Fox only broadcast network that did not air Democratic response to Bush speech
SUMMARY: Following President Bush's address to the
nation on Iraq,
Fox was the only broadcast network not to air the Democratic response. Instead,
Shepard Smith gave a short
description of the response and stated: "Our coverage
continues on the Fox News Channel on cable and satellite with the Democratic
response and more. Right now, back to your local Fox programming." ABC,
NBC, and CBS all aired the Democratic response.
Following President Bush's September 13 prime-time address to the nation on Iraq, Fox was the only broadcast network not to air the Democratic response, which was delivered by Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI). Instead, Fox News anchor Shepard Smith, who was hosting Fox's post-speech coverage, stated: "The Democrats will say in the Democratic response later that the larger problems, as General [David] Petraeus put it, are not military but political. The surge, when announced by the president, was designed to give the political leaders in Iraq the time to bring together their strategies to secure the nation and solve their political problems." At the conclusion of Fox's coverage, Smith stated: "Our coverage continues on the Fox News Channel on cable and satellite with the Democratic response and more. Right now, back to your local Fox programming." ABC, NBC, and CBS all aired the Democratic response.
On NBC, Nightly News anchor Brian Williams hosted the network's coverage of Bush's address, both before and after Reed's speech, and ABC World News anchor Charles Gibson led ABC's coverage before and after Reed's response. On CBS, Evening News anchor Katie Couric offered a summation of Bush's speech prior to airing Reed's response. CBS did not host a discussion after airing Reed's speech.
In his response, Reed stated: "When the president launched the surge in January, he told us that its purpose was to provide Iraqi leaders with the time to make that political progress. But now, nine months into the surge, the president's own advisers tell us that Iraq's leaders have not, and are not likely to do so." He also described the Democrats' proposal "to change course" in Iraq. Reed said: "[O]ur plan focuses on counterterrorism and training the Iraqi army. It engages in diplomacy to bring warring factions to the table and addresses regional issues that inflame the situation. It begins a responsible and rapid redeployment of our troops out of Iraq. And it returns our focus to those who seek to do us harm: Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups." In conclusion, Reed stated, "An endless and unlimited military presence in Iraq is not an option. ... I urge the president to listen to the American people and work with Congress to start bringing our troops home and develop a new policy that is truly worthy of their sacrifices."
In his post-speech analysis, Smith reported that the president had tied the proposed troop drawdown to "success" on the ground. Smith stated: "[T]he president announc[ed] tonight that there have been successes, and he says that as a result, he'll follow General Petraeus' formula, which allows for some 1,500 troops to come home before Christmas." Smith noted that "[a]t least one of those groups were already scheduled to come home, but in this case, they will not be replaced." Later, Smith reiterated that the "highlight tonight" of Bush's speech was that "[w]e'll be down to 137,000 U.S. men and women in service in Iraq by July of next year. That is if the progress on the ground continues."
But Smith did not note that Petraeus acknowledged during his September 11 appearance before Congress that due to a "strain" on the military, the troop reduction would have been necessary regardless of conditions on the ground. As Media Matters for America has noted, during testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Reed asked Petraeus whether constraints on the military "virtually lock[ed]" him "into a recommendation of reducing troops by 30,000 beginning in April and extending through the summer -- regardless of what's happening on the ground." Petraeus replied, "[D]epending on what can be taken out of the Reserves. ... I do know that the active Army in particular, that the string does run out for the Army to meet the year-back criteria" -- the rules requiring troops to be home for one year between their deployments. Reed then stated that it was "[his] sense" that "unless tours were extended, 30,000 troops were coming out of there beginning in April next year, regardless of the situation on the ground." Petraeus agreed that "certainly the active brigade combat teams were going to come out of" Iraq. Additionally, during testimony later the same day, Petraeus also said that "the strain on the force ... was very much one that informed the recommendations" to draw down U.S. troops from Iraq.
From Fox's September 13 post-speech coverage:
SMITH: President Bush, live from the White House, and the theme tonight: There has been success, and the more successful we are, the quicker our people can come home. And the president announcing tonight that there have been successes, and he says that as a result, he'll follow General Petraeus' formula, which allows for some 1,500 troops to come home before Christmas. At least one of those groups were already scheduled to come home, but in this case, they will not be replaced. And then further, going toward next summer, the troop surge, which was announced back in January, will bring the numbers down to a level just above what they were at that time. In other words, we'll be down to, by our calculations, some 137,000 U.S. men and women in uniform serving in Iraq. That's by that time, July of next year.
So, exactly what are the larger problems here? The Democrats will say in the Democratic response later that the larger problems, as General Petraeus put it, are not military but political. The surge, when announced by the president, was designed to give the political leaders in Iraq the time to bring together their strategies to secure the nation and solve their political problems. The president's men insist that that has not happened, and, at least to this point, there are no indications that it will. The central government has not come together as well as had been hoped, and right now, the signs are few. However, there have been successes in Anbar. The question now is, will that be able to spread across the country? Or will, in fact, in the end, the Iraqis choose to divide up their country the way that their people are divided and eventually come to some sort of agreement about the sort of disagreements which have existed for more than four times as long as this nation has been around?
There are difficult times ahead. There have been successes in Iraq, according to the president, but there are many great challenges that lie ahead. The highlight tonight: We'll be down to 137,000 U.S. men and women in service in Iraq by July of next year. That is if the progress on the ground continues. No good answers to hear it from all of the president's people, no good solutions. Now, the main goal, to keep things as quiet and as secure as possible in hopes that the Iraqi government will begin to solve some of its problems. In hopes.
Our coverage continues on the Fox News Channel on cable and satellite with the Democratic response and more. Right now, back to your local Fox programming. I'm Shepard Smith, Fox News, New York.
No surprise here. President Numbnuts looked straight into the camera and spouted unvarnished bullsh*t for seventeen minutes. Maybe he can get a job as a Fox News "contributor" when he leaves office. Much easier than having to travel around and make speeches. They can set up a webcam at his "ranch".
I loved "the plan". Draw down troops to pre-surge levels by what? Spring or summer of next year? So then we're back at where we were in January of 2007? Sounds like some more "stay the course" kind of BS.
I especially loved the part about Iraq being an "ally". How can an occupied territory with a dysfunctional government be an "ally"?
Oh, and let's not forget the 36 countries who are "helping" us in this war. That was the biggest laugh in the whole speech.
Now, there might be 36 countries in there "helping us" as in, they have 1-5 people from each of those countries in Iraq helping doing, who knows what, but their contributions are little to nothing I am thinking. I mean, Mongolia? Come on now. Seriously? And the best part about it, is when he talked about the whole "coalition of the willing" he said it with a straight face. What a boob we have for a President. Like the magnet I have hanging on my fridge at home says, "He's an idiot, but he's OUR idiot.."
My understanding is that most of our "allies" in this boondoggle don't even have any personnel on the ground there.
Exactly most have no troops they just signed a pledge to help and made their one hundred dollar contribution to the cause.
What's that old adage about those who don't learn from history?
One particular passage stood that out to me was a testament to Bush and others like him still still refusing to learn the lessons of the Middle East...
“This vision for a reduced American presence also has the support of Iraqi leaders from all communities. At the same time, they understand that their success will require U.S. political, economic, and security engagement that extends beyond my presidency. These Iraqi leaders have asked for an enduring relationship with America. And we are ready to begin building that relationship — in a way that protects our interests in the region and requires many fewer American troops.” ---George W. Bush
Anyone remember what happened when the U.S. got chummy with the Shah of Iran?
everyone knows that what happened to Iran was Jimmy Carter's fault.
When discussing it, bringing up history, the CIA, or the fact that we've had our fist up the ass of the Middle East for the better part of the century is not allowed.
Draw down troops to pre-surge levels by what?
It was my understanding we'd draw down to 130K. That's not pre-surge. That's 10K higher than pre-surge. It's like Bush just can't help but lie with everything he says.
What happened to the reporting by the WB network? My localFox affiliate didn't even show the president's speech let alone the response.
This story is completely bogus. Most local Fox stations stayed with their normal programming throughout the evening yet Media Matters(very little) sees fit to make this a headliner. Again, why not include other networks, the food channel?, in their lame complaints.
But it keeps the vision of Chinese influence over another Clinton campaign from being looked at and discussed. It also protects the folks from Bowelmoveon. org from having to justify their disgusting ad in the nyt.
Keep up the good work mmVL!
I love that you call the moveon.org ad "disgusting' and in the process do exactly what that idiotic advertisement did and throw around idiotic names.
You should change your name from ProudConservative to ProjectingConservative.
the truth hurts, doesn't it. Moron.org is a shame.
Really? Why?
Because maybe MoveOn doesn't run away from the Republican smear thugs? Republicans freak out when the left fights back, Republicans just can't handle reality.
You call what moveon.org did "fighting back"?? There is a way to "fight back", and it doesn't need to include the smearing of a respected and honorable general.
Just keep whining, it's your only option. You can't refute the facts that MoveOn laid out, so you have to complain disengenuously that their methods were impolite.
Even Greenspan admits the Iraq occupation is a betrayal of the public trust in that this exercise in breaking our military in Iraq is for oil.
Keep whining? Is that what you think I'm doing? I'm simply stating that moveon.org was disrespectful and their attacks on a well accomplished general were uncalled for and inappropriate. I never said anything about refuting any "facts" move on puts out there. I'm challenging their method of "fighting back".
Facts are not a smear, but facts can be disrespectful to those who lie. If you're not trying to deny the facts MoveOn put out there, what are you doing? You're complaining that they weren't nice. Grow up, young men and women are dying because we have been betrayed. There is no need to be nice about Iraq.
So, yes you are whining. You're doing that passive/aggressive conservative thing where you complain about decorum as a means to control the debate. It's childish.
Petraeus had the option to be truthful, he was not. He was called on it, that's fair. That's patriotic.
But just as disgusting is the Administration putting Petraeus in the foreground and hiding behind his uniform, an emblem of honor, as a way to claim infalibity for their overt political mission.
You cannot refute the facts, so you should stop whining about them.
How would YOU know if the truth hurts. YOU wouldnt know the truth if it kicked you over and ate your sandals. Since you have zero conception of what truth even IS we will take your ignorant post for what it is worth. About the same as the lint in my belly button
You mean Hsu, whose money Clinton gave back--that so called scandal?
Or do you mean the scandals involving Republican candidates?
General managers at these affiliate stations make the decision whether to air the president's speech. Most affiliates leave it up to the major networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, CNN, MSNBC) to broadcast the prez.
Also, News Corporation sold some of their Fox News affiliates, so this could be another factor.
The difference is that FOX plays itself off as one of the big four NETWORKS, and all have the same powers. With that, they all own the same responsibilities to provide thoughtful commentary from each side of the political spectrum.
Bringing up the Food Network is a ridiculous argument. It would be like, say, bringing up Poland in a debate about the Iraq war.
Proud Conservative, you say you wonder why Media Matters (a lot) even brought this up, because the Food Channel didn't cover the speech.
Look at the headline. Broadcast networks. ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, Fox.
If Fox covered the speech, they should have covered the Democratic response too.
I am a proud Conservative. You're an apologist for a man who deserves no excusers.
I hate FOX, but MMFA's completely wrong here, at least in So Cal. The FOX news feed here clearly DID run the Democratic response. I watched it to make sure-- was wondering if they would. They DID.
You might want to go back and re-read the criticism. It's NOT directed at Fox NEWS, but rather the Fox NETWORK (the network which airs "The Simpsons" and "24"). Fox--the broadcast network--aired the President's message but did NOT air the Democratic response WHICH THE OTHER BROADCAST NETWORKS DID, following THEIR coverage of the President's message.
As Shepard Smith (the FoxNews talking head), who was covering the Fox Network's coverage of Dubya's little message, noted at the end of the Fox Network's coverage, the Democratic response would be aired on FoxNews but the Fox Network affiliates would return to their regular programs.
Please, man, learn to read before posting.
Fair and balanced?
My take is that fox is taking revenge on the democrats for not coming onto their little fixed debate fest. How childish of a grown network to have to get even.
The biggest surprise for me was that Bush got halfway through his recitation before mentioning 9/11. That has to be a record for him.
I'd be willing to bet that if you go back, and read through every single speech that he has given since that day, he mentions it in ever speech, regardless of what the speech is about.
Beginning in late '02 (and to the dismay of my wife and our cats) every time that one of Dick, Duhhbya and the Dogmaniacs appeared on the tee-vee, I would, in my best Gilbert Gottfried-does-a-parrot voice, repeate over and over:
"Eyerack, nine-leven, Eyerack, nine-leven, Eyerack, nine-leven..."
Nothing's changed.
I guess Howard Kurtz would say it's their right to air anything they want.
Well, Fox is, in fact, doing what it was established to do...carry water for the Republican party. Is there any doubt?
It's not really surprising at all. I don't think anyone is surprised at this at all. What I would like for Fox to do though is to stop pretending that they're "fair and balanced" and that they're actually a news channel.
But, to be fair, Fox News did air the Democratic response. The Fox network went back to regularly scheduled programming.
To be fair, FNC isn't an over the air channel. So they allowed the President to have his time on public airwaves, but not the opposition party. So much for "fair."
(Furthermore, the article states that.)
When you've got Shep, who needs Reed?
FAUX NEWS:
- Fairly Unbalanced
- We Distort, You're Deceived
- News... at the Speed of Lies
Contributions welcomed.
Misunderestimated again.
With control of both houses of congress and the supposed will of the people behind them...the democrat party's antiwar pledges have once again fallen flat.
Until the democrats decide to put their votes were their mouths are...their antiwar convictions ring hollow...or they're gutless in the face of the "overwhelming support" of the American people in their antiwar stance.
Wes,
Although I agree the Democrats have been essentially paying lip service to their anti-war base on the war - to be fair, they are pretty much stuck in a very unenviable position here.
They don't have the votes to override Bush's veto, and they don't want to de-fund the war and then be responsible for the bloodbath that may occur, not only to our soldiers who would be ill-equipped, but to the Iraqis who are left basically defenseless.
Bush is riding this out, leaving it for the next President to fix, I find that alone reprehensible.
- they don't want to de-fund the war and then be responsible for the bloodbath that may occur - tommy
My response is that under that premise...they should resign and go home and tend their gardens. There are many ways to pressure Pres. Bush to abandon Iraq and his threat of veto. Their job descriptions don't state that they get to pick and choose about what issues they are responsible for.
I'll also disagree that Pres.Bush is riding this out...he has stated repeatedly in earlier years that this would be a long slog...possibly lasting years...this is not new.
We may disagree about his strategy in Iraq but I firmly believe he is following his convictions about fighting for the security of America.
He didn't duck the hard choice...like the democrats are by taking a powder on this issue...and has stood resolutely and faced the responsibility of his decisions.
The democrats are like the guy that said his wife loved oral sex...all she wanted to do was talk about it.
Wes,
When Bush put Patraeus out there and he wasn't even able to answer Sen. Warner's pointed question on whether we are safer or not due to our presence in Iraq, well, that was about it for me.
I have given Bush every benefit of the doubt, but he changes the goal posts with every speech and cannot even be honest with us about what is really happening and how we are "stuck" - that is crap as far as I am concerned. I expect honesty from our President, I don't think I am getting it.
"I expect honesty from our President, I don't think I am getting it."
Amen brother, you finally saw the light! Took you long enough. But like the Bible says, "Those who are last shall be first"
But to be honest, before we invaded Iraq, I tried to keep my mind open and give Bush the benefit of the doubt. But since he invaded Iraq, in spite of all the evidence contradicting his claims, I decided that he no longer deserved my trust or benefit of the doubt.
Don't get me wrong, I used to think that those who bashed Bush were the same kind of whiners as those who bashed Clinton. But I came to understand that there was a difference: the ones who bashed Bush were right (In fact he was worse than they could have imagined).
But once you've seen the light, there is no turning back.
Peace be with you, brother!
Hallelujah.....(I think)
Anyway, speaking generally I have no real issue with a President making his case for war and sticking to it, despite opposition. But I do have problems if in selling their war they are not brutally honest about it. Do not sit there and tell us falsehoods or spin on the actual situations we face as a country, we deserve better, our soldiers and families deserve the honest truth always from our President during time of war.....nothing less.
I hear Bush talk and I don't believe what he is telling us, that is incredibly sad and unacceptable for me. If you can't sell your war with tough truths and have to use half truths, you have no business selling war in the first place.
Well said Tommy.
I wish more people would come around to the same conclusions.
Here's a video for ya: Serj Tankian, Empty Walls
Tommy, I take back all the vile, nasty, and insulting things I never said about you. I said yesterday that I thought there was still hope for you, I just didn't expect it so soon!!! :-)
Hallelujah.....(I think)
Holy sh*t!
Pass the tylenol!
Tommy,
Honesty is certainly in short supply in Washington DC...and our complicity in this sad situation is continuing to send these sad sacks to represent us.
I hope that we see the light as citizens that we have the power and responsibility to perform our civic duty...after all...how much can we expect when we send riff raff to Washington?
Absolutely agree Wes,
You want honesty - you should have seen Biden on MSNBC after the speech last night - he was so honest that I'm now sure he has no chance of winning the nomination.
Then they had Huckabee on, and he said he's for more of the same in Iraq.
Tommy I totally agree that Junior has never been honest regarding this war but what I find humorous (sarcasm) is how the Dems are suppose to fix it. This war started in 2003 and each and every Dem that voted in favor of this war has to assume responsibility for their vote. In May 2003 Junior stood on and aircraft carrier and told the country “Mission Accomplished, we have ended MAJOR combat in Iraq". From that moment forward each and every word regarding this war has been a lie. As soldiers continued to die in large numbers Junior told America again and again that we were winning and it would be only a matter of time. That’s where the “we will stand down when Iraqis stand up” line came from. During the 2004 election Junior told the nation that he and Republicans could protect the county and handle “terrorism” better than Dems so the country needed to keep them in power, which they did. Even as late as Nov 2006 before the election, Junior told the country “we are winning in Iraq”. Republicans desperately wanting to retain control went right along with the lies regarding Iraq and yet some want to blame Dems for not ending Juniors war. Even knowing that while the Dems have control by the numbers they cannot accomplish anything without some Republican support. Instead of expecting the Dems to correct Juniors mistake how about asking the “commander in chief” who choose to send young men and women to die to tell the truth. How about demanding the “decider” tell the truth about Iraq. How about demanding that Republicans who have followed Junior like sheep to slaughter, get a backbone, stand up for the country and not the party. How about Republicans doing the job THEY were elected to do, represent THE PEOPLE. Republicans took us into this “war” and Republicans need to help take us out. We didn’t get here with just Dems alone and NO ONE can expect us to get out that way.
I'd settle for Bush, just once, admitting that invading Iraq was a mistake.
I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for Bush to say ANYthing he's done was a mistake. The arrogant dry drunk refuses to admit anything of the sort.
"There are many ways to pressure Pres. Bush to abandon Iraq and his threat of veto."
How do you figure? Does Bush really seem like he's concerned about his political appearance? He's ridden the war down to his current level of approval, and there's not much further down he can go.
You are correct. Bush has the Democrats over a barrel, partly with the help of his lapdog Press. The Senate is in a virtual tie...Liebermann is ALWAYS going to vote with the President on this issue. Any measure they manage to pass will be vetoed, which they cannot override. If they refuse to give him his blood money, the GOP parrots in the press will characterize it as "abandoning the troops", which would be political suicide. Bush, being the dunderhead he is, would not hesitate to hang the military out to dry if Congress did defund the war. He'd leave them over there, running low on supplies, and say "See what the Democrats did?"
The one thing I criticize the Democrats for is not impeaching the bastard. If any president ever deserved it, he does.
If they refuse to give him his blood money, the GOP parrots in the press will characterize it as "abandoning the troops", which would be political suicide.
I say LET Bush veto bills that have timelines and withdrawal orders. Let the regressives say whatever they want. I think a) most people will see that it's the right thing to do, and b) you know what? So what if some Democrats lose their gig in DC if it gets our soldiers out of harms' way.
But I doubt that Democrats showing some spine will lose them votes. What's losing them poll numbers right now is their lack of a spine.
"I'll also disagree that Pres.Bush is riding this out...he has stated repeatedly in earlier years that this would be a long slog...possibly lasting years...this is not new."
Actually, in the earliest years--back in the "Mission Accomplished" days--Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld et. al. repeatedly stated just the opposite. They all assured us that, in the words of Rumsfeld, the war would "last six days, six weeks, I doubt six months." Only later did they begin talking about the "long slog," and now they (and you) are pretending that that's what they were saying all along.
In 2003 they were saying the war on terror would be a generational war. if they had admitted Iraq would be a decade, there would have been too much opposition. it is just more of the same slight of hand stuff that should be transparent but ... too many blind men in the audience I suppose. the fact that Bush seems to be hiding his true intentions seemed true to me since election night 2000. I am sorry that it has taken so much to bring some of you around.
I agree John, excellent point. How many more times can we afford sleeping Republican's to wake up 7 years later?
"[Bush] he has stated repeatedly in earlier years that this would be a long slog...possibly lasting years...this is not new"
"Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed." ---George W. Bush, May 1st, 2003
"I can’t tell you if the use of force in Iraq today would last five days, or five weeks, or five months, but it certainly isn’t going to last any longer than that.” ---Donald Rumsfeld
"It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months." ---Donald Rumsfeld
"I think it'll go relatively quickly, …Weeks rather than months." ---Dick Cheney, March 2003
"I believe demolishing Hussein's military power and liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk" ---Kenneth Adelman, Pentagon Advisory Board Member, February 2002.
"I can't tell you how many days or weeks. But by historical standards, this will be a short war." ---Richard Perle, March 2003
I'm sure there are a hundred other little "gems" from this admin that are just like that one.
That's basically one of the things The Daily Show does: They show Bush's current statement, then show a dozen past statements from him and his Administration that contradict this current statement. It's simple editing and I still don't know why the morons in the "real" media can't figure out how to do this.
The quotes are infuriating. And it's equally infuriating that we have to turn to a COMEDY show on a COMEDY channel to get that kind of clear, concise, "in their own words" perspective.
Pres. Bush and advisors said that the war would be over in a brief amount of time. Look at the predictions of Rumsfield, for example. No, Bush didn't tell the American people it would be a long slog.
Bush didn't make the hard decision at all. He made the wrong decision to go into the wrong nation based on lies. Rather than admit that his policy has been a failure, he wants to remain looking tough and let the next president handle the problem. That is not good for our democracy, nor is it evidence that Bush is making a hard decision.
Bush is disgraceful and just because he sincerely believes in the delusion that the US can control the world and and force sovereign nations to follow our commands doesn't make him right and he needs to be stopped. What he iwants to do Wes will be met with resistance political and militant. The only recourse the Democrats or currently have against our dictator is to cut off funds for the troops. They will not do that and put the troops at risk because of lack of needed resources. Bush is using our troops as hostages and it's so immoral. Tommy's correct the only thing that can stop our dear leader now is a veto proof congress. Bush's dream of having a permanent military presence in Iraq and that somehow we can control these people via our presence on their lands will not go down well or help to build a moderate majority in that area as he imagines. We are perceived as interlopers and imperialist and as long as we are there our troops will forever be the targets of suicide bombers whether they are directly involved in combat operations or not. These people see our presence as occupiers and Bush can't make that go away. I actually cried watching the president’s speech last night. It's amazing that this one little misguided man can do so much damage. I mean that little man comment seriously with Bush. In fact he is a simple delusional little man with a universe sized ego to believe he has to answer to no one and that somehow he alone can force the world to conform to his will, and sadly about 1/3 of my fellow citizens believe like wise. You know Wes I love my country, this is my home and the people and the lifestyle I love is here; and as much as I disagree with the current political climate espoused in the Middle East I can imagine they feel the same way about there country and they are not going to let us come in there and control them. They are not going to acquiesce to the great White father who talks love and peace and democracy to them while aiming weapons at them. It's all so crystal clear now, this is what Bush intended to do all along. He cynically manipulated the American people and the congress, and he doesn't give a damn what any of us think. Hmm I guess he ain't so dumb after all.
Bush is going to stay in Iraq so that no matter how bad things are when the next Democratic President brings the troops home the rightwing can start rewriting history and telling us how we were JUST about to win in Iraq all the insurrgents were giving up in droves and the Dems surrendered. Kind of like the bull we are still hearing about Vietnam. The ReNAMBLAcans dont care squat about who dies of Iraq only winning the propaganda war at home. Bush's only principles have to do with whats good for him. Your criticism of Democrats is a valid one I as far as I am concerned
Early on, Bush never said this would take years. He only talked about it taking years after he won his election in 2004.
If he had said that the war would take even 2+ years and would take the lives of only a thousand+ when he was gearing towards war in late 2002. What percentage of the American people would have supported it?
Bush led us astray then, I was against the war from the beginning but even I thought the war would be short, sweet with the right wing crowing about the triumph of Bush. I was against it because of the fact we had no right to invade Iraq because there was no link to 9/11
Every person I talked to at the time thought it would be short and called me negative for thinking we would lose a few hundred soldiers and the war would last more than six months.
What percentage of the American people would have supported it?
Had Bush not lied about just about EVERY ASPECT of this war going in, the public wouldn't have supported it. Sadly, had more of the public paid attention, they would have seen that he was lying and we might not have ended up in this mess.
"they don't want to de-fund the war and then be responsible for the bloodbath that may occur"
And yet they are being blamed for continuing the current bloodbath.
Yeah, Wesley, the Dems were supposed to be a cure, but have turned out more like a side effect.How did we end up with these two parties as our choices.
But in defense of Smith and Fox, actually running the Dems response would have encouraged that same sort of "censorship" that opponents of the Fairness Doctrine are always warning us about.You know, the censorship of allowing an opposing viewpoint.
Yep...I agree...there is not a whole lot to choose from in either party.
I'll say it again...a third party is looming. I don't know whether it will spawn from the left or right...but oh yes...it is coming.
I wish that were true. I dont see it happening. The way its set up a third party has a very hard time gaining traction. Look at how many Dems are still screaming about Nader and the Greens. IF we could get Instant Runoff Voting so voters werent so afraid of their vote for a third party candidate electing the guy from the party they MOST oppose we might see some gains in third party power. In the near future I see no third party looming.
You must have forgotten about Perot...who leapt into the race and was running neck and neck with Bush and Clinton...before we discovered he was a nut.
Perot proved that a third party is not only viable but can happen quicker than we think...with the right man leading the cause. With all his personal foibles...Perot still gathered 19% of the vote.
Yes, I see a third party looming...and that is indicated right here every day...with the dissatisfaction of both the right and the left with the current crop of pretenders.
C'mon Wes. What are the chances I forgot about Perot? And he did WHAT for a third party? What he showed was a PERSON with the resources and the right message can make an impact. He didnt start a third party with any impact. Did those who voted for HIM also vote his party for Congress? No, for the most part they didnt. Did they continue to vote for his party after he faded away? No they didnt. Perot doesnt show a third party viability. How many people from his party got elected to national office? That would be NONE. He ran more than 15 years ago and they elected ZERO people from that party and he committed tremendous resources to his run.
Perot did nothing for a third party...except show that it is possible and not as difficult as some would think.
About seven months before the election he was in a statistical tie with the democrat and republican candidates...and had a real chance of becoming president.
Had he been elected...the state organizations could easily have ginned up support for their party's candidates.
Perot failed...but in failure...proved it entirely possible. If you think it's unachievable...fine with me.
No, all Perot did was show what HE might have done not a new party. He did NOTHING to generate excitement for a new party he did NOTHING to shift power toward a new party he only showed HE might have won. He had ZERO coattails for a new party. He showed nothing about the viability for a new party he only showed a maverick with the resources and the right message could crack the monopoly HIMSELF. The problem I mentioned was in no way effected by Perot. Whatever HE might have done HIMSELF he did NOTHING to generate an interest in a third party. The elected NO ONE IN 15 years no matter how well HE did. There is no getting around this.
Solon,
It seems to me that these third party candidates should involve themselves in more than just presidential campaigns. They should get involved by running for office at the municiple and state levels instead of simply showing up every four years with no experience and expecting to get anything more than protest votes. I know they don't mean to but all they end up doing is becoming spoilers. That said I honestly would like to see viable alternative parties created.
Lynn, I agree with you. I've been railing at Redking for a year now to please have his green party people build a party from the ground up instead of just being spoilers like you said. I'd like a third or 4th party choice also.
JJ,It makes me wonder if they are indeed serious or simply using a run for presidency to fund raise or in the case of Nader and Ross Perot who were IMO simply being self indulgent and stroking their own egos. They have to build upon a solid foundation before launching head first into a bid for the highest office in the land. What they do is the equivalent having some strange guy show up at your door and ask you for your hand in marriage.
And while you wait for us to "build a viable party", you'll all keep voting for the same Dem/Repub scumbags who are destroying this nation. Don't blame us for the situation. It's your votes that put the criminals in power, not ours.
Red, sorry but you either put up or shut up. You want people to take your ideas seriously, work on it. Start making head roads in small elections, move on to larger like governor or the senate. Don't show up every 4 years make some good points to move a few (unfortunately enough) into believing in you and then yell and scream at the rest of us for not "seeing the light", leaving all of us stuck with Junior.
I dont know where you people get the idea the Green party ONLY runs for President. At least here in Arizona and I KNOW California they DO run for local offices and they lose for the same reasons. The intertia factor of the two parties if you want to argue that means we arent viable fine but its ludicrous to pretend the Greens only run for President.
They're Democrats. They're too busy trying to keep third parties off the ballot to maintain the duopoly on power to bother checking their facts about the Greens.
What are you talking about? The Green Party DOES do that. When I went to a Green meeting here in Flagstaff they begged me to run for office and they didnt mean for President. They run for state offices and for local city and county offices.
True and to be fair the Green party does do that. However you still have the problem a winner take all system gives the two parties, factoring in inertia its just hard to break the monopoly. Instant Runoff voting would help as people could vote for who they REALLY wanted without the fear that their vote would end up helping elect the person they really REALLY dont want.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
Yep...I agree...there is not a whole lot to choose from in either party.
I'll say it again...a third party is looming. I don't know whether it will spawn from the left or right...but oh yes...it is coming. // Wesley
Too late Wesley, your already a part of the third party, Neo-Cons.
They highjacked the Republican Party while you carried their water to do it! Hearing you moderate your opinions to the reality you have denied for so long to admit the failures of Democrats??, and some Republicans is testiment to your stupid stuborness that has cost us dearly at every front!
You believe if you recognize finally that Fox News has been little more than propaganda is a meaningless revelation since you've done nothing to admit how terribly wrong you and your party have been. Admitting the truth is the first step to redemption, but penance must be made to a path of redemption first.
How would the Neo-Con possibly offer penance that would lead to their redemption?? Public impalement??? Maybe!!
If you are done rocking the boat, it is because the rest of the passengers tossed you overboard a longtime ago and you were unaware!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
bush vetoed a war funding bill in may of this year that had a withdrawal timetable.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/01/congress.iraq/
I agree entirely, Wesley. That is a major reason why the approval rating for Congress is so low.
I do take exception to your placement of overwhelming support in quotations. Are you inferring that it is not true that a solid majority of Americans disapprove of the current course in Iraq and want substantial withdrawal? Every poll that I am aware of from at least the last six months show at least a 10-20 point advantage for that position versus the admin. plan.
I believe the Democratic leadership needs to come out and tell the American people why they are basically impotent in these decisions at this stage, considering they do not have enough legislative votes to do much. Level with their constituents and everybody else, lay it out what they are up against. Perhaps they have, I haven't seen it.
Instead they equivocate and talk tough, yet do nothing. If they would stop grandstanding a little, they would be better off.
jawill,
You're certainly correct about the polling data...and yes I'm suggesting it's not a correct reflection.
Of course, most people...when asked...want our troops to come home sooner rather than later. But they dance all around the real question...are you ready to accept defeat and bring our troops home?
I believe the majority of people would answer a resounding hell no...and that's why I think the democrats are not willing to face the music and push forward with their antiwar agenda.
>>But they dance all around the real question...are you ready to accept defeat and bring our troops home?
What is your proof of this? Right now most Americans believe Iraq is a lost cause, and they are willing to bring the troops home, so I don't see how you reached your conclusion.
Of course you don't.
In other words, you have no argument but wanted to post something snarky to hide that. I see.
nope...nope...and nope.
Yup. That's what you do when you are proven wrong: go into troll mode.
Funny,
I don't agree that most Americans think Iraq is a lost cause - what I think Americans want is for us to either fight to win and leave Iraq a better place, or be given the full, brutal truth of our situation there and what's ahead, from our President......that is where the administration falters, in my opinion. All this surge talk, withdrawing troops so that in a year and a half we still have 100,000 troops there is just more of the same from Bush, he can't expect trust anymore from the American people. But I don't even think he cares at this point, and that is also very sad.
Less than half of Americans think the United States can win the war in Iraq, according to a CNN poll released Tuesday.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/03/13/iraq.poll/index.html
The way Bush is running it now, I don't disagree.
By the way, I do agree with your point that Bush doesn't care.
what I think Americans want is for us to either fight to win
Oh, because they've BEEN fighting to lose? WTF does this mean? Maybe we should burn down every town we come to. Maybe we should slaughter ten of "them" for ever one of ours that gets killed.
I mean, really, what should be done differently? And in True Tommy mode I'll give you preconditions: Don't tell me "send more troops" cuz there ain't any. Unless we start a draft.
Defeat is not any of the options. Its the sort of over the top rhetoric as saying you guys want as many Americans killed as you can possibly GET killed. Emotional meaningless language. Every military goal is accomplished and has been accomplished long ago. The problems that remain are political not military. There is virtually no support for al Queda in Iraq beyond them fighting US. The main fighting has to do with filling the power vacuum between Sunnis and Shiites. This is NOT a problem we can help with militarily. Using that kind of divisive meaningless language is manipulative and dishonest.
You're right. This "defeat" talking point that Wesley likes to insert into the dialogue is nonsense. Who, exactly, is defeating us? Even Petraeus said that we can't "kill our way out of an insurgency". If you want to use the word "failure", that may be more appropriate...but whose failure? Bush's, for ignoring expert advice and invading based on cherry-picked intelligence? The military, for doing what they are trained to do brilliantly, but face an impossible situation that does not have a military solution? Congress, who foolishly authorized Bush's imperial venture?
Who's defeating us, Wesley?
Thanks nerzog...the democrat party.
Again, you have no argument so you revert to toll behavior. You are predictable.
Why are ReNAMBLAcans so proud of their ignorance. When you dont even know the NAME of the largest political party in the US its hard to take anything you say about politics seriously
But he can argue seriously and honestly, as he did with a third party. But if he becomes challenged in a way he doesn't like, he becomes an ass.
By the way train man, your job sounds very interesting. What exactly do you do?
I am about to get called so I am leaving. Basically I am the boss on the train. The engineer does what I tell him. I am the one that assures the train is correct has all necessary paperwork. I communicate with everyone as to what will be done along the route and make ALL decisions. If the Superintendent wants something done to my train he comes to me and says Barry this is what I was thinking. The decision will be mine. Figure the engineer is like Sulu and I am Captain Kirk.
Man, you just opened yourself up. Captain Kirk!
Pretty cool job, though. Civil engineering degree? Also, what kind of trains?
I'll check back in a day or so.
Reasons why Kirk and Janeway would make a great couple:
I have no degree. Only a High School graduate though today they want some college. I have always liked my job. It pays very well. I am not oversupervised and have a lot of autonomy. I like the people I work with and I have great benfits including a pretty good pension.
But he can argue seriously and honestly, as he did with a third party.
Pffth. Regressives try to pull that slight of hand to avoid their responsibility and culpability for supporting this pack of thieves and murderers for going on seven years. If they had their chance, they'd vote in a worse group.
So, are you calling every Democrat a traitor?
Defeat is one term I can live with from the right, but I have heard new right wing PSAs talking about how the democrats are voting to "surrender" to Iraq.
Even the worst nightmare of the right wing couldn't possibly believe we'd surrender.
Surrender?
What would that involve? Giving them the state of Utah? Destroying OUR weaqons of mass destruction? Canceling Christmas?
Could they possibly believe their own rhetoric?
No they dont, its all about the propaganda value. ONLY that.
But they dance all around the real question...are you ready to accept defeat and bring our troops home?
There is NO defeat for our troops. We WON the war. We CANNOT win a CIVIL WAR where we don't know who is the enemy, no uniforms to separate friend from foe. Iraq is currently in a CIVIL WAR.
Accept defeat???? By what measure? The troops won every battle.
We are in occupation mode right now.
Here is a hypothetical: What if we stabilize the country for the most part and then they democratically elect someone who is aligned either with Bin Ladin or Iran. If that happens, do we have to go back?
You want the Dem leadership to stand up and tell the truth? That AIPAC owns them and israel pays big money to keep them voting for war crimes? Can't see that happening.
I agree, but it’s going to take sacrifice on the part of people like you Tommy. This war could end if people like you as much as you guys hate Democrats would at least just temporarily vote in a manner that would create a veto proof congress. After the war is resolved you can go back and vote as you normally would. This is my prayer.
Well Lynn, considering you don't really know how I voted, not to mention both my representatives and Senators are Democrats....but I hear your plea and even understand where you're coming from.
But we are stuck until 2008 now, and then let the veto-proof Democrats make their case for me on the war and why I should vote for them - instead of telling me how they are going to fix every social ill in our society, which is what many of them constantly do.
Great, another cheap shot du jour.
My turn...
Telling us how they're going to fix every social-ill is a lot more constructive than denying the reality of those ills and then making up new, nonexistent ills that are all caused by liberalism.
They SHOULD be telling us, as should Republicans,how they're going to address our social ills. And our infrastructure. And a whole host of OUR issues.
What they shouldn't be debating is how to fix IRAQ's social ills. Their infrastructure. Their issues.
And this nonsense about being stuck... Bush is stuck. Lame duck without a supporting Congress. All Democrats have to do is grow a spine and send him bills that Americans want, not what Bush wants. Let Bush veto anything he wants. If he doesn't get any more money to pursue this failure in Iraq, then he can use his executive powers to leave soldiers there until the military is bankrupt or bring them home.
Or BUSH can compromise with the Congress to work on a plan to end this mess.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
I believe the Democratic leadership needs to come out and tell the American people why they are basically impotent in these decisions at this stage, considering they do not have enough legislative votes to do much. Level with their constituents and everybody else, lay it out what they are up against. Perhaps they have, I haven't seen it. // Tommy
Stil distorting, eh Tommy!! Just tell the truth the Republicans are the "Obstructionists" you branded the Democrats when they were the minority! Hypocrite!!
I wonder what it's like for people like you and Wesley when you finally come to terms that you've been talking out of both sides of you face all along, or did you know that all along?
Just face it, if you want competant, honest, relevant, democratic governance we all have to VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
Wes,
The main issue with Congress (Democrats and Republicans) is that they vote the "will of the people". They vote the "will of the party". The Democrat Party used the war funding bill as an opportunity to load up on the pork so that their big money supporters would be pacified. Ditto for the Republicans. Congress is a joke. We must demand that the 17th amendment be repealed and kick ALL of the Representatives out of the House.
Oh yes. Let's go back to the good old days when the state legislature choose the senators, before the 17th amendment. There was no pork then! There was no bribes, because we know how honest state legislatures are.
Why not do away with the 17th amendment? Big problem, here. If the country of Uganda has an issue with the US gov't, they have an APPOINTED representative in Washington, DC to work the issue out. However, if the state gov't of Utah (or any other state) takes issue with the US gov't, they have NO appointed representative on Captiol hill!! The 17th amendment stripped the states of their power and created an Imperial Federal Government, and we are seeing the results of that mistake today.
they have elected representatives.
States have elected representatives who "allegedly" act in the interest of the people. States do NOT have appointed representatives to act in the interest of the state government. So, the state GOVERNMENTS have no representation in Congress. Like I said, this huge mistake has allowed legislation to be passed with NO consideration given to state government whatsoever (NCLB comes to mind, specifically). The federal government can now strong-arm the states into complying with federal regulation and the states have no say so at all. State governments have become powerless over the Imperial Federal Government and that is wrong. All government should be local, yet we, as a nation, turn immediately to the Federal Government to fix our problems because we know that the states are powerless. It's tragic.
But the state representative represent the people. If the federal government is harming the people of that state, the senators can act on the state's behalf.
There is nothing tragic about having a more direct democracy, except for those who don't like democracy.
But the Federal government is composed of those Senators and Congressmen, who hurt their OWN States. The States have been shoved out of the United States. It's all the DC Empire now.
This is a meaningless statement.
Ahh, Federalists....their loyalty is always to the Federal government and never to their HOME states. Centralization of power leads to dictatorship.
so you think we need to stop electing senators by popular vote?
I don't care how the States decide to appoint them, all I want is the States to CONTROL them. I'm sick of people being elected to "represent" the States in DC and then screwing them over for party or lobby interests. States need mechanisms to control and remove representatives who do not represent. Senators are FAR too powerful.
That's easy.
It's the MONEY. Until we have elections that are fully, and completely funded on ONLY public money, nothing will change.
That's what you get when $$ = free speech.
Ahh, Federalists....their loyalty is always to the Federal government and never to their HOME states. Centralization of power leads to dictatorship. [redking]
What a bunch of crap. Many republican senators hate the federal government, or at least many of the government's programs. They are loyal to their contributors and to their idealogy.By 1900 complaints about the way that United States senators were elected filled the press of the day. “The legislative system of electing Senators has broken down,” wrote a commentator in the Arena in 1905. Critics cited the senators who had recently been indicted and convicted of crimes, Joseph R. Burton of Kansas and John Mitchell of Oregon. Other senators such as Chauncey Depew of New York had been found to be on the payroll of corporations. There was in the Senate the general presence, as the Nation put it, of “those whose corruption or surrender to corporate interests has too long stained the reputation of a great legislative body.”
http://hnn.us/articles/6822.html
Your argument doesn't make sense. Whey is a senator not a representative of the state that elected him? Also, a representative from Uganda wouldn't have power to direct American laws, so your analogy doesn't seem apt. A state can hire a representative who would represent that state, who would have as much power as the representative from Uganda.
By 1900 complaints about the way that United States senators were elected filled the press of the day. “The legislative system of electing Senators has broken down,” wrote a commentator in the Arena in 1905. Critics cited the senators who had recently been indicted and convicted of crimes, Joseph R. Burton of Kansas and John Mitchell of Oregon. Other senators such as Chauncey Depew of New York had been found to be on the payroll of corporations. There was in the Senate the general presence, as the Nation put it, of “those whose corruption or surrender to corporate interests has too long stained the reputation of a great legislative body.”
Funnymanpants, after reading this I don't see how that differs from our situation today. Oh, wait, there is a difference. Back then, corruption and criminal activity was taken seriously enough to hold the Senators accountable for their crimes. Not so much today, methinks.
If it doesn't differ from today, then why would you want to repeal the 17th amendment? The argument you originally stated was that now there is more pork. But there was as much pork back then.
And yes, corruption is taken seriously now. See Duke Cunningham or Ted Stevens.
Frankly, I prefer the set-up they had in the Articles. Each state controlled their representatives in Congress totally, right down to what policy they would vote on and how they got paid. Today, Senators run States, not state legislatures. Look at Stevens in Alaska or Byrd in West Virginia, they're practically feudal lords there. If state legislatures have no control over what those in DC do in their name, we have no Union. We have tyranny.
the articles of confederation allowed each state one vote in congress. you think that is the way to go?
50 States, 50 votes. I'd give the territories equal votes, too. Better than just 2 Parties pretending to be democratic.
P.S. The Articles had term limits and Congress couldn't vote themselves pay raises.
That would be such a great system. So the people in Wyoming would have 55 times as much say per person as the voters in California. So that when it comes time to decide national issues, like the war in Iraq, the average person would essentially have no say, while conservatives in Wyoming would have huge sway.
You apparently don't like democracy.
Wyoming is an EQUAL partner in the Union, as are all the other states. Why must we allow a handful of States to dominate the land? I think it is YOU who does not believe in democracy.
Oh yes, I long for the days when local state legislatures controlled the whole show. When we had slavery, women couldn't vote, and we had robber barons as well. I just grow nostalgic for those great days of democracy, free of tyranny.
My bad. There were no robber barons in the days of the articles of the confederation.
My state abolished slavery 83 years BEFORE the Federal government did. You have no point.
Your state might have, but others did have slaves. Which you know. And women, and blacks, and poor white men couldn't vote.
Sure I have no point.
Sure that is what we need a Congress LESS accountable to the people and MORE accoutable to power itself. Sure THAT will help the pork situation. The very concept is ludicrous. You act like most pork is to satisfy PEOPLE in the street. NO, most pork goes to powerful corporations the very corporations that have even MORE power over state govs than they do the National government. So by getting Senators appointed by the Governors you think that will make them LESS likely to put in the kind of pork that helps the Halliburtons, Bechtals and Pillsburys? That is flat out inane.
The present system is totally corrupt. If State legislatures could remove bad representatives and appoint those that serve their states and not the lobbyists or the party machines....decentralization of power is the CORNERSTONE of liberty.
Sure. Because state legislatures are so democratic and so free of corruption! An informed electorate is the cornerstone to democracy, not limiting democracy as you advocate.
You advocate all power concentrated in the hands of a few Federal politicians, micromanaging local events from thousands of miles away, where the concentration of power has unleashed a torrent of unaccountable corruption.
And it's the DEMS who keep throwing third party candidates off the ballots in my state. We know all too well the hypocritical Democrat committment to democracy here. You just keep sucking up to your Federalist war criminals, making the world a better place for Wall Street and the arms merchants. I'll vote for real change that helps us. You just keep standing in the way of progress and defending that good old status quo, conservative.
I don't know what you mean by your way,' said the RedKing: `all the ways about here belong to me -- but why did you come out here at all?' ...`Curtsey while you`re thinking what to say, it saves time.'
...May it please your Majesty,' said Two, in a very humble tone, going down on one knee as he spoke, `we were trying--'
`I see!' said the RedKing, who had meanwhile been examining the ballots. `Off with their heads!'
Yeah while the STATE governments of Louisiana and Mississippi are bastions of integrity and probity RIGHT? Make sense man. You are talking about taking the VOTE away from PEOPLE and pretending that will ADD to democratic constraints.
So you are seriously talking about the DECENTRALiZATION of power by taking the VOTE away from people? And that makes sense HOW? State legislatures drop to their knees so fast when major industries show up they break the sound barrier going down.
There is no Democrat Party. You ReNAMBLAcans are such a joke why should anyone take anything you say seriously when you are so uniniformed you dont even know the NAME of the largest political party in the US
There is no democrat party. Only a DemocratIC party and a ReNAMBLAcan party
Dont forget the...
Re-Puke-licans
The infamous ...
RepubliCan't Party
ah, the burdens of fair and balancedom are not easy to bear! Can't imagine how fox missed the Dems' rebuttal. How, for that matter, did they come to hire Tony Snow? How did they recognize in him a Republican hack? How could they possibly see through that impenetrable wall of fairness that distinguished his broadcast career? I'm sure John Gibson's transition to spokesman for the Hillary Clinton presidency will be equally smooth.
Not, of course, that I'm suggesting that Fox is NOT fair and balanced. Wouldn't want to upset Howard Kurtz.
SAVE DEMOCRACY, VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT!!
Michael Powell got on national TV on every network and assured America that equal time in the political theatre would be stil maintained despite the de-regulation of the media!!
LIAR, LIARS, LIED TO AGAIN!! We sold our free press to the Republican Party when they sold out to the corporate agenda, and the agenda for the wealthiest among us! They don't believe in democracy, and the rule of law is whatever they deem the rules to be for the moment! Fascism!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
In the mid- to late-80s, the Reagan/Bush administration floated the idea of establihing an Administration directed news agency to combat perceived media bias. After a very brief time and much outrage, the idea was soundly rejected. At least on the surface. It is logical to assume it was at that point the concept of Fox News (a private enterprise) took root. It was part of a longterm strategy that also incorporated killing the Fairness Doctrine (which led to the domination of right wing talk radio), Roger Ailes role in heading Fox News and the demonization of the mainstream media. It was at this point that I called Rush to challenge his attacks on the media since I insisted that he was successful and an influential member of the very thing he was attacking. Thus the modified use of "mainstream" as a point of distinction. Others have probably attacked him on similar points, since FOX as the "most watched' cable news network constitutes "mainstream media." Note Rush's more current use of the term "drive by media." It's all very transparent for those interested in the history of their unfortunate and evil rise.
Fox NEWS?
FOX Lies.
FAKE News
FUXNoise.
Based on some of the Anchorettes, Reporterettes (or better perhaps, news readerettes), how about Foxy News? Oops, probably will draw me a nice slap for that remark.
Based on some of the Anchorettes, Reporterettes (or better perhaps, news readerettes), how about Foxy News? Oops, probably will draw me a nice slap for that remark.
Nah just questioning your taste in Britt, Bill Shep and Neal.
Heh! You're a devil , Pearlene. My opinion of the Fox news women is they look good for about 1/4 second after switching the channel, then they morph into weird, Stepford-wife sort of scary automatons.It might just be the stuff coming out of their mouths that influences my taste.
On the other hand, the woman who filled in for Keith Olbermann tonight (didn't catch her name), seemed to have a pretty good grasp of the topics, read as if she was understanding and processing the material, and had a good sense of humor.
In addition, I will say this about KO's substitute;
ggggrrrrrrrroooooOOOOOWWWwwwwwlllll.... Lefty Likey !
Ah, Pearlene, I said "_____ettes (qualified by some)". Have yet to see Neal, Britt, Shep in skirts and form fitting sweaters, what have I missed?
Have a great weekend, hope you didn't sip too much wine yesterday afternoon at the virtual "happy hour"!
Oscar, nah wine works find it's tequila that makes me crazy.
Sorry should have added :-) to that post on Fox.
Thanks for clarifying ;) Not that I didn't know (more or less) the intent of your post. Just don't want anyone confusing me with Larry Craig, etal.
FAKE NEWS: NOT FAIR. NOT BALANCED.
Fox News (sic)
My Bumper sticker says:
Fox New is
State Run Media
Lie like a Fox News!
Do you mean Senator Jack Reed? Are you trying to make some sort of pun?
Oh yes, Fox only covers real news, like Paris Hilton and who is the newest missing person du jour. And Republican propaganda. Yes, that Fox news.
tweakthetroll's comment got lost somehow, probably because he was, surprise, being a troll. I was responding to him.
Brit, Billo, Johnny, Olay and Ruppert must have been too busy Polishing the FAIR AND BALANCED "STAR" to allow a COUNTERPOINT to their HEROS Speech.
When the next president is a Democrat, FOX "news" will only show the Republican response...AND NOT THE PRESIDENT'S ADDRESS!!! LOL!!!And their viewers will ask, "What are the Republicans RESPONDING to???"
I think there should be a move to de-certify FOX as a news network and it should not have the license to operate as such, only as an opinion channel.
The question posed to General Petraeus was a question outside of his realm. As Commander of ground forces in Iraq, his area of responsibility is to secure the safety of the Iraqi people and route out and destroy the insurgency in Iraq.
As a General (or any military member), the responsibility is to take and follow orders, not to question whether what is being done is "making America safer".
Now back to the article. The MM complaint that Fox didnt carry the democratic rebuttal is blatantly false. I watched FNC for the speech and the rebuttal. I also flipped over to watch something in my local Fox network affiliate and caught the end of the democrat rebuttal. Im sorry if your local affiliate didnt show it, but mine did.
>>As a General (or any military member), the responsibility is to take and follow orders, not to question whether what is being done is "making America safer".
If that's the case, then he shouldn't have delivered any report at all. You make it sound like he is a person way down on the chain of command with no independent thought.
It is two different things whether a local affiliate carries the response or if Fox news does, isn't it? That is, Fox could have carried the response and all stations would have had to run it, right?
Gee Amhet, that's really convincing...
A couple of affiliates around the country ran the Democratic response, so Media Matters is all wrong about Fox not showing the Democratic response.
I'm also told that some people believe the earth is flat. Apparently, a couple of people walked out their door, they couldn't see a "curve" in the surface, and Fox News is now reporting that, yes, the earth is indeed flat.
"I think there should be a move to de-certify FOX as a news network and it should not have the license to operate as such, only as an opinion channel."
I've thought for awhile Fox News ought to be a pay-to-view channel like HBO and all of the right wing talk radio echo chamber ought to be moved to satellite radio like Howard Stern was.
The public airwaves have better uses than Republican propaganda and those who want to listen and watch that garbage will still be able to.
this treatment by Fox shows why we need to reinstate the fairness doctrine. Fox is using our airwaves for this lopsided propaganda. These are forums that are regulated by the government already. it is not unlike a soapbox in the park and the government is only letting one side of the political spectrum use the soapbox to speak. entirely improper and insures that that side of the debate wins. why do we assume that our air ways should be used like that.
Does Fox even try any more? I mean really? Does anyone really believe they are either "fair" or "balanced?"
Did they once try that???
I made a point to switch to FOX after the speech to see if they would broadcast it.
I'm not sure what you were watching, but they DID have it on. I am no FOX fan, but I think they're getting a bum rap THIS TIME.
I 'm sure it was on. Can you make sure where your info comes from?
Actually, the story is wrong. We got the full thing down here in Raleigh, both on FoxNews and Fox50.
Great cutting edge work, MMvl!
What happened to the reporting by the WB network? My localFox affiliate didn't even show the president's speech let alone the response.
This story is completely bogus. Most local Fox stations stayed with their normal programming throughout the evening yet Media Matters(very little) sees fit to make this a headliner. Again, why not include other networks, the food channel?, in their lame complaints.
But it keeps the vision of Chinese influence over another Clinton campaign from being looked at and discussed. It also protects the folks from Bowelmoveon. org from having to justify their disgusting ad in the nyt.
Keep up the good work mmVL!
the only aspect of the MoveOn ad which I could criticise, is the failure to be completely forthright: Repugnants are by nature liars, cannot help themselves; cheats, thieves, sociopaths; the only question remaining, is should we confine them for treatment, or for punishment.
Conley-ga-loose,
Thanks for the deep insight and contribution to the discussion.
Your feelings about Republican's aside, why would be pleased with the vitriol of bowlmoveon.org? They have only reinforced the idea that the democrat party is controled by the far, far left.
My take on Repugnants (and even my separate take on the 7 remaining Republicans) is at least a pertinent as your take on the MoveOn org and their ad - which, by the way, I supported.
Insofar as playing defense, it is actually far easier to defend NoveOn than to defend Bungle, his administration, or any of the Repugnants of which it consists; or who support it.
But Coney-Island, What about the issue of Fox New's supposed dropping the Democrat Party response? As mine and other's posted pointed out, local affiliates evidently chose to drop the response themselves or not even have the president's speech on at all.
As far as the folks from bowelmovement.org, I can only imagine the uproar if just before Clinton and Sandy Berger testified for the 9-11 commission, a campaign showing Sandy stuffing his trousers with classified documents, calling him Sandy Burgler and the president wearing a stained blue dress. The ad reflects a depraved group's lack of respect for the military and belies their feigned 'support for the troops'.
Yawn! You want to switch the topic.
Fox news did not carry the Democratic response.
Yawn (it' contagious you know), I didn't change the subject just answered the question of the thread.
The Fox Network does not have a news department like NBC, ABC or CBS, they do the Simpsons, Family, etc. Fox News, is a cable only entity and they covered all the speeches that night on cable. As I said, my local affiliate chose not to cover either speech.
So you are pleased with the NYT as?
Fox News made a decision not to cover the Democratic response. That shows it is not fair and it is not balanced.
Fox cable News did cover it. There is no Fox network news show or department. The difference is clear and not insignificant.
Again, the bowelmovement.org ad in the NYT? Will you say it was appropriate or not? Does it reflect the views generally held by the democrat party?
Summary: Following President Bush's address to the nation on Iraq, Fox was the only broadcast network not to air the Democratic response.
Fox news covered the Bush speech, and then did not cover the response.
Summary: Sandy's pants can't see the forest for the tress!
Someone at Fox news made the decision to air Bush's speech but not air the Democratic response.
Summary ProudMoron is stupider than an underwater Bar-b-que
Again ProudMoron, all the other networks did. Faux didnt. MMFA is right and YOU are an idiot
ProudMoron. Fox didnt carry the Dem response. Even someone as ignorant a ReNAMBLAcan as you are knows if it were a Dem president they would have carried the ReNAMBLAcan response. Then again since you are too stupid to even know the NAME of the largest political pary in America maybe you ARE too stupid to know what most carbon based lifeforms know. Bottom line you are too stupid to take seriously
Hey ProudMoron. There is no such thing as a Democrat Party. Why should we take anything you ReNAMBLAcans say when you are so proud of your ignorance you continue to show you dont even know the NAME of the largest political party in the US. You are embarassing even the moron demographic. I hear them saying wow we are stupid but did you see that ProudMorons post? He is making us look bad.
Try having a second original thought instead of re-posting the same comments.....Nah that's OK your first thought wasn't original either.
Pearls before Swine,
My intention was to interject into the discussion, looks like this area is going to get more activity.
Any thoughts about the content of the posting?
Romney's national finance committee co-chairman Alan B. Fabian was, according to an August 9 Associated Press [link to www.forbes.com] title="http://mediamatters.org/rd?[link to www.forbes.com] article,">[link to www.forbes.com] "charged in a 23-count indictment unsealed Thursday [August 9] with mail fraud, money laundering, bankruptcy fraud, perjury and obstruction of justice." The AP reported that Fabian "allegedly ran a scheme to make $32 million in false purchases of computer equipment, spending the money instead on beach real estate and private jet travel." Fabian resigned from Romney's finance committee shortly after being indicted, and the Romney campaign said it would return Fabian's $2,300 contribution, but not, however, "contributions from donors who were recruited by or have ties to Fabian," as The Boston Globe [link to www.boston.com] title="http://mediamatters.org/rd?[link to www.boston.com] reported.
According">[link to www.boston.com] to a June 20 [link to thehill.com] title="http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/lawsuits-hit-a-romney-money-man-2007-06-20.html">article in The Hill, "133 plaintiffs have alleged that Robert Lichfield, co-chairman of Romney's Utah finance committee owned or operated residential boarding schools for troubled teenagers where students were 'subjected to physical abuse, emotional abuse and sexual abuse.' " The article also noted that a second lawsuit "alleges that Lichfield and several partners entered into a scheme to defraud them by operating an unlicensed boarding school in upstate New York." The Deseret Morning News (Utah) [link to deseretnews.com] title="http://deseretnews.com/article/1,5143,695207951,00.html">reported
http://mediamatters.org/items/200709090002
How much time will elapse before proudconservative has a temper tantrum and resorts to insults? Any bets here?
Sandy-pants,
I'm glad you brought those articles up. It's much more than one could find about the even more recent events regarding the Clinton machine.
My guess is that both have been fired or resigned. I don't know, I'm not a strong supporter of Mitt's. I do figure that they had few if any connections with the Lippo group, Johnny Wong, Charlie Tree or the communist chinese.
How's that for a 'tantrum'?
Um, but the Republican candidates have as many or more scandals as the Democrats. So I guess the press is covering this up?
Yes, those two people resigned. And Clinton already gave back the money.
Giuliani's former South Carolina state chairman, former South Carolina Treasurer Thomas Ravenel, pleaded guilty September 6 "to a federal charge of possession with intent to distribute cocaine," as the Associated Press [link to www.charlotte.com] title="http://www.charlotte.com/205/story/265908.html">noted. According to the AP, Ravenel "faces up to 20 years in prison and a $1 million fine, though his plea agreement calls for a reduced sentence because he is helping prosecutors with their investigation." On June 20, the New York Post reported that Ravenal had stepped down from his "volunteer responsibilities with the campaign" following his indictment, according to Giuliani political director Mark Campbell.
The New York Times [link to www.nytimes.com] title="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/07/us/politics/07pennsylvania.html?ex=1189310400&en=fca9c17d1fc0f849&ei=5070">reported June 7 that Robert B. Asher, "a prominent Pennsylvania Republican and prolific fund-raiser," had recently acknowledged to donors that he had agreed to be the state political chairman for Giuliani. The article noted that Asher "was convicted in 1986 of bribery-related charges as part of a scheme to award a no-bid contract to a company in exchange for promises of $300,000 in payoffs and political contributions." According to a July 10 [link to thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com] title="http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/07/10/scandal-taints-another-giuliani-ally/">post on The Caucus, "[o]nly after public reports that Mr. Asher had been convicted in a famous public corruption case two decades earlier did the campaign back away from the choice."
John Wren, the "Media/PR/Advertising Industry Leader" for Giuliani's [link to www.joinrudy2008.com] title="http://www.joinrudy2008.com/article/pr/149">finance team, faced fraud allegations as the CEO of Omnicom, for "off-loading" certain personal stocks to avoid recording any operating losses associated with those investments. The December 13, 2006, [link to www.odwyerpr.com] title="http://www.odwyerpr.com/members/jack_odwyers_nl/2006/1213.htm">editionJack O'Dwyer's Newsletter, a weekly publication that covers the public relations industry, reported: ..
Sandy's pants,
Since you are finding these articles, they must have been covered. I won't deny the corruptablility of anyone, both parties. My concerns with the democrat party is that they tend to keep these folks around or have Hilliary's brother broker a few pardons down the road.
The silence about Hsu is deafening and as far as giving the money back, did she deliver the checks/cash personally? Are they reinvesting in the campaign or buying more chickens to keep? I'd like to see a story showing what these folks will do with the money when and if it is actually returned.
Summary: On MSNBC's Morning Joe, host Joe Scarborough and guest Craig Crawford discussed a fund-raiser for Hillary Clinton who Scarborough said was "on the lam again"
Not discussed?
And the Republicans take care of their problems?
Folley, Ney, Cunningham, Vitter.
Only Vitter remains in office, the others either in jail or gone from politics.
What about Kennedy, William Jefferson, McDermott?
And if it was on MSNBC, what about 3 dozen people saw it?
>>And if it was on MSNBC, what about 3 dozen people saw it?
In addition to being covered by Scarborough, it was covered by The Post, The NY Times, NBC, CNN, and Fox News
Florida did not start a criminal investigation of Foley until November 2006, making it "nearly impossible to prosecute" an explicit instant message Foley sent to a 17-year-old high school student in 2003.
Who's to blame?
House Republican leadership, for one, who had knowledge of Foley's inappropriate behavior for years. The emails originally leaked out of the office of Rep. Rodney Alexander (R-LA), a Democrat-come-Republican who changed parties in 2004. But the untold story is that the media, too, had a hand in protecting Foley.
No, the Repubs don't take care of the scandlals. The others that I mentioned were not forced out of the party by the Repubs. They were either not elected or arrested.
>>The silence about Hsu is deafening
In addition to being covered by Scarborough, it was covered by The Post, The NY Times, NBC, CNN, and Fox News
ProudMoron if you are too ignorant to even know the name of the largest political party in America why should we waste time on your abject stupidity?
ProudMoron it was as stupid as most of your posts. As stupidity goes you are a work of art
Any thoughts about the content of the posting?PC
You will have to stand up in order to understand any reply.
ProudMoron there was no content from any of your posts. Moronic stupidity does not equal content
You POST is totally bogus. Let me translate from wingnutese WWAAHHHHH stop showing what a useless propaganda network Fox is. Dont look at the man behind the curtain, what about the Martian news network they didnt either, WWWWAAAHHH the Chinese are coming, is there ANYTHING ELES I can spew out to take this thread off the topic of why is Fox such an utterly shameless propaganda network WWWAAHHHHH. Bubblegum wrappers have more content than your posts.
Fox should not air comments by the Democrats until they apologize to General Petraeus...
BULL. I call complete BULL on this story. Just because you say something doesn't make it true, two seconds after President Bush spoke Jack Reed came on and spit his garbage. His that not a Democrat response? They then sat around and talked about it FAIR AND BALANCED. Talk about slander.
Faux News continues it's right-wing ways. We shouldn't be surprised.
I don’t get the MM and Demo paranoia about Fox News. They’ve pretty much lived up to their claim of “fair and balanced” when it comes to airing opinions from both sides of the political aisle. A large segment, maybe not a majority but I’d say more than a third of their regulars have a left-wing bias.
I watched CNN, all of the major “air” broadcast networks, and subscribed to the San Jose Mercury, Denver Post, and LA Times for lots of years (yea, decades) and that experience tells me that Fox News is one of the least biased media outlets in the countrySure old Marine. MMFA actually documents how Fox spreads misinformation.
You just offer a blanket opinion. Who do you think I believe?
WOW. What color is the sky on your world anyway? Fox isnt anywhere near fair NOR balance and if you are even CLAIMING they are you need to increase your medication. Here is a hint just because they reinforce your delusions that doesnt make them fair only propagandistic
I see the white flag has been raised. Nighty-night!
Yes, it's being raised by you.
Funnymanpants, just want to let you know how much I appreciate your patience. I think you've been posting here longer than I have, and you still manage to be pleasant debating the most thick-skulled dittoheads.You must have children, I lose interest a lot more quickly.
I also wanted to thank you for the laughs I get when I have a chance to read these threads- the ones where you completely corral the topic-changing, bullsh*tting Bushbots, until they declare their imaginary victory.Good stuff, and your talents don't go unnoticed.Cheers!
If you COULD see you would see you were taken to the woodshed AGAIN as you pretty much always are whenever you post your delusions here. Restating your premise 15 times is weak. Ya got nothin.
You guys really need to check your facts. Fox News DID air Sen. Reeds response. Here's the link in case any of you would actually like to watch it.
[link to search2.foxnews.com]
At least some Americans were spared having to listen to more whining.
Fox News covered it
Hey, I think you need to recheck that. I was at my neighbor's watching the speech and they had Fox Cable on and they aired the democrat rebuttal. I saw it. Then they had a panel that reviewed it all. Republicans and democrats. Not much interesting dialog, but it was there.
frannie
Now I know you are jesting. You actually think that Fox COULD be decent and fair in their COVERAGE and reporting. They NEVER expose their listeners to any factual and balanced reporting. Just shows how right the Democrats were in steering clear of the hit job they had planned for the meeting with the Democratic contenders. One hting they are up front about their total bias. They do not even pretend to give both sides of any story.
I changed the channel before Shep said anything about catching the Democratic Response and Reed had already started his presentation. I don't know how much longer Smith talked (Smith's use of the word "later" is what prompted me to check the other channels, but I can't say how long it took) , but this may mean that anyone watching Shepard Smith's summary would have missed the Democratic Response altogether unless they had cable or sat.
Quite a bit was posted early on this subject regarding a third party. Nationally, a third party has no chance of making any change until they have enough representation in Congress. The best Perot could have done in 1992 was to have taken the power to "elect" a President away from the Electoral College and thrown it into the House of Representatives, he had no chance of garnering 270 Electoral Votes. Therefore, because the Ds conntrolled the House, the outcome of the election would probably have been exactly as it turned out, even on the outsice chance the WJC had finished 3rd in the popular vote (as he did in a state or two). We are fussing about the corruption on the federal level and the "aid and comfort" that Fox seems to be lending to the Rs in that regards, but that corruption goes further down the ladder, witness recent events in NJ. A thorough cleansing of the existing political structure should happen, but it has to start on the local levels until we can prove government can be held accountable. Under 30% of the voters support GWB at this point, but the biggest mistake the Ds could make is assuming the other 70% support their positions totally, as we can see from the approval ratings of Congress.
Both sides think that they have a total domination of political power and public propaganda. We'll see how the Dems feel about their grip on power when Cindy Sheehan topples Nancy Pelosi next year. You watch...they'll throw lawsuits against Sheehan to keep her off the ballot but enough people support her to overcome that. One thing I learnt watching the way state Dem parties treat Green and independent candidates....the Dems are NOT democratic at all.
We'll see how the Dems feel about their grip on power when Cindy Sheehan topples Nancy Pelosi next year. You watch...
Red, I'm sorry but the one thing I know as sure as the sun rises in the east is Cindy Sheehan will not topple Nancy Pelosi.
I felt a great deal of sympathy for Cindy. I supported her fully when she started her protest outside Juniors ranch (so called) however lately I'm not too sure about her. Yes we need to bring the soldiers home, today, but to pretend that we don't have a responsibility to innocent Iraqi citizens is irresponsible. What is she going to do about the innocent Iraqis once we leave. What policy will she put forth to help them. Face facts, in order to bring about change you have to get people to listen to you and you have to keep people listening to you. Cindy antics of late allows people to turn her off which defeats her purpose IMO.
So you support staying in Iraq, which means DEATH for those same Iraqi citizens you claim to care about? I'm sure the Iraqi people will tell you to keep your phony concern to yourself and just get the hell out of their country.
Redking, you are the phony.
I've met many a redking in my lifetime, shouting "off with their heads" to anyone who doesn't climb on their train and support whatever cause it is that they trumpet. Often it's valid but far removed from their everyday life. And the only way to address it is their way. They brand everyone else with inflammatory language; disregarding any desire to have a real discussion or connection.
It's a power trip. Your god is the god of BEING RIGHT. This you share with a thousand other beings who worship that same god under many different guises. Some imagine themselves christians, or muslims. Others disavow religion but become fanatics about some other cause...
It's a destructive force; it pulls people, communities, and nations apart.
" I'm sure the Iraqi people will tell you to keep your phony concern to yourself and just get the hell out of their country. Redking
Red, who in the hell are YOU to question my sincerity just because I don't agree with you.
So you support staying in Iraq, which means DEATH for those same Iraqi citizens you claim to care about? Redking
That way of thinking makes you no better than those who you rant and scream about. "My way or the highway" thinking is what got us into this mess to begin with.
You want to leave today? Before we invaded, this country had full time electricity, a decent sewage system and people had jobs. Now this country has limited (2 to 4 hours) electricity, no decent sewage system, violence each and every day along with rampant unemployment. Are you going to fix that or just leave it? Do you wave the magic wand or better yet give people a happy pill? Live in the real world, we broke this country apart and we owe it to those who are still there to fix it someway, somehow. We don't need to have a military force to fix it. Decent humanity demands that we fix a country that we destroyed. There should be no question about that!
Maybe somebody has commented on this already but Fox news did play the Democratic response... at least Fox News Did. Maybe the Fox channel did not. I was going back and for the between Fox and MSNBC and Brit Hume made a few comments after Bushes speech and then he immediately went to the Democratic response.
Interesting side note to this Fox none story I find it VERY funny that those here would say that Cons watch Fox........OK I can dig it......... 1.5 million more Cons watched the Democratic responce on Fox than the Dems did on CNN.
http://186kps.com/2007/09/14/more-fox-news-viewers-watch-democratic-response/
Seems as though Olbermann slipped up and told the truth AND Edwards wasted his money....how funny is that?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=mU-hSDyuMVU
Tweak, increase you medication to 10 pills.
Tweak, I've just moved, and lost my speaker cable temporarily. What did KO say that was so incriminating?
(hint) Transcripts are nice, just in case.
Lefty, Keith said his show, "countdown" is a friend of the Democrats and commercials aside he could have just as easily have gotten his message broadcast on MSNBC on Countdown for free had he made the arrangements to appear on the show rather than pay for commercial time. There is a story behind Keith's words of disappointment. You see Edwards has appeared on Fox programs over 30 times. Its Keith's way of telling anyone who would listen that Democrats should use his show, FOR FREE, to get their messages out. I do not have a problem with this..........O' Reilly has a standing invitation for Edwards, Obama, Hillary to come on his show anytime they want. They wont show up because they think the questioning would not be fair......OK....thats a calculation made by their campaign managers. There is no such assertion made by Countdown for Rudy, Mitt or Fred and there never will be. Thats their business....but lets at least acknowledge the facts.
Tweak, Cons watch TV more. Figure in the elderly, unemployed and mentally disabled, and it's a gimme.What else do they have to do?
HAHAHA. They don't even hide their disdain for the Democrats anymore. I usually find stories like this appalling and they anger me, but I seem to be finding them hilarious now. Fox has become amusing to me, just to see how absurd they can be. Like Fonzi on Happy Days, I think Fox News has "jumped the shark" and knows it. They no longer even attempt to pretend to be "fair and balanced". They are a joke.
Patty........dont watch much do you? I would never have guessed. But thats OK, I will watch for you :)