| Author |
Message |
    
bettyd
Citizen
Username: Badjtdso
Post Number: 94
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 10:18 am: | 
|
Gee. Who could have possibly seen this coming? |
Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 832
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 11:24 am: |
|
of course you did bettyd, that is not until the media started talking about it.... |
Guy
Supporter
Username: Vandalay
Post Number: 1567
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 11:28 am: |
|
Add Nigeria to the list.
ONITSHA, Nigeria (Reuters) -- Revenge attacks against Muslims killed at least 20 people in the southeastern Nigerian city of Onitsha on Wednesday after days of anti-Christian violence killed dozens in the mainly Muslim north.
The slaughter raised the death toll from five days of religious riots fueled by political tensions in Africa's most populous country to at least 66, and possibly many more.
"There are thousands of boys with cutlasses and sticks on the rampage. I've counted at least 20 bodies here by the Onitsha bridge. They are Hausas. Some of them are burnt and some have their stomachs cut open," said Reuters photographer George Esiri.
|
tjohn
Supporter
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 4089
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 11:39 am: |
|
Bettyd,
Dick Cheney understood this risk in 1990 before he flip-flopped and decided invading Iraq would be a cake walk, a day at the beach, a splendid little war, the troops will be home before the leaves fall from the trees,
"'Ihr werdet zu Hause sein, ehe noch das Laub von den Bäumen fällt', versprach der Kaiser seinen Soldaten."
Oh, sorry, that was the utterance of some other foolish leader. |
dave23
Citizen
Username: Dave23
Post Number: 1364
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 12:00 pm: |
|
Scrotis,
That was a lovely personal attack. Many of us were concerned, in fact, about civil war while Bush was selling the war. Some of us were quite aware of the inflammatory nature of the region and the dangers American bombs and soldiers might bring. (I admit that I thought the war and occupation would go better than it has and that civil strife and war would happen a couple of years after we left.) |
bettyd
Citizen
Username: Badjtdso
Post Number: 95
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 1:24 pm: |
|
SLK, I saw this coming back in February/March of 2003. Anybody with a brain did. Everyone except the neocons with all their PHD's and their think tanks.
I didn't need the media, or anyone else, to tell me that long standing ethnic and religious hatreds in a country (that only became a country after WWI!) were going to boil over once Saddam was overthrown. Toppling a paper tiger was the easy part. It is now page 7 news that the US Ambassador to Iraq has warned the Iraqis that they better get their **** together or risk losing American support.
I wish you could have been in on my discussions three years ago amongst co-workers and friends about invading Iraq. Everything I predicted, unfortunately I might add, has come to fruition. The situation is only getting worse three years later.
How the numbskulls running this country didn't foresee this happening is absolutley incredible. |
Eric Wertheim
Citizen
Username: Bub
Post Number: 186
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 1:37 pm: |
|
This could easily spill over into a regional war. With such a disaster, plus oil cutoffs and loss of US treasury in the 100s of mill, I could see the president having to resign. I hope it doesn't come to that because that will mean we are in grave trouble. |
bettyd
Citizen
Username: Badjtdso
Post Number: 96
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 2:03 pm: |
|
This is a foreign policy disaster for this country second only to Vietnam. Give it some more time though, it may still end up being no. 1. I not only blame Bush, et al but also the Dems who went along with it for fear of appearing weak after 9/11. Leadership and foresight was required back in late 2002/early 2003. There was little of it to be found from anyone on either side of the aisle. |
notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 3070
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 2:14 pm: |
|
When bettyd said, "How the numbskulls running this country didn't foresee this happening is absolutley incredible" it made me think that perhaps they did foresee this. And they just don't care. Given the lack of urgency the administration has shown toward ethnic-based violence elsewhere, why should we believe that they will be terribly concerned if it occurs in Iraq? The only concern our government has is in keeping the oil flowing. |
Robert Livingston
Citizen
Username: Rob_livingston
Post Number: 1592
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 2:16 pm: |
|
...and keeping the no-bid Halliburton contracts flowing. |
tjohn
Supporter
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 4094
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 2:18 pm: |
|
Allegedly, great stock was placed in CIA reports indicating that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. However, other CIA reports also foretold of the difficulties we are currently experiencings. Why was less stock was placed in those reports? |
dave23
Citizen
Username: Dave23
Post Number: 1365
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 2:27 pm: |
|
tjohn, There were also CIA reports that there were few or no chemical weapons. It's called cherry-picking and stovepiping. |
Hoops
Citizen
Username: Hoops
Post Number: 824
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 2:28 pm: |
|
Can it be because there is an ulterior motive behind all this? Can it be that the administration is interested in war with Iran and Syria as well? Can it be that the plan calls for total destabilization of the middle east so that civil war in fact does break out across the middle east and a power vacuum is created that the US can use for financial gain?
Nah, of course not. The administration is just inept and living in yesterdays world. Military power does not solve world problems it only makes them worse. We need to stand down, get UN assistance in Iraq to stabilize the country and use peaceful diplomatic and commercial means to influence these people. Destruction only brings greater destruction. |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 10784
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 2:48 pm: |
|
Looks like Zaghawi took Doctor Zs advise and didn't kill anyone during the Shite shrine bombing. What I read is that terrorists dressed as police entered the building, subdued the four guards who were asleep, set the charges and left. There were no reported injuries. Of courst the aftermath...............
Why would there only be four guards, asleep no less, at such an important site? |
Foj
Citizen
Username: Foger
Post Number: 978
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 9:18 pm: |
|
Death squads too. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5232
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 10:05 pm: |
|
The focus of the violence has shifted from Iraqi forces to Iraqi civilians. This has been said to be the inevitable result of removing a strongman like Hussein from the scene.
Is there any parallel when Tito's reign ended in Yugoslavia followed by the fall of the Soviet Union. Eventually, the Balkans descended (back?) into ethnic slaughter.
So here's a question. Would it have been better for these people if Hussein was still around? That's not an easy case to make for the Shia there. They actually have more electricity and services in the south than they had during Hussein's rule. They were hardly safe from Hussein's wrath as the mass graves will tell you. Do you think the Shia and Kurds -- fully 80% of the population -- wish we hadn't taken out Hussein?
And would it have been better to have the Soviet Union fall but left Yugoslavia intact so we wouldn't have needed to stop the ethnic cleansing -- and death squads -- that took place there first in Bosnia, then in Kosovo? This is a region just beginning to form stand-alone governments and an eventual break-away province of Kosovo that Albright assured would not be allowed to happen. |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 4401
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 11:43 pm: |
|
Good questions, cjc, on the parallelism to Yugoslavia. We probably won't know the definitive answers on either for another 50-75 years.
They could both use an Ataturk or Garibaldi. But that doesn't happen very often. |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 10788
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, February 24, 2006 - 4:36 am: |
|
So a full scale ethnic based civil war is good and preferable to a dictatorship? If Iraq breaks out in full civil war hundreds of thousands of people will probably die and there is a good chance that Iran and Syria will intervene. This isn't making the middle east more stable, it is making it into the possible starting point for WWIII.
One of the reasons I initially supported Bush was his distaste for nation building. Now he isn't just into nation building, he is into nation destroying.
|
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 10789
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, February 24, 2006 - 7:38 am: |
|
Reports in the papers and on TV today said that the Iraqi police and military were no where to be found while the riots and killings were going on. |
tjohn
Supporter
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 4095
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Friday, February 24, 2006 - 8:01 am: |
|
Civil war was a likely successor to Saddam Hussein with or without foreign intervention. Bush's dubious achievement has been to make it our fault. And this is not a point to be disputed except at Bush Supporter circle jerks. We overthrew Saddam Hussein and said we would fix Iraq. We now get to claim credit for anything good that happens in Iraq and we also have responsiblity for anything bad that happens. |
Eric Wertheim
Citizen
Username: Bub
Post Number: 187
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Friday, February 24, 2006 - 8:17 am: |
|
A hardy seconding of tjohn's post. We have made ourselves the permanent scapegoat for something that would have happened anyway (without the loss of thousands of young men and half a trillion bucks). |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5235
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 24, 2006 - 9:26 am: |
|
OK -- so I see some consensus that some form of civil war was inevitable in the former Yugoslavia and Iraq be it via popular uprisings or foreign intervention. Reagan never got his fair share of the blame for toppling the Soviet Union that allowed for the Balkans, but Bush is more than balancing that out for Republicans with blame for Iraq.
What kind of 'planning' then could have prevented either situation if the people were determined to have it happen? |
Eats Shoots & Leaves
Citizen
Username: Mfpark
Post Number: 3058
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Friday, February 24, 2006 - 9:31 am: |
|
Historical sidebar--Yugoslavia was not associated with, nor protected by, the Soviet Union in any way, shape, or form from about 1948 onwards (after Tito tried to take Trieste and Stalin did not want to get pushed into a hot war with the West). Tito ruled an independent Yugoslavia that was a main factor in the non-aligned nations movement, and which over time developed a strange market-based form of sort of decentralized socialism called Workers' Self-Management. This was nothing like the economy or politics of the Soviet Union. The Soviets saw Tito and Yugoslavia as an annoying gnat, not worth swatting or the cost of an invasion, but annoying nonetheless.
The fall of the Soviet Union had nothing to do with the ethnic slaughter in the former Yugoslavia. That resulted from long-standing historic tensions between people who were slammed together into a fake country where one never existed before--mainly after WWI. Tito held it all together with a mix of authoritarian repression, paying off the minorities with resources and influence, and playing the various peoples against each other with masterful skill. He was a dictator, but one who relied more on politics than repression (though he could resort to repression readily enough).
The tensions between Muslim and Christian, wealthy north and poor south, Croats and Serbs and Albanians and Slovenes, cyrillic alphabet and latin alphabet--all made for an amazing tinderbox.
When Tito retired in 1968, the Serbs, who controlled the military, started to take over the country. The repression, and subsequent ethnic backlash and unrest, forced Tito to return to power and impose a tight lid on dissent--and on ethnic activities. When he died, he had no real successor and instead had left a weak rotating presidency in his place, where each ethnic group had a president for a short period of time. It was only a matter of time before it disintegrated as a country. Almost every scholar--in and out of Yugoslavia--predicted this happening years before Tito died. The only question was how violent would it get, and where would it start. Most expected Croatia to pull away immediately, but few predicted that multi-ethnic Bosnia-Herzegovenia would erupt as it did--prior to that, it was the one region where Muslims, Christians, Croats, and Serbs lived in great harmony and peace, totally integrating into each other's communities and even inter-marrying.
The lesson to learn from the breakup of Yugoslavia was one that should have been heeded in Iraq--and in Africa as well. Anyone with any sense of history could see that Iraq would explode into civil chaos once the straightjacket of Hussein was removed. I know I sure made that argument loud and clear to anyone who would listen.
Colonial powers created false borders for new nations, forcing together ethnic groups that had no natural affinity and often natural antipathies. A century or two of enforced comity did nothing to get rid of these tensions--in fact, it increased them. There is no natural concensus for Shia and Sunni to come together in Iraq to form a polity (or Hutu and Tutsi, or various tribal interests in Sudan or Nigeria)--as opposed to the West where most countries developed a concensus for democracy of some form or another over many years, and many bloody civil wars (the US and Canada being exceptions because they were formed for the express purpose of being democracies).
Yugoslavia reinforced this, the Clinton administration was very slow to react to it (as was the world for Rwanda), and the Bush administration should have understood it in Iraq. American historical blinders and a belief that we can change history simply with our good intentions and personal intensity has mucked up our ability to respond intelligently and effectively in Africa, Iraq, and who knows where next.
I am not saying that Iraq was better off with Hussein in power--far from it. But to simply topple him and expect democracy to grow once the fetters were taken off was more than naive--it was immoral, if not criminal. The chaos and civil war was imminently predictable, and while we may not have been able to avoid it, we probably could have done a lot more to make the transition less destructive if only we had made plans with a full understanding of the historical context we had jumped into.
And, again, this is not a partisan rant--I fault Democrats demagoguing on this and failing in Rwanda and Sudan as much as I do this administration. But if we do not learn more from this, and instead get involved in Iraq or Syria or Sudan or Nigeria or Liberia or...or...or in the same manner, we will create more chaos, ruin more lives, and lose more American lives through our supposed good intentions. |
dave23
Citizen
Username: Dave23
Post Number: 1367
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, February 24, 2006 - 9:36 am: |
|
These may be our only choices:
Break Iraq into 3 distinct states.
-or-
Usher in a "hardliner" (i.e., dictator-in-training). |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5236
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 24, 2006 - 10:45 am: |
|
ESL -- how could we 'probably have done more' to make the transition take place with less ruin if you have a percentage of the actors involved hell-bent on settling their scores?
Thanks for the Yugoslavia lesson. In the scanning I've done, the Yugoslav Federation began crumbling in 1992. The Soviet Union began to fall in 1989. Is it reasonable to suggest that if the Soviet Union had not been defeated and still existed they would have provided the repression necessary to keep Yugoslavia intact and within their empire? |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 4404
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, February 24, 2006 - 10:55 am: |
|
I don't think under Gorbechev it would have happened that way. They'd had enough after their adventure in Afghanistan, plus they had just let all the easter bloc states go their own ways. If Gorby had been ousted by the hard-liners, their first priority would have had to regain control in Poland, East Germany, Czechoslovakia and the rest, bearing all the international consequences of these invasions (like World War III?), before even thinking about a new adventure into the Balkans.
In Iraq, it certainly was possible for it to happen with less ruin, though not with no ruin. What effect would keeping the army together have had, for example? |
ina
Citizen
Username: Ina
Post Number: 312
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Friday, February 24, 2006 - 10:57 am: |
|
Cjc,
Yugoslavia was never a part of the Soviet empire. They were armed to the teeth to prevent that ever happening, which is why their civil war was so destructive. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5238
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 24, 2006 - 11:10 am: |
|
I know it was never a part of the USSR, ina, and if I alleged otherwise I apologize.
Can we say that if Tito left and they embraced democracy and rampant capitalism that the Soviets would never have rolled into Sarajevo had they not met their demise beginning in 1989? I don't think so. |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 4407
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, February 24, 2006 - 11:21 am: |
|
If you want to change just one historical fact -- the dissolution of the U.S.S.R. -- I'd have to say they would not have gotten involved.
You would have to roll the clock back farther, and change the events leading up to that event. If the coup had succeeded? Still no, because liberalization in the eastern bloc had gone so far that the hard-liners would have had to address that first, at great cost, and simply wouldn't have the capacity to take on a heaviliy armed Yugoslavia as well.
Back to the early '80s, Gorbachev is never put in power? A little more likely, though the power of the U.S.S.R in terms of conventional forces was already in decline after their debacle in Afghanistan. The military was depleted and demoralized, and NATO would have hardly sat still for a Soviet adventure into new territory in Europe, right up to NATO's eastern border.
If they hadn't done Afghanistan, and had put another hard-liner into power instead of Gorbachev, finally I'd have to say yes.
Would they have succeeded? Tougher question. I think Yugoslavs would have made the Soviets long for the kind and gentle ways of the Afghan warlords; and they would have been dealing with a lot more than just covert assistance from the west. |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 10793
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, February 24, 2006 - 11:22 am: |
|
Yugoslavia was able to develop their "third way" because it would have been almost impossible for the Soviet Union to send in a military force since their was no common border. If they could have they would have during the 1950s as Yugoslavia broke away from the eastern block.
|
Eats Shoots & Leaves
Citizen
Username: Mfpark
Post Number: 3059
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Friday, February 24, 2006 - 11:48 am: |
|
cjc--The USSR would not have rolled into Belgrade or Zagreb (Sarajevo was a relatively minor city and not a power center) because, as pointed out, Yugoslavia had a decent-sized army that was very trained in guerilla tactics during WWII. Yugoslavia was unique among Eastern European countries in that it fought a civil war simultaneously with fighting the German invasion. The USSR gave zero support to Tito and his Communist guerillas because his was an organic, local movement that did not give or owe fealty to the USSR. Stalin hated him. The Yugoslav Communist revolution was not imposed from without by the USSR, and its fighters were very seasoned by the end of the war.
In later years, Tito did worse than embracing capitalism--he explored a form of socialism that was more decentralized and theoretically democratic (never made it there, but it was a game effort). He, in effect, said that the USSR had socialism all wrong and that Yugoslavia would show them how to do it right. And the USSR did not roll in.
This was more powerful than it might seem on the surface. When in Hungary in 1979 (before Tito died), my class met with the Hungarian Minister of Finance who completely laid out how his country would transition from Soviet-style centralized control to a more Yugoslav-style form of socialism, and then even into capitalism some day (with a socialist face). They had studied the Yugoslav system, seen where it did not work, and were preparing their own game plan--which was ready to put in place if the USSR loosened control, which they foresaw within their lifetimes. They were all betting, rather openly, that the USSR would change drastically--although I do not think anyone foresaw the collapse--and they saw Yugoslavia as an experiment worth learning from, although a flawed one. It was an amazing talk in 1979.
As to what the US could have done better in Iraq, I am not schooled enough in that culture or its history to know, but I guarantee that they could have done it a whole lot better had they planned for more than being greeted with roses and cheers, or thought that simply deposing Hussein would free up a democratic upswell--I know, you disagree with that view of the Bush Admin, but that is how they seem to me, about this and many other crises--slipshod and hoping for the best rather than doing the hard legwork to prepare in advance and having good contingency plans for when assumptions go awry. So, we can agree to disagree on this point. |
Nohero
Supporter
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 5093
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Friday, February 24, 2006 - 3:26 pm: |
|
Never let it be said that Fox News can't spin a story -
Note the story caption. |
dave23
Citizen
Username: Dave23
Post Number: 1370
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, February 24, 2006 - 3:33 pm: |
|
"By suppressing and distorting the truth, we protect our sensibilities and preserve our self-esteem."
-Huxley |
bettyd
Citizen
Username: Badjtdso
Post Number: 97
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Friday, February 24, 2006 - 5:23 pm: |
|
Where did the Fox News people get their journalism training, if any? I assume ethics wasn't included in the curriculum. I've had lots of problems with the media over the years (liberal and conservative), but I've never seen such garbage and propaganda coming out of a supposed "news" organization. The absolute low point for Fox had to be the two "nurses" who claimed to have cared for Terry Schiavo and insisted she was fine and conversed with them on a regular basis. Hannity had them on frequently.
Anyway, I digress. Yes, I guess all out civil war would be a great thing, particularly for the people of Iraq. Maybe fomenting civil war will be the next rationale the Bush administration will give for invading Iraq. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5245
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 24, 2006 - 6:43 pm: |
|
You never saw such garbage and propaganda coming out of a supposed news organization before? You mean your TV doesn't get CBS, NBC or ABC? If it does, then I'd have to ask your age.
Myself - I dislike Fox News. Always have. |
ae35unit
Citizen
Username: Ae35unit
Post Number: 4
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Friday, February 24, 2006 - 9:41 pm: |
|
Everyone must have seen the article by George Will that is making the rounds about how conservatives are happier than liberals. Ignorance is bliss, but willful ignorance is criminal. All the pundits who backed the war, and no, you can't back the president and not back the war like Chris Matthews claims to do. Nobody should let these people off the hook once this country awakens from this nightmare. They should be made to wear a scarlet letter like W for warmonger, or L for liar, or perhaps D for dumbass! |
bettyd
Citizen
Username: Badjtdso
Post Number: 99
Registered: 12-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, February 25, 2006 - 1:05 pm: |
|
CJC, do you believe that news reporting by CBS, NBC and ABC (past and present) has been more biased than Fox? I realize Dan Rather made a huge error with the Bush National Guard documents, but that ended his career at CBS as it should have. CBS, NBC and ABC at least adhere to some standards, Fox doesn't. |
Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 865
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, February 25, 2006 - 1:40 pm: |
|
ae35unit-
promoting facism huh? Not the first time in liberal history and sure won't be the last.
How about this-I will stand on my front porch and wait for you come over to try and pin something on me.
Let me know when...
-SLK |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 720
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, February 25, 2006 - 2:03 pm: |
|
ae35,
Why don't you just win an election and then do something positive. Don't take out your frustration with your Democrats on us. Our guys are doing what we elected them to do. Your guys have played the opposition party terribly. You should be yelling at them not at us. |
Innisowen
Citizen
Username: Innisowen
Post Number: 1594
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, February 25, 2006 - 2:05 pm: |
|
ae35unit:
Concerning your award of "letter" designations:
I suggest that they all wear S for short-sighted, (or Scrotis for that matter), HI for happy ignorance, and T for the tempest they've caused. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5248
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 25, 2006 - 3:47 pm: |
|
bettyd -- the Big 3 "more biased" than Fox? I'm not aware of a bias scale really. But I'd allow "as biased" as Fox I guess.
It's way beyond Rather. Rather was just the instance that was so painfully obvious to those in denial about the leftward tilt of the BIg 3. It goes at least back to Cronkite. The media hasn't been neutral. It's been a political party. This is the media that kept the truths of JFK quiet and ran with what they felt in their hearts just must be true (there's a source!) with Bush.
It's not an intentional "let's all get together and be biased" thing either. I'm not a conspiracy nut like some characters on this board. It's just who they are, who their friends are, and the reasons why they went into journalism.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6813945/
|
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 4414
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, February 25, 2006 - 3:57 pm: |
|
are you saying the bias at Fox is unintentional? |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5249
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, February 25, 2006 - 4:51 pm: |
|
....guess we're on a tangent here.....
For what passes as their newscasts, I'd say yes. I'm not a great authority on Fox as I can only stomach the Brit Hume Report. I think Hume is pretty straight-up and lets his guests tilt left and right when he tosses things over for 'analysis.' But as with the mainstream media, they gather the facts and frame them as they see them. Neither Fox or the Big 3 sit down and say "Hmmm...what's the conservative/liberal slant we need to put on this story." Both sides call the news as they see it.
I have friends in the Big 3 who are the polar opposites of my politically, but they try very hard to be the objective journalists they're supposed to be. In a discussion I had last week with one about the UAE/Port story and how it started to turn when real FACTS started making the reports, and he said "Is there bias in the media? Absolutely. I see it every day." We weren't talking about Fox.
|
Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 868
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Saturday, February 25, 2006 - 5:16 pm: |
|
Innis- a guy that can't see beyond his Anti-Bush hatred is implying that I am short-sighted...
Ummmm, ok Mr. "i"ndependent...
-SLK |
Innisowen
Citizen
Username: Innisowen
Post Number: 1601
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, February 25, 2006 - 8:51 pm: |
|
Scrotey:
I quote you:
"Innis- a guy that can't see beyond his Anti-Bush hatred is implying that I am short-sighted..."
First of all, "anti-Bush hatred" would literally mean hatred of things or people that are against Bush. So reconstruct your phrase to make it mean what I believe you want to say.
You continue to impute emotions to me that are not true. You don't know me, so you don't know whom I like or dislike, love or hate.
Let's get factual.
1. I don't hate GWB, and I haven't said that. I don't like him or dislike him, since I don't know him personally.
However, I believe that he is a miserable excuse for a chief executive, and we are seeing increasing evidence of his leadership failures, his lack of direction for the country, and his willingness to take the easy way out when explaining embarrassing situations like leasing the operations of 6 major US ports to a company owned by the United Arab Emirates, a government that we could hardly call a trustworthy ally.
But I will give him top grades for consistency. His administration has not done much at all to shore up some of our key transportation modes (ports, rails, subways, etc) against possible terrorist attacks. Therefore, his undermining of our port security by a leasing deal to UAE's DPW is consistent with his lackluster support for domestic security.
2. I am not "implying" that you are short-sighted.
I am saying, without a shadow of a doubt, that you are short-sighted.
3. EOM |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page