| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| US planning phased pull-out from Iraq |
| 2005-12-30 |
| The U.S. will carry out planned withdrawals of American troops in Iraq only from regions where Iraqi forces can maintain security against the insurgents, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff said Thursday. Gen. Peter Pace said the current force of 160,000 would drop to below 138,000 by March, then U.S. commanders on the ground would work with the Iraqi government to determine the pace of future pullbacks in areas that have been secured by local security forces. "The bottom line will be that the Iraqi army and the Iraqi police will gain in competence, that they will be able to take on more and more of the territory, whether or not there are still insurgents in that area," he said in an interview with a small group of reporters, including The Associated Press, aboard a military plane en route to the United Arab Emirates. Amid congressional pressure and growing public opposition to the war, the Bush administration last week announced plans to reduce U.S. combat troops in Iraq to below the 138,000 level that prevailed most of this year. The number of American forces in Iraq was raised to about 160,000 to provide extra security during the October referendum and December parliamentary elections, and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has said those extra troops would be leaving soon. The exact size of the additional troops cuts has not been announced, but senior Pentagon officials have said the number of American troops in Iraq could drop to about 100,000 by next fall. The decision where to cut troops "will be based on the Iraqi units in that area and the threat that exists in that area," Pace said earlier at a news conference in Bahrain. The key, he stressed, "is the Iraqis' ability to control that area." Pace has said American units will steadily hand off more security duties in the coming months to Iraqi forces and stressed the U.S. military needs to be flexible, but his comments offered a detailed glimpse of the administration's plans. Pace's tour of the region came two weeks after Dec. 15 Iraqi parliament elections, which the United States considered a key step toward stability that could allow a drawdown of troops. But violence has not stopped in Iraq. On Thursday, gunmen killed 12 members of an extended Shiite Family south off Baghdad and a suicide bomber killed a policeman in the capital. Complaints by Sunni Arab and secular Shiite groups of widespread fraud and intimidation during the vote also have threatened to spark a serious crisis that could set back hopes for a broad-based government that could have the legitimacy necessary to diminish the insurgency - a key part of any U.S. military exit strategy from Iraq. Pace said efforts were under way to recruit Sunnis into the Iraqi security forces, "especially on the officers' side." Pace, who was making his first official visit to the region since becoming the first Marine to be named chairman of the joint chiefs of staff three months ago, said the withdrawals of two brigades in the coming months would provide a test for the decision to pull out troops. "We are going to have to watch how these drawdowns go to see if we have judged it properly," he said. Pace, who was traveling with his wife, Lynne, and a group of entertainers to offer holiday cheer to U.S. troops in the region, began his weeklong trip Wednesday in Qatar. He also planned stops in Iraq, Afghanistan and the East African nation of Djibouti. |
| Posted by:Dan Darling |
| #101 I know - Pot calling kettle black here, but ya gotta quit taking the bait. Why would ANYBODY think there was some secretmasonic handshake formal agreement between the MSM and the Donks? Anybody asking for proof of same should be ridiculed once and then ignored. Left Angle, Cassini, NMM - all the same asshole. Aris is a different asshole, but subject to same recommendations |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-12-30 21:56 |
| #100 yep agreed remoteman..aris ain't enough i'm guessing |
| Posted by: Red Dog 2005-12-30 21:43 |
| #99 Jesus, who left the mat outside the door that said "Idiots Welcome". They've been here in droves lately. |
| Posted by: remoteman 2005-12-30 21:38 |
| #98 #98 |
| Posted by: Red Dog 2005-12-30 21:36 |
| #97 Damn, are all the new trolls named after cheap eyepeaces now? Watch out for Erfle, he lives under his Mom's sofa. |
| Posted by: Leon Clavin 2005-12-30 19:53 |
| #96 It may be a bit late in the game to post this link for friend Cassini, but just in case. Here is a link to UCLA study itself! Read, and be educated Cassini. If that is possible A Measure of Media Bias RF |
| Posted by: ResearchFreak 2005-12-30 19:49 |
| #95 Yeah, you repubs/cons, prove that there was a formal agreement between the PRC and the US to stalemate the Soviet Union during the cold war. Oh wait there wasn't one. Then prove that there is a formal agreement between the US and Japan for Japan to invest in the US if the US buys its consumer products. Crap, another bad example. I got it! Prove that there was a formal agreement between Franco and the Brits to not allow the Nazis to use Spain as a base against the Allies during WWII! Um, well, the Brits informally bribed Franco with a few metric tons of gold to close that deal. I guess I'll just go away now... |
| Posted by: Huygens 2005-12-30 16:11 |
| #94 They are saying that the so-called msm have a vendetta against President Bush and a formal agreement with democrats to deliberately slant the news negatively against him and the republican party. The only person blathering about a "formal agreement" is yourself; claiming that is the argument others are making is due either to your unwillingness to understand the argument or a deliberate lie. The slanting of the news, BTW, is obvious. Compare the economic reporting from the Clinton years with the economic reporting from the Bush years. Record productivity, years of growth, and what the Clintons called full unemployment is ignored or actually reported as bad. Look at the reporting about Hurricane Katrina; the reality is the response was faster than previous responses, yet the press claims it was slower. The problems in New Orleans are the results of incompetent local and state administration; contrast the responses in Mississippi and Alabama where the main force of the storm hit. (I know of a Katrina-related scandal that will never happen, a news story that could make a reporter's career. But I know it will never, ever, get reported, because it makes a Democrat look bad.) Then there's the TANG story. Anyone with any sense was able to spot those as fakes, and their hired experts even warned them away -- but CBS went with the story anyway. The reason they ran it is they believed it regardless of the evidence; their biases simply did not allow them to consider the possibility they were wrong. Finally, back to the story that started this. The spin is planted in this paragraph: Amid congressional pressure and growing public opposition to the war, the Bush administration last week announced plans to reduce U.S. combat troops in Iraq to below the 138,000 level that prevailed most of this year. The "congressional pressure" doesn't exist; Congress has held multiple votes on the matter, and they've always come out against immediate withdraw. The "growing public opposition" is a cute phrasing -- if the opposition had gone from 1% to 2%, they would have said it had "double". If the numbers have gone from 30% to 33% and they can call it "growing opposition". |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2005-12-30 16:07 |
| #93 Link hosed. Media Eliteâs Presidential Voting Record: pg 3 |
| Posted by: ed 2005-12-30 16:05 |
| #92 No Cassini. That was not the I asked. Do you believe the Wall Street Journal's Opinion Pages are relentlessly neutral or was there bias when an opionion page writer was defending the credibility of his paper's business reporting? Can't have it both ways, Cassini. |
| Posted by: ed 2005-12-30 16:03 |
| #91 Cassini - if you don't want to answer my question in #74, then just say so. It's much more honest to do that than to say 'ta ta, little ones - I'm off to price some Volvos!' |
| Posted by: Raj 2005-12-30 16:02 |
| #90 That is not what the repubs/cons in here are saying. They are saying that the so-called msm have a vendetta against President Bush and a formal agreement with democrats to deliberately slant the news negatively against him and the republican party. Cassini, I did a search of this thread and you were the first to mention a "vendetta" or "formal agreement". Those are your words. What most of the posters are saying that there is a demonstrated bias among journalists for the Democtatic Party. i refer you to the Media Eliteâs Presidential Voting Record: pg 3. It is hardly representative of the American norm. I would find it very difficult to find any other group so skewed, including ex-cons. In addition, the table on page 9, shows you just how to the left the press is on public policy issues wrt to American public. In the intervening years, all studies have shown the press-public gap widening even more. BTW, didn't you detect any bias during Clinton's impeachment for perjury when the media was hysterically spinning it a private matter between a president and his intern, instead of perjury by a serial sexual harasser? |
| Posted by: ed 2005-12-30 15:57 |
| #89 GOOD NIGHT EVERYONE, RANTBURGERS IT'S BEEN FUN!!! HAVE A GREAT NEW YEAR!! do something other than discussing politics.. think about it..most all of the politicians we discuss in these forums republican or democrats are millionaires. |
| Posted by: Cassini 2005-12-30 15:55 |
| #88 Cassini - I asked a question in #74; will you answer it? |
| Posted by: Raj 2005-12-30 15:54 |
| #87 Dave D. Touche' ok that pretty good..lol youre like Anakin Skywalker... YOU went over to the DARK SIDE..LMAO |
| Posted by: Cassini 2005-12-30 15:46 |
| #86 Cassini is living in Oz. He is the Scarecrow and he is there to ask the Wizard for a brain. |
| Posted by: Hank 2005-12-30 15:44 |
| #85 ED: No, I agree with the WSJ's assessment of the UCLA report on "Media Bias". Thats exactly why I dismissed it when the repubs/cons in here tried to use it as proof. |
| Posted by: Cassini 2005-12-30 15:43 |
| #84 I **DO** use my brain; that's why I'm no longer a Democrat. |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2005-12-30 15:42 |
| #83 Dave D. I dont see you as a political science genius either, to say the least. That is not what the repubs/cons in here are saying. They are saying that the so-called msm have a vendetta against President Bush and a formal agreement with democrats to deliberately slant the news negatively against him and the republican party. Politics happens in cycles. You seem to forget that former President Clinton twice defeated Republicans held the white house for eight years and during his second term democrats I believe, held all three major facets of the government as the repubs do now. So by no means is what's currently happening for republicans permanent. your comment on how it's affecting peoples voting is speculation, not a fact. use YOUR brain, dude. |
| Posted by: Cassini 2005-12-30 15:40 |
| #82 The Wall Street Journal's news coverage is relentlessly neutral. Of that, we are confident. So Cassini agrees the Wall Street Journal's Opinion Pages are relentlessly neutral. Or does Cassini suspect some bias in that statement? |
| Posted by: ed 2005-12-30 15:34 |
| #81 Are you saying that the average american is not able to discern this and explain how it affects or changes the way they vote? Yeah. And Bush won last election if I'm not mistaken. |
| Posted by: plainslow 2005-12-30 15:32 |
| #80 " I asked a question in post#66, will any of you repubs/cons answer it?" Sure. You asked: "Are you saying that the average american is not able to discern this and explain how it affects or changes the way they vote? " I don't see anybody saying that. If anything, the message here is that the average American IS able to discern it, and is doing so more and more. Circulation at major liberal newspapers is down, and so is viewership of the network TV "news" programs. Hint: there's a connection there. As for how it affects people's voting, you might want to note that in the last decade the Democratic Party has lost leadership of both the House and the Senate, and has lost the Presidency twice to George W. Bush. Says something, doesn't it? Cassini, I don't know what you're using for a brain, but if you don't stop yanking on it you're gonna grow hair on your palms. |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2005-12-30 15:23 |
| #79 The Wall Street Journal Responds to the Dubious Ucla Report... View Forum Post Topic: Miscellaneous items Date/Time: 12/21/2005 10:08:58 AM Title: Dow Jones responds to media bias "study" Posted By: Jim Romenesko Dow Jones responds to UCLA media bias "study" Statement by a spokesman for Dow Jones and Co.: The Wall Street Journal's news coverage is relentlessly neutral. Of that, we are confident. By contrast, the research technique used in this study hardly inspires confidence. In fact, it is logically suspect and simply baffling in some of its details. First, its measure of media bias consists entirely of counting the number of mentions of, or quotes from, various think tanks that the researchers determine to be "liberal" or âconservative." By this logic, a mention of Al Qaeda in a story suggests the newspaper endorses its views, which is obviously not the case. And if a think tank is explicitly labeled âliberalâ or âconservativeâ within a story to provide context to readers, that example doesnât count at all. The researchers simply threw out such mentions. Second, the universe of think tanks and policy groups in the study hardly covers the universe of institutions with which Wall Street Journal reporters come into contact. What are we to make of the validity of a list of important policy groups that doesnât include, say, the Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, the AFL-CIO or the Concord Coalition, but that does include People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals? Moreover, the ranking the study gives to some of the groups on the list is simply bizarre. How seriously are we to take a system that ranks the American Civil Liberties Union slightly to the right of center, and that ranks the RAND Corp. as more liberal than Amnesty International? Indeed, the more frequently a media outlet quotes the ACLU in this study, the more conservative its alleged bias. Third, the reader of this report has to travel all the way Table III on page 57 to discover that the researchersâ "study" of the content of The Wall Street Journal covers exactly FOUR MONTHS in 2002, while the period examined for CBS News covers more than 12 years, and National Public Radioâs content is examined for more than 11 years. This huge analytical flaw results in an assessment based on comparative citings during vastly differing time periods, when the relative newsworthiness of various institutions could vary widely. Thus, Time magazine is âstudiedâ for about two years, while U.S. News and World Report is examined for eight years. Indeed, the periods of time covered for the Journal, the Washington Post and the Washington Times are so brief that as to suggest that they were simply thrown into the mix as an afterthought. Yet the researchers provide those findings the same weight as all the others, without bothering to explain that in any meaningful way to the studyâs readers. Suffice it to say that âresearchâ of this variety would be unlikely to warrant a mention at all in any Wall Street Journal story. |
| Posted by: Cassini 2005-12-30 15:22 |
| #78 Let me qualify, "Nor is there a "vendeta"." In the case of the Dan Rather - Mary Mapes fake TANG story, there was an vendetta to smear the president just before an election. They were so blinded by their hatred that they went as far as to dismiss their own document experts who warned that the docs were forgeries, one that was picked up immediately by the viewing audience. In this case, it was a TX Democratic Party operative (Bill Burkett) who steered 60 Minutes to Barnett and the forgeries. So would this case meet the criteria for Cassini's "formal agreement" between Dan Rather - Mary Mapes and the Domocratic Party? |
| Posted by: ed 2005-12-30 15:16 |
| #77 That is sooo thoughtful, Cassini. Have you ever been to democraticunderground.com? Try it. I, and I assume most Rantburgers, find the moonbat quotient to be hilariously high there. One of the main reasons I like this site is because the comments can be very informative and insightful as there are many knowledgable folks who post here. |
| Posted by: Brett 2005-12-30 15:15 |
| #76 I asked a question in post#66, will any of you repubs/cons answer it? I think its really a very easy question for you guys to answer. You know, I came over here from msn slate's ballot box forum because lately there are mostly libs/dems over there and its like talking to myself because we all have similar views. I dont know if you all are familiar with another site call Polipundit but this site reminds me a lot of that one, lots of repubs/cons in there. I have a challenge for the repubs/cons in here. If you think that my views are so out of the mainstream go over to Slate's Ballot Box forum and you'll have some real fun and I'm going to invite some them over here to mix it up. |
| Posted by: Cassini 2005-12-30 15:07 |
| #75 You're right, BAR - to ask the question is to answer it. Calling Dr. Cassini... |
| Posted by: Raj 2005-12-30 14:55 |
| #74 Let's pin you down on this, Cassini - were the Texas Air National Guard documents used in the Dan Rather story real, or were they forgeries? |
| Posted by: Raj 2005-12-30 14:54 |
| #73 How much more proof do you need? For anyone deep into Lefty-flavored Kool-Aid, there will never be enough. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2005-12-30 14:53 |
| #72 If Cassini found the Dan Rather and Mary Mapes' example as 'right-wing / neocon spin', I for one won't bother responding anymore on this thread. That, and his USC gaffe, are clear indicators that he is not giving our aguments / proofs of concept even a cursory consideration. He asks for proof, and then blithely dismisses it all with a haughty wave of the hand. That's dishonest, to say the least |
| Posted by: Raj 2005-12-30 14:51 |
| #71 Ok, so who the hell stole my tagline (CrazyFool) in comment #51? You can tell because I dont place a space between Crazy and Fool - so inept that they can't even steal a name..... Looks like Cassini is attempting to impersonate me (as far as I can tell he is the only one asking for proof). |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2005-12-30 14:51 |
| #70 No bias here, right? Bush grants pardons less than predecessors By Judy Keen, USA TODAY WASHINGTON â President Bush demonstrated again this month that penitent lawbreakers have little chance of gaining a pardon unless their crimes were non-violent and occurred years before he took office. Political connections probably aren't much help, but Texans seem to have a bit of an advantage. Cassini, that's not a news item (as advertised), it's a god damned editorial. And that's just the first paragraph! How much more proof do you need? |
| Posted by: Raj 2005-12-30 14:42 |
| #69 Cassini, There is no "secret" pact between journalists and the Democratic party. Nor is there a "vendeta". There is a political and philosophical alignment between the vast majority of journalists (esp. the Washington DC press corps at 90+%) and the left wing of the Democratic party. The news you read or see on the TV is filtered through those journalists biases. Most Americans (as study after study has shown) detect an increasing amount of it and are tuning out or seeking additional sources. |
| Posted by: ed 2005-12-30 14:38 |
| #68 Cassini - I take it you found my arguments unpersuasive. And it was a UCLA study, not USC. Kindly do a better job of commanding the subject matter. |
| Posted by: Raj 2005-12-30 14:38 |
| #67 This is not news, it spin. But news is no longer the business of the MSM is it? Info-tainment is. EP |
| Posted by: ElvisHasLeftTheBuilding 2005-12-30 14:38 |
| #66 repubs/cons: A last question.. Lets say that there is a vendetta by the "liberal media press" to deliberately slant the news in a negative way against President Bush and the Republicans. Are you saying that the average american is not able to discern this and explain how it affects or changes the way they vote? |
| Posted by: Cassini 2005-12-30 14:20 |
| #65 I'm done. You haven't even left the starting gate. From the link I gave earlier: Why bother? These things are only being heard coming from right-wingers, so it has to be all bullshit. The next claim will probably be that the study was totally conducted and funded by right-wingers somehow.... |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2005-12-30 14:19 |
| #64 bomb-a-rama: Same thing I said about post#12.lol |
| Posted by: Cassini 2005-12-30 14:14 |
| #63 From the link I gave earlier: The most exhaustive study of journalists attitudes on specific policy issues was the poll conducted by the Los Angeles Times in 1985, which asked a series of identical questions to more than 3,000 reporters and editors and nearly 3,000 members of the general public. |
| Posted by: ed 2005-12-30 14:12 |
| #62 I'm sorry sir, but I simply dont buy it. the only people i hear repeating this mantra are right wing repubs/cons. Thank you for providing me with The Laugh of the Day™. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2005-12-30 14:09 |
| #61 Ernest Brown: A question for you: How many people did that USC study interview? |
| Posted by: Cassini 2005-12-30 14:09 |
| #60 You repub/con guys are too funny..Really you crack me up. Liberal media bias is no more than a lame excuse for republicans when their policies fail and they generate their own negative publicity thru their own actions or statements. The problem is that you DONT WANT IT REPORTED when it happens because it reflects badly on President Bush & co. ...THAT is the problem..lmao The majority of democrats and republicans have a big difference of opinion on this subject. I have seen nothing in here to change my mind or for that matter any democrat. We agree to disagree. I'm done. lol |
| Posted by: Cassini 2005-12-30 14:04 |
| #59 Yur rite Frank. I dunno what happened. It's too early for NMM tho, unless she got laid. Off. |
| Posted by: Leon Clavin 2005-12-30 14:02 |
| #58 Gotta love it when they want 'proof'. Proof is a judgements based on the facts presented. Facts were presented, but Cassini was unwilling to accept facts. |
| Posted by: Brett 2005-12-30 14:01 |
| #57 don't let the Cassini/Left Angle/NMM.... troll catch you up in a game of technicalities. It's like arguing with a moron...actually, it is EXACTLY like ... |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-12-30 13:54 |
| #56 . Prove that their is a "formal" agreement between the so-called msm and the democratic party to deliberately slant the news against repubs/cons negatively. LOL! You disprove that Their is not one. |
| Posted by: Leon Clavin 2005-12-30 13:54 |
| #55 "I'm sorry..." boy, you sure are... "...but polls or opinion, book, etc dont answer these questions..." A properly-conducted and peer-reviewed scientific study done by left/liberal professors -does- answer the question, you mucous-brained willful idiot. Stop with the strawman arguments and learn to THINK for once in your misbegotten partisan life. |
| Posted by: Ernest Brown 2005-12-30 13:50 |
| #54 Where has anyone here made the claim that there is such a "formal" organized push? NO ONE. That's completely different from saying that SOME members of the MSM conspired with Bush haters to push lies, (cf. Gunga Dan and the Guard forgeries) but no one in this thread is saying that there is an over-arching "formal" conspiracy between the MSM and the Dems in order for there to be media bias, just like-mindedness. |
| Posted by: Ernest Brown 2005-12-30 13:44 |
| #53 Oh, that last point is called 'cause and effect'. If that is not sufficient 'proof' for you, then nothing is. |
| Posted by: Raj 2005-12-30 13:39 |
| #52 1. Prove that their is a "formal" agreement between the so-called msm and the democratic party to deliberately slant the news against repubs/cons negatively. Why is it necessary to prove a formal relationship when an informal one has been so readily established? George Stephanopolous used to work for Clinton; now he hosts a Sunday talking heads show. Same with Tim Russert; he used to work for Tip O'Neill. Chris Matthews wrote speeches for Jimmy Carter. Shall I continue? Your insistence on a formal arrangement between the two entities looks like a strawman argument. 2.Prove that the statements, actions and policies of President Bush have nothing with the negative reactions they foster. Maybe I wasn't clear on this point. When the MSM / press run a unrelenting barrage of negative stories on Bush and his administration, public opinion will eventually turn against Bush in the absence of positive stories (from Fox News, blogs, etc.) or a pushback by the Administration. Do you remember what happened to Churchill? You may not have noticed a recent increase in Bush's ratings since he started pushing back at his critics last month, but I have. |
| Posted by: Raj 2005-12-30 13:36 |
| #51 Then youre not really reading what the repubs/cons in here are saying. What they are saying is that the so-called MSM has a vendetta against President Bush/Republicans and some sort of formal agreement with the Democratic Party to "deliberately" slant the news coverage against them. They are also saying that the policies, statements or actions of Pres.Bush have "absolutely nothing" to do with negative reactions or criticisms they foster. To me this is absolute nonsense and a a bunch of lame excuses. I ask them to prove it and all they can come up with is polls, opinion pieces, books, & insults etc, that prove nothing that i asked. |
| Posted by: Crazy Fool 2005-12-30 13:36 |
| #50 There is no need to postulate a "formal" agreement between the Democrats and the MSM to say that the latter is -biased- in the DEMOCRATS favor, Moronicus Rex, King of Idiots. We leave that idiotic media conspiracy theorizing to degraded filth like Chomsky. It is a simple fact that Bernard Goldberg is correct, the media is biased against Republicans/conservatives -without- there being an overarching conspiracy with secret handshakes and jejune initiation ceremonies. Once again, like-mindedness is sufficient to explain this to anyone with a single firing gial cell, unlike you. |
| Posted by: Ernest Brown 2005-12-30 13:29 |
| #49 Cassini, The MSM is attempting to do today what they did during the Vietnam war - in short they are trying to turn the WOT into a Vietnam quagmire while in fact it is anything but. Turn a great victory (the Tet offensive for example) into a great military defeat (as reported by Cronkite and others during Vietnam - now by CNN/BBC/ABC/CBS/etc.... ). We (or I - I can't speak for everyone here :) are not saying that the negative polls (some of which can be questionable IMHO) are solely the fault of the negative reporting - but the purely negative reporing has an siginifican impact on the public's perception. If the media was balanced and reporting both sides of the war (not just the negative) I dont think the numbers would be negative. A prime example is the MSM coverage of the recent election - or lack thereof. A three-day stint by some malcontents in a prison (which, BTW, was already being investigated) dominated the news for over year while millions of purple-fingered Iraqis participating in their first democratic parlimentry election in history only gets barely a passing mention (while reporting the latest body-bag count.) |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2005-12-30 13:26 |
| #48 I'm sorry but polls or opinion, book, etc dont answer these questions... Yes they do - you just don't like the answers. |
| Posted by: Rex Mundi 2005-12-30 13:23 |
| #47 I asked two simple questions and I still havent got a straight answer. So, I'll ask them again. 1. Prove that their is a "formal" agreement between the so-called msm and the democratic party to deliberately slant the news against repubs/cons negatively. 2.Prove that the statements, actions and policies of President Bush have nothing with the negative reactions they foster. I'm sorry but polls or opinion, book, etc dont answer these questions... If so show proof. |
| Posted by: Cassini 2005-12-30 13:18 |
| #46 Cassini, you're a tool. You've been given ample objective data (including the UCLA study) and your rebuttal amounts to "Nuh-uh". |
| Posted by: Crusader 2005-12-30 13:05 |
| #45 OS, Himmler would have only been proud if the Dems stood up the gas chambers and started gassing all of us on the right. Goebbles is the one that wrote the playbook on propaganda that the Dems are using. |
| Posted by: 49 pan 2005-12-30 13:05 |
| #44 Cassini, you ought to be damned grateful for the autonomic nervous system; without it, you'd be too fucking stupid to breathe. |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2005-12-30 13:01 |
| #43 Oh, do I really need to bring up Dan Rather and Mary Mapes? You do know what I'm talking about, right? |
| Posted by: Raj 2005-12-30 13:01 |
| #42 Cassini: Who gave a fawning interview with the Clintons after Gennifer Flowers admitted an affair with Bill Clinton? Was it: a) Washington Times; b) Boston Herald; c) Manchester Union Leader; d) Fox News, or e) 60 Minutes? |
| Posted by: Raj 2005-12-30 12:59 |
| #41 Paranoia? WTF? Are you capable of stringing together any rational thought at all? |
| Posted by: Rex Mundi 2005-12-30 12:58 |
| #40 Cassini - 1) I basically answered that in my last post. 2) Who broke the story on Clinton's adultrey with Lewinsky? Was it: a) The New York Times; b) The Washington Post; c) Newsweek; d) Time Magazine; e) The Los Angeles Times; f) The Boston Globe; g) The Drudge Report? |
| Posted by: Raj 2005-12-30 12:56 |
| #39 A question for all the repubs/cons in here on "liberal media bias" So what all of you are saying is that: The statements, actions or policies of President Bush have absolutely nothing to do with the negative reactions/criticism of the american public. It's all the fault of negative media reporting? Do you agree or disagree? |
| Posted by: Cassini 2005-12-30 12:52 |
| #38 To expand on Example Two, the overwhelming majority of stories from Iraq are of the '(insert number here, any number will do) Iraqis / U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq' variety. Over time this gives the impression that our military is losing the war, which reinforces the Democrat / MSM press (to the extent they can be differentiated) desire to |
| Posted by: Raj 2005-12-30 12:52 |
| #37 probably? loser from the start... |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-12-30 12:49 |
| #36 I am sorry Cassini but your a F*cking idiot, where is Aris at least he is intelligent. |
| Posted by: djohn66 2005-12-30 12:49 |
| #35 From the above link: The Media Elite, 3-to-1 Liberal: Lichter and Rothmanâs Media Elite surveys were conducted shortly after Hessâs; they, too, showed top reporters disproportionately described themselves as liberals. According to the authors, âa majority [of leading journalists] see themselves as liberals. Fifty-four percent place themselves to the left of center, compared to only 17 percent who choose the right side of the spectrum....When they rate their fellow workers, an even greater difference emerges. Fifty-six percent say the people they work with are mostly on the Left, and only eight percent place their co-workers on the Right â a margin of seven to one.â ... Americansâ perception of the national media as too biased and too liberal have grown significantly over the past two decades. In less than twenty years, since the 1985 Times Mirror polls began routinely assessing the publicâs perceptions of the national media, the percentage of Americans who perceive a liberal bias has doubled from 22 percent to 45 percent, nearly half the adult population. Even Democrats now generally regard the press as a liberal entity. ... Three Times More See Liberal Bias than Conservative Tilt: A Gallup poll conducted in February 2003 asked whether, âIn general, do you think the news media are â too liberal, just about right, or too conservative?â As the other polls had discovered, far more respondents identified liberal bias as the problem (45 percent) as worried about a conservative tilt (15 percent), while just 36 percent said coverage was about right. Plurality of Democrats See Liberal Bias: In a July 2003 survey, Pew found that twice as many Americans (51 percent) believed news organizations have a liberal bias than a conservative bias (26 percent). Not only did a majority of Republicans and independents hold this view, but a plurality of Democrats (41 percent) thought the media had a liberal bias, compared with 33 percent of Democrats who saw a conservative bias. |
| Posted by: ed 2005-12-30 12:46 |
| #34 From Today's Boston Globe: Example One, a story on the Justice Dept. (finally) probing the leaks on domestic spying. By my count, half the paragraphs are phrased negatively against bush (i.e, 'Administration officials insisted', etc.) and even worked in two paragraphs about the Valerie Plamre case, which has absolutely nothing to do with the story in question. Example Two, Long Gas Lines in Baghdad, attacks kill six (if it bleeds, it leads). Surprisingly, President Bush was not mentioned in the article. Example Three - Democrats seek 'data' on Romney. Even before he announces his candidacy for President, the Democrats are digging for dirt on Romney (good luck). The majority of paragraphs are from Democrats, with a few token paragraphs from Romney's people. Feel free to show some examples of conservative media bias. |
| Posted by: Raj 2005-12-30 12:45 |
| #33 Rex Mundi: Funny, democrats think the same thing about republicans..your paranoia is quite telling.. "Everybody is out to get us..!!!lol |
| Posted by: Cassini 2005-12-30 12:44 |
| #32 This assumes the Iranians don't intervene in a big way. One of the Iraqi bloggers claims there are already 1,200+ Iranian IRGC and spies in Iraqi prisons. Al |
| Posted by: Frozen Al 2005-12-30 12:44 |
| #31 Cassini is swilling from a goat bladder full of Kool-Aid, and as such is probably a lost cause. |
| Posted by: Rex Mundi 2005-12-30 12:42 |
| #30 Ernest Brown: I asked you a simple question, why dont you answer it.The items you listed are not proof. |
| Posted by: Cassini 2005-12-30 12:40 |
| #29 Cassini, Boy, you really are an idiot if you expect me to fall for that goalpost-moving idiocy. I leave the deliberate conspiracy theories about top-hatted vampires at the TIMES to Chomsky and his Holocaust Denier Inc. buddies, since like-mindedness is more than sufficient to explain what is going on. There is ample proof of Bernard Goldberg's -bias- thesis, the UCLA study just re-iterates it. |
| Posted by: Ernest Brown 2005-12-30 12:38 |
| #28 The Liberal Media: Every Poll Shows Journalists Are More Liberal than the American Public â And the Public Knows It Nine Out of Ten Reporters Picked Clinton in 1992 .........Journalists Voters Clinton..89%.........43% Bush........7%.........38% Perot.......2%.........19% Other historical data at the link. I also recall that in the 2004 elections, Washington DC based journalists voted 93% for Kerry. |
| Posted by: ed 2005-12-30 12:36 |
| #27 Ernest Brown: Prove that their is a "formal" agreement between the Democratic Party and the so-called MSM to deliberately negatively slant the news against President Bush and Republicans. |
| Posted by: Cassini 2005-12-30 12:33 |
| #26 I would say MOST of the BBC are actively and knowingly on the other side. |
| Posted by: Bright Pebbles 2005-12-30 12:32 |
| #25 Cassini, y9u idiot - consider the source: a UCLA study. Not exactly a redneck conservative institution frm the Southeast. It was a scholatic study and well done. No consider yourself gobsmacked and try learnign instead of the usual liberal pouting and spouting. Thats why you guys are losing: you cannot face reality and admit your biases. Its a psychoses of some sort with your type. |
| Posted by: Oldspook 2005-12-30 12:32 |
| #24 Dammit Earnest! That's classifed! Who do you think you are? The New York Times? |
| Posted by: Haliburton Mind-Control Division 2005-12-30 12:29 |
| #23 Sorry to go off topic. Just had to respond. I wholeheartedly agree with CA. The next big story is Iran. I don't see how definitive action from the US, Israel or both isn't coming. Perhaps the headline should read "US planning phased pull-out from Iraq - Troops to set up new bases in Tehran" |
| Posted by: Intrinsicpilot 2005-12-30 12:28 |
| #22 Sorry Cassini. I remember the antics of the MSM during the last election. Rather's attempt to sway the election with the fabricated national guard story (Dan, BTW, is a professional journalist - he couldn't have been stupid enough to fall for a simple MS-Word forgey). I see the current media completely ignoring any progress in Iraq (of which, according to the blogs, there are many) - the rebuild schools / hospitals / etc... , the restored power / water, or almost any 'good' news to focus on the 'body bag count' and the explosions. I see the tunnel-vision of the MSM on Plumegate and willful ignorance (or glossing-over) of Burger theft and destruction of secret documents. I see the NYT releasing classified material to advance their 'liberal' slant. Their outright misrepresentation of a Dead soldier's 'last words' to his family. Yes, the media is biased. In fact I would say some of them on actively and knowingly on the other side,. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2005-12-30 12:26 |
| #21 And your insane delusions are refuted by reality yet again. Do you think that the UCLA Poly Sci department is mind-controlled by Rove and Halliburton? |
| Posted by: Ernest Brown 2005-12-30 12:25 |
| #20 First of all, I dont buy this repeated mantra by repubs/cons that the so-called MSM has some "liberal biased" vendetta against the Bush administration to deliberately slant the news in a negative way against them. How long of a list would you like in response to this incorrect statement? When these controversies start, i say "consider the source". Um, that's the whole point of our argument, isn't it? |
| Posted by: Raj 2005-12-30 12:24 |
| #19 Ernest Brown: Withe all due respect. There are millions of people who think like I do, we are called Democrats. We think that "liberal media bias" is a "myth", that repubs/cons use as an "excuse" when their policies and statements produce negative reactions from the american public. We believe that repubs/cons only want want "favorable" news reported about their politicians and seek to censure the press. |
| Posted by: Cassini 2005-12-30 12:22 |
| #18 And our fine institutions are producing more: "Nov, 2005 U-WIRE) LOS ANGELES - Democrat professors outnumber Republicans 13-to-1 at the University of Southern California School of Journalism and 8-to-1 at the USC Gould School of Law, according to a recent study conducted by the Center for the Study of Popular Culture. The Democrat to Republican faculty ratio is 6-to-1 at American journalism schools and 8-to-1 at law schools, according to the study. The study, conducted by conservative David Horowitz, president of the Center for the Study of Popular Culture, analyzed the political affiliations of the faculty at 18 elite journalism and law schools by checking their party registration and voting records." Every time a study has been done about MSM journalists and their party affiliation it always shows a similar pattern. Roughly 90% are Dems. Facts are a real bitch huh? |
| Posted by: Intrinsicpilot 2005-12-30 12:22 |
| #17 The phase out has been foretold even before the invasion. Besides, the next stop is Iran. |
| Posted by: Captain America 2005-12-30 12:16 |
| #16 As we see what a vomit-brained fool Cassini is... |
| Posted by: Ernest Brown 2005-12-30 12:15 |
| #15 Intrinsicpilot: I'm sorry sir, but I simply dont buy it. the only people i hear repeating this mantra are right wing repubs/cons. Everytime President Bush or Republicans do or say something that causes them negative publicity or counter-reaction, it's always the fault of the "liberally biased msm" reporting. It never has anything to do with the statements, actions or policies of the Bush/Repubs. When these controversies start, i say "consider the source". |
| Posted by: Cassini 2005-12-30 12:09 |
| #14 "especially" |
| Posted by: Ernest Brown 2005-12-30 12:08 |
| #13 Intrinsicpilot, "If you don't think the MSM (Old Media)is biased you're from another planet." Quite, espcially after the recent UCLA study: "While the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal is conservative, the newspaper's news pages are liberal, even more liberal than The New York Times. The Drudge Report may have a right-wing reputation, but it leans left. Coverage by public television and radio is conservative compared to the rest of the mainstream media. Meanwhile, almost all major media outlets tilt to the left. These are just a few of the surprising findings from a UCLA-led study, which is believed to be the first successful attempt at objectively quantifying bias in a range of media outlets and ranking them accordingly. "I suspected that many media outlets would tilt to the left because surveys have shown that reporters tend to vote more Democrat than Republican," said Tim Groseclose, a UCLA political scientist and the study's lead author. "But I was surprised at just how pronounced the distinctions are." "Overall, the major media outlets are quite moderate compared to members of Congress, but even so, there is a quantifiable and significant bias in that nearly all of them lean to the left," said co‑author Jeffrey Milyo, University of Missouri economist and public policy scholar. The results appear in the latest issue of the Quarterly Journal of Economics, which will become available in mid-December." |
| Posted by: Ernest Brown 2005-12-30 12:07 |
| #12 They are nothing more than the media wing of the Democratic Party. That pretty much sums it up. |
| Posted by: Crusader 2005-12-30 12:06 |
| #11 First of all, I dont buy this repeated mantra by repubs/cons that the so-called MSM has some "liberal biased" vendetta against the Bush administration to deliberately slant the news in a negative way against them. If you don't think the MSM (Old Media)is biased you're from another planet. The biggest loser of 2005, and for the last 5 years, is the Old Media. They have been exposed and they're pissed about it. Nobody believes a damn word they say anymore. They are nothing more than the media wing of the Democratic Party. The funny thing is that they are still in denial about it. It's kinda pathetic really. Their game couldn't go on forever tho. Thank God for Blogs like this, talk radio and Fox news. |
| Posted by: Intrinsicpilot 2005-12-30 12:00 |
| #10 Crazy Fool: First of all, I dont buy this repeated mantra by repubs/cons that the so-called MSM has some "liberal biased" vendetta against the Bush administration to deliberately slant the news in a negative way against them. Certainly a "phased pullout" was always in Bush's plans for Iraq, however I do believe that his open ended "stay the course" mantra meant: "I'll make the call whenever I get ready to, because I am the commander in cheif." I most definitely believe that President Bush and his administration capitulalted to public pressure from Congress and growing public opposition to the war. Both were demanding some form of specifics on his Iraq plan and I think they are now getting it. Whether or not it's for partisan political advantage is the question. |
| Posted by: Cassini 2005-12-30 11:44 |
| #9 The thing is, this has been the policy all along. Bush and the Generals have been saying this since we got there. Why is the press spinning this so hard? Bias perhaps? From General Pace: The decision where to cut troops "will be based on the Iraqi units in that area and the threat that exists in that area," Pace said earlier at a news conference in Bahrain. The key, he stressed, "is the Iraqis' ability to control that area." |
| Posted by: Oldspook 2005-12-30 11:29 |
| #8 Cassini, I'm not saying it. I'm saying that the MSM will spin this as an 'anti-war' (Democrat or Repub) victory and a 'defeat' for the White House. Just as they overlook the fact that a phased pullout (when Iraq was ready for it) was in the plan all along. They will spin this such that following the original plan is some sort of 'new direction' forced on the WH by congress. |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2005-12-30 11:28 |
| #7 Actually the article is fundamentally misleading. Iraq has stabilized to where it does not need as many troops, and its troops are taing over (and have done so in wide swaths). These were the preconditions for a drawdon that were detaield a long time ago. The only reason this is "news" is because of the incredible (biased) lack of recall amongst the mainstream press. They seem ot think that Bush was planning to keep 130K troops there forever. Just like they misstated a whole pile of things in other ares. A lie repeated ofent enough will become "the truth" for ignorant people. Himmler would be proud of the Dims and their allies in the press; they have mastered one of his best protocols. |
| Posted by: Oldspook 2005-12-30 11:24 |
| #6 Crazy Fool: I suggest you go back and read paragraph#4 of the original article. You telling me that Congressional Republicans up for midterm elections in 2006 are not part of that "congressional pressure"? |
| Posted by: Cassini 2005-12-30 10:55 |
| #5 This is news because the MSM is getting ready to give Kennedy, Kerry, Muthra(sp?), Shithan, etc... credit for the withdrawl (over white house objections...) Even though this was the plan from day 1. And after Iraq survives without US troops they will give the above the credit for that as well (and they will suck it up for all its worth - "I was for the war before I was against it before I was for it..." |
| Posted by: CrazyFool 2005-12-30 10:18 |
| #4 This was mentioned on one of the local TV newscasts last night. I wonder what makes this "news", when a gradual of our troop strength has basically been the plan all along? |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2005-12-30 10:03 |
| #3 The question that I'm interested in is. How long after the last US soldier leaves before the Iraqi gov announces a weapons for oil deal with China? |
| Posted by: gromgoru 2005-12-30 06:09 |
| #2 The answer Bobby is "non". |
| Posted by: Rex Mundi 2005-12-30 01:42 |
| #1 So the Dims won? Waitaminute! This is what W has been saying all along! But it's trumpeted as "news". Maybe next year more common sense will return to the media? |
| Posted by: Bobby 2005-12-30 01:21 |