Agreed....

Hunter Thompswon in his book "Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail 1972".....basically out lined that the press corp were nothing but a bunch of alcholics who did nothing more than repeat the press handouts that the canidates gave them......that was 30 years ago......

Don't you get it....the people of the USA are the "Fatted Cow" as Americans it's our job to consume products.....anything that rocks the boat is immediately eliminated......and as such we are manipulated everyday.....from the soap comercial to the white wash the government spews out about how white your laundry can be.....

RallyJon, That is quite possibly the most pathetic, cynical thing I have ever read in my life. God help us if you represent any significant faction of the American public. :(

Cynical? Yes, but cynicism comes from experience. I was a little kid during Nixon, late teens during Reagan, late 20s during Clinton, mid-30s during Bush, so I'm certainly damaged-goods when it comes to believing any story the government tells the public.

Given the extent to which the American people are "spun" on every issue, every day of their lives by the government, why do you pretend to be so appalled? It's undeniably the status quo, and its naive or hypocritical of you (choose--it's either one or the other) to pick apart the details on the one issue that suits your agenda while ignoring the other hundred lies members of both political parties, their spokesmen, and friendly agents in the mass media told you today.

From the beginning of the "War on Terror", the best reporters and commentators in the media as well as certain experts and analysts HAVE painted a very accurate picture of the situation in Iraq. Do you just watch press conferences and believe what the flacks tell you? Broaden your media intake and you won't be so surprised or horrified when it turns out Ari or Rummy was spinning the story.

Unless, as I said before, the agenda you're pushing leads you to feign surprise or horror to further your position. ;)

Denis: you nailed it here. I haven't in a long time seen such vitriolic reporting as during this current conflict. If the press had a gender (and maybe it does - at the LA Times, for a long while there was a saying in editorial that went "...where men are men and women are unheard of..." (sic)) they would have been deemed eunichs by such gutless reporting - not by just the LA Times, but the NYT, Wash. Post and WSJ. TV coverage was worse; CNN, NBC, Fox, CBS - Dan Rather is a self-concerned joke: that interview with Saddam was garbage. It was like watching a male Barbara Walters asking Fidel Castro if he were a tree, what sort of tree would he be...

My take on this emasculation of the press' TRUE ability (remember the great Woodward and Bernstein in terms of "great"), is that because these guys were "embedded" (read: "sleeping with") the military, it was also engrained into the press by Rumsfeld and Torrie what's-her-face at the Pentagon, that the news corps held a great honor and priviledge being invited to a little tailgate party with U.S. forces; so one better not step out of line and ask the wrong questions: just "shut up" and film the 50-cal shooting up a Russian T-tank.

It's B.S. and editorial irresponsibility. I can't as much blame Rumsfeld for lying. A liar, when allowed to lie, is given carte blanc. The press, on the other hand, allowed itself to be lied to. Ridiculous!

I can tell you this: I wouldn't have lasted three days either at the Pentagon or "embedded." I would have asked "the wrong questions" and been escorted out with Geraldo; under different auspices, of course, unless I worked for a spineless news organization whose corporate owner put their own spin on "irresponsible reporting" and blamed as much on me.

In my lifetime, Chronkite was the only man to truly anchor and "report" news. CNN's Aaron Brown is a distant second (after all, he/they are owned by Time Warner who has its own share of problems and need for attractive buyers), and lastly, there's Ted Koppel, who I'm losing nightly respect for since he's been running scared of Jimmy Kimble's encroachment on his time slot and needs to win all the glad handshakes he can muster.

Some of the English papers have it down correct. The Guardian comes to mind as retaining a no-crap editorial policy, at least partly...

I would say that the U.S. press reporting is at an all-time low. As to why people are so willfully ignorant and tolerate it, I can't tell you. Even if I was a political conservative, I would be embarrassed by the likes of "FOX news". It's merely the most extreme example of disgraceful journalism, on par w/ non-democratic countries. Their reporters literally sound as if they are on the White House payroll.

And RallyJon, I am far from naive, and where is the hypocracy? Who says that I "ignore the other hundred lies"? I am a card-carrying member of the sceptics society, and I do not tolerate being lied to by our leaders in any case. There is always the issue of which lies are more serious and topical to the present, I cannot imagine one that should be discussed before the issues of this war. Can you? :confused:

Perhaps you do not understand the difference between scepticism, (healthy in a democracy, question authority), and cynicism, which would encompass statements such as, "they are all liars, so what difference does it make if the president and his cabinet tell us massive lies that lead us into wars? I'm sure that they know more/what's good for us". :rolleyes: You would have no problem living under a Saddam Hussein if that is your view, you would just make sure to be in the right political party, blindly trust and obey your leaders, and as long as you can get cheap gas for your Porsche, who cares what is going on behind that curtain? That would be cynicism.

Hope that clears things up. :cool:

Well, that's quite a straw man, and a poorly constructed one, but if it helps you pigeonhole me, discount my statements and "clears things up" for you, go for it.

I do understand the difference between skepticism and cynicism, and I also understand the difference between someone who is appropriately critical and skeptical of ALL things vs. one who grabs onto a pet issue and whines about it incessantly. People like you come out when there's something the right does that you don't like. People on the right spent the entire Clinton administration doing the same thing.

I'm just pointing out how pointless it is, whoever's doing it...

Uhmm. . .speeder;
cyn·i·cism (s¹n“¹-s¹z”…m) n. 1. A scornful, bitterly mocking attitude or quality: the public cynicism aroused by governmental scandals. 2. A scornful, bitterly mocking comment or act.

BTW: gas, in Baghdad, sells for 6¢ /gallon.

Jon, I agree that there is more than enough hypocracy and "doing the shuffle" to go around in both the left and the right. I would not call the current situation w/ Iraq a "pet issue", it is just too important for that, IMO. And it is not an issue that people on either side have cherry-picked for dissection, in my observation. On the contrary, it is a huge issue, (or several, really), that has gripped the world's attention above other issues at this moment. I would not trivialise someone's interest or concern with it by calling such concern, "incessant whining", but hey that's just me.

People like me "come out" when there is a pressing issue that needs debate, the rest of the time I spend on the technical board. :D

It was just your suggestion that "lying is alright because everyone is doing it" that got me as being incredibly cynical. And I never heard anyone say such a thing when Clinton was having his problems, only that the lie was not about anything serious. And I agree w/ that, now more than ever. But I definitely did not follow Clinton's policies unquestioningly, the way that some people seem to follow Bush right now. Maybe you are not one of them. But civil liberties and world peace hang in the balance, so we're not talking about an intern here.

Maybe, (hopefully), I misinterpreted your post. I have always liked you here, take care. :cool:

But Denis, you stated above that you despise Bush and think he's doing a terrible all around job. Given that, I don't think it's too far out of line to filter your comments through that bias.

The fact is that nearly everyone ranting about WMDs and ignoring the U.N. and our "allies" is starting from the thesis: "Bush sucks, and..." This is a real credibility problem for those who legitimately take issue with America's strategy. Here's a slightly rude analogy: you don't ask Jews if they think Hitler was a good dresser. Chances are they will be too caught up in their overall opinion to make a viable arguement as to whether brown was his best color. :D

The war is a huge issue. Political spin meisters doing what they do is a small issue, viewed impartially, or a big issue if you're making a list of points to support your anti-Bush position.

Because debates save lives...


;)

You guys are really really really weird.

"The fact is that nearly everyone ranting about WMDs and ignoring the U.N. and our "allies" is starting from the thesis... Bush sucks..."

That is complete crap. I couldn't care less about Bush. I don't think he is great, but I didn't think Clinton was either. I am worried about WMD, UN, world opinion on time for war and US imperialism.

You said earlier that it wasn't about WMD and terrorism. Search the internet prior to the war. The reasons given to the US public, who reasonably reluctantly supported the war, were 1) WMD, 2) Terrorism links, 3) Its also quite good for the Iraqi people and Middle East stability.

The rest of the world was unconvinced on these reasons (mostly because of crap evidence on 1) and 2)).

So if it wasn't about (1) and (2), haven't the US people (and to some extent the world) been mislead into supporting a war which has killed many people, buggered up international relations, slandered the French and the Canadians (again) and cost more than a few $$$.

And you think that is ok because "politicians all lie, whether it be about going to war or social security".

Weird.

You take away what you bring:
saved many millions of lives at the cost of a handfull of brave American and British soldiers and fewer civilians than Sadaam's regime would have murdered in the same six weeks
ushered in a new era of democracy and respect for human rights in a region that has none
exposed the treacherous French for the allies of Sadaam that they proved to be; allowed Jean Chretien to embarass himself in front of a much larger audience than was previously available to him :D

http://www.pelicanparts.com/support/smileys/schiet.gif

Brutal :D

You sure, 'cause I'm not sure at all!!!!

You're first point may be true (i don't know how many people Saddam killed). The second is somewhat true, IMO. Third, well, I reserve judgement on the French motivation for talking to Saddam. I presume no one wants to argue about it costing $$$ (not really the point anyway).

And you didn't address the main part of what I posted, which is to say that the US Govt might have found little or no support (even from its own people) if its only reason for invading Iraq was to oust Saddam for the benefit of the Iraqi people.

'Twas brutal though ;)

Besides, why invade now?

Brutal dictatorship hasn't been a sufficient reason for 2 decades.

Okay Cam, you win . . .your "is-ought" argument is too strong. . .we won't invade. :rolleyes:

your argument (question) falls apart at "if."

I know you think it was lots of reasons. RallyJon doesn't, I think.

Either way, you guys (and everyone else for that matter) were mislead. If thats ok with you, then fine.

But it isn't ok with me. I've said enough (again). I'll go be quiet for a while until the cantakerous me comes out again ;)

About being mislead...

Most people don't work on "absolute proof" it's more like "preponderance of the evidence". I know when it comes to politics, only the most extreme people demand absolutes. Most people look at the big picture, and make a decision on how they feel.

Weapons of Mass Destruction was a hat hook--a convenient and proven atrocity that Americans and the rest of the world could use to feel more comfortable about the whole idea of toppling Sadaam. My God, he's actually used chemical weapons in modern times! What a monster...

I'm not sure how "willing to use chemical weapons; used chemical weapons in the past; had chemical weapons in the past; either hiding or recently destroyed chemical weapons now; certainly knows how to make/get more chemical weapons" translates to "we're a failure unless we find a big warehouse full of 55 gallon drums of chemical weapons"

That's a pretty meaningless standard, don't you think? I would go further and suggest that it's a litmus test that only those looking to deride Georgie would dwell upon.

Just for discussion's sake, what will you say if and when an adequately litmus-test-sized cache is found? Can you give us a preview? I can't imagine that merely finding a swimming pool of mustard agent somewhere in suburban Baghdad will turn you into a pro-war hawk? :D So, what will be the next complaint?