Author
|
Topic: The National Media Has It Wrong Again
|
Mirandee unregistered
|
posted November 09, 2006 06:59 PM
Morning-After Pundits Take Winners to TaskVictorious Dems lectured by media establishment Like the Dems need a lecture from these airheads. If they and those that listen to what they say want to go on living in denial fine, but the reality is that we elected progressive Democrats on the most part in Tues. election. But since gun control has not even been an issue with the Democrats in decades the rednecks don't have to worry about keeping their guns in the pick up trucks. What the national news media is always forgetting is that is not so much what the political parties may think that matters. It is what the people that they have to answer to, the American citizens want that will determine their future. If nothing else the election on Tues. should have taught the National News media morons that lesson but it seems the air heads still don't get it. At least (I think )the Republican neo cons learned that lesson. quote: "The voters, tired of Washington's divisive ways, want to see the two parties cooperate," wrote Newsweek's Clift. Oddly, though, those voters had recently told Newsweek (Newsweek.co, 10/21/06) that 51 percent of them wanted impeachment to be a priority (either high or low) of a new Democratic majority. It's likely that these people, who wouldn't mind seeing Bush tried for high crimes and misdemeanors, aren't particularly eager to see the representatives they sent to Washington working with him to advance his agenda.
11/9/06 Amen to that!!!! On the day after Election Day 2006, pundits from major U.S. news outlets had, as one would expect, substantial amounts of political criticism for the party that faced major losses. What is more remarkable is the amount of criticism and caution directed at the party that won major gains. Virtually unanimously, the political commentators providing the initial analyses of the election for the nation's most influential news outlets downplayed the progressive aspects of the victory, characterizing the large new crop of Democrats as overwhelmingly centrist or even conservative. "These Democrats that were elected last night are conservative Democrats," declared CBS News chief Washington correspondent Bob Schieffer (Early Show, 11/8/06). CNN's Andrea Koppel (American Morning, 11/8/06) referred to the "new batch of moderate and conservative Democrats just elected who will force their party to shift towards the center." "This is not a majority made from cookie-cutter liberals," wrote Eleanor Clift for Newsweek online (11/8/06). "Some are pro-life, some pro-gun, some sound so Republican they might be in the other party if it weren't for President Bush and the Iraq War." This echoed the thoughts of Fox News' Carl Cameron, who found among victorious Democrats "many pro lifers, a lot of second amendment supporters, those who oppose gay marriage and support bans on flag burning. Things of this nature." Not that many were "pro-life," actually; NARAL (11/8/06) counted 20 pro-choice votes among the 28 announced House newcomers. Does anyone think that incoming class is going to make a Democratic-controlled house less likely to block new abortion restrictions? And gun control (for better or worse) hasn't been a serious Democratic priority for more than a decade. One ideological stance that was actually widespread among the incoming Democrats, and one that is actually likely to alter Democratic Party priorities, is an opposition to NAFTA-style trade agreements and an embrace of "fair trade" principles (Public Citizen, 11/8/06)--but this key trend was little noted by the morning-after pundits, presumably because such views are considered akin to a belief in leprechauns by the media establishment (Extra!, 7-8/01). One exception was the Los Angeles Times editorial page, which did take notice--and alarm: "Democrats who wooed anxious voters with sermons about the evils of outsourcing will be reluctant to support freer trade," the paper editorialized (11/8/06), deeming this development "bad for the country." In the Washington Post (11/8/06), Peter Baker and Jim VandeHei stressed that "party politics will be shaped by the resurgence of 'Blue Dog' Democrats, who come mainly from the South and from rural districts in the Midwest and often vote like Republicans. Top Democrats such as Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.) see these middle-of-the-road lawmakers as the future of the party in a nation that leans slightly right of center." It's not surprising that Emanuel would see the world that way, since he's a centrist himself who has long been trying to push the Democrats to the right. But the "Blue Dogs" are far from a majority in the new crop of Representatives (nine, according to the Arkansas Democrat Gazette, 11/9/06), or in the Democrat's total ranks (44), so their influence on the party as a whole will be far from overpowering. What's more, even those "Blue Dogs" are not likely to vote with Republicans on top Democratic Party issues: A Media Matters survey found (11/8/06) that all 27 new Democrats whose races had been called support raising the minimum wage and changing course in Iraq, and they oppose privatizing Social Security. Media Matters found only five openly described themselves as "pro-life." It’s not just centrist Democrats like Emanuel who are pushing journalists to take this line: CNN anchor Rick Sanchez posed a question (11/8/06) to National Journal writer John Mercurio: "I heard this at least five or six times tonight from Republicans. They say sure, these Democrats that you've elected tonight are running as moderates. Some even sound like conservatives. They have crew cuts, social conservatives, talk about moral issues. When they get to Washington, they're going to find their leadership is filled with liberals. Is there really a dysfunction there?" Conservative New York Times columnist David Brooks put forth a similar take (11/9/06): "On Tuesday the muscular middle took control of America. Voters kicked out Republicans but did not swing to the left." Brooks wrote that Democrats "will have to show they have not been taken over by their bloggers or their economic nationalists, who will alienate them from the suburban office park moms." This supposed conflict between what Clift called "the demands of the antiwar left" and "the more moderate voices that helped [House Democrats] win control of the chamber" was a prominent theme. Baker and VandeHei allowed how "the passion of the antiwar movement helped propel party ctivists in this election year," but said that "the Democrats' victory was built on the back of more centrist candidates seizing Republican-leaning districts." This assumption that war critics and centrists are two opposing camps is peculiar, given that 56 percent of exit-polled voters said they opposed the war; surely they represent the center of opinion, rather than the 42 percent who expressed support. In any case, opposition to the war was a widespread theme among the "more centrist candidates" who captured Republican-held seats (TomPaine.co, 11/8/06). The pundits' prescription for the Democrats hardly varies (Extra!, 7-8/06), so it was unsurprising to see them urging "bipartisanship" and a move to the right. "In private talks before the election, Emanuel and other top Democrats told their members they cannot allow the party's liberal wing to dominate the agenda next year," Baker and Jim VandeHei reported, citing the centrist Democrats whose analysis of the election results was nearly identical with that of media insiders. (Rick Perlstine made a strong case on the New Republic's website--11/8/06--that Emanuel had less to do with the Democratic victory than did the netroots that he despises.) "The voters, tired of Washington's divisive ways, want to see the two parties cooperate," wrote Newsweek's Clift. Oddly, though, those voters had recently told Newsweek (Newsweek.co, 10/21/06) that 51 percent of them wanted impeachment to be a priority (either high or low) of a new Democratic majority. It's likely that these people, who wouldn't mind seeing Bush tried for high crimes and misdemeanors, aren't particularly eager to see the representatives they sent to Washington working with him to advance his agenda. One thing that the new Democratic legislature must surely avoid doing, according to the media analysts, is investigate the old Republican executive: "The danger is that the campaign of '06 will simply continue under the name of 'government,'" wrote Dick Mayer for CBSNews.com (11/8/06). "Many Democrats, for example, are dead set on a new round of aggressive hearings about everything from pre-war intelligence to homeland security to the hunt for Osama bin Laden. The theater of Grand Congressional inquisitions is generally an enemy of statesmanship." It's troubling, to say the least, when people in the journalism profession see "investigation" and "inquisition" as synonymous. The New York Times' Robin Toner (11/8/06), who was exceptional in not seeing her morning-after analysis as an opportunity to scold the Democratic winners, also stood out in seeing the exercise of Congress' investigatory powers as normal and perhaps even beneficial; of the Democratic House leaders, she wrote that "in many ways, their greatest power will be their ability to investigate, hold hearings and provide the oversight that they asserted was so lacking in recent years." Other journalists couldn't resist using their analysis of the Republicans' political failings as a chance to get in generic smears of the Democrats. "The outcome brought an end to the Republican Revolution that began in 1994 but lost its way," wrote Michael Duffy and Karen Tumulty for Time.com (11/8/06), "as the party that came to Washington to cut government spending and clean up a corrupt institution ran into scandals of its own and found itself spending like drunken Democrats." Presumably a knowledge of political history is a job requirement for being a political correspondent at Time; when Duffy and Tumulty look back on the past 50 years of U.S. administrations, do they really see it divided into spendthrift Democrats and frugal Republicans? Suffice it to say that when Newt Gingrich and company swept into power in 1994, no one in the mainstream media was explaining Democratic losses by saying that the politicians who came to Washington in 1974 in response to Nixon's corruption ended up "stealing like Republican crooks." Tom Brokaw offered a similarly foggy history lesson on election night. "If the Democrats do very well, will it be a huge philosophical shift? Maybe not, because a lot of these Democrats ran to the center. They didn't run like they were running in 1972 again. They ran as more pragmatic public servants this time." For the record, the party breakdown of the 93rd Congress (1973-75): 242 Democrats, 192 Republicans.
Feel free to respond to FAIR ( fair@fair.org ). We can't reply to everything, but we will look at each message. We especially appreciate documented examples of media bias or censorship. And please send copies of your correspondence with media outlets, including any responses, to fair@fair.org.
IP: Logged |
AcousticGod Knowflake Posts: 4415 From: Pleasanton, CA Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted November 09, 2006 07:37 PM
I read all this talk of Conservative Democrats as if they're not really part of the Party as just another Republican media ploy. It follows their well established pattern of finding a politically expedient label to put on things in an effort to undermine Democrats.Bottom line is that whatever kind of Democrat they are, they are still Democrats and were still put in office by their constituents who must have known they were voting for a Democrat. If these "Blue Dog" Democrats decide they would rather be under different leadership, then I don't personally have anything against them pursuing that. I'm not particularly attached to Pelosi or Reid. A centrist would be nice. I get what you're saying, though. Why would everyone jump on the bandwagon with this rhetoric? That's how pervasive the Republican media has become. Their spin has hit the mainstream. In my district the Republican was beaten by an intellectual who hasn't previously been in elected office (though you'd have thought he was if you read Pombo's attack literature claiming McNerney would vote for terrorist's rights). McNerney's a mathematician and a wind energy consultant. IP: Logged |
Iqhunk unregistered
|
posted November 10, 2006 01:57 AM
<<McNerney's a mathematician and a wind energy consultant.>> Representing Energetic Winds of change. IP: Logged |
Mirandee unregistered
|
posted November 10, 2006 03:03 AM
That's about the way it was all across America in this election. People who were not politicians per se. I love that in Montana it was a farmer that beat the incumbant Republican who was a corporate CEO. I was listening to a discussion tonight on C-Span where someone was saying that is the way our founding fathers wanted Congress to be, composed of every day citizens chosen from among the people. The discussion was on the changes that need to take place in government concerning the lobbists. IP: Logged |
Motherkonfessor unregistered
|
posted November 10, 2006 03:28 AM
Tester- from Montana- is SUCH an interesting guy. He actually an organic farmer- what a novelty in Congress. Today on the radio they were teasing him about his flattop haircut, and where would he be able to get that cut in Washington. MK IP: Logged |
Mirandee unregistered
|
posted November 10, 2006 12:45 PM
I saw Tester in an interview on CNN yesterday, MK and I liked what I saw. He came across so genuine. I love that haircut! It just fits him so well and it is one of the things about him that is genuine. That and his smile. Seems the media is already trying to give him a make-over to make him fit their image of what he should look like as a senator instead of who he really is. That's are society for you. If he were female they would want him to have breast inhancements. IP: Logged |
jwhop Knowflake Posts: 2787 From: Madeira Beach, FL USA Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted November 10, 2006 12:50 PM
One must learn to never accept analysis from the brain dead.I have said the election of democrats to the majority will bring little if any change. The margins of victory are too slim and Bush will certainly veto any legislation which gets past Senate filibusters that attempts to take America down "Leftist Lane". Further, the "New Crop" of Democrats, as a group, are far more conservative than democrat incumbents. For those who believe democrats will withdraw US military forces from Iraq, think again. First, Bush will veto any such legislation. Second, Bush will veto any legislation which attempts to de-fund military operations in Iraq or anywhere else. Third, any such legislation will be filibustered to death in the Senate. Now comes the light Democrats have already committed to keep US military forces in Iraq. They promised the Iraqi President to do what they cannot prevent in the first place. Iraqi president says Democrats told him they will not pull out quickly By Associated Press Thursday, November 9, 2006 - Updated: 05:23 PM EST BAGHDAD, Iraq - President Jalal Talabani said Thursday that he had been assured by Democrat congressional leaders during a recent visit to Washington that they had no plans for a quick withdrawal of U.S. forces. Talabani, a Kurd whose post is ceremonial, said Democrats also backed the idea of placing U.S. troops in bases while putting Iraqis in charge of security in and around cities. “They all told me that they want the success of Iraq’s democratically elected government and continued support for the Iraqi people to defeat terrorism,” Talabani said about his trip to the United States in late September as many were predicting the Democratic congressional triumph in Tuesday’s midterm elections. “One of them (a Democrat leader) told me that any early withdrawal will be a catastrophe for the United States and the world,” Talabani, speaking from his northern hometown of Sulaimaniyah, told the Dubai-based Al-Jazeera satellite broadcaster. Asked whether the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld meant a collapse of the Bush administration’s policy in Iraq, Talabani said, “I know George Bush as a clear and strong man who does not bow down to blackmail.” The “Americans made big mistakes in Iraq,” he said, including the rejection of its leaders hopes to form an interim Iraqi government immediately after the March 2003 invasion rather than occupying the country for more than a year. Speaking about foreign fighters who are known to play a major role in the insurgency that killed thousands of Iraqis as well as U.S. troops, Talabani said the country was subject to a “foreign invasion.” He said thousands of non-Iraqi fighters had been killed. Al-Qaida in Iraq leader Abu Ayyub al-Masri, also known as Abu Hamza al-Muhajir, recently acknowledged that more than 4,000 fighters from his group have been killed.***Note: Oh wait, democrats have been telling us the war in Iraq is a distraction from the war on terror. Bullsh*t, democrats are so out of touch with reality they won't even believe bin Laden who said Iraq is to be the base nation of a Caliphate for the whole of the Middle East. “We are being subjected to a foreign invasion, and we don’t have enough forces to fight this invasion,” Talabani said, suggesting that U.S. troops need to stay. The Iraqi government and U.S. officials accuse Syria of allowing foreign fighters to cross into Iraq, a claim that Iraq’s western neighbor denies, claiming it is impossible to control the long desert border. “All Arab countries have terrorists in our country, hundreds each, and also there are others from Muslim countries too,” Talabani said. He added that “200 fighters used to enter the country every day and now it is about 30 a day.” http://news.bostonherald.com/international/view.bg?articleid=166518 IP: Logged |
AcousticGod Knowflake Posts: 4415 From: Pleasanton, CA Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted November 10, 2006 12:59 PM
Hey!I told you that, too! It's not even worthy of being a printed story. It's a given and has been a given since long before the election. It was people like you who decided to try to spin it, and attempt to claim that Democrats would "cut and run." Glad you could glimpse reality for a moment. IP: Logged |
Mirandee unregistered
|
posted November 10, 2006 01:06 PM
Just wanted to add that it's about time we started electing people based just on their image and personality. This election was based on issues, not the personality of candidates or their appearance. Which is what election of government representatives should be based on. For years now our elections have been more of a personality contest than what truly matters. We see where that has gotten us. Americans are calling for election reforms in the form of not only the voting procedures but how campaigns are financed and conducted. We want to get the corporations out of politics by making the donations more equal which does allow the non corporate sponsored candidates a fair shot. That happened in this election. People all over America donated money to the candidates that were new on the scene and also those incumbant Dems who the Republican party was pouring in millions of dollars to smear and attack. Barbara Boxer's PAC alone raised $1.2 million for 61 candidates. Harry Reid, Howard Dean (who was really strategically the back bone of this election campaign) raised millions of dollars to help the candidates, as did John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, John Edwards, and Patrick Lehay ( sp.?) to name a few. Kennedy and Kerry donated $1 million of their own money to the new coming candidates. This election was truly a grassroots movement of the people and though the national media is not even reporting the significance of that ( stupid as they are and corporate owned as they are ) it was the voice and backing of the average American in matching dollar for dollar corporate donations to Republicans that won back the balance of power in this country and made our voice for change heard loud and clear in Wash. I can't tell you how proud I am to have been a small part of that grassroot movement along with my fellow patriotic Americans. And we aren't done yet. Our motto was to "take back America" and we have a real good start on that but much work to do to clean up the mess that Bush has gotten this country and the world into. IP: Logged |
jwhop Knowflake Posts: 2787 From: Madeira Beach, FL USA Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted November 10, 2006 01:09 PM
democrat public remarks were definitely "cut and run". Need I post here, the remarks of John Murtha, Howard Dean, John Traitor Kerry, Russ Feingold, Nancy Pelosi et al.?Of course, the reality they know is that democrats are powerless to cut and run because Bush is going to finish the job in Iraq and they don't have the votes to prevent it. So, do these very public "cut and run" remarks made by democrats constitute outright lies to the far left radical base of the democrat party. If not, why not? IP: Logged |
Mirandee unregistered
|
posted November 10, 2006 01:15 PM
You just keep pouring out your lies and propaganda, Jwhop. You should have seen from the election on Tues. that those lies aren't being heard any longer and they are seen for what they are, lies. The Democrats have stated the opposite of what you and the Bush administration want Americans to believe. You may be brainwashed beyond help, Jwhop but most of America isn't, many of us never were and many of those that were have awakened. Get used to Murtha, Jwhop. He is the leader of the Senate now. IP: Logged |
Mirandee unregistered
|
posted November 10, 2006 01:27 PM
51% of Americans, those that voted to restore the balance of power in America, still want Bush and Cheney impeached, Jwhop. If Bush gets out his veto stamp and does not work with the Democrat majority in the House and Congress he will end up impeached. Things are not going to be his way any longer, Jwhop. The Iraq war is not going to be conducted his way any longer. Bush and Cheney know that, Jwhop. You should know it too. As much as you hate it, Jwhop this is still a democracy and the elections on Tues. more than proved that. Murtha stated on CNN a couple of days ago that there will be hearings and committees and the administration is going to be held accountable. He stated that the Senate does not normally have to subpoena the vice president and president to attend hearings but " we will if we have to." Be the priority high or low on the Democrat agenda, 51% of Americans, myself included, want Bush and Cheney impeached and tried for high crimes in office and answer for all the counts against them of Constitutional violations. They took an oath of office to uphold the Constitution. They have attempted to destroy it and rewrite it instead. That is treasonous. IP: Logged |
jwhop Knowflake Posts: 2787 From: Madeira Beach, FL USA Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted November 10, 2006 01:31 PM
The seeds for the destruction of the far left radical fringe of the democrat party...which is the base of the current crop of democrats has now been sowed by the election of conservative Democrats.However, it's clear leftist radicals don't yet understand that These leftists are out courting and consulting with the leftist loser, George McGovern, who at the height of the protest movement over Vietnam...lost a presidential election in one of the biggest, most lopsided loses in American Presidential election history....to Richard M Nixon It is no surprise McGovern is meeting with the communists of the "Progressive Caucus". It's interesting to note this AP headline says McGovern is meeting with CONGRESS...which is another lie of the lying leftist press. One has to read far down into the article to find out McGovern is meeting with the communists in the Progressive Caucus....which is in no way, the Congress. McGovern to Meet With Congress on War Nov 09 11:31 PM US/Eastern By OSKAR GARCIA Associated Press Writer George McGovern, the former senator and Democratic presidential candidate, said Thursday that he will meet with more than 60 members of Congress next week to recommend a strategy to remove U.S. troops from Iraq by June. If Democrats don't take steps to end the war in Iraq soon, they won't be in power very long, McGovern told reporters before a speech at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. "I think the Democratic leadership is wise enough to know that if they're going to follow the message that election sent, they're going to have to take steps to bring the war to a conclusion," he said. McGovern will present his recommendations before the Congressional Progressive Caucus, a 62-member group led by Reps. Lynn Woolsey and Barbara Lee. "The best way to reduce this insurgency is to get the American forces out of there," McGovern said. "That's what's driving this insurgency." McGovern told the audience Thursday that the Iraq and Vietnam wars were equally "foolish enterprises" and that the current threat of terrorism developed because _ not before _ the United States went into Iraq. McGovern's plan _ as written in his new book, "Out of Iraq: A Practical Plan for Withdrawal Now" _ also calls for the United States to remove hired mercenaries from the region, push for the removal of British troops and establish a temporary transitional force, similar to police, made up of Muslims from the region. "I've talked with a lot of senior officers _ generals and admirals _ in preparation for this book, that say this war can't be won, that the problems now are not military problems," McGovern told reporters. "There isn't going to be any decisive victory in Iraq." It is vital that Republican and Democratic legislators find common ground with one another and President Bush, McGovern said. "Never let the new class of Democrats forget that they're there in considerable part because of the war the American public has now turned against," McGovern said. "That's going to have to be something that they have to explore with Republicans and with the White House." McGovern, a former South Dakota congressman and senator, was a leading opponent of the war in Vietnam. He was the Democratic nominee for president in 1972, losing to Richard Nixon, and was ambassador to the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization in Rome from 1998 to 2001. http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/11/09/D8LA01L00.html IP: Logged |
AcousticGod Knowflake Posts: 4415 From: Pleasanton, CA Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted November 10, 2006 02:03 PM
You can post whatever you like, JWhop. You always do.If you want to post any of those people's comments you may. Hear's what Howard Dean said before the election with regard to Iraq: http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N29286537.htm 2005 Murtha: http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/08/democrats.iraq/ "voiced his disagreement with Lieberman's statement and reiterated his call for a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq "at the earliest practicable date." Kerry: But, Kerry said, he "would not do it on a fixed, automatic timetable. It has to be results coordinated." http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/08/democrats.iraq/ Feingold was the first to bring up timetables, which is something the administration is now doing in a watered down version. "Cut and run" is a fabrication of your party. It's a mantra that ended up not serving Republican purposes as you guys still ended up losing the election. Of these people you mentioned, which have lost office due to their stances? IP: Logged |
jwhop Knowflake Posts: 2787 From: Madeira Beach, FL USA Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted November 10, 2006 02:07 PM
quote: 51% of Americans, those that voted to restore the balance of power in America, still want Bush and Cheney impeached, Jwhop.
No need to go into the poll you attempt to cite to prove your bullsh*t but I sure hope the radical fringe of the democrat party actually do try it. I can't think of a faster route to political oblivion for the radical fringe leftist base than to show America just how radical they really are. Whatever credibility NewsWeak had has been destroyed by their lying, twisting, distorting and their phony loaded polls. I note with interest that Pelosi, Dean and others have been running away from the impeachment idea as hard as they can run. John Conyers is going to be the death of the democrat party. Most of the leftist radicals are in House seats in the only voting districts in America where they could possibly be elected. IP: Logged |
jwhop Knowflake Posts: 2787 From: Madeira Beach, FL USA Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted November 10, 2006 02:42 PM
Howard Dean, December 6, 2005 "The idea that we are going to win this war is an idea that unfortunately is just plain wrong," he said. Calling Bush's plan in Iraq a "failed strategy," Dean said he and most Democrats support bringing home an estimated 80,000 National Guard and Reserve troops within the next six months. Let's see, according to Scream Dean, US military forces should have been reduced dramatically in Iraq by May 5, 2006 the period of heaviest fighting by terrorists attempting to overthrow the duly elected government. http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/06/dean.iraq.1935/ The John Murtha....we can't win in Iraq...story on "cut and run". Note the date, November 17, 2005 November 17, 2005 IT IS TIME TO BRING THEM HOME. http://www.house.gov/list/press/pa12_murtha/pr051117iraq.html Russ Feingold...withdraw ALL US forces from Iraq by end of 2006 Feingold Urges Troop Withdrawal By End of '06 By Peter Baker Washington Post Staff Writer Thursday, August 18, 2005 Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) called on the White House yesterday to withdraw all U.S. forces from Iraq by the end of next year and criticized fellow Democrats for being too "timid" in challenging the Bush administration's war policy. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/17/AR2005081701778.html Of course, it was predictable that democrats would find some rocks to hide under when this came up for a vote in the Senate...which is democrats talking out of every side of their mouths...lying. Every time anyone runs down your BS acoustic and that of Mirandee, they discover it really is bullsh*t you're putting out. It is no accident leftist democrats got tagged with the cut and run label. Their words convicted them of a "cut and run" mentality. Now, it turns out they were lying through their teeth to pacify the far left radical fringe of their party....which is the base of the democrats which now owns the democrat party. And if you don't believe they do....all you need do is listen to the money behind the radical leftist democrat party. George Soros/Move On dot org. In a December 9th e-mail signed by “Eli Pariser, Justin Ruben, and the whole MoveOn PAC team,” the Soros front group stated: “In the last year, grassroots contributors like us gave more than $300 million to the Kerry campaign and the DNC, and proved that the Party doesn't need corporate cash to be competitive. Now it's our Party: we bought it, we own it, and we're going to take it back.”
IP: Logged |
AcousticGod Knowflake Posts: 4415 From: Pleasanton, CA Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted November 10, 2006 03:39 PM
Murtha made some excellent points in your link:The Honorable John P. Murtha War in Iraq (Washington D.C.)- The war in Iraq is not going as advertised. It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion. The American public is way ahead of us. The United States and coalition troops have done all they can in Iraq, but it is time for a change in direction. Our military is suffering. The future of our country is at risk. We can not continue on the present course. It is evident that continued military action in Iraq is not in the best interest of the United States of America, the Iraqi people or the Persian Gulf Region. General Casey said in a September 2005 Hearing, “the perception of occupation in Iraq is a major driving force behind the insurgency.” General Abizaid said on the same date, “Reducing the size and visibility of the coalition forces in Iraq is a part of our counterinsurgency strategy.” For 2 ½ years I have been concerned about the U.S. policy and the plan in Iraq. I have addressed my concerns with the Administration and the Pentagon and have spoken out in public about my concerns. The main reason for going to war has been discredited. A few days before the start of the war I was in Kuwait – the military drew a red line around Baghdad and said when U.S. forces cross that line they will be attacked by the Iraqis with Weapons of Mass Destruction – but the US forces said they were prepared. They had well trained forces with the appropriate protective gear. We spend more money on Intelligence than all the countries in the world together, and more on Intelligence than most countries GDP. But the intelligence concerning Iraq was wrong. It is not a world intelligence failure. It is a U.S. intelligence failure and the way that intelligence was misused. I have been visiting our wounded troops at Bethesda and Walter Reed hospitals almost every week since the beginning of the War. And what demoralizes them is going to war with not enough troops and equipment to make the transition to peace; the devastation caused by IEDs; being deployed to Iraq when their homes have been ravaged by hurricanes; being on their second or third deployment and leaving their families behind without a network of support. The threat posed by terrorism is real, but we have other threats that cannot be ignored. We must be prepared to face all threats. The future of our military is at risk. Our military and their families are stretched thin. Many say that the Army is broken. Some of our troops are on their third deployment. Recruitment is down, even as our military has lowered its standards. Defense budgets are being cut. Personnel costs are skyrocketing, particularly in health care. Choices will have to be made. We can not allow promises we have made to our military families in terms of service benefits, in terms of their health care, to be negotiated away. Procurement programs that ensure our military dominance cannot be negotiated away. We must be prepared. The war in Iraq has caused huge shortfalls at our bases in the U.S. Much of our ground equipment is worn out and in need of either serious overhaul or replacement. George Washington said, “To be prepared for war is one of the most effective means of preserving peace.” We must rebuild our Army. Our deficit is growing out of control. The Director of the Congressional Budget Office recently admitted to being “terrified” about the budget deficit in the coming decades. This is the first prolonged war we have fought with three years of tax cuts, without full mobilization of American industry and without a draft. The burden of this war has not been shared equally; the military and their families are shouldering this burden. Our military has been fighting a war in Iraq for over two and a half years. Our military has accomplished its mission and done its duty. Our military captured Saddam Hussein, and captured or killed his closest associates. But the war continues to intensify. Deaths and injuries are growing, with over 2,079 confirmed American deaths. Over 15,500 have been seriously injured and it is estimated that over 50,000 will suffer from battle fatigue. There have been reports of at least 30,000 Iraqi civilian deaths. I just recently visited Anbar Province Iraq in order to assess the conditions on the ground. Last May 2005, as part of the Emergency Supplemental Spending Bill, the House included the Moran Amendment, which was accepted in Conference, and which required the Secretary of Defense to submit quarterly reports to Congress in order to more accurately measure stability and security in Iraq. We have now received two reports. I am disturbed by the findings in key indicator areas. Oil production and energy production are below pre-war levels. Our reconstruction efforts have been crippled by the security situation. Only $9 billion of the $18 billion appropriated for reconstruction has been spent. Unemployment remains at about 60 percent. Clean water is scarce. Only $500 million of the $2.2 billion appropriated for water projects has been spent. And most importantly, insurgent incidents have increased from about 150 per week to over 700 in the last year. Instead of attacks going down over time and with the addition of more troops, attacks have grown dramatically. Since the revelations at Abu Ghraib, American casualties have doubled. An annual State Department report in 2004 indicated a sharp increase in global terrorism. I said over a year ago, and now the military and the Administration agrees, Iraq can not be won “militarily.” I said two years ago, the key to progress in Iraq is to Iraqitize, Internationalize and Energize. I believe the same today. But I have concluded that the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq is impeding this progress. Our troops have become the primary target of the insurgency. They are united against U.S. forces and we have become a catalyst for violence. U.S. troops are the common enemy of the Sunnis, Saddamists and foreign jihadists. I believe with a U.S. troop redeployment, the Iraqi security forces will be incentivized to take control. A poll recently conducted shows that over 80% of Iraqis are strongly opposed to the presence of coalition troops, and about 45% of the Iraqi population believe attacks against American troops are justified. I believe we need to turn Iraq over to the Iraqis. I believe before the Iraqi elections, scheduled for mid December, the Iraqi people and the emerging government must be put on notice that the United States will immediately redeploy. All of Iraq must know that Iraq is free. Free from United States occupation. I believe this will send a signal to the Sunnis to join the political process for the good of a “free” Iraq. My plan calls: To immediately redeploy U.S. troops consistent with the safety of U.S. forces. To create a quick reaction force in the region. To create an over- the- horizon presence of Marines. To diplomatically pursue security and stability in Iraq This war needs to be personalized. As I said before I have visited with the severely wounded of this war. They are suffering. Because we in Congress are charged with sending our sons and daughters into battle, it is our responsibility, our OBLIGATION to speak out for them. That’s why I am speaking out. Our military has done everything that has been asked of them, the U.S. can not accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. IT IS TIME TO BRING THEM HOME. ____________________________________________ Hardly the ravings of a lunatic, and absolutely someone with a good grasp of the situation as evidenced by that NIE, and the White House's recent change of direction in light of these things that Murtha had been talking about. Nice of you to show a member of Congress who's ahead of the curve.
IP: Logged |
Mirandee unregistered
|
posted November 10, 2006 03:53 PM
No, once again you are believing what the corporate run media are trying to promote, Jwhop. On the most part it was progressive democrats that were elected on Tues. Not just photocopies of Republicans as the corporate owned national media would have people believe. That's rubbish! Obviously you did not read the article that I posted here or you are just so in the habit of repeating mantras that you continue on with that habit. Having for 6 years now been such a staunch supporter of what has been the most radical regime in American history, Jwhop I would think that you would love the term "radical." Though that is not what progressive democrats truly are. Progressive democrats want change and the power restored to the people as it is supposed to be. We took back that power in Tues. election. When we say "take back America" it does not mean take back the power from one party and give it to another. It means take back America from the hands of lobbists and corporations and put it back where it belongs, in the hands and voice of the people. Be it Democrat or Republican it is never good for democracy to have one party with total power. That is what we stopped - the neo con agenda to have total power in the hands of the executive branch instead of a checks and balance system which is what this country was founded on. We want our checks and balance system as the three branches of government with the executive branch held accountable to the other two branches is what keeps America safe from a dictatorship take over. Any true American patriot would see the magnitude of the significance of what Tues. election showed the world regarding a true democracy and how it should function and they would be estatic over what happened in this election when the American people rose up and in loud voice at the polls said, " we have had enough and we want our country back." It didn't take any more of a revolution than that. No guns. No one got killed. Our voice and our revolution was in the voting booth. We sure as hell did not elect any neo con Republican carbon copies disguised as democrats as your denial and the denial of the corporate owned press would have the world and the nation believe. We can argue that fact all day, Jwhop but you are going to find out otherwise in the long run so my advice is to wait and see for yourself how accurate Fox New's assessment of the elections on Tues. were. They have always been as much in denial as you have been, Jwhop. IP: Logged |
jwhop Knowflake Posts: 2787 From: Madeira Beach, FL USA Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted November 10, 2006 04:47 PM
The essence of what Murtha said is:IT IS TIME TO BRING THEM HOME And Murtha said that on November 17, 2005. The rest is his justification for cutting and running out of Iraq...and it's his justification for surrendering to the terrorists in Iraq. On redeployment...Murtha put forth the absurd idea to redeploy US forces to Okinawa...which would give the US the ability to react "instantly" to any trouble in Iraq. Calling Murtha an idiot is to overstate his intellectual ability. Okinawa is about 5000 miles from Iraq...so if "instantly" means 4-6 weeks then I give the point to Murtha. Now, in your case acoustic, as one who has such a problem with definitions, you might actually agree a 4-6 week interval IS "instantly" Earth to Mirandee: John Murtha is not the "leader of the Senate...now". IP: Logged |
jwhop Knowflake Posts: 2787 From: Madeira Beach, FL USA Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted November 10, 2006 05:03 PM
I don't watch Fox News Mirandee. I do however read on candidate websites. I do read their comments in candidate speeches. I do understand plain English.So, I would say to you that the New Crop of freshman elected Democrats ARE far more conservative than the run of the mill socialists and communists to be found in the cesspit of the "Progressive Caucus". These new Democrats are not to be confused with the New Democrats of the Clintonista era...New Democrats being a cover for the same old tired leftist radicals which infested his administration. It is difficult to imagine someone with their head up their rear further than you Mirandee. It is the most brain dead of notions to ascribe the American main stream press to have been on board with the Bush administration or corporate America. This same press has badmouthed every move Bush has made for the last 6 years and before that, the period when Bush was Governor of Texas. This same press ran stories which were 77% favorable to democrats and 88% unfavorable to Republicans for the last 2 years. Pull your head out, only the brain dead actually believe their own propaganda IP: Logged |
AcousticGod Knowflake Posts: 4415 From: Pleasanton, CA Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted November 10, 2006 05:39 PM
The essence of what he said was, "Look at what's going on, and come up with a better solution." Have you decided to go back into denial? Anyone who's not a brainwashed Republican can easily see the truth in what he's said, and as I stated previously Murtha CORRECTLY identified the situation far ahead of the administration who's just now figuring out the things that Murtha said.For more on Murtha's viewpoints, there's an in depth interview here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/17/AR2005111700982.html (I especially likes where he compares working with George Senior to George Junior. George senior got all his ducks in a row before pursuing his conflict, and wasn't afraid of communicating with Congress. Quite a contrast to the current Bush.) 4-6 weeks is an over statement in more than one regard. First of all we've long had the capability to fly people places haven't we? That doesn't take 4-6 weeks. Our ships do take awhile to travel, but I bet they could make the trip in under 4 weeks. We could also fly the troops to a pick up location inbetween where the ships could take them the rest of the way. When I was in the Navy (94-98) we stopped in Oman, Bahrain and U.A.E. Combine that with our resources in Iraq, and we've still got a good amount of resources at the ready in the region. Perhaps it is you who needs to take a larger view of things, and interpret things within the proper context. quote: Pull your head out, only the brain dead actually believe their own propaganda
Indeed, Jwhop. Indeed! IP: Logged |
jwhop Knowflake Posts: 2787 From: Madeira Beach, FL USA Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted November 10, 2006 05:56 PM
Do you actually believe you can convince anyone that Murtha didn't say what he plainly did say...and on his own damned website no less? Futher acoustic, Murtha put that line in all caps to give it extra emphasis. Murtha did, not me. Anyone who has a single doubt can go here to Murtha's own website and find the truth. http://www.house.gov/list/press/pa12_murtha/pr051117iraq.html November 17, 2005 IT IS TIME TO BRING THEM HOME Am I to believe you or my lying eyes and ears which both saw and heard Murtha on "Meet the Press" recommend redeploying US forces to Okinawa so as to have them "instantly" available to react to trouble in Iraq? Even Tim Russert was aghast and asked Murtha if he really meant Okinawa...3 times. Just for the record, the media is correctly noting the conservative shift to the right the democrat party has just taken. Some of those conservative democrats sound more conservative than many Republicans. Look for fireworks down the line if the radical leftist leadership of the democrat party attempt to enact their radical leftist agenda for America. IP: Logged |
Petron unregistered
|
posted November 10, 2006 05:57 PM
quote: Bush is going to finish the job in Iraq--jwhop
junior is going to be on his permanent vacation long before anything in iraq is finished......he's going to leave his mess for the next guy just like his dad did...... IP: Logged |
jwhop Knowflake Posts: 2787 From: Madeira Beach, FL USA Registered: Apr 2009
|
posted November 10, 2006 06:08 PM
So Petron, you think Bush is going to scale back US military operations in Iraq? You think democrats will be able to bypass Bush as Commander in Chief and do as they please in Iraq? You think Bush will bow to leftist democrat pressure?I don't. I also don't think Bush is going to go for a report from Baker et al., which recommends anything other than victory over the terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan. You forget, Bush was in the Texas Air National Guard when radical leftist democrats were meddling in the Vietnam War and handing the communists a victory in Congress they couldn't and didn't win on the battlefields of Vietnam. I doubt Bush will ever forget the cowardice of LBJ in letting Congress define targets and redefine the mission from victory to appeasement. IP: Logged |
Petron unregistered
|
posted November 12, 2006 01:40 AM
Bush signals new openness on Iraq Rumsfeld jettisoned Sheldon Alberts CanWest News ServiceThursday, November 09, 2006 WASHINGTON - U.S. President George W. Bush, signaling a more conciliatory approach after suffering electoral losses this week, said today he was "open to any idea or suggestion" on the Iraq war. The incoming Democratic-controlled Congress is expected to exert more pressure on the president for a new course in Iraq amid rising U.S. casualties and violence. "I’m open to any idea or suggestion that will help us achieve our goals of defeating the terrorists and ensuring that Iraq’s democratic government succeeds," Bush said in Washington. But the president added the United States has a responsibility to give support to the 152,000 U.S. troops in Iraq — an indirect challenge to those Democrats who have talked about cutting off funding for the Iraq mission. Bush also said he wants lawmakers in this session to finish work on spending legislation and a measure to enable a nuclear power agreement with India. “It is our responsibility to put the elections behind us and work together on the great issues facing America,” said Bush, who is meeting later today with Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, who is set to become speaker of the House when the new Congress convenes in January. “The American people expect us to rise above partisan differences and my administration will do its part.” Democrats won 28 House seats and six in the Senate from Republicans in the Nov. 7 elections, giving them control of both chambers. After digesting that news on Wednesday, Bush accepted the resignation of embattled Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, admitting the White House needed a ''fresh perspective'' on Iraq. Describing the Republicans' election defeat as a ''thumpin','' Bush signalled he plans to rethink his administration's strategy. ''Iraq is not working well enough, fast enough,'' he said. Bush nominated former Central Intelligence Agency director Robert Gates to replace Rumsfeld, who's been defending Iraq war tactics despite escalating sectarian violence and mounting American casualties. On Wednesday, Pelosi outlined a 100-hour plan of action for Democrats once the new Congress begins work in January. Speaking just an hour before Bush's announcement on Rumsfeld, Pelosi said Democrats were looking for the president to ''signal a change of direction'' in Iraq. She also called on Bush to hold a bipartisan summit on Iraq. Bush's nomination of Gates, a family friend, hints at the new White House thinking. Gates is currently a member of the Iraq study group, a bipartisan committee headed by former secretary of state James Baker. The group is considering a recommendation to redeploy troops from Iraq and enlist U.S. foes Iran and Syria to help negotiate an end to sectarian violence. But even as Bush acknowledged the need for ''fresh eyes'' on Iraq, he said no one should interpret Rumsfeld's departure as a sign the U.S. is losing its nerve. ''To our enemies, do not be joyful,'' he said. ''Do not confuse the workings of our democracies with a lack of will.'' Rumsfeld's sudden departure caught many in Washington by surprise. Bush has forcefully backed Rumsfeld in the face of demands for his resignation from Democrats and Republicans alike. They blamed the defence secretary for not sending enough U.S. troops to Iraq and failing to foresee the possibility of an insurgency after the ouster of Saddam Hussein. Just last week, Bush said he expected both the defence secretary and Vice-President Dick Cheney to remain in their jobs until he left the White House. For his part, Rumsfeld seemed wistful about his fate. ''It's been quite a time,'' he said on Wednesday. ''It recalls to mind the statement by Winston Churchill, something to the effect that: I have benefited greatly from criticism, and at no time have I suffered a lack thereof.'' According to NBC News, Cheney wanted Rumsfeld to remain in his job. But other senior Republicans applauded the move. ''I think that the president chose wisely,'' said Senator John Warner, chairman of the Senate armed services committee. At his news conference, Bush acknowledged having several discussions with Rumsfeld in recent days about his future. The president said he deliberately delayed the announced until after the midterm elections. ''I think it sends a bad signal to our troops that they think the commander in chief is constantly adjusting tactics and decisions based upon politics,'' he said. Cheney's job as vice-president is safe, Bush said. The president had insisted for weeks prior to the election that Republicans would maintain power in both the House and the Senate. But the pre-election posturing gave way Wednesday to a more contrite, but hardly depressed, view of the results. ''I thought we were going to do fine yesterday, shows what I know,'' he quipped. At first, Bush described the election as ''close,'' then seemed to reconsider his comment. ''If you look at race by race, it was close. The cumulative effect, however, was not too close. It was a thumpin'.'' So difficult was the electoral landscape for Republican that Democrats did not lose a single incumbent seat in the House or Senate. Indeed, Republicans losses extended well beyond national races for the House and the Senate. Popular Republicans at the state level, like Maryland Gov. Robert Ehrlich, were swept from power amid the anti-war vote. The Democratic wave extended to state legislatures, where the party took control in nine states and now hold an overall majority. The biggest Republican victories were by candidates like California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Florida governor-elect Charlie Crist who distanced themselves from the president throughout the campaign. While Bush's governing philosophy has focused on appealing to the Republican base, he said he now understands he must co-operate with Democrats to press legislation on several issues. He cited a minimum-wage increase and immigration reform as two areas where he and Democrats have common ground. ''The people expect us to work together,'' he said. http://www.canada.com/globaltv/national/story.html?id=515ed3d3-4be7-49a2-a429-f9348fc7df1b IP: Logged | |