NBC's Today, New York Times repeated GOP claim that arrests benefit Republicans in elections, when polling shows Democrats have erased GOP advantage on the issue
SUMMARY: NBC's Today and The New York Times reported the GOP assertion that the UK arrests of several suspected terrorists would play to the Republicans' advantage in the midterm elections because the issue of terrorism is a weakness for Democrats, without noting recent polling that shows an erasure in the advantage President Bush and congressional Republicans once held on the issue.
NBC's Today and The New York Times reported the assertion, made by numerous Republican officials, that the arrests in the United Kingdom of several suspected terrorists reportedly on the verge of executing an attack on U.S.-bound international flights would play to the Republicans' advantage in the midterm elections because the issue of terrorism is a weakness for Democrats. But missing entirely from their reports was any reference to recent polling that shows an erasure in the advantage President Bush and congressional Republicans once held on the issue. Indeed, as Media Matters for America noted, three of the last four Washington Post polls have found that a plurality of Americans trust Democrats rather than Republicans to handle the "campaign against terrorism."
Reporting on the August 11 broadcast of NBC's Today, NBC News chief White House correspondent David Gregory told co-host Matt Lauer, "However bad things are in Iraq, the president's biggest political strength has always been leading the fight against terror. Well, this latest plot gives the White House and Republicans the chance to drive that message home to voters." His report quoted White House press secretary Tony Snow, along with Bush and Chuck Todd, editor in chief of the National Journal's weblog, The Hotline, who said: "Any time that the conversation is about the war on terror and not the war in Iraq, that is a positive for the White House." Gregory also read part of a statement released by Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and concluded his report by saying, "And so, you will see Democrats making that argument -- that fighting the war on terror is vital but has nothing to do with the war in Iraq." However, neither Lauer nor Gregory mentioned recent polling on the question of which party is viewed more favorably to handle "the U.S. campaign against terrorism."
While Republicans once enjoyed a clear advantage on the issue, results are now mixed, but, in any event, demonstrate that their prior advantage has been virtually wiped out. More Americans disapprove of the job Bush is doing in the war on terror than approve, by 50 percent to 47 percent, according to an August 7 ABC News/Washington Post poll. The same poll found that respondents also said they trust Democrats to do a better job handling "the U.S. campaign against terrorism" than Republicans, by a margin of 46 percent to 38 percent.
During the August 10 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, CNN senior political analyst Bill Schneider also noted during a discussion about the political implication of the UK arrests that "Republican advantage on terrorism had vanished, at least before today's news." Citing the latest CNN poll, Schneider told host Wolf Blitzer that "[a]mong voters concerned about terrorism, slightly more said that they would vote for a Democrat, rather than a Republican, for Congress this year," adding that a majority of Americans "believe terrorism has increased around the world because of the situation in Iraq":
BLITZER: Our senior political analyst, Bill Schneider, is joining us now. Bill, first of all, how might this kind of terror threat affect the political landscape going into the midterm elections?
SCHNEIDER: Wolf, typically, when people become fearful, public support for the president tends to go up. President Bush and his party used the security issue to their advantage in the last two elections, but will it work this year? Well, here, we see that, in a CNN poll taken by the Opinion Research Corporation last week, before the arrest of terrorist suspects in Britain, terrorism topped the list of issues that voters said they would be -- would be extremely important to their vote. Among voters concerned about terrorism, slightly more said that they would vote for a Democrat, rather than a Republican, for Congress this year. Republicans still do better on terrorism than on any other issue, except same-sex marriage, which is far less important to voters. But the Republican advantage on terrorism had vanished, at least before today's news.
BLITZER: And what's the reason of that -- for that, Bill?
SCHNEIDER: Well, here's a clue, Wolf. As of last week, only 31 percent of Americans believed the U.S. and its allies were winning the war on terrorism. That 31 percent is the lowest figure recorded since 9-11. The prevailing view is that neither side is winning the war on terror. Now, one reason is disillusionment with the war in Iraq. A majority of Americans believe terrorism has increased around the world because of the situation in Iraq. Only 5 percent believe the war has decreased the threat of terrorism.
In addition to Today, an August 11 New York Times article by staff writer Adam Nagourney repeated numerous Republican talking points concerning the arrests. As blogger Greg Sargent noted, Nagourney reprinted Republican spin on the arrests for the first nine paragraphs with no mention of polling that undermining their claims. Nagourney also allowed an administration official to anonymously spin the arrests as fair game for Republicans to use in the elections:
A senior White House official on Air Force One, speaking on the condition of anonymity, dismissed the notion that there was anything wrong with these kinds of issues being mixed up in a political campaign.
"The issue is going to be discussed in the fall," this official said. "Are you saying if the Democrats talk about the war, we shouldn't? We will talk about the war, and we will talk about the consequences of the policies advocated by the Democrats."
An August 11 report (subscription required) in The Wall Street Journal by staff writer John D. McKinnon also claimed that "[t]he foiled British bombing plot is likely to benefit President Bush and the Republican Party ... by reminding voters of national-security concerns and the war on terror -- two areas where the president and his party have earned high marks from U.S. citizens."
In contrast with these reports, Jim VandeHei and Peter Baker noted in their August 11 Washington Post article:
Unlike in the 2004 election, when Republicans clearly benefited from the terrorism issue and a general sense of insecurity among many voters, the politics are muddled this year. The latest Washington Post-ABC News poll, conducted last week, found Democrats with an eight-point edge when people were asked which party they trusted more to handle terrorism issues.
"I can't help but admit that I had a small knot in my stomach this morning," said Democratic pollster Mark Mellman. "It was eerily familiar. But upon reflection, we are in a fundamentally different place in 2006 than we were in 2002 and 2004. For two or three generations, Republicans have, in the main, had a very substantial advantage on national security. The reality is, they have squandered that advantage in the sands of Iraq."
From the August 11 broadcast of NBC's Today:
LAUER: These arrests are a huge law enforcement success, but will that translate into political capital for the Bush administration? NBC's chief White House correspondent David Gregory is here with a look at that. David, it's always tricky when you start to bring politics into a situation like this?
GREGORY: It is, but it's certainly there, Matt, thanks very much. However bad things are in Iraq, the president's biggest political strength has always been leading the fight against terror. Well, this latest plot gives the White House and Republicans the chance to drive that message home to voters.
The White House wasted no time telling the public the British terror plot posed a direct threat to the United States. Interrupting a campaign event in Wisconsin, the president used some of his toughest rhetoric to date.
BUSH [video clip]: The recent arrests that our fellow citizens are now learning about are a stark reminder that this nation is at war with Islamic fascists who will use any means to destroy those of us who love freedom, to hurt our nation.
GREGORY: Just weeks before the fifth anniversary of 9-11, Mr. Bush said the government's counter-terror efforts have made the country safer, but warned the British plot proves there is more to do.
BUSH: It is a mistake to believe there is no threat to the United States of America.
GREGORY: Events like this have given the White House a boost before. Just days before the 2004 election, Osama bin Laden taped a threatening message, which both the Bush and Kerry campaigns said later helped the president in the polls. What's the political impact of this latest event?
TODD: It's absolutely a short-term positive for the White House. Any time that the conversation is about the war on terror and not the war in Iraq, that is a positive for the White House.
GREGORY: The British terror plot was exposed just one day after a fierce national security debate was reignited by the Connecticut Senate race. White House officials suggested pro-war Democrat Joe Lieberman's defeat in Tuesday's primary helps the enemy.
SNOW: Osama bin Laden some years ago said that one of the keys is that if you simply stay at terror long enough, the West is too weak. He said the Americans were too weak and would stand down.
GREGORY: Fighting back, the Senate's top Democrat suggested Thursday the Bush administration's policy in Iraq has inspired acts of terror like those being planned in Britain. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid said in a statement, quote: "The Iraq war has diverted our focus and more than $300 billion in resources from the war on terrorism and has created a rallying cry for international terrorists." And so, you will see Democrats making that argument -- that fighting the war on terror is vital but has nothing to do with the war in Iraq. Matt, both parties beginning to frame the terms of this debate.
From the August 11 edition of The New York Times:
Republicans seized on the arrests of terrorism suspects in Britain yesterday to bolster a White House campaign to turn national security issues to their advantage this fall, arguing that the nation needs tough Republican policies to protect Americans from threats from abroad.
Officials in both parties said they viewed the arrests as critical in determining how they would approach the fall campaign, with Republicans saying it could be a turning point in a year in which they have been on the defensive over the war in Iraq and other issues.
The developments played neatly into the White House-led effort, after Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, Democrat of Connecticut, lost on Tuesday to an antiwar primary challenger, to remind voters of the threats facing the nation and to cast Democrats as timid on national defense.
The arrests were announced less than 24 hours after Vice President Dick Cheney and other Republican officials suggested that Mr. Lieberman's defeat reflected the world view of a Democratic Party that was not prepared to lead the nation in such dangerous times.
Mr. Cheney, who a spokesman said had been kept abreast of the investigation, suggested in his remarks Wednesday that the outcome of a Democratic primary in Connecticut could embolden "Al Qaeda types."
Republicans, facing tough midterm elections -- and with a history, as Democrats noted, of spotlighting terrorist threats in election seasons -- used the news from England to try to pound home their message that they were doing everything possible to keep the nation safe. Mr. Bush strode off Air Force One to television cameras to declare that the United States was safer from terrorist attacks than it was before Sept. 11, 2001, but remained in danger.
On Capitol Hill and in states where Republicans are facing tough re-election battles, party officials applauded the arrests by the British authorities as evidence of the administration's policies in fighting terrorism, and suggested that Americans might take a cue from the tougher antiterrorism statutes Britain has enacted. In line with their efforts to keep the election from being a referendum on Mr. Bush and instead make it a choice between two distinct approaches to national security and other issues, they used the arrests to portray Democrats as weak.
"Defeatocrats!" declared a statement issued by office of the House majority leader, John A. Boehner of Ohio, capturing the tone of Republican rhetoric as the news unfolded.
The Ohio Republican chairman, Bill Bennett, attacked Representative Sherrod Brown, the Democratic challenger to Senator Mike DeWine, for voting against some intelligence bills, "the very types of programs that helped the British thwart these vicious attacks."
In a sign of how the terrorism issue was roiling American politics, Mr. Lieberman echoed Mr. Cheney as he attacked his primary opponent, Ned Lamont, for his opposition to the war. He said Mr. Lamont's desire to withdraw troops from Iraq would result in victory for Islamic extremists.
[...]
Republicans have successfully portrayed Democrats as weak on terrorism for two national elections in a row. Still, before this threat, Democrats showed signs that they were viewing problems in Iraq and the unpopularity of the war as ways of undermining Republicans on their signature issue. And some Republicans were concerned that the party might not be able to go to the well on national security a third time.
Republicans have become increasingly alarmed that the war might drag down incumbents. A senior Republican consultant with ties to the White House, who was granted anonymity so he could describe internal research for a Republican member of Congress, said he had recently conducted a focus group in a highly contested Congressional district in the Philadelphia suburbs.
He was shocked, he said, at the degree of hostility among Republicans toward the war, even accounting for the fact that Northeast Republicans are more moderate than their counterparts in the rest of the country.
The importance of the struggle by both parties on whether this was an election season debate about terrorism or about the war in Iraq was demonstrated in a New York Times/CBS News poll late last month. Forty-two percent of Americans said they thought the Republicans were more likely than Democrats to make the right decision about the war on terror. The same percentage said they thought Democrats were more likely to make the right decisions about the war in Iraq.
The White House had been aware for weeks that Britain was moving to shut down this plot. White House officials said that Mr. Cheney was kept abreast of the plot and the investigation, but that his comments on Wednesday, in a rare teleconference with news service reporters, were simply in reaction to what they said was an extraordinary political event, the defeat of a sitting senator.
A senior White House official on Air Force One, speaking on the condition of anonymity, dismissed the notion that there was anything wrong with these kinds of issues being mixed up in a political campaign.
"The issue is going to be discussed in the fall," this official said. "Are you saying if the Democrats talk about the war, we shouldn't? We will talk about the war, and we will talk about the consequences of the policies advocated by the Democrats."
They're still strangely avoiding reporting what few details are emerging about the identities of those arrested; I'm under the impression that even the scant details of a partial list of identities would not have yet been released, were it not for the Bank of England having that information, and ordering it made public themselves.
I liked Stephen Colbert's take on the matter...
With British Subjects so brazenly plotting a terrorist attack, it's about time we invaded that haven for terrorists, and toppled the Blair "regime" of terror.
George Bush cut funding for the very program meant to stop the kind of terrorist plot being conceived here.
And it was the British govt, using policies and procedures that Dems have been advocating and Bush has been ignoring, that stopped the plot. Had Bush's approach been used in England, we might have been struck again.
And finally it is George W Bush and his GOP allies (including Joe Lieberman) who embarked on a cut and run from Afghanistan, ignore Bin Laden Invade Iraq, neo-con adventure of diaster which has weakened American national security.
If we 1) get out of Iraq pronto, 2) send the Bush administration war criminals to the Hague for trial, 3) redeploy our troops and resources into Afghanistan and Pakistan to finish the job, 4) Cut off the Saudi and UAE terrorist pipelines 5) Work with the Arab League for a peaceful solution and an ironclad treaty on the Palestinina/Israeli conflict; we then 6) have restored our moral highground and credibility with the world which will 7) enable us to stop Iran's nuclear ambitions 8) disable Al Qaeda 9) Make America much safer and 10) spend the money in the proper places like securing our borders, securing cockpits, fixing our port security, and on intelligence and good will projects.
So take that Right wing media!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"media to the GOP - heads, you win, tails....you still win" or something to that effect. Kerry was castigated for saying that terrorism was a "law enforcement issue" and that it would never be eliminated but would be reduced to "nuisance" level. OK, let me ask EVERYONE here - can terrorism be completely eliminated? Does anyone really believe that you can make enough of the people in the world satisfied enough that it will end terrorism? You can't fight an unconventional enemy, with no uniforms, no country or territory, and no way to identify with conventional military force. Terrorism, guerilla tactics, etc are all but impossible to defeat with conventional military force. You want to get rid of terrorism? Stop killing people, make education and the end of poverty your main goals throughout the world, not just in your back yard - and make sure that there are as few people on the planet as possible who have "nothing to lose" in their own minds.
Arrests made in Great Britain of terrorists involved in a far-gone plot to kill Americans will make people trust the current regime more on the issue of "fighting terrorism"?
But what happened to "we fight them in Iraq so we don't have to fight them here"? Doesn't this mean that this ridiculous notion has been proven false?
Sadly, I have no doubt that it's true that many Americans buy the idea that since the republicans talk tough, they must be better at stopping terrorists.
everytime one of those republicans that talk tough ever served in combat in the US military.
and thats all the Republicans have going for them....Did anyone hear "DeLay" on MSNBC last nite...he is another Republican that needs to take a hike and get the heck out of Dodge, so the Democrats can figure out how to clean up this mess and do as little damage as possible...President Bush and Vice President Cheney are little men with big sticks...that border on bully.....Lets not forget the Democrats supported this administration and the war effort based on the information they were given as gospel....DUH not because they agreed it was the right thing to do - they were lead to believe it was the only thing to do...so if the Republicans think this mess now is a walk in the park for re-election, they are in for a BIG surprise...!
I always hate it when the bland crew cut, aka Lauer, is the face of these reports. He (and the departed Katie) seem to be in congress with the "coalition of the willing" for Repub talking points (esp. with GE cutting the paychecks). And then right after that is yet another Al Roker makeover (how's that stomach staple doing, Al?).
..a new terrorist cell "busted", or a plot "foiled", I am reminded of an article with Ray McGovern..
Also, why is it that these potentially dangerous liquids that people can't be carried on planes are being dumped out into large containers, mixing with one another?
[link to americablog.blogspot.com]
Or being given to homeless shelters?
[link to americablog.blogspot.com]
Staged? I don't know. But these things aren't fitting together with the story we're being told. If it were really staged, I'm a little surprised it didn't happen before the Connecticut primary. But perhaps Lieberman's loss showed what desperate trouble war proponents are really in, so they figure they have nothing to lose, and figure Lieberman can still capitalize on it as an independant. If it is a fraud I hope it's exposed in short order and no uncertain terms.
Conspiracy.org...you must be a subscriber.
Let me take issue with MMFA saying it was the: "arrests of several suspected terrorists"
Several? Try at least 24 arrests at this time [with more likely to come]
"Several" does NOT accurately describe the number of terrorists.
WHY the deceit? OR at the very least TRYING to DOWNPLAY the number?
Second, I'd WAIT a few days to site Polls. Using Poll numbers from BEFORE the arrests can't accurately gauge what opinion MIGHT be after the arrests.
Like it or not, Bush's approval ratings may climb. Personally I don't believe it will be a significant spike.
While I'm sure U.S. authorities were helpful in cracking this latest Terrorist scheme, the bulk of the credit should be given to the British & Pakistanis. AND I believe MOST Americans will feel that way too.
Jeter, I don't think it's fair to read the mind's of the MMFA editors to claim they are trying to down play the number of alleged terrorists recently picked up by British and Pakistani authorities. Several is a legitimate description. Your implying deciet without proof. I think everyone who is paying attention to the story is aware of the number of suspected terrorists caught. As you stated there may be more to come. Would you expect MMFA to edit the number each time another was caught or let go?
To POINT out this Discrepancy on MMFA's part out.
*24* is NOT several and I am curious as to WHY they chose to DESCRIBE *24* terrorist suspects THIS way.
I contend it was their way of downplaying the situation.
And YES they should have stated *24* as the number and done an UPDATE if needed. They've done so with OTHER topics.
=====
several:
Being of a number more than two or three but not many
An indefinite but small number; some or a few
[link to dictionary.reference.com]
[link to www.thefreedictionary.com]
You are way off. What were they supposed to say instead of several? "a multitude"? "a plethora"?, perhaps "a gaggle" would satify you. There is no finite definition for "several". Period. Get over yourself.
I can't wait until the next global warming thread when one of your right-wing buddies says, "Many scientists disagree", where many means about 1 percent or less. I'll be waiting for your outrage.
"There is no finite definition for "several"....by scott johnson
Oh really?
So you'd argue that we could USE the term *several* to DESCRIBE the following:
a) Several people post here at MMFA
b) Several people died on 9/11
c) Several soldiers were killed in Vietnam
d) Bush won the election by several votes
e) Several people were displaced because of Hurricane Katrina
-------------------------------------------------------
"You are way off. What were they supposed to say instead of several? "a multitude"? "a plethora"?, perhaps "a gaggle"...by scott johnson
=====
How about they SAY 24?
Hey IF 24 soldiers were killed in Iraq today, YOU would NEVER accept a Conservative website defining it as SEVERAL soldiers and you KNOW it!
You are simply one of the MOST disingenuous posters I've ever encountered here.
Make all the excuses you'd like. *24* is NOT and NEVER will be SEVERAL.
And what I'd expect from MMFA is a REAL number. Even the term MANY would have been better suited than SEVERAL.
But you KNOW that.
Yet still you argue.
IF I told you that I had SEVERAL teeth pulled today, would you think I meant 3 or 4? Or would you think 24 teeth extracted could be described as several?
I can't wait to hear you rationalize that one.
No, on second thought, don't even bother. It'll just be more gibberish.
Good-bye Scott, you really aren't worth my time.
Jeter2's quibbling about "several" as opposed to"24" is a distraction from the real issue:the correct tactics for fighting terror and preventing it.Timely intelligence, cooperation with friendly and not-so friendly regimes,and police actions accomplished what three years of the Dear Leader's wars have not, and there is no indication there was any American involvement in this action,except for the Idiot-in-Chief"s claim at the press conference that this is why the war was being fought(?!?).
Well of course. Just like you'd be "quibbling" IF a Conservative site reported 24 soldiers dying in Iraq as only "Several". I'm just SO sure you wouldn't ARGUE about that.
My POINT is that on occasion MMFA, a LIBERAL/PROGRESSIVE website does in fact do more than just report "mis-information" in a straight forward manner...SOMETIMES they editorialize, and spin.
This was, IMO, an attempt to downplay the significance of arresting TWO DOZEN Islamic terrorists...*SEVERAL* sounds so much LESS foreboding OR important.
This wasn't just some MINOR bust. This, to anyone with common sense was indeed "the BIG one" we've been anticipating since 9/11. And thank God it was thwarted by the excellent intelligence work of the British and Pakistanis. And yes even the U.S. in a more minor capacity [The U.S. intercepted phone conversations which were shared with the British].
IF you read my [first] post I in no way gave Bush credit for this. Will he get SOME credit via the Polls? Probably. But it won't be much, and it won't be for very long.
MOST people no longer think he has a clue.
AND that includes SOME of us Conservatives.
several would not work for tens of thousands hundreds of thousands or millions but 24 is NOT thousands or hundreds of thousands you are being ridiculous
Here I recently wrote *several* days ago [on the Olberman/Coulter thread] about how fair & reasonable YOU were. My mistake I guess? Seems like you fired off your post WITHOUT taking ANY time to even consider the point I was making.
First of all you can take it up with Scott Johnson about his ridiculous statement "There is no finite definition for "several" and ask him what exactly that is supposed to mean. OBVIOUSLY the examples I gave were MEANT to show his "theory" just doesn't work in reality.
IF a Conservative website wrote that SEVERAL soldiers died in Iraq today--about how many would THAT mean to you? More than 3 or 4, BUT probably not that many more. IF you are HONEST that would be YOUR answer. Now let's say you later heard that 24 soldiers died, would you WONDER if they were attempting to downplay the number by USING the term "several"? Spin it so it didn't sound like TOO many?
When you USE the term "several" what do YOU normally mean? IF I told you I walked several miles today, would you even presume I meant MORE that 3-4 or 5? Be honest Solon. Would you think I was nuts to say SEVERAL if I'd actually walked 24 miles? Please don't insult my intelligence or make yourself look silly by attempting to say otherwise.
MY point about MMFA using "several" wasn't just to nit-pick. As I wrote in my OTHER posts, I BELIEVE they are attempting to DOWNPLAY the number of captured Terrorist suspects--as I wrote in an earlier post: "This was, IMO, an attempt to downplay the significance of arresting TWO DOZEN Islamic terrorists...*SEVERAL* sounds so much LESS foreboding OR important."
The last thing MMFA, and Democrat/Liberals want is for Bush OR Republican/Conservatives to get any TRACTION from these arrests. So they downplay it. Twenty-Four is REDUCED down to SEVERAL. THIS is them spinning it as : No big deal here folks. Just SEVERAL arrests, nothing too substantial or meaningful.
The fact is the Left & Right SPIN. Do you really think ONLY the Right is capable of such CLEVER deceit and manipulation? Think again.
*Well I think I'll go have several pancakes for breakfast...Do YOU think I mean 4 OR 24?*
I agree that "several" is not the best word to describe 24, but to claim that this is some sort of conspiracy is nitpicking of the highest order, especially when there is no word that adequately describes 24 (I guess "dozens is technically correct, but equally misleading.)
The real issue is that you assume that catching more terrorists is a bad thing for democrats/progressives. Let me disabuse you of that biased assumption:
1. The administrations war in Iraq has not discouraged terror attacks. 2. There is no evidence that blanket phone taps were of any use here (this could change). 3. The arrests show that law inforcement can contain a terror cell and that military action might be a waste of life and resources that could be used to protect us in a more effective way. 4. Since the world is more aware of attacks, plots like 9/11 become impossible and terrorists must create more elaborate and tricky plots that are somewhat more easy to snuff out, easier to fail, and whose unlikely execution, as bad as it would be, could not equall 9/11 in scope. 5. There is no reason to believe that if democrats were in control that anything different would happen. In fact, it's absurd to think so in this case.
So ditch your own biases before you start pointing out websites who don't find le mot juste.
Oh man I love coming here on the weekends and pouring through left-wingers posts. I know you lefties love a good conspiracy, and have one for almost everything that happens, but Jeter2 never mentioned conspiracy, he called it----> Spin. I agree with him. Try really hard to imagine if 24 Republican Congressmen were indicted, do you think MMfA would refer to it as---> Several Republican Congressmen were indicted? Not bloody likely. They'd write it up as 24 Republican Congressmen indicted, or two dozen Republican Congressmen indicted.
Of course the left-wing wants to keep this disrupted terror plot and the arrests as insignificant as possible, they are shaking in their shoes that Bush will get a bump in the polls and it will carry over to the November elections.
Several my ass, this is left-wing spin, pure and simple.
"Conspiracy" was a bit of hyperbole, which is exactly what the whole discussion is. You guys ignore the main thrust of the MMFA post--that everyone thinks the Republicans are better at detering terrorism--but that assumption doesn't appear to meet the facts.
And instead of debating those facts, you guys glom onto one word in the respective posts while peddling the same worn out assumptions, which are not backed up by reality.
You can continue to word parse all day, but it won't get you far. If one word is all you can argue against, you are in more trouble than I first thought.
Some -- or all -- conservatives are a**holes... since the "some" of all parts is a "hole".
Thanks for backing me up on THIS topic. BUT as you can see it was a waste of time. DEFINITIONS change daily around on this forum to FIT Liberal arguments.
BTW your EXAMPLE was better than any of mine. But still they don't get it [or pretend not to]. Ah well...
There are no numbers mentioned in the two articles MMFA sited. Several is apt.
I would not complain if a conservative blog said several soldiers for around 20 the reason is if you arent going to use the exact number there isnt any other word I know of to describe this number. They could have said a couple of dozen but several is would NOT be disinformation. This is the reason YOUR list were in the hundreds and thousands. Which have the words hundreds and thousands to describe them. It just doesnt show bias for the use of several here.
BULL!
I like Taz's EXAMPLE the best.
IF the MSM or a Conservative website REPORTED that SEVERAL Republican Congressman were indicted when in fact there were 24 of them, MMFA would create a thread screaming MIS-INFORMATION, and claiming that the MSM were BIAS and Conservatives were DISHONEST in ATTEMPTING to DOWNPLAY the NUMBER. AND they'd be correct...
And YOU Solon wouldn't be able to type fast enough condemning the Media as DISHONEST & DECEITFUL and of course BIAS.
Some one of these days your disingenuous argument here will come back to bite you.
BUT of course you'll TRY to get around it by talking out of the OTHER side of your mouth.
And once again, READ what Scott wrote--he's claiming one can USE "several" to represent an ANY number when he writes: "There is no finite definition for "several"
So I was SIMPLY showing him how idiotic that concept was. What don't you get about that?
THIS use of the term SEVERAL by MMFA is, IMO, them spinning the ARREST of 24 Terrorist suspects in hopes of minimizing it AND making it appear relatively unimportant. Of course they'd want to do that--these ARRESTS could help Bush & the Republicans in the Polls and in November...You don't agree that MMFA was doing that--well fine--that doesn't really surprise me as the MINDSET here [by most Liberals] is that ONLY Conservatives Spin, Lie, and spew out Mis-Information. But for you to TRY and suggest that "Several" is a perfectly usual/normal/acceptable way to describe 24 of anything is ludicrous.
I guess IF it FITS your AGENDA you'll RE-define anything-eh?
You wrote: "I would not complain if a conservative blog said several soldiers for around 20 the reason is if you arent going to use the exact number there isnt any other word I know of to describe this number"
Oh please Solon, I'm familiar with your thought process here, you'd NEVER let THAT go.
Yeah it's really HARD to write 24 or 2 dozen. Please don't make me barf...EVERY other article I've read had NO problem stating the EXACT number of suspects OR simply writing THE terror suspects. Using SEVERAL to describe 24 suspects is ridiculous, and dishonest.
But have it your way. I'm done arguing about this. I've got to get ready for work. My drive to work is SEVERAL miles long. By your definition that could mean just about anything...
Maybe I should write this in a way you'll understand:
You ASSUME that MMFA wants to downplay the number of terrorists, because you ASSUME that BRITAIN and PAKISTAN foiling a terrorist plot is good for conservatives. This ASSUMPTION has little to do with REALITY, and shows YOUR BIAS. The fact that you've found ONE WORD that is questionable does not mean that your ASSUMPTIONS are correct. WHY use LOGIC when you can PARSE words and mindread the writer of this MMFA piece.
For WHY your ASSUMPTIONS are FALSE or at least QUESTIONABLE, see my first response to you, which somehow got lost in the STUPID argument about what SEVERAL means.
GOOD day.
"...because you ASSUME that BRITAIN and PAKISTAN foiling a terrorist plot is good for conservatives."...by crimson2
=====
Did you READ a newspaper? Watch ANY News programming? Besides all the other "fun" stuff going on in the world SOME of the DISCUSSION/OP-EDS centered on whether or not this "foiling" of the Terror Plot would HELP Bush in the Polls, and Republicans in the Fall elections.
So your ASSUMPTION that only *I* was "assuming" such a thing is FALSE. And simply reflects YOUR bias and that you are uninformed.
-----------------------------------
"The fact that you've found ONE WORD that is questionable does not mean that your ASSUMPTIONS are correct. WHY use LOGIC when you can PARSE words and mind read the writer of this MMFA piece."...by crimson2
=====
You MUST be new around here. There are SOME Liberals that PARSE words, phrases and whole articles done to minutia to TRY and make their point.
IF things had been the other way around [you were given SEVERAL examples] SOME Liberals would be fighting tooth & nail over the MEANING of Several. The fact that YOU didn't address any of them says quite a lot. It tells me-You simply can't.
As far as me "mind reading", well MMFA does it themselves when they ATTEMPT to editorialize what someone they DISAGREE with means by a particular statement or article.
What's good for the goose and all that.
------------------------------------------------
Your post didn't get lost--it got IGNORED because it added nothing to the debate.
Your condescending post to me is ONLY being replied to because your ARGUMENTS are so weak and transparently bias I can't let it go.
I'm BIAS? Try taking off YOUR blinders and looking in a mirror.
From Nagourney's NYT article of Aug. 11:
"Republicans seized on the arrests of terrorism suspects in Britain yesterday to bolster a White House campaign to turn national security issues to their advantage this fall, arguing that the nation needs tough Republican policies to protect Americans from threats from abroad."
And this from NBC's Today,
Aug 11, 2006
"News from London Thursday morning that British intelligence agents had foiled a potential new terrorist plot in its advanced stages prompted the highest level security alert in the United States since 9/11, and brought trans-Atlantic travel to its knees."
Do you see anywhere a definite number of terrorists? Check the articles for yourself for any numbers, I did. Here is the point, MMFA's reporting was spot on as they had no numbers to record from the articles sited.
Please cease from your fixation on the term "several." It has no relevance other than to deflect attention from the fact that dubya deserves zero recognition for British police work
"Did you READ a newspaper? Watch ANY News programming? Besides all the other "fun" stuff going on in the world SOME of the DISCUSSION/OP-EDS centered on whether or not this "foiling" of the Terror Plot would HELP Bush in the Polls, and Republicans in the Fall elections."
Way to completely miss the point. Your post doesn't question "whether or not" the arrests are good. It ASSUMES that they are. It also ASSUMES that MMFA thinks they are good--or could be good--and that they downplay the numbers. This is in DIRECT CONTRADICTION to MMFA's stated stance, to the polls coming out, and to logical analysis of the way the war on terror is being fought. But hey, an OP-ED said something, so it must be FACT.
"You MUST be new around here. There are SOME Liberals that PARSE words, phrases and whole articles done to minutia to TRY and make their point."
ASSUMING that your statement is correct, illogical behavior by others does not magically make your argument sound. And it's still quite unsound.
"Your post didn't get lost--it got IGNORED because it added nothing to the debate."
Perhaps you ignore it because you have no LOGICAL arguments to support your ASSUMPTION that the terror arrests were good for Bush.
I think I know better than YOU do how I would react. Back away from your I Ching or whatever you use to predict how I would react. STOP LYING. The only BULL here is YOU trying to put words in my mouth and PRETEND you know me better than I know myself. Give me a better word. Several is NOT WRONG. STOP LYING. If the right wing media said several to talk about 20 or so I would NOT throw a fit for the simple reason I could not claim it was incorrect and I cant think of a more descriptive word. You are a liar.
YOUR tirade doesn't move me one way or the other.
I made a REASONABLE and THOROUGH argument. You did not. All you did was attempt to re-define the [normal-usual-accepted] usage of the word SEVERAL to fit your argument.
And I've seen YOU give YOUR opinion here MANY a time about how others would react IF the tables were turned. Turnabout is fair play.
As I said earlier, your "argument" may someday come back to bite you. If or when it does, I'll REMIND you of THIS discussion.
Lets say you have some lab work done. You ask the doctor when they'll call you with the results, he answers 'SEVERAL days at the most'. So what does THAT mean to you? To me it MEANS 4-5 days, ONE week at the most. Now 24 days later and you're still waiting...You're telling me YOU wouldn't call the doctors office irrate and say 'hey it's been OVER 3 weeks, the doctor told me SEVERAL day!!!'
Sorry solon, I'm NOT buying it.
Maybe I'm NOT the one whose a LIAR--eh?
I barely have words for how stupid this discussion is. Oh yeah, I'm sure MMFA tried to dupe everyone by saying "several" instead of an exact number. Good job, rightwingers, for uncovering that sinister method.
The United States has spent trillons of dollars on defense budgets, and yet 24-50 alleged terrorists were able to cripple the international airline industry, disrupt travel for hundreds of thousands of domestic and business flyers, and alter typical travel items for millions. And none of them stepped foot on an airplane.
We're like the British fighting the Revolutionary War. As long as we keep fighting the "war on terror" with Cold War methods, we will continue to lose. We think high-tech cluster bombs and deep penetrating nuclear weapons will win this war. The terrorists are beating us with shampoo bottles.
Stop trying to hype these arrests as somehow "winning". All these arrests have succeeded in doing is reminding us how far behind the terrorists we really are.
Do these media people wake up in the morning and open their box of GOP talking points cereal and eat bowl and after bowl just stuffing their faces like hungry children?
Just asking.
The good news the GOP has turned people off by consistently brow beating the press. Now as they trot out the same tired game plan people have grown more cynical and don't trust it. Cynicism will kill the GOP. And they created and rode the beast to their own demise. Bush may get a bump. But I'm willing to bet that people won't be fooled again. They having a saying in Colorado, probably elsewhere too. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on a fool won't get fooled again! or something like that.
Here's my question: Is there ANYTHING the news media won't spin as benefitting the Republicans?
I actually heard some pundits say that if Lieberman won, it benefits the Republicans. Now that he's lost, they're saying it hurts the Democrats.
I remember during the 2004 presidential election, Bill O'Reilly actually said that the fact we've haven't been attacked again benefits Bush because its proof that his security measures are working. The same week he said if we got attacked again before the election, it would benefit Bush because the populace would rally around the President.
These people are shameless.
"Here's my question: Is there ANYTHING the news media won't spin as benefitting the Republicans?"
I've long since reached the conclusion that, no, there isn't.
A bomb goes off at Times Square? "This will surely benefit Republicans, as they are more trusted on the issue of National Security."
A plot to blow up a bomb at Times Square is foiled? "This will surely benefit Republicans, as it shows their policies are defending the country."
A Democrat elected president? "This will surely benefit Republicans, as they can now focus on being the opposition party and gain strength in the house and in the senate."
A Republican elected president? "This will surely benefit Republicans, as they can now continue to enact policies started by George Bush."
is not any more credible than the Miami bunch. That's right folks, just throw your suspected combustible liquids in our official airport hazmat trash cans. And you moms need to take a pull off your baby's formula in front of our highly-trained security personnel. Pakistan wanted F-16s, wasn't about to give up nukes in exchange so they offered up a few patsies. This one is exposed at WMR. waynemadsenreport.com
The Bush idiocy consortium couldn't start a Reichstag fire with a flare and a 55-gallon drum of gas.
Funny, I didn't know there were a lot of GOP members in Great Britain and Pakistan . . .
"Any time that the conversation is about the War on Terror and not the War in Iraq, that is a positive for the White House." - Todd
But didn't Dubya once say that Iraq was a "front" of the War on Terror?
Also, this is just MO, but I find the timing of this, well, interesting . . . according to news reports, some of the plotters were arrested in Pakistan "some days ago," but news of this didn't get blared all over TV until the DAY AFTER Ned Lamont's Dem primary victory in CT . . . some saw that primary as a referendum on the Iraq war in both CT and the country as a whole, which is becoming increasingly unpopular . . . its interesting that this alledged plot and the subsequent arrests would be made public right after the CT primary: this may have been done to subtly remind the public the question of whom is more adept at keeping America safe from another terrorist attack - the GOP or an unabashed anti-war Senate candidate . . .
are taking credit for a job well done by the brits ?????
The Republican Party is destroying itself with the neocons, lobbyists, and the insane religious fundamentalists in control. Ronnie Reagan turned his Party over to the fundamentalists and by now the neocons, along with their lobbyists, have run the Party, along with the entire country, down into the sewer. The ONLY event that will "favor" the Republican Party is the (eventual) removal of the neocons, the lobbyists, and the fundamentalist loonies from politcal scene. Then MAYBE after a long time, the Party might be ready to reconstitute itself and join the human race again.
First these British citizens were NOT Iraqis nothing here comes close to justifying the Iraqi war. Second the British stopped this and as far as I know they did it without tossing out their laws
It was more than a few, but less than dozens of British citizens-let's not downplay this any further, ok?....
I never mentioned any number since it was irrelevant to my post. Unless this was satirical because of the earlier distraction from the point, I dont get it.
Solon, I was just poking fun at the earlier debate over "several" etc.
Yet when they captured those terrorists in Canada who were planning on planting bombs and beheading the Prime Minister, that was treated as proof that Canada was a haven for terrorists. Seems to be a talking point hypocrisy from the White House.
Bush will probably get a poll boost out of this, but he shouldn't. For one thing it shows "we are fighting them over there so we won't have to fight them here" is nonsense. The more we fight them over-there the more home grown terrorists we are likely to make. We need to redeploy our troops to where they can do some good and also not look at Muslims as third class citizens.
Bill
They caught these 24 would-be terrorists using law enforcement tactics, not war tactics. There is no war on terror. It's a war on the Middle East and it's creating more terrorists. This is bound to overtax law enforcement resources and lead to another successful attack.
The main objective of the corporate news media is to tell people what to think. It does so in a number of ways...by choosing what to cover and how to cover and do historical re-runs in the guise of reporting events of historical significance...and so on.
SNOW: Osama bin Laden some years ago said that one of the keys is that if you simply stay at terror long enough, the West is too weak. He said the Americans were too weak and would stand down.
Since when do the big tough Republicans take ques from terrorists, ever heard of reverse psychology, Tony? "Staying the course," benefits terrorist recruitment. Ending the ridiculous occupation (yes, the war is over) of Iraq has no connection whatsoever to weakness. Ending our occupation of Iraq is the strongest indication that we are not willing to be a nation of militant reactionaries. It would show our ability to adapt, improvise and overcome.
The Newsweek poll released today and taken after the public knew about the London plot, reveals that the Democrats have a huge 18% midterm-election advantage. Even though Bush's approval number has gone up 3% since their last poll (3 months ago, that is, 1% per month) and his terrorism approval is up, this has not cut the Democratic lead. In fact, this seems to be the poll in which Democrats have the biggest lead out of all polls taken this year.
[link to www.msnbc.msn.com]
the bush administration had little to do with it. he did not even learn about this until a few days ago. if i remember correctly, didn't he blow the lid on a british investigation in 2004 by talking about it when it was still under wraps? looks like they didn't trust him with this one. bush does little beside endless exercising, mugging for the camera, vacationing, and letting us know how "hard" his job is.
I also heard on the Fox News financial show on Sat morning, this exchange.
The host said something like: Is this stopping of this terror plot a big gain for the GOP?
Commentator: Absolutely it's a huge gain for the GOP. It's also a huage gain for the Bush administration.
Then another commentator chimed in to agree.
This is on a show ostensibly talking about finances, stocks and bonds.
I only see Fox News a few times a year, and I'm amazed at how every single show there, even about finances, has positive Republican comments and negative Democrat comments that they manage to slide into the conversation. It's brilliant. Brilliant propaganda to those who only get their news from Fox News (and there are plenty).
...in connection with 9/11 and the anthrax attacks. The one person possibly connected with Al-Quaeda was already in custody before 9/11. We have captured some Taliban and Al-Quaeda fighters in Afghanistan yet both organizations live on since we invaded that country. And we have not captured anyone involved in the planning or execution of the attacks.
Why no status on the anthrax investigations? Suspects? Leads?
Why no other arrests of anyone connected with 9/11? Progress reports? Anyone? Bueller?
Republicans like to point out that we haven't been attacked since 9/11. I like to point out we haven't captured anyone involved in any of the attacks of September 2001.
The Republicans are quick to take credit for arrests made by the British. Yet so reluctant to take responsibility for their failures.
The GOP has failed to fulfill the objectives of making America safe from terrorism. Homegrown terror cells are sprouting up throughout the free world.
And given the neocon's recalcitrance over any modification regarding the occupation of Iraq and the global war on terror, one must conclude that other objectives are being met. Namely, the frightful images of evil Muslims plotting to kill us keeps the population cowering and willing to accept any manner of civil liberty infringement, any usurpation of congressional oversight and any use of military force. In the midst of this fearfulness the companies that build the war machines reap their profits and evade taxes. So, anytime terror is mentioned by the media it is good for these sycophant con's as it keeps the wheels of authoritarianism grinding the bones into the road to freedom.
The alleged terrorists are simply victims of racial profiling - which always reflects negatively on the GOP
i say let the terrorists carry out their threats and hit us again...then the world will view us as victims which will improve our foreign relationships, unify our country and boost our economy. i think we can spare a few buildings, airplanes and people for the greater good.
You know....take one for the team!
MMfA is Cherry picking polls again. There are several polls that show that Repubs ahead of Dems in the war on terror. The ABC/WAsh post poll is only one of a couple that have the Dems ahead. Take for instance this Newsweek poll:
Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. Aug. 10-11, 2006. N=1,001 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.
.
". . . Do you approve or disapprove of the way Bush is handling terrorism and homeland security?"
.
Approve Disapprove Unsure % % % 8/10-11/06 55 40 5 5/11-12/06 44 50 6 3/16-17/06 44 50 6 11/10-11/05 45 49 6 9/29-30/05 51 44 5 9/8-9/05 46 48 6 8/2-4/05 51 41 8 3/17-18/05 57 35 8 4/8-9/04 59 35 6 3/25-26/04 57 38 5 2/19-20/04 65 28 7 .
"Please tell me which political party -- the Republicans or the Democrats -- you trust to do a better job handling each of the following. What about the war against terrorism at home and abroad? Which party do you trust to do a better job handling this issue?" Parties rotated
.
Republicans Democrats Both (vol.) Neither (vol.) Unsure % % % % % 8/10-11/06 44 39 4 6 7 10/24-25/02 47 24 9 8 12 ______________________________________________
Cherry picking polls again...I guess it's all in how you ask the questions.
Define several.
We seem to actually be better at fighting them over here. Everytime there is a potential terrorist plot. (the bunch in Florida trying to blow up the Sear's Tower in Chicago, the ones in New York plotting to blow up the transit system and this latest threat to the airlines) the perpetrators are caught before they can execute their plot. Meanwhile, Iraq continues to spiral downward.
I'm amazed that MM didn't preempt this little montage moments after the news of the arrests broke. OF COURSE this is exactly what the Republican Party needs to get Americans focused away from the quagmire in Iraq, rising gas prices, bankrupt healthcare...etc. I hate to say this, but I think Democrats can kiss those House and Senate seats goodbye. The Republican noise makers are back out in full force, pulling the old Draw Four Wild card, my friends. Even the nearly successful outing of Bush's illegal wiretapping is going to blow up right in our faces over this. "You see...we need wire tapping, and the Democrats want to take it away from us as a tool to fight terrorism." This freakin' right wing establishment is NEVER going to lose.
I think a potential strategy for the Dems coming up in November would be to forget all the specifics and rhetoric against the Republicans. Don't get into a pissing match with them, because everything they say gets translated with the help of a sympathetic media (FoxNews) into weakness on defense. Dem: "I'm anti-war" Fox Translation: "He doesn't support the troops." Dem: "We need a timetable for withdrawal." Translation: "Cut and Run Democrats." Dem: "I'm a little concerned about this wire-tapping business." Translation: "We don't want measures put in place to protect us." Dem: "I'm against torture." Translation: "I support terrorists." The list goes on and on. How about Democrats just shutting up and saying simply: If you think Republicans are the strong party on defense, just look around and see how we're doing. How are we doing in Iraq? How are things going in Afghanistan? Exactly which jailcell or grave is Osama sitting in? Bring out some wounded soldiers who oppose this war. Get the pictures in the peoples' minds. I think that's the only way to trump this everlasting Republican stranglehold on the security issue.