iraq. People are alloowed to change their minds, evolve, adapt, Flip Flop, per se. So I hope youre not saying that a voice against the war is contradictory to a vote for Bush in the last election.

[Dutch]

accurate only specifically today in that the majority of Americans feel it was a mistake to go to war (in hindsight) and the news media is exposing and exploiting the news regarding that matter. Keep in mind, I dont agree with their sentiment.

How much of their opinion is based on the news coverage? Lots of bad press about Republicans, lots of bad press about Buhs, lots of bad press about "The Resistance fighting off US Troops and Iraqi Nationals" (i.e. Terrorists IED and Suicide Bombers).

Is the press attempting to mimick society or is the press attempting to manipulate society? The use of Mass Media to change peoples minds is as old as the Nazi Empire. That is why a Free Press is so important. But a free press isn't simply to be used against the government or worse yet, against one political party/endorsed by another. That's not it's purpose. It's purpose, as protected by the US Constitution is to tell us the truth. The whole truth. Sensationalism was never the goal of constitutional protection. For instance, if Cheney says he wants to torture people, by God, I want the press to tell me where he said that. Give me both sides of the story so I can be the judge. Don't leave me out of the process. The press needs to give all of us a chance to make our decisions about things. I don't want the press to tell me what they think, but what they know.

Who should we trust the most as moderates? It should be the Associated Press, Reuters, ABC, NBC, CBS and our city newspapers. But all of those respected institutions are strong endorsers of the Democratic party and have been for a long, long time. I doubt it will ever change, but I see no reason why people should not, at the very least, be aware of it.

I was and am for the war in Iraq.

And I was and am against the war. I simply saw and see no other course of action.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Dutch

How much of their opinion is based on the news coverage? Lots of bad press about Republicans, lots of bad press about Buhs, lots of bad press about "The Resistance fighting off US Troops and Iraqi Nationals" (i.e. Terrorists IED and Suicide Bombers).

Is the press attempting to mimick society or is the press attempting to manipulate society? The use of Mass Media to change peoples minds is as old as the Nazi Empire. That is why a Free Press is so important. But a free press isn't simply to be used against the government or worse yet, against one political party/endorsed by another. That's not it's purpose. It's purpose, as protected by the US Constitution is to tell us the truth. The whole truth. Sensationalism was never the goal of constitutional protection. For instance, if Cheney says he wants to torture people, by God, I want the press to tell me where he said that. Give me both sides of the story so I can be the judge. Don't leave me out of the process. The press needs to give all of us a chance to make our decisions about things. I don't want the press to tell me what they think, but what they know.

Who should we trust the most as moderates? It should be the Associated Press, Reuters, ABC, NBC, CBS and our city newspapers. But all of those respected institutions are strong endorsers of the Democratic party and have been for a long, long time. I doubt it will ever change, but I see no reason why people should not, at the very least, be aware of it.



And I was and am against the war. I simply saw and see no other course of action.

deleted it all to say

I agree and disagree, the press IMO does shell it out equally to both sides, BUT slanted towards what is sensational and gets ratings. I believe it is a truth, and is not the cause of societies feelings but an expression of them. I venture to guess that you felt the same as I do, but with a different color in Congress and in the White House.

I DO NOT believe that for the most part the PRESS as whole supports the left. ITs just not true. Ask Rush....Or Bill, or Sean, or Fox News. Books, the Coultures, etc. Its even, BUT the sensational is what grabs time.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

deleted it all to say

I agree and disagree, the press IMO does shell it out equally to both sides, BUT slanted towards what is sensational and gets ratings. I believe it is a truth, and is not the cause of societies feelings but an expression of them. I venture to guess that you felt the same as I do, but with a different color in Congress and in the White House.

I DO NOT believe that for the most part the PRESS as whole supports the left. ITs just not true. Ask Rush....Or Bill, or Sean, or Fox News. Books, the Coultures, etc. Its even, BUT the sensational is what grabs time.

You keep coming back to FoxNews. Your entire definition of "equal balance" is one news station on channel 360? (On direct TV it is).

Just this week a girl at work says she watches TV by starting on channel 2 and going up until she finds something she likes. I bet she doesn't get a lot of FoxNews.

Rush Limbaugh? You consider him a respectable news source like the AP and Reuters? I don't. He's a right-wing hack, not a provider of news. He's no better than Michael Moore. Of course, now that we mention that, Michael Moore wins awards for his crap and gets exclusive interviews on CNN while Rush is well.....fairly called a political hack.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Dutch

You keep coming back to FoxNews. Your entire definition of "equal balance" is one news station on channel 360? (On direct TV it is).

Just this week a girl at work says she watches TV by starting on channel 2 and going up until she finds something she likes. I bet she doesn't get a lot of FoxNews.

Jeez, well I guess you can only have one channel on one channel. If CNN were 300 and FoxNEws 301, I guess people would have something to bitch about too. Im sorry If I find that ridiculous....how about people who press up on the controller. Thats just silly.

Originally Posted by dutch

Rush Limbaugh? You consider him a respectable news source like the AP and Reuters? I don't. He's a right-wing hack, not a provider of news. He's no better than Michael Moore. Of course, now that we mention that, Michael Moore wins awards for his crap and gets exclusive interviews on CNN while Rush is well.....fairly called a political hack.

While Im glad to see that you dont get your news from Rush but ALOT of people do. Mostly his base, but still. Moore makes films, if something is a good documentary, no matter the topic or slant, I assume it could be up for awards. To be honest, if Rush or anyone makes a documentary from the other slant, in quality, then I would assume it could be up for some awards too. I dont get my news from Moore, but I do get my News from sources, so anyways....

[Flasch186]

Very good.


Bush Lowers Temperature of Iraq War Debate

By TERENCE HUNT, AP White House Correspondent 1 hour, 40 minutes ago

BEIJING - After fiercely defending his
Iraq policy across Asia,
President Bush abruptly toned down his attack on war critics Sunday and said there was nothing unpatriotic about opposing his strategy.

"People should feel comfortable about expressing their opinions about Iraq," Bush said, three days after agreeing with Vice President
Dick Cheney that the critics were "reprehensible."

The president also praised Rep. John Murtha (news, bio, voting record), D-Pa., as "a fine man" and a strong supporter of the military despite the congressman's call for troop withdrawal as soon as possible.

Bush brought up the growing Iraq debate when he met reporters after inconclusive talks with President
Hu Jintao about friction in U.S.-China relations. Bush ran into stiff resistance from the Chinese to his call for expanding religious freedom and human rights.

He also reported no breakthroughs toward reducing China's massive trade surplus, overhauling its currency system or protecting intellectual property rights.

The president took satisfaction simply in the fact that Hu mentioned human rights when the two leaders made joint statements to the press. "Those who watch China closely would say that maybe a decade ago, a leader wouldn't have uttered those comments," Bush said. "He talked about democracy."

Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice complained that "we've certainly not seen the progress that we would expect" on a months-old U.S. request for action by China on specific human rights cases. Bush said the U.S. had presented a list of "dissidents that we believe are unfairly imprisoned."

China was the most anticipated stop on Bush's weeklong visit, which has included Japan and
South Korea.

Bush flies home on Monday after a four-hour stop in Mongolia, the first ever by an American president. The brief visit is a reward for Mongolia's pursuit of democracy and support for the U.S. fight against terrorism.

The president packed a lot into his Beijing visit.

In a country where the practice of religion is harshly restricted, Bush worshipped at a church and complimented the preacher on her sermon. He went mountain bike-riding with six young athletes vying for spots on China's Olympic team. "How do you say, `Take it easy on the old man,'" Bush joked.

When a reporter suggested Bush had seemed unenthusiastic in his joint appearance with Hu, the president responded, "Have you ever heard of jet lag?"

Thousands of miles from home, Bush and other White House officials have not let a day go by without a tough counterattack against Democratic critics of the president's Iraq policies. But the president replaced the no-holds-barred approach with a softer tone Sunday.

"I heard somebody say, `Well, maybe so-and-so is not patriotic because they disagree with my position.' I totally reject that thought," Bush said.

"This is not an issue of who's patriotic and who's not patriotic," he said. "It's an issue of an honest, open debate about the way forward in Iraq."

The Iraq war has undercut Americans' confidence in Bush's credibility and his response to terrorism and has helped drop his approval rating to the lowest point of his presidency. Nearly 2,100 members of the U.S. military have died since the Iraq war began in March 2003.

Bush came to the defense of Murtha, the hawkish congressman who has been denounced by Republicans for advocating withdrawal. Bush's own spokesman had compared the combat-decorated Vietnam veteran to war critic-movie producer Michael Moore and suggested Murtha was counseling surrender to terrorists.

On Sunday, Bush called Murtha a "fine man and a good man."

"I know the decision to call for the immediate withdrawal of our troops by Congressman Murtha was done in a careful and thoughtful way," the president said. "I disagree with his position."

Murtha told NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday he hoped the administration would take his proposal seriously and the president would "get a few of us to the White House and talk to us about this very difficult problem which the whole nation wants to solve with a bipartisan manner."

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

"I know the decision to call for the immediate withdrawal of our troops by Congressman Murtha was done in a careful and thoughtful way," the president said. "I disagree with his position."

Murtha's call for immediate withdrawal?

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Murtha's call for immediate withdrawal?

he's (Bush) speaking incorrectly... Its politically motivated, luckily it seems most Americans are actually astute on this particular event. The Republican Resolution called for an Immediate removal, soundly rejected. Murtha's called for the pullout to be staged and hopefully be over in 6 months, not presented as a resolution.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

he's (Bush) speaking incorrectly... Its politically motivated, luckily it seems most Americans are actually astute on this particular event. The Republican Resolution called for an Immediate removal, soundly rejected. Murtha's called for the pullout to be staged and hopefully be over in 6 months, not presented as a resolution.

Being well informed is a beautiful thing.

[Dutch]

Jeez, well I guess you can only have one channel on one channel. If CNN were 300 and FoxNEws 301, I guess people would have something to bitch about too. Im sorry If I find that ridiculous....how about people who press up on the controller. Thats just silly.

I was pointing out how few people actually watch FoxNews for their news vs ABC, CBS, and NBC. I'll make a trade. Let the bias be for Republicans on ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, all major newspapers, the AP, and Reuters, and you can have FoxNews. At least it will still be equal, right?

[Tekneek]

"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

-- Hermann Goering

I used to vote Republican when there was no Libertarian candidate available, but they make me sick as they continue to take the Hermann Goering stance on dealing with criticism against the Iraq operation. I would probably have a hard time voting for a Republican for anything at this point.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I was pointing out how few people actually watch FoxNews for their news vs ABC, CBS, and NBC. I'll make a trade. Let the bias be for Republicans on ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, all major newspapers, the AP, and Reuters, and you can have FoxNews. At least it will still be equal, right?

Let me analyze this trade because initially I dont think the major News outlets or the major papers are slanted one way or the other, unequally, in that they aren't cancelled out by another paper elsewhere, or outlet.

.......

It wouldnt be a fair trade because you would be labeling some that I dont think are biased, as biased. The only one's that are certainly slanted are CNN and FOXNEWS. Whats funny is, righties hate CNN at times when the right is in power, because CNN would ask the tough questions and it would be vice versa when the left is in power.

You say its all not fair. I disagree. I wish I couldve heard you when you guys were drilling Clinton daily. Ill bet your tune was a lot different then.

[Flasch186]

DOLA LOL

I think the propblem is you view sensationalism, negative, or rating grabbing news as slanted. I view it as opportunistic and it would be the same no matter who is in power. Theyre all trying to expose something, get the news first, show something that hasnt been seen. That is not politically motivated as much as it is financially motivated.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Flasch186

Let me analyze this trade because initially I dont think the major News outlets or the major papers are slanted one way or the other, unequally, in that they aren't cancelled out by another paper elsewhere, or outlet.

.......

It wouldnt be a fair trade because you would be labeling some that I dont think are biased, as biased. The only one's that are certainly slanted are CNN and FOXNEWS. Whats funny is, righties hate CNN at times when the right is in power, because CNN would ask the tough questions and it would be vice versa when the left is in power.

You say its all not fair. I disagree. I wish I couldve heard you when you guys were drilling Clinton daily. Ill bet your tune was a lot different then.

Okay, let's compromise. I don't think FoxNews is biased. Are we back on track?

Give me a break. I've shown you were ABC, NBC, and CBS are biased. I have seen nothing from you to say those numbers are wrong.

[Dutch]

Dola: Generally, Saturday and Sunday are really bad days for bias at the Yahoo! News site. Today they have been exceptionally balanced. Very unusual.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Who should we trust the most as moderates? It should be the Associated Press, Reuters, ABC, NBC, CBS and our city newspapers. But all of those respected institutions are strong endorsers of the Democratic party and have been for a long, long time. I doubt it will ever change, but I see no reason why people should not, at the very least, be aware of it.

The mainstream media is not liberally biased.

[Flasch186]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Okay, let's compromise. I don't think FoxNews is biased. Are we back on track?

Give me a break. I've shown you were ABC, NBC, and CBS are biased. I have seen nothing from you to say those numbers are wrong.

I have said that it IS slanted towards sensarionalism and negative news in general. If a Dem. were in office they would be dragging him/her over the coals too. It is about moneya nd ratings, not political party.

[Glengoyne]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

The mainstream media is liberally biased.

There. Now we agree.