I agree, that is certainly a liberal page. The part that surprises me is that these liberal, bashing articles seem to have so much..on the spot info....Yet every time I have ever been in such a situation...or any of my buddies have.....there are no press around. In fact, several times no one was there...but they came up with some sort of very inaccurate story to print that implied they were.
I also wonder why...if they are actually there....they have no pictures or any interviews with the supposed miscreants. It would be nice if they just once allowed someone to defend or explain their actions. Do they not even consider that they might be mistaken...since they usually have little military knowledge or experience.

"Once again, Cam, youand most liberals seem to have difficulty believing any military member that says good things about what we are doing but and quickly accept anything they say about the military screwing up as gospel"
I think most people you may categorise as 'liberal' may be taking an analytical approach to the mess of 'fact' (thats for you rc) that is dished up by both armed forces and media. Both have an interest - one party wants to sell the good news story, the other wants to sell papers/advertising etc. Of course these interests will slant what they say and how they say it - to assume otherwise would be rather childlike. The army does appear to have a fairly dubious track record in all this really.

The main thing that strikes me as funny is your complaints about the 'liberal' media. As has been pointed out previously, your 'liberal' media would be considered mid to far right in most other places in the world. Large corporate media interests are usually aligned with govt of the day - it's by and large a cushy relationship.

I would find it refreshing to see some analysis...but there is none. Analysis must have some consistency...if it is always a lie if it does not fit the liberal viewpoint...but the truth when it does....it is hardly analysis.

As far as whether or not the rest of the world is more liberal...that is their problem. I am only concerned with the problem of the press in our country. If the rest of the world's liberal press equates to a press that lies and misrepresemnts as our liberal press does.....That is indeed sad....If so, perhaps if other countries are ever forced to be grown-ups and take on as large a share of the world's problems.... they will see things a bit differently. I can hardly imagine the luxury of not having to counter another superpower during the cold war, or lead the current war on terror, etc.....Much as a lot of anti-gun folks suddenly buy out the gun store when something terrible happens to them or their families that a simple weapon in the home could have prevented.

It has been clearly pointed out in the past here that the liberal slant on the media far exceeds their wish to sell a story...or they would spend equal time on misleading the public about the left.

"If the rest of the world's liberal press equates to a press that lies and misrepresemnts as our liberal press does"
All political spectrums of the press are guilty of this (naturally our opinions differ on which end does it more often - but thats ok)

"As far as whether or not the rest of the world is more liberal...that is their problem"
It's actually nice to know that your press encompasses a range of viewpoints & that you can easily check them both out. Not our problem but our good fortune (you should try it some time).

"I can hardly imagine the luxury of not having to counter another superpower during the cold war, or lead the current war on terror"
Well you guys will get around supporting various unsavoury regimes, arming dictators & providing them with technology (Saddam anyone?). So if you enjoy playing the war thing then it's natural you'll be doing a fair bit of it. No one's forcing your country to take the role on. Seems to me a good proportion of the world would rather you guys didn't - but then the man with the biggest stick etc

"they would spend equal time on misleading the public about the left"
If you think this dosn't happen then you've got a bit of growing up to do. Or you can always ask for the other eye to be re attached. :)

When alls said and done I get the impression you would be most happy with a state financed media that supported everything the govt did (as long as it was a conservative govt) without question. Rest assured that you've probably got as close to that as possible in your country. Good thing you live where you do fint otherwise you'd be really really pissy about the press.

Fint - in the Tillman situation the Tillman family requested the investigation. Wanna take bets on whether the truth would have come out without it? I cannot unquestionably trust the military's stories - they have tarnished their own reputation.

We're back to the start again though - "liberal press". I guess what it comes down to is this: you believe the US & international press is liberal; every single person posting to this BBS from outside North America tells you that it isn't, but that carries no weight with you.

Your world view, and concept of right and wrong, has been distilled down to an extremely conservative, nationalistic - bordering on jingoistic - mindset which appears, from this end of the keyboard, to be incapable of unbiased thought. The result is that you end up posting some pretty poisonous stuff about "liberals", "Democrats", and "socialists" which, IMHO are pretty unfounded.

So, I guess, can't you just chill out?

Well, doesn't that about beat it all?

Cam, you and your buddies are a trip. Really!

It's been three days since I've posted the definition of the word "fact", and not one post by you, stu or gavin have found a single fact to post.

There have been numerous assumptions, suppositions and innuendo, but nary a fact to be seen from you guys. Even the links you've provided were filled with little more than weak, unsubstantiated insinuations.

And stu, your line about, "We choose, or not, to consume the product of the liberal media." is hilarious. True, but definitely hilarious. When you feed only on the "chocolate" of US Military Bashing, with nothing else in your diet, it's no wonder you come across sounding like a stuffed pig, stuck in a fence.

Randy

"fact"
(1) The only way to get a 'fact' in these types of situations is by direct observation. Even then it will be coloured by your perception.
(2) Our information(I use the term loosely) comes via military pr and other news sources - none of which come close to fact in my view
(3) We all have opinions, based on OUR perceptions of other peoples reports - which we take as evidence to either support or not support our points of view.

Nary a fact to be seen rc. Only variations on what happened. Sometimes certain statements can be seen to be rather optimistic or more propoganda (I'm talking both sides here) than anything else (ie fints links to various op/ed pieces), and sometimes statements that are made are shown to be in complete conflict with available observations/reports/perceptions.

But as far as you think about fact, lets try this one:
The key justification used for entering Iraq was that the threat from WMD's was imminent and that Sadam was in a position to launch these within ------- seconds (can't remember the figure but it was pretty alarming).
FACT - this was not the case.

(In all honesty I wouldn't count this as an absolute fact but it's probably closest to what you are referring to).

Cam-THE Military told the Tillman family about the problem...then they asked for an investigation (but one was already underway).

rcecale.

Its a "fact" that the Military's original account of the circumstancs of Tillman's death has been discredited. Its a "fact" -AFAIK- that this version of events is still reflected in Tillman's offical citation. Its a "fact" that Tillman's family has expressed its unhappiness with the Military's looseness with the truth.

Now, it may or may not be true that the Military released new information on its own volition. It may or may not be true that it only did so after a media blowtorch was applied to its belly.

It is certainly the *opinion* of many that cases like this one relieve the military of any claim it might have to the benefit of the doubt in this matter and others.

Face it...everyone thought Saddam had WMD and we knew (from history) that he would not hesitate to use them. After 9/11, we no longer have the luxury of giving crazies the benefit of a doubt.

Precisely.

"Face it...everyone thought Saddam had WMD and we knew (from history)"
Sorry mate but not everyone thought that - many people thought quite the opposite. Hence the reluctance of the rest of the world to join you guys. Many other forces joined with a token effort (I'd lump our contribution into this category).
By the way - how did you manage to ask everyone whether they thought Saddam had WMD. Or did you just have a chat with a few likeminded people and agree that this was the case?

Ok, every informed person...since every major intelligence agency reported as such.

Is that right? Or do you mean every US and UK agency reported as such? Like the UK agancy that made the "WMD in 45 mins" claim?

"Sexying up" anyone?

Would those informed people now count as misinformed. Just wondering.