Does Anyone Care Anymore?
Saddam's Terrorist Training Camps
I thought that in case anyone cares about the reasons we went into war with Iraq, this article in the Weekly Standard might give you some needed information. Since true journalism is as common as the Northern Spotted-Owl, thought you'd like to see something like what we were used to back thirty to forty years ago.
Journalism now is the attempt to sway idiotic Americans to think clearly so that they can elect Democrats in the next round of elections. To hell with the soldiers in Iraq; saying we support them is enough. They're stupid enough to maintain their morale with these empty words.
Yes, I'm a bit down. I'm quickly losing faith in the ability of the American people to resist the constant onslaught of sophisticated BS.
posted by Underground Logician @ 2:35 PM
14 comments
14 Comments:
The notion of a 'liberal' national news media is one of the most enduring and influential political myths of modern U.S. history UL. The Right’s long-held conviction that the media is the enemy helps explain that chip-on-the-shoulder attitude of many conservatives. It's a classic tactic, pretend you're being put upon to maintain that under dog spirit when infact the conservative forces in America are in a position of domination and power.
But of course those positions bring some mistakes and when those mistake are exposed the call is 'foul'.
Woudl you like a list of all the media outlets that wanted Clinton to resign over a blowjob? The list of media outlets who have asked Bush to resign for an endless list of lies is ZERO.
Funny that...
I will agree with you that the media is not to be the friend of government, but designed to be a watchdog. I want it to be that way. I am certain that there may be conservative government officials that see the media as the enemy; certainly those who are shady see the media as the enemy.
I also know that the media landscape has changed over the last 15 years since the advent of conservative talk radio, some conservative news outlets, and now of course blog world. Yet, these conservative outlets will admit that they have a conservative bias. Frankly, I don't see how any news agency could be without a bias, even FOX News has an agenda, though I must say it has shifted a bit in the last year.
However, to say that the idea of a liberal news media is a myth, and one that is one of the most enduring in modern U.S. history is a stretch. It is no secret here in the states that 95% of media personnel vote democratic, 98% are pro-abortion, etc. They have a bias. I could elaborate more here if needed.
Let me be more specific. Jack Abramoff, a Washington lobbyist, has been indicted and pled guilty to bribery and fraud, where he, on behalf of Indian cassino interests, bribed both Republican and Democrat lawmakers on Capital Hill. CNN and other major news outlets are labeling Jack Abramoff as a Republican lobbyist, or the scandal itself as a Republican lobbying scandal. In fact, lobbyists are lobbyists; they look for those who are in power to move on agendas of their employers: in Abramoff's case, it's the Indian Cassino interests. The facts are that both Democrat and Republican lawmakers took bribes, plus both sides took campaign contributions from Abramoff. One particular person is Harry Reid, Senate minortiy leader for the Democrats, who took in $47,000 of campaign contributions from Abramoff and refuses to return it.
My thought is, whether Republican or Democrat, if you take bribes to influence your vote, your outta there. The press needs to sort this out. It keeps our power mongers in check and honest. In an ideal world, we need the press to be as objective as possible.
When media corporate interests, advertising interests, and even political interests affect the reporting of the media, the people hurt from it. This is why I get angry; the little guy who doesn't have time to sort out the huge array of facts, swallows what is given him and ultimately, he or she loses.
By the way, thanks for dropping by. I prefer having discourse in this manner. Even if we disagree, I'm glad for the chance to understand you more.
--Sam
I care, but I also think that we should've bombed the heck outta them and retreated. Let them sort through the rubble and restructure. If they come at us or at others again, repeat.
UL, I agree with you about the training camps in Iraq. So far these reports are not entirely fact just yet, but I don't understand at all why they do not get more attention in the media. I'm not sure the camps were al qaeda; nonetheless they were spreading world terrorism.
As for the media though, I slightly disagree with your reply to daniel about the media being liberal or Democratic, especially concerning Abramoff and this not being a Republican scandal.
It's true Abramoff did donate to both Republicans and Democrats, but I think you are confusing donations with bribes. It is perfectly legal, guaranteed by the 1st Amendment, to donate money to political campaigns.
To be more precise, Abramoff is a registered Repbulican, and his lobby firm is a registered Republican lobby firm; thus he is a Republican lobbyist. His donations, whether to influence voting or not, where overwhelmingly given to Republican lawmakers. Of course, just like all rich lobby firms, donations were spread across the Congress-- name one lobby firm who doesn't do that-- and the only people mentioned in Abramhoff's plea agreement are two Republican lawmakers.
This is a Republican scandal and the Republican scandal list gets longer every week. The Rove Grand Jury is still out. Libby will go to trial. Frist is under federal investigation for insider trading. DeLay is over by all accounts and indicted as well. This is all just the beginning and so much more I could list.
I will add though, that I do hate this culture of corruption that exists in Republican controlled Washington, but I would much rather see a person voted out of office than to see all these indictments and finger pointing. Whatever happened to voting people out of office?
Sorry if this sounds so partisan, but I just had to get this one in on ya :)
Jack Abramoff, a Washington lobbyist, has been indicted and pled guilty to bribery and fraud, where he, on behalf of Indian cassino interests, bribed both Republican and Democrat lawmakers on Capital Hill.
Why would Abramoff try to bribe powerless Democrats? Why? The Republicans hold all the power positions in Congress. Does it take a genius to understand that you don't "bribe" someone who can't deliver the goods?
I know you want to make this a bi-partisan scandal, but it's not. This morass of lying and cheating belongs to the Republican Party, and they need to clean up their disgusting mess.
Listen, UL. When Bill Clinton got in trouble, I faced it and understood that he was WRONG, disgraceful, and he should have been censured by Congress (not impeached). What he did was stupid. STUPID. But there was no bribery and money involved. Nobody got votes or a law passed when Clinton got a BJ from Monica.
You should understand that what the Republicans have done is disgraceful and WRONG! Far worse by a magnitude than what Clinton did.
The fact that you won't see this as a Republican problem shows me that you are hopelessly blinded by partisan loyalty. You should be loyal to America. Not the Republican party.
I see. So when the media calls Abramoff a "republican lobbyist," they DON'T mean he lobbies republicans, but that he's registered republican. Oh. I see clearly now.
If a man does the crime, he should do the time. I don't want graft in my government, Democrat or Repub. Since bribes have been taken by both Republicans and Democrats, makes it bipartisan. The fact that more Repubs have been on the take makes me angry and they should get the boot if it is true. What I want is for the news to accurately reflect what is going on.
MJ: I realize that it is okay for Abramoff to give to campaigns. Perhaps what I was unclear on was the loud allegation made by Democrats of a connection of
Abramoff to Bush since Abramoff gave $6000 to the Bush campaign. What is kept quiet is the fact that Harry Reid took in $47,000 from the same evil "republican" lobbyist (registered republican). The innuendo of impropriety falls flat when all the numbers are given.
All I want is a press that is objective and doesn't cover up or twist or invent news to "make a difference in my life." I want the damn news.
Now I know I am asking alot.
UL, thanks for the reply. Yes, Abramoff is a Republican lobbyist. His lobby depends upon Republican votes and occasionally that of some Democrats, hence the contributions to quite a spread. Very, very typical of all lobbies.
The numbers you use for Abramoff's connections to Bush are skewed to a degree. It's true of Abramoff's donations to Reid of close to $50,000; but Abramoff not only donated around $6,000 to Bush's campaign but also raised over $120,000 for Bush by hosting fundraisers and special events and allowing donations by his clients-- paid through Abramoff.
Plus, Abramoff met with Bush over 200 times in the White House in Bush's first ten months in office. And also charged his clients $25,000 for arrangements to meet Bush.
I don't see how people can claim that Bush had no more special relationship than what lawmakers on both sides of the aisle did.
When Abramoff raises money for the president that is no different than a donation. In fact, raising the money requires work and time, and means much more than a simple donation which only requires the stroke of a pen.
The news will report what it will. It's true much gets left out.
Thank you for the corrections. And since getting money from Abramoff in campaign dollars aren't bad, so be it. Now, to those who took bribes...
Yes, bribes. That's the ticket. Thanks for the space.
Your welcome, and thank you for the information. It helped me.
The myth part comes from the false logic of analysing the political beliefs of staff within companies and the output of said company.
Please note that the policy is dictated from the top down, the majority of the Big Five in the media are owned by individuals pushing a right wing agenda.
The people who work under them have little ability to push through their personal beliefs.
UL - Admin note, citing a Weekly Standard anonymously sourced article and declaring it is what journalism should and used to look like kills your credibility. You might as well back it up with the Washington Times, Bill Orielly or Frontpage Mag.
With all due respect...
Yanky:
Thanks for the input. I'll check my sources next time. Are you saying the WashTimes had it wrong?
Daniel:
Are you saying I'm making a "hasty generalization?" I'm not sure where. I look at what is actually stated in the mainstream media. And, to be more clear, I'm focusing on the big players that have traditionally ruled the news, NYTimes, WashPost, Boston Globe, LATimes, AP, etc. I realize there are some major conservative media ports as well, but not with the clout the big five have had.
Are you also saying that the big five reflect the conservative viewpoints of their owners? Help me here, I'm not sure of what you're saying.
UL,
I just got here and read this:
"Let me be more specific. Jack Abramoff, a Washington lobbyist, has been indicted and pled guilty to bribery and fraud, where he, on behalf of Indian cassino interests, bribed both Republican and Democrat lawmakers on Capital Hill."
My friend, this is a lie.
Plain and simple.
The FEC, Federal Elections Commission AND the FBI have stated unequivocally that no NO NONE NADA Democrats were BRIBED BY JACK ABRAMOFF.
It is very irresponsible of you to spread this libel. And that's what it is.
Where do you get your information?
In the past, when you found out that I was in error when I posted something, I admitted it. As I did when I mistakenly said that Bill Clinton's poll numbers never feel below, what 45. You found evidence to show that I was wrong and I admitted my information was wrong.
If you are honest, you must retract the lie that is contained in the above quote from you.
Please.
Post a Comment
<< Home