"Media Matters"; by Jamison Foser
GOP gets a thumpin', and media revive their substance-free, sophomoric taunting ... of Democrats
Elections rarely present perfect tests of progressivism versus conservatism. But they are the best way we have of keeping score, and the scoreboard shows that progressives won a resounding victory last week.
Given the magnitude of that victory -- just two years after the media told us that Democrats had become a permanent minority, they won control of both houses of Congress, a majority of governorships, and denied Republicans the pickup of a single congressional district -- we might expect the media to praise the strategic brilliance of the Left, just as they spent much of the past six years lavishing praise on Karl Rove and Ken Mehlman and, basically, everyone who has ever set foot inside the Republican National Committee. (Media Matters has repeatedly noted, debunked -- and occasionally mocked -- the media's tendency to swoon at the mere mention of Rove; most recently, Eric Boehlert addressed the topic in his column this week.)
Given the magnitude of the Republicans' loss, we might expect the journalists and pundits who have so mercilessly mocked Democrats as bumblers and fools, the political equivalent of the Washington Generals, to turn their snide comments and patronizing jokes on the GOP. With Karl Rove apparently wandering around in a daze, wondering what the hell happened, surely his spectacularly incompetent reading of the electorate has earned him months, if not years, of ridicule by the likes of Norah O'Donnell, Chris Matthews, and Mark Halperin.
Better yet, given the thumpin' the GOP took at the hands of progressives -- and given the public's giddy reaction to the election results -- we might expect a rash of news reports about how out of touch the Republican Party is; how its far-right agenda has been rejected; how the GOP is now a regional party, unable to appeal to voters outside of the deep South.
Certainly the Republicans' reaction to last Tuesday's shellacking only feeds into such a narrative. Surveying the smoldering wreckage of the Republican Party (a phrase we first used in September 2005, when the GOP's collapse was obvious to all but the nation's political pundits) and presumably noting that the only one of the "big six" Senate races they won was the one in which they leveled what were widely seen as transparently racist attacks on the Democratic candidate, the Senate Republican caucus chose as its new second-in-command the party's most famous racist, Trent Lott.
We all know how the pundits would chortle if Democrats took an electoral thumpin', then responded by elevating their most liberal members to the party leadership. We'd hear how their policies and their demeanor were anathema to "real Americans" -- and how their reaction to defeat shows just how clueless these effete liberals are.
But those waiting for similar treatment of the GOP at the hands of the nation's political reporters and pundits shouldn't hold their breath. It isn't coming.
Over at The Note, ABC's political tipsheet and unofficial headquarters of the Rove/Mehlman Fan Club, Halperin & Co. have given no indication that they've removed the pictures of their hero Karl from their wall. In eight editions of The Note since the Thumpin', its authors steadfastly avoid Rove's miscalculation; indeed, his name barely appears, except in passing. Is it because they like him too much? Because they remain in awe of his genius even as he loses? Or is it because undermining that genius could hurt sales of Halperin's mash note of a book, The Way to Win?
Whatever the reason, it isn't likely to end anytime soon. Suggesting non-interest in dwelling on the GOP's failure, the title of today's edition of The Note consists of a lyric from the Bruce Springsteen song "Don't Look Back" (The Note's affinity for Springsteen constituting a compelling reminder of the old adage about even a stopped clock being right twice a day).
It's easy enough to look past the obvious, if unintentional, double standard. After all, if the public isn't well-served by the sort of inane, substance-free mockery and derision to which the media have subjected progressives in recent years, such treatment of conservatives would merely even the score, not necessarily constitute a move toward more responsible treatment of serious issues. So we might see the lack of sophomoric taunting as a positive.
That would be a mistake. The political media aren't becoming more responsible; they're simply continuing to direct their scorn at Democrats and progressives. Just this week, media have hyped purported Democratic disarray while downplaying or ignoring altogether GOP infighting; falsely suggested that Nancy Pelosi is as unpopular as President Bush; asserted that Democrats -- who do not yet actually control Congress and won't until next year -- are "starting to feel some of the pressure" of catching Osama bin Laden without explaining how Bush and the GOP let him get away; and suggested that Nancy Pelosi, who hasn't even become speaker of the House yet, is already "damaged goods." Meanwhile, Trent Lott, who has as good a claim on being "damaged goods" as anyone, is the beneficiary of a media whitewash of his history of associating himself with racist organizations and ideas. Fox News, not typically known for subtlety or for downplaying controversy, told viewers that Lott "ran into a little bit of difficulty, but now he's making a comeback." Yes, that unpleasantness about his suggestion that America would be better off had a segregationist been elected president is behind him, and Lott is now ready, we presume, to act as a uniter, not a divider. Right.
But while the GOP choses as one of its leaders a man who seemed to endorse segregation just four years ago, it is the Democrats who draw the punditry's derision. Glenn Greenwald details some of the criticism of Pelosi:
Over at New Republic's The Plank, we learn that the election of Steny Hoyer as Majority Leader "is a real embarassment (sic) for Nancy Pelosi" and that to have any chance to "move past" this towering defeat she must "resist her tendency to seek payback against apostates" (Michael Crowley); "Pelosi looks pretty bad right now" (Jason Zengerle); and, in short, "this was a disaster for Pelosi all the way around" (Christopher Orr). And oh - the great and powerful Tom "Hammer" Delay (who pioneered the art of punishing apostates) would never have allowed something like this to happen.
Their overseer, Marty Peretz, surveys his decades-deep familiarity with American politicians and decides that Pelosi reminds him of . . . . . of all people . . . . Bella Abzug. After he notes the many important and serious differences between the two -- "Pelosi is rather svelte, which Bella was not. Pelosi also doesn't wear a big-brimmed hat" -- he says that neither of these women can "discern between a political difference and a personal war. So if it was the former, it quickly also became the latter." Says Peretz of Pelosi: she "cannot separate personal from political differences. And where Pelosi's vanity goes, there, apparently, the House Democrats will follow."
At Slate, Timothy Noah has a column entitled "Dump Pelosi[?]," in which he generously decrees: "Let Pelosi remain speaker for now. But let her know that, before the new Congress even begins, she has placed herself on probation." Noah warns her: "One more strike -- even a minor misstep -- and House Democrats will demonstrate that they, unlike Speaker-elect Pelosi and President Bush, know how to correct their mistakes."
Pelosi, who just led the Democratic caucus through an election cycle in which they seized control of the House for the first time in a dozen years, winning everywhere from "blue" New York to "red" Kansas, is portrayed as an incompetent bungler.
Meanwhile, who gets praised by the media?
Michael Steele, who ran a deeply dishonest campaign, the primary message of which was that he was a puppy-loving (we have no reason to doubt this is true) Democrat (this most certainly is not), is heralded as the most clever of campaigners; a man who ran so masterful a campaign, he must feel like a winner. Even though he lost. By double-digits. That cold, hard reality doesn't stop the likes of Wolf Blitzer from channeling Trent Walker ("Who's the big winner here tonight at the casino? Huh? Mikey, that's who. Mikey's the big winner. Mikey wins").
And, of course, there's John McCain. No matter what the outcome, the political media know one thing: It's good news for John McCain. An election in which the voters made quite clear their disapproval for a war McCain has enthusiastically supported is portrayed as good for McCain. McCain wants to send more troops to Iraq, public support for which is at a meager 17 percent. That's "would you like to go hunting with Dick Cheney?" territory, but CNN's Bill Schneider announces that McCain's presidential ambitions got a boost from "a midterm where Iraq was a big issue."
And it's only going to get worse, as anyone who remembers the media's behavior during the Clinton-Gore era can tell you. The media that treated Bill Clinton's haircut as a bigger story than George W. Bush's avoidance of both the draft and his obligations to the National Guard is most certainly not going to react to the public's strong preference for progressive policies and leaders by treating them more accurately than they have in recent years.
Digby told it like it is:
There are no honeymoons for Democrats. Remember that. And "moral authority" is about haircuts and Hollywood, not torture and illegal wars. It is not merely a fight against the Republicans or a fight over politics and policy. It is a non-stop battle with the press to cover events with seriousness and responsibility. For some reason, when Democrats are in power the press corps immediately goes from being merely shallow to insufferable, sophomoric assholes.
No, it will only get worse. Matt Drudge rules their world, after all. And the Republican National Committee rules Drudge's world. The media's commitment to believing that they hold those in power accountable (if not to actually doing so) coupled with the Right's success in browbeating journalists into doing their bidding, will lead to all-too-predictable results. Don't take our word for it; here's former Washington Post reporter William Powers, writing for the National Journal:
Journalists are more aggressive under Democratic rule. This doesn't jibe with the stereotype of reporters as liberals, but it's the stereotype that winds up undermining itself. When Democrats are in power, there's a huge incentive for reporters not to appear too sympathetic and thereby confirm the old liberal-bias charge. Thus, despite the friendly coverage we're seeing in this honeymoon period, the Democratic restoration will eventually produce tougher coverage than we saw of the GOP Congress, as media outlets strive to prove that they aren't soft on the Democrats.
Anyone who doubts this need only consider ABC's Mark Halperin. In The Way to Win, Halperin acknowledges what too few of his colleagues have: that, during the 2000 presidential campaign, the media treated Al Gore much more harshly than George W. Bush -- treatment that, in an election Bush ostensibly won by the slimmest of margins, proved determinative. Halperin and his co-author John Harris write:
No one who kept a close eye on the media coverage of the 2000 campaign would deny that the press corps assigned to Gore was more aggressive and more hostile toward the candidate than those assigned to Bush, a vivid reminder that liberal bias is hardly the only factor influencing Old Media coverage, and often not the most important. This discrepancy made Old Media reporters much more likely to buy into political party press releases, late-night comic jokes, and the general story line that mirrored the Bush campaign's crafted version of Gore.
"Not every election is a fair fight," Halperin and Harris reveal, explaining that "The media, the New leading the Old, helped Bush tell his good story about himself, and helped Republicans tell a bad story about Gore."
None of this is news to anyone familiar with the 2000 campaign; the passages in The Way to Win about the media's handling of that campaign is interesting only because major media figures like Halperin and Harris rarely acknowledge it.
But what is truly informative is what Halperin has said since putting his name to those words. Halperin embarked on a whirlwind tour of right-wing media, declaring to his hosts that the media had to "prove to conservatives that we understand their grievances."
In other words, Halperin says the media treated Al Gore more harshly than George Bush ... and that the media has to "prove to conservatives" that their grievances are understood.
Progressives -- anyone who cares about honest, accurate, and fair journalism, really -- simply must understand what they are up against: an elite media that continually screw them, then apologizes to the Right for not screwing the Left harder.
That's what's coming. The Right, having been spanked at the ballot box, will increase their attacks on the media, blaming journalists for the unpopularity of their failed ideas and leaders. Journalists, already carrying water for the GOP -- wittingly or not -- will apologize for not carrying more, internalize the complaints, and reflect them in new reports filled with an ever-growing deluge of conservative misinformation.
Unless ...
Unless progressives react to the midterm elections not with a sigh of relief and misguided trust that, having flexed their political muscles, they'll start to get a fair shake from the media, but with a full-throated and sustained insistence it happen.
"I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it," President Bush declared after his 2004 re-election. He spent it incompetently, but he was right that electoral results give the winner some capital, if they are willing to use it.
Progressives must take that lesson to heart and insist on fair and accurate treatment from the media. When media get something wrong, or sneeringly dismiss progressives and their goals, they have to hear about it, loudly and from every direction. From every direction. It isn't enough for progressive leaders to be silently thankful that Media Matters and FAIR and a few other organizations and blogs correct the media. They must join in; they must make clear to news organizations that they won't be pushed around and marginalized. The American people have spoken, they prefer progressive policies and leaders, and it's damn well time the pundits and journalists start internalizing that.
A good place to start, as always, is with the cesspool that is cable news. Nearly every progressive and Democratic organization in Washington has televisions tuned to CNN and MSNBC and Fox News during the day. When a cable channel broadcasts a falsehood, or a mocking, sneering portrayal of a progressive leader, their producers and reporters and executives should promptly hear from those organizations. Washington is a small town; progressive leaders and the media who undermine them with falsehoods and petty smears interact on a regular basis. It's time for that interaction to include pressure to change.
One change that progressives should push for immediately is an end to the imbalance that finds cable channels granting television programs to overt Republican shills like Tucker Carlson and Glenn Beck, while progressive hosts are nowhere to be found.
It's simply unacceptable for Beck to be given a platform to spread his hate speech. In the past week alone, Beck told the first Muslim ever elected to serve in Congress, "[W]hat I feel like saying is, 'Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies,'" said it was "surprising" to see a Muslim criticize Al Qaeda, and bizarrely suggested Hitler would approve of Hillary Clinton's support for expanding access to health care. This foolish bigot has his own television show on CNN's Headline News, yet no progressive has a program on either of the CNN stations.
Over on MSNBC, Carlson has used recent editions of his show to defend Trent Lott's racism, George Bush's drunken driving (sure, he was drunk, Carlson tells us, but "it's not like he was wasted"), George Allen's use of the slur "macaca," Conrad Burns' equation of terrorists and taxi drivers, and the Pentagon's lies to the family of Pat Tillman about how he died. He defended ABC's broadcast of lies about the Clinton administration on the basis that the filmmakers acknowledged that they weren't telling the truth. This shameless apologist for the most shameful actions by conservatives hosts his own television show on MSNBC, a luxury not afforded any progressive.
The imbalance extends beyond the cable shows and beyond the roster of hosts. The Sunday after Democrats took advantage of voter disapproval of the Iraq war, NBC's Meet the Press brought viewers two guests, neither of whom were elected as Democrats, and both of whom are among the nation's most prominent supporters of the war. The Sunday shows have justified their reliance on conservatives and Republicans to fill out their guest lists by noting that the GOP has been in power. Now that Democrats have taken control of Congress, progressives should insist they be represented on these shows.
As we noted last week (and as Glenn Greenwald, among others, has explained), the major media have for far too long continued to treat as "serious" those who have been consistently wrong about the great issues of our time, while dismissing as unserious those who were right. The American people spoke last week. Progressives must use that unambiguous statement to fight back against media that have stacked the deck against them.
in his new york times column, david brooks writes: "finally, there's blue-america snobbery, as people on the coasts try to fathom those who would vote for george w. bush." yeah, i do try to fathom it, but it has nothing to do with snobbery. it has to do with the fact that this man was unqualified, spectacularly so, to be president of the united states. he did nothing but lead a life of frivolity and partying until he was forty years old, and then turned into a god appointed me to lead you messiah. he is a master of cliches, untruths and half-truths, convinced that only he is correct, secure in his righteousness. the tough cowboy who thinks any problem can be solved by hanging on to one failed policy after another. how many more times does one have to see and hear of his non-reactions to threats? a meeting where he is told that there is a grave danger of the levees overtopping, and the white house says he was only there "to observe". an analyst in the cia who travels to crawford in august 2001 to warn of an impending attack, and is dismissed with "you've covered your ass now". i've read that clinton would be considering an action and he would actually tell his aides to give him all the contrary info they had. imagine that with bush. brooks reminds me of guys like krauthammer and kristol on fox. the guys that were completely wrong on the invasion of iraq, and the skeptics entirely correct. but they still sit there with smug arrogant smiles and dismiss those who would dare question their genius. it's not as if the democrats had a bad candidate in 2000. gore was an intellectual, competent and experienced, willing to listen. bush is the total opposite. the heartland can continue to think the world is 6000 years old, but they are still wrong. they can also feel free to think that bush is a worthy leader. they are also wrong about that.
the most interesting part is when bond is outed by karl rove. ok, the most interesting part is when "m" [the great judi dench] refers to the shorting of airline stocks pre 9-11, the exact airlines involved in the hijackings. that has never gotten a lot of press attention. the senate did it's own 9-11 investigation and the administration blocked about a dozen pages of that report. i have heard former senator bob graham say that those pages have to do with saudi involvement in the plot. the movie is very good, the equal of the early bonds, in no small part due to daniel craig. like connery, he is the perfect combination of sophistication and wit. i thought the other bonds came off as too cartoonish.
I'm looking forward to seeing it, although when I hear "casino royale" I'm always going to think Peter Sellers, David Niven, Woody Allen, the Tijuana Brass etc. first.
And as a Bond afficianado it's good to hear that they picked a good 007. I thought Brosnan was excellent, although Connery will probably never be beat. Outside of them, it's pretty obvious how hard it is to cast that part.
The bell-filled ball-chasing puppies of the MSM are so excited that, like most yipping little crap factories, they're liable to wet the floor at any time and for no apparent reason.
Gooooood Puh-peeees!
The more I read, the more years roll by...the more I begin to wonder why it is that this feels a lot like the film The Revolution Will Not Be Televised. The rich, including our media personalities seem to have figured out why it is in their best interest to slant right and pick our presidents through selective coverage, YEAH MONEY. I spoke to someone once back in 1990 that said that Bush would lose the election but one of his sons would be the president after that one. He said that Bush took a dive to avoid further investigations into his misdeeds. He said it would be Jeb but he was wrong. He also told me one other thing, watch the media they pick the presidents not you and me watch what they do and more importantly what they do not talk about. I thought he was batshit. I did not think about it again until Gore V Bush and I watched as the media mocked and otherwise ignored him yet Bush's problems went undisclosed as possible, a few small blurbs but WOW did he ever recover well. I wont even go into the Kerry thing but needless to say I wish I remembered who that guy was. I would like another twenty year forcast because the public seem to be awaking from there slumber. If the Dem's dont do something effective things will get bad for Repug's and Dem's. The populace is angry and if they seem to have lost any love of the media according to polls. I wonder how long it will take for reporters to find themselves mocked in live telecasts like the Fox anchors have been. Then maybe a third and maybe even a fourth party with people having to carry signs of who they voted for out of the voting booth to make sure there vote is COUNTED.
Is for the Dems to buy an extraordinary amount of commercial time to get their message across. That's how Schwarzenegger did it in California: he saturated the airwaves and made his points the default ones.
It's no use looking to the media for any kind of balance. If progessives scream and yell about problems, the only thing the media will do is cover how they're screaming and yelling.
2006 EDA report states that Edison/Mitofsky once again "fixed" their exit polls to match the "final count", like the 2004 Kerry/Bush stolen election...according to the data, the GOP stole 3 million votes nationwide, or 4%...
[link to electiondefensealliance.org]
I go to work, take care of my business, forget about things (you have to ) to get through the day, and then I come home and flip through Fox news or most of the MSM, and I see and hear millionaire pundits talking about the "Elite". (or "elites", I'm sorry)
The snobbery of people with eyes and ears and at least some remaining brain attached to them!
It shows up on this site pretty often. Some Con comes on with the same irrational talking points that have been oozing from the am radio and cable news all day.
Somebody else posts a link that debunks everything the poster is saying, or does it with nothing but a little common sense.
Then the righty comes back with the sarcastic poor mouth on,"Oh, you liberals are so enlightened, you're so much smarter because you believe in science, and you question your Government when they're lying to you".
I'm tired of it.Hearing candy-asses like El Rushbo and his pals, filthy rich and shilling for the other filthy rich, and suckering hard working Americans into supporting them, while calling the people trying to keep them under control "elite".
I grew up in anice enough family, never suffered and had food, but I had tools strapped on me and dirty hands every day through my 20s and 30s. I finally went back and got my 2 year degree, it took me 25 years, a couple years ago, and am still trying to finish school, just to say I did it.
I ain't that smart! I just have always worked hard at paying attention and keeping my BS detector turned way up,and I resent lazy privileged people painting anyone who gives a f**k about other people as soft or out of touch.
This is no ringing endorsement for the Democratic party, by the way. Most of those who rise up the ranks there have come from pretty nice places as well, but they, at least, are not hopeless.
Sorry to rant somewhat off topic, flag me if you want, I'm just saying if I hear another slack-jawed zombie call into righty radio complaining about some "Union-friendly" politician,or that commie "death tax", I'm going to have a hard time lasting throough 2 more years of the Bush clown squad.
Thanks for the link. I've put forward my theory that the CODING of the voting machines can easily be given ONE LINE that instructs the machine: "Every 100th vote for the Democrat, record instead as a vote for the Republican." That easily accomplished at the facory, with a "proprietary" and thus SECRET computer code that cannot (yet) be scrutinized, and would have the result of skewing all elections WITH that coding 2% in favor of the GOP.
And the owner/president of the Voting Machine company, Diebold, had publicly pledged to do whatever it took to "deliver" the election to Bush. His BROTHER owns the other major election machine manufacurer, ES&S.
But YOUR story here suggests strongly that the GOP was more worried than I dreamed. Instead of every 100th vote for a Dem being "flipped", it looks like the coding called for every 50th vote, which would cause a 4% skew away from the valid count, from Dems to Republicans.
I didn't believe they would be brazen enough to go for flipping THAT MANY votes ... it seems that would be going TOO FAR, and that they would SURELY be caught.
Our only hope is that the New Dem Majority will exert their power to get to the bottom of this election machine programming, and restore confidence in our system once again.
It's mindboggling to think how much MORE the Dems would have won, if not for this obvious rigging of the system. The American people REALLY REALLY hated the GOP (and the exit polling CONFIRMS this), so much so they lost bigtime across the nation even with a 4 point cheat. How many seats did the GOP claim that would have been LOST if that margin of theft hadn't been arranged?
The 4% flip in this cycle was just a test: given the overwhelming anti-Repug sentiment in the electorate, the idea was to see how far the theft could go, before triggering imprisonments and executions. Based on the assumption that turning a 10% loss into a 6% loss (even retaining some Repug incumbents in pro-Dem districts by slim margins), this is preparation for 2008's "pendulem swing back to 'Merican values." Overjoyed at winning something, the Dems are likely to be less aggressive about 100% paper ballots in that next cycle, and less able to establish cause for crushing Diebold, ES&S, Sequoia, and their SoS accomplices.
I am mind-boggled by the baseless accusations people are content at making without offering even the smallest iota of real tangible evidence. If you were accused with a crime you would demand evidence and then demand to be exonerated if there was lack of it. Why then is it ok for you to do it to others?
Our system is stil the most free and fair election process in the world. In fact the only broken part of it is the lack of participation. We can't even get half the country to show up to the polls. I have faith in our sytem.
Did you notice that the last three times times Democrats had a big loss there were cries of fraud and wanting recounts, yet when the GOP lost they took it like men and women with honor. They bowed out grcefully. Even in the close race in VA. And now even though you won you still call out for voter fraud. Maybe the thing that is wrong is Democrat's attitude. There "I didn't win so it must have been fraud" attitude. Or their "I won but not by as a big a margin as I wanted to so there must have been fraud attitude." Get over and do something for the country.
Exit polls are not perfect. They are not scientific and should not be uised to accurately measure anything.
They are absolutly scientific and are used all over the world as a check to verify election results the only time I have EVER heard them denigrated is when the GOP cant find any rational reason to explain why the last two elections dont seem to conform to the exit polls.
[link to 66.102.7.104]
but prominent survey researchers (e.g., Asner 1999, Cantril 1991:142), political scientists (e.g., Edwards & Wayne 1999:84), and journalists (e.g., Jurkowitz 2000) concur that they are highly reliable. As far back as 1987, political columnist David Broder wrote that exit polls "are the most useful analytic tool developed in my working life" (1987:253). Edwards & Wayne (1999:84) caution only that, "Š the problem with exit polls lies in their accuracy (rather than inaccuracy). They give the press access to predict the outcome before the elections have been concluded."
An exit pollster himself for more than 20 years, St. Louis University Professor of Political Science Ken Warren (2003) has never had an error greater than 2 percent, except one time-in a 1982 St. Louis primary. In that election, massive voter fraud was subsequently uncovered.
Because of their reliability, exit polls are used to verify elections around the world. When exit polls deviated from the official count in Serbia and the former Soviet Republics of Belarus, Georgia, and the Ukraine; the world-led by the United States-accepted exit poll numbers over the official count, and in three of these nations, the election results were successfully overturned. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
No this newly discovered problem with exit polls came about the same time as Diebold and strange exit poll results. The US supported the recall of Shevernadze based on THEIR exit polls.
No proof is possible. How in the world should it be acceptable to have an election with no possible way to VERIFY the results? In fact making machines specifically to count votes in such a way as to preclude them EVER being verfied itself alone makes such speculation inevitable. There isnt proof but there is EVIDENCE. Thats right exit polls. Which in the 30 years I have been watching elections have NEVER been wrong until now with these new machines. Exit polls are what Jimmy Caters monitering goup used to verify the Venezualan elections they are used worldwide for that purpose. It was exit polls that chased Shevernadze out of office. Why NOT put an end to this kind of speculation why not FORCE machines to produce a paper trail that can be verified what in the world could be wrong with that WHO could find a reason NOT to do that and WHY is it that the GOP is so dead set against it? Of course that is on a national level. In some counties its the DEMS that are against it and I cannot for the life of me see any reasonable argument against demanding paper trails if only to stop this kind of speculation
Why would the Repubs be eager to launch an investigation that would expose their FAILED use of voter intimidation and fraud?
Hmmm...purging voter rolls, placing misleading and harrassing robocalls, sending leaflets threatening imprisonment to potential voters, making calls and mailings remarking erroneous polling station changes. Real honorable stuff eh?
Why wouldn't these men and women of honor want these tactics brought to light? The same reason they haven't tried to call for any investigations. They have no honor and would risk further damage if they called to have their own despicable tactics officially looked into.
Nice try, but no dice.
I thought Loki was the god of mischief, not idiocy...
"One change that progressives should push for immediately is an end to the imbalance that finds cable channels granting television programs to overt Republican shills like Tucker Carlson and Glenn Beck, while progressive hosts are nowhere to be found."
You're absolutely correct in everything you've offered in this brief with one small execption - Keith Olbermann.
Keep up the great work and the great writing, Jamison. Your weekly MM briefs are excellent. I look forward to reading them every week.
What progressive agenda have any Democrat offered. The answer is none. All they do is offer critism of the Republicans and anyone who disagree with them. They have not offered a plan instead to say that things will be different. They can't even agree amongst themselves what the main key issues of their party will be.
I am sick and tired of Democrats being referred to as Progressives. That implies they want to change the status quo and move the country forward, when they seem content on furthering the status quo.
As for Progressive and Democrat voices in the media, where is the market? Democrats complain and complain about the lack of balance in media. The lack of Democrat voices on air but when it comes right down to it they do nothing about it. You get a few people to start Air America then no one listen and they go bankrupt. Anyone hear about Al Gore's netwrk, CurrentTV, lately? They are in fewer homes than Air America right now. If you want the liberal message heard then support it. Don't come to blog and complain about the lack of the message. Because everytime someone has tried it has failed because their own base refused to support them. It is their own fault there are no Progressive/Democratic voices to be heard in the media.
Dems may not be as progressive as I would like but Murtha DID offer a plan for Iraq, Dems DID try to raise the minimum wage. Dems have tried to get universal healthcare. This LIE that Dems have no ideas and dont do anything but criticise republicans is just ludicrous. They stopped giving the GOP fodder LATELY when it became clear the republicans wanted Dem ideas to ATTACK with no possibility of actually discussing them.
Your argument for why Democrats don't actually spell out what their plans are is because Republicans will attack the plan. Good to know it is a solid enough plan to stand up to scrutiny. Good thing to know we elect people into office who can't handle scrutiny.
Attacking the substance of the idea is fine, thats not what they want to do. Did they attack the substance of Murthas plan? No they attacked his patriotism for even SUGGESTING a plan they didnt like. One that has the basic support of both the majority of Americans AND the majority of the troops in Iraq. The majorities of BOTH these groups want us to LEAVE Iraq in a timely fashion. They want to MISREPRESENT any plan, not dissect the plans themselves.
Name one soldier, not general, soldier in Iraq or in the states right now that has voiced their support for withdrawl from Iraq. There is actually an understanding among the troops that we cannot and should not pull out. We didn't create the problem but if we leave we will only exacerbate it.
[link to www.zogby.com]
An overwhelming majority of 72% of American troops serving in Iraq think the U.S. should exit the country within the next year, and more than one in four say the troops should leave immediately, a new Le Moyne College/Zogby International survey shows.
This poll was published in Stars and Stripes. The majority want out of within a year.
Here is an individual soldier recently back from Iraq NOT a general and what he has to say
[link to www.scoop.co.nz]
USA-- -“Yeah! Wake up America! Your sons and daughters are dying for nothing! This war is not about freedom or stopping terrorism. Bring us home now! We are dying for oil and corporate greed!”
That is one and I dont think he could make it any clearer actually I have read several letters, apparantly from the 72% that want to come home within a year that are saying straight out that they want to come home and we shouldnt be there. You are just flat out wrong on that one
I asked for evidence and you provided it to me. I stand corrected. The war being unpopular still does not make it wrong.
There being no moral justification for it makes it wrong. That and there being no practical reason not related to controlling the oil makes it wrong. If terrorism by Islamic Extremists is the problem how in the world would invading the most secular country in the region come close to making sense.
It hink we are seeing evidence that it was not secular. The only reason there was not what there is now is because of the tyranical hand of Saddam Husein.
There isnt any disute Iraq was the most secular nation in the region. The US is a secular country the fact most of its citizens are religious doesnt change that. The government was secular. One of the Baath party's most visible and powerful politicians Tariq Aziz was a Chaldean Christian. The first woman judge in Iraq was sworn in, in 1959. They had women lawyers, doctors college proffessors. Iraq had bad problems but they were never Afghanistan.
Since when is a natural resource not a good reson for war? Every war has essentiallyh boiled down to natural resources. Be it land, oil, or people.
When the President speaks he speaks for the nation, when he gives his word he is giving our nations word. After the first Gulf War the then President Bush made a promise the Iraqi people, to the world, rise up and America will help. They rose up, we left, they got slaughtered. I argue that Americas credibilty in the World was hurt worse by that action than by us enforcing the UN resolutions they were unwilling to enforce and us going in to protect the Iraqi people and yes precious sources of oil.
I would say it depends on what you mean by GOOD. IF it were a reason the people would accept why didnt Bush just say, ok we want the oil so lets send American soldiers over to Iraq to die for it. Then there is the question good for WHOM? It is certainly good for Halliburton, Exxon and the like but how would it be good for Americans. I mean how much money do we save at the gas pump and how much do we spend on the war? In the end I say resource wars are NOT good for the ordinary American even if it is good for well connected corporations.Your point about protecting the Iraqi people does not stand up to any scrutiny. First they never asked us to invade and help them out. Second more than 80% of them want us gone. Third we have killed tens if not hundreds of thousands of them which is pretty poor protecting. Saddam was killing about 300 a year from the time we stopped supporting him. It would have taken between 50 and 100 years for him to kill as many as have been killed since the invasion. As to enforcing un resolutions that wont wash either. Israel has violated twice as many as Iraq and Turkey has violated more. Also WHICH resolutions were being violated I mean we now KNOW there were no WMDs so aside from small technical violations not even close to worth an invasion I dont know what you could possibly mean
The second point I partially agree with. Bush 1 once he committed to the Shiites should have backed that up and helped them. I was inscensed at the time and complained loudly. However Bush the dimmer doesnt get to just give the word of our country then do whatever he wants. That is a logical reason to allow him the powers of a king to do absoluty ANYTHING he wants. He works for the people and he is constrained by the constitution and accountable to us.
If there was no insurgency of terroist form other nations the civilians would not be dying. It is not like our troops are indiscreminitly shooting civilians. The people that are the cause of the deaths in Iraq are not our fighting men and women. The blame lies with the insurgent terroist alone. We did not create them we, must, and will stop them.
Have a right by international law to armed resistance to foriegn occupation, that is NOT terrorism. Whatever you want to call it they are innocents dying and our invasion is the cause. I am not saying soldiers are killing people indiscriminatly, I mean they are, but not beyond the way that happens in any war. The consequences of the invasion are on OUR head. The problems it caused are problems everyone not committed to neo con wetdreams saw coming and warned this adminstration about. I was talking about them and I am just a guy with a job. WE are responsible its that simple. As for those fighting US we DID create them when we invaded. There hadnt been a single suicide bombing on record in Iraq before our invasion.
It is not the Iraqi rising up and attacking out troops. It is Saudi/Iranian born terroist. They have people from Syria, Lebanon, and Palestine carrying out Teroist attacks on American troops. The people of Iraq are not the ones bombing us. e do not target civilians, they do. We do not hide behind civilians, they do. We do not hide behind a religious faith to justify our actions, they do.
The only thing we are at fault for is not securing the borders fast enough to stop the influx of these terroist.
they are saying that only about 10% of those attacking us are foriegners and it is mostly Iraqis. As for those killing each other that is also our fault. Whatever else is wrong with a brual dictatorship it keeps the peace. This administration was warned that the Sunni minority having power so long and a resentful Shiite majority were likely to turn itno widespread civil violence if not civil war. Easily seen consequences of an action are in fact actions we are responsible for. And we DO target civilians, we bombed civilan neighborhoods. When we drop a bomb on a civilian neighborhood knowing it will kill civilians like say when we dropped the MOAB 2000lb bomb to GET Saddam on a civlian nieghborhood it IS targetting civilians. We all saw the shock and awe, we all saw Fallujah those were civilians right along with insurrgents we were killing and targetting. It might be considered just a bad consequence of how war is waged but lets not kid ourselves we arent bombing civilian niehgborhoods and by defnition targetting civilians.
The thing we are at fault for is bringing misery and death to a people who never attacked us (well actually since 1986 when Iraq did attack us but they were an ally so like the Liberty we just overlooked it) I dont care how much you hated Saddam, I am with you on that, but there are a few hundred thousand Iraqis now dead who were NOT Saddam Iraq was NOT Saddam and we are responsible for bringing a war there and there is no reasonable justification for doing so.
If it weren't for his brutal dicatorship then we would have had no reason to go in. You say it would have taken him 50 to 100 years to kill as many people as have died as a result of the war, doe sthat it make it ok? Whether they died now or in 50 years they are still dead. Again i say that the numbers coming out of Iraq for civilian deaths are based on door to door interviews not an actual body count. Have someone actually count the bodies and then we can compare numbers.
The insurgents are hiding amongst the civilian population, collateral damage and casualties cannot be avoided. The civilian deaths as a result are on their head not ours. It was asked earlier that is if the true goal is terooism why are in Iraq. Part of defeating terrorist is going after the State sponsors. Which Iraq was one. There were two Al Queda training camps in northern Iraq. Saddam Hussein funded terroist suicide bombings. And getting Iraq into a free democratic state helps us defeat Iran the true evil of the Middle East. The reason why peace in the Middle East has been nothing but a fantasy for oh these long years.
I am going to lay a little truth on you people tonight. Your moralistic ways may not allow you to grasp this. You know I am glad that there are people like that in this world, it keeps people like me in check. You ready, here it is: The ends do sometimes justify the means. DO a few thousand have to die to save millions, probably. Is it reprehensible, yes. Was it necesary, yes. Terroist do not understand nor do they cooperate with negotiations. They will only be contained by killing them.
The point that it would take so long is that Saddam was in his 60's now are you claiming he would live to betwenn 110 and 160 year old? There are MANY worse humanitarian disasters in the world in the five years previous to our invasion of Iraq the Congo had lost four MILLION people. We have supported much worse dicataors. Pol Pot AFTER the cambodian genocide. Suharuto Rios Montt, the list is very long. We didnt invade Iraq because Bush suddenly found compassion for the poor suffrering Iraqi people thats ludicrous. Are we going to invade Burma? Columbia? Kazakstan? All have worse human rights records. Saddam was worse WHILE we were strongly supporting him its an EXCUSE not a reason.
The reasoning in your second paragraph is specious. The CIA said they had NO evidence of any Iraqi sponsership of international terrorism for a decade. Since Saddam tried to kill Bush sr and that was 93 so your state sponsership of terrorism cannot be shown. Whatever was going on in the north that is the Northern Kurdish autonomous region was beyond Iraqs control and they cannot be blamed for it. They CERTAINLY werent sponsering it. Your claim about the suicide bombings is a distortion he, just like Iran and our ally Saudi Arabia pay the FAMILIES of suicide bombers after the fact, it was a cheap way for him to buy cred on the Arab street where he was hated but what it WASNT is international terrorism. You changed your tune here. NOW you are saying they innocent casualties are unavoidable, they are not we didnt have to invade in the first place and that would have avoided them, at any rate we cannot claim we do not target civilians since we obviously do. The idea we invaded Iraq to defeat IRAN is the dumbest talking point the right has tried YET. You HAVE to give me a break. Either Iraq will be free or it will not. IF it is then they will be closely allied with Iran.About 80% of the worlds Muslims are Sunnis Iraq and Iran are the main two countries where the Shiites are majorities of the population. If they are free they will ally with Iran if they are not the rest of your rhetoric about us freeing Iraq is shown to be so much hypocrisy unless you define freedom as them being free to do what we tell them.
Here we get to an insightful point. You are correct in seeing this as a very basic difference in our world view. As far as I am concerned in a moral world the ends NEVER justify the means. There are always unintended consequences we are only guessing when we do anything as complicated as invading a country with a huge possibility of blowback what the end results will be. For that reason our motives MUST be above reproach, then if we were wrong at least we TRIED to do what was morally right if we eschew the moral argument and we are wrong then we have NO defense kind of like now in Iraq. Here is an example. In order to bait the USSR into what Brezhinski called a Vietnam trap we funded the Muhajadeen in Afghanistan and that is BEFORE the Soviets invaded. What we did was create what became Al Queda. We have in fact been fomenting Islamic fundamentalism since we were scared by Nasser in the sixties because our biggest fear was a Pan Arabic leader that would unite the region. NOW it is our biggest enemy, THAT is the kind of unintended consequences , or in CIA parlance blowback, I am talking about and why its always dagnerous to GUESS at the ends and ignore the means
He supported Terroism by funding suicide bombers. Simple as that. Did we make mistakes in the past during the Cold War, yes. Was out goal reached, you bet ya. Terrorist existed before we allowed them to use us for training and weapons to fight for their "freedom" form Russia. The only unintended consequence was we trianed them so they could set their sites on their true, the US.
Again we are not targeting civilians we are targeting the coward terroist hiding in the civilian population. If civilians die that is on the head of the terroist SOB who used them as a shield.
the democratic "wave" of 2006 considered in concert with an honest examination of the US corporate media and their slant towards regressives and the cult of republicanism, leads to several undeniable conclusions had the US corporate media done their jobs and honestly and fairly reported the news and revealed the facts:
1) george bush would not have been close enough in 2000 to trigger the Florida and SCOTUS shenanigans that resulted in bush's selection to the position of POTUS in 2000.
2) the invasion of Iraq would never have happened if the known questions and deceptions of 2002 and 2003 had been fully aired by the media and the public was aware.
3) george bush would have lost in a landslide in 2004 if the American people had not only been well informed of the lies and deceptions leading to the invasion, but if they also knew of the unwinnable position the US had at that time.
The personality types inhabiting the cult of republicanism have been among us since the dawn of humanity - they are like cancer cells floating around the body of humanity. We all have cancer cells within us, but they are held in check by our body’s defenses. But the disease metastasizes if the host's defenses are weakened.
Humanity's defense mechanism against the like's of george bush and the cult of republicanism, saddam hussein, fascists, dictators, totalitarians, etc. is the truth. When the truth is suppressed on a massive scale as US corporate media has been doing for a generation to denigrate democrats and liberalism in favor of the cancerous cult of republicanism, then enormous manmade disasters and crimes against humanity such as what we currently have in Iraq, result. .
I'm so relieved that Mr. Foer's column ended on a defiant note, lest I feel demoralized.
I occasionally send e-mails to the NY Times or Washington Post reporters in response to statements I disagree with and I nearly always receive a thoughtful reply. The key, in my view, is to simply be polite, unemotional, respectful and brief.</> Carl Hulse and David Sanger of the NYT, and Jonathan Weisman, Peter Baker and John Harris of the Washington Post have all be responsive and thoughtful in their responses, and they have all thanked me for being civil. Even that awful Kit Seeley, whom I'm convinced is a GOP plant, have remarked that they rarely get "nice" e-mails, especially when these e-mails are in disagreement with their reporting.
I have no idea if my small efforts make even a molecule of difference, but we have seen how hard the right wingers "work the refs," and it seems to work for them.
Peace, everybody!
forgot to close the bold bracket. Sorry.
"When Democrats are in power, there's a huge incentive for reporters not to appear too sympathetic and thereby confirm the old liberal-bias charge"
I don't know that anyone dedicated to reading this website every day would buy that line. This goes WELL beyond "not appearing too sympathetic". It is an active dedication to keeping Republicans in power. Let's not forget that the news media sold the public the invasion of Iraq despite lots of reason to question their motives: [link to www.newamericancentury.org] There is only one reason John Kerry lost the last election. The news media gave a platform to lies and quotes out of context and elevated character assassination to new highs. They leveled the playing field as best they could in 2006 which resulted in enough saved seats to prevent a 60 vote majority in the Senate. The Democrats will not be able to pass any meaningful legislation nor get us out of Iraq and the news media will declare that a failure despite their limited ability to accomplish said tasks. There are enough ignorant people who will buy it to create a majority vote in 2008. Hillary cannot win in 2008. John Kerry was smeared enough to lose in a matter of two months. What happens with a candidate like Hillary that the media have been successfully smearing for ten years ? In a post 2004 election discussion on C-Span some Republicans were candid about Democratic primary hopefuls for 2004. As they put it, they had a campaign ready for every candidate except ONE. John Edwards. What they meant is a "smear campaign" ready for every one except John Edwards. As they put it, the only candidate they "feared" was Edwards. The Republicans WANT Hillary to get the nomination. They know better than most Democrats that the news media are the reason why they get away with their lies. The they call Karl Rove a genius. The media are the genius. They have been able to get away with the "liberal media" hoax with an easily duped public for years. The media doesn't care if people die (Iraq) to ACTIVELY keep Republicans in power. Get used to saying President McCain from now. The only hope for this country is that McCain is SO GOOD at perpetrating hoaxes, he is lying to his own party just to get the presidency and then plans to turn around and do what is best for the people just out of spite. Fat chance of that.
John
To divest multi-national corporations of it to run the 4th estate. They now have great freedom of expression rights than "the people" as in "We the people" or than local press outlets that might run something different say than, "In other news today we bow to our corperate master, the GOP, Rove, and the Bush administration". It is time the 4th estate start living up to its obligations. Bring back the "Fairness Doctrine" and divest these large corporations with other agendas of their power to hog the soap box.
One of the few Republicans who garner my respect, Lou Dobbs, was hawking a book a couple of weeks ago titled "What Happened in Ohio". I immediately bought two, with the intention of sending one to a star reporter well known in some circles. My reasons for doing so go back to Christmas week of 2004. I was still palpably bitter and outraged after the 2004 presidential election.
Beginning in late August, I had spent considerable time in New Hampshire canvassing and campaigning for Sen. John Kerry. On election day, I was back, to help bring out the vote. As the day progressed, we volunteers had become ebullient because news of the exit polls favoring a Democrat win were spreading. Then, shortly after the polls closed in New England, the outcome suddenly and awfully changed.
We had all been aware of the growing energy flowing towards the Democrats, particularly because New Hampshire leaned Republican, and as the days lead up to election day, we felt sure the current was in our direction. News from elsewhere around the country was similar, and we were almost confident that the presidency would change. Thus, we were hardly surprised to hear that exit polls around the country were confirming our expectations.
As we all know, those expectations were crushed. Attention turned to Ohio, and the rumors that if the election had been stolen, Ohio provided the most damning evidence. By Christmas, several experienced statisticians had provided their own proof that the initial exit polls showing a Democrat supremacy were to be believed, and the later polling results were, in fact, deceitful and inaccurate, and worse - rigged.
That Christmas, 2004, I was sitting at a casual dinner opposite the star reporter, who I had always believed to have been a Democrat. Thinking that she, of anyone, would have an informed opinion on what actually happened in Ohio, I asked her if she thought Kerry had lost the election because of vote tampering in Ohio. Without a pause for thought, she shook her head firmly and said without qualification "No", and then turned to the person beside her and reengaged them in conversation. My husband and I exchanged shocked glances. I know he realized immediately that I was more than shocked. I was chilled and appalled. My immediate feeling was that America, the great democratic experiment, had sustained a killing body blow. I felt this way because the very news organization that employed this woman had, on numerous occasions, explored the issue of vote tampering, and the possibility of stealing the vote via electronic machines. And yet, here before me, in front of a sympathetic audience including her own family, someone who could comment with intelligence and experience, had simply refused to do so. What was really going on?? I've never forgotten the sense of futility that overcame me that night.
I have two children that I love with a fierce sense of protectiveness and responsibility. And I am ashamed to be leaving them the innocent caretakers of a world that is so vulnerable and exploited. And it is completely bewildering to me that I feel so alone with this sense of responsibility. Why aren't my friends, my neighbors, also consumed with this legacy? Without doubt, we are all in "this" together, and we will all rise or fall together. I care about our kids and their future. I care about the rising anti-Americanism, the warming globe, the fact that American arms dealers sells three times as much small arms to the world as their next competitor, the stunning numbers of children who die before they are 5 years old because they don't have the most meager claim on food or shelter or decent medical care. These are the factors that will deeply affect our children in the years to come, and we can only affect those factors for the better if we can foster the appropriate outrage that our goals for a better world are being systematically stolen from us by politicians and the captains of multinational corporations through the theft of our votes.
I want to stop feeling all alone in my sense of responsibility to our children. And I want that female reporter to feel some sense of shame that she didn't engage appropriately when she was called to take a stand on the failure of American democracy and the future of our children.
I seemed to have missed the Glenn Beck "surprising" story. It's interesting because many influential Muslim clerics have condemned Osama bin Laden and terrorism.
[link to www.juancole.com]
None have gotten, nor have they insisted, on widespread media coverage.
Where are the rallies in the streets? Where are the videos countering terroist videos? Where are the trials of known terroist being given safe harbor in Muslim countries?
gets to DEMAND media coverage. The point is moderate Muslims ARE speaking out against terrorism. Lots of them. That is all that we can ask. The fact you arent seeing it, and apparntly not looking for it, is not a reflection on them. It seems the MSM doesnt see Muslims speaking against violence is much of a story, I dont see how that can be blamed on the Muslims
Where are the rallies? Where are the mass protest? When their prophet is insulted we see massive rallies and protest. We know they can assemble. Why aren't they? If they assembled, if they forced changed, we would hear about it. Why keep it contained to the mosque? Why wisper it? The reason the media has not covered it is because they have not made their voices heard.
They are speaking to the press. The press isnt playing it up. I linked to about 50 public pronouncements just last month. why arent WE in the streets demanding an end to the killing in Iraq a whole lot more Iraqis are dead than terrorism has caused. Maybe for the same reason. I doubt it would do much good. I bet they dont think they have much to say that Osama would listen to.
Have you not seen the protest against the war. People are in the streets protesting. 50 announcements in a month. La di friggin da. Where I say agin are the rallies? Where is the excommunication? A few, yes a few, moderate Muslims haqve spoken out and I have seen their words. But a bulk of the mUslim community has stayed silent.
CONSERVATIVES HAVE ALWAYS DONE A BETTER JOB OF SPINNING THAT THE MEDIA IS LIBERAL.IT SEEMS EVERY TIME I SEE A RIGHT WING TALKING HEAD, THEY ALWAYS THROW IN THE LIBERAL MEDIA CATCH PHRASE. TO COUNTER THAT DISTORTION IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT EVERY TIME A MODERATE OR LIBERAL IS ON THE AIRWAVES THEY NEED TO KEEP BRINGING UP THE CONSERVATIVE NATURE OF MEDIA. BANG IT LIKE A DRUM CONSTANTLY, WITH THE SAME VENOM THAT THE FOX PITBULLS USE. ONLY THEN WILL THE SCALES BE BALANCED.
BUT, do Dems have it in them to play hardball? I mean, just look. Every time they're up against some right-wing pundit who makes a ridiculous statement of fact, the only thing they ever say is, "yes, but..."
Rarely do you ever hear anyone stop these people in their tracks and take on their specific lies and false analogies, or their phony straw-men. Dems are way too agreeable. And you know what happens to nice guys...
Then explain how the media never covers the good news coming out of Iraq and Afghanistan with the same furbor as the bad news. How when schools, mosque, and roads are built they are ignored. How when more than 75% of the country shows up and votes it only get s a 30 second spot. But the deaths of soldiers get overplayed and politicized due to the media involvement. Don't get me wrong a soldier's death is sad and disturbing. But if you look at how many people die a day here in the States the number is a lot fewer in Iraq and Afghanistan. Heck, if you look just at numbers and statistics it seems a bit safer to be over there.
>>"Heck, if you look just at numbers and statistics it seems a bit safer to be over there [Iraq]."<<
Suppose you provide statistics to back your claim that it's "safer in Iraq"?
And please do specify whether you're talking about the monumentally-fortified and barricaded "Green Zone". Because no sane person will venture outside of there unless accompanied by artillery unless they have a death wish.
Also, you might explain how tens of thousands of Iraqis have managed to have been murdered in the past few years, given how "safe" you say it is there.
Please also explain why -if it's so fantastically "safe" in Iraq, WHY we are still there? If it's "safer" than in the U.S., then tell us how come the troops can't pack up and come home today.
The American Cancer Society estimates that about 40,970 women and 460 men will die from breast cancer in the United States this year.
The Office of Hazardous Materialssays that there is an average of 7335 traffic deaths per year in the United States. [link to hazmat.dot.gov]
There have been less than 3,000 US deaths in Iraq since the start of the campaign.
The largest death toll counts coming out of Iraq are based on door to door interviews rather than actual body counts.
>>"The largest death toll counts coming out of Iraq are based on door to door interviews rather than actual body counts."<<
Yeah, maybe it's *ONLY* 30,000 (the estimate George Bush has given) and not 60,000.
THis is the first link I found:
[link to www.military.com]
The 600,000 is a figment of people's imaginations.
Those would be out of 300 MILLION those dying in Iraq are out of 130,000 about the size of the city of San Bernardino Cal. Now go THERE and see if three people a day are dying.
The fact is not as many Americans are dying over in Iraq as back here at home on a daily basis. The small numbers i quoted you were only a fraction of the daily deaths in this country.
WITH statistics. The amount of Americans in Iraq are only a small fraction of the American people in America which is where your silly statistical argument falls apart. Comparing apples with pepperoni pizzas only convinces people who really want to be convinced
Like I said the numbers I provided were only a small part of the daily deaths in America. There are tons more. The numbers are greater if not comprable to the numbers coming out of Iraq.
>>"40,970 women and 460 men will die from breast cancer"<<
When you figure out how many war fatalities and breast cancer fatalities per capita there are in the U.S. compared to in Iraq, let us know. So far, your comparison is so ridiculously laughable it's barely worth commenting on.
Also, again I ask, WHY *IF it's so so very safe now in Iraq (safer than it is HERE in the U.S., you claim) * WHY can't the U.S. declare an end to the war and bring the troops home?? Why are our kids there, dying every day, if it's so dam safe? Why did 121 Iraqis die in the war in just one day yesterday?
Also, by your twisted, inexpicable "logic", apparently as long as American deaths in Iraq do NOT exceed 41,430 per year, then you believe you can proudly proclaim to the world that it's safer in Iraq than here in the U.S. and do it with a straight face, somehow.
That every American death in the war is treated like Americans don't die a regular basis due to a mutitude of things. Is it sad, yes. Is it news worthy, yes. Should it be hyped and politicized to the extent it has been, no. Americans dying to preserve the liberty of others is nothing new, and something I hope never stops.
The reason they do not come home, and shouldn't, is because the job is not done. I never claimed 100% safety for every Iraqi and every soldier. I was merely providing a context to the death figures that appear staggering.
I will provide further context. WWII Allied losses are estimated around 51 million. That was six year campaign. That works out to 8,500,000 a year.
There is a difference between unavoidable deaths and violent deaths that arent unaviodable by your logic since you MIGHT die from a heart attack it should be ok for someone to just shoot you in the head.
This war was inevitable. There was 18 seperate UN resolutions threatning force against Iraq. None of which they complied with. Not to mention the treaty violations with us. There was the genocide the belief of the WMD program, one that was shared by every major inteligence agency in the world at the time. I do not believe this to be unavoidable.
>>"There was the genocide the belief of the WMD program, one that was shared by every major inteligence agency in the world at the time."<<
The war was inevitable ONLY in the sense that the Bush administration was BOUND and DETERMINED to start the war, no matter WHAT contrary intelligence they received. And there most definitely WAS contrary intelligence and there were doubts about Iraq's WMDs. From our very own sources and elsewhere. Incidentally, it is NOT TRUE (except in the twisted world of right-wing talk radio) that "ever major agency" shared Bush's proclamations about WMD.
This war was NOT inevitiable. Israel has violated twice as many UN resolutions and is war with THEM inevitable besides many of those were really NOT violated when you remember THERE WERE NO WMDS, and NOT every nation did NOT believe there were WMDs in Iraq that is just a canard you guys on the right keep repeating
France said there were no stockpiles or progams Germany told us to listen to France since they had the best human intelligence there.
[link to www.sundayherald.com]
Genocide was NOT happening in Iraq in fact the wholesale killings happened while we were stong supporters of Saddam. All these are excuses not reasons. None of them stand up to any scrutiny.
The stockpiles of mustard and serin gas found as far back as 2003. The argument was never that he was activily making new ones. The argument was that he was actively trying to restart his WMD programs and that he still had stockpiles which he did.
Were ever found in Iraq. They found one leftover shell even Kay admitted was a lost leftover from the 80's war with Iran as was the mustard gas. The Mustard gas is a perfect example of why you arent making sense. IF we are saying they werent making any NEW weapons there was no threat. Duelfer said most Americans have more dangerous things under their kitchen sink. That is because under IDEAL conditions chemical weapons DEGRADE fairly quickly. Five years for Sarin under ideal circumstances. Therefore there was no THREAT possible IF we didnt think they had been making any more. I hope you arent really trying to justify invading a country because of some lost useless and worthless chemical weapons that because of some paperwork snafu slipped through the cracks.
According to the report it a huge stockpile. They didn't get lost because of paperwork they got lost because Saddam was hiding them. Degraded or not they still could have done damage in the quantities he had. And would have helped in re-starting his WMD program which is what he wanted.
America should never have gotten involved in WWII because the casualities were too great.
I must not have read the paper on the day Iraq launched their surprise, sneak air attack from their aircraft carriers against the U.S., destroying our naval fleet and killing hundreds.
apples and moonrocks. In WW2 Germany was killing millions of Jews, invading our allies like it was firesale time and DECLARED WAR ON US. While Iraq hadnt so much as sneezed in anyones direction since the first gulf war and did I miss the part where they DECLARED WAR ON US?
Why does everyone forget about the humanitarian needs. He used sanctions as an excuse to withhold medicine and food form his people. He used oil money to bribe every country except Britain and the US on the security council, which is why they opposed going into Iraq not because they had reservations about his WMD programs. He indiscrimitley jailed and killed men, women, and children because it suited him. We did the right thing going in no matter what the aftermath. Because history will judge this act as correct. Iraq will be a beacon of democracy in the Middle East.
HRW said that directly. There are much worse humanitarian need in the Sudan, Congo, even Columbia. That is an excuse. He did kill people. There are brutal dictators all over the world that do much worse and MANY are our allies.History will NOT judge this action as necessary OR justified and your last statement is a pipe dream.
We shall see.
Your argument is that the death toll is unacceptable. Even though they are less than any other war we have been involved in.
Less than Panama? Grenada? Our invasion of the Domincan Republic? Kosovo? The FIRST gulf war? That statement is FLAT OUT WRONG. You really ought to think for a second or so whether or not the right wing talking point you are about to regurgitate after hearing it from Hannity or Limbaugh actually makes sense. I recognize these propaganda parrot nuggets and many of them are flat out false.
People have compared this to Vietnam. LEts look at those numbers: 58,209 dead. That is still over 9,000 a year.
thoroughly repugnant and wrongheaded. How dare you apologist freaks minimize the loss of life because of this immoral, illegal invasion and subsequently bungled occupation! Go back and read the mealymouthed garbage you've written. You should be ashamed to be such a pitful tool of the cons, and should apologize to every family that has had their hearts ripped out by the loss of a loved one, or, even worse, one who has been maimed or suffered a head injury or burned over 80% of his or her body. And I'm talking about not just American life but Iraqi and all others who have been senselessly slaughtered by the actions of this murderous regime. I lost one of my brothers to another useless military action in Vietnam, and you can't even imagine how many lives the loss of one affects, and how it affects it irreparably and forever. I am sorry for your deep ignorance and am only heartened somewhat because it seems to be getting rarer in this country these days.
Are good news even though electricity and clean water are STILL not back to prewar levels is more newsworthy than American deaths? Than the sectarian violence? The good news isnt covered very much because except for the truly committed to propaganda crowd it would look ridiculous. Hey people good news we painted another school today, Bagdad had five hours of electricity and 29 Iraqis and three US soldiers were killed but HEY how about that bone colored paint we put on the walls of that school that the parents are afraid to send their kids to. What you want isnt balance its a committent to total propaganda.
If all you do is report on every little bad thing in Iraq then no one will hope of the situation ever getting better. Government is being formed, jobs are being created, and infrastructure is being rebuilt. Is there secterian violence, sure there is and it is expected in once politically repressed country. Out of Reconstruction in the South came the violence of the KKK.
Is just a little thing. But the infrastructure is being rebuit so well that THREE YEARS LATER THEY STILL dont have prewar levels of electricity. And lets not forget we painted some schools. Ask any Iraqi I bet they will be thrilled. Yeah we had a few hundred thousand innocent people killed but man you should see that newly painted school. You have GOT to be kidding this is the dumbest rightwing talking point to come out of the war, I thought even the most committed propagandist had given up on that one.
Hundreds of thousands of people were still dying. At least now they are dying with FREEDOM on the horizon. They are dying with a cause, not at the whim of a madman.
According to Amenety International and human rights watch government killings in Iraq were at about 300 a year. Saddam was a lower level butcher not a wholesale slaughterer like say our other allies Suhuarto and Pol Pot. At least at the time of the invasion now while we were strongly supporting him he was much worse. Human rights watch said directly there was NO humanitarian rationale for the invasion. I dont remember the Iraqis begging us to invade them and save them. They STILL arent begging us to stay we arent there for THEM thats dumb. We dont get to tell them we know 80% of you want us gone but WE will decide how much help we are going to give you and how many people are going to DIE from it.
As for being free thats ludicrous they are OCCUPIED not free occupied is like the opposite of freedom. And as for a cause. WE dont get to tell them they have to die for whatever cause WE decide they need to die for. IF THEY wanted to die for a cause they could have run their own revolution. Your excusees dont stand up to one seconds moral scrutiny. They remind me of the old joke about the three boy scouts doing a good deed, their scoutmaster asked what they did, they said we helped a little old ladyacross the road, when asked what took so long they said SHE DIDNT WANT TO GO.
That implies direct control of their government which we do not have. If the Iraqi government asked us to leave we would be obligated to. We are there right now at the request of the current Iraqi Prime Minister.
That sounds familiar, where did I hear that one before? Oh yeah THATS WHAT THE SOVIETS SAID WHEN THEY INVADED AFGHANISTAN. Did you accept that as justification then or does it just work for us. Polls show 80+% of Iraqis want us gone. Any country that has 130,000 foriegn troops enforcing a curfew is not free by any reasonable definition not meant for propaganda. They may be free some day but this is not that day
>>"every little bad thing"<<
"Little bad things" like 121 Iraqis dying in the war in a SINGLE day.
"Little bad things" like 100 of our kids dying just in October alone.
"Little bad things" like STILL no electricity in 110-degree heat for more than half the day.
"Little bad things" like the fact that this war has lasted longer than WWII.
"Little bad things" like no weapons of mass destruction.
Yes, if ONLY these little bad, annoying things were suppresed and NOT reported, and we heard about paint jobs, then the U.S. would be victorious! and you could be planning your Christmas vacation in Baghdad.
The war has only been going on since 2003, that is three years. US involvement in WWII was four years.
I did not say there was not bad things happening. But why only report the bad in a country that so obviously needs hope. The building of a government and rebuilding of a infrastructure wil not happen overnight. Ti will be long hard fought process, but we will never get to success as long as we expect failure. If we leave now then those people will have no hope.
Telling people what IS going on in a way representative of reality what you want is propganda, telliing people what we WANT them to think is reality
Also as to WWII Germany delcared war on us (generally considered the beggining of our official involvement in WWII) on... I will just site a source
[link to www.thenation.com]
Germany declared war on the US on December, 11, 1941, four days after Pearl Harbor. The US announced victory in Europe on May 8, 1945. That's one thousand, two hundred and forty-four days.
We've been in Iraq one thousand, two hundred and forty-seven days---
So I would say Dave is right
Despite the proclamations about the 06 elections proffered by the pundits,pols, and other talking heads from the insufferable Don Imus to the ponderously phony Oprah Winfrey; it was not the Iraq, stupid, but rather it was the stupid, stupid. November 7 was a resounding repudiation of stupendously arrogant governmental ineptitude compounded by even more repellent GOP attitude problems. Nothing is quite so repulsive to a people as is their being treated like retarded third-graders by those who are themselves clearly smirky ,smarmy idiots Can we all say Bushies, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Bolton, Frist, Hastert, boys and girls? This old broken down Choctaw from Pine Bluff, Arkansas is now fully awakened to the Bushevik despots of stupidity who have been peddling death, debt, religious intolerance, homophobia, environmental decimation, pre-emptive warfare, destruction of the middle class, wanton neglect of the sick,the poor, the disabled. I'm also awakened to their rampant dismantling of our constitution, our rights, our freedom and our sacred honor among the world wide family of those of good will.Turn out the lights. The party is over. We " ain't gonna live on Maggie's farm no more ".
It Was The Stupid, Stupid!
So long to stupid crotch-stuffing militarism, corporatism,and dominionism, Mr.Bush!
It Was The Stupid, Stupid!
So long to the stupid confusing of merit with accidents of birth like being born a son of a patrician father and wealthy cross-dresser mother, and the grandson of a Nazi banking profiteer.
So long to the stupid belief a Bush- Carlyle Group-fueled-arms trading profiteer or a Cheney-Halliburton/KBR/ Bechtel-fueled- Iraq War profiteer or a Rumsfeld- G.D.Searle (Nutrasweet, Tamiflu)-fueled- Big Pharma profiteer or a Frist-Hospital Corporation of America-fueled Health Care profiteer qualifies idiots for elective office.
It Was The Stupid, Stupid!
And here's a clue to all you, " Servants of the People "; now that we've got your number, we'll sure as hell recognize we haven't gotten a wrong number if Democrats start answering when we call!
The media that treated Bill Clinton's haircut as a bigger story than George W. Bush's avoidance of both the draft and his obligations to the National Guard
... Bill Clinton's IMAGINARY haircut...
as in, it never happened!
This shameless apologist for the most shameful actions by conservatives hosts his own television show on MSNBC, a luxury not afforded any progressive.
... except Keith Olbermann, my only "real" news source (that is, excepting the comedy central news hour)
Rarely do you ever hear anyone stop these people in their tracks and take on their specific lies and false analogies, or their phony straw-men. Dems are way too agreeable. And you know what happens to nice guys...
* - carlileb5935
Try listening to some interviews with Howard Dean. He gives it back with gravy! He has his facts straight, and he gets them out there quick enough and loud enough that they cannot cut him off. Pelosi is pretty good in an interview too.
The good news is that we dodged a bullet in the systematic disassembling of our Constitutional Democracy as a result of the massive progressive victory on November 7, 2006, a day that will live in infamy for the political and religious right. The bad news is that the gun is still loaded.
One need not be confused by the behavior of the dazed corporate controlled MSM as they stagger around trying to find any means to explain away or minimize the evidence in front of them.
Unless the progressives recognize that any symptomatic discussion of current political dynamics is meaningless, and that any such discussion is a reflection of the underlying power ane control dynamics owned and operated by corporate America, then this blessing of a progressive victory will enjoy a half life of only two years. Progressives must no longer let corporate America define and control the “image frame game.”
,b>The progressives need the following tactics to preserve and advance their gains:
1. In your face confrontation with media anchors and pundits IMMEDIATELY when they attempt to force the discussion their terms, e.g., whipping up over and over again the negativity of the Pelozi, Hoyer, and Murtha fight prior to Hoyer’s selection as Majority leader by the Democrats.
2. Immediately reject being drawn into any negative portrayal of the right wing or any current issue, unless and only if its based upon widely known verifiable facts.
3. When they do, ask any Interviewer (e.g., Chris Matthews, Wolf Blitzer) why they insist on bringing up dead issues (e.g., Kerry’s joke gone awry, or Murtha’s 27 year old skirmish with corruption in which he clearly refused to take the bait when six other legislators did.) Senator-elect Jim Webb did that on Meet the Press when Russert attempted to distract him to respond to dead issues prior to the election (Allen’s Makaka incident) and Webb demanded to discuss the issues.
4. Progressives demand that their representatives be acceptable to them when they are spokespersons to appear in MSM broadcasts and op ed pieces.
5. Publically object when the MSM stacks debates and analysis to the exclusion of adequate representatives from the progressive-populist left.
6. On any issue or debate: IT’S THE CORPORATIONS STUPID!
There are numerous other tactical options, but the basic principle at issue is: PROGRESSIVES FORCEFULLY DEFINE AND FRAME THE ISSUES AND INSIST THAT THEY BE DEBATED ON THEIR TERMS AND IN EQUAL PART.