Only on Fox: Cameron reported that "[e]ven the chairman of the national Democratic Party, Howard Dean, said the U.S. should never negotiate with terrorists"
Fox News correspondent Carl Cameron said, regarding Osama bin Laden's offer of a truce in a newly released audiotape: "Even the chairman of the national Democratic Party, Howard Dean, said the U.S. should never negotiate with terrorists."
In the conclusion of a report on the newly released Osama bin Laden audiotape during the January 19 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, Fox News chief White House correspondent Carl Cameron noted that Democrats' views of the "war on terror" differ from those of the Bush administration, stating: "There is much about the Bush administration's prosecution of the war on terror the Democrats adamantly disagree with." Cameron then added: "But when it comes to Osama bin Laden's supposed offer of a truce there was rare unanimity today. Even the chairman of the national Democratic Party, Howard Dean, said the U.S. should never negotiate with terrorists."
From the January 19 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume:
CAMERON: There is much about the Bush administration's prosecution of the war on terror the Democrats adamantly disagree with; the situation in Iraq and the president's authority to warrantlessly wiretap are a couple of biggies. But when it comes to Osama bin Laden's supposed offer of a truce, there was rare unanimity today. Even the chairman of the national Democratic Party, Howard Dean, said the U.S. should never negotiate with terrorists.
So, the Democratic Party Chairman said something smart for a change - I guess that merits mention here.
Perhaps you were being sarcastic (I certainly hope so anyway), but the complaint is with the word "Even."
Cameron, a well-known right-wing reporter (check out "Outfoxed" some time), was being sarcastic himself. Gee, Dean said something negative about terrorists. How uncharacteristic. Let's make fun of him again.
Naive though I may be, it is clearly another example of Fox "News" giving us something other than "we report, you decide." We decided long ago... Fox has never adhered to "fair and balanced," is clearly a journalistic joke, and the most amazing thing is that they simply don't care any more - if they ever really did. Is anybody ever surprised when Fox takes cheap shots at the left, or holds the right to a lesser standard. Do you, Tommy???
I completely understand the operative word is "Even"........but I still say that with all the nutty things Dean has said before, I was merely pointing out this was not one of them.
As for FOX being fair and balanced, it's obvious to anyone who watches that they tilt right - the point is many media outlets have a hard time hiding their bias either way, from newspapers to TV networks......I, personally, don't get too worked up over this "media bias" uproar from either side. I get information from many sources to diffuse the bias presented by both sides. If you watch FOX exclusively, as many probably do, you tend to view events through their point of view - the same could be said for left leaning outlets as well. I prefer to take in as much as I can, evaluate each's credibility and make up my own mind.
So you admit that your news source of choice lies right to your face every ten minutes? (Fair and balanced?) I prefer news that doesn't lie to me, but it's only available online.
with all the nutty things Dean has said before, I was merely pointing out this was not one of them.
Interesting. I've never heard Dean say anything nutty.
Since Howard Dean is a medical doctor by training, I would opine that the vast majority of his pronouncements are "smart," rather than it being "for a change." It's not like anyone can produce a page-a-day calendar with Dean's amazing statements.
I agree that most media have a bias, and personally I do not have any problem with that - especially when such bias is clearly stated/known.
The big beef I have with FOX is that they make s**t up. They will not let the facts get in the way of their POV. I will add that most of the rest of American news media can't seem to get off the rear-ends and actually do their jobs.
the complaint is with the word "Even."
Exactly. It's a rather more subtle injection of bias than we usually find on Fox, but bias it remains. It suggests that it's surprising to find Howard Dean saying what he did, that Dean is so extreme that it's almost shocking to hear him say such a thing.
(Every time things like this come up, I think the same thing: Howard Dean? Extreme? Howard Dean?? Have any of these people checked out his record as governor of Vermont? Never mind his rhetoric, politically, this guy is as centrist as they come.)
About the only thing Rush Limbaugh and I agree on is that "words mean things." And while the impact of a word like "even" may be subtle, the word does have a meaning and it does have an impact.
Or maybe it gets a mention here because Fox is so fond of dumping on Dean (and the DNC, all its members, and any well-reasoned point of view) that when they use Dean's comments to legitimize a point of view -- even if it is framed in the same way you'd say "even a blind squirrel gets a nut once in a while" -- it's worth mentioning.
I like that.
It's not as if Democrats have a history of selling weapons to one set of terrorists in Iran and sending the money to another set of terrorists in Nicaragua in blatant violation of a law passed by Congress.
So not only are the Democrats against negotiating with terrorists, they are against going into business with them.
Let's not leave out the fact that Reagan supplied the Taliban with weapons for 10 years during their war with the USSR, and He and Bush Sr. supported Saddam Hussein's war against Iran (we sold the Iraquis weapons to fight Iran before we sold weapons to Iran to fight Iraq) for years. I'm still convinced that the reason Bush was so concerned about WMDs was because he knows his daddy sold them to Iraq. . .
And don't forget we now are close allies with Japan after we dropped an atomic bomb on them too.......and Germany, and Britian, and Russia, and so on.
We are supposed to conduct current foreign policy with enemies that used to be allies, and allies that used to be enemies, solely based on our dealings with them in the past........forget the current climate of today's world.
Good idea folks, really smart.....
.....thankfully, we don't.
We are supposed to conduct current foreign policy with enemies that used to be allies, and allies that used to be enemies, solely based on our dealings with them in the past........forget the current climate of today's world.
Nice job defeating a weak argument of your own making.
The difference between your examples given is that our alliances with former enemies came when they stopped being our enemy.
The Iranians were still our enemies when Reagan shipped those weapons to them, despite his alliance with Saddam Hussein, who was also getting weapons and assistance from him at the time. The Nicaraguan rebels were still National Guardsmen from the Somoza dictatorship (did you think the Sandinistas came to power out of thin air, or maybe there was a reason for all that shooting?), when they got their money from the sale.
Oh, and don't forget how the Republicans looked the other way as the Contras financed their war to re-establish the regime by shipping cocaine into the US. Shipments facilitated by a pro-US dictator named Manuel Noriega.
What comes around, goes around....
I really hate to waste the space responding to more of Tommy's twaddle, but I will make an exception to say this:
Get a clue, dude!
We're not talking about different governments and different people from 60 years ago, governments (in Japan and Germany) that no longer exist lead by people long since dead. We're talking about the Taliban, bin Laden, the mullahs of Iran - and on this side of the equation, people like Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz. Actors current both then and now in that real world of which you consistently if naively claim to be a part.
But then again, I have to reconsider the "get a clue" part. Because you do have a clue, don't you? You do know the relevance of the references to Afghanistan and contragate in the context of Cameron's indication of amazement that it's Democrats who refuse to negotiate with terrorists, don't you? That's why instead of disoputing the argument you tried to ridicule it by introducing an utter irrelevancy, isn't it?
Ah well, I'm sure we'll be served another non sequitur as a response, if there is one. Go for it, guy, don't disappoint.
Then don't waste your time dude, because I only read your first few lines and I stopped anyway........waste of my time.
A flip reply that utterly failed to deal with the substance of the issue!
I hoped you wouldn't disappoint, and you didn't! Hooray!
And logical than the weak tripe you served up as IF it made sense.
Shall we go back as far as Prescott Bush, whose assets were frozen because he was a supplier of materiel for the Nazi war machine? Or should we go as far back as George Herbert Walker Bush, who has been a business partnet with the bin Laden family for years?
You're right Tommy, but when it's the same crowd that is responsible for these deeds, me thinks theres something rotten going on here. Reagan and Bush I arms Saddam and Iran, but Bush I's closest allies during that period and his son now wants to take action against Saddam and Iran. Now, explain to me why I should give them the benefit of the doubt?
I wouldn't recommend giving anyone the "benefit of the doubt" - they are elected to serve the people and are responsible for their actions and policies, we must hold them accountable and not blindly follow.
That being said, all foreign policy needs to be conducted in a two pronged approach - evaluate what is best for protecting America and our allies given the current situation, and mindful of historical events that led us to where we are. To simply say, as many do here, "Well, we used to be his friend, or we armed him in the first place", or blame former administrations because they operated on the best information they had at the time, without benefit of 20/20 hindsight.
We have made many foreign policy blunders in our history, undeniably, but I firmly believe that we are not the "bad guys" in the world, as many apparently think we are.
We have made many foreign policy blunders in our history, undeniably, but I firmly believe that we are not the "bad guys" in the world, as many apparently think we are.
We are not the bad guys, we are the guys who are in power on the world stage. Throughout history, those with power seek to keep those without power in a perpetual state of submission. This submission cannot be maintained without inflicting a huge amount of suffering.
Do you think the Brits thought they were the "bad guys" in Africa, Asia and India? No, they thought they were busy exporting "modernity" and "good government". To ignore history is to repeat it.
The reason we are powerful in the world and have a vested interest in staying that way is because we have our interests to protect, including our democracy and our freedoms - eliminating terrorism is the struggle we are currently in. You look at it through the eyes of American Imperialism, I see it differently. I don't always agree with our foreign policy decisions, but I support them at home because what is in our best interest is in everybody's best interest.
I don't see us as a nation out to punish other's into submission, I see a force for good in the world. Sorry you don't.
I don't see us as a nation out to punish other's into submission, I see a force for good in the world
This contradicts on the most fundamental level, what nations and governments are about. These are not charitable organizations; they are instruments of power, with some bloodier than others, I'll grant you.
tommy or two time medal of honor winner General Smedley Butler who had THIS to say:
[link to www.rationalrevolution.net]
I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested.
During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.”
Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.
I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.
“War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses. I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
See it is all ABOUT seeing the Imperialism which is the elephant in the room. As Smedley rightly points out it is ALWAYS hidden behind excuses that SOUND noble. Or crucial. These actions are always supposed to be about our freedom, or safety, but in the end they are NOT. THAT IS THE POINT. This has never been more easily seen as with Iraq, which is sooooo obvious. THAT is why Bush had to keep changing the rationale for the war as each new excuse dissapeared like fog in the light of the truth and evidence. Here is a clue. When an administration has to change the EXCUSE for an invasion like with the days of the week, THEY ARE LYING.
That shut 'em up! I liked the quote.
If you wanted to play the "blame them" game, you could certainly start with Jimmy Carter - his weak administration is partly the reason Iran is such a scary situation today. If he had supported the Shah's regime more vigorously, the current Anti-American dictatorship wouldn't be sabre rattling against us today........but I give Carter a break, he was trying to do it the name of human rights - a good example of hindsight.
So, we overthrew the first democratically elected leader in the middle east, inflicting upon them a monarchial dictator with a secret police, the SAVAK, among the most brutal in the world. Who Amnesty International perrenially called the Worlds worst torturer. And our mistake was not INVADING TO KEEP HIM IN POWER???????? So all your talk about freedom, and people running their own country is really about the freedom to do what we tell them to do. IF they are going to overthrow a brutal dictator who we like because he kisses butt properly to our corporate interests we ought to forget about freedom and condemn them to a continuing brutal dictatorship. Militarily by killing tens of thousands of them if thats what it takes for the sin of wanting to run their own country their own way. Countries are just pawns for us to use as we see fit. IT is a disgusting view of foriegn policy you rightwingers offer.
Tommy: "If you watch FOX exclusively, as many probably do, you tend to view events through their point of view - the same could be said for left leaning outlets as well."
What you said implies that there are sources of information, liberal, that lie like Fox does. That is disgustingly false.
This construct reveals the major reason the Rightwing keep insisting it is a "LIBERAL MEDIA".
If there is a Liberal Media, then the Rightwinger is a VICTIM of that Media, and it's unfair!
If you claim the MEDIA is against you, then there are many advantages.
TRUE stories that are factual about your guys, and put them in a bad or even criminal light, can be discounted as "mere bias".
TRUE stories about the competition (Democrats) that seem favorable can be discounted as, "What do you expect? It's a LIBERAL media. They will do WHATEVER IT TAKES to keep their guys in power!"
But best of all is the "EVEN" clause to the scheme. If an ally is accused on shaky (or incomplete) information, and say the New York Times comes to their defense, then the Rightwing has the trump card of all trump cards, "EVEN THE NEW YORK TIMES agrees with us!" If EVEN a staunch member of the LIBERAL MEDIA agrees, goes this spin, then the information must be REALLY REALLY true.
There are multiple rewards to be had in the VICTIM status of having the Media against you. This is why the Rightwing won't give up this spin, even though it is obvious to everyone (especially those who read MMFA) that, if there ever WAS a slightly left-leaning media, it is long gone, replaced by paid-for advertising mouthpieces of the RNC.
I think it's cool that the rightwing is so insecure, they cannot give up their VICTIM whinings, even though they have a virtual monopoly of power in America. It's not an inferiority complex, guys ... you're really inferior at governance. And you KNOW it, hence the continued defensiveness.
Abramoff! Boo! Hahahahaha!
9/11 happened on George W. Bush's watch.
Bush said he wanted bin Laden "Dead Or Alive."
Then one day Bush lost interest in catching the murderer of 3000 people, saying that he just didn't think that much about him anymore. Yawn, how boring! Isn't it bedtime yet, mommy?
You conservative trolls disgust me. You're perfectly happy to have this weiner as President, but hate Dean because he yelled "Yeehaw" at a RALLY?
How in the hell did we let our country get hijacked by these idiots?
Because nothing is as stupid as people in mass. Unless it is people in mass that are afraid. It's like convincing lemmings to go over a cliff. Yes, as a whole, it is that easy.
that is pretty ridiculous.
I am somewhat surprised that Howard Dean rejects bin Laden's call for negotiations. In December 2003 Dean proclaimed he would not pronounce bin Laden guilty before a trial ("I've resisted pronouncing a sentence before guilt is found.") He also once called for Osama to be tried before the World Court in the Hague, which has no death penalty. So for Howard Dean to take a strong stand on a bin Laden matter is surprising to me.
That Carl's head is shrinking? Seriously. The ratio of shoulders to head is just, it's just too high!