(function() { (function(){function c(a){this.t={};this.tick=function(a,c,b){var d=void 0!=b?b:(new Date).getTime();this.t[a]=[d,c];if(void 0==b)try{window.console.timeStamp("CSI/"+a)}catch(l){}};this.tick("start",null,a)}var a;if(window.performance)var e=(a=window.performance.timing)&&a.responseStart;var h=0=b&&(window.jstiming.srt=e-b)}if(a){var d=window.jstiming.load;0=b&&(d.tick("_wtsrt",void 0,b),d.tick("wtsrt_","_wtsrt", e),d.tick("tbsd_","wtsrt_"))}try{a=null,window.chrome&&window.chrome.csi&&(a=Math.floor(window.chrome.csi().pageT),d&&0=c&&window.jstiming.load.tick("aft")};var f=!1;function g(){f||(f=!0,window.jstiming.load.tick("firstScrollTime"))}window.addEventListener?window.addEventListener("scroll",g,!1):window.attachEvent("onscroll",g); })();

Thursday, March 23, 2006

No Liberal Media Bias?

^^^Click on memo to enlarge^^^

This story says a lot about the 'news' on television. Americans are tired of being presented a slanted version of the news that cleary has an agenda to Get Bush and push the liberal agenda. I can picture this producer watching Bush on tv and just seething, the hatred swelling his liberal brain to twice its acorn size. And you think this doesnt have an influence on how a story is reported to you?

I've been switching back and forth between CNN, MSNBC, and CNN Headline News to see who, besides FOX News, is going to report this story.

....so far only Fox. Thats why I watch Fox. Liberals think its pro-Bush, when in actuality all Fox is doing is presenting BOTH sides of a story and letting the viewers decide. Liberals dont take kindly to that. If it isnt Bash Bush, it isnt news to them.

And thats why this producer was so pissed off as he watched Bush on television. Bush received a standing ovation from a crowd that loved him. How could this be happening? Why were all the Who's down on Whoville not weeping and gnashing their teeth like the rest of the moonbats? So he whips out his Blackberry to send a snide Hate-Bush comment to a co-worker. Ooops!! Not good:


A top producer at ABC NEWS declared "Bush makes me sick" in an email obtained by the DRUDGE REPORT.

John Green, currently executive producer of the weekend edition of GOOD MORNING AMERICA, unloaded on the president in an ABC company email obtained by the DRUDGE REPORT.

"If he uses the 'mixed messages' line one more time, I'm going to puke," Green complained.

The blunt comments by Green, along with other emails obtained by the DRUDGE REPORT, further reveal the inner workings of the nation's news outlets.

A friend of Green's at ABC says Green is mortified by the email. "John feels so badly about this email. He is a straight shooter and great producer who is always fair. That said, he deeply regrets the sentiment expressed in the email and the embarrassment it causes ABC News."


Huge Applause for Wife's Anti-Media Blast

At a forum with President Bush Wednesday in West Virginia, the wife of a U.S. serviceman was drowned out by a standing ovation when she said it "seems that our major media networks don't want to portray the good" in Iraq. CBS and NBC both ignored the moment, with NBC instead showing a West Virginian who protested the war: "Our people's being killed over there for nothing."

mrc story link


Blogger Jason Ward said...

I've been ranting over the past couple days over the media biases that at clearly evident to me...

Anyway, I did find one ABC story that I was suprised to see published. You would think that after 3 years of most people saying there was no Saddam/Bin Laden link, this would be big news. But no, it is buried inside another article... I must say though, I applaud ABC news for publishing this, although I have a feeling they have long known and only now released this in order to counter the President's complaints about the massive amounts of negative news..

Here is the article with the Saddam - Bin Laden link story:


Feel free to 'pre-empt' me on a blog entry on this... I'm blogged out for the moment..

11:58 PM  
Blogger joe said...

I'm not sure an email says anything about media bias, it says something about this guy's personal bias though. Nowhere in it is there anything about we have to slant things this way, or do this to counter him, its just somebody telling somebody else what they think.

Fox does present both sides of the story, the conservative side, and the neoconservative side, however, they never give my perspective, or a socialist perspective, or a communist perspective, or a humanist perspective, or an anarchist perspective. Occasionally they have a liberally minded person or democrat, but they dont get to give their point so much as they get to start and then get ridiculed. There are generally dozens if not hundreds of thousands of viewpoints on any given issue unless the issue is simply between you and one other person. This is one of the reasons partisansship is so stupid, it ignores far more than half of any issue, it falsely paints everything as black and white and life just isnt that simple. would that it were. Tht being said there certainly is a media bias, and each media outlet has its own particular bias, as it happens most of this bias is to corporate interests. nd as the government is currently wholly controlled by the republicans, most corporate interest leans to the republicans. Individual reporters, talking heads and exectutives may personally disagree and even let that bleed through to their shows, but cash is the prime motivator for corporate media, and the cash is controlled by the republicans right now.

As for the ridiculous bit about not getting the good out of iraq, are you kidding me? what news agency reports any good news? what makes the news is the most sensational events, like say riots, car bombings, earthquakes, hurricanes, and the like, you dont get international news about a sunny day in instanbul or the marriage of john and kate smith unless you pay for the airtime. Major events like elections will get covered, but if you expect the news to report that electricity is now on an average of 6 hours a day rather than 4 you are sadly mistaken and frighteningly naive.

Quite frankly I am hardly suprised to see such applause from these pre-screened pep rally's just like I am never suprised to see the bush administration ileagally using U.S. servicemen and women for political photo-ops. I did in fact hear this today, but I cant tell you where exactly, probably on the radio, but it didnt stick with me where I heard it.

Frankly, the car bombings and IED's are the good news.Until Americans start seeing babies melted by white phosphorus or shot in the head or blown apart... Until we see the tens of thousands of kids coming home with fewer body parts than they went there with, or the torture videos, or the flag draped coffins, or learn about the suicides and life-long damage done to our troops in this ridiculous, unnecessary and undeclared war. Until It is forced into our faces that war is hideously disgustingly wrong in almost any case and Bush chose it unnecessarily, then he should thank God that the pathetic media is only reporting car bombs and IED’s.

1:55 AM  
Blogger joe said...

crap, sorry about all the typos, I must be getting tired.

1:56 AM  
Blogger toddy said...

When I look at both the News Media & the Demo's handling of what they conceive as the Bush problem that he started the war ... I think no one should ever vote for any of them ... They have lied to us, and expect us to believe them . Well I have news for them and I hope everyone reads this effort on my part to read and record some history about their Hipocracy...

Please read and sent to your senator and congressmen & women ...

Democratic Party: Today's Tokyo Rose.

Being an old Geezer, I remember that During World War II, the japanese searched of a way to demoralize American forces. Japanese psychological warfare experts came up with a script for their famous broadcaster "Tokyo Rose". Every day she would broadcast this same message packaged in various ways hoping to have an impact on GI morale.

• It had three main points:
• your president is lying yo you.
• This war is illegal.
• You cannot win the war.

If this sounds familiar,maybe it's because the "DEMOCRATIC PARTY" is broadcasting the same message to our troops. The only difference is they claim to support our troops before they demoralize them. Come to think of it, Tokyo Rose used to tell the troops she was on their side, too.
I hope you will all think about the during the next Election Day....
Pres. Bush Responds to the dumb Democrats
In discussing Iraq and its weapons programs, Mr. Bush noted that he was not alone in judging Mr. Hussein to be a threat to the world. "My administration looked at the intelligence information and we saw danger," he said. "Members of Congress looked at the same intelligence, and they saw danger. The United Nations Security Council looked at the intelligence, and it saw danger."

Some Democrats in Congress say the intelligence they were shown by the administration had been stripped of caveats or ignored dissenting views about the threats it purported to document. The United States was unable to get the votes it needed in the United Nations Security Council to win explicit authorization to invade Iraq just before the war.

Pres. Bush noted that last year's Senate Intelligence Committee investigation of flawed pre-war intelligence found no proof that the White House manipulated intelligence or forced agencies to change their assessments of Saddam Hussein's weapons capabilities. The president said that "intelligence agencies from around the world agreed with our assessment of Saddam Hussein." He said that Congress had given him the authority to go to war based on the same intelligence. He said that lawmakers questioning his credibility now "send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America's will."

On Page 246 of "Against All Enemies," Mr. Clarke bemoans the way the invasion of Iraq, in his view, played right into the hands of Al Qaeda:
Where do you suppose all the following got there brilliant insight .... From OSAM Maybe ?

"In the words of Bush's most recent and surprising critic, former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke: 'Any leader whom one can imagine as president on September 11 would have declared a war on terrorism and would have ended the Afghan sanctuary by invading. But the first claim is only partly true, and because it is, the second claim is almost certainly false. Albright is partly correct; there was a pre-9/11 mindset that shaped Clinton-era responses. The mind-set was ‘counterterrorism as law-enforcement.’” Which has been discussed countless times.

“The role of the military (in the Clinton view) was at best a supporting one. Moreover, because the uniformed military themselves opposed a military role, the law enforcement mind-set was reinforced by Clinton's pathological civil-military relations. Even if President Clinton wanted to conduct military operations against Al-Qaeda, he was simply too weak a commander in chief to prevail over a military that wanted nothing to do with a war in Afghanistan. The Clinton record on military operations was clear: frequent resort to low-risk cruise-missile strikes and high-level bombings, but shunning any form of decisive operations involving ground troops in areas of high risk. The Clinton White House was the most casualty phobic administration in modern times, and this fear of body bags was not lost on Osama bin Laden.

Indeed, Al-Qaeda rhetoric regularly 'proved' that the Americans were vulnerable to terrorism by invoking the hasty cut-and-run after 18 Army soldiers died in the 1993 'Black Hawk Down' events in Somalia -- a strategy developed and implemented, ironically enough, by the same Richard Clarke who torments the Bush team today.”

He's skimming over Clinton lapses & trying to nail Bush

It is only March but the 2005 Chutzpah of the Year Award can be safely given out. It goes to Richard Clarke, now making himself famous by blaming the Bush administration for 9/11 - after Clarke had spent eight years in charge of counterterrorism for a Clinton administration that did nothing.

As President, Bill Clinton had one justification after another for going on the offensive: American blood spilled in the 1993 World Trade Center attack, the embassy bombings of 1998, the undeniable act of war in the attack on the Cole in 2000. Response: A single, transparently useless, cruise missile attack on empty Afghan tents, plus a (mistaken!) attack on a Sudanese pharmaceutical factory. Which was really designed to devert american attention away from the Lewinsky growing scandal .....

As Clinton Defense Secretary William Cohen testified, three times the CIA was ready to assassinate Osama Bin Laden.

Every time, Clinton stood them down, because, "We're not quite sure." We're not quite sure - a fitting epitaph for the Clinton anti-terrorism policy.

They were also not quite sure about taking Osama Bin Laden when Sudan offered him up on a silver platter in 1996. The Clinton people turned Sudan down, citing legal reasons.

In March 2002, a "Frontline" interviewer asked Clarke whether failing to blow up camps and take out the Afghan sanctuary was a "pretty basic mistake." Clarke's answer is unbelievable; "Well, I'm not prepared to call it a mistake. It was a judgment made by people who had to take into account a lot of other issues.... There was the Middle East peace process going on. There was the war in Yugoslavia going on. People above my rank had to judge what could be done in the counterterrorism world at a time when they were also pursuing other national goals."

This is significant for two reasons. First, if the Clarke of 2002 was telling the truth, then the Clarke of this week - the one who told the 9/11 commission under oath that "fighting terrorism in general and fighting Al Qaeda, in particular, were an extraordinarily high priority in the Clinton administration - certainly [there was] no higher priority" - is a liar.

Second, he becomes not just a perjurer but a partisan perjurer. He savages President Bush for not having made Al Qaeda his top national security priority, but he refuses even to call a "mistake" Clinton's staggering dereliction in putting Yasser Arafat and Yugoslavia(!) above fighting Al Qaeda.

Clarke gives Clinton a pass and concentrates his ire on Bush. For what? For not having preemptively attacked Afghanistan? On what grounds - increased terrorist chatter in June and July 2001?

Bush did not distinguish himself on terrorism in the first eight months of his presidency. Whatever his failings, however, they pale in comparison to those of his predecessor.

Clinton was in for eight years, not eight months. As Clarke himself said in a 2002 National Security Council briefing, that administration never made a plan for dealing with Al Qaeda and never left one behind for the Bush administration.

Clarke says he pushed very hard for such critical anti-Al Qaeda measures as aid to and cooperation with Pakistan, Uzbekistan and Afghanistan's Northern Alliance. By his own testimony, the Clinton administration then spent more than two years - October 1998 to December 2000, the very time the 9/11 plot was hatched - fruitlessly debating this and doing absolutely nothing.

Clarke is clearly an angry man, angry that national security adviser Condoleezza Rice demoted him, angry that he was denied a coveted bureaucratic job by the Bush administration. Angry and unreliable. He told the commission to disregard what he said in his 2002 briefing because he was, in effect, spinning. "I've done it for several Presidents," he said. --- He's still at it, doing it now for himself.
After President Bush was sworn into office in 2001, his administration was handed eight years worth of intelligence analysis and policy positions from the Clinton years -- you know, the years of appeasement when Saddam was tolerated, when opportunities to take out Osama bin Ladin were ignored, as was the presence of an al-Qa'ida terrorist cell in the U.S. -- which reared its head on 9/11.

In the weeks prior to the invasion of Iraq, Democrats, who had access to the same intelligence used by the Bush administration (much of which was compiled under the Clinton administration), were clear about the threat of Iraq's WMD capability.

The New York Sun reported that Sandy Berger nixed a proposal to get Osama bin Laden: On December 4, 1999, the National Security Council's counterterrorism coordinator, Richard Clarke, sent Mr. Berger a memo suggesting a strike in the last week of 1999 against Al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan. Reports the commission: "In the margin next to Clarke's suggestion to attack Al Qaeda facilities in the week before January 1, 2000, Berger wrote, 'no.' "

Sens. Ted Kennedy, Harry Reid and Dick Durbin have accused President George Bush of lying about Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction, insisting he "lied us into war." They are even floating the suggestion that he be impeached.

Here are their accusations:

"The Bush administration misrepresented and distorted the intelligence to justify a war that America should never have fought." --Ted Kennedy

"We all know the Vice President's office was the nerve center of an operation designed to sell the war and discredit those who challenged it. ... The manipulation of intelligence to sell the war in Iraq...the Vice President is behind that." --Harry Reid

"I seconded the motion Sen. Harry Reid made last week. Republicans in Congress have refused, despite repeated promises, to investigate the Bush administration's misuse of pre-war intelligence, so Senate Democrats are standing up and demanding the truth." -- Dick Durbin, who recently compared U.S. troops to the Nazis and Pol Pot.

Naturally, the Democrat's media lemmings are reporting these charges as de facto truth, but there is considerable evidence that these Demo-gogues and their colleagues believed Iraq had WMD long before President George Bush came to Washington. Here is a small sample of that evidence from the Clinton years:

I keep wondering who's intellegence the CINTON administration, and CONGRESS were looking at when they made these statements ...

It's time we start remembering who started the saber-rattling against Saddam's regime, in regards to the weapons of mass destruction. If the Democrats claims were valid for them, then it was obviously valid when Pres. Bush made the decision to go forward with Operation Iraqi Freedom.

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
- Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."---- - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to determine and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."---- - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime .... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction . So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members . It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002


President Bill Clinton: "[M]ark my words, [Saddam] will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them. ... Iraq [is] a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed. If we fail to respond today, Saddam, and all those who would follow in his footsteps, will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity. ... Some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal."

Clinton on Operation Desert Fox: "Our purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program. ... Saddam must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons. Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological-weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors. ... I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again." (That was Bill Clinton, two years before 9/11, announcing Operation Desert Fox. Question: If Iraq didn't have, or wasn't developing, WMD, then what on earth was Clinton attacking? Ah, that's right -- it was a "baby formula" factory.

Vice President Albert Gore: "Saddam's ability to produce and deliver weapons of mass destruction poses a grave threat ... to the security of the world."

Madeleine Albright, Clinton Secretary of State: "We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and the security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction. ... Iraq is a long way from Ohio, but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risk that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."

Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Advisor and Plea-Copping Classified Document Thief: "[Saddam will] use those weapons of mass destruction again as he has ten times since 1983."

Harry Reid: "The problem is not nuclear testing; it is nuclear weapons. ... The number of Third World countries with nuclear capabilities seems to grow daily. Saddam Hussein's near success with developing a nuclear weapon should be an eye-opener for us all. [Saddam] is too dangerous of a man to be given carte blanche with weapons of mass destruction."

John Kerry: "If you don't believe...Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn't vote for me."

John Edwards: "Serving on the Intelligence Committee and seeing day after day, week after week, briefings on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and his plans on using those weapons, he cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons, it's just that simple. The whole world changes if Saddam ever has nuclear weapons."

Dick Durbin: "One of the most compelling threats we in this country face today is the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Threat assessments regularly warn us of the possibility that...Iraq...may acquire or develop nuclear weapons. [Saddam's] chemical and biological weapons capabilities are frightening."

Nancy Pelosi: "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons-inspection process."

"No arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women.------- Ronald Reagan

8:55 PM  
Blogger joe said...

Wow toddy that was long, I cannot really disagree with your points, democrats are as bad as republicans, I just wish there was a better option. It has long been my stance that the partisanship is killing this country, not either party. But I dont think its fair to equate the dems with tokyo rose, anymore than its fair to equate republicans with nazis.

9:09 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home