Org Mobile Site
View Poll Results: Does this article display liberal media bias?
Voters: 37. This poll is closed
Originally Posted by Simon Appleton:
Gawain is a man of hidden depths, IMO.
I believe he has said he opposed the US invasion of Iraq although you'd have to follow his 11,000+ posts rather closely to have picked that up. I sometimes think he plays devil's advocate as much as you do, Tribesman. 
You beat me to it, and much more succinctly.Gawain is a man of hidden depths, IMO.
I believe he has said he opposed the US invasion of Iraq although you'd have to follow his 11,000+ posts rather closely to have picked that up. I sometimes think he plays devil's advocate as much as you do, Tribesman. Though new here,right from the get-go, I had Gawain classed as a chap who enjoyed (loved, reveled in) the argument most of all. He's closest to a Libertarian, I suspect, though not strictly in that camp. However, if Red Harvest and Gawain were to purposely switch sides in the argument, Red would enjoy the intellectual challenge while Gawain would just have a blast firing bolts with his other hand. Why do you think I suggested them for captains...
Gawain has, in no way, liberal views. In my opinion at least...
Originally Posted by Alexanderofmacedon:
Gawain has, in no way, liberal views. In my opinion at least...
Care to provide some proof of that? Why not ask the man himself?Gawain has, in no way, liberal views. In my opinion at least...
I'll find some soon...
Ok...Let's see here
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=43688
Now, I may have missed something, but there you go.
His title, and that club is all the proof I can come up with on the spot...
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=43688
Now, I may have missed something, but there you go.
His title, and that club is all the proof I can come up with on the spot...
Originally Posted by Alexanderofmacedon:
His title, and that club is all the proof I can come up with on the spot...
Wow, great work, you should work for the ACLU.His title, and that club is all the proof I can come up with on the spot...
Come on man, no need to be nasty...
I just ran across an article in the Village Voice that identifies one of the officers at the Bush photo-op as Master Sergeant Corine Lombardo, 42nd Infantry Division Public Affairs.
One of the Voice's reporters knows her from his time in Tikrit, and says that her job includes taking reporters out to lunch. He also said that she lives in a fortified compound and rarely leaves.
Bush apparently asked her the wrong question: "Is it possible to give us a sense, kind of a calibration of what life was like when you first got there, and what it's like today?"
Her response was to launch into a completely unconnected bit about how swimmingly the training of Iraqi security forces is going, etc., etc. Bush then called her Sergeant Major. Embarrassing.
I'm only mentioning this because it shows just how corrupt and worthless this sort of media display can be. Bush's PR people set up an event where he and military PR people could say nice things to each other in front of the cameras. Then they have the nerve to actually coach the participants in front of the media... and they still expect the media to go along with the idea that this is an unscripted "conversation" with "US troops in Iraq". It's just bad PR.
The media should pull the curtain back on these events more frequently than they do.
One of the Voice's reporters knows her from his time in Tikrit, and says that her job includes taking reporters out to lunch. He also said that she lives in a fortified compound and rarely leaves.
Bush apparently asked her the wrong question: "Is it possible to give us a sense, kind of a calibration of what life was like when you first got there, and what it's like today?"
Her response was to launch into a completely unconnected bit about how swimmingly the training of Iraqi security forces is going, etc., etc. Bush then called her Sergeant Major. Embarrassing.
I'm only mentioning this because it shows just how corrupt and worthless this sort of media display can be. Bush's PR people set up an event where he and military PR people could say nice things to each other in front of the cameras. Then they have the nerve to actually coach the participants in front of the media... and they still expect the media to go along with the idea that this is an unscripted "conversation" with "US troops in Iraq". It's just bad PR.
The media should pull the curtain back on these events more frequently than they do.
And their stupid enough to let the media tape it. This is such nonsense. Again anyone who has been through this sort of thing in the military knows its SOP.
Once more slowly. He didnt give them the answers. I can give you many more examples of presidents and the press itself staging things if you really want to travel down that road.
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube:
Okay, nobody is debating the right of the president to make the Military do what he pleases within his power. The issue here is that it's being presented to the public as something that it isn't, in order to further his agenda. An Agenda which, thus far, is decidedly big-government.
Once more, you call yourself Libertarian?
I think that's known as an "Irrelevant Conclusion".Okay, nobody is debating the right of the president to make the Military do what he pleases within his power. The issue here is that it's being presented to the public as something that it isn't, in order to further his agenda. An Agenda which, thus far, is decidedly big-government.
Once more, you call yourself Libertarian?
Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave:
LOL!!! I remember when General Hugh Shelton (former Commander of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the Clinton Administration) came to my Airman Leadership class back in 1999. All of our questions were screened before hand. I was not allowed to ask him, "Sir, as a veteran of the Vietnam War and a military man for most of your adult life, is it hard to take orders from a draft dodger?". In fact when my teacher read my question I was told to not even say a word. Its always staged. I don't like it, I'd love to hear some tought questions from the troops to the boss but unfortunately many of us dumb military folks prefer to win wars and not undercut ourselves or our country by giving the enemy aid and comfort. If only liberals would root for the right team, then maybe they'll REALLY start supporting the troops. Traitors...
That almost made sense. Right up until that last couple of sentences.LOL!!! I remember when General Hugh Shelton (former Commander of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the Clinton Administration) came to my Airman Leadership class back in 1999. All of our questions were screened before hand. I was not allowed to ask him, "Sir, as a veteran of the Vietnam War and a military man for most of your adult life, is it hard to take orders from a draft dodger?". In fact when my teacher read my question I was told to not even say a word. Its always staged. I don't like it, I'd love to hear some tought questions from the troops to the boss but unfortunately many of us dumb military folks prefer to win wars and not undercut ourselves or our country by giving the enemy aid and comfort. If only liberals would root for the right team, then maybe they'll REALLY start supporting the troops. Traitors...
Originally Posted by Slyspy:
That almost made sense. Right up until that last couple of sentences.
The last two sentences make perfect sense. If Liberals were TRUELLY commited about stopping terrorism, ending war, and helping people have a fair and democratic government, they would, instead of trying to undercut the efforts of the US and other free nations that are making an attempt to change things, they would ASSIST in the cause instead of growing dreadlocks, smoking weed, and marching around banging on drums yelling out nifty little 60's catch phrases. "Make love not war?" Doesn't do you much good if an extremist Islamofascist just sliced off your head or incinerated you with a nuke.That almost made sense. Right up until that last couple of sentences.
Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave:
The last two sentences make perfect sense. If Liberals were TRUELLY commited about stopping terrorism, ending war, and helping people have a fair and democratic government, they would, instead of trying to undercut the efforts of the US and other free nations that are making an attempt to change things, they would ASSIST in the cause instead of growing dreadlocks, smoking weed, and marching around banging on drums yelling out nifty little 60's catch phrases. "Make love not war?" Doesn't do you much good if an extremist Islamofascist just sliced off your head or incinerated you with a nuke.
That's rediculous. You know terrorists have stepped up there efforts since we've been in Iraq. You know, a veteran (which from what I gathered you are) like yourself, should be looking after soldiers. Bush throws 18 year old kids away to "end terrorism". What use is training when they pack a car with 50 lbs of C4? The last two sentences make perfect sense. If Liberals were TRUELLY commited about stopping terrorism, ending war, and helping people have a fair and democratic government, they would, instead of trying to undercut the efforts of the US and other free nations that are making an attempt to change things, they would ASSIST in the cause instead of growing dreadlocks, smoking weed, and marching around banging on drums yelling out nifty little 60's catch phrases. "Make love not war?" Doesn't do you much good if an extremist Islamofascist just sliced off your head or incinerated you with a nuke.
Liberals, like myself love the troops. I support them all the time. I hate to see them fail and them die. The grim reality is, we invaded there country. If we're going to do that, they can make us leave them alone by whatever measures they feel nessasary. If that involves blowing themselves up, then that's what they think they must do.
Originally Posted by Alexanderofmacedon:
That's rediculous. You know terrorists have stepped up there efforts since we've been in Iraq. You know, a veteran (which from what I gathered you are) like yourself, should be looking after soldiers. Bush throws 18 year old kids away to "end terrorism". What use is training when they pack a car with 50 lbs of C4?
Liberals, like myself love the troops. We love them so much we want them out of danger. If conservatives were TRUELY commited to the soldiers they'd stop throwing them away.
That's rediculous. You know terrorists have stepped up there efforts since we've been in Iraq. You know, a veteran (which from what I gathered you are) like yourself, should be looking after soldiers. Bush throws 18 year old kids away to "end terrorism". What use is training when they pack a car with 50 lbs of C4?
Liberals, like myself love the troops. We love them so much we want them out of danger. If conservatives were TRUELY commited to the soldiers they'd stop throwing them away.
Please tell me you are intoxicated...please
No, just really pissed that some one would say I don't care about our soldiers. For some one to say I am a traitor. Do you really think liberals are traitors?
P.S: I shouldn't stoop down to his level, I'll edit that last part...
Please, edit your post to not show what I originally said. I said that without thinking, and am ashamed.
P.S: I shouldn't stoop down to his level, I'll edit that last part...
Please, edit your post to not show what I originally said. I said that without thinking, and am ashamed.
Originally Posted by Alexanderofmacedon:
No, just really pissed that some one would say I don't care about our soldiers. For some one to say I am a traitor. Do you really think liberals are traitors?
P.S: I shouldn't stoop down to his level, I'll edit that last part...
Please, edit your post to not show what I originally said. I said that without thinking, and am ashamed.
Thank God the veterans of World War II didn't have this kind of support you're offering.No, just really pissed that some one would say I don't care about our soldiers. For some one to say I am a traitor. Do you really think liberals are traitors?
P.S: I shouldn't stoop down to his level, I'll edit that last part...
Please, edit your post to not show what I originally said. I said that without thinking, and am ashamed.
What are you talking about? When we protest we want them out of there. If we want them out we are looking out for them? Why do you think we are not loyal? I really don't think we're doing anything wrong. I think conservatives, are giving them encouragement, but I think liberal's want them safe as much as anyone. I think you should look at what you're saying more closely...
Originally Posted by Alexanderofmacedon:
What are you talking about? When we protest we want them out of there. If we want them out we are looking out for them? Why do you think we are not loyal? I really don't think we're doing anything wrong. I think conservatives, are giving them encouragement, but I think liberal's want them safe as much as anyone. I think you should look at what you're saying more closely...
You can not just divide America into two groups. Allot of people who want diffrent things. Some libs hate the milatary, Some neo-cons dont care how many die they just care about the bottom line. You my friend are oversimplfying the situation.What are you talking about? When we protest we want them out of there. If we want them out we are looking out for them? Why do you think we are not loyal? I really don't think we're doing anything wrong. I think conservatives, are giving them encouragement, but I think liberal's want them safe as much as anyone. I think you should look at what you're saying more closely...
Don't you want it simpler?
You're right though. I'll even go as far as saying Dave is right too. There are plenty of liberals that hate our militaries, and things like that. Those are the crazy far lefters in which I am ashamed of.
You have to realize, conservatives have the same thing. Many far righters would like to slaughter innocent Iraqi people for what others of their race have done.
I am not one of those far lefters. I support troops, and I'll look at everyone's point of view. I think with any way of thinking there is a limit. Many liberals cross it and conservatives alike.
You're right though. I'll even go as far as saying Dave is right too. There are plenty of liberals that hate our militaries, and things like that. Those are the crazy far lefters in which I am ashamed of.
You have to realize, conservatives have the same thing. Many far righters would like to slaughter innocent Iraqi people for what others of their race have done.
I am not one of those far lefters. I support troops, and I'll look at everyone's point of view. I think with any way of thinking there is a limit. Many liberals cross it and conservatives alike.
Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave:
I don't like it, I'd love to hear some tought questions from the troops to the boss but unfortunately many of us dumb military folks prefer to win wars and not undercut ourselves or our country by giving the enemy aid and comfort. If only liberals would root for the right team, then maybe they'll REALLY start supporting the troops. Traitors...
Lambasting a foolish, shortsighted, unprepared Administration that is in denial for its mishandling of the efforts does not undercut the troops. Quite the opposite. I support our troops and would have no problem putting my own neck on the line. However, I refuse to sit silently while fools in govt mismanage the war. This isn't about our fighting men and women. This is about the incompetent boobs that failed to properly support them. That would be Bush, Cheney, Rummy, etc.I don't like it, I'd love to hear some tought questions from the troops to the boss but unfortunately many of us dumb military folks prefer to win wars and not undercut ourselves or our country by giving the enemy aid and comfort. If only liberals would root for the right team, then maybe they'll REALLY start supporting the troops. Traitors...
In addition to mishandling the post invasion, they launched the war under false pretenses/justification, and our soldiers are paying the price for the politicians' errors. It undercut us and encouraged the insurgency.
I'm not for setting deadlines for withdrawal in public, it only helps the enemy. But I do expect results. You either do something to force the win, or you get out. Sitting there taking a beating indefinitely for no gain is STUPID in the extreme. At some point, a decision must be made as to whether this is salvageable or a quagmire.
Trying to shift blame to the opposition is foolish. Sheehan and the others didn't screw up this war. Dubya and his legion of simpleton cronies did that. There were voices of dissent in his own party and within the military about what the effort would require, but they were ingnored and ridiculed. Instead, the occupation was done with one hand tied behind our back, all for the sake of political appearances.
What this shows is what a strategic blunder Bush made. He lost the initiative. Instead of being on the offensive, we are now stuck on the defensive. Brilliant, just friggin' brilliant...and I thought Saddam was a dope when it came to military matters.
Couldn't have said it better myself...
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube:
Give all the examples you want. It doesn't make it right, no matter who's doing it. Clinton or Bush or freaking Nancy Grace, it's all bad.
Give all the examples you want. It doesn't make it right, no matter who's doing it. Clinton or Bush or freaking Nancy Grace, it's all bad.
GC:
You seem to acknowledge that many (most?) Presidents use staged events and interactions to further their political agenda (Correct me if I am wrong).
You then assert that such staged interactions are bad. You label them this way, I presume, because you believe that the staging renders them irrelevant and/or disengenuous (Again, correct me if necessary).
If such efforts to "manage" media presentations are discarded, you leave the Presidency with 2 choices: make few or zero presentations aside from written briefings or have the President always interacting extemporaneously and responsible for handling any and all subjects under the aegis of the adminstration at any moment. You will, or course, recognize the virtual impossibility for anyone -- and certainly not the less-than-glib Dubya -- to handle the latter. If you can only choose a leader who is able to handle virtually all policy subjects extemporaneously, you reduce the pool of potential leaders to the thin fraction of political figures possessing JFK-esque glibness.
As a consumer of political information, I generally assume that some degree of stage management is involved and that the whole event is crafted to further the goals of the administration. Using this interpretive lens, I am able to glean whatever value from it that I, as the consumer, deem appropriate. On the whole, this doesn't bother me; I simply factor the bias in when making my own evaluation -- as I am sure you do as well.
I am not advocating that all Presidential communication be reduced to whole-cloth propaganda, but I believe that implicitly setting up the standard of an "extemporaneous" Presidency is unrealistic and possibly counter-productive. Thoughts?
Originally Posted by :
Couldn't have said it better myself
Well for once your totally correct.Couldn't have said it better myself
By the way as someone who went through this sort of liberal hogwash I can tell you nothing demoralises the troops more than hearing people like you guys claim to support us while undermining our mission. Its the height of hypocrisy.
Originally Posted by Red Harvest:
What this shows is what a strategic blunder Bush made. He lost the initiative. Instead of being on the offensive, we are now stuck on the defensive. Brilliant, just friggin' brilliant...and I thought Saddam was a dope when it came to military matters.
And why exactly we are on the defensive? Its because of weak kneed terrorist sympothyzing liberals that, instead of attacking the enemy, they attack their own side (if you can call liberals of the country on the side of the US) only to weaken the position of the United States and give aid and comfort to the enemy. But I'll never convice you of it, your hatred for this Administration comes way ahead of any regard to the country that you were blessed to be born into.What this shows is what a strategic blunder Bush made. He lost the initiative. Instead of being on the offensive, we are now stuck on the defensive. Brilliant, just friggin' brilliant...and I thought Saddam was a dope when it came to military matters.
Dave, I'm afraid you're a little to far right. Strike for the South openly expresses his opinions as a conservative and yet I still consider him a good friend. I wish you weren't so nasty about it...
Originally Posted by Devastatin Dave:
And why exactly we are on the defensive? Its because of weak kneed terrorist sympothyzing liberals that, instead of attacking the enemy, they attack their own side (if you can call liberals of the country on the side of the US) only to weaken the position of the United States and give aid and comfort to the enemy. But I'll never convice you of it, your hatred for this Administration comes way ahead of any regard to the country that you were blessed to be born into.
What a load of CRAP! First of all, I've yet to see these "terrorist sympathizing liberals." They aren't giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Second, liberals didn't create this situation. The poorly considered Iraqi operation did. To put it another way, if someone can't run an operation without having 100% support at home, then their plan is totally unworkable and doomed from the start. Is that your position, that some dissent is the reason the war is not being won?And why exactly we are on the defensive? Its because of weak kneed terrorist sympothyzing liberals that, instead of attacking the enemy, they attack their own side (if you can call liberals of the country on the side of the US) only to weaken the position of the United States and give aid and comfort to the enemy. But I'll never convice you of it, your hatred for this Administration comes way ahead of any regard to the country that you were blessed to be born into.
I was one of those misguided independents that favored going in. I honestly did not believe the Administration could screw this up, and because of European/Arab pressures to end the sanctions, we were reaching a critical point (thanks again France, Germany, etc.
) My disgust with the Administration has grown out of the strategic blunders used to launch the war, and out of their continued misunderstanding of what they were up against. I'm not letting that color my perception of our forces, but it does effect my judgement of what they can now accomplish. We are on the defensive, because we never stabilized the country. There aren't any liberals responsible for that failure. Passing the buck isn't going to work.
Worse than that, the fiasco has tied our hands with respect to Iran and North Korea and diverted our attention from Afghanistan, etc.
If you want to look for traitors, find those who mislead our country into backing action on false information. Those are your traitors.
Dissent is not treason. If you don't agree with that, go live in Cuba.
Bam...
And the press is suppossed to seek the truth not just pursue their own agenda.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO