Do you believe President Bush's actions justify impeachment?

[Guest Coy Bacon]

[url="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562904/"]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562904/[/url]

Live Vote
Do you believe President Bush's actions justify impeachment? * 376713 responses

Yes, between the secret spying, the deceptions leading to war and more, there is plenty to justify putting him on trial.
87%

No, like any president, he has made a few missteps, but nothing approaching "high crimes and misdemeanors."
4.4%

No, the man has done absolutely nothing wrong. Impeachment would just be a political lynching.
6.4%

I don't know.
1.9%
Not a scientific survey. Click to learn more. Results may not total 100% due to rounding.

[Guest ONYX]

If Clinton can be impeached because he lied about getting blown
from a chubby chick, why shouldnt Bush be impeached because he
lied about WMD's, which has led to the loss of thousands of lives?


Impeach that bitch.

[Khatmandude]

[quote]No, the man has done absolutely nothing wrong. Impeachment would just be a political lynching.
6.4%[/quote]

[Guest bengalrick]

no he doesn't... i would go w/ "every president makes mistakes... "...

and that poll must have been taken over by democratunderground or something... no chance that that many people think he should be impeached...

[Khatmandude]

[quote name='bengalrick' post='385644' date='Nov 13 2006, 03:24 PM']no he doesn't... i would go w/ "every president makes mistakes... "...

and that poll must have been taken over by democratunderground or something... no chance that that many people think he should be impeached...[/quote]

MSNBC is not Democraticunderground and yes, there is a chance that many people think he should be impeached.

[Guest bengalrick]

[quote name='IKOTA' post='385653' date='Nov 13 2006, 01:01 PM']MSNBC is not Democraticunderground and yes, there is a chance that many people think he should be impeached.[/quote]

so a website like democraticunderground couldn't have found the poll, got a bunch of posters to vote for it, therefore severely obscuring the results?

i know that conservative websites do it... are you saying that liberal ones don't?

[Ben]

Define "lying" and define, "Weapons of Mass Destruction"....... Not gonna happen

He would just claim he went off the intel we had, blah blah blah. He is gonna finish out his presidency and hopefully wont fuck anything else up

[Lawman]

[url="http://www.ewtn.com/library/PROLENC/ENCYC124.HTM"]http://www.ewtn.com/library/PROLENC/ENCYC124.HTM[/url]

CHAPTER 124 — THE SOURCE AND NATURE OF THE MEDIA'S BIASES
American Life League

The statesman is an easy man,
He tells his lies by rote;
The journalist makes up his lies,
And takes you by the throat.

Irish poet and dramatist William Butler Yeats, "The Old Stone Cross."

We report news, not truth. There is no such thing as objectivity. Any reporter who tells you he's objective is lying to you.

Syndicated columnist Linda Ellerbee


Television a medium. So called because it is neither rare nor well done.

American comedian Ernie Kovacs

[b]Who They Are.[/b]

The "media" can be defined as that group of persons whose professions involve the use of communications to transmit ideas and information to a large number of people. This media may be scheduled on a regular basis (magazines and newspapers and programmed radio and television) or intermittently (motion pictures, books, and art exhibits).


[b]Their Power.[/b]

[b]Needless to say, the media are the most influential group of individuals and corporations in the world relative to their numbers due to their control of communications networks[/b]. [u]They are an elite, highly-paid professional force who manipulate public opinion on a vast scale.[/u]

In most Communist countries, the government uses the media as a tool to keep the masses ignorant, pacified, and compliant. The situation seems to be the reverse in the United States: The media as a body generally erodes confidence in the government with its constant attacks and ridicule of the administration, and is justifiably proud of its ability to motivate large numbers of people to take concrete action.

The Lichter-Rothman Study On Media Attitudes.

I think we are destroying the minds of America. And that's been one of my lifelong ambitions.

[i]John Kricfalusi, producer-director of The Ren & Stimpy Show[/i].


[b]Background. [/b]
In 1979 and 1980, veteran researchers S. Robert Lichter and Stanley Rothman conducted hour-long interviews with 240 members of the most prestigious media establishments in the United States, including the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, Time and Newsweek Magazines, U.S. News and World Report, all of the news departments at CBS, NBC, ABC, PBS, and all of the major public broadcasting stations.

Their studies included a complete cross-section of the professions at each corporation: Reporters, department and bureau heads, syndicated columnists, anchormen, producers, news executives, and correspondents.

Results of the Study.

Figures 124-1 and 124-2 summarize the results of the Lichter-Rothman study.

Figure 124-1 summarizes the characteristics of the American television, movie, and media elite, and compares them with those of the general American public.

Figure 124-2 summarizes the attitudes of the American media elite regarding important social issues.

[i][size=5]I removed the tables. Check on link at top[/size].[/i]

Reference: S. Robert Lichter, professor at George Washington University, and Stanley Rothman, professor at Smith College. A three-part series on the influence and attitudes of the media in society. National Federation for Decency Journal, August 1986 (television elite, pages 4 to 7); September 1986 (movie elite, pages 4 to 6); and October 1986 (media elite, pages 11 to 15).

[b]Study Conclusions.[/b]

Using the information they compiled, Lichter and Rothman drew several extremely important and informative conclusions regarding the American media elite. These conclusions are summarized below.

[b]• The media elite are definitely not drawn from the mainstream of American
society. They are the children of privileged upbringings and social
endowment. [i]see Keith Olberman[/i]
• According to television's creators, they are not 'in it' just for the money.
They also seek to move their audience toward their own vision of "the
good society."
• Of the television elite;
• 66% believe that television should promote social reform;
• 88% think that television is not critical of traditional and religious values;
• 70% think that there isn't too much sex on television; and
• 41% believe that there isn't too much violence on television.[/b]

[b]Affirmation of the Lichter-Rothman Study.[/b]

Predictably, the Lichter-Rothman study was lambasted for studying too small a sample (240 persons) and for interviewing only those media elite who worked for large, nationally-based organizations.

In order to resolve the debate, the Los Angeles Times set out to check the study's conclusions. Its huge 1985 study of 3,000 journalists working across the country at 621 newspapers concluded that "Members of the press are predominantly liberal, considerably more liberal than the general public." [u]Its conclusions coincided almost exactly with those of the Lichter-Rothman study.[/u]

[b]In a second affirmation[/b], the Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance Company conducted a study entitled "American Values in the 80s: The Impact of Belief." The study was based upon 2,018 hour-long interviews of members of the public and 1,700 hour-long interviews of media leaders.

The Connecticut Mutual Life study showed how out of step the media are compared to the general public on the two most critical life issues, abortion and homosexuality, as shown below.

RESULTS OF THE CONNECTICUT MUTUAL LIFE STUDY OF MEDIA ATTITUDES

Agree with Statement

Public Media
Abortion is immoral 65% 36%
Homosexuality is immoral 71% 42%

Reference. The Connecticut Mutual Life study is described in Dave Farrell. "The Media is the Message." Human Life Review, Spring 1986, pages 45 to 55.

Objectivity was invented by journalism schools. It has very little to do with real life.

Talk show host Geraldo Rivera

On MSNBC....

[Lawman]

The War on Bush

By Mac Johnson
Human Events
Posted Jul 05, 2006

Many people claim that the mainstream media have done nothing to contribute to the war effort. But that is not true. They have contorted themselves into a veritable journalistic Kama Sutra of uncomfortable positions, exposed themselves to grand juries, and sacrificed more of their already waning audience all to further the cause of victory in war. The only problem is that it is not the War on Terror they are so committed to. It is the War on George W. Bush.

To see what I mean, just look at the coverage of last week’s ridiculous Supreme Court decision overturning the planned military tribunals for the terrorists held at Guantanamo. This decision has profound implications for the status of these prisoners, affording them protections legitimately due only to uniformed military personnel captured while in the service of a recognized national government and conducting themselves in accordance with the established rules of war.

It also represents [u]yet another power grab by the court[/u] [u]more on this to come[/u], which claims it made its decision in order to strengthen the hand of Congress in defining the status of these illegal combatants. [u]This is a curious assertion given that the Congress passed the Detainee Treatment Act just seven months ago, declaring in unusually clear language [/u] [b]that “no court, justice, or judge” has the authority to hear habeas corpus petitions filed by detainees.[/b]

But for the media, such national and immediate consequences were secondary at best, as the headlines and stories declared gleefully what they saw as the real news:


“In a major defeat for the Bush administration, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Thursday…” “…the decision was a stinging blow for the administration…” (Reuters)

“The Supreme Court today delivered a sweeping rebuke to the Bush administration…” “The decision was such a sweeping and categorical defeat for the Bush administration…” (New York Times)

“Supreme Court Blocks Bush…” “5 to 3 Ruling Curbs President's Claim Of Wartime Power.” “…emphatically rejecting a signature Bush anti-terrorism measure and the broad assertion of executive power upon which the president had based it.” (Washington Post)

“In a blow to President Bush's strategy…” (Los Angeles Times)

The New York Times even continued into a delusional Watergate flashback, so frenzied was it’s joy at the decision: “The courtroom was, surprisingly, not full, but among those in attendance, there was no doubt that they were witnessing a historic event, a definitional moment in the ever-shifting balance of power among the branches of government that ranked with the court's order to President Nixon in 1974 to turn over the Watergate tapes or with the court's rejection of President Truman's seizure of the nation's steel mills, a 1952 landmark decision from which Justice Kennedy quoted at length.”

If any major media source made a serious reference to whether or not the decision would help or hinder the nation’s fight against terrorism, I missed it. [u]No, the news and analysis was all about George W. Bush, his image, his popularity, his effectiveness, and his defeat.[/u]

This myopic obsession with the political consequences of all actions in the War on Terror neatly explains every seemingly inexplicable action taken by members of the elite media over the last five years. While America fights the War on Terror, [u]the media are fighting the War on Bush[/u], in which the terror war is just one more battlefield in a far-ranging domestic rebellion.

If the U.S. must lose the War on Terror so that the media can finally show people just what a bad, bad man Bush is, [u]then so be it[/u]. As a matter of fact, losing the War on Terror might demonstrate what a failure Bush is better than any other possibility.

The New York Times doesn’t expose national secrets for profit as some have claimed. [b]It does so for ideology[/b].

To their mind, it is better that 10 guilty terrorists (or even 100) go free than that George W. Bush remain President, possess a successful legacy or pass his political capital onto the next dumbass nominee for the presidency.

[b]In pursuit of the War on Bush, the old media have:[/b]

[i]Revealed covert wiretapping programs aimed at foreign terrorists trying to contact collaborators within the United States.


Revealed CIA transportation infrastructure, right down to the tail numbers on individual airplanes.


Revealed covert banking investigations designed to find the donors and money launderers that make terrorist mass murder feasible.


Focused on the rare abuses, rapes, murders, civilian casualties, and friendly fire incidents that offer to discredit the entire military while it is under Bush’s command. While at the same time, ignoring any individual act of heroism, medal ceremony, or inspirational tales of valor, charity, humanity or honor among our troops in combat.


Revealed covert detention facilities and the foreign allies that have helped us to capture and detain those in them, threatening these alliances and exposing these allies to terrorist retribution.


Taken up the cause of the brutal prisoners at Guantanamo as if they were child-like victims of Bush, human rights martyrs unrelated to the war they began.


Tracked each new death among our military personnel in Iraq as if it were the countdown to the end of Bush’s life, the political equivalent to the flashing crystals from Logan’s Run. Normally, highlighting our casualties would be a job for enemy propaganda. But since the casualty clock helps in the war the media really believes in -- the War on Bush -- they dutifully report every tick, tick, tick, even exaggerating the numbers by including those who spontaneously die of natural causes and traffic accidents as far away as Kuwait. Likewise, they have claimed that the lower-than-civilian suicide rate among our troops is an epidemic caused by the “cracking” of morale.[/i]

In short, the elite media have functioned as the intelligence services and the propaganda publishers of our enemies, solely because they share with them a hatred of George W. Bush. If the enemy of one’s enemy really is one’s friend, then the terrorists have certainly found friends in America’s newsrooms.

[Guest steggyD]

[quote name='Ben' post='385677' date='Nov 13 2006, 01:44 PM']Define "lying" and define, "Weapons of Mass Destruction"....... Not gonna happen

He would just claim he went off the intel we had, blah blah blah. He is gonna finish out his presidency and hopefully wont fuck anything else up[/quote]
I would agree with Ben here. There are too many ways to cover his ass. I'm not defending Bush, I'm just saying ...

Clinton did not have any members of Congress, Senate, or any other branch vote and say that it's ok for him to get a blowjob and lie about it. Bush may or may not have lied but has enough excuses to excuse him. That's the difference. Now maybe if Clinton would have asked for Congress to approve the use of cum in an intern's mouth if the action is deemed necessary, then there would have been no impeachment.

[Guest Coy Bacon]

[quote name='Lawman' post='385697' date='Nov 13 2006, 02:17 PM']The War on Bush

By Mac Johnson
Human Events
Posted Jul 05, 2006

Many people claim that the mainstream media have done nothing to contribute to the war effort. But that is not true. They have contorted themselves into a veritable journalistic Kama Sutra of uncomfortable positions, exposed themselves to grand juries, and sacrificed more of their already waning audience all to further the cause of victory in war. The only problem is that it is not the War on Terror they are so committed to. It is the War on George W. Bush.

To see what I mean, just look at the coverage of last week’s ridiculous Supreme Court decision overturning the planned military tribunals for the terrorists held at Guantanamo. This decision has profound implications for the status of these prisoners, affording them protections legitimately due only to uniformed military personnel captured while in the service of a recognized national government and conducting themselves in accordance with the established rules of war.

It also represents [u]yet another power grab by the court[/u] [u]more on this to come[/u], which claims it made its decision in order to strengthen the hand of Congress in defining the status of these illegal combatants. [u]This is a curious assertion given that the Congress passed the Detainee Treatment Act just seven months ago, declaring in unusually clear language [/u] [b]that “no court, justice, or judge” has the authority to hear habeas corpus petitions filed by detainees.[/b]

But for the media, such national and immediate consequences were secondary at best, as the headlines and stories declared gleefully what they saw as the real news:
“In a major defeat for the Bush administration, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Thursday…” “…the decision was a stinging blow for the administration…” (Reuters)

“The Supreme Court today delivered a sweeping rebuke to the Bush administration…” “The decision was such a sweeping and categorical defeat for the Bush administration…” (New York Times)

“Supreme Court Blocks Bush…” “5 to 3 Ruling Curbs President's Claim Of Wartime Power.” “…emphatically rejecting a signature Bush anti-terrorism measure and the broad assertion of executive power upon which the president had based it.” (Washington Post)

“In a blow to President Bush's strategy…” (Los Angeles Times)

The New York Times even continued into a delusional Watergate flashback, so frenzied was it’s joy at the decision: “The courtroom was, surprisingly, not full, but among those in attendance, there was no doubt that they were witnessing a historic event, a definitional moment in the ever-shifting balance of power among the branches of government that ranked with the court's order to President Nixon in 1974 to turn over the Watergate tapes or with the court's rejection of President Truman's seizure of the nation's steel mills, a 1952 landmark decision from which Justice Kennedy quoted at length.”

If any major media source made a serious reference to whether or not the decision would help or hinder the nation’s fight against terrorism, I missed it. [u]No, the news and analysis was all about George W. Bush, his image, his popularity, his effectiveness, and his defeat.[/u]

This myopic obsession with the political consequences of all actions in the War on Terror neatly explains every seemingly inexplicable action taken by members of the elite media over the last five years. While America fights the War on Terror, [u]the media are fighting the War on Bush[/u], in which the terror war is just one more battlefield in a far-ranging domestic rebellion.

If the U.S. must lose the War on Terror so that the media can finally show people just what a bad, bad man Bush is, [u]then so be it[/u]. As a matter of fact, losing the War on Terror might demonstrate what a failure Bush is better than any other possibility.

The New York Times doesn’t expose national secrets for profit as some have claimed. [b]It does so for ideology[/b].

To their mind, it is better that 10 guilty terrorists (or even 100) go free than that George W. Bush remain President, possess a successful legacy or pass his political capital onto the next dumbass nominee for the presidency.

[b]In pursuit of the War on Bush, the old media have:[/b]

[i]Revealed covert wiretapping programs aimed at foreign terrorists trying to contact collaborators within the United States.
Revealed CIA transportation infrastructure, right down to the tail numbers on individual airplanes.
Revealed covert banking investigations designed to find the donors and money launderers that make terrorist mass murder feasible.
Focused on the rare abuses, rapes, murders, civilian casualties, and friendly fire incidents that offer to discredit the entire military while it is under Bush’s command. While at the same time, ignoring any individual act of heroism, medal ceremony, or inspirational tales of valor, charity, humanity or honor among our troops in combat.
Revealed covert detention facilities and the foreign allies that have helped us to capture and detain those in them, threatening these alliances and exposing these allies to terrorist retribution.
Taken up the cause of the brutal prisoners at Guantanamo as if they were child-like victims of Bush, human rights martyrs unrelated to the war they began.
Tracked each new death among our military personnel in Iraq as if it were the countdown to the end of Bush’s life, the political equivalent to the flashing crystals from Logan’s Run. Normally, highlighting our casualties would be a job for enemy propaganda. But since the casualty clock helps in the war the media really believes in -- the War on Bush -- they dutifully report every tick, tick, tick, even exaggerating the numbers by including those who spontaneously die of natural causes and traffic accidents as far away as Kuwait. Likewise, they have claimed that the lower-than-civilian suicide rate among our troops is an epidemic caused by the “cracking” of morale.[/i]

In short, the elite media have functioned as the intelligence services and the propaganda publishers of our enemies, solely because they share with them a hatred of George W. Bush. If the enemy of one’s enemy really is one’s friend, then the terrorists have certainly found friends in America’s newsrooms.[/quote]


Mac Johnson is a very sick man.

[Guest fredtoast]

[quote name='Lawman' post='385697' date='Nov 13 2006, 02:17 PM']In short, the elite media have functioned as the intelligence services and the propaganda publishers of our enemies, solely because they share with them a hatred of George W. Bush. If the enemy of one’s enemy really is one’s friend, then the terrorists have certainly found friends in America’s newsrooms.[/quote]

The media tried to potray some hero stories but the stories provided by the military always turned out to be complete lies. I remember the papers being covered with stories about Pat Tilman and Jessica Lynch. So don't even try to bring that BS around here.

Also, any article that starts out by calling the Supreme Court "ridiculous" has no credibility with me. The Court, based on recent appointments by Bush, now has a "conservative" majority. How can he complain when they rule against him? The fact is that Bush could have done things legally and the court and the media would not have had any basis to attack him. Most people have no problem with legal wire taps. The problem is that Bush refused to get approval even though time would not have beeen an issue. Regarding the whole detainees issue Bush is just playing right into the terrorists hands. He is proving that the U.S. is no better than any other country when it comes to denying people their rights. His detainee policy has created far more terrorists than it has prevented.

So stop crying about the media. Stop blaming the messenger. The media crucified Clinton also, but both Bush and Clinton did things to deserve the treatment they received.

[Guest Coy Bacon]

[quote name='fredtoast' post='387238' date='Nov 15 2006, 01:45 PM']The media tried to potray some hero stories but the stories provided by the military always turned out to be complete lies. I remember the papers being covered with stories about Pat Tilman and Jessica Lynch. So don't even try to bring that BS around here.

Also, any article that starts out by calling the Supreme Court "ridiculous" has no credibility with me. The Court, based on recent appointments by Bush, now has a "conservative" majority. How can he complain when they rule against him? The fact is that Bush could have done things legally and the court and the media would not have had any basis to attack him. Most people have no problem with legal wire taps. The problem is that Bush refused to get approval even though time would not have beeen an issue. Regarding the whole detainees issue Bush is just playing right into the terrorists hands. He is proving that the U.S. is no better than any other country when it comes to denying people their rights. His detainee policy has created far more terrorists than it has prevented.

So stop crying about the media. Stop blaming the messenger. The media crucified Clinton also, but both Bush and Clinton did things to deserve the treatment they received.[/quote]


The establishment media has crucified neither Clinton nor Bush to the extent that they stand to be crucified. Both of them are so bad that you have to shower them in shit to clean them up. People that rant about the "Liberal media" are either [psychotic or sociopaths. The Bush-hating Liberal Media just doesn't exist. I guess Orval Faubus was a nigger-lover because he finally yielded to the federal troops in Little Rock. That's how ridiculous this "Liberal media" bullshit sounds.

[Homer_Rice]

[url="http://www.aclu.org/safefree/torture/27382prs20061114.html"]ACLU gets confirmation on renditions.[/url]

[url="http://www.aclu.org/images/torture/asset_upload_file272_27380.pdf"]Go here and note #s 29 and 61.[/url]

[url="http://www.aclu.org/images/torture/asset_upload_file825_27365.pdf"]Go here for CIA response/acknowledgment--though details withheld.[/url]

[Lawman]

[quote]The media tried to potray some hero stories but the stories provided by the military always turned out to be complete lies. I remember the papers being covered with stories about Pat Tilman and Jessica Lynch.[/quote]

[i]PR nightmares, attempting to put out "goods news" without having [u]all[/u] the facts assimilated.
At my current location, i have interactions on a daily basis with the Army PAO, I will refrain from going any further with my comments [/i]


[quote]So stop crying about the media. Stop blaming the [i]messenger[/i][/quote]

Educate yourself on the [i]messengers[/i], oh that's right, I wouldn't know since this has only been my field of work for more than 20 years.

[url="http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200611/CUL20061101a.html"]http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Pag...L20061101a.html[/url]

Midterm Election Coverage Is Bad News for GOP, Study Says
By Randy Hall
CNSNews.com Staff Writer/Editor
November 01, 2006

(CNSNews.com) - Nightly news coverage on the major television networks dramatically favored the Democratic Party during the first seven weeks of this year's midterm election, according to a new study released Tuesday in Washington, D.C.

The analysis by the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA), a nonpartisan research and educational organization affiliated with George Mason University, found that [b]three out of four evaluations[/b] of Democratic candidates' chances of winning - such as [u]soundbytes[/u] - [b]were positive[/b], compared with [b]one out of eight[/b] for dumbasss.


Plagarized Piece:

In the last three decades, conservatives have come to believe that TV news reports on the key issues of our time tend to be slanted in favor of liberal or leftist positions. As former CBS reporter turned media critic Bernard Goldberg writes, "There are lots of reasons fewer people are watching network news, and one of them, I'm more convinced than ever, is that our viewers simply don't trust us. And for good reason. The old argument that the networks and other 'media elites' have a liberal bias is so blatantly true that it's hardly worth discussing anymore. No, we don't sit around in dark corners and plan strategies on how we're going to slant the news. We don't have to. [b]It comes naturally to most reporters[/b]." (February 13, 1996 Wall Street Journal op-ed)

Most members of the media steadfastly deny the presence of left ideology in their profession. In the words of former CNN and CBS reporter Deborah Potter (as reported in The Boston Globe, January 17, 2002), "I have yet to see a body of evidence that suggests the reporting that gets on the air reflects any political bias." They imply that charges of media distortion are manifestations of conservative paranoia. [u]But it is not exclusively conservatives who are concerned about changes in news covereage[/u]. In 2002, 60 Minutes commentator Andy Rooney said on CNN's Larry King Live: "[b]There is just no question that I, among others, have a liberal bias[/b]. I mean, I'm consistently liberal in my opinions. And I think some of the, I think Dan [Rather] is transparently liberal. Now, he may not like to hear me say that. I always agree with him, too, [u]but I think he should be more careful[/u]." [i]Very prophetic[/i]

Earlier, Newsweek Washington Bureau Chief Evan Thomas stated on Inside Washington, "There is a liberal bias. It's demonstrable. You look at some statistics. [b]About 85 percent of the reporters who cover the White House vote Democratic, they have for a long time.[/b] There is a, particularly at the networks, at the lower levels, [u]among the editors [/u] and the so-called infrastructure, there is a [u]liberal bias[/u]."

[quote]Regarding the whole detainees issue Bush is just playing right into the terrorists hands. He is proving that the U.S. is no better than any other country when it comes to denying people their rights. [u]His detainee policy has created far more terrorists than it has prevented[/u].[/quote]

Where do you get your information and what empirical data can you present to backup this claim

[Lawman]

[quote]The Bush-hating Liberal Media just doesn't exist[/quote]

I have a friend who is trying to train a horse to race but the horse is easily distracted, any idea's

[url="http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell110606.php3"]http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell110606.php3[/url]

The cast of characters, Part IV

By Thomas Sowell

This year's elections are not only contests between Democrats and dumbasss, they are contests in which the mainstream media are not simply observers and reporters but active partisans.

Remember how the media carried on for weeks about Vice President Cheney's hunting accident? How a Time magazine reporter had a temper tantrum at a White House press briefing because the news wasn't released soon enough — as if this hunting accident had any significance for the nation, beyond those in the media who were frustrated at being deprived of a Sunday talk show feeding frenzy?

Remember how long we were told that the Bush administration had committed a crime by revealing the identity of a CIA "agent" as revenge for her husband's having attacked administration policy? Indignant editorials in print and on the air practically salivated at the prospect of seeing Vice President Cheney, or at least dumbass strategist Karl Rove, frog-marched out of the White House in handcuffs.

It was a terrible crime, as portrayed in the media, when they thought it would discredit the Bush administration. Now, very belatedly, it turns out that the leak did not originate in the Bush administration after all, [u]but with a critic of that administration[/u], [b]Richard Armitage[/b].

Suddenly it was no longer a scandal, a crime or anything, as far as the media were concerned. There were no cries that Armitage should be frog-marched anywhere in handcuffs. Some in the media belatedly acknowledged that it was never a crime because the CIA "agent" was actually someone sitting behind a desk in Virginia.

It all depends on whose ox is gored.

Remember how absolutely certain the mainstream media were that Terry Schiavo was for all practical purposes already dead because she had been classified as being in a "vegetative" state?

Just recently a woman in a "vegetative" state was discovered by scientists to be able to respond to statements. But have you heard anything about it, much less anything about its relevance to Terry Schiavo?

If the media had been on the opposite side of this issue, it would have been front page news across the country and on TV 24-7.

[b]Reporting[/b] the news is very different from [b]filtering[/b] the news or [b]spinnin[/b]g the news. [u]Too many people in the mainstream media have become filterers and spinners, especially during an election year. [/u]

While Senator Kerry's recent controversial remarks have been spun in the media to mean something different — and better — than what he plainly said, talk show host Rush Limbaugh's recent remarks about actor Michael J. Fox have been spun to mean something different — and much worse — than what he plainly said.

After seeing a political ad by Michael J. Fox, urging support for a candidate who favored embryonic stem cell research, Rush noted that Fox, who has Parkinson's disease, looked to be more visibly suffering from that disease than he has in other appearances that were not political.

Rush then surmised that either Fox was not taking his medication or was acting for political effect. It turned out that Rush was right, that this was very different from the way Michael J. Fox was in other public appearances. Moreover, Fox admitted that he had avoided taking his medication when appearing before Congress.

The fact that Rush's surmise proved to be correct cut no ice with the mainstream media, where he has been roundly denounced by Keith Olbermann of MSNBC, who said that Rush Limbaugh "attacks a scandal-free actor who has a terrible disease," as if that makes Michael J. Fox exempt from criticism.

Diane Sawyer of ABC News said "If you have Parkinson's disease and you believe embryonic stem cell research is the, is the answer, a possible answer, a possible cure, don't you have a right to speak up?"

This is unbelievable confusion, even for Diane Sawyer. Neither Rush Limbaugh nor anybody else has ever said that Michael J. Fox has no right to speak up. [b]The question is whether nobody else has a right to reply[/b].

These are the media filterers and spinners who are seeking to affect the outcome of this election. Heaven help us if they succeed.

[i]They did, but the Rep's did give them alot to work with.[/i]

[Lawman]

[quote name='Homer_Rice' post='387496' date='Nov 15 2006, 10:25 PM'][url="http://www.aclu.org/safefree/torture/27382prs20061114.html"]ACLU gets confirmation on renditions.[/url]

[url="http://www.aclu.org/images/torture/asset_upload_file272_27380.pdf"]Go here and note #s 29 and 61.[/url]

[url="http://www.aclu.org/images/torture/asset_upload_file825_27365.pdf"]Go here for CIA response/acknowledgment--though details withheld.[/url][/quote]

Homer,

What do you think about this pitch:

Christian Science Monitor
November 16, 2006

War Has Changed. The Laws Of War Must, Too.

The Geneva Conventions are outdated for today's war on terror. The US should lead a call to modernize them.

By Scott Holcomb and Mark Ribbing

ATLANTA AND ST. LOUIS -- One of the most striking developments of the post-cold war era has been the shift in our understanding of war itself. This most ancient of human behaviors has literally taken on a new definition. The 1985 edition of Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary described war as "a state of usu. open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations."

How shopworn that formulation seems today. Warfare in the 21st century is increasingly the domain of non-state actors - of tribes, cells, clans, and networks. As the nature of war undergoes significant change, so, too, must the laws of war.

Of course, the very notion that warfare - an activity that necessarily entails premeditated homicide and the intentional destruction of property - could be channeled or civilized by statute has always been a bit problematic. Yet there is a long and distinguished history of such legislation, and it has made a difference.

These laws, which include the Geneva Conventions, the Hague Regulations, and other treaties, have been developed and refined over the centuries to reflect changes in warfare and humanitarian standards. Six hundred years ago, few would have objected to King Henry V's order, immortalized by William Shakespeare, that "every soldier kill his prisoners." But today, that directive would be justifiably disobeyed and universally condemned, because slaughtering prisoners is a recognized war crime.

[b]The last major revision to the laws of war took place in Geneva in 1949, more than a half-century ago. Today, the world needs new rules of war that reflect a world in which "combatants" may wear jeans and sweatshirts instead of uniforms with distinctive insignia.[/b] The United States, as the world's superpower and greatest military force, should lead the charge to revise the laws of war to address today's threats.

[b]The Geneva protocols offer little guidance for the definition or treatment of terrorists[/b]. Beginning with the Military Commissions order in 2001, the Bush administration has attempted to fill the gaps in international law by developing rules for the treatment, detention, and prosecution of "enemy combatants" belonging to Al Qaeda and the Taliban. The purpose was to distinguish these combatants from traditional soldiers, and deny them prisoner-of-war (POW) status.

[b]The Geneva Conventions grant POW status to those who abide by the laws of war, operate pursuant to a chain of command, wear distinctive insignia, and carry arms openly.[/b] By contrast, terrorists gain their lethal advantage precisely by blending into the populace, concealing their weapons, and blurring their chain of command - if such a chain even exists in the first place.

POW status is important for those captured on the battlefield, because it confers many benefits and protections - including guarantees of humane treatment, medical care, physical exercise, advances of pay, and freedom to practice one's religion.

Geneva's provisions state that POWs are obligated only to inform their captors of their name, rank, serial number, and date of birth, and that "[N]o physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever." In addition, POWs must be released "without delay after the cessation of active hostilities."

Such rules for the treatment of POWs present some obvious problems when dealing with suspected terrorists. In order to unearth future terrorist actions, governments need to learn a bit more from these prisoners than name and birthdate.

Then there is the question of how the current protocols apply to a "war" that may never end. Because terrorists present a continuing threat, nations must be allowed to detain those who are reasonably suspected of enacting or abetting such plots. However, [b]baseline standards for detention must be established, including periodic reviews of each suspect's case.[/b]

Congress attempted to address these issues by passing the Military Commissions Act of 2006. This law, signed by President Bush last month, attempts to define unlawful enemy combatants and describe standards for detention and treatment.

This unilateral approach to revising international law is misguided, because it may set a precedent for other nations to reinterpret the Geneva Conventions in their own interests to the detriment of US troops. In addition, some of its more dubious provisions - including denial of habeas corpus rights - have already prompted significant domestic and international criticism. The law may not even survive constitutional scrutiny by the Supreme Court.

It is time for a more effective approach to redefining the Geneva accords. If America hopes to persuade other nations of the legitimacy of its counterterrorism campaigns, it must work to rebuild its moral authority by helping to create internationally accepted standards. An American call for a full modernization of the Geneva Conventions - one that would create multilateral standards for the treatment, detention, and prosecution of enemy combatants - might be a good place to start.

[i]Scott Holcomb is an Atlanta attorney who served as a legal adviser to Army generals during the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq from 2001-2003. Mark Ribbing is a St. Louis-based freelance writer who wrote speeches for former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani.[/i]

[Guest schotzee]

[quote name='Coy Bacon' post='385334' date='Nov 12 2006, 10:49 PM'][url="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562904/"]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10562904/[/url]

Live Vote
Do you believe President Bush's actions justify impeachment? * 376713 responses

Yes, between the secret spying, the deceptions leading to war and more, there is plenty to justify putting him on trial.
87%

No, like any president, he has made a few missteps, but nothing approaching "high crimes and misdemeanors."
4.4%

No, the man has done absolutely nothing wrong. Impeachment would just be a political lynching.
6.4%

I don't know.
1.9%
Not a scientific survey. Click to learn more. Results may not total 100% due to rounding.[/quote]



I'm no re publican,but I say a big no.

[Homer_Rice]

Lawman: I don't think war has changed, so I disagree with the premise of the piece. I more or less agree with the conventional body of international law as it has been built up over the years. BTW, I also disagree with the assertion about 1949, as there have been significant developments in international law concerning warfare since then.

Terrorism is, as it has always been, a matter for police/intelligence work. That doesn;t mean the military cannot be involved, it just means that combatting terrorism is not warfare.

[Jason]

[quote name='sneaky' post='385426' date='Nov 13 2006, 02:11 AM']If Clinton can be impeached because he lied about getting blown
from a chubby chick, why shouldnt Bush be impeached because he
lied about WMD's, which has led to the loss of thousands of lives?
Impeach that bitch.[/quote]

Because he didn't lie. He may have had bad information, but that's a far cry from lying.

[Guest Bengal_Smoov]

[quote name='Jason' post='387703' date='Nov 16 2006, 01:33 PM']Because he didn't lie. He may have had bad information, but that's a far cry from lying.[/quote]

Bush knew the information was inaccurate before he had Colin Powell present it before the world as hardcore proof of WMD's. C'mon Jason, by now you should be able to see that this adminstration was willing to cut a few corners in order to achieve their agenda.

[Guest Coy Bacon]

[quote name='Jason' post='387703' date='Nov 16 2006, 01:33 PM']Because he didn't lie. He may have had bad information, but that's a far cry from lying.[/quote]


Yes having bad information is a far cry from lying - except when you seek bad information and suppress good information so that you can claim to have been mislead by bad information when accused of lying.

[STRAYCAT]

Go ahead an impeach...D. Cheney is next in line

[Lawman]

[quote name='Homer_Rice' post='387688' date='Nov 16 2006, 01:05 PM']Lawman: I don't think war has changed, so I disagree with the premise of the piece. I more or less agree with the conventional body of international law as it has been built up over the years. BTW, I also disagree with the assertion about 1949, as there have been significant developments in international law concerning warfare since then.

Terrorism is, as it has always been, a matter for police/intelligence work. That doesn;t mean the military cannot be involved, it just means that combatting terrorism is not warfare.[/quote]

Homer,

Here is the crux if our argument,

"[b]Terrorism is, as it has always been, a matter for police/intelligence work[/b]. That doesn;t mean the military cannot be involved,[b] it just means that combatting terrorism is not warfare[/b]."

You do not recognize that we are "at war", I do. Remember, where I had been for he past four years prior to this assignment.

I agree, the "war" we fight now should not be fought by conventional armies alone, other means
[b]must[/b] be made avilable and evolve as they (terrorist) do.

[quote]The Geneva Conventions grant POW status to those who abide by the laws of war, operate pursuant to a chain of command, wear distinctive insignia, and carry arms openly. [b]By contrast, terrorists gain their lethal advantage precisely by blending into the populace, concealing their weapons, and blurring their chain of command - if such a chain even exists in the first place[/b][/quote]


[quote][b]It is time for a more effective approach to redefining the Geneva accords[/b]. If America hopes to persuade other nations of the legitimacy of its counterterrorism campaigns, [u]it must work to rebuild its moral authority by helping to create internationally accepted standards[/u].[/quote]

The last sentence could be a problem:

Europe - Thy Name Is Cowardice

Commentary by Mathias Döpfner 01/17/05

(Matthias Döpfner, Chief Executive of German publisher Axel Springer AG, has written a blistering attack in the daily WELT against the cowardice of
Europe in the face of the Islamic threat. Hartmut Lau translated the article.Axel Springer AG is a major group of conservative media companies.)

A few days ago Henryk M. Broder wrote in Welt am Sonntag, "Europe - your family name is appeasement."

It's a phrase you can't get out of your head because it's so terribly true.

Appeasement cost millions of Jews and non-Jews their lives as England and
France, allies at the time, negotiated and hesitated too long before they
noticed that Hitler had to be fought, not bound to agreements. Appeasement
stabilized communism in the Soviet Union and East Germany in that part of
Europe where inhuman, suppressive governments were glorified as the
ideologically correct alternative to all other possibilities.

[b]Appeasement crippled Europe when genocide ran rampant in Kosovo and we Europeans debated and debated until the Americans came in and did our work for us[/b]. Rather than protecting democracy in the Middle East, European appeasement, camouflaged behind the fuzzy word "equidistance," now
countenances suicide bombings in Israel by fundamentalist Palestinians.

Appeasement generates a mentality that allows Europe to ignore 300,000
victims of Saddam's torture and murder machinery and, motivated by the
self-righteousness of the peace-movement, to issue bad grades to George
Bush. A particularly grotesque form of appeasement is reacting to the
escalating violence by Islamic fundamentalists in Holland and elsewhere by
suggesting that we should really have a Muslim holiday in Germany.

What else has to happen before the European public and its political
leadership get it? There is a sort of crusade underway, an especially
perfidious crusade consisting of systematic attacks by fanatic Muslims,
focused on civilians and directed against our free, open Western societies.

It is a conflict that will most likely last longer than the great military
conflicts of the last century-a conflict conducted by an enemy that cannot
be tamed by tolerance and accommodation but only spurred on by such
gestures, which will be mistaken for signs of weakness.

Two recent American presidents had the courage needed for anti-appeasement: Reagan and Bush. Reagan ended the Cold War and Bush, supported only by the social democrat Blair acting on moral conviction, recognized the danger in the Islamic fight against democracy. His place in history will have to be evaluated after a number of years have passed.

In the meantime, Europe sits back with charismatic self-confidence in the
multicultural corner instead of defending liberal society's values and being
an attractive center of power on the same playing field as the true great
powers, America and China.

On the contrary-we Europeans present ourselves, in contrast to the
intolerant, as world champions in tolerance, which even (Germany's Interior
Minister) [u]Otto Schily justifiably criticizes. Why? Because we're so moral?[/u] [b]I
fear it's more because we're so materialistic.[/b]

For his policies, Bush risks the fall of the dollar, huge amounts of
additional national debt and a massive and persistent burden on the American
economy-because everything is at stake.

While the alleged capitalistic robber barons in American know their
priorities, [b]we timidly defend our social welfare systems[/b]. Stay out of it! It
could get expensive. We'd rather discuss the 35-hour workweek or our dental health plan coverage. Or listen to TV pastors preach about "reaching out to murderers." These days, Europe reminds me of an elderly aunt who hides her last pieces of jewelry with shaking hands when she notices a robber has broken into a neighbor's house. [b]Europe, thy name is cowardice.[/b]

[Lawman]

[quote]Yes having bad information is a far cry from lying - except when you seek bad information and suppress good information so that you can claim to have been mislead by bad information when accused of lying.[/quote]

[quote]Bush knew the information was inaccurate before he had Colin Powell present it before the world as hardcore proof of WMD's. C'mon Jason, by now you should be able to see that this adminstration was willing to cut a few corners in order to achieve their agenda.[/quote]

[img]http://forum.go-bengals.com/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/37.gif[/img]

[url="http://www.warriorsfortruth.com/iraq-weapons-mass-destruction.html"]http://www.warriorsfortruth.com/iraq-weapo...estruction.html[/url]

[url="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steven-g-brant/george-tenets-responsibi_b_6014.html"]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steven-g-bra...ibi_b_6014.html[/url]

I was watching "Dead Wrong: Inside an Intelligence Meltdown" on CNN Sunday night and was struck by one of the truths that was revisited in this pretty good report. I'm referring to the very strange mental barrier "truth" on display when Bill Clinton appointee George Tenet talked about discussing his role in presenting intelligence information to Bush and his team during meetings at The White House in the run up to the Iraq War.


I'll sum it up for you here...(I'll look for a transcript of the Senate hearings later). Tenet said he presented his WMD intelligence information, including that there was disagreement within the intelligence community regarding whether WMDs existed or not, but he NEVER COMMENTED DURING THESE MEETINGS on what he knew the administration was saying publicly about WMDs to the American people. Did he ever say to President Bush "You, Condi, and Dick are talking publicly as if there's no debate going on, while you know that there is."??? No.

To me this is as if you've been hired to forecast the weather, and all you say is "The wind is blowing at 20 miles per hour today and will be blowing at 120 miles per hour tomorrow." but you never say "There's a danger coming tomorrow. You should take precautions to make sure you don't die."

What I learned...or was reminded of, because I probably heard all this when it first came out...is that George Tenet felt his job was to present the facts but NOT to add any commentary regarding the world in which those facts existed. "After all," (and now I'm paraphrasing what Tenet said in the Senate hearing) "such comments would get into making policy. And that wasn't my job."

RESPONSIBILITY MELTDOWN. It's fascinating to see how people can compartmentalize their thinking at the highest level of our government. This is the ultimate "Hey, it's not my job." moment.

The sad thing for me personally is that, during the 15 years I spent working for the government, I once wrote a memo entitled "What we need to do to keep the Williamsburg Bridge from falling down." I did this to bring to the attention of the higher-ups in the agency (the NYC Department of Transportation) the fact that things weren't being done fast enough to make sure a renovation contract one of NYC's huge East River bridges got let in time. And I stepped outside my normal personna in writing such a dramatically titled memo. But I felt I needed to get people's attention.

Oh well. I guess George Tenet and I have different opinions about what it means to work for the government.

No, Mr. Tenet. Your job wasn't to make policy. But as an American citizen working at the highest reaches of our government, I think your "job" also wasn't to watch people about to make a terrible mistake (or already making terrible mistakes) AND JUST LET THEM DO THAT AS IF YOU WERE SOME CHILD IN A ROOM FULL OF ADULTS WHO DIDN'T FEEL HE HAD PERMISSION TO SPEAK.

Oh...and then, of course, George Tenet went on to receive the Presidential Medal of Freedom.

What a crazy "Alice Through The Looking Glass" moment that was!!!

They say there are a number of little things that - if any one of them had happened differently - would have prevented the Titanic from hitting that iceberg. Well, George Tenet choosing to keep his mouth shut is one of a number of things that - if they had happened differently - would have prevented the American people from being misled into this war.

Personally, I am ashamed that George Tenet and I both share the title "former government employee". (Oh, and for the record I worked for the Federal government too - the Army Corps of Engineers - not just the City of New York. I met a lot of hard working and responsible people during my years in those two agencies. And the higher ups listened to what I wrote in that memo. We did prevent the Williamsburg Bridge from falling down.)