ABCNews.com falsely claimed Sen. Clinton "held out threat of withholding funding" to troops
Reporting on MoveOn.org's interview with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY), an April 10 post on ABCNews.com's Political Radar weblog stated: "Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., held out the threat of withholding funding for U.S. troops in Iraq if President Bush does not agree to a timeline for withdrawal." But Clinton has done no such thing. Clinton and congressional colleagues have indicated that they will pass legislation to fund the troops. Indeed, the House and Senate have each passed emergency supplemental funding bills for the Iraq war and will meet in conference to reconcile the two versions. Both houses will then be able to send a final version to the president. It is President Bush who has threatened to withhold funds by vetoing a bill if it includes a timeline for redeployment from Iraq.
Clinton stated during the interview: "[W]e should let the American people understand, and let President Bush fully understand that it is he who is rejecting the funding. We have passed funding, but we did it within the context of timelines, and if he can be held responsible for, in effect, vetoing the funding because he will not start to follow the will of the American people, and de-escalate this conflict, and bring our troops home, I think that puts tremendous pressure on Republicans who are going to be running for office again in 2008."
Media Matters for America has previously noted ABC's uncritical reporting of Bush's assertion that Democrats -- rather than Bush himself -- would be responsible for cutting off funding for the troops if Bush vetoes the funding bill. Media Matters has also documented NBC's Nightly News anchor stating that Bush's veto threat constituted "a calculated bet ... that Democrats aren't really going to vote to leave American soldiers high and dry in the middle of the fight."
From the post on the ABCNews.com Political Radar weblog:
ABC News' Teddy Davis and Eloise Harper Report: In a taped interview with MoveOn.org, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., held out the threat of withholding funding for U.S. troops in Iraq if President Bush does not agree to a timeline for withdrawal.
"I don't want to foreclose any options right now," Clinton said in the audio-only interview with the anti-war advocacy group. "You know, I don't think we should tell President Bush what we will do. We have to keep the pressure on him not to veto it."
Clinton's comments were an implicit effort to contrast herself with Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., a top rival for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, who took heat from some in the liberal blogosphere last week for telling the Associated Press that "Nobody wants to play chicken with our troops on the ground."
While the former First Lady kept the option of withholding Iraq war funding on the table, she stopped short of committing to any particular course of action if President Bush vetoes the current war funding bill which includes a March 2008 timetable for troop withdrawal.
"I'm not prepared to throw in the towel and basically concede either point that he, you know, will veto it and then we have to choose one of the strategies that are based on the premise of his veto," said Clinton.
Just more for MORA! There is no better argument to break up the Corporate Media Oligopoly, than their persistence in lying, about everything, and then blaming the victim for not anticipating their lies to defuse them in advance.
Let Rep. Hinchley know that you support the effort to reverse the consolidation of Media that the FCC has enabled. Let him know what you think about including or omitting a Fairness Doctrine. And let your own Senators and Representative know that you expect them to step up on this vital issue.
I agree
I stopped watching most MSNBC, CNN, and FOX NEWS, programming do to lack of accuracy and integrity in their reporting( with exception to Lou Dobbs and Keith Olbermann...). I think Corporate news is not even as dangerous to democracy as many on the left or right say, however, as most people get their news from digital sources(the internet), or various sources. The Fairness Doctrine is not necessary in reinstating dignity in our news, the power is US. If we object to biased news reporting we can do many things, including, stop watching said program, contact producers of program, correct misinformation(as this site does). The Fairness Doctrine is not necesssarily the best way to go and should be a LAST resort.
Barry,
You are correct. As I have said, the FD is only proposed by those who are getting beat up in the free marketplace......so they look to the government to level the playing field.
The answer is to stop complaining and get to work on how best to get your message out in the media to compete with others more successful. There are literally thousands of outlets on TV, radio, newspapers and the internet.......shouldn't be hard.
That may be true, but all of those outlets can easily be shouted down by the wall-to-wall talk radio monopoly enjoyed by the GOP, plus the apparent complicity and/or indifference of the Corporate Media.
I'm not saying that the Fairness Doctrine is the answer, but fighting the monstrous propaganda machine created by the NeoClowns will not be as simple as you seem to think.
The indifference in the corporate media is much more driven by profits and dollars then ideology. Sometimes it works against your particular ideology, as in Fox News, and sometimes in favor of it. But if a particular corporate media outlet is losing money and ratings because they are too conservative or liberal, they will mix it up for sure.......stockholders want profits first, not promotng agendas.
There may be some ideology mixed in there, too. We now know that the Post-2000 report concluded that Gore would have won Florida if they had recounted the whole state. However, that report came out right after 9/11, and the Corporate Media largely ignored it. Ideology or business? It is now apparent to anyone who bothers to look that the Pre Iraq War intelligence was cherrypicked and probably distorted. Yet, the MSM spends countless hours on Anna Nicole Smith and Don Imus while virtually ignoring what may be the biggest crime ever committed by a U.S. President and his administration. Ideology or business? Maybe a little of both?
The "ideology" in play is universally and unrelentingly pro-Corporation. That makes it completely anti-liberal, anti-Democrat, anti-democratic, and anti-electorate. Pacify with trivial crap, float the bloated lies past, and work hard to steal suffrage from the anesthetized saps.
The key to Corporate survival is the perpetuation of the ill-begotten myth that Corporations have rights. They may have rights, in my opinion, just as soon as their officers, board members, and controlling shareholders go to jail for any criminal conviction of the Corporation; just as soon as RICO applies absolutely to Corporate coverups of Corporate crimes; and just as soon as we resolve to dissolve each of them at no greater than 50 years of age.
Meantime, the whole point of MORA is to set right the wrongs of the Repugnant FCC, in allowing the Corporations to swallow the very concept of "free press". Force divestiture of every outlet absorbed under those relaxed rules - then, perhaps, of many more. Then it might be true that there would be a flowering anew of diversity and vigor in the "press".
And NEVER rely on the "internets" to compensate for the stifling of traditional outlets, for one need only consider the ongoing attempts to undo "net neutrality" to see the end of that game, and to our (even Tommy's) ultimate disadvantage in the contest for our liberties.
Despite your stump speech, none of your rights or liberties have been compromised in any way because of the "stifling" of any particular ideology - that is ridiculous. There are so many ways to feed your ideological appetite through countless media outlets, that anyone who complains to the contrary is just wallowing in tbeir own unfounded paranoia.
Heck yes, I'm paranoid! That still doesn't mean that they are not out to get me. (The universe is a loaded gun . . . )
Why, *I* would maintain that the only Repugnants elected since Lincoln, were a product of Media Conspiracy; and that would certainly constitute stifling my aspirations to have been elected at least to the Left Hand Of God by now. ;) On the other hand, you could be right: the 7 broadcast outlets not yet in Corporate hands probably represent the entirety of what you would perceive as sufficient outlet for our dissuasion.
Of course, you mean "other than voting while Black"? Or was it "attending environmental rallies and meetings"? Or "speaking out about the lies that led us to invade Iraq"? Or Habeas Corpus?
Wow - I'm so glad that those loses, and the myriad other trespasses of Bungle and the Repugnants - were not vivisted upon me solely to stifle my ideology; and, of course, were instantly and fully reported in those innumerable uncompromised outlets you believe exist; and that the lies Bungle fosters are dramatically challenged every day to audiences in excess of 100 million, by all those outlets.
"losses"
Your correct Tommy.
I don't think most media outlets(with the exception of you know who) restrict the left's right to free speech. If corporations were so Evil Conservative, I highly doubt we would have Keith Olbermann, Lou Dobbs, or George Stephanopolous, on television.
George 'turncoat' Stephanopolous can hardly been seen as a liberal... I've watched his Sunday show and I don't see any left-leaning bent... he and Dick Morris are just sorcerers in the castle who are now serving another master.... ideaologies be damned, those two are just there to be there...
Purely a tactical manuver, to allay the activism of those of the left who might seek to use the "cryin' Righty" whine and boycott approach with which we are so familiar.
A more reliable indicator of a free and vigorous press, would be denunciation of the unceasing lies of the Bungle Boyz, an investigative piece (or several) into the ties between the Bungles and the Enron mess, even-handed depictions of the treasonous exposure of Valerie Plame for Repugnant revenge against her husband, perhaps even eventual corrections of the deliberate deceptions (LIES, for those not speaking liberal) of the sort daily cited here in MMFA.
It is not only the restriction of our "right to free speech" (incidental, and less than important, for we may find a way to speak, and are guaranteed no more) but our right to a free press that is imperiled.
You know, all that investigation of this most criminal of administrations, buttressed by the recent most criminal of Congresses, busily packing the courts, busily removing OUR liberties (start with habeas corpus, voting fraud - both mechanical, through Diebold and ES&S, and personal, in the form of voter suppression based on color or income or merely zip code - electronic surveillance, infiltration of our environmental meetings, building FBI files on political dissidents, even our library and internet records.
Correct Tommy.
Just crying and whining about the media all the time is worthless and counter productive. We as citizens have a duty to research and obtain information on OUR OWN, to make judgements. If we sit and whine about every tibid of dishonesty and don't make and active attempt to correct it, we are no better than the people whom deceive us.
The problem is that most people don't research and find the truth, and their ignorance never stops them from voting.
More - the best research cannot match the profusion of lies emanating from the Corporate Media - even were they not in bed with the Repugnant Right. No single one of us could ever determine the truth of even half the crap spewed upon our heads daily by these instruments of the Corporate Satan.
(Ha! I win! I bet someone that I could work "Corporate Satan" into a rant quite seamlessly, before she could deliver "evil liberal liars"!)
barry, most of the "crying and whining" comes from tommy when people point out the very relevant fact that we are not being served by the media. what you and tommy and all the other "let the market decide" proponents ignore is the indisputable fact that the airwaves are the property of the american public, and companies make a promise to serve that public. the public is not served by "news" organizations that have been shown to report half the story. for instance, the one-sided reporting in the 2000 election race.
Watch this slow-motion train wreck carefully. I believe the Troglodytes are maneuvering to let the Democrats take the blame for the looming disaster in Iraq.
Your false assumption is that ignorant people only vote a certain way.......ignorance knows no strict party line voting record. Most likely they cancel each other out.
So you seem always ready to assure us: but deliberate cultivation of ignorance by hindering truth, has lon since turned the tide in favor of the Repugnant Right (assist to Corporate Satan).
Two!
Another great example of why the Corporate Media is the servant of Satan: the AP sorta dropped the whole question of missing, or withheld, or deleted, emails from the broacast version of the story. It seems to require two links to build this story, one, the reading-capable audience, and the other the "moving pictures-with-sound" audience:
original lead: TPM
followup: FireDogLake
Each opens in a new window.
i think that is a good assumption, nerzog. the republicans know iraq is just a matter of time now. it will be a disaster whenever we leave. the gop would love nothing more than to pin the blame on the democrats.
MSM is REFUSING to tell the simple truth about the bill and everything else involving politics!! A(lways) B(roadcasting) C(rap)'s reporters are being complete dunderheads- oh, wait... they are not just being simpletons- they are actively LYING and spreading FALSEHOODS and SMEARS to advance the right wing conservative machine... Hitler would have been proud of how the MSM is completely in line with a certain political party...
emm-eye-seeee, kay-eee-why...
Apparently, the American Bullschitting Corporation network has received its "path forward" from the Mickey Mousers:
"If she says X, you say she said Y - is that clear?"
The excerpt has a characterization of the Senator's interview as being with an "anti-war advocacy group"... other uses of the word "war" in the excerpt: "withholding Iraq war funding" and "the current war funding bill".
One of the reasons why George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, their administration, and even Sen. John McCain and others, are so out of sync with what the American People think, and how they feel, about Iraq...
...is that the administration et al keeps thinking and talking in terms of 'war' (and 'enemies' and 'surrender'), while the American People know better:
They know that this is an 'Occupation' of Iraq, resulting from an 'Invasion' of Iraq.
And they know that, while the reasons for that 'Invasion' seem dubious now (and seemed dubious then too) and falsified even, that whatever reasons the administration et al puts forth, for continuing this 'Occupation', they do not involve the National Security of the American People, and therefore do not justify this extraordinary loss of life and money...
The American People know this, because they think in terms (correctly) of an 'Occupation', and not of a 'war'.
And so what would be so hard about phrasing it correctly: The Senator's interview was with an "anti-Occupation advocacy group"... the president threatens "withholding Iraq Occupation funding", by way of vetoing "the current Occupation funding bill"...
That's how the American People see it... that's what makes sense, that's what's correct.
Those are the terms they think in, and speak in, for the past several years, and also for the weeks to come.
Dem, you should forward your post to Dr. Dean. You have very eloquently defined the strategy!!
FYI...
Dr. Dean was saying this FOUR YEARS AGO.
And, ABC was one of MSMers running his scream on a loop tape.
The great thing about this point, is that it's no argument about facts... it doesn't dispute the existence of persons or places, or of the occurances of events... it's simply a matter of words, and of the truth.
Nobody's in disagreement about what's happening in Iraq... and as far as what you call it, I'd say that those who call it an Occupation, resulting from an Invasion, speak so clearly and accurately and plainly and truthfully, as to say they're absolutely right...
It's an Occupation, resulting from an Invasion.
And if anybody would claim that it's an unimportant thing to bicker about, what word to use in this matter, it's not.
Because (I think) if you conduct any poll that asks any number of the American People about Iraq, and use the word 'war', such as...
"Do you wish to see an end to the Iraq war?"
...I think you'll get at least a simple majority answering yes, I want to see an end to the Iraq 'war'... maybe even 60%, I don't know.
But if you ask the same question (even to those same People!), and say instead...
"Do you wish to see an end to the U.S. Occupation of Iraq?"
...whoa, I think you'll definitely get a super-majority, maybe 75% 80% or more even, saying HELL YES I want to see an end to the Occupation of Iraq!
And so you see, while we're talking indisputably about one and the same thing, you'll get perhaps a different (gut) reaction, depending on what you call it...
Which I'd point out again: That those who call it an Occupation (resulting from a 'falsified intelligence'-driven Invasion), they speak clearly and plainly and truthfully... and know their own minds on this matter, and are right to want an end to the U.S. Occupation of Iraq (an Occupation which serves no National Security purpose to the American People)...
And that those who use the word 'war', they play fast and loose with words, and play on your gut feelings, and purposely, deceitfully, invoke the concept of Nation Security, by way of invoking the word 'war', in a matter that involves no National Security issue to the American People...
In a matter that truly involves no war, just an Invasion and Occupation.
"I don't want to foreclose any options right now," Clinton said in the audio-only interview.
So, the threat of not sending the bill to the President is till on the table, correct?
"I don't want to foreclose any options right now," Clinton said in the audio-only interview.
So, the threat of not sending the bill to the President is still on the table, correct?
heheh apparently I'm on probation so can't send a request for the duplicate post. Somebody disagree with me and report me as a troll? Hahah.
Much more entertaining to watch you squirm and scheme - we've had Trolls before, but you are at least a novelty in your clumsy attack.
Don't worry, guy, I'm on probation too. Damn liberal fascists.
I curse a lot, I probably just slipped while posting. Oh well.
Probation?
How does that work? I know that new people get put on probation but it doesn't last long does it?
Or are they putting people on probation for breaking rules?
I yack on a poker forum and I know that they send you an email notifying of probation and why if you get put on it (I haven't, this is my first "probation"). Hasn't happened here.
I dunno, I have been here for over a year, and I just found out about it when I wanted to flag one of my own posts as a dup.
I am not sure what it means. I use the bad words the system lets me use, like asshole, prick, etc. and plus I obfuscate real bad words like $#!T or use them in novel portmanteau constructions like bugshit and needledick.
If this is against the rules, I haven't been notified.
Amazing. I've been trying to figure out what you can and can't get away with and I'm surprised all the time.
A few weeks ago I used a common Latin phrase from my days as an alter boy and was told that I should try to post without using profanity.
Someone had called me an ass and I was trying to respond politely, with the latin phrase that could be translated as "And also with you".
I guess I should have just called the poster a scumbag.
I think it was the last three letters that got you in trouble there.
Gaining a foothold in the so-called 'free-market' when facing a monopoly ain't so easy as some would want you to believe. Then you get self-serving data about 'what people want to hear'... There is some good in the notion of the Fairness Doctrine... the MORA -- wherein no single network or conglomerate can hold the majority of news outlets in a singe market -- is a good start.
... the idea of 'free market' is like saying (and believing) that anyone can become President in this country. Sure. In theory? Yes. Reality? No.
Well, we may be playing semantics, but it is technically true that anyone "can" become president. Will they? Likely not.
Dunno how I feel about your proposition that markets should be more diverse, and % of markets restricted. How do you deal with someone who invents a new product, and thus has a monopoly on the market?
Not a rhetorical question; I'd like to hear your thoughts.
Couple of small details you appear to overlook:
1) the press (whatever the medium) is not a "new product", but rather is a cornerstone of liberty (subsequently cancelled by the Repugnant FCC);
2) as in current law, the creation of a monopoly invokes procedures to license, if there is no other prospect of competition (see Microsoft for details).