Bush comment...

[Jimbo]

Whatever. RL beckons, and you're now on my ignore list anyway.

 

[ThreeCircles]

Originally posted by Jimbo
Whatever. RL beckons, and you're now on my ignore list anyway.

Yes, the ignore list is easier than accepting the truth, is it not?

 

[Elwood Blues]

Originally posted by peachgirl


Could you possibly tell me the difference between "fair and balanced" and "unbiased"? While you're at it, please explain how one can be "fair and balanced" and "biased" at the same time.

I'll give it shot.

Fair and balanced to me means that both sides are represented (hopefully equally) whereas unbiased means that the middle road is taken all the time.

Here's an example of an unbiased report.

"There was a shootout at a 7-11 today. 3 killed, two wounded. Police were on the scene in about 7 minutes after receiving the 911 call"

Biased:

"There was a shootout a 7-11 today 3 killed and two wounded. Eyewitnesses say it took police about 7 minutes to respond to to the 911 call. They say this points to a problem of the city council not funding the police department enough to keep our children safe." Back to you Peter...


Fair and balanced:

"There was a shootout at a 7-11 today. 3 dead, two wounded. Eyewitnesses say it took police about 7 minutes to respond to the 911 call. Some claim that city council has not provided enough funding for the police department but upon further investigation, XYZ news has learned that there is a bill in council addressing the issue of funding.



You refered to Fox News and Faux News.

Please explain why you call it that based on first hand experince and if you could, site a specific example because you are afterall, making such a claim.

 

[peachgirl]

Please explain why you call it that based on first hand experince and if you could, site a specific example because you are afterall, making such a claim.

First of all, your examples make no sense to me at all. Are you assuming that in all examples the full story was known and only in the last one was it fully told?

If so, your unbiased example may be unbiased, but it's incomplete. That makes it not fair or balanced and quite possible biased, depending on the intentions of the reporter.

You say that one can be biased and fair and balanced at the same time. I see no example in your post showing a biased report that is at the same time fair and balanced.

To address your question....

For example, I was watching Faux News today and they played a clip of Kerry and Edwards tossing a football. The "reporter" was positively giddy with excitement as he chided them for, in his words, "attempting" to look like the "common" man. He "reported" how Kerry had tossed a football weeks ago and that he (Kerry) saw that it "went over well" with the public, so he decided to do it more often.

1) Where's the newsworthy story here? Is it really news that Kerry/Edwards tossed a football or is it just an excuse to try and slam them? Obviously, two men tossing a football isn't news, unless for some reason you want to make it news...hence my term (which, btw, I borrowed from another Dis'er) Faux News.

 

[we3luvdisney]

Originally posted by ThreeCircles
Give me a break. If that’s the only reason we’re going to use to justify ill-conceived wars then we've got a lot of work to do. No, a tremendous amount of work to do!

Ill-conceived wars? Saddam was breaking U.N. resoultions for the past 10 years. It was about time he was stopped. Should we have allowed him to maintain power so he could continue to torture and execute Iraqi citizens?

And if eliminating "security threats" (of which Iraq was not one to the United States) then why did w erroneously shift attention from the real individuals behind the September 11th attacks to invade Iraq?

Ummmmm, did you forget about the troops that are in Afganistan looking for Bin Laden?

W and this administration have done nothing but flip-flop on their reasons for going to war. When one reason doesn’t hold water they move to the next. [/B]

Are you sure you're not talking about Kerry?

 

[faithinkarma]

Are you sure you're not talking about Kerry?

I can't speak for anyone else, but I am sure I am not thinking of Kerry.

we went to war because Sadaam had WMDs and was an imminent threat.

no wait....the WMDs were not there, but we know they are, we just have not found them yet


ooops...scratch that.....there was no imminent threat, out intelligence was all wrong, but we still were right to go to war because Sadaam had the intent to get weapons and attack us.

We can debate whether or not we should have gone to war forever, but the bottom line is, we went because we were given false information. And as the committee said quite clearly, had they known the truth, they would not have voted for the war. Is it unreasonable to expect that if people are to die for a cause, they should at least be told what the cause was....truthfully?

 

[we3luvdisney]

Originally posted by faithinkarma
We can debate whether or not we should have gone to war forever, but the bottom line is, we went because we were given false information. And as the committee said quite clearly, had they known the truth, they would not have voted for the war. Is it unreasonable to expect that if people are to die for a cause, they should at least be told what the cause was....truthfully?

I don't care if he had WMD or not. The man was breaking UN resolutions for 10 years.

Saddam is an evil man. I would rather our government deal with the situation now, then wait another 10 years. Who knows if he would have been able to obtain WMD and then decide to use them on the USA and their allies. Any person who freely tortures and murders his own people cannot be trusted. Have you forgotten that he gassed his own people?

 

[ThreeCircles]

Originally posted by we3luvdisney
Ill-conceived wars? Saddam was breaking U.N. resoultions for the past 10 years. It was about time he was stopped. Should we have allowed him to maintain power so he could continue to torture and execute Iraqi citizens?



Ummmmm, did you forget about the troops that are in Afganistan looking for Bin Laden?



Are you sure you're not talking about Kerry?

You're correct. That should have been very ill-conceived wars. For all intents and purposes Saddam was contained. He posed NO THREAT to the U.S. or to other countries around him. It was the w administration that concocted whole stories about WMDs and more to support their justification for going to war.

And your "reason" for going to war is yet another example of w's flip-flops. First it was WMDs, then it was a connection between Al Queida and Saddam, and now it's human rights violations? Well, make up your mind, which is it flip-flopping w?!?!? One doctoral student did her disertation on this very subject and found something like 100+ different reasons given by w at different times. Sounds to me like an overwhelmed kid in a candy store!

Perhaps you care to look at the number of troops in Afganistan compared to the number in Iraq? The funds deployed to the Afganistan effort compared to those deployed to Iraq? A big difference, huh? Or does that not matter?

W: Flip-flopping his way through four years of misleading the American Public!

YES!

 

[ThreeCircles]

Originally posted by we3luvdisney
I don't care if he had WMD or not. The man was breaking UN resolutions for 10 years.

And what was that resolution demanding?

Did we forget so soon?

 

[we3luvdisney]

Excerpts of UN Resolution 1441, which was approved unanimously by the 15-member security council.

RECOGNIZING the threat Iraq's noncompliance with council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,

RECALLING that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized member states to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to Resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,

FURTHER RECALLING that its resolution 687 (1991) imposed obligations on Iraq as a necessary step for achievement of its stated objective of restoring international peace and security in the area,

DEPLORING the fact that Iraq has not provided an accurate, full, final, and complete disclosure, as required by resolution 687 (1991), of all aspects of its programs to develop weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 km, and of all holdings of such weapons, their components and production facilities and locations, as well as all other nuclear programs, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to nuclear-weapons-usable material,

The complete 1441 resolution can be found at this link:

Resolution 1441

 

[faithinkarma]

I don't care if he had WMD or not. The man was breaking UN resolutions for 10 years.

My point is that this was not the reason given for going to war. If breaking UN resolutions was a good enough reason to go to war, then that should have been the reason given.....tell the truth and let people decide on the facts.

 

[we3luvdisney]

Originally posted by ThreeCircles
And what was that resolution demanding?

Did we forget so soon?

I understand that you were a child during the first Gulf war and you did not have the opportunity to read all the UN resolutions. Listed below is UN Resolution 1441 (this was unanimously approved by the 15-member security council), which includes links to the previous resolutions. Please take the opportunity to read them.

Resolution 1441

 

[ThreeCircles]

Originally posted by we3luvdisney
I understand that you were a child during the first Gulf war and you did not have the opportunity to read all the UN resolutions.

Ohhhh... You make your point so well! Good reasoning though! Score one for we3luvdisney!

And yet, once again, where are these WMDs? Oh, that's right, there are none! Silly me!

But, you know, I hear Iran is aiming to start up their nuclear seeking capabilities again. Let's Roll!

 

[we3luvdisney]

Originally posted by ThreeCircles
You're correct. That should have been very ill-conceived wars. For all intents and purposes Saddam was contained. He posed NO THREAT to the U.S. or to other countries around him.

I understand that you were a young child during the Iran/Iraq war. Do a search and you will find that not only did Saddam gas his own people, but the citizens of Iran. Have you forgotten about Kuwait?

And your "reason" for going to war is yet another example of w's flip-flops.

Hell, I wanted Bush Sr. to finish the job during the 1st gulf war. When Clinton came into office and Iraq refused UN inspections I would have thought he would have done something, but I guess he was too busy with Monica.

Perhaps you care to look at the number of troops in Afganistan compared to the number in Iraq? The funds deployed to the Afganistan effort compared to those deployed to Iraq? A big difference, huh? Or does that not matter?

Of course it matters. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see there are more problems in Iraq than in Afganistan. I'm sure our military has a better understanding of the situation than either of us.

 

[ThreeCircles]

Originally posted by we3luvdisney
I understand that you were a young child during the Iran/Iraq war. Do a search and you will find that not only did Saddam gas his own people, but the citizens of Iran. Have you forgotten about Kuwait?



Hell, I wanted Bush Sr. to finish the job during the 1st gulf war. When Clinton came into office and Iraq refused UN inspections I would have thought he would have done something, but I guess he was too busy with Monica.



Of course it matters. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see there are more problems in Iraq than in Afganistan. I'm sure our military has a better understanding of the situation than either of us.

Ah, I see you're just confused. You see, Iraq has been contained since the Gulf War. Haven't you noticed?

I'm well aware of the terrible deeds cast upon the Iraqi people by Saddam. But, really, we all know that was NOT a reason for going to war. Why not attack China then? Or any number of other countries that engage in equally horrendous abuse? And, perhaps I'm wrong in this, but hasn't Kuwait been liberated since the END of the first Gulf War? Am I wrong?! Kuwait wasn't attacked again, was it???

Yes, yes, yes. Clinton and Monic. Most assuredly more important than the 1000 dead coalition members. Without a doubt. Perhaps you should write their families individual letters explaining the significance of the Monica affiar to their dead sons and daughters.

So, Al Queida is in Iraq? That's why we have more troops/money there? Ah, must have missed that one too. Osama, is he in Iraq too?

 

[we3luvdisney]

Originally posted by ThreeCircles
Ohhhh... You make your point so well! Good reasoning though! Score one for we3luvdisney!

And yet, once again, where are these WMDs? Oh, that's right, there are none! Silly me!

But, you know, I hear Iran is aiming to start up their nuclear seeking capabilities again. Let's Roll!

Ummmmmm, weren't you a child back then?

Please, read resolution 1441. Not only did President Bush receive bad information, but it looks like the U.N also received the same information, from their own inspectors. based upon the resolution, " RECOGNIZING the threat Iraq's noncompliance with council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,"

As far as the WMD --- any weapon that was not approved by the UN resolutions would be considered WMD.

If I'm not mistaken the Iran issue is being handled diplomatically. Whereas, Saddam kicked the UN inspectors out of the country.

 

[ThreeCircles]

So, we did find WMDs?

Ooops! Oh well, it's only a war!

 

[eeyore45]

This was also reported on CNN

A July Surprise? Bush Cartel Tells Pakistan to Arrest or Kill Osama bin Laden During the Democratic Convention. We are Not Making This Up.

PAKISTAN FOR BUSH.
July Surprise?
by John B. Judis, Spencer Ackerman & Massoud Ansari

Post date: 07.07.04
Issue date: 07.19.04

Late last month, President Bush lost his greatest advantage in his bid for reelection. A poll conducted by ABC News and The Washington Post discovered that challenger John Kerry was running even with the president on the critical question of whom voters trust to handle the war on terrorism. Largely as a result of the deteriorating occupation of Iraq, Bush lost what was, in April, a seemingly prohibitive 21-point advantage on his signature issue. But, even as the president's poll numbers were sliding, his administration was implementing a plan to insure the public's confidence in his hunt for Al Qaeda.

This spring, the administration significantly increased its pressure on Pakistan to kill or capture Osama bin Laden, his deputy, Ayman Al Zawahiri, or the Taliban's Mullah Mohammed Omar, all of whom are believed to be hiding in the lawless tribal areas of Pakistan. A succession of high-level American officials--from outgoing CIA Director George Tenet to Secretary of State Colin Powell to Assistant Secretary of State Christina Rocca to State Department counterterrorism chief Cofer Black to a top CIA South Asia official--have visited Pakistan in recent months to urge General Pervez Musharraf's government to do more in the war on terrorism. In April, Zalmay Khalilzad, the American ambassador to Afghanistan, publicly chided the Pakistanis for providing a "sanctuary" for Al Qaeda and Taliban forces crossing the Afghan border. "The problem has not been solved and needs to be solved, the sooner the better," he said.

This public pressure would be appropriate, even laudable, had it not been accompanied by an unseemly private insistence that the Pakistanis deliver these high-value targets (HVTs) before Americans go to the polls in November. The Bush administration denies it has geared the war on terrorism to the electoral calendar. "Our attitude and actions have been the same since September 11 in terms of getting high-value targets off the street, and that doesn't change because of an election," says National Security Council spokesman Sean McCormack. But The New Republic has learned that Pakistani security officials have been told they must produce HVTs by the election. According to one source in Pakistan's powerful Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), "The Pakistani government is really desperate and wants to flush out bin Laden and his associates after the latest pressures from the U.S. administration to deliver before the [upcoming] U.S. elections." Introducing target dates for Al Qaeda captures is a new twist in U.S.-Pakistani counterterrorism relations--according to a recently departed intelligence official, "no timetable" were discussed in 2002 or 2003--but the November election is apparently bringing a new deadline pressure to the hunt. Another official, this one from the Pakistani Interior Ministry, which is responsible for internal security, explains, "The Musharraf government has a history of rescuing the Bush administration. They now want Musharraf to bail them out when they are facing hard times in the coming elections." (These sources insisted on remaining anonymous. Under Pakistan's Official Secrets Act, an official leaking information to the press can be imprisoned for up to ten years.)

A third source, an official who works under ISI's director, Lieutenant General Ehsan ul-Haq, informed tnr that the Pakistanis "have been told at every level that apprehension or killing of HVTs before [the] election is [an] absolute must." What's more, this source claims that Bush administration officials have told their Pakistani counterparts they have a date in mind for announcing this achievement: "The last ten days of July deadline has been given repeatedly by visitors to Islamabad and during [ul-Haq's] meetings in Washington." Says McCormack: "I'm aware of no such comment." But according to this ISI official, a White House aide told ul-Haq last spring that "it would be best if the arrest or killing of [any] HVT were announced on twenty-six, twenty-seven, or twenty-eight July"--the first three days of the Democratic National Convention in Boston.



he Bush administration has matched this public and private pressure with enticements and implicit threats. During his March visit to Islamabad, Powell designated Pakistan a major non-nato ally, a status that allows its military to purchase a wider array of U.S. weaponry. Powell pointedly refused to criticize Musharraf for pardoning nuclear physicist A.Q. Khan--who, the previous month, had admitted exporting nuclear secrets to Iran, North Korea, and Libya--declaring Khan's transgressions an "internal" Pakistani issue. In addition, the administration is pushing a five-year, $3 billion aid package for Pakistan through Congress over Democratic concerns about the country's proliferation of nuclear technology and lack of democratic reform.

But Powell conspicuously did not commit the United States to selling F-16s to Pakistan, which it desperately wants in order to tilt the regional balance of power against India. And the Pakistanis fear that, if they don't produce an HVT, they won't get the planes. Equally, they fear that, if they don't deliver, either Bush or a prospective Kerry administration would turn its attention to the apparent role of Pakistan's security establishment in facilitating Khan's illicit proliferation network. One Pakistani general recently in Washington confided in a journalist, "If we don't find these guys by the election, they are going to stick this whole nuclear mess up our •••••••."

Pakistani perceptions of U.S. politics reinforce these worries. "In Pakistan, there has been a folk belief that, whenever there's a Republican administration in office, relations with Pakistan have been very good," says Khalid Hasan, a U.S. correspondent for the Lahore-based Daily Times. By contrast, there's also a "folk belief that the Democrats are always pro-India." Recent history has validated those beliefs. The Clinton administration inherited close ties to Pakistan, forged a decade earlier in collaboration against the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. But, by the time Clinton left office, the United States had tilted toward India, and Pakistan was under U.S. sanctions for its nuclear activities. All this has given Musharraf reason not just to respond to pressure from Bush, but to feel invested in him--and to worry that Kerry, who called the Khan affair a "disaster," and who has proposed tough new curbs on nuclear proliferation, would adopt an icier line.

Bush's strategy could work. In large part because of the increased U.S. pressure, Musharraf has, over the last several months, significantly increased military activity in the tribal areas--regions that enjoy considerable autonomy from Islamabad and where, until Musharraf sided with the United States in the war on terrorism, Pakistani soldiers had never set foot in the nation's 50-year history. Thousands of Pakistani troops fought a pitched battle in late March against tribesmen and their Al Qaeda affiliates in South Waziristan in hopes of capturing Zawahiri. The fighting escalated significantly in June. Attacks on army camps in the tribal areas brought fierce retaliation, leaving over 100 tribal and foreign militants and Pakistani soldiers dead in three days. Last month, Pakistan killed a powerful Waziristan warlord and Qaeda ally, Nek Mohammed, in a dramatic rocket attack that villagers said bore American fingerprints. (They claim a U.S. spy plane had been circling overhead.) Through these efforts, the Pakistanis could bring in bin Laden, Mullah Omar, or Zawahiri--a significant victory in the war on terrorism that would bolster Bush's reputation among voters.

But there is a reason many Pakistanis and some American officials had previously been reluctant to carry the war on terrorism into the tribal areas. A Pakistani offensive in that region, aided by American high-tech weaponry and perhaps Special Forces, could unite tribal chieftains against the central government and precipitate a border war without actually capturing any of the HVTs. Military action in the tribal areas "has a domestic fallout, both religious and ethnic," Pakistani Foreign Minister Mian Khursheed Mehmood Kasuri complained to the Los Angeles Times last year. Some American intelligence officials agree. "Pakistan just can't risk a civil war in that area of their country. They can't afford a western border that is unstable," says a senior intelligence official, who anonymously authored the recent Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror and who says he has not heard that the current pressures on Pakistan are geared to the election. "We may be at the point where [Musharraf] has done almost as much as he can."

Pushing Musharraf to go after Al Qaeda in the tribal areas may be a good idea despite the risks. But, if that is the case, it was a good idea in 2002 and 2003. Why the switch now? Top Pakistanis think they know: This year, the president's reelection is at stake.

Massoud Ansari reported from Karachi.


http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040719&s=aaj071904

link

 

[ThreeCircles]

Thanks for the post Eeyore45.

Interesting. Very interesting.

 

[we3luvdisney]

Originally posted by ThreeCircles
Ah, I see you're just confused. You see, Iraq has been contained since the Gulf War. Haven't you noticed?

Awwwwww, to be young again. Look at the time line. Saddam is an evil man --- he gassed his own people, gassed Iran, invaded Kuwait, ignored the UN resolutions, tortured and killed his own people, etc. Do you actually believe that this man would have seen the light and given up his bad ways?

I'm well aware of the terrible deeds cast upon the Iraqi people by Saddam. But, really, we all know that was NOT a reason for going to war.

You seem to have a understanding of this situation. Please tell me why we went to war? As for me, we went to war because of Saddam's refusal to follow resolution 1441. President Bush even made this reference in his speech on 03/06/03.

Why not attack China then? Or any number of other countries that engage in equally horrendous abuse?

This is a whole new debate. I'm willing to discuss these issue, but on a new thread.

And, perhaps I'm wrong in this, but hasn't Kuwait been liberated since the END of the first Gulf War? Am I wrong?! Kuwait wasn't attacked again, was it???

Nope, you're not wrong. Kuwait is liberated and they were not attacked again. My point was that Saddam is not an individual to be trusted.

So, Al Queida is in Iraq? That's why we have more troops/money there? Ah, must have missed that one too. Osama, is he in Iraq too?

IMO --- yes, they are in Iraq. As for Osama --- he's either in Iraq, Afganistan, Pakistan or another country in the region.