|
|
|
|
|
| What does the term Liberal Media mean to you
Posted: 3/23/2008 7:07:55 PM | People in the know (you know people who don't watch fox) were quite aware that chemical weapons have a shelf life. Much shorter than 10 years. Hmmm apparently not everyone "in the know" attended the meeting on WMD's...
This from Bill Clinton's 1998 State of the union address....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/states/docs/sou98.htm
"Together, we must also confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons and the outlaw states, terrorists, and organized criminals seeking to acquire them.
Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade and much of his nation's wealth not on providing for the Iraqi people but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. The United Nations weapons inspectors have done a truly remarkable job, finding and destroying more of Iraq's arsenal than was destroyed during the entire Gulf War. Now, Saddam Hussein wants to stop them from completing their mission.
I know I speak for everyone in this chamber, Republicans and Democrats, when I say to Saddam Hussein: You cannot defy the will of the world. And when I say to him: You have used weapons of mass destruction before. We are determined to deny you the capacity to use them again. "
All chemicals have a limited shelf life for full potency, however some chemicals, though 99% depleted of strength are still potentially lethal. Under proper storage conditions, the decompostion of any chemical substance can be significantly slowed... Apparently 7 to 10 years, with a totally harmless date certain of January 19th, 2001 (the Day Clinton left office), well ... according to people "in the know" anyway.
 | |
|
| What does the term Liberal Media mean to you
Posted: 3/24/2008 6:12:51 AM | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On February 15, 1898, the USS MAINE exploded and sank in Havana Harbor. What caused the sinking has been a subject of debate ever since. What is known is that, in the tragedy, 260 American naval personnel were killed or wounded.
With this event the Spanish American War was started
The term "yellow journalism" became very popular back then
Who actually sank the Maine was never determined .
America's wealthy wanted this war with Spain ~ some think that we blew up our own ship to get it started ~ we know for sure ~ somebody did!
The much of the Media at the time ~(The name William R. Hurst come to mind.)
took advantage of the people's out rage ~
The media offered much support for the war. ~ It was very one-sided ~ there was a taking of side ~ patriototism ran high . Yet some people were slow to accept that Spain was at fault. ~
The media ~ pushed ~ & pushed ~ hence the term "Yellow Journalism"
In that day ~ We had a steel navy ~ and the Spainards a wooden navy ~
Why would Spain do such a foolish thing?
Needless to say ~ the war didn't last very long ~ Just long enough for a few Wealthy American to get what they wanted.
And here we are again Jim ~ different verse ~ same as the first.
Instead of you seeing a liberal media ~ what you are looking at is "Yellow Journalism"
The power of a few ~ and influence and money ~
I admire your salt ~ but you've be dupped ~ You are all over the place with your defence ~ and yes , Saddam was a mean , nasty man ~ I'm glad he's gone ~
But thats not the head I want! ~ bring me Osama!!! Direct your focus.
dar ~ I'll offer you no more Jim ~ | |
|
| What does the term Liberal Media mean to you
Posted: 3/24/2008 9:10:09 AM | Before I dissect your post, who is this Jim you keep referring to?
On February 15, 1898, the USS MAINE exploded and sank in Havana Harbor. What caused the sinking has been a subject of debate ever since. What is known is that, in the tragedy, 260 American naval personnel were killed or wounded.
With this event the Spanish American War was started
The term "yellow journalism" became very popular back then Right, it began as a comparison reference to a cartoon character (Hogan’s Alley) depicting the "street" circulation wars between Hearst and Pulitzer in NY.
Who actually sank the Maine was never determined . Probably George Bush, he is responsible for all the evils in the world....
America's wealthy wanted this war with Spain ~ some think that we blew up our own ship to get it started ~ we know for sure ~ somebody did!
The much of the Media at the time ~(The name William R. Hurst come to mind.)
took advantage of the people's out rage ~ To sell papers ... Hearst was a newspaper publisher, not a military contractor. There is a difference between profiting and profiteering.... I am unaware of any company that switches to "humanitarian" mode during military conflict.
The media offered much support for the war. ~ It was very one-sided ~ there was a taking of side ~ patriototism ran high . Yet some people were slow to accept that Spain was at fault. ~
The media ~ pushed ~ & pushed ~ hence the term "Yellow Journalism"
In that day ~ We had a steel navy ~ and the Spainards a wooden navy ~
Why would Spain do such a foolish thing?
Needless to say ~ the war didn't last very long ~ Just long enough for a few Wealthy American to get what they wanted.
And here we are again Jim ~ different verse ~ same as the first.
Instead of you seeing a liberal media ~ what you are looking at is "Yellow Journalism"
The power of a few ~ and influence and money ~ Ummmm you might want to do a little more research, Hearst was a staunch Democratic supporter, and actually ran articles in his papers calling for the assassination of William McKinley. It sort of screwed up his democratic candidacy for President when McKinley actually was assassinated....
In addition, the impact of "yellow journalism" was pretty much a local market issue:
Moreover, journalism historians have noted that yellow journalism was largely confined to New York City, and that newspapers in the rest of the country did not follow their lead. The Journal and the World were not among the top ten sources of news in regional papers, and the stories simply did not make a splash outside Gotham.
I admire your salt ~ but you've be dupped ~ You are all over the place with your defence ~ and yes , Saddam was a mean , nasty man ~ I'm glad he's gone ~ I've been duped? Clinton said he had them, Bush said they had them, Hillary said he had them, then when we didn't find an amount suitable to answer for justification to the left, BUSH is the one who lied, tell me again, how is it "I" was duped...
Bush stuck with his initial position and has continued to press for support for the war in Iraq. Kerry, and numerous others such as Pelosi, Reid and Clinton claim there was never evidence to support any military action against Iraq, that all evidence was fabricated by Bush ... apparently even what they used in 1998, three years before Bush even took office. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't all of the above campaign extensively in ’04 and ’06 on the subject and PROMISED if you voted for them, and other Democrats they endorsed, that they would promptly end the war... since then they have voted no less than three times each to increase funding for the war effort (4 for Pelosi and Reid, only 3 times for Clinton because the last vote was part of the election year....) Please, tell me again how gullible I am.....
How is it that I’m all over the place with my defense? Because I shine a little light on half truths and editorializations masquerading for fact? C’mon Dar, surely you are reasonable enough to see that thinking someone lied (Bush) is far more subjective than being able to prove someone has (Pelosi, Reid, Clinton, Kerry and on and on according to the Congressional Record). There is an abundance of proof that liberal bias exists in the media. There is indisputable proof that all current Democratic leaders in Washington are hypocrites and liars; yet the media reports absolutely nothing about the conflicts between campaign promises and actual voting records. You may think it about Bush, but anyone with half a brain and a decent search engine can prove beyond even the shadow of a reasonable doubt about the Democrats… You're not even considering the total absence of any credibility of the very ones accusing Bush.
But thats not the head I want! ~ bring me Osama!!! Direct your focus. Muslim terrorism will not end with the demise of Bin Laden, any more than liberalism died with JFK or conservatism with Ronald Reagan....
 | |
|
| What does the term Liberal Media mean to you
Posted: 3/24/2008 9:51:01 AM |
I've been duped? Clinton said he had them, Bush said they had them, Hillary said he had them, then when we didn't find an amount suitable to answer for justification to the left, BUSH is the one who lied, tell me again, how is it "I" was duped...
Because UN inspectors, who were on the ground, were warned to leave because the war was about to start - before they'd finished, and without being barred from visiting sites ?
Bush stuck with his initial position and has continued to press for support for the war in Iraq. Kerry, and numerous others such as Pelosi, Reid and Clinton claim there was never evidence to support any military action against Iraq, that all evidence was fabricated by Bush ... apparently even what they used in 1998, three years before Bush even took office.
And , the UN program to eliminate WMD's had worked :
stated that the WMDs Saddam had in his possession all those years ago has long since turned to harmless substances. Sarin and tabun have a shelf life of five years, VX lasts a bit longer (but not much longer), and finally botulinum toxin and liquid anthrax last about three years. On March 7, 2003, Hans Blix's last report to the UN security Council prior to the US led invasion of Iraq, described Iraq as actively and proactively cooperating with UNMOVIC, though not necessarily in all areas of relevance and had been frequently uncooperative in the past, but that it was within months of resolving key remaining disarmament tasks.
All that remained was to continue the investigation, but that was not allowed.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't all of the above campaign extensively in ’04 and ’06 on the subject and PROMISED if you voted for them, and other Democrats they endorsed, that they would promptly end the war... since then they have voted no less than three times each to increase funding for the war effort (4 for Pelosi and Reid, only 3 times for Clinton because the last vote was part of the election year....) Please, tell me again how gullible I am.....
Pretty gullible (well, you did ask  )
And what happened concerning votes on ending the war ?
Bush-Republican Intransigence on Staying the Course in Iraq
8: Number of times a majority of the Senate has voted to change course in Iraq.
7: Number of times Bush Republicans in Congress have blocked changing course in Iraq.
1: Number of vetoes issued by the White House over changing course in Iraq.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/19/iraq-casualties-iraq-cos_n_92303.html
Feb. 17, 2007
WASHINGTON - The Senate gridlocked on the Iraq war in a sharply worded showdown Saturday as Republicans foiled a Democratic bid to repudiate President Bush’s deployment of 21,500 additional combat troops.
The 56-34 vote fell four short of the 60 needed to advance a nonbinding measure identical to one the House passed Friday. Seven GOP senators broke ranks, compared with only two during an earlier test on the issue.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17200182/
28 March 2007,
US Senate votes for Iraq deadline
The US Senate has defied President George W Bush and voted in favour of setting a target date of next March for withdrawing combat troops from Iraq.
The Senate narrowly rejected a Republican amendment that would have removed the withdrawal clause from a bill on military funding.
The vote is a boost for the Democrats, but Mr Bush has vowed to veto any bill setting out a timetable for withdrawal.
The House of Representatives also backed withdrawal in a vote last week.
The House bill, which imposes a 31 August 2008 deadline for pulling troops out, was passed narrowly by 218 votes to 212 on Friday.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6501583.stm
Wednesday, 2 May 2007
Bush vetoes Iraq withdrawal bill
US President George W Bush has vetoed a Congressional bill that would have linked war funding to a timetable for withdrawal of US troops from Iraq.
Speaking in Washington after signing the veto, Mr Bush said setting a deadline for withdrawal would be "setting a date for failure" in Iraq.
He said the funding was needed to give time for the new strategy of a surge of reinforcements in Baghdad to succeed.
Mr Bush said he would seek a compromise with Congressional leaders.
It is only the second time since taking office that Mr Bush has used the presidential veto.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6613141.stm
WASHINGTON, Sept. 19 — A proposal that Democrats put forward as their best chance of changing the course of the Iraq war died on the Senate floor on Wednesday, as Republicans stood firmly with President Bush.
With other war initiatives seemingly headed for the same fate, Senate Democrats, who only two weeks ago proclaimed September to be the month for shifting course in Iraq, conceded that they had little chance of success.
They said their strategy would now focus on portraying Republicans as opposing any change and on trying to chip away support for the White House as the war continued.
The proposal that failed Wednesday fell 4 votes short of the 60 needed to prevent a filibuster and would have required that troops be given as much time at home as they had spent overseas before being redeployed.
There were 56 votes in favor, including 6 Republicans — one fewer than the 7 Republicans who joined the Democrats in July, when the measure, by Senator Jim Webb, Democrat of Virginia, also fell 4 votes short.
Supporters of Mr. Bush’s war strategy declared victory, saying they had firmly beaten back legislative efforts to change course.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/20/washington/20cong.html
Fri November 16, 2007
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Senators on Friday weren't able to muster enough support to bring dueling war-funding bills to a final vote, possibly ending debate on the issue until next year.
The Democratic plan would have provided $50 billion in supplemental funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan -- mostly for Iraq -- with the condition that troops start being pulled from the country within 30 days.
The GOP plan would have provided $70 billion in supplemental war funding with no restrictions. The procedural vote was 45-53, 15 votes under the number needed to advance the bill.
The vote on the Democratic plan was 53-45, or seven short of advancing.
The Democratic leadership said Thursday that the current bill would be the only one they would vote on before the end of the year.
The failure, which was expected, came after pleas by some Democrats on the Senate floor.
"What will it take to end this war?" asked Majority Whip****Durbin of Illinois. "How many lives? How many limbs? How many broken families? How many innocent victims? The Senate has an opportunity with this next vote to start to bring this war to an end and to start to bring our soldiers home in an orderly responsible way."
The Democratic legislation had no mandatory deadline for withdrawing all troops from Iraq. Instead, the bill set December 15, 2008, as a goal for when all U.S. troops would be out of Iraq.
"[There were] very minimal accountability provisions in this bill, and even at that [President Bush] sneered and said no," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/16/war.funding/index.html
that they would promptly end the war...
Not like they haven't been trying. They even sent one piece of legislation to the President that would have started it.....and he killed it with a veto.
The current Senate make up is 49 Democrats, 49 Republicans, one independent Democrat (Lieberman), and one independent (Sanders) .
To override a veto they'd need to get a two thirds majority in both houses.
Unless Republicans crossed over for a vote - it's impossible.
So the Democrats did exactly what they said they would, and they cannot do any more.
But you knew that......didn't you ? | |
|
| What does the term Liberal Media mean to you
Posted: 3/24/2008 10:12:25 AM |
You may think it about Bush, but anyone with half a brain and a decent search engine can prove beyond even the shadow of a reasonable doubt about the Democrats… You're not even considering the total absence of any credibility of the very ones accusing Bush.
Message: How can "anyone" argue with that kind of statement ~ ??? ~ especially the last sentence ~ I beginning to see why you think so much of this man. You two must have fell out of the same tree. ~ Yellow Journalism ~ is just what it is ~~ to sway opinion ~ GOP or DNC can and do use it, you are attempting to divide along party lines ~ tit for tat ~~ Goergie had the first chair, second chair and a GOP controlled Congress ~ and still mismanaged it all! ~ You see a liberal media because "Yellow Journalism" has been exposed and people are not buying it anymore ~ It's still pro American , converative news ~ as MG has offered examples after example and made so clearly to anyone that had their eyes open.
As far a reasonable doubt about the democrats ~ sure! ~ doubt what you wish ~ you can dig up dirt anywhere you want to look ~
and Tim, it's not just about Bush , but his whole adminstration , Cabinet members, Attorney Rubber Stamp Generals , Appointee's that I take personal acception too ~
At this late in the game~ to continue to argue and support this failed adminstration is nothing short of ludicrous. ~ and have such monopic views and embrace them so passionately is nothing short of zealot obsession ~ bring up the Clintons ~and their failures ~ the mad dog left ~ "Well!! he did it!! crap
We are talking about media ~ and how can some people get so lost and some far for the truth while consuming public programing.
You have been an interesting study ~ I was hoping someone like yourself might come forward ~ I was hoping to understand how and why you think the way you do
My interest is now satisfied ~ dar | |
|
| What does the term Liberal Media mean to you
Posted: 3/24/2008 7:03:37 PM | Liberal Media-Bias in the Media- lil example, listen and you'll find there are many more
the media has covered president Bush and his ties to religion as possible ties to the Moral Majority political religious group. Mentions of how decision making on the president might not by just due to religious morals being misaligned with what Americans need – fetal stem cells.. and others..
Obama is a good person for attending church, and if his church teaches disgust and disdain for America and its founders, thats ok, it should be expected. Just because Obama went to the church and spoke of the pastor as being like a family member doesn't mean Obama likes what the pastor says. He only goes to hear how angry the people are? Good for America.
The media spins negative possibilities on some issues and spins positive possibilities on other issues.
Pay attention to the adverbs, adjetives, pronouns, and modifiers used by the giver of the message. Pay attention to what sounds bites are broadcast. Maybe you'll notice a trend.
I have | |
|
| What does the term Liberal Media mean to you
Posted: 3/25/2008 8:13:23 AM |
the media has covered president Bush and his ties to religion as possible ties to the Moral Majority political religious group. Mentions of how decision making on the president might not by just due to religious morals being misaligned with what Americans need – fetal stem cells.. and others..
Care to point out where they were wrong? | |
|
| What does the term Liberal Media mean to you
Posted: 3/25/2008 9:22:29 AM | I've been duped? Clinton said he had them, Bush said they had them, Hillary said he had them, then when we didn't find an amount suitable to answer for justification to the left, BUSH is the one who lied, tell me again, how is it "I" was duped... Because UN inspectors, who were on the ground, were warned to leave because the war was about to start - before they'd finished, and without being barred from visiting sites ?
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1123
What a Difference Four Years Makes
”Why U.N. inspectors left Iraq--then and now
"The U.N. orders its weapons inspectors to leave Iraq after the chief inspector reports Baghdad is not fully cooperating with them."
-- Sheila MacVicar, ABC World News This Morning, 12/16/98
"To bolster its claim, Iraq let reporters see one laboratory U.N. inspectors once visited before they were kicked out four years ago."
--John McWethy, ABC World News Tonight, 8/12/02
"The Iraq story boiled over last night when the chief U.N. weapons inspector, Richard Butler, said that Iraq had not fully cooperated with inspectors and--as they had promised to do. As a result, the U.N. ordered its inspectors to leave Iraq this morning"
--Katie Couric, NBC's Today, 12/16/98
"As Washington debates when and how to attack Iraq, a surprise offer from Baghdad. It is ready to talk about re-admitting U.N. weapons inspectors after kicking them out four years ago."
--Maurice DuBois, NBC's Saturday Today, 8/3/02
"The chief U.N. weapons inspector ordered his monitors to leave Baghdad today after saying that Iraq had once again reneged on its promise to cooperate--a report that renewed the threat of U.S. and British airstrikes."
--AP, 12/16/98
"Information on Iraq's programs has been spotty since Saddam expelled U.N. weapons inspectors in 1998."
--AP, 9/7/02
"Immediately after submitting his report on Baghdad's noncompliance, Butler ordered his inspectors to leave Iraq."
--Los Angeles Times, 12/17/98
"It is not known whether Iraq has rebuilt clandestine nuclear facilities since U.N. inspectors were forced out in 1998, but the report said the regime lacks nuclear material for a bomb and the capability to make weapons."
--Los Angeles Times, 9/10/02
"The United Nations once again has ordered its weapons inspectors out of Iraq. Today's evacuation follows a new warning from chief weapons inspector Richard Butler accusing Iraq of once again failing to cooperate with the inspectors. The United States and Britain repeatedly have warned that Iraq's failure to cooperate with the inspectors could lead to air strikes."
--Bob Edwards, NPR, 12/16/98
"If he has secret weapons, he's had four years since he kicked out the inspectors to hide all of them."
--Daniel Schorr, NPR, 8/3/02
"This is the second time in a month that UNSCOM has pulled out in the face of a possible U.S.-led attack. But this time there may be no turning back. Weapons inspectors packed up their personal belongings and loaded up equipment at U.N. headquarters after a predawn evacuation order. In a matter of hours, they were gone, more than 120 of them headed for a flight to Bahrain."
--Jane Arraf, CNN, 12/16/98
"What Mr. Bush is being urged to do by many advisers is focus on the simple fact that Saddam Hussein signed a piece of paper at the end of the Persian Gulf War, promising that the United Nations could have unfettered weapons inspections in Iraq. It has now been several years since those inspectors were kicked out."
--John King, CNN, 8/18/02
"Russian Ambassador Sergei Lavrov criticized Butler for evacuating inspectors from Iraq Wednesday morning without seeking permission from the Security Council."
--USA Today, 12/17/98
"Saddam expelled U.N. weapons inspectors in 1998, accusing some of being U.S. spies."
--USA Today, 9/4/02
"But the most recent irritant was Mr. Butler's quick withdrawal from Iraq on Wednesday of all his inspectors and those of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which monitors Iraqi nuclear programs, without Security Council permission. Mr. Butler acted after a telephone call from Peter Burleigh, the American representative to the United Nations, and a discussion with Secretary General Kofi Annan, who had also spoken to Mr. Burleigh."
--New York Times, 12/18/98
"America's goal should be to ensure that Iraq is disarmed of all unconventional weapons.... To thwart this goal, Baghdad expelled United Nations arms inspectors four years ago."
--New York Times editorial, 8/3/02
"Butler ordered his inspectors to evacuate Baghdad, in anticipation of a military attack, on Tuesday night--at a time when most members of the Security Council had yet to receive his report."
--Washington Post, 12/18/98
"Since 1998, when U.N. inspectors were expelled, Iraq has almost certainly been working to build more chemical and biological weapons."
--Washington Post editorial, 8/4/02
"Butler abruptly pulled all of his inspectors out of Iraq shortly after handing Annan a report yesterday afternoon on Baghdad's continued failure to cooperate with UNSCOM, the agency that searches for Iraq's prohibited weapons of mass destruction."
-- Newsday, 12/17/98
"The reason Hussein gave was that the U.N. inspectors' work was completed years ago, before he kicked them out in 1998, and they dismantled whatever weapons they found. That's disingenuous."
--Newsday editorial, 8/14/02”
And , the UN program to eliminate WMD's had worked :
"The Iraq story boiled over last night when the chief U.N. weapons inspector, Richard Butler, said that Iraq had not fully cooperated with inspectors and--as they had promised to do. As a result, the U.N. ordered its inspectors to leave Iraq this morning"
--Katie Couric, NBC's Today, 12/16/98
"The reason Hussein gave was that the U.N. inspectors' work was completed years ago, before he kicked them out in 1998, and they dismantled whatever weapons they found. That's disingenuous."
--Newsday editorial, 8/14/02”
Let me see if I have this correct. Saddam said they were done, and the rest of the world HAS to agree?
stated that the WMDs Saddam had in his possession all those years ago has long since turned to harmless substances. Sarin and tabun have a shelf life of five years, VX lasts a bit longer (but not much longer), and finally botulinum toxin and liquid anthrax last about three years. On March 7, 2003, Hans Blix's last report to the UN security Council prior to the US led invasion of Iraq, described Iraq as actively and proactively cooperating with UNMOVIC, though not necessarily in all areas of relevance and had been frequently uncooperative in the past, but that it was within months of resolving key remaining disarmament tasks.
All that remained was to continue the investigation, but that was not allowed.
Pretty gullible (well, you did ask )
And what happened concerning votes on ending the war ?
Bush-Republican Intransigence on Staying the Course in Iraq
8: Number of times a majority of the Senate has voted to change course in Iraq.
7: Number of times Bush Republicans in Congress have blocked changing course in Iraq.
1: Number of vetoes issued by the White House over changing course in Iraq.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/19/iraq-casualties-iraq-cos_n_92303.html
Hold the phone… 8 times the MAJORITY voted to change the course in Iraq, and only once was it vetoed? Doesn’t that mean they successfully changed the course 7 times? Accepting your source as accurate, how is it that the majority fails to persuade sufficient votes for what they want, but the minority has no problem? Is it the effort is merely symbolic, or are the changes unreasonable? If Reid and Pelosi can’t garner support for their bills, why can’t they at least achieve a sufficient amount of opposition votes to block what they don’t want passed … after all they are the Majority Leaders, and NOTHING can ever reach the President’s desk without significant support from their side of the aisle….
Feb. 17, 2007
WASHINGTON - The Senate gridlocked on the Iraq war in a sharply worded showdown Saturday as Republicans foiled a Democratic bid to repudiate President Bush’s deployment of 21,500 additional combat troops.
The 56-34 vote fell four short of the 60 needed to advance a nonbinding measure identical to one the House passed Friday. Seven GOP senators broke ranks, compared with only two during an earlier test on the issue.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17200182/ Sounds like ineffective leadership. Seems the minority has no issue getting the 60 votes when they present their version of the bill….
28 March 2007,
US Senate votes for Iraq deadline
The US Senate has defied President George W Bush and voted in favour of setting a target date of next March for withdrawing combat troops from Iraq.
The Senate narrowly rejected a Republican amendment that would have removed the withdrawal clause from a bill on military funding.
The vote is a boost for the Democrats, but Mr Bush has vowed to veto any bill setting out a timetable for withdrawal.
The House of Representatives also backed withdrawal in a vote last week.
The House bill, which imposes a 31 August 2008 deadline for pulling troops out, was passed narrowly by 218 votes to 212 on Friday.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6501583.stm Finally they managed to get all their people to vote their way!
Wednesday, 2 May 2007
Bush vetoes Iraq withdrawal bill
US President George W Bush has vetoed a Congressional bill that would have linked war funding to a timetable for withdrawal of US troops from Iraq.
Speaking in Washington after signing the veto, Mr Bush said setting a deadline for withdrawal would be "setting a date for failure" in Iraq.
He said the funding was needed to give time for the new strategy of a surge of reinforcements in Baghdad to succeed.
Mr Bush said he would seek a compromise with Congressional leaders.
It is only the second time since taking office that Mr Bush has used the presidential veto.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6613141.stm A veto eh…. Hmmmm and only his second one in 6+ years…. Bush said no twice … hmmmm …. I thought they had brought a bill changing the course in Iraq 8 times, doesn’t’ that mean they had 7 of them passed? Oh wait…. It means they failed to get it out of congress the other 7 times, so I guess they did NOT have a majority vote as Huffington implies, otherwise Bush might have a 9 veto count….
Simple mathematic Monty. 51 yes v. 49 no passes every time. When you know you face up to 49 solid no votes at all times, how is it that the headline is “Republicans successfully block Democratic efforts to end the war” rather than the more accurate “Democrats failed to inspire their own party members to answer to their 2004 and 2006 campaign promises and end the war”? Could it be an indication of *gasp* a liberal media? (That’s yellow journalism for you Dar.)
WASHINGTON, Sept. 19 — A proposal that Democrats put forward as their best chance of changing the course of the Iraq war died on the Senate floor on Wednesday, as Republicans stood firmly with President Bush.
With other war initiatives seemingly headed for the same fate, Senate Democrats, who only two weeks ago proclaimed September to be the month for shifting course in Iraq, conceded that they had little chance of success.
They said their strategy would now focus on portraying Republicans as opposing any change and on trying to chip away support for the White House as the war continued.
The proposal that failed Wednesday fell 4 votes short of the 60 needed to prevent a filibuster and would have required that troops be given as much time at home as they had spent overseas before being redeployed.
There were 56 votes in favor, including 6 Republicans — one fewer than the 7 Republicans who joined the Democrats in July, when the measure, by Senator Jim Webb, Democrat of Virginia, also fell 4 votes short.
Supporters of Mr. Bush’s war strategy declared victory, saying they had firmly beaten back legislative efforts to change course.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/20/washington/20cong.html Ok, so they couldn’t override the veto…. It’s not the first time it’s happened, in fact, overriding a Presidential veto SELDOM happens….
Fri November 16, 2007
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Senators on Friday weren't able to muster enough support to bring dueling war-funding bills to a final vote, possibly ending debate on the issue until next year.
The Democratic plan would have provided $50 billion in supplemental funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan -- mostly for Iraq -- with the condition that troops start being pulled from the country within 30 days.
The GOP plan would have provided $70 billion in supplemental war funding with no restrictions. The procedural vote was 45-53, 15 votes under the number needed to advance the bill.
The vote on the Democratic plan was 53-45, or seven short of advancing.
The Democratic leadership said Thursday that the current bill would be the only one they would vote on before the end of the year.
The failure, which was expected, came after pleas by some Democrats on the Senate floor.
"What will it take to end this war?" asked Majority Whip****Durbin of Illinois. "How many lives? How many limbs? How many broken families? How many innocent victims? The Senate has an opportunity with this next vote to start to bring this war to an end and to start to bring our soldiers home in an orderly responsible way."
The Democratic legislation had no mandatory deadline for withdrawing all troops from Iraq. Instead, the bill set December 15, 2008, as a goal for when all U.S. troops would be out of Iraq.
"[There were] very minimal accountability provisions in this bill, and even at that [President Bush] sneered and said no," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/16/war.funding/index.html Ummmmmmm….” The Democratic legislation had no mandatory deadline for withdrawing all troops from Iraq. Instead, the bill set December 15, 2008, as a goal for when all U.S. troops would be out of Iraq.’ Isn’t the insertion of December 15, 2008 a deadline? How do you get them out without withdrawing them gradually? Bring in a 140,000 seat passenger plane? Gross misrepresentation of fact if you ask me….
Not like they haven't been trying. They even sent one piece of legislation to the President that would have started it.....and he killed it with a veto.
The current Senate make up is 49 Democrats, 49 Republicans, one independent Democrat (Lieberman), and one independent (Sanders) .
To override a veto they'd need to get a two thirds majority in both houses.
Unless Republicans crossed over for a vote - it's impossible.
So the Democrats did exactly what they said they would, and they cannot do any more.
But you knew that......didn't you ?
So in almost 18 months they managed to get a single bill on the Presidents desk… What of the bills that are contrary to the liberal position of cut & run, how is it they manage to make it to the Presidents desk without majority support? Can you say hypocrite?
Dance
Message: How can "anyone" argue with that kind of statement ~ ??? ~ especially the last sentence ~ I beginning to see why you think so much of this man. You two must have fell out of the same tree. ~ Yellow Journalism ~ is just what it is ~~ to sway opinion ~ GOP or DNC can and do use it, you are attempting to divide along party lines ~ tit for tat ~~ Goergie had the first chair, second chair and a GOP controlled Congress ~ and still mismanaged it all! ~ You see a liberal media because "Yellow Journalism" has been exposed and people are not buying it anymore ~ It's still pro American , converative news ~ as MG has offered examples after example and made so clearly to anyone that had their eyes open. Actually I’m not really a fan of Bush, I think he’s even more liberal than Clinton was with his reckless spending policies. I’m just not a fan of laying the ills of the world at the feet of a single person when the blame should be equally shared by all who represent us in Washington. What I despise most are the hypocrites who claim to be doing one thing and then do another when you check their history in the congressional record.
As for exposing yellow journalism, I agree it has been exposed, but apparently you don’t know what it means…. It represents the media sensationalizing a story to sell their product, not the truth. Let me give you some examples… The “vast right wing conspiracy” was actually started by a group of democratic students at the University of Arkansas looking into state government corruption surrounding S&L failures in land / development speculation, the story didn’t go national until after it was published in a local Arkansas newspaper… So the national focus sensationalized the aspect of conspiracy while downplaying the actual corruption that included abuse of power, sexual battery, bank fraud and cover up. Involvement by the right (Scaife and Armistead) came years after the majority of the allegations had already been made public, even after Vince Foster’s suicide… Dismissing the factual elements while focusing on the editorial aspect is the text book definition of “yellow journalism”.
As far a reasonable doubt about the democrats ~ sure! ~ doubt what you wish ~ you can dig up dirt anywhere you want to look ~ I dig it up from the congressional record, it is truly the only indisputable source of unbiased fact. When Liberals in Congress through CNN sound bytes proclaim for weeks the neocon movement to suppress and eliminate constitutional rights by forcing the patriot act renewal down the throats of American citizens, and then passes it with an 80% majority, including THEIR own votes, there is no follow up by the same media source… Where were the endless loops of sound bytes then? There certainly was no shortage of them when the sound bytes were “read my lips, no new taxes” That my friend is another text book example of “yellow journalism”.
and Tim, it's not just about Bush , but his whole adminstration , Cabinet members, Attorney Rubber Stamp Generals , Appointee's that I take personal acception too ~ I get it, you are not a Republican… does that automatically mean Republicans are automatically criminals? You think Presidents should only appoint cabinet members that they disagree on policy with? Given that a 2/3’s majority confirmation is required for all cabinet members, a majority that at no time has the Republican party EVER held, are you offended at Bush’s selection in the nomination / vetting process, or at Congress for overwhelmingly approving them?
At this late in the game~ to continue to argue and support this failed adminstration is nothing short of ludicrous. ~ and have such monopic views and embrace them so passionately is nothing short of zealot obsession ~ bring up the Clintons ~and their failures ~ the mad dog left ~ "Well!! he did it!! Crap I’m myopic? I blame the entire congress for the crap that is going on, I would think the text book definition of myopic better describes your perspective, that of focusing on a single point. You may perceive that I approve of most of the stuff Bush does, but what I am actually trying to determine is why you have two sets of rules. Clinton does something and is convicted, he’s a victim … Bush is accused of malfeasance at every turn by the yellow press and he’s a criminal. I am just wondering how the constitutional concept of innocent until proven guilty in a court of law doesn’t apply at all in the liberal view of politics. If you disagree with the legal conviction then it’s a vast right wing conspiracy, but if you can’t collect enough evidence to even make a formal accusation, no matter, he’s still guilty. Clinton, arguably the smartest man to ever reside at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, vs. Bush, currently tagged as the dumbest, and it is the smartest man, a lawyer who gets convicted of perjury and obstruction, not the moron. It’s almost as though some are trying to redefine the term liberal to mean the total absence of common sense.
We are talking about media ~ and how can some people get so lost and some far for the truth while consuming public programing. Try the congressional record, I find that facts don’t get lost in the editorializing like they do on CNN….
You have been an interesting study ~ I was hoping someone like yourself might come forward ~ I was hoping to understand how and why you think the way you do I’ve been scratching my head over your position as well…
My interest is now satisfied ~ dar Glad I could help.
By the way, I see a few, you included, who claim that my posts represent a twisted view of reality, just for the sake of argument, can you identify the factual flaws in the post when making that claim, absent that your rebuttal comes across as “Damn, he’s using facts and common sense, quick! switch to personal attack mode before he damages our position further….”
| |
|
| What does the term Liberal Media mean to you
Posted: 3/25/2008 8:39:34 PM |
Care to point out where they were wrong?
it 's hard to prove that wild guesses about what might be are WRONG can you point to any facts to prove they're right, not hopes, prayers, and maybes. There is no PROOF. There are hopes and maybes for other types of stem cell research, but they don't get any play in the BIASED media... There are possible good things that could happed from the military effort in the middle east, but they DON'T get any play in the BIASED media.. There are bad things in the european economic model - see riots in france, but they get left out when discussions of health care come up... listen sir charles and you might here there's a yin with no yang in the media from the shepard... | |
|
| What does the term Liberal Media mean to you
Posted: 3/26/2008 6:42:05 AM | Stem cell research is an excellent point to demonstrate the difference between media presented fact and fiction. We've all heard of Bush's thoughts as well as those of the left, and the media has sensationalized the "Federal Ban on Stem Cell Research", when in fact, no such ban exists. What there is ... is a ban on Federal FUNDING of stem cell research, something entirely different. The private sector is free to invest as much or as little money as they deem prudent. The notion that tax dollars shouldn't be appropriated for the matter is fine with me, I'd like to see them end the majority of R&D grants.
It's similar to what the media published about federal funding for the levies in New Orleans. The media declared Bush's budget cuts as the reason, and a quick check of the facts indicates Bush's administration had spent more each year (and with annual increases) than Clinton's budgets did. The problem was Bush spent less than they wanted... only in Washington (and the media) can spending MORE be painted as spending less....
| |
|
| What does the term Liberal Media mean to you
Posted: 3/28/2008 12:00:46 AM |
What there is ... is a ban on Federal FUNDING of stem cell research, something entirely different. The private sector is free to invest as much or as little money as they deem prudent. The notion that tax dollars shouldn't be appropriated for the matter is fine with me, I'd like to see them end the majority of R&D grants.
So it's OK for the people's money not to be used on such research for potential benefits for the general population, especially some that might wind up helping them greatly and reducing medical costs - but GREAT when a smaller number of people (who support the same political parties banning said direct government participation) wind up reaping all the financial gains ?
The same people who would rather just throw these cells in the garbage, and not do anything with them, if it requires a dollar from the government ?
It's similar to what the media published about federal funding for the levies in New Orleans. The media declared Bush's budget cuts as the reason, and a quick check of the facts indicates Bush's administration had spent more each year (and with annual increases) than Clinton's budgets did. The problem was Bush spent less than they wanted... only in Washington (and the media) can spending MORE be painted as spending less...
Actually, the problem was that tens of thousands of Americans were left helpless in Third World conditions - for a week. In the "best country in the world", this should have never been allowed to occur.
There was no excuse then, and no excuse now...none.... for that failure. | |
|
| What does the term Liberal Media mean to you
Posted: 3/28/2008 12:12:50 AM |
Actually, the problem was that tens of thousands of Americans were left helpless in Third World conditions - for a week. In the "best country in the world", this should have never been allowed to occur.
There was no excuse then, and no excuse now...none.... for that failure.
Problem, Reaction, Solution
End result "Let's build up FEMA!"
What a joke/ What did FEMA do? put everyone under house arrest, take away their guns and run it like it was under Martial Law.
"helpless in a third world conditions - for a week"
They were fine. | |
|
| What does the term Liberal Media mean to you
Posted: 3/28/2008 1:51:07 AM |
They were fine.
They most certainly were not fine.
Again, media world wide had a vastly different view of the aftermath of Katrina.
"I was in Vietnam and the conditions here in New Orleans over those few days were worse than a year over there. Our people didn't have electricity to charge their radio batteries, so their communications were completely out. In many cases they lost track of their own units and joined other units. And then no one was able to radio anyone else to say where they were."
-David Banelli, spokesman for the Lousiana police union
But here is another question, and a sensitive one, because it touches on matters of race. If the same hurricane had struck another big American city, wreaking the same degree of damage, would so many tall stories have been uttered and written about?
Jim Amoss, the editor of the Times-Picayune, stirred controversy recently when he said not. "If the dome and Convention Centre had harboured large numbers of middle-class white people, it would not have been a fertile ground for his kind of rumour-mongering."
Was the media content to go along with the unsubstantiated allegations of violence - even of baby rape (never mind crocodiles on Canal Street) - because it fitted a partially race-driven stereotype already scripted for New Orleans? If so, the press did the city and its people a terrible disservice, black or white.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/
new-orleans-after-the-flood-the-hard-truths-510963.html
Those international news stories helped fuel a worldwide reaction of relief aid - before any request for aid was even received.
With the predicted devastation of the approaching storm, moves were being made even before it hit shore. Blanco declared a state of emergency on August 26th. On August 29th, Katrinna made landfall.
By August 31, 2005, Canada had it's first search and rescue boat and team there.
September 2 - HMCS Athabaskan
HMCS Toronto
HMCS Ville de Québec
CCGS Sir William Alexander
(and three Sea King helicopters and one BO-105 helicopter )
All deployed to assist in rescue and relief efforts, along with a great many other resources.
People, and governments, were reacting worldwide to what they saw happening as shown in their media. Foreign citizens were demanding it, as being of urgent concern. | |
|
| What does the term Liberal Media mean to you
Posted: 3/28/2008 2:05:29 AM | Well, I don't understand your quote.
You have a guy complaining about not having batteries for radios. Have we become so coddled?
Then you have racism as a means to explain whatever.
Then racism again because Geraldo Rivera told everyone babies were being raped. Personally I think that should go into the catagory of "gender smear", as in, they constantly try to paint men as evil, rather than as blacks as evil. But since it's largely a black community I'll let you have that one. Feminists tend to jump for joy when women get raped so they can prove their hatred for men is justified. Now raping baby girls it had to have been to good to be true. I say this because I was in a debate over this issue and I seriously doubted the whole thing. My experience in natural disasters has always been that the people of the community pull together in decency.
Turns out I was right and the whole thing was a lie.
What I don't understand about you is, why do you prefer mainstream media when it suits you, and not when it doesn't?
Tragedy yes, justification to built up FEMA? Never. | |
|
| What does the term Liberal Media mean to you
Posted: 3/28/2008 6:13:07 AM |
So it's OK for the people's money not to be used on such research for potential benefits for the general population, especially some that might wind up helping them greatly and reducing medical costs - but GREAT when a smaller number of people (who support the same political parties banning said direct government participation) wind up reaping all the financial gains ?
The same people who would rather just throw these cells in the garbage, and not do anything with them, if it requires a dollar from the government ?
Monty Monty Monty.... We are not a socialist nation; we do not require government assistance to wipe our asses. If stem cells have such a potential, the private sector will step in and take care of all the costs, it's been that way for 232 years, it will remain that way (hopefully). I can probably guess the first thing you're going to argue is that it would reduce healthcare costs so there's no incentive for anyone to do it that is already in the healthcare field ... greater market share = higher profits, if it can produce the magic pill then someone will foot the bill gladly.
We've allowed government intervention of a socialist nature in our hospitals to care for indigents, and as a result we now have the $12 aspirin. In a capitalist country, we find the cheapest and most efficient means of delivering a product to the consumer is to minimize government involvement, not increase it.
Actually, the problem was that tens of thousands of Americans were left helpless in Third World conditions - for a week. In the "best country in the world", this should have never been allowed to occur.
There was no excuse then, and no excuse now...none.... for that failure. Back to Katrina eh? Aside from the fact that the Feds don’t have a 150,000 seat rescue helicopter to be able to rescue everyone in one day, the debacle was 100% attributable to the total absence of State and Local government preparedness, not the Federal Government. Let's assume for the purposes of this issue the Feds were responsible; the same federal government that you claim can't deliver water and supplies to one of it's own cities in under a week should be the qualified leader in stem cell research? Put down the bottle Monty.... 
They most certainly were not fine. Again, media world wide had a vastly different view of the aftermath of Katrina.
"I was in Vietnam and the conditions here in New Orleans over those few days were worse than a year over there. Our people didn't have electricity to charge their radio batteries, so their communications were completely out. In many cases they lost track of their own units and joined other units. And then no one was able to radio anyone else to say where they were."
-David Banelli, spokesman for the Lousiana police union
But here is another question, and a sensitive one, because it touches on matters of race. If the same hurricane had struck another big American city, wreaking the same degree of damage, would so many tall stories have been uttered and written about?
Jim Amoss, the editor of the Times-Picayune, stirred controversy recently when he said not. "If the dome and Convention Centre had harboured large numbers of middle-class white people, it would not have been a fertile ground for his kind of rumour-mongering."
Was the media content to go along with the unsubstantiated allegations of violence - even of baby rape (never mind crocodiles on Canal Street) - because it fitted a partially race-driven stereotype already scripted for New Orleans? If so, the press did the city and its people a terrible disservice, black or white.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/
new-orleans-after-the-flood-the-hard-truths-510963.html It is ironic that even with all the false reports on CNN sensationalizing crimes that didn't occur, even if they had, it would still have resulted in a lower crime rate than N.O. usually enjoys. Only the most ignorant of people could assume that bad people + bad situation = best behavior... Criminals are creatures of opportunity, not principals and morals.
Those international news stories helped fuel a worldwide reaction of relief aid - before any request for aid was even received.
With the predicted devastation of the approaching storm, moves were being made even before it hit shore. Blanco declared a state of emergency on August 26th. On August 29th, Katrinna made landfall.
By August 31, 2005, Canada had it's first search and rescue boat and team there.
September 2 - HMCS Athabaskan
HMCS Toronto
HMCS Ville de Québec
CCGS Sir William Alexander
(and three Sea King helicopters and one BO-105 helicopter )
All deployed to assist in rescue and relief efforts, along with a great many other resources.
People, and governments, were reacting worldwide to what they saw happening as shown in their media. Foreign citizens were demanding it, as being of urgent concern. Your timeline is WAY off... Blanco didn't request Federal assistance until after 10:00 PM on the 27th, she made a qualified declaration on the 26th, and as for evacuation...
Sunday 28 August 2005 - 1 day before
10.00 AM CDT: NOLA: Mandatory Evacuation
Mayor Nagin orders mandatory evacuation, the first in the history of the city. "We are facing a storm that most of us have feared. I don't want to create panic, but I do want the citizens to understand that this is very serious, and it is of the highest nature." (CNN)
NOTE*** This was a mere 17 hours before the levees were breached.
10.11 AM CDT: "Devastating Damage" Projected
NOAA's National Weather Service issues an urgent weather message enumerating the "devastating damage" expected from Hurricane Katrina. "Most of the area will be uninhabitable for weeks, perhaps longer... At least one-half of well-constructed homes will have roof and wall failure... Water shortages will make human suffering incredible by modern standards."
11.00 AM CDT: FEMA Chief Brown Arrives in Baton Rouge.
11.31 AM CDT: President on Katrina, Iraqi Constitution
Speaking from his ranch in Crawford, TX, President Bush speaks briefly about Katrina and mostly about the draft Iraqi Constitution:
This morning I spoke with FEMA Undersecretary Mike Brown and emergency management teams not only at the federal level but at the state level about the -- Hurricane Katrina... We will do everything in our power to help the people in the communities affected by this storm... I urge all citizens to put their own safety and the safety of their families first by moving to safe ground.
4.00 PM CDT: Katrina Projected to Hit As Cat5
NOAA reports that Hurricane Katrina is now moving at 13 mph with sustained winds of 165 mph and projects landfall at Category Four or Five. Hurricane force winds now extend 105 miles from the eye of the storm, almost a factor of ten larger than when the hurricane made landfall in Florida. Forecast: storm surge flooding 18-20 feet above normal tide levels and locally as high as 28 feet.
8.30 PM CDT - Amtrack spokesman says it offered the city room for several hundred evacuees. The mayor denies being contacted with the offer.
Had the city and state governments evacuated as requested by Bush on the 25th, the potential for suffering and loss of human life would have diminished tremendously. We in Florida are prepared for hurricanes, but Katrina still cost us the lives of 9 people when it first made landfall here as a category 1.
A category 5 is imminent, less than 24 hours before certain death, the local and state government orders 1.4 million people to gather emergency supplies and evacuate without any plan, any assistance, simply a “Get out of the City, it’s below sea level, call me when it’s over, I’ll be closing on my new house in Houston if you need me” ... If you ask me, it's amazing that it wasn't a thousand times worse than it was.
Canada's first response to the disaster inflicted by Hurricane Katrina along the Gulf of Mexico coastline of the United States was the deployment of a Vancouver heavy urban search and rescue team, which arrived in Lafayette, Louisiana on the evening of August 31, 2005, arriving on a WestJet Airlines aircraft. Due to security and logistics issues in the disaster area surrounding New Orleans, the team started operations on September 3, saving 30 people that day. They returned to Vancouver on September 6, reportedly saving over 110 people during their deployment. It has also accepted some evacuees to stay in Canada.
The official response by the Government of Canada to the Gulf coast disaster came on September 2, following discussions between Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Canada and the U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency. The federal government announced it was deploying a task force comprising three warships—HMCS Athabaskan (DDH 282), HMCS Toronto (FFH 333) and HMCS Ville de Québec (FFH 332)—along with the Coast Guard vessel CCGS Sir William Alexander and three Sea King helicopters and one BO-105 helicopter to the area. I'm sure your help was appreciated by all citizens of New Orleans, and I don't want to diminish the generosity of the Canadian government, but let's not pretend we're in a Dudley Dooright / Snidely Whiplash scenario. One hundred and ten people in 3 days is hardly a chest thumping occurrence particularly when over the course of the three days, the rescued average per day was about 36 people. Certainly nothing to sneeze at, but when compared to one of our rescue helicopters that nabbed over 1,200 off of roof tops in one day it was hardly worth the fuel to ship down….
| |
|
| What does the term Liberal Media mean to you
Posted: 3/28/2008 12:28:30 PM | Another comparison of breaking stories, to illustrate the point once again. Let's take a look at how the current Iraqi situation is reported on.
Here's CNN :
Iraq's parliament called a special session for Friday to address the crisis.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/03/28/iraq.main/index.html
Parliament called an emergency meeting to discuss the crisis, which has also brought a three-day curfew to Baghdad.
But just 54 MPs out of 275 managed to get inside the fortified Green Zone to attend the session, because it was under fresh bombardment from mortars and rockets.
One of the missiles hit Iraqi Vice-President Tareq Hashemi's offices, killing at least one guard.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7317935.stm
CNN:
Saying he was not mad at Rudd for keeping a campaign promise to do so, Bush argued that foreign troops could be sent home because of Western successes in Iraq.
"Troops are coming out because we are successful," he said. "That's fundamentally different from saying, 'It's just too hard, pull 'em out.' "
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/03/28/iraq.main/index.html
BBC
Barricades have gone up, and the Iraqi police are reported to have closed bridges leading into Sadr City.
Elements of the Mehdi militia are still firing rockets into central Baghdad.
Several salvoes have gone into the Green Zone, which houses the Iraqi government.
When they fall short, the rockets plummet into crowded neighbourhoods and kill Iraqi civilians.
Two people died when one landed next to the foreign ministry, on a bus terminal.
Another died in the Kerrada district, and another in the district of Ur.
The Shia who live in Sadr City took to the streets in their thousands on Thursday morning for a demonstration in support of Moqtada Sadr.
We spoke to a demonstrator by phone. He said Mr Sadr's followers were "peaceful" and would obey their leader's admonition to observe the ceasefire of the past year.
"We are very patient," he said, "but if the government does not respond to our demands, something bad will happen."
His demands: the prime minister must resign; foreign troops must leave Iraq; the operation in Basra must be halted.
An ambitious agenda, to say the least - and one likely to be ignored by the government.
Eyewitnesses reported seeing freshly laid roadside bombs at the entrances to Sadr City.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7316898.stm
CNN
That restriction didn't stop someone from firing rockets and mortar rounds into the capital's heavily fortified International Zone, commonly known as the Green Zone. One slammed into the office of one of Iraq's vice presidents, Tareq al-Hashemi, killing two guards.
This is again that "mention in passing" style of report that we saw in the earlier CNN reports. Compared to foreign media, who are describing it as a major sustained daily barrage of the Green Zone,
CNN describes the government holding a meeting to discuss the situation, without mentioning that most of the Iraqi government couldn't even get into the Green Zone to attend it, which to me indicates a total breakdown of security inside the city.
Just how secure are things when most of the government can't even get to their offices ?
The Jerusalem Post
The fortified Green Zone in Iraq's capital has again come under attack by rockets or mortars.
A thick cloud of smoke was seen over the zone Friday about 2:30pm, shortly after two rounds hit. It was the day's first attack on the area.
The Green Zone houses the US Embassy and much of the Iraqi government and has come under fire with regularity since Easter Sunday.
At least two American civilians have been killed in the attacks. Several others have been injured, some seriously, US officials have said.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1206632355449&pagename=
JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
And how does the situation in Sadr City get described ?
Canada.com
"There have been engagements going on in and around Sadr City. We've engaged the enemy with artillery, we've engaged the enemy with aircraft, we've engaged the enemy with direct fire," said Major Mark Cheadle, spokesman for U.S. forces in Baghdad.
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/world/story.html?id=
a7cb8736-8da1-49e6-9234-eab13e20ad24&k=70078
Washington Post (one of the exceptions to the "toning down" reports)
BAGHDAD, March 27 -- U.S. forces in armored vehicles battled Mahdi Army fighters Thursday in Sadr City, the vast Shiite stronghold in eastern Baghdad, as an offensive to quell party-backed militias entered its third day. Iraqi army and police units appeared to be largely holding to the outskirts of the area as American troops took the lead in the fighting.
As President Bush told an Ohio audience that Iraq was returning to "normalcy," administration officials in Washington held meetings to assess what appeared to be a rapidly deteriorating security situation in many parts of the country.
Maliki decided to launch the offensive without consulting his U.S. allies, according to administration officials. With little U.S. presence in the south, and British forces in Basra confined to an air base outside the city, one administration official said that "we can't quite decipher" what is going on. It's a question, he said, of "who's got the best conspiracy" theory about why Maliki decided to act now.
Starting about 5:25 p.m., the Post reporter heard the launch of 14 rockets, which Mahdi Army officers in the area said were aimed at the Green Zone. U.S. officials reported that 12 rounds hit the zone in that time frame, including six that fell inside the embassy compound. An American civilian contractor was killed in a residential area of the embassy compound, while another death was reported in the zone's U.N. compound.
Several Mahdi Army commanders said they had been fighting U.S. forces for the past three days in Sadr City, engaging Humvees as well as the Strykers. By their account, an Iraqi special forces unit had entered Sadr City from another direction, backed by Americans, but otherwise the fighting had not been with Iraqis.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/27/
AR2008032700781.html?hpid=topnews
FOX news
"Basra has been a place where criminality has thrived," Bush said. "They are fighting some pretty tough characters... and yes, there's going to be violence, and that's sad."
He said the resurgent violence would not alter his determination to continue his administration's mission there.
"Any government that presumes to represent the majority of people must confront criminal elements or people who think they can live outside the law. That's what's taking place in Basra and other parts of Iraq," Bush said. "I would say this is a defining moment in the history of Iraq."
"There have been other defining moments up to now, but this is a defining moment, as well," Bush said. He said the decision to move troops into Basra was testimony to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's leadership capabilities.
"This is a good test for them," the president said.
"I'm confident we can succeed unless we lose our nerve," he added. "It's going to take a while for them to deal with these elements. "
Bush also suggested that his Iraq policy was working because "troops are coming out."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,342615,00.html
Far from being the work of a few criminals, it seems to be a major push back against al-Maliki's initial attempted campaign against his political rivals, and launched without informing the US, in an area with weak logistical support for his forces.
Descriptions of the battles in Sadr City seem to be placing far more American troops than Iraqi government ones doing the actual fighting.
General Petraeus testifies before Congress on April 8, in a little under two weeks time.
al-Maliki's timing seems to be a bit suspect. Starting an unprovoked attack in Basra against rivals may simply be a way of him trying to slow the American withdrawal and buy more time.
It's not a good sign that American forces are still taking on the major part of the battle inside Sadr City, either. We've been told again and again how the Iraqis are standing up - and yet this seems not to be the case here. | |
|
| What does the term Liberal Media mean to you
Posted: 3/31/2008 7:58:51 AM | I'm not really sure what you're trying to illustrate Monty... that some reporters and editors decide differently about what to fill their allotted time with? People dying in war is not news, it's actually "news" when they don't... Rockets being launched at preferred strategic targets is not news, it's what people do when at war... launching mortars and rockets into friendly areas or uninhabited areas is a waste of resources, so again, the decision to select a viable landing spot for munitions is not exactly "news".
If you're point is that the US networks spent more time on Obama's minister, which of course prior to that video clip, the US was by and large completely unaware of the concept of an angry black man ... or Hillary's ducking and running under sniper fire to her limo, pausing only briefly for a reception line, flowers, handshakes, parade, and the visit to the top of the observation tower, which everyone knew was BS when she “misspoke” initially, then yes, I agree, details in Iraq are much more worthy of making it into the limited air time of networks than this silly back biting inside the democratic party. How much air time did the BBC give to the issues of the US Presidential candidates? How much air time does any network, foreign or domestic give to actual progress in Iraq? Absent consideration for the total content of the programming, then you're destined to forever compare apples to oranges.
The US media is liberal, finding MORE liberal media outlets doesn’t make it any less true, it just gives me hope that perhaps the left isn’t as far gone as some socialists want them to be
| |
|
| What does the term Liberal Media mean to you
Posted: 3/31/2008 8:11:22 AM |
Liberal media supports Democrats and conservative media supports Republicans.
Their really aren't many true journalist left.
That's about it, why the long discussion over such a simple concept? | |
|
| What does the term Liberal Media mean to you
Posted: 4/2/2008 6:07:51 AM |
I'm not really sure what you're trying to illustrate Monty... that some reporters and editors decide differently about what to fill their allotted time with?
To me it illustrates a "conservative" news bias over a factual one. ~ The truth with obmission. ~
They have conserved some 12 or 15 words and not offered a complete accounting.
It could be a conservative budget issue ~ a conservative time issue ~
but some wish to call it Liberal ~ spin ~ which makes absolutly no sense!
~ darn ~ I gota run ` ~ love to stay ~ can't ` dar | |
|
| What does the term Liberal Media mean to you
Posted: 4/2/2008 6:16:14 AM | The term liberal media is not accurate. For instance, they jumped all over Clinton at every turn and deliberately avoid hammering bush.
The truth is Clinton / Bush are puppets of the same elites who own the media, which are tied to the same wonderful folks who own your Federal Reserve.
The same is true of all western nations. Media is owned by those who bankrupt your countries and encourage all the wonderful things (diversity, single family homes, racial tension) that require gov't spending in the form of debt attached to your neck from birth.
A long story short: You're getting screwed and you don't even know it. | |
|
| What does the term Liberal Media mean to you
Posted: 4/2/2008 9:36:15 AM |
To me it illustrates a "conservative" news bias over a factual one. ~ The truth with obmission. ~
They have conserved some 12 or 15 words and not offered a complete accounting.
It could be a conservative budget issue ~ a conservative time issue ~
but some wish to call it Liberal ~ spin ~ which makes absolutly no sense!
~ darn ~ I gota run ` ~ love to stay ~ can't ` dar Thank goodness we have conservative news hawks like Dan Rather to help keep things fair and balanced....
Every study I've ever seen demonstrates a liberal slant in the media, one study actually hypothesized that the reason is that 89% of journalism students are liberal, with only 11% being conservatives. Stands to reason how someone with inherent bias would place an emphasis with what they perceive to be the issue.
For example, Clinton's impeachment was not about a tryst with an intern, but if you ask any "man on the street" that's the only aspect the media reported on. There are tens of thousands of articles written on the blue dress and cigars, but I challenge anyone to find more than a handful that focus on the actual charges of perjury and obstruction of justice. The simple fact is that Clinton was a liberal hero and the media slanted the story to make the Republicans look like a bunch of jealous old men who were upset because they weren’t getting their share of oral from their own staff... | |
|
| What does the term Liberal Media mean to you
Posted: 4/2/2008 11:20:59 AM | absolutely correct tim. universities will not hire conservative journalism professors. students for the past ten to twenty years have been fed a steady diet of liberal crap. the only conservatives on campus are rotc and in the business areas .christopher hitchens is the exception that proves the rule in journalism professors. editorial divisions today have gone from reporting to social activism. as such they should be regulated as activists. fox news is the only program anywhere near straight, at least they have a liberal on EVERY segment. when obama wins the nomination, watch the huge pro obama media blitz from the "news" organizations.
i never hear any criticism of president bush, do you? gee, where would that be coming from? it was only trumpeted all thru the debates last year. i guess we never read the ny times or any other u.s. big city leading daily, or turn on cnn/nbc/msnbc/abc/bet/cbs/air america? russert, matthews, who regularly hold court with their democratic cronies? nah......
...............would it be better to fight these people from Sadr City? or from Quebec City? | |
|
| What does the term Liberal Media mean to you
Posted: 4/2/2008 11:36:52 AM | yeah, but the right wing media will get a hold of oprahama and tear him apart hopefully. if oprahama does get elected as president, I am sure that we can survive the four years he will be in office. barely, but we might survive.
to me, the liberal media are those angry, no personality having, idiots on MSNBC, and CNN. all they do is whine and complain on the air. they can too, cause no one is watching as they get crushed in the ratings. look at air america radio. how long was that on the air? so what does the liberal media do? they try to get all conservative voices off the radio waves by force. it's really quite funny. I mean, both conservatives and liberals are idiots but it sure as hell is fun to watch! | |
|
| What does the term Liberal Media mean to you
Posted: 4/2/2008 7:51:19 PM | It seems that we see only what we wish to see
and understand only what we think that we know
Why I don't see it as you do and you don't see it as I do ~
is the wedge that something ` some identy ~ is using against us both.
We are not that far off from each other in values and beliefs but there is
much general disdain between us ~ lots of small stuff.
I think this is serving a greater porpose for someone and it's not benifiting either of us.
This hate !! ~ hate for the clinton's ~ he lied! ~ under oath ~ something important? ~ something I need to know about? ~
And the there's Bush ~ Hate for Bush ~ why? ~ beside never caring for him? ~ Poor leadership ~ without running long.
But ~ here's the thing ~ IS the "big plan" ~ too big to let us all in on what it is? ~
That we must be deceived ~ IS it that important? ~ to circumvent the cheques and balances the Consitutation provided ~ Is it important enough to delute our Bill of Rights?
If my government wants my support ~ I want to know what the game plan is ~ I want to trust my leadership ~ I want to trust and be able to verify ~ I want to support and believe it. ~ Where is the accountability!! Who offers it ? ~ Who provides it?
Are we going down the coroperate road ~ of "End Run" Eron ? ~ A house of cards ~ void of accountability~ where the end game is people falling on their own sword and the believers are the losers?
I want to know ~ We have a Attorney General with a moral compass and at the top of his /her game ~ and not a bootlick cabinet post for the adminstration
Some suggest and point their finger at the Federal Reserve ~ for our conflict today.
I must learn and understand more about this.
While I have enjoyed the bickering, tort and retort ~ we are back full circle with cigars and the cum stained blue dress. ~ Liberal this and Liberal educators ~ funny~ ever wonder why educators have a liberal bent ~ It takes an open mind to learn. ~ closed minds dont absorb much ~ but must bents to fit to present understood~ a more unchanging, traditional, conservative ~ higher learning is hard to acheive with such a mind. ~ those kind of people ~ you won't find in abundance.
People turn conservatives when they reach a point that they feel they have something to loose ~ and prefer things as they are ~ rather then consider change. ~ The fear of slipping or loosing hard fought for gains. ~ I understand that ~ I feel the same way but the world won't let us stand still. ~
We all move forward with the flow. ~ Today ~ what forces are at work ~ directing this flow?
and where is this flow headed ~ as we beat each other up with a dirty sock?
dar | |
|
| What does the term Liberal Media mean to you
Posted: 4/3/2008 7:41:17 AM | It seems that we see only what we wish to see
and understand only what we think that we know I agree that this seems to be your key issue.
Why I don't see it as you do and you don't see it as I do ~
is the wedge that something ` some identy ~ is using against us both. Because I think if more government is the answer, then it is an idiot who asked the question and a snake oil salesman that convinced him that they were on the path to global harmony.
We are not that far off from each other in values and beliefs but there is
much general disdain between us ~ lots of small stuff. I dunno about that… I think the federal government is in need of a major overhaul … and not just name plates on the desks, but a reduction of force of no less than 50%. Your leanings suggest an increase in staff of a similar level is required… I was a consultant with the DOJ during part of the Bush 41 and Clinton Administrations, and had the misfortune of being in DC during a winter storm. The radio and TV alerts required only “essential personnel” report to work, all non essential personnel were directed not to report. Now that seems like a public service, keeping the traffic on icy roads to an absolute minimum, but when I looked out the hotel window at the beltway, the normally jammed highway had only a handful of cars. My point, all government jobs should be essential, or they should not exist.
I think this is serving a greater porpose for someone and it's not benifiting either of us.
This hate !! ~ hate for the clinton's ~ he lied! ~ under oath ~ something important? ~ something I need to know about? ~
And the there's Bush ~ Hate for Bush ~ why? ~ beside never caring for him? ~ Poor leadership ~ without running long. This is the very issue. The media portrays Clinton as only having lied about an affair, when in fact, that’s not what he was charged with, convicted of, fined and disbarred for, but that “IS” the way the liberal media portrayed the whole sad soirée… In fact, most people don’t know he entered into a plea agreement to avoid prosecution of additional charges stemming from Whitewater.
Your position on Bush is equally telling that you are influenced by only left wing media and not actual facts. The media has portrayed Bush as everything from the village idiot to a sociopath bent on world domination… Common sense dictates it is impossible for him to be both, so which is it? Which one are they misrepresenting? The economy under Clinton experienced a technologically driven boon and Clinton is credited for 100% of it without actually having anything to do with it. Conversely, the past 6 months under Bush the economy has experienced downturn caused by overzealous media analogy of the housing market. Bush had nothing to do with sub prime home loans, yet the media and its rabid liberal following blame him for the phenomenon. (Yes, the term is sarcastic; loaning people money to buy homes when they could not qualify for normal conventional loans was a poor business decision. A decision whose brunt should be borne by the companies that made the risky loans, not the taxpayers.)
But ~ here's the thing ~ IS the "big plan" ~ too big to let us all in on what it is? ~
That we must be deceived ~ IS it that important? ~ to circumvent the cheques and balances the Consitutation provided ~ Is it important enough to delute our Bill of Rights? Ask YOUR representatives, they approved the extension to the Patriot Act with an overwhelming majority.
If my government wants my support ~ I want to know what the game plan is ~ I want to trust my leadership ~ I want to trust and be able to verify ~ I want to support and believe it. ~ Where is the accountability!! Who offers it ? ~ Who provides it? Clearly the people you sent to Washington have YOUR support, what you don’t seem to have is theirs….
Are we going down the coroperate road ~ of "End Run" Eron ? ~ A house of cards ~ void of accountability~ where the end game is people falling on their own sword and the believers are the losers? Another misleading media story. The fraud that Enron perpetrated against shareholders spanned almost 7 years. What the media implies is that all of this happened under Bush and that he was somehow responsible for all corporate malfeasance, when the simple fact is the whistle was blown on Enron’s years of corrupt reporting just 7 months after Bush took office. There is no reporting that this corruption occurred unchecked during almost the entire term of the Clinton administration. The simple fact is that no President could have prevented the issue, but the media has convinced the public at large that this is somehow a George Bush issue.
I want to know ~ We have a Attorney General with a moral compass and at the top of his /her game ~ and not a bootlick cabinet post for the administration Like Janet Reno? Benjamin Civeletti? Ramsey Clark? Nicholas Katzenbach? Robert Kennedy? Selecting cabinet members that subscribe to a similar philosophy is paramount to a successful administration, and has been common practice under ALL administrations. You can’t operate any board of directors when it’s filled with squeaky wheels that are philosophically opposed to every action; a cabinet position is no different, except in this instance it’s the CEO who appoints the members (by committee), not the members who appoint the CEO.
Some suggest and point their finger at the Federal Reserve ~ for our conflict today.
I must learn and understand more about this. Good luck on your journey, I personally don’t see the dark conspiracy, but I’m sure Oliver Stone will make a film about it one day…
While I have enjoyed the bickering, tort and retort ~ we are back full circle with cigars and the cum stained blue dress. ~ Liberal this and Liberal educators ~ funny~ ever wonder why educators have a liberal bent ~ It takes an open mind to learn. ~ closed minds dont absorb much ~ but must bents to fit to present understood~ a more unchanging, traditional, conservative ~ higher learning is hard to acheive with such a mind. ~ those kind of people ~ you won't find in abundance. Right, we have come full circle, you have bought the liberal aspect of all reported issues hook line and sinker, all the while ignoring the facts that demonstrate you are being party to, and actually propagating the biggest game of 3 card Monty ever played.
People turn conservatives when they reach a point that they feel they have something to loose ~ and prefer things as they are ~ rather then consider change. ~ The fear of slipping or loosing hard fought for gains. ~ I understand that ~ I feel the same way but the world won't let us stand still. ~ You’re completely misinformed … To begin, it’s not a plateau of material possessions, nor any sort of paranoia, simply a realization that things earned through self sacrifice such as hard work are better than things gifted. It’s a desire to share the fruits of my labor with people whom I choose, rather than have the government dictate those I am to share with. It’s a recognition that the original ratified draft of the constitution declares all men are created equal, and opposition to the notion that 50% of the country have to work harder and longer to cover the cost of the 50% that the government have decided don’t need to contribute, to include those the government has deemed as entitled to free room and board for life without any requirement that they do anything more than cash their government check each month. I am opposed to working 2 of my 6 day work week to cover the costs of room and board for someone who isn’t required to work at all. I am opposed to reducing the quality of my life and that of my children’s by 33% so that the government can give the money away without any requirement of fair exchange. I am opposed to spending my one day a week off doing maintenance on my house while the government uses my money to build newer and nicer housing for people who have no intention or requirement to maintain that housing. I am opposed to paying more for insurance and taxes so that those without insurance can buy Louis Vuitton, Coach and Dolce & Gabanna handbags rather than move from one government funded home to another government funded home. I embrace any change that allows me to better provide for my family through my own efforts, and reject any that makes that task any more daunting than it already is.
We all move forward with the flow. ~ Today ~ what forces are at work ~ directing this flow?
and where is this flow headed ~ as we beat each other up with a dirty sock? The flow is clearly headed down the stream, and if we don’t curb this growing socialist movement we have been in for the past 60+ years, I think we’re all going over the falls, some kicking and screaming, and some with the blissful smile of ignorant contentment. | |
|
|
| Page 9 of 14
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 |
|
Home
login 
