October 23, 2006
CNN Airing Enemy Propoganda
CNN is doing everything possible to help their allies in Iraq win the war against the American infidels. Ordinarily, one would have to visit a jihadist web site in order to view Islamic terrorists killing American soldiers. But not any more. Last week, CNN’s website broadcast a video, A Sniper’s-eye view of Iraq, in which correspondent Michael Ware breathlessly narrated the action leading up to the shooting (and possible deaths) of several American soldiers by enemy snipers.
CNN leans decidely left of center, as do most media outlets. The liberal intellegentsia will rabidly deny the existence of liberal bias in the media, even though a UCLA-led study in 2005 showed that "...[O]f the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with CBS' 'Evening News,' The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of The Wall Street Journal."
Liberals will have a ready response to CNN's blatant act of treason that will seem almost logical, even reasonable. Liberal talking heads are not stupid. You would have to be very intelligent to convince yourself that gay marriage poses no threat whatsoever to traditional family values; that abortion on demand is not a murderous, barbaric form of birth control; or that the trans-generational subsidization of the able-bodied poor does not breed contempt, resentment, self-loathing, helplessness, hopelessness . . . a seemingly endless cycle of dependency and despair.
Liberals have been honing and fine-tuning their propoganda for years. The emergence of the Internet has made it all too easy for them to share their very best corkscrews of logic. A few mouseclicks and - voila! - liberal talking points are distributed worldwide. Liberals today have a ready response for everything. I eagerly await the explanations by the CNN apologists.
But it is nothing more than empty rhetoric. Contemporary American liberalism has more in common with ancient Greek Hedonism than the liberalism exemplified by JFK, LBJ, or FDR. Intelligence without virtue. A ship without a rudder.
Many liberals are smart enough to win arguments and duels of logic. I had a philosophy professor in college who was an avowed communist, and fiercely proud of it. He was so logical and so smart that he could convince you an arrow in flight never reaches its target. Very smart, very logical, and completely wrong. And that, to me, is comtemporary American liberalism in a nutshell - At times very smart, very logical, but still completely wrong. CNN is a very good example.
In a time of war, it is treasonous for any American news agency to air enemy propoganda showing American soldiers being shot, possibly even killed. It is sickening. But when CNN's track record is taken into consideration, sad to say it is not very surprising.
Chris,
Check you link for the CNN article.
Why is it treason for CNN to air this? I am not agreeing or disagreeing, just asking for an explanation.
Posted by: phx8 at October 23, 2006 09:35 PMIt’s people like this that are the reason that we’ve had all of one PhD in the history of the American presidency. Anti-intellectualism of this kind is common to totalitarian apologists. The intellectuals were the first targets of Mao (the Cultural Revolution) and some of the most powerful fascist dictators of the 20th Century (whose names I won’t mention because they’re over-used in comparisons).
Chris, you can go on and on about “intelligence without values,” but while we can measure intelligence to some degree, whose values are you speaking of? Yours? Your religion’s? We have different values, apparently. You see treason and I see the actual news—unadulterated, unsweetened, not sugar-coated news in this case. Do our soldiers give life and limb in this unwarranted “war?” The answer is yes, and that’s maybe hard for you to swallow. But this isn’t a video game, and people are really truly dying out there. We can sweep it under the rug—and have (see: no showing of American caskets and embedding journalists)—but at some point, thank God, someone has the courage to show what’s going on over there. Perhaps the treason charge should be issued in the direction of those hoping to obscure the actual sacrifices being made by our soldiers so that this administration can save face and put money into Halliburton’s pocket. How ‘bout them apples, Chris?
Or am I too “intellectual” for you? Beware! I may make an utterly reasonable and logical argument!
But for me, this is more about morals than anything else.
Because its job is to report news, not carefully conceived and staged propaganda for the other side in time of war. Since this material is really not news, helps us in no way to objectively understand the issues, has no value other than as enemy propaganda…
The Constitution explicitly defines giving aid and comfort to the enemy in time of war as treason.
Posted by: Bob Waters at October 23, 2006 10:22 PMDavidL
There are different kinds of intelligence. The ability to manipulate ideas in writing or the abilty to take tests are a particular aspect.
Leadership is a separate skill. There are people with great leadership skills who have little in the way of book learning. We all know smart people who have no ability to make decent decisions. It is also true that grades in school are not good indicators of success in life.
Re education, I think the peak of success in everything except the science is the MA. Those with MBAs or MAs run things. Those with PhDs teach.
You know the old saying: Those who can do. Those who can’t teach. Those who can’t even teach teach gym (or maybe blog).
Posted by: Jack at October 23, 2006 10:46 PMOnly 18% of the American People believe we are winning the war in Iraq. It’s not because CNN aired this tape. It is because we aren’t winning the war. We are not winning the war because we have political incompetent leaders running the war. If anyone believes that what is happening in Iraq wasn’t easily predictable, they like our incompetent leaders must have been asleep when Yugoslavia fell apart. Give us all a break, really. Sunni Bathists suppressing a much larger population of Shia and Curds and these people didn’t have a clue as to what would happen when we pulled the cork out of that bottle.
Posted by: jlw at October 23, 2006 10:52 PMDavidl
When you actually make an intelligent argument let me know.
You’re argument falls into the area of the kooks as soon as you bring up the “H” (Halliburton) bomb. Maybe if you just stop using the liberal talking points, you know it’s all about oil, evil Halliburton, evil corporations, then maybe I can take you seriously.
As far as the caskets, the families do not want them shown on tv. As far as Halliburton they were doing just fine without Iraq and they would be just fine without it. If it was all about oil, Saddam would have sold us all we wanted and it would have been much cheaper.
Using your idea about the media and propaganda, I guess it would have been ok during WWII for the theatres to show Leni Riefenstahl’s NAZI propaganda films or CBS radio airing Tokyo Rose.
Well, I read the article about the study. It discounted opinion pages and op-eds, where the generally conservative owners express their opinions. The study used an unusual methodology, which I am not qualified to judge, but I guess Chris is. If you read the whole thing carefully, though, what it really says is that the major media outlets are pretty moderate.
—-
The video — I found it (Chris, fix the link if you intended to link; I don’t want to link to it). It’s disturbing, but your account of it is very misleading. First, it seems that the screen blacks out after each shot so actual hits are not shown. Second, the reporter informs us this is propaganda from insurgents. Third, the military expert confirms that we, of course, use the same tactics. Fourth, there was nothing sympathetic in the entire report to the insurgent’s cause. Regardless, I find such videos disturbing and only looked at this one because I realized I could not trust Chris’ account because of his demogogeury. I find the rah-rah videos of cruise missles taking out buildings and all their occupants disturbing too.
I have no idea what planet you would have to live on to think this report was left of center, unless any reporting that describes the hazards of our troops leftist. To imply that liberals want the enemy to win is either 1) idiotic or 2) deliberate lying.
As for the rest of Chris’ article — typical angry ranting. Liberals are traitors, liberals want the terrorists to win, etc., etc. Well, you know, many in the Republican party have had enough of the incompetence and hair-brained “ideology” on the current crew in power. I’m personally sick to death of how often some on the right toss around the word “traitor.” It makes me think that to people such as Chris any reporting that doesn’t parrot the establishment line is dangerous.
Posted by: Trent at October 23, 2006 10:58 PMAs far as the caskets, the families do not want them shown on tv.
Some do, some don’t. Why do only the ones that want what helps your political argument have the right to have their wishes honored?
Posted by: LawnBoy at October 23, 2006 11:03 PMAnd when I say “actually challenged his post,” I do mean countered his statements with facts.
Darn liberal bias in those darn facts.
Chris, it’s really sad that you are so strongly defending anti-intellectualism. It’s just sad.
Posted by: LawnBoy at October 23, 2006 11:14 PMChris,
The message you bring in your post is mostly hate-filled drivel. A large part of the reason your party is going down the crapper is this divisiveness I see in your post. You, and only you, know THE truth(!!). We live in a free country. We have a free press. They are reporting a sad, disturbing, and horrible truth. I personally was quite angry as I watched that piece. But not at CNN. I was angry at the enemy who has been pouring into Iraq for the chance at a shot at our military. I was angry at the pack of lying-ass mongrels who got us into this fiasco. I get even angrier when I read pathetic attempts to carry water for them. I nominate YOU for chief water boy!
Great post. It wish it didn’t take so long to bring this leftist “reporting” to our attention.
Posted by: andy at October 23, 2006 11:26 PMI don’t really have a problem with the media airing such footage. The problem is that that they white-wash the atrocities committed by our enemies and refuse to also show footage of 9-11 and of the almost daily atrocities committed by insurgents, including shootings and beheadings of innocent people.
When I see such things, I don’t want to cut and run. I want to see our troops take off the gloves and kill every last one of those monsters.
Posted by: Neo-Con Pilsner at October 23, 2006 11:34 PMWhy do you Cons hate our soldiers?
It’s true that the media does not show beheadings (thankfully—I just couldn’t stomach that), but they don’t spend a lot of time showing the effects of carpet-bombing, either. And besides, some of our closest allies in the Middle East are all about beheadings as criminal punishment.
Why do we claim to be bringing democracy to Iraq as a pretext for war when we don’t even support it in its neighbor Saudi Arabia? A royal family rules? That’s better?
But in any case, we’ve become so numb to violence, I don’t know if people would even react to graphic atrocities on mainstream television—theirs or ours.
As for Keith:
“You’re argument falls into the area of the kooks as soon as you bring up the “H‎ (Halliburton) bomb. Maybe if you just stop using the liberal talking points, you know it’s all about oil, evil Halliburton, evil corporations, then maybe I can take you seriously.”
Keith, if it wasn’t “all about oil,” what was it about? Sadly, being all about oil is probably the best option at this point, because at least then the administration would have had clear goals before going into this thing.
The “H” bomb always hits. They’ve reported record profits with no-bid contracts and a documented history of major corruption (at least seven separate charges pending against the entire corporation). You can’t look away from that, see our Vice President (one of the most powerful in history) and not put two and two together.
“Using your idea about the media and propaganda, I guess it would have been ok during WWII for the theatres to show Leni Riefenstahl’s NAZI propaganda films or CBS radio airing Tokyo Rose.”
Yes, it sure would have been OK. We are a free and critically thinking society (no matter what Chris Rowan wants), and we should be able to distinguish propaganda ourselves. We can watch “Triumph of the Will” today and marvel at it as a piece of propaganda. Are you afraid that Americans will jump over to the side of Al Qaeda or start singing the Horst-Wessel song? Do you have so little trust in your fellow citizens? We can see what the other side is trying to feed its people—we are a supposedly morally superior, open, and intellectually discriminating society—it’s the others that “hate freedom” that censor.
All you Cons can beat your war drums and hide your head in the sand. Our soldiers and their children are dying, and either you hate our country or you are in the deepest denial. You can call me unpatriotic, but in truth, who wants our country to be the better, more morally directed leader? Certainly not those who advocate torture, “necessary” casualties, and the deepening corruption of our system.
DavidL, if the media doesn’t show images of “carpet bombing” in Iraq it’s because there IS no carpet bombing in Iraq. If there was, they’d love to show it. I doubt that you even know what carpet bombing is.
Our closest allies do not drag people off the streets and behead them in basements and then put the videos of it on the internet.
You really do say some ridiculous things. “Our soldiers and their children are dying.” What in the world are you talking about? I’m not going to call you unpatriotic. Just woefully uninformed.
Posted by: Neo-Con Pilsner at October 24, 2006 12:32 AMReport what the media is doing and see all the liberals go nuts! Way to go, Chris!!
Steve is swearing up a storm and SteveL goes into wacky conspiracy theory arguments about H and the VP…
Chris, you couldn’t have scripted it any better! You the man!
Posted by: Don at October 24, 2006 12:58 AMI vote we change the red blog from “republicans and conservatives” to “Desolation Row” This post by Cris was a complete distoration and foolish name calling. Some people will stay the course beleiving that we are there in Iraq to find WMD’s and to bring democracy to Iraq. Yet they seem to fing the nerve to call others traitors, disgusting absolutly disgusting.
Posted by: j2t2 at October 24, 2006 01:26 AMSimonsonian levels of “anger and misdirection‎ above logic and fair thought.
I like that. If people use it enough, if could become an official word like “Truthiness”.
Simonson = Arguments made for purely partisan reasons without any basis for reality.
Posted by: Juan dela Cruz at October 24, 2006 01:32 AMbtw…
I just saw Fox News air the exact same sniping video.
When will you start calling Fox News traitors.
Posted by: Juan dela Cruz at October 24, 2006 01:34 AMWhat pains me the most here is what always pains me the most, how mis-informed and gullable conservatives usually are.
First fact, we don’t show caskets or the dead soldiers because it causes unrest every time it happens.
To back this up, here’s a little history lesson for you.
Prior to the civil war conflict was only as visual as the mind could take it. Since propaganda makes war heroic and fun there was little unrest. The civil war saw mass protests because of the photography of the dead and destruction; therefore, people saw the reality of conflict.
After the civil war, photography of the dead was not banned from American media outlets. Remarkably, the next few wars once again saw little unrest. That is, untill the Vietnam war.
During the Vietnam war, media was once again allowed to show the death and destruction of war. this brought war back into the face of Americans. Because of this, the vietnam war saw the largest mass of protests since the Civil War. Because of this, government once again banned the showing of death and destruction caused by a current war.
Oh wait a minute! This is just more logic and reasoning. The evil knowledge and education that conservatives like to also refer to as Liberal bias.
Second, the war was about oil. It might not have been about the here and now access to oil, but more of future planning by attempting to stabilize the region, (and in doing so, setting it even further off balance).
How nieve can you cons possibly be about what is going on in the world today?
Damn, you guys lost the fight with the summed up statement that Liberals on average are very intelligent and argue by using their intelligence and logic.
Christ, I think that’s why I don’t post frequently. I rarely see an intelligent debate. When I do, I usually feel as if I’m back to teaching in the Special Ed LD dept.
Posted by: Metacom at October 24, 2006 01:47 AMMetacom -
I guess this means you prefer CNN’s approach?
Here is the link to the CNN video:
http://www.cnn.com/video/world/2006/10/18/ware.iraq.insurgent.video.cnn/content.html
Watch the video. Can anyone can make heads or tails of what Chris writes? How does he draw his conclusions based upon this video? I am willing to give him a chance to elaborate, because frankly his original article makes no sense. How does showing this video constitute treason? Is Fox News also traitorous? Why does a video on insurgent tactics and counter-insurgency demonstrate liberal bias?
Is it treason to show an IED exploding? A car bomb? Is this CNN video treasonous only because it is video, rather than print? Are interviews with wounded vets treasonous?
Personally, I think the video is disturbing, but interesting, and definitely newsworthy.
Trent,
Good job earlier, picking apart the incoherent article by Chris. Damn your logic and intelligence! It is not fair!
Metacom,
Great comment.
Chris,
Can you explain why the USSR lost in Afghanistan even though they had no media coverage in their country?
Olbermann had an excellent commentary on this topic toight:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15392701/
What surprises you about CNNs coverage. Since Viet Nam all news organizations have abandoned factual unbiased news. Sensationalism, America bashing, trashing our soldiers for ALL to see. That is what sells. The communist news network has not aired a relevant unbiased story since it became CNN. Again where is the surprise
Posted by: Montie Rumsower III at October 24, 2006 04:13 AMjlw,
Sunni Bathists suppressing a much larger population of Shia and Curds and these people didn’t have a clue as to what would happen when we pulled the cork out of that bottle.
Here I disagree, because it’s worst than that.
They *got* clue, many of them, coming from nations that have longer and wider experience with Middle East than them. They got large and well reported warnings, several of them, many of them even being exposed publically at UNSC.
They got clues. They *choose* to ignore them.
They’re not clueless, it’s even worst: they’re arrogant, so much that they think they knew better than the people that, well, actually knew better!
They really have no excuse.
As the nation who elected them: you got the leaders you deserve. Now deal with it. Start in november the 8, please.
My Name Is Roger:
CHRIS ROWAN:
Very Good ! ! !
I like the part……………………………..
Intelligence without virtue
A ship without a rudder
It reminded me of a verse from the book of Romans
[PROFESSING THEMSELVES TO BE WISE, THEY BECAME FOOLS]
ROMANS 1:22
Roger A Conservative Christian Rupublican
Posted by: ROGER at October 24, 2006 06:07 AMjlw said:
…and these people didn’t have a clue as to what would happen when we pulled the cork out of that bottle.
Some pertinent quotes by (then Secretary of Defense) Dick Cheney on April 29, 1991:
“I think that the proposition of going to Baghdad is also fallacious. I think if we were going to remove Saddam Hussein we would have had to go all the way to Baghdad, we would have to commit a lot of force because I do not believe he would wait in the Presidential Palace for us to arrive. I think we’d have had to hunt him down. And once we’d done that and we’d gotten rid of Saddam Hussein and his government, then we’d have had to put another government in its place.
What kind of government? Should it be a Sunni government or Shi’i government or a Kurdish government or Ba’athist regime? Or maybe we want to bring in some of the Islamic fundamentalists? How long would we have had to stay in Baghdad to keep that government in place? What would happen to the government once U.S. forces withdrew? How many casualties should the United States accept in that effort to try to create clarity and stability in a situation that is inherently unstable?
I think it is vitally important for a President to know when to use military force. I think it is also very important for him to know when not to commit U.S. military force. And it’s my view that the President got it right both times, that it would have been a mistake for us to get bogged down in the quagmire inside Iraq.” [emphasis added]
And part of a speech given at the Discovery Institute in 1992:
“I would guess if we had gone in there, I would still have forces in Baghdad today, we’d be running the country. We would not have been able to get everybody out and bring everybody home…”
Posted by: Liberal Demon at October 24, 2006 06:12 AMMy Name Is Roger
What about the Mom or Dad or family or friends of the soldiers who were shot by the sniper.
I am sure they were over-joyed that [ CNN ] did what they did, watching sniper’s shooting there loved one.
I am sure they would like a copy so that they could send it to their family and friends for Christmas.
Or instead of watching football on Thanksgiving they could all set around a watch the video called [ A SNIPER’S EYE VIEW ].
Roiger A Conservative Christian Rupublican
Posted by: ROGER at October 24, 2006 06:22 AMRoger you got it right… For those who do not believe the bias in the news, here is a news item for you… we have lost approximatly 2,800 troops in this war. We lost over 3,000 Americans in 9/11. If we are to withdraw our troops and build up our own borders, will we be safe and win respect of the world? I think not. Right or wrong, this is my country. We all have a voice and we all have a vote. We can all sit back and express or satisfaction or dis-satisfaction with our countries leadership and then chose on November 7th. History teaches us a Country survives through strength. Strong leadership reqires hard decisions. So to my liberal pundits contiune with your banter, because it only serves those of like minds and drives those who believe in a strong nation to the polls. Because we like to always use numbers to justify our positions here is a number if use to make a point would state the it is safer in Iraq than in the homeland of America. Just a fact, 30,000 Americans die from gun-shot wounds in America every year! Now before my liberals take this to mean that this justifies the deaths of American Troops, that is not the point here. The point is we all use numbers and statics to make our points. However, we must all remember, Numbers don’t lie, only those who determine the Numbers. My point is simply the loss of any life is sad but the loss of one American Life is even sadder because we do not have the guts to fight the terrorist who have declared war on us and what we believe in. To cut and run from Iraq or Afganistan, would embolden the terrorst as well a provide them a safe haven to train, plot and eventually attack the US. To think anything less, is to not understand the radical islamist. I am married to a Muslim and thus have a somewhat better insight than most because I am given insight on the way they think. So my fellow Americans, I say vote and vote carefully, for a precieved defeat of the US in the Middle East will bring terror to our shores and our children will reap the death and destruction should we fail to display the courage to defeat these misguided individuals.
Posted by: Lacy at October 24, 2006 07:46 AMChris, Bob, etc.,
What do you guys think about the Osama Bin Laden videos? Is is treason to show these also? They are obviously intended to be enemy propaganda.
Woody, absolutly… nothing from a terrorist is worthy of publication…. it only reaches more would be terrorist.
Posted by: Lacy at October 24, 2006 08:05 AMLacy et al;
I’ve got an idea….let’s censor the media!
You guys kill me. The American people can judge for themselves what they want to see or not see. They can judge if a report is news, opinion, or propaganda. Obviously the right thinks its traitorous…their right to have an opinion. I happen to think it’s battlefield news. Dead is dead no matter whether from and IED or a sniper. I thought it was news because I have often wondered if snipers have been employed by our enemy…now I know.
Posted by: Tom L at October 24, 2006 08:42 AMReport what the media is doing and see all the liberals go nuts! Way to go, Chris!!
Uhhh…. no. “Report” implies presenting facts and truth in a manner that increases knowledge.
In contrast, what Chris’s post does is present a very narrow, distorted interpretation of actual reporting, completely misrepresent the legal basis of treason, and insult those that disagree with him.
Then, because he knows his argument is fallacious, he spends the rest of his time trying to set up a pre-emptive defense for why his post will not stand up to scrutiny, a defense based on insulting knowledge, education, and debate.
When your post is so bad that you have to end it with a defense of why you will lose the debate, it’s not a good sign of a serious thinker.
I, for one, use WB as a way to engage in debate, to see what other people are thinking, both among those who agree and disagree with me. In short, I use it as a means of communication.
What type of constructive communication is possible in response to an article that calls reporting that disagrees with the author treason, and that says that debate is futile because the author is always right, even when he can’t defend his arguments?
And you cheer this drivel on?
Posted by: LawnBoy at October 24, 2006 08:44 AMThe original post is so thin that most of it is spent attacking the anticipated attacks before they occur.
This is Chris’ description of liberal debate:
Very smart, very logical, and completely wrong.
As opposed to Chris’ argument which is not so smart and completely illogical - but according to him completely right.
Hi,
The lead article is misleading as I saw the CNN clip on tv last night and saw no one injured or killed. What I did see, however, is that there are actual enemy troops firing back at american soldiers. It is different from other clips shown by FOX tv network, in that American soldiers and Marines are not shown kicking in doors of domestic residences. The CNN clip shows actual enemy combatants firing at American military.
Tom, here is a thought for you to ponder, Suppose, CNN staged this video and paid for the copy? What would your possition be? Note I stated suppose! Now lets go one step further, if you are an American trooper and a CNN reporter is with your unit and you come under fire, would you be less inclined to provide cover for this reporter? Rember, you are looking for truth.
Posted by: Lacy at October 24, 2006 09:45 AMMy Name Is Roger
LACY:
Thank you for your comments.
QUESTION:
Being married to a Muslim, what do you think would be their reaction if we just packed-up and left Iraq.
From the Muslim’s that you know, do you get the impression
they are all terrorist
they are all anti-American
they all want to destroy the United States Of America
QUESTION: What is there reaction to the terrorist?
Do that back them or are they discusted with them, or just indefferent toward them?
Roger A Conservative Christian Rupublican
Posted by: ROGER at October 24, 2006 09:49 AMRoger, for the most part, most Muslim are peace loving and God (Allah) fearing people who believe Jesus was God’s most beloved prophet. They also believe that Muslims should take care of their own problems when they can; however, it the case of Iraq, Hussain was a brutal Dictator and the country needed help. They believe that as soon as American Troop can leave Iraq with a stable government, the region as a whole will be better off. They also believe that Muslims killing Muslims is wrong and the twisted view of the radicals are also wrong. I had the opertunity to visit a Muslim Country recently and entered into discussions with several Muslims that believed Jhiad was good. By the time I left, they went back and read their Quran for the meaning of Jhiad. They learned for themselfs that the radical interpetation is the wrong interpetation. To really understand the Islamic world, one must first understand that the overwhelming majority do know what the written word of the Quran is. They rely on the interpetations of the Mullah (Preacher). Most cannot read the Quran so this is why I believe we have so many misdirected radical Muslims. I hope this helps.
Posted by: Lacy at October 24, 2006 10:01 AMHow is the vile, horrible and murderous video of one of our soldiers being killed by a hate filled terrorist, promoting terror?
When Americans see this video it makes us hate terrorists and what they stand for even more.
Blame the liberals is sooooooooooooo old. It’s not going to work any more.
Blame Democrats and Republicans for the mess this country is in.
The GOP majority has had a chance to move this country forward. They failed. The Democrats stood by and watched like weaklings afraid of all the chest-bumping super patriots that arose from the 9/11 attacks.
Video that shows terrorists killing Americans does not help their cause it just highlights our need to get Bin Laden and the failed, misguided policies this administration has pushed in Iraq and other parts of the world.
“Lefties” “Libs” “Cut and runners” are names thrown out there when folks really have nothing to say besides “I’ll out-shout you and that makes me seem right.”
Did the constant video showing planes hitting the twin towers promote terrorism?
When Osama Bin Laden puts a video out that essentially threatens death to Americans, does that promote terror?
No, they do just the opposite.
All of us “Liberal, cut and runner, anti-troop, lefty, socialists” see the name calling thing for what it is.
Phx8
The Soviets lost in Afghanistan because president Reagan supplied support and stinger missiles that negated their air power. Absent those things, they probably would have held on. Of course the whole evil empire was crumbling, so I do not suppose they would still be there and we might be in a very similar situation anyway.
Posted by: Jack at October 24, 2006 10:23 AMSo here we go again with the same old mis direction from the groupthink of far right chickenhawks. The media is liberal, the quagmire in Iraq is the same as the “war on terror” and its the liberals fault that the “stay the course” strategy has been and still is a miserable failure. Yet they are patriotic and the rest of us are traitors. George Orwell would be proud chikenhawks real proud.
Posted by: j2t2 at October 24, 2006 10:24 AMWhat CNN did is not treason, but it was foolish, because of the source of the video, and giving the source (terrorists) a venue for the tape they produced. It would have been better if CNN had said we received a tape showing this, but we refuse to air it; we refuse to give terrorists anything.
Posted by: d.a.n at October 24, 2006 10:35 AMJust a few general responses…
Context, context, context. FoxNews did not rebroadcast the insurgent video. The news piece was about whether or not CNN had “crossed the line” by broadcasting enemy propoganda. Apparently, some Republicans are calling for CNN to be “de-embedded.”
Such venom from the liberal intelligentsia! But I couldn’t help but notice that my main points were not refuted. Liberals see nothing wrong with abortion on demand, gay marriage, or the transgenerational subsidization of the poor.
It’s true that I haven’t posted in a while. I don’t blog for a living. I don’t blog obsessively, either. I post “when the spirit moves me,” as my dear departed grandmother used to say.
Posted by: Chris at October 24, 2006 10:42 AMThis video brings me back to the 60’s and arguments over whether we should be shown combat video including our casualties. Now, Bush just said we’ve entered the Iraqi equivalent of the Tet Offensive. Whoever said there was no comparison between iraq and Viet Nam is now being shown to have been wrong. Where will this generations Kent State be?
Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at October 24, 2006 10:43 AMBut I couldn’t help but notice that my main points were not refuted.
Oh, those were your main points? The examples given in the middle of a middle paragraph? Not what you lead and ended with (calling a major news organization traitors)? And not what took the majority of the piece (giving excuses for why you’ll lose the debate)? What a load of crap.
This is the same “tactic” you used in the thread resulting from your scare post about the “imminent” second 9/11: when we dismantle your primary point, you claim that the minor point in your rant was actually the main point.
If those were really your main points, then you should have started with them, ended with them, or focused on them. That you didn’t means you’re either incredibly inept at getting your idea across, or you know you’ve lost and you’re trying desperately to hold on by putting all your hope on a tangent.
Learn how to write, or learn how to debate. Learning both would be preferable.
Posted by: LawnBoy at October 24, 2006 10:50 AMd.a.n.
It would have been better if CNN had said we received a tape showing this, but we refuse to air it; we refuse to give terrorists anything.Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at October 24, 2006 10:57 AMHow do you know this sniper is a terrorist, not just an insurgeant? Afterall, he’s targetting foreign soldiers who are occupying another country.
Since when sniping a soldier is a terrorist act in a conflict!?
Sorry for unbalanced blockquote.
Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at October 24, 2006 11:00 AMOh, and Chris, Ware “breathlessly narrated”? Give me a break.
I was breathless, reliveing the nightmare of a time past. It deeply hurts to watch our brothers get wounded or killed. But the truth hurts and people on the right need to wake up and accept their responsibility in this nightmare. Rather than childishly blameing their fellow Americans who happen to have a differing opinion and calling them the traitors…Grow up already
War is ugly, Chris. If you can’t stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen and stop pussyfooting around with the media. Tell GW Bush to stop playing into the enemy’s hand by playing politics with our troops. Why hasn’t he fired Rumsfeld yet and started a plan to extricate us from this mess? Then after you deal with the primary problem, perhaps there’ll be time to deal with your petty ante critique of the media.
Posted by: gergle at October 24, 2006 11:03 AMLawnboy,
What you said.
Chris,
Trent specifically refuted your points, impeached your source, and cited supporting evidence. Worse yet, you never attempted to correct the inaccurate link for your article. I had to post it for you. Worst of all, it is rude and discourteous to pretend Trent did not address your point.
Wait. Worst of worst of all, you pretend sentences in the middle of your article are unrefuted because they were unaddressed. The throwaways about gay marriage, abortion, & welfare have nothing to do with your main point, which normally people present in their topic sentence, first paragraph, and summarize in their conclusion.
People like Trent and Lawnboy are giving you good advice. Rather than taking the criticism from an ideological opponent as a personal affront, I would suggest learning and improving your ability to present a point of view and debate it.
Posted by: phx8 at October 24, 2006 11:11 AMphx,
Thanks. I’m not surprised that we agree, but you even managed to say it nicely :)
Posted by: LawnBoy at October 24, 2006 11:19 AMPilsner,
When I see such things, I don’t want to cut and run. I want to see our troops take off the gloves and kill every last one of those monsters.
Do you ask yourself once what if the gloves are already off?
What next? Nuking Iraq?
Chris,
“You would have to be very intelligent to convince yourself that gay marriage poses no threat whatsoever to traditional family values;”
How?
Will straight people all turn gay and leave their spouses?
Do married gay people suddenly become hostile and attack straight married couples?
Will gay people, once they’re married come into our back yards and whisper into our familiy’s ears that we should change our values until we are brainwashed by them.
Oh I know. It says so in the Bible. It also says that a man built a boat and was able to fit 2 of every species of animal from around the world in this boat and none of them ate each other. Great source.
“that abortion on demand is not a murderous, barbaric form of birth control”
When did any “liberal” ask for or defend “abortion on demand?”
I think it is called reproductive rights for women.
Abortion on demand is a far right sound bite.
Do you have a right to wear a condom?
Do you have a right to a vasectomy?
Women have a right to terminate a pregnancy that they see as harmful to their lives, futures and family.
Do you see drive thru abortion clinics? No
Some people like to judge others because it makes them feel better about themselves. Sometimes it helps to mask hidden sexual abnormalities in ones self. Using God to justify their passing judgement when the true nature of real Christianity is not to judge and to love thy neighbor invalidates alot of their arguments.
Todays’ “Conservatives” are just that. I judge you as inferior. I judge you as unfit to have rights. Who do these people think they are? God?
BTW this was not the point of your piece but I couldn’t resist responding to such divisive and far right points of view.
“trans-generational subsidization of the able-bodied poor does not breed contempt, resentment, self-loathing, helplessness, hopelessness … a seemingly endless cycle of dependency and despair.”
Parroting talking points and sound bites from Rush and Ann Coulter is a sure way to undermine your argument and get people not to take you seriously.
GOP slashed college aid, medical drug price choices, they tried to kill social security, increased wealth disparity to all time levels, kill programs designed to help the poor and elderly and the Democrats are hurting the poor?
You’re funny.
CNN should be allowed to air whatever type of crap they want and the people should be able to decide what they watch on their own.
IMO, what CNN did wasn’t so much as treasonous as that of the reporter. Can you imagine being able to sit idley by while the enemy your own country is at war with, targeted and shot/killed one of your fellow Americans? THAT would be treasonous.
Liberal media? Only partisan hacks would view it any different.
Posted by: kctim at October 24, 2006 11:31 AMWars are not fought and won by reasonable or logical men. No reasonable person would willingly march off to war unless he was motivated by a cause greater than himself. This simple truth is lost to many liberals today. Liberals do not understand why anyone would be willing to fight and die for what they consider to be a senseless cause, and any cause that does not advance their agenda is considered “senseless.” This is also a reflection of the hedonistic nature of liberalism today. Self-sacrifice for the greater good is anathema to hedonism. “What’s in it for me?” seems to be the liberal mantra.
Wars are fought and won by passionate men who believe in a cause greater than themselves, and are willing to die for it. The jihadists have unhesitatingly demonstrated their willingness to die in order to advance a perverted and twisted interpretation of the Koran (Quran?). Our soldiers have demonstrated their willingness to sacrifice themselves on the altar of freedom, and I honor their sacrifice by attacking those who seek to undermine their efforts. CNN’s airing of enemy propoganda is not an isolated event, but simply the latest in a long string of reports that seek to undermine our efforts in Iraq in particular and the global War on Terror in general.
Posted by: Chris at October 24, 2006 11:43 AM“What’s in it for me?” seems to be the liberal mantra.
Since this is obviously supposed to be a bad thing (based on your tone), I can only conclude that you are opposed to Capitalism, the economic system based on everyone being encouraged to ask “What’s in it for me?”
Posted by: LawnBoy at October 24, 2006 11:54 AMI just have one question.
If it’s factual/true, is it propaganda?
Posted by: womanmarine at October 24, 2006 12:02 PMThe Republican Talking Point:
Americans cannot win wars if they know how terrible war really is.
The Truth:
Saving Private Ryan. How does a movie that shows the violence of the Normandy Landing at Omaha Beach manage to stoke people’s patriotism, and raise people’s pride in the exploits of WWII, if that is true?
Because Americans could sympathize with the soldiers. It’s not for nothing that people evoke the The Greatest Generation when talking about the trials of today.
What the Republicans fail to understand is that there is no serious movement in America that is hostile to our soldiers, and therefore, few people cheering on the deaths of these soldiers.
What they also fail to understand is how much more inured to violence Americans are, especially this generation, which can access truly gruesome material. Trust me, this is a generation far more able to take the realities of war. But this is not something the Republicans have taken advantage of. Instead, fixated on blaming the media for their problems, they tell everybody that if the media shows what’s really going on, it does a disservice. to the soldiers.
This, however, flies in the face of one of the most extraordinary successes of the war’s PR: embedded reporting! The realities of war did not faze people. It kept them connected to their soldiers, and prevented Saddam from employing propaganda tactics. His spokesman didn’t get the nickname Comical Ali for nothing; our video showed him pontificating on how they were beating us like a red-headed stepchild, while we were driving tanks down the highways of Baghdad.
Such effective coverage only becomes a problem for an adminstration that hasn’t effectively dealt with the realities of war itself. Things were going just fine until the failings of Bush and Rumsfeld’s plan started showing. You cannot blame the media for reporting what’s going on. That’s their job, regardless of how they lean, or if they lean.
My advice to the Republicans is to treat this as no less newsworthy than the video by the “headcutters”, and no less useful. Why not make your article about those cowardly creeps taking potshots at our men? Why act as if the insurgent’s interpretation is the only one?
Maybe the real problem is that the GOP can’t handle the truth itself. They are trying to pull off a miracle with the coverage instead of pulling off a success with a change in the direction of their efforts. They are so focused on trying to prove themselves right that they will deride and deny anything that gets in the way of that. Because they will not give up on that, and because their party currently has majority control of Congress, and control of the Executive, America is forced to keep a course it sees quite clearly as a failure.
When is the core of the GOP going to admit that the most discouraging thing about this war is not the coverage but their continued failure of policy?
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 24, 2006 12:04 PMDave1
“Now, Bush just said we’ve entered the Iraqi equivalent of the Tet Offensive”
You do realize that the Tet offensive was a major victory for us, don’t you? It wasn’t the army that lost it was the politicians and the media at home that lost.
The Tet offensive was the Norths battle of the Bulge, an all out make or break battle an they lost.
Posted by: Keith at October 24, 2006 12:07 PMJack wrote: Many liberals are smart enough to win arguments and duels of logic. I had a philosophy professor in college who was an avowed communist, and fiercely proud of it. He was so logical and so smart that he could convince you an arrow in flight never reaches its target. Very smart, very logical, and completely wrong. And that, to me, is comtemporary American liberalism in a nutshell - At times very smart, very logical, but still completely wrong.
HHHMMmmmmm … look who’s talking?
The fact is, some on BOTH sides do this.
These old, tired type of generalizations and demonizing of the OTHER party can be seen from blind, brainwashed loyalists on BOTH sides.
It is mere petty, partisan warfare. Politicians love it, and their hacks love to wallow in it. Afterall, it is VERY seductive and effective.
Why?
Because it distracts YOU from your OWN party’s irresponsibility; because it is easier to blame the OTHER party, than face up to your OWN party’s problems. Because it allows irresponsible incumbent politicians to control voters, and keep those blind loyalist voters perpetually distracted from looking inward; from introspecition. Partisan warfare is their all-time favorite detractor to perpetuate the never-ending control over the circular pattern of behavior.
The fact is, BOTH parties are irresponsible.
BOTH parties are the sum of their parts ((a)irresponsible, bought-and-paid-for, look-the-other-way incumbent politicians, controlled by (b)elitists that abuse vast wealth and power, more than (c)the largest group (voters) that keep re-electing those very same incumbent politicians that use and abuse the voters; giving incumbents a cu$hy 90% re-election rate).
This type of partisan warfare may fire up the base voters; the most hard-core blind loyalists, but it is losing voters (like me, my entire family, neighbors, and relatives; all former Republicans) that are not only starting to see through it, and reject it, but find it disgustingly contrived and manipulative.
Some voters (granted, not all; not many) in BOTH parties are starting to catch on to the petty partisan warfare. Even some Republicans are watching Bush run all about saying “stay the course”, “Democrats are the party of cut-and-run”, “Democrats are the obstructionist party”, “Democrats are going to raise your taxes”, “Democrats have no ideas”, blah, blah, blah, blah. And I voted for Bush in 2004. Now, it’s true the Democrat politicians don’t have much of a plan either. Yes, some of what Republicans say is true, and vice-versa.
This nation needs voters to be more educated.
Any voting nation needs voters to be as educated as possible.
Philippe Houdoin wrote: How do you know this sniper is a terrorist, not just an insurgeant?OK, replace “terrorist” with “enemy/insurgent/terrorist/guerrilla/revolutionist”. I suppose, since the U.S. invaded Iraq on flimsy, flawed (or trumped-up) intelligence, that viewpoint can be justified. Sadly, the U.S. would like to leave Iraq now, but it is difficult because Iraq is a mess, and we broke it, and some consequently are saying we now have an obligation or need to stay and fix it. What will happen in Iraq and the middle-east if the U.S. pulls out immediately? If the majority of Iraqis want the U.S. now, perhaps we should? We broke it, but is it right to risk any more American lives to try and fix something that may not even be fixable? Iraq has 26 million people. Iraqis have not yet stepped up to the plate to secure their own nation, and may never do so. Iraqis are so divided, and uncooperative, it may be futile. Sending 300,000 more U.S. troops may not even change that. Iraqis may be determined to have their civil war regardless. And, the mismanagement and blunders all along the way are not encouraging. Only now, “stay the course” is turning into “a change of course”, and for political reasons more than military reasons … a major reason why things have gone so badly. When politicians started micro-managing the war, ignoring military commanders, and trying to fight the war on-the-cheap (trying to down-play and avoid visibility that might decrease support for the war by most Americans), it was doomed to a myriad of failures and blunders. Posted by: d.a.n at October 24, 2006 12:17 PM
Yes, Keith, the Tet Offensive was a military loss for the north. However, Vietnam was a war in which winning militarily didn’t mean winning the war.
It’s a lot like what’s happening in Iraq. I think everyone acknowledges that there’s not a single military battle that the U.S. military would lose there. However, the fight is much bigger than just the military, and the overall fight is one we’re far from winning.
The Tet offensive was the Norths battle of the Bulge, an all out make or break battle an they lost.
And yet they won.
Posted by: LawnBoy at October 24, 2006 12:18 PMwomanmarine-
Thats a great question. I think propaganda can be truth or lie. In today’s news obsessed culture, I think most propaganda is probably true, just over-amplified or manipulated. For example, we constantly hear stories about both amazingly heroic and startingly cowardly deeds by US soldiers in Iraq. These are definitely legitimate news stories, as the American public has a right to know what is going on over there. But once the story tries to lead you to believe that the situation depicted is typical of all events in Iraq, it becomes propaganda. Both sides are guilty of this, as are most news outlets.
Posted by: David S at October 24, 2006 12:20 PMChris-
You can’t defeat the enemy overseas, so you try and defeat your enemies here. You turn on your fellow Americans to make up for your failure to find the right battlefield, much less choose the right strategy to address the battlefield you chose.
You can’t hide from your failures in this day and age. If you want control of the media situation, direct attempts to control things will only serve the enemy by creating nasty, dispirit surprises, and by creating new opportunities for the government to discredit itself. A government taking this course makes itself look like it can’t get the job done, and is instead resorting to deceptions.
Solve the problem, and you solve most of your issues with America’s perceptions.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 24, 2006 12:21 PMKeith,
Yes, I am aware that Bushie selected the analogy since Tet was a major US MILITARY victory. It will enable the Freeper nation to claim, yet again, that it wasn’t chicken hawk incompetence that lost us the Iraq 2nd War, but it was the “traitorous liberal and th eleftist media”.
The North won that war, remember?
Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at October 24, 2006 12:22 PMDave1
The North didn’t win they lost and they knew it. They also knew from watching waht was going on back in America that if they held on long enpugh we would “cut and run”
Posted by: Keith at October 24, 2006 12:24 PMAh, “the cut and run” reason of why we lost the Viet Nam War. Yeah, sure, keep telling yourself that. It’s alot like Dorothy, except Oz was the dream.
Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at October 24, 2006 12:30 PMIt really must be great to have a selective memory. Does anyone remember the beginning of the war when fox news had Geroldoooo imbedded with a military unit. Remember when he was giving away the Americans position by drawing it in the sand. I never heard a peep from the right about he or fox news being traitors. Did our troops refuse to protect him after he gave their position away.
For more than two years I have heard that there are two options for Iraq. It’s either the patriotic, conservative, republican ” Stay The Course” or the democrat,liberal, traitor ” Cut And Run. Now we here from the White House that the Presidents policy is no longer stay the course. The President went even further in a recent interview and said that his policy has never been stay the course even though thay have him on tape saying just that at least 6 times. Does this mean that the President is now a liberal, traitor, cut and runner? He must have gone over to the enemy because remember there are only two options in Iraq.
Posted by: jlw at October 24, 2006 12:39 PM
womanmarine,
I just have one question.If it’s factual/true, is it propaganda?
Yep, if truth is your enemy too.
Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at October 24, 2006 12:42 PMphilippe,
very funny, even for a guy with a French name …
marine,
propoganda is a campaign of information that supports ones cause or ideology. It dosn’t refer to the veracity of claims. Although in recent times it certainly has meant the selling of untruths. e.g. (sorry, can’t resist) see campaigns of GW Bush.
Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at October 24, 2006 12:48 PMpropoganda is a campaign of information that supports ones cause or ideology
So the premise here is that any factual news that someone doesn’t like must be propaganda.
Interesting.
I would guess then that most news is propaganda.
Posted by: womanmarine at October 24, 2006 12:56 PM“propoganda is a campaign of information that supports ones cause or ideology”
Well said Dave1, I would say it is a campaign of misinformation and information though.
“I would guess then that most news is propaganda”
Which is why the left feels Fox is a conservative mouthpiece and the right feels all other stations are liberal.
Posted by: kctim at October 24, 2006 01:05 PMNothing new. Neither should it be a surprise.
Vast leftwing conspiracy?
It’s a fact that the news media (mainstream) support liberal democrats; and even more so during election.
Media focus is now aimed at stories helpful to democrats and harmful to republicans to help democrats win the election.
Do democrats and media also favor terrorists over republicans and America? Duh, yeah.
It makes it easy to pick a side. No gray areas.
Posted by: Jimmy at October 24, 2006 01:08 PMDo democrats and media also favor terrorists over republicans and America?
What can you say to that? Unfreakingbelievable.
Posted by: womanmarine at October 24, 2006 01:10 PMwomanmarine,
Worse, he uses the word “Duh”, as though the idea that half the country hates the country is obvious.
It’s amazing the level of hate and lies that Hannity, Limbaugh, Coulter, Savage, etc. have spread in the past couple decades.
Posted by: LawnBoy at October 24, 2006 01:15 PMmarine,
I would guess then that most news is propaganda.For Chris and some of his supporters it would seem to be the case. As for “jimmy”, I try not feed to trolls.
kc,
Alternatively, it’s a true statement if you believe that the media has a specific agenda. Or if you define “profit” as an ideology.(a topic for a whole other thread). The problem I have with Fox (since you brought it up :-) is they present alot of opinions as facts. And those opinions are clearly (r)wing. Whereas, the respected media present news with at least an attempt at bias being removed from the actual verbiage. It is difficult to find widespread abuse by the media of news for a “liberal agenda”, especially since 9/11. Just because the news isn’t good for the republicans, doesn’t make it an agenda.
LawnBoy, et. al.
Here’s an interesting link
http://www.thedemocraticstrategist.org/0609/weilera.php
Posted by: Dave1-20-09 at October 24, 2006 01:19 PMPropoganda CAN involve INFORMATION (factual)
If one only shows what is beneficial for ones own arguement/position/whatever — and purposely omits any “inconvenient truths” that undermine your position.
So, even facts can be used for Propoganda
(even without omission — taken out of context is another method)
Rove is the master of all of the above.
(as well as the good ol fashioned, just plain lying and saying the lie often enough that the “true believers” believe that load of crap)
“they present alot of opinions as facts. And those opinions are clearly (r)wing. Whereas, the respected media present news with at least an attempt at bias being removed from the actual verbiage”
Ah, but Dave1, others see the exact opposite.
While you find it difficult to find a “liberal agenda,” I find it quit easy and have since way before 9/11.
I am sure it is easy for you to find a right wing agenda on Fox though, right?
There is a reason why many on the right do not trust CNN, CBS, NPR etc… and there is a reason why those on the left do not trust Fox…….the content does not endorse their personal beliefs nor does it resemble actual news in a way the respective side wishes to view it.
Posted by: kctim at October 24, 2006 01:38 PM“Stay the course” has now become a rallying cry for democrats! All a democratic candidate has to do to go up in the polls now is put an ad on TV showing their republican opponant parroting the president with those three words and it is enough to turn people off and into believing the republican, much like his leadership in the white house, is out of touch with reality.
It goes to show that even the age-old trusted tactic of treating people like they are stupid doesn’t seem to be working. They have oversimplified themselves into a corner and then they overplayed their hand. They overestimated the public’s willingness to continue to spend massive amounts of lives and money just for the benefit of a strong soundbite. And now, trying to provide the reasoning behind the president’s policies during this campaign is becoming political suicide. Any political capital the republicans had after 9/11 by virtue of their being the “tougher” party has been completely squandered away now that it is obvious that “stay the course” meant “we have no clue what to do”. In that context, “cut and run” doesn’t sound like a bad option. It sounds more like “be smart”. And I’ll tell you, I am having a lot of fun watching candidates all across the country try like hell to avoid having to answer why they are against a policy of being smart.
Posted by: Kevin23 at October 24, 2006 01:46 PMLawnboy,
What is really sad is that the right wing shout artists also believe that the right wing is a bunch of gullible nut cases, which is why they make such absurd arguments. They are laughing up their collective sleeves all the way to the bank.
Posted by: gergle at October 24, 2006 01:47 PMHoly crap! Now “intelligent” is an insult. Here’s a conversation from the future:
“Hey, man, you’re intelligent.”
“Screw you, bastard! I’m not intelligent, I’m an imbecile. In fact, I’m a moron.”
“No way, man. You’re no moron. I’ve known morons, and you ain’t one of them. You are so smart.”
“Oh, yeah, well you’re sweet and kind.”
“What?! You take that back before I kick you in the nuts.”
“Yeah, that’s right, you’re thoughtful and considerate and…”
“Don’t say it! I’m warning you!”
“…and LOGICAL!”
“You asked for it.”
OOff! Blam! Sock! Crash!
Anyway, I’m so glad the Conservative Morons running the government. It’s so much better than having liberal smart people in charge.
Posted by: Jeff at October 24, 2006 01:55 PMHas anyone stopped to ask why so many liberals are spending time posting on a conservative blog? With the extensive internet campaigns of the left widely available in the form of blogs, web sites, etc., why would one want to get on a blog with people who inherently disagree with one’s ideology?
Look beneath the surface at the electronic information campaigns funded by Soros and others and you will realize that the liberals posting are employed to do so. Further, the strategy they are attempting to execute is to argue vigoroulsy with the most ardent conservatives in hopes of swaying moderates who are undecided.
Those of you that are attempting to share conservative ideas and information are being used.
Posted by: Rourke's Ghost at October 24, 2006 01:56 PM“Many liberals are smart enough to win arguments and duels of logic.”
Exactly. Liberals may be smart, they may be better arguers and even have logic on their side. But they’re still wrong! I’m with you Chris. We may not be as smart as them, but we have something they’ll never have: faith. Faith that even though we seemed to have lost the confidence of almost every American, we’re still right. Faith that even though every single prediction we’ve made about the war has been incorrect, we’re still right. Faith that even though the list of indicted Republican leaders in our government has shadowed almost every other administration in American history, we’re still right. And if we’re systematically voted out of office in the coming years for the Demoncratic smear machine, painting us all as greedy, corrupt and racist, we’ll still know that Jesus loves us more than them and anyone who disagrees is, in your words, a traitor.
Keep an upper chin. I know things seem bleek and it’s easy to go off half-cocked without really thinking things through, but this time shall too pass and we’ll be back in control exactly how God would want it.
Posted by: Sarah Cynthia Sylvia Stout at October 24, 2006 02:05 PM
Rourke’s Ghost: I must be the dumb liberal posting here. Please tell me how I can get some of Soros money.
Rourke’s Ghost,
Has anyone stopped to ask why so many liberals are spending time posting on a conservative blog?
The reason a lot of liberals comment on this blog is that it’s just one part of WatchBlog. There’s also a Liberal/Democrat section here and a Third Party/Independent section. Because of the unique nature of the site, you get people from all sides of the spectrum debating issues and posts. You as a conservative are welcome on the Liberals threads. It’s not like most political blogs in which only one side is presented and debated.
With the extensive internet campaigns of the left widely available in the form of blogs, web sites, etc., why would one want to get on a blog with people who inherently disagree with one’s ideology?
Because some people actually like debate. I know that I could go to a site that would just tell me that everything I think is correct, but here I’m challenged, and I learn.
If you prefer not to have to deal with the rest of the country that disagrees with you, there are plenty of websites that will let you hide in your echo chamber.
Look beneath the surface at the electronic information campaigns funded by Soros and others and you will realize that the liberals posting are employed to do so.
That is laughable. Look at the facts of the situation instead of spinning conspiracy fantasies, please.
Posted by: LawnBoy at October 24, 2006 02:11 PMWe may not be as smart as them, but we have something they’ll never have: faith.
Ahhh…. truthiness, where it’s not important what actually is true, but what we want to be true.
I hope that works out for you the next time you wish the stop light is green, not red.
Thanks, Sarah Cynthia Sylvia Stout
Posted by: LawnBoy at October 24, 2006 02:16 PM
I awoke in the night and I heard the voice of my Heavenly Father say to me “George! Go forth and slaughter the Iraqis.
Keith,
The Viet Cong didn’t look to America, and decide to hold on. The Vietnamese are an exceedingly proud people. Particularly about their land. They were content with the idea of a war lasting 100 years. Generations were to be sacrificed to protect their homeland. Children were being raised in the hopes that they could contribute to the cause.
It is stereotypical squawk-boxing from the right to call it “cut-and-run”. We couldn’t provide the resources necessary to fight such an enemy. Vietnam, like Iraq, was a war that was not going to be won merely with military might. Cultural understanding with a globally sensitive perspective was required then and it was required for this war. Lacking such perspective, and allowing our strategy to stagnate have created a situation that can only be described as a quagmire.
sarrah cynthia sylvia stout,
Why do they get all the faith? No fair.
Facts are boring.
The only way I know of to escape reality is totally illegal.
I guess I can go GOP for a minute. Here we go.
Wow! Look at all the pretty colors.(Inagodadavida playing in the background). It’s cool here. We’re winning the war in Iraq. The country is United and we all drive BMWs here. Here even poor people invest in the stock market. It’s beautiful here.
Aw man I’m coming down. I want to keep my GOP buzz going.
Darn, I’m back in reality again.
There is a reason why many on the right do not trust CNN, CBS, NPR etc… and there is a reason why those on the left do not trust Fox…….the content does not endorse their personal beliefs nor does it resemble actual news in a way the respective side wishes to view it. Posted by: kctim at October 24, 2006 01:38 PMI can agree partially. First, if a journalist presents an article that doesn’t support my world view, I admit I greet their article with doubt and skepticism. The problem, as i stated above, is that Fox uses columnists to present the news, This allows opinions in the same thread as a news article. This allows moth pieces like Limbaugh to pull numbers out of his fat ass to support his interpretation of a news item that satisfies his constituents meed for validation of their world view. I don’t greet those “tidbits” with doubt or skeptisism. I greet those with disgust and disdain.
I greet all news with some degree of skeptisism. I stopped watching Fox because they were so obviously full of crap and themselves there was no value in it. Although, with Combes actually showing this week that his testicles aren’t completely shrivilled, there’s a chance of the occasional visit. I’v cut way back on mnost domestic news sources and rely now alot on NPR and the BBC. They both give a good sense of honest intellectualism with two different view points. The web also provides alot of news, easily verifiable.
Lawn Boy:
Are you asserting that the tone and tenor of the liberal arguments above are intended solely for the purpose of self-edification and personal growth?
If your answer is “yes”, could you please share the liberal points of view that have been changed from this process? What conservative points of view do you have now as a result of this conservative blog?
jlw:
I can’t give you advice on how you can get money from Mr. Soros. I can, however, give advice on earning high levels of income - Build a successful business and support continued tax cuts.
Posted by: Rourke's Ghost at October 24, 2006 02:49 PMAre you asserting that the tone and tenor of the liberal arguments above are intended solely for the purpose of self-edification and personal growth?
No, that’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying that this is a site for debate, and that liberals and conservatives intermingle freely here because the views of both sides are aired by intelligent and passionate believers.
Unless you have knowledge that someone here is on a payroll, you’re just making up stuff. Please stop.
If your answer is “yes”, could you please share the liberal points of view that have been changed from this process? What conservative points of view do you have now as a result of this conservative blog?
No. If you stick around, you’ll see how people grow and change.
Now please run along to the type of echo chamber you obviously prefer. If you stick around here, though, you might learn something, and it would be good for you.
Who knows, maybe I’ll learn something from you other than your willingness to make up conspiracies instead of looking around the website you’re on.
Posted by: LawnBoy at October 24, 2006 02:55 PMDave1
Again, you have stated why you view Fox as being right leaning and again I would have to say the right views what you listen to as left leaning.
Your praise of Combes, NPR and the BBC shows how you like your news and others opinions, to be presented to you. With a left slant.
Re Fox and its columnists - I’m not a big Fox fan, I too prefer independent media, but its not that hard to tell the difference between the news and the opinion shows like H&C. (Does Rush have a show on Fox now? Just curious.)
What is hard is when the MSM uses misinformation and partials as news in order to push a certain view. And that my friend, is true of ALL media outlets.
kctim-
The Right Wing bias on FOX is deliberate, and open. The supposed left-wing bias on other networks is more cherry-picking and complaints about the inevitable unflattering coverage that comes from any news organization doing its job, in my view. Given that Republicans level that charge every time a bad story surfaces or coverage of this president’s efforts turns negative, I see that claims as more of a rhetorical trick to poison the well than a truly profound left-wing slant.
There’s too much investment on the right in establishing the ideological credentials of a person before establishing the truth or falsity of what they say. What’s more, supposedly liberal media often
1)cooperates in damaging and embarassing reports on the Democrats (Monica, Whitewater, etc.);
2)gives Right Wing Think tank members airtime without disclosing the full extent of their partisan loyalties;
3)Fails to challenge the claims of the politicians on air;
4)Did not look too deeply into the WMD matters until after the fact;
5)Provided Bush with plenty of opportunities to push the war;
and other things. The truth of the matter is, the mainstream media reflects mostly those who watch it and those who run it.
Keith-
You keep ignoring a crucial element of morale, both on the homefront, and abroad.
Progress. Real-world progress. You can’t just ask people to continue to approve of and maintain a war like this without some changes for the better coming from the efforts.
The GOP has had the chance to do things its way, to have complete control over this war. It still jealously refuses to give up that control.
And yet, the media, which can only report on what it finds, and the Democrats, who have no control over policy, are the ones the Republicans blame.
What the Right Wing fails to see of this recapitulation of the hatred post-Vietnam, is just how much they are replaying the fatal mistakes that Democrats committed in terms of Vietnam and the media.
It was a mistake, you see, because the problems the media then and now drew attention to where real. By getting defensive and secretive about what was really going on, they created a bubble, which hid the magnitude of the failures of the war.
Ultimately, the effect of this was losing the Vietnam war. Morale was lost because nothing we did lead to progress, not because we weren’t shown positive news. Positive news would have come of positive developments. By deliberately parting ways with reality, by deliberately putting those who spoke the truth on one side and our selves on the others, loyal Democrats managed to split their party and harmed the country. The Republicans didn’t help much by adding their own paranoia and divisive politics on top of that.
You are not helping your country by hurling these accusations. You are failing to confront the truth, to live with it, and to reconcile with your fellow Americans in the hope of getting something done about it. That’s all most of us have wanted.
Rourke’s Ghost-
Watchblog, as a whole, is a three column site. Clicking the Emblem would allow you to see that. Both sides can post on each other’s side. Watchblog is meant to be forum, rather than an echo chamber for people’s views.
We get paid little to nothing for our efforts. I’ve written 230 articles and have never seen one dime for my troubles. These aren’t short ones either, but ones as long as the comments you’ve seen or longer.
It isn’t money that gives us the stamina to do this, as much as you might like that, as much as it might assuage your fears that Democrats are truly committed this time to winning. No, it’s our commitment to a vision of a better America, and our sadness and anger at what its come to under your party’s leadership.
You are right about something: Our strategy has been to argue vigorously with Ardent supporters of the GOP and Bush to sway the moderates who are undecided. But we go farther than that, to doing our best to convince those who are of different political stripe of the situation. If our cause was in vain, then we would not have the success we’ve had.
You see, more than we arguing to sway the moderates, the independents, and the free-thinkers of the Republican party to our side, we have seen the actions of this administration and this congress and the consequences of their actions argue most of the points for us.
You can spin your conspiracy theories as to why we are winning, but the truth is out there in front of you, if you only choose to see it. What’s lost the Republican party so much support is out there in the open.
When you decide that being a Republican is about more than defeating the Liberals in every election you can, when you decide that no matter how big or small government is, it should be well-run, then your party might end up finding a more permanent, broader base to win from. For now, the marketplace of the Electorate is punishing the Republican party for failing to understand it.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 24, 2006 03:05 PMIf one is here for reasons of edification and debate, they’ll appreciate being aware of the motivations behind some of the entries that have a different purpose.
If you don’t like me pointing this out, then feel free to ignore me. I won’t be offended.
Posted by: Rourke's Ghost at October 24, 2006 03:07 PMStephen Daugherty:
The mainstream media is certainly doing its best to condition all of us that the marketplace is speaking toward liberalism. As in the past, I suspect the election results will surprise the people who take stock in that.
Posted by: Rourke's Ghost at October 24, 2006 03:17 PMRourke’s Ghost:
And who, specifically, are the paid posters? Without that information you are blowing smoke.
Posted by: womanmarine at October 24, 2006 03:17 PMIf one is here for reasons of edification and debate, they’ll appreciate being aware of the motivations behind some of the entries that have a different purpose.
But why assume there’s a financial motivation? Stephen posted right before you with a great response to your question.
If you don’t like me pointing this out, then feel free to ignore me.
But that’s not what you did. If you had just questioned why there were a surprising number of liberals here, then I wouldn’t mind. I’ve answered similar queries before. If you had simply asked if any of us were paid, then I wouldn’t mind. What I did mind was your baseless accusation of financial motive behind people being here. Soros is really a boogeyman for you guys, isn’t he?
I’m no longer an editor here, but I was for over a year and posted 30-some articles. Since I stopped being an editor (because I wasn’t coming up with enough original content - Stephen amazes me), I’ve been a frequent commenter on some of the threads.
I’ve never received any compensation in any tangible form for my participation here. My thoughts here are my own, not purchased by anyone.
Is it possible that someone here is posting for money? It’s possible, I guess, but I’ve never had reason to suspect it, despite 3 years being here. That you jumped immediately to such suspicion so quickly says much more about you than it does about us.
Posted by: LawnBoy at October 24, 2006 03:20 PMLawnBoy
You’ve made a fair point. Soros has been used as a wet-blanket talking point for a long time - I shouldn’t have use it here.
My contention is there is more to a number of the liberal entries than healthy debate. If you look through the posts, one can see the diffference between vigorous, robust debate and the other type of post that I pointed out.
So close to an election, its healthy to point out the difference.
I suspect you’ll see some of the same thing from some conservatives on the liberal section of the site.
Debate is great. But,no one likes to be conditioned. There is a difference.
Posted by: Rourke's Ghost at October 24, 2006 03:37 PMRourke’s Ghost,
Which posts are you talking about? I think you’re reading way too much into differences in style.
Posted by: LawnBoy at October 24, 2006 03:39 PMWhat’s funny is we apparently have had liberal media and lefty nut jobs indoctrinating our youth for generations. Which, of course, brough us… A right wing president, a right wing congress, and a right wing supreme court. Even if I accepted the idea that we’re being bombarded with lefty idealogy, it doesn’t seem to be having an effect. Nope. We’re stuck with a conservative government running our country into the ground.
Posted by: Shaun at October 24, 2006 03:55 PMRourke’s Ghost,
I can’t speak for others, but I tend to read and comment in the Red Column more than the others because I know I can learn more from those with whom I generally disagree. Heck, I actually like some article writers and commentators I often disagree with.
I’m under no illusions that I can change the minds of the truly partisan, but I know that my own mind can be swayed on specific issues. I’ve learned a lot on Watchblog; the fact that posters come from the entire political spectrum can potentially (and sometimes does) raise the level of discussion. Have you ever read political blogs of whatever stripe in which most posters agree? The level of discussion is generally low because everyone already buys into the primary assumptions.
It’s the same reason I listen to right-wing radio. It can be infuriating, but every now and then I learn something. And I learn what will become the talking points of many on the right.
I’m also interested in debate, and have no problem pointing out fallacies in this column or in the others. Even my philosophical brethen are wrong, sometimes, just as I’m sometimes wrong.
That’s my agenda. It’s mundane, I admit. No big conspiracy here; no secret plan to infiltrate or to spread subversive ideas.
Posted by: Trent at October 24, 2006 03:59 PMUm, you know, if some posters are being paid, I’d love to know by whom. I wouldn’t mind a few extra bucks.
Posted by: Trent at October 24, 2006 04:03 PMI wish they paid me, I would post a lot more!!
Posted by: womanmarine at October 24, 2006 04:04 PMRourke’s Ghost,
I have never been paid, nor am I affiliated with any organization. From time to time I comment. That’s it.
People may change their minds when considering a different point of view. Some might be uncertain, and looking for a persuasive case. Personally, I enjoy seeing other viewpoints & the occasional give and take.
Rourke’s Ghost-
Your underlying assumption seems to be that your politics, once presented to a person, make about as much sense to them, as it does to you, and that only by having a perverse, weak, disloyal or evil personality could one stand to disagree.
If nothing else, I think the lesson of the last few years is that persuasion takes work, takes commitment. If there is one thing we have learned from your side these past few years, it’s to stand up for ourselves, for what we believe in. We’ve had no choice.
As a consequence, we are closer to a comeback than ever, because we don’t let a lot of your claims go unchallenged anymore. Under such scrutiny, much of what you’ve claimed to be true has turned out otherwise.
The election results might very well be a surprise to both of us. Just how big is an open question.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 24, 2006 04:20 PMkctim,
I like NPR because I get a heck of a lot more verifiable information from it than I get from other radio shows. It doesn’t strike me as left leaning, but simply as straightforward reporting. The opinion sections are easy to detect.
But let’s assume for a moment that most reporters do lean to the left. That was actually the truism in newsrooms when I was a journalist, you know: liberal journalists working for conservative owners. The obvious question is why? I have no empirical data to back this up, but I always suspected it was because journalists (the good ones, anyway) are idealists, just like teachers (again, the good ones, anyway). Why else would someone choose to take a low paying job? It’s too easy to say journalists are too incompentent to take other jobs (unless you are speaking of broadcast journalists — I admit to a bias against them: often a lot of flash and no substance). But in my experience, journalists generally are much more skilled at writing and research than the general public. In my opinion, the glib condemnation of journalists is silly.
If more republicans would be willing to work for crummy wages, there would be more right leaning reporters. Just my two cents.
Posted by: Trent at October 24, 2006 04:23 PMRourke’s Ghost-
Nobody can condition you against your will. You can only be so changed through a lack of strength and structure in your own beliefs, or a conflict between them and the stronger persuasive force of reality itself.
Some Illegal Immigrant wrote
It also says that a man built a boat and was able to fit 2 of every species of animal from around the world in this boat and none of them ate each other. Great source.
Do they have zoos in Mexico? You know with lions and zebras seperated by barriers probably like they had on the ark? If not, why don’t you go back home where you belong and build one?
Note: Whitey is an obvious troll. Please don’t feed the trolls.
Posted by: LawnBoy at October 24, 2006 05:02 PM“The Right Wing bias on FOX is deliberate, and open”
So is the left wing bias on other channels Stephen, but you do not see it as bias. The same can be said of many FOX viewers.
I can watch any show at any time and point out a left bias. I’m sure you could do the same with FOX.
As individuals, we are less inclined to view something as being biased if we agree with it and tend to view a bias when we disagree.
How many do you view as being biased and how many do you view as being “fair?”
“CNN is doing everything possible to help their allies in Iraq win the war against the American infidels.”
sounds like a run-of-the-mill conspiracy theory to me; extreme and unsubstantiated.
“In a time of war, it is treasonous for any American news agency to air enemy propoganda showing American soldiers being shot, possibly even killed.”
ummm, check your constitution. while i agree that such a posting is sick, it is not by any means treason (even in a time of war). this incendiary rhetoric serves no useful purpose.
cnn is leftist, but the right *owns* fox.
if you want ‘fair and balanced’ commentary, check msnbc. they employ openly conservative, liberal, and independent thinkers.
if you want the *news*, check cspan… and formulate opinions for yourselves!
if you want ‘fair and balanced’ commentary, check msnbc.
I only have nine things to say about this comment: ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha !!!!!
Posted by: Duane-o at October 24, 2006 06:24 PM
If Osama is not dead or totally incapacitated, he will come to the republicans rescue. Look for it on the Saturday or Sunday before the election. Again, he will tell us how he wishes good luck to the republicans. Our President will reward him with more converts to his cause. Who would like to a wager on which network will air the tape first. My wager will be on Fox.
and not one of those nine things bare any relevance to my post whatsoever! honestly, why bother posting?
tucker carlson, joe scarborough, both openly conservative - chris matthews strikes me as an independent (although admittedly one with right tendencies - he voted for w.) - and keith olbermann is surely liberal (though he denies it). whichever of those categories you fall into, you are represented.
again, cspan is a much better source for news. but if you want a talking-head to tell you what to believe, msnbc at least makes an honest effort to represent both sides.
regardless, next time you post, try to have a point. take a stance. back it up, even. it makes it so much more interesting to read!
Posted by: Diogenes at October 24, 2006 07:05 PMI knew this was coming! It was only a matter of time before CNN joined the New York Times in Club Traitor.
Posted by: stubborn conservative at October 24, 2006 07:35 PMI knew this was coming! It was only a matter of time before CNN joined the New York Times in Club Traitor.
Posted by: stubborn conservative at October 24, 2006 07:36 PMMy Name Is Roger
CHRIS ROWAN:
A wise man once said ” There are two things you cannot argue with….[ IGNORANCE and STUPIDITY ].
Chris…. just remember that when you received comments like some of those that were made by some of the readers.
ANDRE M. HERNANDEZ:
Read Romans 1:21 to 32, and tell me what you think.
Roger A Conservative Christian Rupublican
Posted by: ROGER at October 24, 2006 07:45 PMRourke’s ghost-
Wow. How constructive your conspiracy theories are. It all makes sense to me now. The paid for liberals run the media and the internet, all so that the “real” people (white, christian conservatives I guess) have to sift through all the misinformation. With this sinister motive and the vast amount of non-power they have, liberals are hell bent on keeping real people in the dark about how they are morally, intellectually and spiritually superior to them. And lets face it, all liberals have ever done is label and oppress people. They’re not to be trusted.
Anyway, back to reality.
As a conservative, I really find these kinds of paranoid delusions to do nothing but give credibility to the other side without their having earned it. Nothing is advanced, and the total net effect is to lower the bar.
CNN is not committing treason by reporting the news. Even if someone could prove they were only selectively reporting the news, it still wouldn’t be anything but news reporting. This kind of unsubstantiated speculation based entirely on personal frustration makes one look nothing but wacko.
Posted by: Kevin23 at October 24, 2006 07:47 PMchris matthews strikes me as an independent (although admittedly one with right tendencies - he voted for w.)
“
Cindy Sheehan: “We’re not going to cure terrorism and spread peace and good will in the Middle East by killing innocent people … I see Iraq as the base for spreading imperialism….”
Host Chris Matthews: “Are you considering running for Congress, Cindy?”
Sheehan: “No, not this time….”
Matthews: “Okay. Well, I have to tell you, you sound more informed than most U.S. Congresspeople, so maybe you should run.”
— Exchange on MSNBC’s Hardball, August 15.
Yeah, sounds real center/right to me.
What about the fact that Bill O’Reilly takes about twice as many liberal guests on his show as conservatives, when his MessNBC counterpart, Keith Olbermann, only allows those in lockstep with his communist idealogy on his show?
Posted by: Duane-o at October 24, 2006 07:55 PM