a good quote from ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
irene_adler
Sep. 15th, 2004 11:00 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
xatalantax"I think that the question of whether a young Bush may have not been a model serviceman thirty years ago is not quite as interesting as the possibility that, this past week, one of America's major news networks recklessly presented these cheap forgeries as news in the hopes that the story would stick enough to influence the election."
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-09-15 08:43 pm (UTC)oh and you can thank Reagan for News Stations no longer being impartial. He helped to gut the fairness in reporting acts back in 87 or 88. I'll look for the links to this, but it was something I was reading about a few weeks ago before my last vacation. It was eye opening to say the least. As a total aside, the same report talked about 2 reporters in FLA who did a peice on monsanto, a negative peice. Monsanto threatened to sue, so the station asked the reporters to work with Monsanto to get the peice aired...after monsanto was done with it, the report contradicted everything the reports found out. They refused to present it and a little bit later, the reporters were fired over this and the report, in any form, didn't air.
The reporters sued, claiming they were being asked to lie to the public. They lost. And they had to pay the legal fees of the station. Again, all brought to you by the Reagan years and (judge packing didn't hurt either).
no subject
Date: 2004-09-15 09:57 pm (UTC)What about FOX? It's partisan, and everybody knows that. FOX slants the news, but AFAIK, it's never invented any. It's not a major media monolith, trading on a good name that's as old as the medium of TV in order to palm off stories that are "too good to check."
Very interested in seeing the link and the case cite on that Monsanto story --
no subject
Date: 2004-09-16 06:29 am (UTC)And re fox not lying...that is so not true, I dropped off my partner's car a week after she bought it, maybe 3 months ago, fox news was on in the waiting room and they were still talking about WMD being hidden in iraq, Iraq trying to get uranium from Nigeria (with a forged document that is way worse then the CBS one...) and the iraq al-quada connection. Both of these are not true, and I don't care how many times W and Cheney say it.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-16 07:03 am (UTC)Not that I want to carry water for FOX. What exactly did they say about the connection between Iraq and al-Qaeda pre-war? If they were reporting remarks by Cheney to that effect, then that at least is news. But I don't think FOX ever produced bogus emails to that effect from saddam@hussein.net to osama@bin-laden.com.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-16 07:30 am (UTC)In fairness to FOX, the more I think about it, the more I think this was their morning "news" program, so this would not be a "Hard" news story. In any case, they were still talking about a letter that has been debunked repeatedly. But you are right, its a different case then the CBS letter. Considering CBS is not liberal, do you think this may be more trying to get the next big thing (a la Kobe Bryant or latest scandal)? Considering how US news is attrached to scandal (dog bites man is never a story, the opposite is) this could be more that.
And let's not forget one thing, in both cases (fox and cbs), we are arguing the same basic point, the US media is a pr machine and not a news source. As such we can no longer trust it and if the news is compromised, how can an electorate vote? This is why I listen to NPR...
I had a small comment/rant on the link you had, we can discuss that if you like and why I don't think its applicable (basically W still said it, doesn't matter if the Brits said it as well)
no subject
Date: 2004-09-16 09:13 am (UTC)Heh, it's why I don't as much as I used to! I'm a blog follower, myself.
Would be interested in seeing what you had to say about the link, too --
no subject
Date: 2004-09-16 01:28 pm (UTC)1) its no doubt there was a "failure" of intelligence, but the question is why did the failure occur. Intelligence is not an exact science. If 30% of the intel analysis experts say that Iraq had WMD, and that they were pursuing yellowcake, etc but that's the intel that the government went with, what does that say about the other 70% that it didn't? Who is at fault? btw the 30% number came from an off the cuff remark by mccain a few months back and Rudman (sp, the dem senator) also used the same number a bit ago.
I've heard from a few people in DC and from tons of articles in foreign policy rags on how the US intel community is up in arms over W because he basically stated he wants intel that supports his claims. This is why you are seeing the intel community beat up W. Hell Clark's book was only a small salvo. The Imperial Hubris book is also something that I need to read...and the list just keeps getting longer.
And this is the same thing he is doing to the sciences and gov. funding. Instead of having scientists review the money outlay, he is having christian fundies do the doling. This is why I now know 5 phds who have left the us so they could do their work for a real government. http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/page.cfm?pageID=1449
2) Lord Butler...look at his past record as an independent tribunal. Its not very good. And he's a personal friend of Blair...and the report was based on only certain intel...so while yes, if that's what Blair got then he was sorely mislead by his intel, but I have a hunch there was a lot more going on there.
3) the neocon agenda http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1400061946/qid=1095365544/sr=ka-1/ref=pd_ka_1/002-7941424-7232054
oh and a side, I recently read that the state dept. actually had a game plan for the post war iraq area. W and his cronies THREW THIS AWAY! Look where we are in Iraq now. This was in the new issue of the thick foriegn policy rag.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-16 09:39 am (UTC)Actually, no. They don't. The vast majority of their viewers don't know it's partisan - just that it's where they like to get their news. Politically aware partisans such as you and I know it's partisan, know about Rupert Murdoch and the editorial slant, but the majority of FOX's viewers don't know that.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-16 05:34 am (UTC)---
ok seriously, it does really boil down to pr...and for everyone who bemoans the liberal media, why is it that this, which (apparently, i hadn't heard about the records being confirmed as forgeries in the UK, although i admittadly haven't been paying much attention, because unless kerry shows up at a rally and guts a baby live on stage, there is no way in hell i'm ever voting for bush) is just as false as the swift boat thing, yet which story captivated the liberal media more? it's the same thing that happened in 00. Al Franked did a media analysis for his book, and negative Gore stories were far more abundant in the news, yet the negative Gore stories had more to do with trivial matters like his cadence then they did with his political record. meanwhile the bush stories were potentially more damning and got little to no press.
whatever. the point is that bush is made of teflon and has about the -best- pr consultants ever.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-16 11:09 am (UTC)Kerry's first purple heart is questioned by his immediate CO who said that there was no confirmation of enefire and the wound was insignificant. Again, immediate testimony.
In Bush case there is no documentation of wrong doing, and the only testimony that exists is that "he wasn't observed." Meaning there is no record of his presense NOR of his absense.
There is a huge difference between these issues.
***
However, the purpose of military duty on a political resume is to make some claim to ability for the position of Commander in Chief.
Kerry is a Vietnam war hero that denouced his war experience and gave back his medals because represent something he thought was very wrong - only to currently tout those same medals and to reclaim that same war experience to establish his capabilities of Commander in Chief
Bush's Vietnam record irrelevent because Bush has already been Commander in Chief during wartime - that is experience more significant than Kerry's.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-15 09:03 pm (UTC)I'd say that a more important question is: Who benefits when the people are distracted by the candidates' respective Vietnam records, and who benefits when the people are more concerned with the current state of the country? The more time we spend talking about Vietnam, the less time we have to talk about Iraq, Afghanistan, the economy, the war on terror and the assault weapons ban.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-15 09:52 pm (UTC)And
no subject
Date: 2004-09-15 09:53 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-09-15 11:55 pm (UTC)true, but...
Date: 2004-09-16 02:09 am (UTC)A bit of a red herring, I suppose. On your original comment, I think you're absolutely right about CBS. I may be for Kerry but I'm all about a fair fight. I don't think it's necessary to invent anything about Bush when he's done so much in the past few years to call himself into question.
well...
Date: 2004-09-16 05:44 am (UTC)Re: well...
Date: 2004-09-16 07:10 am (UTC)seriously though
Date: 2004-09-16 07:54 am (UTC)Re: seriously though
Date: 2004-09-16 08:03 am (UTC)That the Right is better at their spin campaign than the left means nothing to me. It's unethical no matter how well you pull it off or who did it first. I trust neither and respect neither. The main difference in the candidates to me is that I've seen Bush and his administration "recklessly present" information to the american people and lead America down a dangerous path because of it. I think all presidents will do that to a degree. I expect Kerry will if he holds office. It's just that the Bush administration has done so much of it and so brazenly.
Re: seriously though
Date: 2004-09-16 09:10 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-09-16 07:15 am (UTC)If you didn't take a look at this article: http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0916BUSH-GUARD16.html
no subject
Date: 2004-09-16 07:40 am (UTC)Perhaps these same Congressional members could demand that Robert Novak name the source who gave him Valorie Plames' name, compromising a covert CIA agent, violating the law and undermining national security?
No?
... I'm shocked. Shocked!
no subject
Date: 2004-09-16 07:41 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-09-16 09:40 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-09-16 09:49 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-09-16 07:38 am (UTC)I feel no particular outrage if this does turn out to be a Democrat attempt at a Republican-style dirty trick. They started it.
And the central truth remains: Bush got his ANG slot through patronage, lost his flight status in very suspicious circumstances, and skipped out on his commitment by not enrolling in a MA Guard unit for his final 9 months.
Why this man should be trusted to run the country, especially since he only turned the corner and became 'upstanding' after a bearded man in the sky scared the crap out of him, I don't know.
It's like if a drunk-driver drives you into a ditch you then give him the keys back so he can drive you out. Sure, you're to blame for getting in the car with him in the first place, but giving him the keys back because he drove you into the ditch and so must therefore be the best person to drive you out of it just compounds the problem.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-16 09:09 am (UTC)I feel no particular outrage if this does turn out to be a Democrat attempt at a Republican-style dirty trick. They started it.
Ah, "they started it." I know I want just that attitude in my political party! -- I don't have one, currently. Considering how much I hated Bush in 2000, it constantly surprises me to see myself defending his side in arguments. But, thing is, he's been president, so his past, as compared to his track record, is less relevant. If we could just have been talking about Kerry's Senate record and Bush's presidency, we would have had plenty to argue about. I wish we could, but neither side seriously wanted to play it that way . . .
no subject
Date: 2004-09-16 09:30 am (UTC)How about this:
Is the best person to fix a mistake the one who made it? Especially when that mistake has cost billions of dollars and thousands of lives?
If, for example, I was in business, and I made a mistake that cost my company, say, $10 Billion dollars, should the company fire me, or keep me on? How about if I don't admit that it was a mistake in the first place?
Stubburness is seldom a virtue. Especially in the face of overwhelming evidence of incompentence.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-16 09:47 am (UTC)To continue with the mistake analogy -- what exactly was this mistake? Do we all agree on that? I, for one, do not believe the Iraq war was a mistake; I think it has been conducted badly following the fall of Baghdad. I want to see that fixed; I don't want America to cut and run the way it did after the first Gulf War. Do I know what Kerry will do? Not a clue, from this day to the next. So either way, it's a desperate choice.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-16 10:02 am (UTC)1. Basing the justification of war around WMD.
2. Launching the US's first pre-emptive war since ... well, since *ever*.
3. Completely failing to adequately plan or fund post-invasion activities.
4. Deliberately crafting public statements to give the impression that Saddam and Osama Bin Laden were allies, and that Iraq was central to the War on Terror (tm).
5. Getting in bed with a man who turns out to be a liar, a criminal and an Iranian agent. And wanting this man to be the next ruler of Iraq.
I could go on. The Bush Administration positively *sprinted* to war. It was unseemly, and screamed "hidden agenda!". And while most Americans may not have noticed it, apparently the rest of the world did. The Foreign Policy damage of that alone will take years to undo.
And now our Army is over-commited, Afghanistan is deteriorating (failing, there, to 'finish what we started' thanks to the Iraqi Invasion Sprint), we look like brutish putzes to the rest of the world and we're spending hundreds of billions of dollars on a war that was, frankly, unnecessary.
Saddam, while a nasty man, was not a threat to the US. He did not have links to Al Quayda. He was contained by UN Weapons Inspections. Iraqi oil was reaching the international market. Oil prices were low.
Don't be fooled by the humanitarian angle : the Administration could care less about the suffering of the Iraqi people. This was all about a neo-con wet dream scenario of somehow creating a Democratic Paradise in the middle east, whose oil wealth we incidentally controlled.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-16 10:41 am (UTC)2. I'm not really concerned about this, personally. War isn't caselaw. The reasons to intervene, IMO, here outweighed "setting bad precedent." Neither other countries nor future presidents would care whether we had done such a thing before.
3. This is, in fact, what I consider to be the central mistake. This is why I really don't want to vote for Bush, and am, as I said in the entry Atalanta links to, undecided as to what I'll do.
4. Iraq is part and parcel of the WOT, although not connected, AFAWK, to 9-11. I don't think the administration did enough to clarify that; it certainly wouldn't have wanted to.
5. Again -- huge mistake.
Rest of the world's opinion? France, Germany and Russia had vested interests in Saddam's regime. Of course they didn't support it. The UK, Australia, and others supported us, as did many, many ordinary Iraqis. (http://iraqthemodel.blogspot.com) Whether the administration was motivated by their suffering under Saddam doesn't change the fact that Saddam is gone, and now, they have a chance at a future. A fraught and dangerous one, much depending on our precarious situation, but a chance nonetheless. They deserve democracy.
As for the oil, the Iraqi government claimed in June (link broken, sorry) that it had taken full control of the oil. American companies are not alone (http://www.iraqrevenuewatch.org/faq/) in Iraq. We aren't guzzling it.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-16 11:33 am (UTC)This is, in fact, incorrect. One of the last actions of Bremer was to push through the privatisation of the Iraqi oil industry. Majority stakes in the Iraqi oil industry is now in the hands of American oil companies.
So yeah, it's an Iraqi company - but the stockholders are American.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-17 07:13 am (UTC)