Friday, May 05, 2006

Monday May 1st Was - Happy Mission Accomplished Day!
PS: Rest of the world.. we murikans don't celebrate the commie socialist worker's day thingy ;-).Instead this is how some commemorated May 1st 3 years ago.

From Atrios

From that day's media coverage -
LIDDY: Well, I -- in the first place, I think it's envy. I mean, after all, Al Gore had to go get some woman to tell him how to be a man. And here comes George Bush. You know, he's in his flight suit, he's striding across the deck, and he's wearing his parachute harness, you know -- and I've worn those because I parachute -- and it makes the best of his manly characteristic. You go run those -- run that stuff again of him walking across there with the parachute. He has just won every woman's vote in the United States of America. You know, all those women who say size doesn't count -- they're all liars. Check that out.

Ahemm.. check out that codpiece (A pouch at the crotch of the tight-fitting breeches worn by men in the 15th and 16th centuries.)!
Someday we will look back at history at this idiotic, stage managed event and wonder how Americans were duped. When war was chosen as an answer and when the size of the crotch became important for some Bush Bots.
Three years later here is where we stand. From think progress--







































May 1, 2003Today
U.S. Troops Wounded54217,469
U.S. Troops Killed
1392,400
Size of U.S. Forces150,000132,000
Size of Iraqi Security Forces

7,000-9000
250,500
Number of Insurgents
5,000


15,000-20,000
Insurgent Attacks Per Day
875
Cost to U.S. Taxpayers$79 billion
$320 billion
Approval of Bush’s Handling of Iraq75%37%
Percentage of Americans who Believe The Iraq War Was “Worth Fighting”70%41%
Bush’s Overall Job Approval71%38%

40 comments:

Mr. J said...

Hahaha..... Lol man this pic is eerrr, different.

Jordan's Dad said...

Liberals dont seem to understand that, in a war, soldiers get killed. The fact that soldiers die in a war does not make the war itself wrong. There are plenty of valid reasons we should not have invaded Iraq when we did, but soldiers getting killed is not one of them.

To put things in perspective:

Civil war (4 years) - 184,000 U.S. combat deaths

WWI (4 years) - 53,000 U.S. combat deaths

WWII (4 years of U.S. involvement) - 290,000 U.S. combat deaths (there were 3000 deaths in the first 24 hours of Normandy alone)

Korea (3 years) - 33,000 U.S. Combat deaths

Vietnam (@ 8 years) - 47,000 U.S. combat deaths

Iraq I (1 month) - 150 U.S. combat deaths

Iraq II (3 years so far) - @ 2,500 U.S. combat deaths

The fact that combat death rate for Iraq is so much lower than other wars IS NOT a justification for this war. However, it is not an indication that the war is wrong or otherwise a failure. You need to come up with a better argument than that. Just copy one from the NY Times.

San said...

eurg bushs pic was enough to put me of this post

dem said...

JD,

Your argument with Sanjay’s post seems to be that since soldiers normally die in war, liberals can’t criticize Bush and the 33% of the population that continue to act as his enablers. But there are problems with your argument.

First, you equate war critics with liberals. With only 41% of the population now saying that the Iraq War was worth fighting, that means a lot of Republicans agree with us liberals. Maybe you have heard of some of them. They include ex-neocon Francis Fukuyama and William Kristol, the latter being the editor of the most influential conservative periodical, The Weekly Standard.

Second, like other conservatives you insinuate that the press is liberal, that it lets personal beliefs overwhelm journalistic integrity, with the result that reporting is tilted against conservatives. Yet like other conservatives you offer NO proof. While I’m sure there are examples of some news reports favoring a liberal view, there are also many instances of reports favoring conservative viewpoints. The fact that Dick Cheney only wants Fox News to be shown in his presence makes it clear that Fox in particular likes to defend administration policy instead of just reporting. I would also point out that one object of your ire, the NYT, printed a number of inaccurate articles during the runup to the war that supported Bush’s claims about WMD in Iraq. For more contemporary examples of how non-liberal the press really is, try reading mediamatters.org. Lastly, scholarly studies have shown that overall there is no systematic bias in the press. Go here for one:
http://joc.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/50/4/133
The press reports on the incompetence, lies and corruption of whoever is in power, and that is Republicans now. It wasn’t long ago that the press eviscerated Clinton for far less serious revelations.

And then there is the Iraq war itself. Note that critics of this war largely have not objected to the decision to invade Afghanistan. That is because the Taliban supported Al Qaeda, who attacked us on 9/11. Saddam did not. Moreover, members of the Bush administration knew this but repeatedly said that Saddam and Al Qaeda were collaborators. Furthermore, despite its attempts to blame the CIA for mishandling prewar intelligence, the Bush administration knew that many of the claims it made to convince the public of the need to attack Iraq were either outright false or questionable at best. Here are two articles illustrating that point:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/11/AR2006041101888_pf.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/08/AR2006040800916.html

Furthermore, the Downing Street memo, in which the head of British intelligence was quoted as saying that in Washington, “the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy”, makes clear that the Bush administration wanted to attack Iraq and was willing to misrepresent the truth in order to trick the public into supporting its decision. There is more evidence to support this accusation. Former Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz notoriously admitted the Iraq War was about oil:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/aboutoil.htm

Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld notoriously suggested the U.S. attack Iraq immediately after 9/11 because Iraq had better targets than Afghanistan:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/19/60minutes/main607356.shtml

And the same article describes how Bush himself demanded that his intelligence czar try to find information implicating Saddam in 9/11 despite acknowledging privately that Al Qaeda was behind the attacks.

In summary, Bush lied and soldiers died. You are correct in asserting that the latter is what happens during war. Your argument that fewer have died in this war than in previous ones is irrelevant. Iraq vs previous wars is not the proper comparison. The proper comparison is Iraq vs no war. No soldiers need to have died (or have been maimed - 17,000 of them have so far) in this debacle. Even if your argument were valid, this war is far from over. Even if you switch your argument to avoid the obvious - that Bush lied and no soldiers should have died or been maimed - the war is unjustifiable. The Iraqis still have less power, less clean running water, are more likely to be killed, have lower income than before the war. And most tellingly, they overwhelmingly want us out of their country.

Then of course there is the impact of the war on our own country and the rest of the world. Within the U.S. the war has been used as an excuse for Bush to treat the constitution like toilet paper. He has ignored over 700 U.S. laws, the most egregious example being his violation of legal prohibitions against warrantless eavesdropping on U.S. citizens. Our national debt has skyrocketed (Jordan and kids in his generation will have to pay this off). Our international credibility is shot, not just due to the inability to find WMD in Iraq but because our government condoned the torture of prisoners and has denied writs of habeas corpus to non-U.S. citizens. Repressive countries like Russia, Pakistan and China have used or may now use the Bush doctrine of preemptive war to attack freedom-promoting opponents. If another conflict were to arise elsewhere in the world, our troops would not be able to repond easily. We have ignored real nuclear threats such as North Korea and Iran. We have ignored Afghanistan, which has, since we attacked Iraq, been overrun by warlords and Al Qaeda again and is now the world’s largest producer of opium. We appear as hypocrites for supporting repressive Muslim regimes such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt and as a consequence of this and the Iraq War millions of disenfranchised Muslims are more united in their hatred of us and are more likely to attack us in the future.

Sanjay posted a lot more material than just number of soldiers who have died in Iraq. Is your false analogy really the best you can muster? Is that and revisionist history what the 33% who still support Bush must cling to? I guess to do otherwise would be to admit complicity in one of the most unchallenged immoral acts in recent U.S. history. It must be hard to come to terms with that.

dem said...

Blasted html. Here are the references that got cut off:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/
article/2006/04/11/AR2006041101888_pf.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/
article/2006/04/08/AR2006040800916.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/19/
60minutes/main607356.shtml

Keshi said...

LOL!

Keshi.

Mr. J said...

Let's get the guns ready.

karmic_jay said...

JD, I understand soldiers die in a war. Duh!
This was a war of choice, should never have been fought. We should have finished the job in Afghanistan instead and gooten OBL. And don't bring up the Zarqawi angle. He was in a aprt of Iraq that was not under Saddams control, we knew where he was, we chose not to take him out and destroy one of the reasons to go to war.
I will let the public opinion speak for itself as to where this war is going. It's gone from 70% apporval to 40% and falling.
If you feel the war is going well why can't you convince the people?
There are enough conservative news outlets (fox, talk radio, cnn has glenn bleck now and they also have plenty of conservative voices).
The thing is you can only fool the people so long. As for copying something from the Times. The times as dem points out, was out cheerleading the war with crappy journalism. They have since regretted it. I don't need the times to make an argument. The numbers on the post spek for themselves, too bad the numbers don't fit your point of view.

Jordan's Dad said...

#1 - Yes, many conservatives dont agree with this war. As I said, there were many valid reasons to disagree with the decision to invade Iraq when we did. However, only LIBERALS point to the casualty rate to argue against the war. This is not a valid argument.

#2 - "Bush lied people died" is a lazy argument. Many Democrats, including Kerry who voted for the war, said the same thing about WMD's.

#3 - We dont conduct wars based on opinion polls.

#4 - If you want to find out how the war is going, why dont you ask those that are fighting it? How about a poll of U.S. soldiers? It would certainly yield a different result than a poll of NY Times readers.

karmic_jay said...

#1 A life lost in a war that was based on lies and was a war of choice (deliberate or otherwise) is one too many. It's one of the many reasons to oppose the war. It's not the only reason.

#2. Bush's stupid plicies have cost us a lot, in terms of lives and money. period.

#3. Ask Andy Card that. And don't be silly, its Card who said we don't do new product rollouts in te summer. He was looking at timing based on the elections that were coming up. That was a sampling of opinon polls. We will see what the people say in the midterms.

So US policy should solely be dictated by US soldiers?

Also what is the mission?
reconstruction? catching terrorists? painting schools?
fighting insurgents?
I would like to see a poll if there is one.
Also policy has to be dictated by the US public and our representatives have to react to that and the realities on the ground.
I don't want to poll them, you might want to since you seem so troubled by the lack of support.
I wonder if you would poll the families of the soldiers injured or killed in Iraq?
I wonder what happens to yuor theory once the American public says enough about Iraq pull out our troops by voting for the dems in the midterm?

dem said...

JD, you are a quintessential Republican. You just ignore all the inconvenient facts that the other side presents and demand that your new points be addressed. OK, I'll take your bait... for now.

You just don't get it. Nobody should have died because we shouldn't have invaded. You won't even come straight out and admit the invasion was wrong, will you? You have to qualify your "many reasons..." statement by saying it was wrong to invade "when we did". But let's play by your rules... for now:

#1 - When you go to war, you expect loss of lives. But you consider that a sacrifice worth making for what you gain in return. But what have we gained? As I pointed out in my last comment, there are many reasons to believe that America, Iraq and the rest of the world is suffering or will suffer - not benefit - in both the short and long term as a result of this war.

#2 - "Bush lied and people died" is a succinct summary of the evidence I provided, complete with news articles as references to back up my claims. Maybe YOU should try reading those and explaining your objections before you accuse ME of being intellectually lazy.

#3 - WTF? Public opinion matters. Ever heard of Vietnam? Why do you think we finally pulled out? Why do you think LBJ decided not to run for re-election?

#4 - Why don't you meet my challenge and provide me with evidence that the press shows liberal bias? I provided you with evidence that it does not. Can't you support your argument? But I'm in a cooperative kind of mood, so here is a link to a story on soldiers' opinions about the Iraq war, courtesy of John Zogby and dated 5 weeks ago:
http://www.zogby.com/NEWS/
ReadNews.dbm?ID=1075

Since you are too lazy to pay attention to the articles I have cited in the past, I'll quote this one for you:

"An overwhelming majority of 72% of American troops serving in Iraq think the U.S. should exit the country within the next year, and more than one in four say the troops should leave immediately, a new Le Moyne College/Zogby International survey shows."

Interestingly, these results come from the same troops that overwhelmingly believe that "the U.S. mission is mainly 'to retaliate for Saddam’s role in the 9-11 attacks' [and] 'to stop Saddam from protecting al Qaeda in Iraq.'" That is, even though they have bought into the Bush administration lies, U.S. troops believe they should leave Iraq ASAP.

As long as we're asking the people in Iraq that matter, what do you think the Iraqis would like us to do? I think we both know the answer to that.

dem said...

I forgot to add, with regard to #2, that at the time that Democrats (and probably some Republicans) voted for war against Saddam, they were doing so because they believed the lies that the Bush administration was telling them. Just like much of the public did. But members of congress did not have access to the same information that the Bush hawks had. Until the Bush administration said it had proof that Saddam was a threat to the U.S., members of congress were at most calling for air strikes to force Saddam to allow the IAEA inspectors to do their work. There is a big difference between suspecting that Saddam might have illicit weapons and declaring war on his country.

By the way, who was U.S. President when Saddam gassed the Kurds and the Iranians? Who ignored Saddam's crimes in order to secure oil flow from Iraq? Who sold him weapons immediately afterward?
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/
NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

Jordan's Dad said...

You guys are too funny. The Dems havent won a major election since 1996, but you guys continue with the same nonsense. Keep beating the "Bush lied" drum - that really worked well for you in 2004 when Bush kicked Kerry's ass. Check the stats - Bush increased his percentage of the vote in 48 of the 50 states as compared to 2000. And that's with all the Michael Moore Farenheit 9/11 nonsense, CBS fake documents, etc.

So keep saying Bush lied, making your movies, and forging those documents. We'll keep winning elections.

Maybe you can get the Supreme Court to change the constitution (like they did for Roe v. Wade) and we'll elect the president through a CBS/NY Times poll! Maybe then the Dems could get elected! Hee Hee!

dem said...

JD,

I gave you evidence, not just unsubstantiated claims. You want a debate, then debate me based on the facts. But you can't, so you gloat. I guess that's what you have to do when you can't muster anything better than intellectually vacuous rhetoric.

The political pendulum swings back and forth. It will swing back to our side again soon enough. And you will still be faced with facts that you continue to evade.

Oh, and by the way, Al Gore, not George Bush, won the popular vote in 2000. It was judicial activism that conservatives decry so frequently that changed the outcome. So you gloat away. Lying and cheating and corruption. That's what your party is known for. And that's apparently what you are proud of. That and your willful ignorance. Congratulations on your "victories".

Jordan's Dad said...

The popular vote does not decide elections.

Talk about ignorance!

Jordan's Dad said...

And why no mention of 2004?

The Dems havent gotten more than 50% in a presidential election since 1976.

That pendulum sure takes a long time to swing back!

dem said...

I know you have a short attention span JD, but try to read what I actually wrote. I never said that the popular vote wins elections. What I said was that Gore should have won had the Supreme Court not been activist. You know, "created law", something that Republicans seem to hate, at least when the decision doesn't favor their needs du jour.

Bush won the last election by fooling people into thinking Saddam was behind 9/11, by refusing to repudiate the swift-boating of Kerry's service record, and by villifying homosexuals to get the Christian right to believe that traditional marriage was "under attack."

So again, congratulations for your "victory" in 2004. Look at how you did it and be proud. Look at how our country has gone down the tubes since your party took control of all branches of government and be proud. Be ignorant and be proud.

dem said...

"The Dems havent gotten more than 50% in a presidential election since 1976."

Bush's victories in 2000 and 2004 COMBINED amounted to only 3% more in the poplular vote than the Democrats.

Wow. I guess the Republicans sure are poplular.

Here is a well-documented example of how Republicans have been winning by exploiting people's ignorance. And astonishingly it is through the media that JD thinks is liberal (though he offers no evidence to support this or any of his other claims)!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A27061-2003Oct14?language=printer

Hey JD, did you take that test? Oh, I forgot. It doesn't matter to you what is right or wrong because your party won! Did I forget to offer my congratulations?

dem said...

http://www.washingtonpost.com
/ac2/wp-dyn/A27061-2003Oct14?
language=printer

karmic_jay said...

JD does not see the current state of affairs to be Bush's responsibilty. All he does is blames the democrats and the press.
The democrats are not in power, and the people are catching up to the facts.
He is probably proud of the legacy that will be left behind for his kid.

Jordan's Dad said...

The anger really shows through in your comments, Dem. You may want to consult someone about that. The "angry liberals" are whats killing the Dems. Try being more like Jay - he may be wrong, but at least he's not an asshole.

Exactly what is wrong with the "current state of affairs" Jay?

The economy is doing great.

No terrorist attacks in the US in 5 years.

Life is good, guys. C'mon, enjoy!

dem said...

Hey JD,

I'm not angry at you, just at your corrupt party. Calling you ignorant wasn't out of anger. It was because you avoid debating facts and refuse to back up your assertions with anything resembling evidence. Hey, what do you do for a living anyway?

Not sure why you did it, but I'll keep in mind that you called me an asshole. I guess that's what you have to resort to when you can't make a logical argument.

Here's another good article for you to ignore.
http://journals.democraticunderground
.com/herbster/1

I'll skip to the good parts since you don't seem to have time for details.

Three presidents were asked the question, "What was the best moment of your presidency?"

Their answers were:

Carter: The Camp David negotiations.

Clinton: The resolution of the Kosovo crisis.

Bush: That time I caught a big fish on my ranch.

That pretty much summarizes the difference between the two parties (and those who support each one), don't you think?

dem said...

Are we done? That was fun. As proxies for our parties, what should we debate next JD? How about intelligent design?

My party favors teaching evidence-based science, which is the impetus for a growing technology-based economy and national defense, while your party favors teaching religion in science class. Are you with your party on this one, or should we move on to something else?

karmic_jay said...

Dem, JD does tend to ignore facts that don't buttress his point of view. I noticed he ignored a lot of your numbers and facts.
He has done that before with me too.

I try not to get personal here. Calling names ain't gonna do it JD, try arguments based on facts and correct yourself if you make a mistake.
Notice how JD completely ignored the poll conducted with US soldiers in Iraq.

A lot is wrong with the current state of affairs..
Incomes have not risen for the middle class and the poor in this country are worse of.
Don't tell me about the Dow, that's just one index and even if more Americans may own stock than ever before a lot of them hold small amounts of stocks. So that argument by itself does not hold up.
Ofcourse budget deficits don't count, I am glad your kid and his generation will be happy to shoulder that burden. Such compassion..
What do you think about working people who don't have health care?
They don't count in your book is it?
No attack in 5 years is good, is that the only criteria to judge how things are?
I have asked you this before, and of course you ignored it, what happens to your worship of Bush if god forbid another attack happens?
Will you still stand behind this man who clearly is incompetent as a leader.
You ignored this too.. hey why has he not yet caught Osama? Must be all those resources diverted to Iraq eh?
Dem JD is supposedly not religious. He must be one of those who believe lets throw and occassional piece red meat to the fundies in their party (gay marraige, restrict stem cell research, abortion/contraception) and keep them quiet. Then there are the national security conservatives like him who don't care that OBL is still free.
Then there are the fiscal conservatives, boy are the real fiscal conservatives quiet these days. As long as they get their tax cuts they are happy. Common good, whats that?

Jordan's Dad said...

Crap - typed out a somewhat lengthy response and blogger froze up on me. I should probably type them out on word and then cut and paste...

Anyway, Dem, to answer your question I'm a lawyer. Going to trial soon, so don't have time to explain why you are wrong on pretty much everything. If you want to pick one of the many issues you raise, perhaps I can educate you.

I thought this quote of yours was particularly funny:

"Bush's victories in 2000 and 2004 COMBINED amounted to only 3% more in the poplular vote than the Democrats. Wow. I guess the Republicans sure are poplular."

More popular than the Dems!!!

Anonymous said...

Hey Jordan's Dad...did you say that you're a trial lawyer? I thought the wingnuts hated trial lawyers like you.

I think it's funny that you have no substance behind your statements. I think you're wrong on pretty much everything...and because I said it, I'm right! So there! LOL, what a trip.

I'd hardly call a 3% margin a ringing endorsement of the Republican party. With the president's approval rating having gone way, way down in the last few years, I'd be quaking in my boots if I were a Republican. But apparently you have your blinders on, so all is well.

It must be great to be able to suspend all sense of reality and believe in ficticious fairy tales. I wish I didn't have to deal with cold, harsh, rational reality. LOL.

karmic_jay said...

With passage of the budget, the House will have raised the federal borrowing limit by an additional $653 billion, to $9.62 trillion. It would be the fifth debt-ceiling increase in recent years, after boosts of $450 billion in 2002, a record $984 billion in 2003, $800 billion in 2004 and $653 billion in March. When Bush took office, the statutory borrowing limit stood at $5.95 trillion.

Exciting news! Jordan's gonna carry more debt !!!!
But hey JD thinks the economy is doing fine...
It's after all fiscal responsibility republican style!

Jordan's Dad said...

The federal budget IS NOT the economy. You're smarter than that Jay.

I agree that the federal budget its out of control. Most conservatives do. I think we should cut spending, you think we should raise taxes. So there we are.

Anon - republicans generally dislike plaintiff's lawyers. Ambulance chasers and such. I am not a plaintiff's lawyer.

Also, a helpful note to you guys - Bush is not running again. Concentrate on YOUR candidate and come up with some good ideas (i.e., not just "whatever Bush does is wrong"). Might be more productive.

Wingnuts rule!!!

dem said...

JD,

I said:
"...you avoid debating facts and refuse to back up your assertions with anything resembling evidence. Hey, what do you do for a living anyway?"

You said:
"Anyway, Dem, to answer your question I'm a lawyer."

In fact I knew the answer to my question. I guess the notions of satire and irony elude you?

Despite my providing you with a rationale and evidence for an earlier point I made, you replied:
"[blah blah blah] is a lazy argument" and did not counter my argument.

Then you said:
"[I] don't have time to explain why you are wrong on pretty much everything.

Yet you have plenty of time to spend at this blog gloating, name-calling and making unjustified claims. Talk about intellectually lazy!

Then you said:
"[Republicans have been] more popular than the Dems!"

But in fact that was only true in 2004 for reasons I already described and for which you should be ashamed. The Repubs did not win the popular vote for President in 1992. Not in 1996. And NOT in 2000. Remember? Gore won that!

Lastly there is this. You said:
"If you want to pick one of the many issues you raise, perhaps I can educate you."

Do you have time or don't you? I have raised many issues, provided you with evidence to back up my assertions, and given you ample opportunity to counter my arguments. Yet the best you can do is say that your side won so it must be right. You must be a hell of a lawyer.

You choose. Tackle a couple of my main points if you're feeling up to it. Make a case. Defend it. And be sure to address the evidence I have provided you or I'm not going to waste any more time on your hot air.

Jordan's Dad said...

"Like other conservatives you insinuate that the press is liberal, that it lets personal beliefs overwhelm journalistic integrity, with the result that reporting is tilted against conservatives. Yet like other conservatives you offer NO proof."

CBS used forged documents in a ridiculous story to hurt Bush one month before election.

dem said...

OK JD, all criticism aside, I appreciate your willingness to engage in a substantive discussion. That being said, your example doesn't demonstrate systematic bias. Even if you were right about CBS (you are not - see below), you ignored what I wrote about anecdotal cases earlier:

“While I’m sure there are examples of some news reports favoring a liberal view, there are also many instances of reports favoring conservative viewpoints. The fact that Dick Cheney only wants Fox News to be shown in his presence makes it clear that Fox in particular likes to defend administration policy instead of just reporting. I would also point out that one object of your ire, the NYT, printed a number of inaccurate articles during the runup to the war that supported Bush’s claims about WMD in Iraq. For more contemporary examples of how non-liberal the press really is, try reading mediamatters.org.” One of the things mediamatters has documented is the overwhelming majority of conservatives that have been invited as guests on the Sunday talk shows. Read it for many other examples of conservative bias in the press.

Here is another:
“Despite its stated commitment to providing politically balanced programming, C-SPAN shows such as Washington Journal, Booknotes, Q & A, and Afterwords have been accused of having a conservative bias. Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) released a study of C-SPAN's morning call-in show Washington Journal, showing that Republicans were favored as guests over Democrats by a two-to-one margin during a six-month period in 2005, and that people of color are underrepresented. FAIR and critics including guests have charged that the shows ‘Booknotes’ and ‘Afterwords’ highlight more conservative authors than liberals.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSPAN
In addition, on ‘Afterwords’, liberal authors are often paired with hostile interviewers while consevative ones are paired with neutral or respectful ones. In one example, the editor of The Nation was interviewed by conservative writer David Frum, while the next week Rick Santorum was interviewed by a reporter from Congressional Quarterly.

In addition I provided you with an actual peer-reviewed study of systematic bias in the media, in which it was concluded that there is none. Again, here is the document:
http://joc.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/50/4/133
I also pointed out that “the press reports on the incompetence, lies and corruption of whoever is in power, and that is Republicans now. It wasn’t long ago that the press eviscerated Clinton for far less serious revelations.”

It would be interesting to see you comment on what I just wrote. I expect you will focus on what I am about to write. And that is about the CBS story. In the case of CBS, the network did not forge the documents. They may have done a poor job of authenticating them, but in fact that was the only failure. The documents were never proven to have been forged. They just couldn’t be authenticated. The criticisms of the documents' physical characteristics, that typewriters couldn't do that stuff in 1972, have turned out to be false. For examples, see documents at
http://www.truthandduty.com/documents.htm

Here is what is known for sure:

1) At the time Bush was approved for National Guard duty, other more qualified men were being turned down due to the extensive waiting list - over two thousand names, according to one document. For Bush, there was no struggle, just a stroll... into the job he wanted, the assignment he wanted and the unit closest to home. Former Governor Ben Barnes even admitted he helped Bush get a coveted Guard position to avoid serving in Vietnam.
2) Guard officials in the early 1970s refused other reservists even minimal "early outs,” yet George Bush got one.
3) The FBI was never unleashed on this case, as it rightly should have been, if somebody falsified documents to influence an election. Why? The only explanation I have heard that makes any sense is that the political appointees who should have made this happen were very worried that the documents would turn out to be real.
4) There were a number of people who were interviewed for the story that claimed that National Guard documents were destroyed to protect the politically connected but who didn’t want to go on record saying so because their careers would be destroyed in retribution. Does that mean that George Bush’s records were destroyed? No, but it certainly seems probable, especially when one considers that:
5) To this day, through four political campaigns in Texas and nationwide, the President has not adequately explained the more than year-long gap in his service record when he went to Alabama - against his commander's wishes - to work on a political campaign, and later why he left the Guard more than two years earlier than he promised.

We can debate the veracity of the charges against Bush in the 1970s, but that is not the point. The point is that there was at least as much of a story there as the unsubstantiated slander the supposedly liberally-biased press spread from the mouths of the swiftboaters to the electorate about John Kerry’s service record.

Jordan's Dad said...

Dont point me to "studies" by liberal organizations such as mediamatters. Give me an article by the NYT that you claim is biased towards conservatives.

Here's some other examples:

The first article the NYT did on the swift boat vets was to "expose" one of the vet's "ties" to the rebublican party. Meanwhile the story had been in the press for days.

When Sandy Berger was arrested for stealing and destroying classified documents from the national archives, the NYT buried the story in a small box on page A16. Do you really think it would have been on A16 if Berger was a Republican?

Your analysis of the CBS would hols CBS to no ethical journalistic standard. Mary Mapes had admittedly been working on that story for 5 YEARS. There was no story without those documents. The fact they didnt authenticate them isnt a minor flaw. The only possible justification for rushing the story to the air when they did was to hurt Bush in the election.

The difference with the swift boat vets is that there were actual vets making statements and being interviewed. There's a story there - whether you believe them or not. There was, however, no one who would go on the record to substantiate the story about Bush -except that secretary who they found after the fact and who confirmed that the documents were not real.

But it all blew up in their face and they failed to bring Bush down. Thank goodness.

I'm afraid that's gotta be all for today Dem... too busy.

What do you do for a living, by the way?

dem said...

JD, you proved once again that you only pay attention to details as they fit your preconceived notions.

The study I pointed to was from a peer-reviewed journal, NOT mediamatters. You would have known that had you paid attention to what I actually said and looked at the references I provided you with. But you never do.

Even in the case of mediamatters, if you had gone to their web site, you would see that they provide references in which the press shows conservative bias. They don't just make them up. Not like Rush or Ann or Michelle or Hugh or Bill who just make outrageous claims that frequently turn out to have zero factual basis.

Here's an example of a front page NYT article that should meet your demand of being biased toward conservatives. It made the case for war, exactly as the administration spun it in all its lies.
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/
abstract.html?res=FB081EFF355A0C7B8
CDDA00894DA404482

Since you ignore all the references I provide you with, I'll summarize for you. This front page story quoted unnamed "American officials" and "American intelligence experts" who said the tubes were intended to be used to enrich nuclear material. It cited unnamed "Bush administration officials" who claimed that Iraq had "stepped up its quest for nuclear weapons and has embarked on a worldwide hunt for materials to make an atomic bomb."

It also said that "Hussein's dogged insistence on pursuing his nuclear ambitions, along with what defectors described in interviews as Iraq's push to improve and expand Baghdad's chemical and biological arsenals, have brought Iraq and the United States to the brink of war."

My examples are anecdotal, just as yours are, and prove nothing about systematic bias. You're a lawyer and I'm a scientist. I guess the standards we use to persuade our target audiences, and ourselves, are a bit different.

(Almost) finally, why should you demand that the NYT parrot the defamatory charges the swiftboaters were making when the timing seemed determined to affect an election, Kerry's own crew disputed the charges, and the people making the charges had reasons to lie? Despite what you seem to want, it is not the job of the press to act as a megaphone for someone whose agenda is to spread propaganda. It is the job of the press to report on news after it has determined the likely factual basis of its reports.

As to "There was, however, no one who would go on the record to substantiate the story about Bush -except that secretary who they found after the fact and who confirmed that the documents were not real," that is not true. As I said, a former governor admitted he helped Bush get into the guard. Also several members of Bush's unit claim they never saw him. The secretary did NOT confirm the documents were forged. There are documents of unquestioned authenticity in which Bush's former commander expresses his desire that Bush not transfer. And lastly, you conveniently ignored points 1-3 and 5.

Thanks for discussing. I look forward to the next round when you have some time.

Jordan's Dad said...

You prove my point, Dem.

Your question: "why should you demand that the NYT parrot the defamatory charges the swiftboaters were making when the timing seemed determined to affect an election, Kerry's own crew disputed the charges, and the people making the charges had reasons to lie?"

For the same reason the NYT ran a front-page story based on the CBS forged document story.

It was news.

The only difference is that the swiftboat vets hurt Kerry, and the TANG story hurt Bush.

So the TANG accusations got front page the day after the story ran on CBS, and the swift boaters were ignored to the extent the NYT wasnt trying to discredit them.

So who do ya think the Times was rooting for, Dem?

dem said...

Come on, JD, is this really the best that you can do? Is your example really "proof" that overall the press shows liberal bias? Is the NYT all the press? What about my counterexamples of conservative bias and the study showing no overall bias? Even in the case of the NYT your charge falls short. You say:

"So the TANG accusations got front page the day after the story ran on CBS, and the swift boaters were ignored to the extent the NYT wasnt trying to discredit them.

So who do ya think the Times was rooting for, Dem?"

The Times ran stories on the swiftboaters. The Times didn't repeat CBS's charges about Bush's dereliction of duty except in the context of whether CBS screwed up. If you disagree, show me a reference to the front page story you say your read.

I keep giving you explanations and examples of things you claim don't exist. Yet you ignore all of them because you want to believe that your side, which controls both houses of congress, the executive branch, the Supreme Court, and most media outlets, is somehow being victimized by liberals. If that is true, you guys are really weak.

Thanks for ignoring all the other "inconvenient" points I made in my last comment too.

Jordan's Dad said...

"The Times didn't repeat CBS's charges about Bush's dereliction of duty except in the context of whether CBS screwed up."

Wrong.

This story was front page of NYT the day after the Bush story aired on CBS:

THE 2004 CAMPAIGN: THE MILITARY RECORD; Documents Suggest Guard Gave Bush Special Treatment - September 9, 2004, Thursday

As for your one example of so-called conservative bias in the NYT, how is the NYT at fault if they are just reporting what the U.S. is saying? They arent supposed to endorse the news - just report it. And if there are those that disagree, they should report that too. In fact, that's all theyve been doing since the war started.

dem said...

The NYT shouldn't be reporting gossip or baseless accusations just because somebody makes a lot of noise. Eyewitness accounts from Kerry's crew contradicted the swiftboaters' charges. In the case of the charges in the CBS report, which were always subsequently qualified as disputed when questions about the authenticity of the Killian documents were raised, there was much better reason to believe them at the time that the NYT reported them:
-There were no eyewitnesses to Bush's service during the time in question.
-At the time of the CBS report, the White House didn't deny the documents were real.
-The missing time was unaccounted for.

One case was credible; the other was not. Time has borne that out. To this day, nobody has been identified who served with Bush during the time in question. To this day, Bush still has not accounted for his missing time. But today, few people seriously question Kerry's service because Kerry's accounts were substantiated by his crewmates.

You can disagree with me about those two cases, but how can you possibly claim that (1) the NYT consistently promotes liberal views? and (2) this notion can be extrapolated to the entire press? What about the study I cited? Do you have anything credible to address systematic bias in the press as a whole? What about the counterexamples I cited?

With regard to (2), here is your way of thinking back at you: Richard Nixon was a crook. Therefore, all Republicans are crooks.

"As for your one example of so-called conservative bias in the NYT,"

I gave you an example because you asked for one. Now that isn't enough for you. I think it's your turn to address the other examples I gave you of conservative bias (or the lack of bias altogether, as documented in the study you consistently ignore).

"[H]ow is the NYT at fault if they are just reporting what the U.S. is saying? They arent supposed to endorse the news - just report it."

News isn't gossip. The press has an obligation to research the veracity of the information being fed to them and NOT to act simply as a conduit for propaganda. In the case of the prewar claims by the Bush administration, time and time again we have heard about how intelligence was ignored or misrepresented to convince the public the U.S. had to go to war. When in fact it did not. The press bears some responsibility for unquestioningly disseminating the propaganda it was fed.

As an aside, Senator Pat Roberts has been sitting on a report that was supposed to delve into the question of how prewar intelligence was used by senior administration officials. When do you think we'll hear any answers?

Jordan's Dad said...

This is a waste of time to reargue the 2004 election. I never said I believed everything the swiftboat vets said. But for you not to admit it was not at least as much of a news story as the Bush TANG story, shows an utter lack of honesty on your part.

Anyway, we know who the majority of Americans believed.

I guess we'll both see things the way we want.

I'll leave you with this:

"These are the social issues: gay rights, gun control, abortion and environmental regulation, among others. And if you think The Times plays it down the middle on any of them, you've been reading the paper with your eyes closed."

- Dan Okrent, NY Times Public Editor.

Good luck in '06!

dem said...

I didn't think we were arguing about the election but the underlying issues that are still important to both sides.

And it's not just about seeing things the way we want. It's about confronting facts, and collective evidence, which you refuse to do. Okrent's opinion isn't evidence. The article you cite (please provide links in future) is incredibly one-sided. His parting article was also a joke: he provided no evidence to back up his accusations about the paper.

So have we finished with the NYT? Because I didn't realize that "media bias" was confined to the Times' coverage. I've indulged you. How about you start answering the questions I have repeatedly asked. Like for starters, how you feel about your view of the Times being counterbalanced to an extreme by Fox News, 90% of talk radio, and the multitude of well-funded conservative think tanks that bombard the press with their position pieces. And how you reconcile your view of the media (which seems to be confined to the NYT) with the study I repeatedly reference.

Lastly, I already explained what "the majority of Americans believed" during the last election and why. You didn't address that either. And I think it's interesting that you used the past tense. Because we both know that if the public had to describe the GOP in one word today, it would be a toss-up between corrupt and incompetent.

Murrow's ghost said...

Let me get this straight Jordan's dad: You think that if 10 Republicans claim they never saw Kerry perform the heroic deeds that his shipmates all witnessed, the media should treat this as tantamount to documentary and eyewitness evidence that Bush got special treatment and didn't complete his military service. Even though Bush offered no evidence to the contrary? You're nuts if you believe that.

And something else: The New York Times has an ombudsman to try to be "fair and balanced", unlike all the conservative media outlets, including the one that substitutes that mantra for behaviour that is consistent with the principle.