« Concerned Reflection from The Huffington Post | Main | Professional Friction »

An astonishing series of coincidences

A while ago, I started going to a restaurant that everyone recommended. It was pretty good, but there was one thing that always ruined the experience for me. Every time I went there, a waiter would spill a margarita on me.

Every time.

No matter when I went, whether I was alone or with others, where I sat, what I ordered, what I wore, whether or not I called ahead or just showed up, a waiter would manage to spill a margarita on me.

Every. Single. Time.

A friend of mine used to subscribe to Playboy. Every month, his issue would show up. And every month, exactly eight of the pages were printed upside down. And always the same eight pages.

Every time.

He'd rip open the packaging each month, and go thumbing through the issue. Pages 13-14, 41-42, 75-76, and 115-116.

Every. Single. Time.

My buddy used to enjoy this series of novels called "The Destroyer" series. It was an action/adventure series that had a healthy dose of political and social satire. He claimed that he so loved the series, he had large chunks of them memorized. He dared me to pick one of the books at random (there are over 130 at last count), and he would recite the first five words of chapter 2 just based on the title. And he could.

Every time.

But he knew something I didn't: as a stylistic choice, every single book (with the exception of the first two or three) started Chapter Two with the same five words: "His name was Remo and..." Unless I had chosen one of the very first books, before the authors had settled into that pattern, he was absolutely safe in predicting the first five words of Chapter Two of any given Destroyer novel.

Every. Single. Time.

This guy managed to get himself elected president. In fact, he managed it twice. Naturally, this meant that the press wrote a lot of stories about him and his administration. And just as naturally, human nature and human fallibility being what it is, sometimes they got the stories wrong and printed things that were not as accurate as they could be. But whenever they got a story really, really wrong, it was always in the way that made this president look worse than the facts dictated.

Every time.

Story after story that had to be retracted, revised, corrected, rewritten, or just plain buried had originally been wrong in the same way: in the way that tarnished that president. They never erred in a way that benefitted him or cast him in a better light, but only in portraying him and his actions in the worst possible way.

Every. Single. Time.


Comments (162)

Jay Tea, a genuinely bizarr... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

Jay Tea, a genuinely bizarre post! Please say it's allegory!

Informed by minds wiser tha... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

Informed by minds wiser than mine, that "the President" disallows my diagnosis. (Breaks the literary rules!) "Ming the Merciless" is tossed out recklessly, but as the resident reader, I posit "Darth Vader": as Luke Skywalker's father, a soupcon of poignancy makes self-pity go down well!

The ever-vigilant bryan ris... (Below threshold)

The ever-vigilant bryan rises early on the Sabbath to attend to his own bizarre religion.

wavemaker, Off-topic!!! Cit... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

wavemaker, Off-topic!!! Citizens' A-RAY-est! Citizens' A-RAY-est!

Usual conservative flatulen... (Below threshold)
Reality:

Usual conservative flatulence. It's the media who sent us to war with bad information. It's the media who is responsible for the president not reading his PDB's which warned of a terror attack. It's the media that have killed over 3,000 soldiers.

More nonsense from the "personal responsibility" party.

bryan and Reality,Ho... (Below threshold)
J-HO:

bryan and Reality,
How sad for your parents. How very sad for them.

And how very sad for us. Ch... (Below threshold)
nikkolai:

And how very sad for us. Children, again--why not kos or Tbogg or DU? You were born for it!

Re: RealityTypical... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

Re: Reality

Typical "Liberal" response when presented with conclusive proof of deception: deflect, dismiss, and deny.

Anyone who is intellectually honest would find it abhorrent that the media is colluding to produce false stories.

In the end, the result is that the blind Leftist, such as "Reality", won't care, but the middle will simply become less and less interested in the fiction the dinosaur media is pushing (i.e. they're working towards their own marginalization).

It's the media who let Osam... (Below threshold)
Reality:

It's the media who let Osama bin Laden get away in Tora Bora. It's the media that lost $9 billion in Iraq. It's the media that is responsible for 47 million Americans with no health insurance. It's the media who runs up a $300-400 billion deficit every year. It's the media who sent all those sexual emails to Mark Foley's underage pages.

"Reality":<blockquote... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

"Reality":

It's the media who let Osama bin Laden get away in Tora Bora. It's the media that lost $9 billion in Iraq. It's the media that is responsible for 47 million Americans with no health insurance. It's the media who runs up a $300-400 billion deficit every year. It's the media who sent all those sexual emails to Mark Foley's underage pages.

That post would be "Liberal" response #1: deflect.

This flogging the agenda se... (Below threshold)
Reality:

This flogging the agenda setting media is very old children. It goes back to the 1960's. Except it used to be limited to shadowy conspiracy publications sent by the John Birch Society (your moral ancestors) in brown wrappers with no return address. Here's reality for you: The great majority of the population doesn't take you seriously. They think Michelle Malkin is a crank.

You know, sometimes you find someone telling you things that coincide with what you believe and you believe that you've found a font of truth. But usually, they're just cranks making money off of your naivete.

"Reality":<blockquote... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

"Reality":

This flogging the agenda setting media is very old children. It goes back to the 1960's. Except it used to be limited to shadowy conspiracy publications sent by the John Birch Society (your moral ancestors) in brown wrappers with no return address. Here's reality for you: The great majority of the population doesn't take you seriously. They think Michelle Malkin is a crank.

You know, sometimes you find someone telling you things that coincide with what you believe and you believe that you've found a font of truth. But usually, they're just cranks making money off of your naivete.

And so predictable ! This would be "Liberal" response #2: dismiss.

That would be Mr. Reality c... (Below threshold)
nikkolai:

That would be Mr. Reality coming in with "deny"....

If a an important segment o... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

If a an important segment of the MSM media failed to shape the nation's agenda for Bush's policies it wasn't for want of trying

Typical fringe wingnut resp... (Below threshold)
Reality:

Typical fringe wingnut response. See, you blame the media for not telling us about the pony in all the BS, but ignore the reality that there is no pony there. That's not the media's fault, that's your fault for wanting to write the news to your delusions.

One day I hope you all wake up from your haze. I'm not optimistic. But if you do you will feel a lot of shame for following people like Michelle Malkin rather than believing your own eyes and ears.

Congrats Steve managed to t... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

Congrats Steve managed to tie deflect and dismiss together in one post!

(continuation of the classifying of the Leftist responses is left as an exercise for the reader).

Don't want to admit that th... (Below threshold)
Reality:

Don't want to admit that the "liberal media" stuff is a crock? Maybe you'll believe one of your own:

"I admit it. The liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures."- Bill Kristol

Reality, you're wasting a l... (Below threshold)

Reality, you're wasting a lot of energy here. All you have to do is find a few examples where the media retracted or re-issued a story where the correction made Bush look WORSE. My whole point was that every single error I could find followed the same precise pattern: something bad about Bush, later "adjusted" to be less damning or downright mitigating.

If they were merely inaccurate, then the breakdown would be a bit more balanced -- sometimes they were wrong in blaming Bush, sometimes they were wrong in not blaming him enough. But it's the damnable CONSISTENCY of their errors that is my main contention -- at what point does this pattern become not a series of aberrations, but an indication of intent?

I think we reached that point a while ago.

And no, it doesn't require a grand conspiracy, with George Soros pulling the strings. Just a healthy dose of group-think, blended with cultural bias and peer pressure.

Steve Crickmore: Fox News, your go-to boogeyman, is an aberration in many ways. It openly admits its EDITORIAL bias. It does a fairly good job at keeping the editorial and reporting separate. And, most deviant of all, it's MAKING MONEY -- a fairly good indicator that it's doing what people like.

So, where is the counterexample where the lions of the mainstream media -- the big 3 networks, the New York Times, the LA Times, CNN, AP, Reuters, and the like -- had to retract a story that showed Bush in a positive light? Where did they err in his favor, as opposed to against him?

The answer is sadly simple: they don't make those kinds of mistakes. Their Bush coverage is purely binary: correct stories that make Bush look bad, and incorrect stories that make Bush look bad.

J.

Jay Tea, What HAS Bush done... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

Jay Tea, What HAS Bush done right lately? Anybody? (don't strain your brains!)

No, J I am NOT going to was... (Below threshold)
Reality:

No, J I am NOT going to waste my time proving that the sky is blue when all of you will argue until your last breath that the sky is purple. You move the goalposts, lie, obfuscate, and when that doesn't work you simply ignore it.

I have more respect for my time than that. Of course, my time is likely more valuable than yours.

bryand, it's the media's fa... (Below threshold)
Reality:

bryand, it's the media's fault that Bush is a failed president. They do this "reporting the news" stuff that consistently paints Bush in a bad light by telling America about scurrilous things called "facts".

Reality, don't even HINT th... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

Reality, don't even HINT that you make more money than "them". The "capitalists" here go APE-SHIT!

Jay, don't write, don't arg... (Below threshold)
Dave:

Jay, don't write, don't argue, ban. It's beneath you to allow yourself to be harrassed by people who write like children. Right now I'm wondering if you don't enjoy being harrassed.

Bryan, unlike conservatives... (Below threshold)
Reality:

Bryan, unlike conservatives, I want EVERYONE to attain the level of success I have attained. I have a lot of advice that can help them in their careers, like this for example.

Tip 1: If you put the slice of cheese on the hamburger, and this is important, after (NOT before) you flip the burger, the cheese doesn't get stuck to the grill and burn.

So, Reality, instead of arg... (Below threshold)

So, Reality, instead of arguing my points, you want to engage in gratuitous insults and challenge me to prove both MY side and yours?

Go ahead and give me one -- ONE -- good reason why that adds a damned thing to the discourse around here. But weigh it carefully -- your answer WILL be graded, and very well could be your final answer.

J.

Oh, you're going to THREATE... (Below threshold)
Reality:

Oh, you're going to THREATEN me? Don't make me laugh. Ban me cobag. Please.

Hahaha. What a fun post. Wi... (Below threshold)

Hahaha. What a fun post. Wish we could all write with this kind of rhythm that just pulls the reader along.

With apologies to Jay Tea,<... (Below threshold)
groucho:

With apologies to Jay Tea,

This guy got himself elected president. In fact he managed it twice, with the help of some of his powerful father's friends. Naturally, this meant that the press wrote a lot of stories about him, and his administration. Virtually from the beginning of his tenure in office this guy's decisions and policies were often misguided and reckless. His policies benefited only a small segment of society, his rich and powerful friends and advisers, ignoring the well-being of the majority of his constituents. The more the press reported, the worse the facts made him look. It was a common practice for this guy to misrepresent and willfully obscure the truth to justify his policies. He and his advisers became very angry whenever their version of things was challenged and they would stop at nothing to spin things their way. Aided by a small but vocal segment of the media sympathetic to their cause, they began to blame those who were willing to let the facts speak for themselves, no matter how poor a light was cast upon the sad little guy who was trying to be president.

Groucho, tell us your thoug... (Below threshold)
Dave:

Groucho, tell us your thoughts about what WaPo did on Friday.

Reality:"Wish gran... (Below threshold)

Reality:

"Wish granted."

J.

To clarify:In resp... (Below threshold)

To clarify:

In response to his continual abuse and utter uselessness, along with his explicit request/challenge, "Reality" has had his home IP banned from commenting. If he finds his way around that block and continues his behavior, more IPs will be banned.

No, that's not right. I should not use the passive voice. I have banned his home IP, and if he finds his way around that block, I will block any other IPs he happens to use.

J.

You forgot another "Every S... (Below threshold)
Mark L:

You forgot another "Every Single Time." That posters like Reality (what an oxymoron), BryanD and their ilk will poison the comments.

Every Single Time.

It is like wading through a sewer. These guys are so whacked out it makes me feel unclean to read the comments section anymore. I have been avoiding it.

I keep hoping that something will happen to engage reasoned discussion of opposing views, but these guys are so locked in to a warped world view that it is impossible. Facts do not shake them. They are just looking to take down another conservative board -- like they did with Starship Clueless.

All you have to do is fi... (Below threshold)
sean nyc/aa:

All you have to do is find a few examples where the media retracted or re-issued a story where the correction made Bush look WORSE
Jay Tea

Ummm, all the intelligence leading up to the Iraq war maybe?

A good start, sean. Care to... (Below threshold)

A good start, sean. Care to elaborate with some links?

My first rebuttal would be to come up with similar links that pre-date the Bush administration, demonstrating that the WMD intelligence did NOT undergo a drastic change with Bush's becoming president.

J.

Here's <a href="http://www.... (Below threshold)
sean nyc/aa:

Here's one

It's not quite a news article, but I'm sure there were articles written about it.

Here is an interesting link... (Below threshold)

Here is an interesting link on Democratic Senator's acknowledgement of pre 9/11 WMD in Iraq.Scroll down to the paragraph below.

WALLACE: Senator Rockefeller, I want to play another clip from your 2002 speech authorizing the use of force, this time specifically on the question of Saddam's nuclear program. Here it is.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,175433,00.html

sean, I'm not quite sure wh... (Below threshold)

sean, I'm not quite sure what you consider the key element of that Powell statement. But one thing that leaps out to me, that kind of puts a big hurting on the "but the sanctions were working!" bit, was this from a questioner:

Q: With all due respect, that's absolutely the same line we heard from the last administration, and meanwhile, sanctions become increasingly unpopular among people in the region, if we're going to go on....

SECRETARY POWELL: Let me finish, let me finish. I'll take all your questions. The difference is that we can now make the case that all we're trying to do is not anything with respect to the welfare of the people of Iraq, it's the weapons of mass destruction we're after, and if he comes into compliance with the UN resolutions and the agreements he made at the end of the Gulf War with respect to the UN obligations and if he does that and lets the inspectors back in, there is a way to get through this process.

J.

I think a Series of Unfortu... (Below threshold)
epador:

I think a Series of Unfortunate Events might better describe this [the satire would hurt W, though I think if you place him as Klaus, Condi as Violet and either the VP or recent Sec Def as Sunny, it would be a hoot] with Lee and Steve alternating as Mr. Poe.

Every Presidency has been marked by errors and victories. The spin and tenor of major media depictions has been sadly consistent since I started paying attention in the seventies. Rather than defend or attack the Left's media, or lionize the Right media, please, someone, find me an example of a truly consistent and objective major media source!

RE: Sean nyc/aaNot... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

RE: Sean nyc/aa

Note that JayTea's point is the tendency of the errors made in reporting are errors that are consistently falsehoods that paint Bush et al in a bad light. If there were no bias, the distribution of errors would be approx. equal for those that made Bush et al look good on a false basis and those that made Bush et al look bad on a false basis. Given that the errors are almost completely on the side that paints them in a bad light, the only plausible conclusion is that the errors are biased towards the negative.

The next logical conclusion is that the media is the source of the bias. The fact that multiple media outlets wrongly attributed the same quote suggest that there may be some degree of collusion occuring as well. Anyone that understands the value of a free press in a free society should find this disconcerting at the very least.


Good point Jay, and the evi... (Below threshold)
Frank:

Good point Jay, and the evidence was not very compelling at that time either. The current talking points follow the train of thought that the CIA set the tone for the interpretation of the evidence at hand (remember Slam Dunk), as if their endorsement was enough to justify dropping bombs. Why was this taken at face value? Under your assertion, that I agree with, that the evidence hadn't changed to a significant degree, any degree of critical analysis by anyone would have been able to determine the marginal degree of proof of the existence (or capacity to produe) of WMD. Yet, the drum beat to war began and it was brought to a vote in Congress. None of these should have happened if the evidence was seen for what it was: Circumstantial and clearly not an imminent threat. It was in the way the evidence was framed that the real disservice was done the American people. The administration and the MSM are responsiblre for this. For all of the criticism heaped on the MSM's treatment of Bush, it is overlooked how helpful they were in disseminating this inflated image Sadaam's threat to us. Read some of Judith Miller's articles around that time.

Frank, I lived through the ... (Below threshold)

Frank, I lived through the debates, and I went back and re-read some of them. And strangely enough, all the statements by Bush leading up to the war stressed that Saddam was NOT an imminent threat, that WMDs were NOT the primary focus, and that this going to take a long time.

I wrote this about a year ago, and I haven't seen much to change what I wrote then.

J.

Heck, homelessness DISAPPEA... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

Heck, homelessness DISAPPEARED while Clinton was in office and returned when Bush came into office.

Bush was somehow blamed for Enron, even though he literally did nothing to bail out Lay and company from their corruption.

Rove never got indicted, yet NBC and MSNBC have never once sent an apology for their giddy coverage of how imminent (and, yes, they used the word "imminent") it was.

The "Bush went AWOL" story was debunked before he became President THE FIRST TIME, yet they trotted that back out in 2004.

The whole Guard memos thing is a problem.

The "missing ammo" story from right before the 2004 election.

The stories of how many people Bush sent to death in Texas, ignoring that in TX, the governor can't stop executions.

It's a rather constant pattern.
-=Mike

Jay,I'm not saying w... (Below threshold)
sean nyc/aa:

Jay,
I'm not saying wholeheartedly that "the sanctions were working". Of course Saddam was violating them which would give us sufficient justification for resuming war, but were his violations extreme enough to necessitate war. I didn't think so then, and a lot more people don't think so now.

And inspectors were going back in, but had to be withdrawn because of our rush to war.

And the argument that I think swayed the most people was the threat of nuclear weapons. The legitimacy of that threat has been thoroughly discredited, as many were saying at that time who were being ignored.

Look, we all know the intelligence was flawed now, but the press did not treat it with enough skepticism then. They should have been challenging authority rather than simply passing along the administration's own biases for drumming up the war.

This is where both liberals and conservatives agree that the press can do a much better job, by actually thoroughly investigating stories from all angles, find and present the counter-argument and weigh its validity. Of course, your co-contributors on Wizbang (i.e. the Pelosi plane story) do not help the cause of improving journalistic standards by passing along partisan gossip and mud-slinging.

I guess I'm not directly disproving your original post, but rather the question you posited in the comment section.

"Saddam was NOT an imminent... (Below threshold)
Frank:

"Saddam was NOT an imminent threat, that WMDs were NOT the primary focus"

j,

Disarming Sadaam in enforcement of his broken UN resolutions was the primary reason, this of course implies he has WMD. the discussion as to the level of threat this presented was spread out over various administration officials.

"Saddam Hussein and his weapons are a direct threat to this country, to our people and to all free people."
Mar. 6, 2003
George W. Bush

I suppose one could argue that this quote is missing specific syntax like "imminent" or that it is the primary reason for going to war. The media did most of that work for the administration by substituting "direct", or "mushroom cloud" for "imminent". But, one cannot deny that the administration set a tone for the discourse by using incendiary rhetoric to frame the very circumstantial evidence in such a way thaat would lead to war.
Given your assertion that the evidence hadn't changed much since the Clinton years, and was even then circumstantial, I can come up with only 2 reasons why we are at war right now: the administration wanted war,or they are incapable of objective analysis of inconclusive evidence, and, taking the CIA at their word, overreacted.

Are there any other possibilities?

A google search for Kristol... (Below threshold)
Lee:

A google search for Kristol's admission quoted by Reality above regarding the myth of liberal bias, turned up this -- which attempts to debunk the liberal media bias myth, and also several other conservative myths (the "liberal bias" myth is addressed by the quote below, see the link for other "conservative myths"):

MYTH 3. The US has a liberal media.

TRUTH: This is a paranoid Republican myth.

Reality check: the US media is a mix of liberal, centrist and conservative voices. Also, the US media is largely owned by 10 corporations who frequently push pro-conservative agendas to the American public. Evidence:

1. Even Republican Pat Buchanan confessed, "For heaven sakes, we kid about the liberal media, but every Republican on earth does that." Neo-conservative pundit Bill Kristol also said, "I admit it: the liberal media were never that powerful, and the whole thing was often used as an excuse by conservatives for conservative failures."

2. A 2005 study in the Quarterly Journal of Economics found that "coverage by public television and radio is conservative compared to the rest of the mainstream media." Why? Partly because only four major corporate networks control American TV news-- up to 75% of the audience share. The "Big 10" media conglomerates who control the bulk of the entire US media are: AOL Time Warner, Disney, General Electric, News Corporation, Viacom, Vivendi, Sony, Bertelsmann, AT&T and Liberty Media. Yes, we have National Public Radio, but compare its public reach to that of Canada's CBC and the United Kingdom's BBC.

3. Eighty percent of all US newspapers are owned by corporate chains.

4. Liberals are virtually non-existent on talk radio stations nationwide. Rush and Dr. Laura, eat your hearts out.

5. Conservatives are very well accomodated for across FOX News, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Times, the New York Post, the American Spectator, the Weekly Standard, the Drudge Report, the National Review, etc. Even so-called "bastions of liberalism," e.g. the NY Times, MSNBC, WashPost and NPR make a concerted effort to be "fair and balanced" by bringing in right-wing views like those of David Brooks, Joe Scarborough, Tucker Carlson, Charles Krauthammer and Cokie Roberts to have their say in these forums, respectively. This is in stark contrast to FOX News' claims to unbiased objectivity, which were easily demolished by Robert Greenwald in 2004.

6. Contrary to what some paranoid Republicans claim, most journalists are centrists, not liberals. A representative sample of 141 US journalists and bureau chiefs were asked in 1998, "On social issues, how would you characterize your political orientation?" Answers: Left 30%, Center 57%, Right 9%, Other 5% . Next question, same sample: "On economic issues, how would you characterize your political orientation? " Answers: Left 11%, Center 64%, Right 19%, Other 5%. Also, look at the total number of think tank citations in major newspapers, radio and TV transcripts: Conservative TTs: 7792, Centrist TTs: 6361, Liberal TTs: 1152.

7. Eric Alterman summarizes a 1999 research study from the academic journal Communications Research: "Four scholars examined the use of the 'liberal media' argument and discovered a fourfold increase in the number of Americans telling pollsters that they discerned a liberal bias in their news. But a review of the media's actual ideological content, collected and coded over a twelve-year period, offered no corroboration whatever for this view."

I thought of a few more pos... (Below threshold)
Frank:

I thought of a few more possibilitiees, but they really don;t cut it;

a. We desired a free and democratic iraq because it is our moral responsibility to free people around the world from the shackles of tyranny. this would be great if it were true. If it were true, then our armies would be very busy in the world

b. Under the mandate of the war on terror, we are attacking a state that has/does harbor terror. If we were true to the Bush mandate, iraq certainbly wouldn't have even made the top 5 of offenders, maybe not even the top ten, behind Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Hezbollah in lebanon, pakistan, etc

I for one am not averse to the US using it's power abroad to further the long term interests of it's people, whether it be economic or national security. i just wish they'd be honest with us about it.

Because it needs to be repe... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

Because it needs to be repeated, the Study that Lee's post cites in point #2, in fact, says:
Our results show a strong liberal bias. All of the news outlets except Fox News' Special Report and the Washington Times re-ceived a score to the left of the average member of Congress. And a few outlets, including the New York Times and CBS Evening News, were closer to the average Democrat in Congress than the center. These findings refer strictly to the news stories of the outlets. That is, we omitted editorials, book reviews, and letters to the editor from our sample.

Either Lee is not telling the truth or he did not read what he was citing.

Neither is really excusable.
-=Mike

Damn liberal mirror! ... (Below threshold)

Damn liberal mirror!
Every. Single. Time.
I look into it and it shows me that damn liberal image of myself just staring back, even though everybody knows I'm an independent. Damn the liberal mirror!

"Either Lee is not telli... (Below threshold)
Lee:

"Either Lee is not telling the truth or he did not read what he was citing. Neither is really excusable.-=Mike"

I didn't cite the report, Mike. As I stated in my comment I foudn it by gopgling the quote. I quoted the web page verbatim (word for word exactly -- that's why it is indented in the "box" -- which is called a "quoteblock") that google turned up, and I also linked it. I'm not the author of the citation, and I didn't claim to be the author, and for the record I haven't read the report.

If you can shoot down their argument fine, but drop the personal attacks, Mike -- it's so "Republican".

I didn't cite the report... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

I didn't cite the report, Mike. As I stated in my comment I foudn it by gopgling the quote. I quoted the web page verbatim (word for word exactly -- that's why it is indented in the "box" -- which is called a "quoteblock") that google turned up, and I also linked it. I'm not the author of the citation, and I didn't claim to be the author, and for the record I haven't read the report.

If you can shoot down their argument fine, but drop the personal attacks, Mike -- it's so "Republican".

You cited the post and, thus, vouched for its authenticity. You should've read the report first because what you posted was a lie.

You lied, Lee. It's just that simple.
-=Mike

Lee, there's a term for cit... (Below threshold)

Lee, there's a term for citing an argument that actually bolsters the other side and shreds your own, but my distaste for casual profanity forbids me from using it.

J.

RealityI'll miss y... (Below threshold)
aRepukelican:

Reality

I'll miss you around here...sorry to see you go.

Loved your burger references...if you manage another IP, best to avoid future ones lest you arouse J's suspicions.

Hope you can reincarnate.

_Mike_, that was amazing. ... (Below threshold)
JimK:

_Mike_, that was amazing. You actually predicted the exact path "Reality" would take, and instead of learning from your post and making any reasoned argument whatsoever, "Reality" did precisely as you predicted.

Your prognostication is on point today. Got any hot stock tips? ;)

Jay - Leave it to the resident moontrolls to miss the point entirely.

Moontrolls (and you know who you is): If Jay is so wrong, can you show us where the statistically required set of stories are that were mistakes that favored Bush or his administration? The point is NOT what you think did or didn't happen with any given situation over the last 6+ years. The point is, every time a story is either wrong or shown to be fabricated, it is always, 100%, without fail, negative toward Bush or a member of the administration.

That is statistically impossible in an unbiased system.

Given that empirical truth, one must now look toward the bias and diagnose it. It consistent and systemic. No one news agency, channel or company is responsible - they are all guilty to varying degrees. One must now attempt to explain the reason for such an obvious and provable bias.

Only a true moonbat - unable to admit ANYTHING that might, for even an instant, paint Bush as anything other than pure evil - would deny that the press has tried over and over and over to put his balls in a sling regardless of collateral damage. It may not be a liberal bias per se, but it is absolutely, undeniably an anti-Bush bias and facts be damned.

That last sentence should b... (Below threshold)
JimK:

That last sentence should be amended to read "...but it is absolutely, undeniably an anti-Bush bias and a facts-be-damned attitude by the press."

That more accurately represents what I was trying to say.

What's funny is catching th... (Below threshold)

What's funny is catching the media in saying one thing NOW, in opposition to what they said THEN ... which they have been known to do, but ONLY IF it refutes any position the Bush administration has. For instance, Saddam's involvement with Al Qaeda and his support for terrorist groups ... that was known and reported well before Bush took office.

Hmmm ...

The liberal media has been ... (Below threshold)
Jo:

The liberal media has been busted. We know it, they know it, the libs know it and that's why they're so testy. They realize they wouldn't be anywhere without the MSM's help and that's gotta hurt.

Lissa and Jim , you are b... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

Lissa and Jim , you are both without a doubt correct and telling the truth , yet our resident turd rubbers will pop up demanding a link then go back to rubbing and feeling good. It's so infantile , hilarious and totally predictable. They dismiss anything we witness with our own eyes and ears every single day and instantly go into a trance when they are shown proof of themselves lying in public and on National TV.

Does that bother them ? Hell no ! The Democrat Criminal Party of Perpetual Fraud must go on and they will continue to "SAY ANYTHING" and "DO WHATEVER IT TAKES" to take "POWER" and stay in it.

It must be extremely comfor... (Below threshold)
aRepukelican:

It must be extremely comforting that a certified lunatic like RobLA Ca has your back.

Afterall, he is the chair of The International Forensics Society, at least when he is able to get a forged pass from his abode at the CA Institute for the Insane.

Oh indeed, Rob ... I most c... (Below threshold)

Oh indeed, Rob ... I most certainly do have links. And video. I was just trying the lefty tactic of just saying it is so to make it the truth. They seem to accept that from those who spout the lefty talking points. I just don't understand why those with views and facts in opposition are not given the same measure of acceptance.

Ain't that something?

It must be extremely co... (Below threshold)
Jill:

It must be extremely comforting that a certified lunatic like RobLA Ca has your back.

No puke, what is comforting is you and all democrats knowing the MSM has their back. Makes them much more nervy, arrogant and corrupt, since they know most likely they can get away with it. Of course not so much since bloggers and Fox News came along. Which of course is they hate both so much. (duh)

The dhimmicrats denying media bias reminds me of this old black woman I saw once in the audience of some afternoon talk show. The topic was OJ Simpson's guilt or innocence. This woman was given a mic and said that OJ was innocent and she would NEVER believe otherwise. When the host asked her what she would say if OJ came out and admitted he did it, she said she STILL would not believe it.

Libs live in deep denial, but hey, tell us something we don't know.


JillTY for your OJ... (Below threshold)
aRepukelican:

Jill

TY for your OJ anecdote which applies to Bush sycophants more than you'll ever know.

Now, want to explain something like the "fake" DoD IG Report?

That post would be "Libe... (Below threshold)
Brian:

That post would be "Liberal" response #1: deflect.

And that post would be "Republican" response #1: attack the messenger, rather than address the message.

My first rebuttal would ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

My first rebuttal would be to come up with similar links that pre-date the Bush administration

And that post would be "Jay" response #1: when someone handily answers your challenge, change the basis of the challenge.

Lissa and Jim , you are ... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Lissa and Jim , you are both without a doubt correct and telling the truth , yet our resident turd rubbers will pop up demanding a link
...
Oh indeed, Rob ... I most certainly do have links. And video. I was just trying the lefty tactic of just saying it is so to make it the truth.

Oh, too many joyous responses to be had with this crew. Where start?

From Jay Tea, who according to Rob and LissaKay is apparently a "resident turd rubber lefty":

A good start, sean. Care to elaborate with some links?

It's so infantile , hilarious and totally predictable.

That's how you characterize backing up your claims with links to facts? No wonder you prefer truthiness over truth. But I'm not surprised. You're not the first on here to insult the left for actually providing links that support their statements.

If there were no bias, t... (Below threshold)
Brian:

If there were no bias, the distribution of errors would be approx. equal for those that made Bush et al look good on a false basis and those that made Bush et al look bad on a false basis. Given that the errors are almost completely on the side that paints them in a bad light, the only plausible conclusion is that the errors are biased towards the negative

Your analysis is only valid if you also include a study of negative/positive errors made towards those on the left. By limiting your claims only to those negative errors that apply to Bush specifically, you're ignoring the possibility that the tendancy of the media to make errors negative to their subject applies to everybody, left or right.

Brian, the point of my spec... (Below threshold)

Brian, the point of my specifying "pre-date the Bush administration" was to demonstrate that the reasons and justifications for the Iraq war go back so far that the notion that Bush "cooked" the info is utterly absurd. Nearly every single casus belli dates to the Clinton administration, along with several precedents and Congressional resolutions. Bush merely put deeds to words spoken long before he took office.

But that STILL doesn't address the actual point of my piece, does it: why is it whenever the mainstream media gets a story about Bush wrong, it's always -- ALWAYS -- wrong in the way that makes him look bad? Can't they EVER make a mistake in his favor?

The answer is, of course not. "Fake but accurate" is their battle cry. "Lying in the cause of the real truth" is entirely acceptable, even laudable.

And if it wasn't, then you'd be able to find at least a few counterexamples to the ones I linked to in my initial piece, as well as all the others the commenters have brought up.

J.

Nice to see that my argumen... (Below threshold)
JimK:

Nice to see that my argument was so far beyond the moonbats that they had to ignore it completely and try ad hominem and deflection as a means of "winning the argument."

Nothing like a great cup of coffee and a good chuckle on a lazy Sunday afternoon...

Meanwhile not one moonbat can answer the salient point: If the issue with today's media is simply error and not intent, where are the errors that favor Bush? There should be at least a statistically equal number. If not...why not?

If you fine, fine examples of Democrats in action could perhaps stick to the point and answer that for me, I'd be ever so grateful.

Brian, that's a fair cop --... (Below threshold)

Brian, that's a fair cop -- that perhaps the media gives EVERYONE a hard time. But a couple counterexamples come to mind:

Joseph Wilson told a far different story to government officials than he did to the New York Times. Yet he's not called upon it. Instead, he's still lauded as a "heroic whistleblower."

Hamas repeatedly affirms its chartered goal of destroying Israel, yet the media gives them equal standing in "the peace process."

Eason Jordan freely admitted that CNN allowed itself to be bullied by Saddam into covering for his atrocities, yet it took an even greater scandal to get him to resign -- the media didn't treat him like they would anyone else in another business.

J.

Oh I suppose I must post a ... (Below threshold)

Oh I suppose I must post a link if the lefty screeching is ever going to abate.

Question: How many ABC News reporters TODAY would openly admit even the possibility that Saddam was up to his eyeballs with terrorist activities, and even getting cozy with Osama and others like him?

Answer: Probably none.

Question: What if it was still during the Clinton administration, say January 1999?

Answer: Oh my ...

And Nancy Pelosi didn't req... (Below threshold)
Brian:

And Nancy Pelosi didn't request a larger plane, but the MSM vilified her for it; the flawed story made her look worse than the retraction. And Harry Reid didn't do anything wrong in his real estate transaction; the flawed story made him look worse than the retraction.

But I guess those aren't the kinds of counter-examples you were looking for.

Guys, there are quotes like... (Below threshold)

Guys, there are quotes like this everywhere:

"Does anybody really think there wouldn't have been more scrutiny if this [CBS's bogus 60 Minutes National Guard story] had been about John Kerry?"
-- Former 60 Minutes Executive Producer Don Hewitt at a January 10, 2005 meeting at CBS News, as quoted later that day by Chris Matthews on MSNBC's Hardball.

Of course the MSM is biased. Their own members admit it. Brian, the Pelosi plane incident is nothing compared to the major point Jay is making.Reed Irvine started documenting this bias in the early 1980's. He's made some mistakes along the way, but, overall, he's been right.

Lets see now. What has the ... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

Lets see now. What has the President done right? When was the last attack on America or American property overseas? Someone is doing something right compared to the past when we were losing people in embassies every few months and then thousands on 9-11. I feel safe in the U.S. now, even with the dhimmi's doing everything possible to assist the terrorists in destroying the country, and would feel safe going back as a courier for documents to and from the embassies. Wasn't that way in the past. You can turn a blind eye, and your empty brain (everything except the BDS), to the past, and it'll come back and bite you on the a**, or get your family killed by the religion of peace.

Your analysis is only va... (Below threshold)

Your analysis is only valid if you also include a study of negative/positive errors made towards those on the left. By limiting your claims only to those negative errors that apply to Bush specifically, you're ignoring the possibility that the tendancy of the media to make errors negative to their subject applies to everybody, left or right.


Brian

Frankly, that study would be a waste of time; rather, why not just accept a confession.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Washington Post's Howard Kurtz: "You've said on the program Inside Washington that because of the portrayal of Kerry and Edwards as 'young and dynamic and optimistic,' that that's worth maybe 15 points."
Newsweek's Evan Thomas: "Stupid thing to say. It was completely wrong. But I do think that, I do think that the mainstream press, I'm not talking about the blogs and Rush and all that, but the mainstream press favors Kerry. I don't think it's worth 15 points. That was just a stupid thing to say."
Kurtz: "Is it worth five points?"
Thomas: "Maybe, maybe."
-- Exchange on CNN's Reliable Sources, October 17, 2004.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The elephant in the newsroom is our narrowness. Too often, we wear liberalism on our sleeve and are intolerant of other lifestyles and opinions....We're not very subtle about it at this paper: If you work here, you must be one of us. You must be liberal, progressive, a Democrat. I've been in communal gatherings in The Post, watching election returns, and have been flabbergasted to see my colleagues cheer unabashedly for the Democrats."
-- Washington Post "Book World" editor Marie Arana in a contribution to the Post's "daily in-house electronic critiques," as quoted by Post media reporter Howard Kurtz in an October 3, 2005
article.
----------------------------------------------------------
"I believe it is true that a significant chunk of the press believes that Democrats are incompetent but good-hearted, and Republicans are very efficient but evil."
-- Wall Street Journal political editor John Harwood on the April 23, 2005 Inside Washington.


ScrapIron mumbles in his de... (Below threshold)
John:

ScrapIron mumbles in his delirium tremens;

Lets see now. What has the President done right? When was the last attack on America or American property overseas?

Other than 3 or 4 dead Americans each day, and a helicopter every other day or so, I can't think of anything eiether...

John ... that is just about... (Below threshold)

John ... that is just about too retarded to even merit a reply.

Military != civilian

Is that concept too difficult to grasp?

Lissa Kay, that says it all... (Below threshold)
Jo:

Lissa Kay, that says it all! Notice that none of them have bothered to argue. Love it!

Yes, John, because after 9/11 the only thing the left could come up with (till Iraq war) was that Bush let 9/11 happen so that meant everything.

Now that we haven't had any attacks in our country, even with the war, that apparently now means nothing.

You guys are a joke. Continue to entertain us.

LissaKay,Ah, but t... (Below threshold)
John:

LissaKay,

Ah, but that's not what he said, now is it? "When was the last attack on America or American property overseas?"

I gave him an honest answer.

So, I suppose the Cole attack shouldn't really count against Clinton? Hmmm... Say it.

OK, so here's a question for you...

Under Clinton's 8 years in office, how many US servicemen were killed in action?

Answer now, if you have any intelectual integrity.

John How many US ser... (Below threshold)

John
How many US servicemen and women were killed in the Khobar towers?

JohnHow many in Soma... (Below threshold)

John
How many in Somalia?

JohnHow many Marines... (Below threshold)

John
How many Marines were protecting our Embassies in Africa?
Answer now if you have any integrity.

Jo, What is the fr... (Below threshold)
John:

Jo,

What is the frequency of foreign attacks against the US on our soil?

JohnWTC 1993 and 2... (Below threshold)

John

WTC 1993 and 2001. But attacks on our soil must measured along with treaties and strategic alliances. What is your point?

Hugh,I asked how m... (Below threshold)
John:

Hugh,

I asked how many were killed in action (combat). The answer is zero.

Servicemen on station were killed in Khobar and Africa. They were also killed on routine training missions. 19 service men were killed in Somalia on a UN relief effort, not a military action.

To the best of my knowledge, no US service men were killed in battle under Clinton's 8 years.

JohnYou parse words ... (Below threshold)

John
You parse words and phrases to the point that you insult the men and women who serve our country every day:

Servicemen on station were killed in Khobar and Africa. They were also killed on routine training missions. 19 service men were killed in Somalia on a UN relief effort, not a military action.

You tell that to the men and women who served and died. Tell them that they were merely "on station".

Yes, the Cole does count as... (Below threshold)

Yes, the Cole does count as a terrorist attack. Here's the difference ... now pay very close attention, this is hard ...

The military in Iraq and those helicopters are involved in combat operations in an official military operation.

The USS Cole, and all the other attacks were not.

Does the difference continue to elude you?

Hugh asks a legitimate ques... (Below threshold)
John:

Hugh asks a legitimate question;

WTC 1993 and 2001. But attacks on our soil must measured along with treaties and strategic alliances. What is your point?

So, two data points does not a trend make... One might say that the "average" time between attacks is 8 years.

So, it's no wonder we haven't been attacked yet. It's only been a bit over 5 years since 9-11.

Before that, nothing since Pearl Harbor. So with three data points we could say that foreign attacks on our soil happen more like 20 years or so apart on average.

So the fact that Bush has fought port screening for incoming shipping, airplane luggage screening, and implementation of the 9-11 commission findings is part of his strategery to do....what?

Perhaps, he's playing the odds. Chances are, nothing will happen. And he can stand up and crow, and claim success, and expect you'll clap louder.

Do you know if you flip a coin it will pretty much come up 7 heads or tails in a row? (If you flip it 100 times). Pretty much a safe bet. Does not speak to the skill of the person tossing the coin.

That's my point.

HughS,YOU insult t... (Below threshold)
John:

HughS,

YOU insult the men and women that serve our country every day.

Our men and women are not a wind-up toy. They are real people with families and lives.

It's reverse logic to say that we have to fight this war for the men and women in our military.

In reality, the military are dying fighting a war for our policy.

Oh, let's see now ... ... (Below threshold)

Oh, let's see now ...

1979 US Embassy in Iran
1983 Beirut - 63 dead at the embassy. 241 at USMC Barracks
1983 US Embassy in Kuwait - 6 dead, 80+ injured
1984 CIA Station Chief William Buckley kidnapped
1984 US Embassy annex in Beirut - 24 dead
1985 Madrid, and Rhein-Main, and the Achille Lauro
1985 TWA Flight 847
1988 Pan Am Flight 103
1993 two CIA agents were shot and killed outside CIA headquarters in Langley, VA
1993 WTC bombing - 6 dead, over 1000 injured
1996 Dhahran, SA - 19 dead, over 500 injured
1996 Embassy attacks in Kenya and Tanzania totalled 224 dead

Those are just direct attacks on Americans and American interests. There were many others in which Americans died, such as Kuwait Airways Flight 221 in 1984 and 1986 Bombing of La Belle Discotheque.

And you still think these monsters are just fooling around?

Amazing ...

LissaKay,What exac... (Below threshold)
John:

LissaKay,

What exactly is your point?

JohnNo, that was not... (Below threshold)

John
No, that was not your point. This was your point (and stop hiding behind your very poor math example):

I asked how many were killed in action (combat). The answer is zero.

Explain that to the widows and families of these guys who you say were "on Station" and (not) in combat:

Delta Force operators Gary Shughart and Randy Gordon, who were posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor for their actions at the crash site (in Mogadishu).

A better question would ... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

A better question would be after all the terrorist attracks ,

How many US servicemen were deployed by Clinton in response?

What's yours, in relation t... (Below threshold)

What's yours, in relation to the topic at hand? I was just replying to more of your retarded posts ... though I have no idea why I even try. You are set and determined to defend any that stands against America no matter what fact is presented to you.

Now try real hard to get back on topic, OK?

JohnI would argue wi... (Below threshold)

John
I would argue with you more but you are a fool.

And you show no gratitude for nor knowledge and honor for the men and women who stand at the wall so that you can be a fool with impunity.

"john' tells us again what ... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

"john' tells us again what school you went to and the name of the "media" job you had. I keep forgetting. Are have you ever told us?

John wants to play semantic... (Below threshold)

John wants to play semantic games. Let's turn that around on him.

John, how many US service members were killed in action on 9/11? By your logic, none.

It wasn't "in action" until we started hitting back.

Oh, and by the way, under international law, a US warship is sovereign US territory. You can tell that by the US flag they fly. That means that Al Qaeda did attack American territory several times that you glossed over -- including the African Embassies. "On US soil" is a sophistry to gloss over the fact that some US territory doesn't exactly have "soil."

But that STILL doesn't answer my question -- can someone, anyone, cite an example of the media misreporting a story in Bush's favor?

And no, John, I don't think that reporters are as brainlessly random as a coin. We're not talking absolute randomness here, but a general pattern. And the pattern REEKS of intent.

J.

John , you disgust me to... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

John , you disgust me to the point of vomitting

"To the best of my knowledge, no US service men were killed in battle under Clinton's 8 years."

I believe you believe that. I also believe you would do so even if in fact you knew it wasn't true.

"To the best of your knowledge?" BULLSHIT!

To the best of your knowledge that you care to admit is more like it.

How do you define "Knowledge" ?

"The state or fact of knowing. Familiarity, awareness, or understanding gained through experience or study."

Johnm wrote:

"I asked how many were killed in action (combat). The answer is zero."

What John is dishonestly trying to say is

Clinton = Good ...Bush = Bad

Plain and simple , admit it John if your man enough.

"Lets see now. What has the President done right?"

He hasn't been getting his pecker pollished in the Oval Office by some chubby intern.

Hasn't commited adultery.

Doesn't have a slew of Business partners having been convicted , sentensed to prison, DEAD and or missing.

Hasn't had to pardon his wife

I could write a book and many already have. Shall we compare there actions as Governors as well?

I'll start.

Knowingly sold tainted blood of prisoners to Canada.

Your turn.

Felch FaceThat's t... (Below threshold)
aRepukelican:

Felch Face

That's twice now that you have used the lame definition of US territory in a vain attempt to uphold your ridiculously silly idea that the US was attacked more than once on US territory under Clinton.

No matter what definition you dredge up to define US territory, the reality is that Bush has 5 years to Clinton's 8+ years in regard to repitition of attacks on US soil. And the commonly understood meaning of tht is the Homeland. Stop being a twit; it makes you look silly. To even suggest, as you do, that the Cole or the embassies count in that regard is specious, and, if you even pretend that you know something about debate, you will yield out of common sense.

If not, you simply demonstrate that you too are a Bush ass-sucking sycophant.

Get real, Felch.

But that STILL doesn't a... (Below threshold)
Brian:

But that STILL doesn't answer my question -- can someone, anyone, cite an example of the media misreporting a story in Bush's favor?

Jay, it strikes me that this may be an impossible goal for anyone to reach to your satisfaction.

What you condemn in this post are stories that, after initial release, turn out to be lesser stories. And what you are asking for as a counter-example are stories that, after initial release, turn out to be an even bigger stories.

There are many of those. Bush announces "mission accomplished" and "major combat operations have ended", and the media reports that. Turns out they wasn't quite true, and the subsequent stories were worse for Bush.

Bush proposes a budget with a particular deficit, and that's published. But then it's revealed that he didn't include the costs of Iraq. So there's another story written. Now, would you consider the initial story as one positively misrepresenting the budget in Bush's favor?

Same with the wiretapping story. And Abu Ghraib. Turns out the scopes of those stories were much greater than initially reported. So since the intial stories were much more positive than the subsquent stories, does that meet your criteria?

What you're never going to find is a story, followed by a "correction" buried on page 23 that things are actually worse than originally reported. Because almost by definition, that realization is going to prompt a new story even bigger than the first.

Once again, Puke exemplifie... (Below threshold)

Once again, Puke exemplifies the level of discourse the left is capable of and prefers. I suppose they think that wrapping incorrect information with vulgar insults somehow makes some sort of point ... or something?

I dunno, but the thought of the left in charge of anything more important than a fast food restaurant is terrifying to contemplate.

aRepukelican,An... (Below threshold)

aRepukelican,

And the commonly understood meaning of tht is the Homeland. Stop being a twit; it makes you look silly. To even suggest, as you do, that the Cole or the embassies count in that regard is specious,

Want to give us an historical basis for your point? What defines the "homeland"?
Ever heard of The Maine? Lend Lease? The Monroe Doctrine? The Truman Doctrine? Was Hawaii part of the homeland in 1941?
Let's take this a little farther...The Battle of Britain? The Flying Tigers and the Rape of Nanking?

John crashes and burns........ (Below threshold)
Jill:

John crashes and burns.....again.

As eventually all the mooonbats in here do.

It's a different "new media" world here moonbats. You just don't get away with your [email protected]#$% like you use to. Deal with it.

Hugh SYou know dam... (Below threshold)
aRepukelican:

Hugh S

You know damn well what is meant by attacks on US soil. You are obfuscating just as Felch has done. The Maine, BTW, was used as an excuse for war driven by the forerunner of Fox Noise, Hearst.

LissaKay...you need to go back to your Barbie dolls & coloring books, You think you're ready for Prime Time, but it's really just potty time before your bedtime.

You more and more remind me of Tomlin's Edith Ann's mongoloid sister.

Exactly right Ja... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:


Exactly right Jay.

"On US soil" is a sophistry to gloss over the fact that some US territory doesn't exactly have "soil."

This would fall under his ....."TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE" Schtik.

At the same time he is trying to cover BJ Clintons actions of butchering our Military for reasons other than "The Clintons" absolutely loath the Military. And all their feel good talk of "Peace in our days".

I took years for me to wake up and pay attention to politics and it only took minutes maybe even maybe an hour of research and listening to the words coming out of their mouths to see the Democrats for what they are.

CRIMINAL PARTY OF PERPETUAL FRAUD

Never again will I vote Democrat

Puke ... it is obvious that... (Below threshold)

Puke ... it is obvious that you are here not to participate in any sort of adult conversation or debate. You are here only to spew your hate-filled anti-American venom as far and wide as you can. I will not respond to your vulgar insults or garbage that you mindlessly fling here. You are irrelevant and do not exist.

aRepukelican Hu... (Below threshold)

aRepukelican

Hugh S

You know damn well what is meant by attacks on US soil.

Is a US Embassy US Soil? You damn well know what the answer to that is.

And what do you think of an attack on a U S warship in a safe harbour? Fair game? Tell me what you damn well know what that is.

aRepuke, I would appreciate... (Below threshold)

aRepuke, I would appreciate it if you could civilize your tongue a smidgen. Given your chosen name, I don't have the highest expectations, but I can always hope.

J.

aRepuke can't help it r... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

aRepuke can't help it really, it's an allergic reaction when faced with the facts. Gives him a case of the blood farts.

JayI like your ton... (Below threshold)
aRepukelican:

Jay

I like your tone and I will try to respect your request.

When there are certain gnats here, and I think you know who I mean, that just buzz w/ little or no content, it gets tempting to swat. I'll see if I can refrain even w/ twit/gnats like Rob & LA I who always have the same consistent devoid-of- content rants.

\Bwahahahahaha girl and Edith Ann's evil ugly
twin are also hard to resist.

You know damn well what ... (Below threshold)

You know damn well what is meant by attacks on US soil. You are obfuscating just as Felch has done. The Maine, BTW, was used as an excuse for war driven by the forerunner of Fox Noise, Hearst.

Lessee, Randolph the Yellow Journalist Capitalist Pig Robber Baron sunk the Maine so that Roopert the Fox News Robber Baron ( his unknown Australian progeny) could obfuscate about the meaning of "US soil"?

I really enjoy it when you guys invoke your version of history, complete with your foreknowledge and ignorance combined in one paragraph.

When there are certain ... (Below threshold)
Jo:

When there are certain gnats here, and I think you know who I mean, that just buzz w/ little or no content, it gets tempting to swat. I'll see if I can refrain even w/ twit/gnats like Rob & LA I who always have the same consistent devoid-of- content rants.

Now repuke, I wouldn't go so far as to call yourself a gnat, but then hey, if the shoe fits....

Hugh Sperfect exam... (Below threshold)
aRepukelican:

Hugh S

perfect example of twisting, twisting and contorting...and all for a fake point. You've got "foreknowledge" confused w/ your fprepuce, or lack thereof..

Jay I'm going to kee... (Below threshold)

Jay
I'm going to keep it civil here and close out with this post about the definition of "U S soil"

The Captain of the Pueblo taught all of us a hard lesson about the definition of U S soil.

The Marines at Guantanamo remind us every day where the line is between U S soil and our enemy.

The Army and Marines stand ready every day to defend the line that separates U S soil from Communism and Totalitarianism on the Korean Peninsula.

Our soldiers at Check Point Charlie defined that line for half a century.

U S soil is wherever our country's strategic interests are. We certainly are not without our mistakes and errors, but we are for the most part a friend of freedom.

DriscellaSpeaking ... (Below threshold)
aRepukelican:

Driscella

Speaking of shoes, are you still trying to squeeze your big foot into the glass slipper?

confused w/ your fprepuc... (Below threshold)

confused w/ your fprepuce,

huh?

Oh no! The gnat is reading... (Below threshold)
Jo:

Oh no! The gnat is reading fairy tales. lol.

the media has an axe to gri... (Below threshold)
Dave:

the media has an axe to grind. take a poll of political leanings of journalists and they are overwhelmingly democrats. Just that fact in and of itself proves the bias theory. I am not saying there is an obligation to hire based on political leanings, but don't pretend that the democrat point of view IS the point of view. There are other people out there that happen to believe different things. The hit pieces on Bush are what give the bias away.

I don't buy that premise that going into Iraq was a mistake. I stand by the fact that this is a war against islamic extremists, of which sadaam was one of, and he was the first step in cleaning out the region of people that would love nothing more than to see our cities burn and our streets flow with blood. Sadaam had it a long time coming. Which brings me to my point that we ARE successful in what we set out to do in Iraq. WE AMERICANS made sure that Iraq did not pose a threat, and it doesn't. Saddaam has been removed and will never pose a threat. The next step after the actual ground fighting of army v army was completed is to now secure the country. I will not pretend there has ever been an example like this we can point to because i know the similarities between this and ww2 fall on deaf ears as far as liberals are concerned, but the bottom line is that at this point in the game, it is going to be slow going no matter who is in charge or what the plan is. That is provided that the leader we have here in the US is willing to make sure that Iraq remains an outpost of democracy in an insane area of the world.

The bottom line is that all of this discussion about bush doing the right thing going into iraq is irrellevant. As a country, our president and representatives approved it, and they can never ever take that back. As a country we need to decide the best course of action in order to keep Iraq secure. Whether it's step troops down to make the Iraqis cover more security, or add more troops to help the along quicker, that is a decision best left to the generals, and like it or not, the commander in chief.

Hugh SI think that... (Below threshold)
aRepukelican:

Hugh S

I think that just about the entire world would have an extremely major problem w/ that definition of US soil, altough many of the rest of the world's nations think that that is exactly what the American attitude is all about.

BTW Hugh S, that definition... (Below threshold)
aRepukelican:

BTW Hugh S, that definition is an open invitation for 100's of thousands around the world to plot attacks against that sort of meglamaniac nation.

aRepukelican j... (Below threshold)

aRepukelican

just about the entire world would have an extremely major problem w/ that definition of US soil

Specifically what?

just a typo...no "f"... (Below threshold)
aRepukelican:

just a typo...no "f"

BTW Hugh S, that definit... (Below threshold)

BTW Hugh S, that definition is an open invitation for 100's of thousands around the world to plot attacks against that sort of meglamaniac nation.

Well, I should take comfort in small things I guess and will congratulate you for getting that right. In fact, millions around the world actually attacked the U S for that strategy in 1941.

Hugh SWe would not... (Below threshold)
aRepukelican:

Hugh S

We would not tolerate any other nation defining their soil as "wherever they saw it was in their national interest" and only someone who wants to invite perpetual terrorist attacks, if not war, would make such a claim.

That sort of definition is beyond the "My country, right or wrong" foolishness.

If you cannot see the absolute arrogance of that sort of definition, then there is no hope for thepeople who use it.

This thread has gown quite ... (Below threshold)
Lee:

This thread has gown quite large, and I haven't the time to go back and read all of these comments, but I pose a question to anyone who is familiar with the comments listed above.

Jay wrote in his post: "They never erred in a way that benefitted him [Bush] or cast him in a better light, but only in portraying him and his actions in the worst possible way."

Has anyone shown examples where, with respect to Democratic Presidents, the media showed the bias Jay claims exists by having "erred in a way that benefitted him [Democratic President] or cast him in a better light"?

If the media have treated Bush unfairly, the "unfairness" can only be shown with examples of where they erred one way for Democratic Presidents, but didn't treat Bush the same way.

If the media has never "erred in a way that benefitted" Democratic Presidents either, the argument that they are biased is specious.

If they are biased against Bush, then they have treated Bush differently than they treated Bill Clinton. If no Presidents were ever favored in the way Jay laments Bush wasn't favored -- then where's the "bias"? It's just a situation where the media never treats Presidents in that way, regardless of their political affiliation.

As I said -- I haven't read all of the comments, so I apologize if this was raised and/or addressed previously.

Puke,"U.S. soil" i... (Below threshold)

Puke,

"U.S. soil" includes all U.S. Embassies around the world. It also includes all U.S. territories, as well as all ships (public and private) in international waters that sail under U.S. registration. At this hour, the first link I can come up with is wiki, but I'm sure there are other more authoritative ones.

Dear aRepukelican,... (Below threshold)

Dear aRepukelican,

You said...." We would not tolerate any other nation defining their soil as "wherever they saw it was in their national interest"

The United States has not tolerated that type of nation many times in its history, even in the face of accusations of "absolute arrogance" such as yours.
You should heed Santayana's call that "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

Hugh SAnd you migh... (Below threshold)
aRepukelican:

Hugh S

And you might heed John Stuart Mill, "He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that."

puke what an appropriate qu... (Below threshold)
Jo:

puke what an appropriate quote for you since you and yours prove time and time again that you only know your "own side of the case" since that is what the MSM feeds you.

The gnat is learning.

Has anyone shown example... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

Has anyone shown examples where, with respect to Democratic Presidents, the media showed the bias Jay claims exists by having "erred in a way that benefitted him [Democratic President] or cast him in a better light"?

Well, compare the coverage of the Clinton and Bush economies. Bush's economy, by every indicator out there, is every inch as strong as Clinton's --- but it's not remotely reported as such.

Heck, find a press corps as openly antagonistic towards Clinton as people like Gregory and Helen Thomas are towards Bush. They don't even pretend to be impartial.
-=Mike

MSM bias you mean like when... (Below threshold)
nogo postal:

MSM bias you mean like when the NY Times and WAPO printed headlines on "aluminum tubes" ...When Judith Miller was a cheerleader for the drumbeat to war with her "unnamed" White House sources...
If this bias existed media would have had more criticism of the crap we were being fed....

....and it is happening again with this alleged Iran Officials IED connection dutifully reported in both the Post and the Times...What was the name of the official(s) that gave this briefing?

I know..I know there are tons of fuzzy warm success stories coming out of Iraq but the MSM including Fox do not report them because they want to destroy one of the most intelligent, successful President's in our history...by now making Iraq to appear as a string of failures...under the direction of our Commander-in-Chief...

MikeSC,I was about t... (Below threshold)
Dave:

MikeSC,
I was about to make the same point. The press core was jovial and so fawningly adoring of Clinton that it makes me sick. I think after the monica-gate crap there were actually stories coming out about how it was OK to lie. When "Bush lied people died", it's obviously a bad thing to the libs. "But when Clinton lied no one died!!!"

Spare me... A lie is a lie, and Clinton lied all the same. I don't think it can ever be proven that Bush did or didn't lie. Agree or disagree on the war, Bush has at the very least been consistent as well as admitted mistakes in major speeches. What exists today is a type of bloodlust by the DEMOCRAT party today.

By the way, there is nothin... (Below threshold)
Dave:

By the way, there is nothing Democratic about the Democrat party. They just wish to be portrayed that way. The common thinking in the Democrat party is that people are too stupid to make their own decisions, so we need laws like the "no trans-fat" law and other restrictions for the common good. People are too stupid of course. They might as well change their party name to the Nannycratic party. (or Nancycratic)

"pukeface","nogo postoffice... (Below threshold)
jhow66:

"pukeface","nogo postoffice", p'p' etc. = the Alan Combs of WIZBANG --excuses excuses excus........

I stand by the fact that... (Below threshold)
Brian:

I stand by the fact that this is a war against islamic extremists, of which sadaam was one of

Well, your very first premise is flawed. So that doesn't bode well for the rest of your positions.

Here's an easy challenge fo... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

Here's an easy challenge for those suggesting that no such bias exist.

Challenge JayTea to cite examples. Be bold. Tell him that you'll cite two examples of errors in Bush's favor for every error he can cite against Bush

If you cannot at least do it on a one for one basis, JayTea's point has validity.

Lee:<br ... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

Lee:


google search for Kristol's admission quoted by Reality above regarding the myth of liberal bias, turned up this -- which attempts to debunk the liberal media bias myth, and also several other conservative myths (the "liberal bias" myth is addressed by the quote below, see the link for other "conservative myths"):

ROFL!!!

I knew that Lee wouldn't fail us on the deny part. I almost included him as the one who would complete the three (deflect,dismiss,deny) but I thought that he might read it and fail me... but Lee is so very predictable and comes through again!

John -So, "killed ... (Below threshold)
jim:

John -

So, "killed in action" rules out Khobar Towers, Lebanon, Somalia, etc., because they were not in combat at the time, eh?

Under that reasoning, do US soldiers driving along roads in Iraq that get hit by IEDs not count because they were not in combat at the time? How about US soldiers hit by snipers in Iraq while manning road checkpoints? What about US soldiers hit by mortars while in their bases in Iraq?

On US casualties while in combat during the Clinton years (Jan 20, 1993 - Jan 20, 2001), do casulaties in Haiti or Bosnia count? I cannot confirm just now the particulars, but the Wikipedia does list 2 deaths to "Combat" there. It also credits 30 deaths in Somalia to combat, but you've tried to dismiss those:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_casualties_of_war

The Wiki notes that the numbers there do count losses to terrorism. If so, should all the ones lost in Iraq be discounted?

I realized too late that I ... (Below threshold)
jim:

I realized too late that I was vague in my last Wiki reference.

I said:

"The Wiki notes that the numbers there do count losses to terrorism."

I meant that the Wiki counts such losses separately and not lumped in with "combat" losses.

jhow66You're eatin... (Below threshold)
aRepukelican:

jhow66

You're eating again out of your used Depends bags, aren't you?

Mike SCYou have an... (Below threshold)
aRepukelican:

Mike SC

You have an absolute passion for bullshit arguments, don't you?

"Bush's economy, by every indicator out there, is every inch as strong as Clinton's --- but it's not remotely reported as such"

LMFAO...What a tall tale. On jobs alone, Clinton at least tripled the number of jobs created as compared to Bush. In addition, the median American income since 2001 has remained flat or decreased in the past 6 years.

As w/ the "Flying Palace," you couldn't tell the truth even if you thought you were lying.

Decimated again. Tired of being handled?

'aRepukelican':<br /... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

'aRepukelican':


You're eating again out of your used Depends bags, aren't you?

Your fixation on excrement (from either end) unwittingly reveals your mental state.

LMFAO...What a tall tale... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

LMFAO...What a tall tale. On jobs alone, Clinton at least tripled the number of jobs created as compared to Bush.

Unemployment is nearly identical, hate to break it to you. Bush wasn't handed an economy in total recovery mode as Clinton was.

And, PLEASE, I'm begging you to claim the economy was in recession in 1992, as the press falsely claimed and was never the case at any point in 1992 (which, stunningly, benefitted Clinton's "Worst economy in 50 years" line he used in that campaign).

Only a Dem can claim the sky is green and have the press condemn the Republican who points out it is blue.

In addition, the median American income since 2001 has remained flat or decreased in the past 6 years.

Also a lie, but hey, not unusual for you.

Bush has managed a great economy WITHOUT the massive fraud and corruption that Clinton's great economy had at its backbone.

As w/ the "Flying Palace," you couldn't tell the truth even if you thought you were lying.

I was completely right, but you --- as usual --- mistake throwing crap on the wall for making a point.
-=Mike

Mike SCWhen you we... (Below threshold)
Sooey Sooey aka aR:

Mike SC

When you were thrown against the wall remember; you're the one who called it crap.

When you were thrown aga... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

When you were thrown against the wall remember; you're the one who called it crap.

Stick to a name, Puke.

Nobody takes your gibberish seriously.
-=Mike

Well there you go again, Mi... (Below threshold)

Well there you go again, MikeSC ... posting all those nasty facts and things. You know that just sends moonbats into a frenzied rage!

LissaKay - what are you sm... (Below threshold)
Lee:

LissaKay - what are you smoking? Here's just a quick sample of the hard-hitting fluff we get from Mike.

"In addition, the median American income since 2001 has remained flat or decreased in the past 6 years.'

Also a lie, but hey, not unusual for you.

Bush has managed a great economy WITHOUT the massive fraud and corruption that Clinton's great economy had at its backbone.

Where are the facts and links Mike uses to support his contention - he's making it up unless he can show he's right. He refutes it with Also a lie, but hey, not unusual for you. Wow, what a comeback - but he forget the "neener-neener" part.

Oh, I see what impressed you - he capitalized WITHOUT -- that makes it a fact, right?

Republicans are so easily fooled...

Republicans might be easy t... (Below threshold)

Republicans might be easy to fool. Or maybe not. I can't say for sure since I am not a Republican. And I don't smoke.

But it is obvious by the behavior displayed here that moonbats do tend to fly into frenzied rages when someone presents them with calm, factual debate. It's rather fascinating to watch ... kinda like a massive pile-up on the highway.

Calm factual debates, witho... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Calm factual debates, without facts to back them up, can hardly qualify as a "debate" - more like "an argument" -- and one where your side just makes up arguments that have no factual basis behind them....kinda like a dog humping a tree.

Where are the facts and ... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

Where are the facts and links Mike uses to support his contention - he's making it up unless he can show he's right.

Median income 2000: $44,853

We then had the recession year of 2001. Finding numbers for 2001 have been unfruitful, but the number is close to 2002's. Likely slightly lower.

2002: $43,052
2003: $43,318
2004: $44,389
2005: $46,326

Source: US Census Bureau.

So, yeah, you were lying.
-=Mike

Now adjust it for inflation... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Now adjust it for inflation, Mikey.

See -- When you get some ac... (Below threshold)
Lee:

See -- When you get some actual facts out there we can discuss and debate - to continue to argue as you have been will only result in splinters.

Using a figure of 2.5% for ... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Using a figure of 2.5% for inflation, and just eyeballing and not actually doing the math, it would appear that income was flat or declining until 2005.

Do you agree?

Ahh - see - no response ---... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Ahh - see - no response --- when I get busy or lose track of a thread that is the point where conservative wingnuts accuse me of "avoiding the question because you're embarrassed bwaaahaahaa!" or some other nonsense.

I'm sure you're just busy somewhere. No problem. Hit me by email if you want to discuss this further - leedamnit at yahoo dot com.

-Lee

I'm curious Lee where was y... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

I'm curious Lee where was your submission to 'Wizbang Blue'. Are you really that much of a coward or is that you're unable to put forth a coherent, constructive argument ? We certainly know it's not due to a lack of time.

"I'm curious Lee where w... (Below threshold)
Lee:

"I'm curious Lee where was your submission to 'Wizbang Blue'. Are you really that much of a coward or is that you're unable to put forth a coherent, constructive argument ? We certainly know it's not due to a lack of time."

I wasn't interested in writing for Wizbang at that time, underscoreMikeunderscore. It takes me seconds to shoot holes in moronic arguments like the dribble you post here, but I approach blog postings more seriously, and with a lot more time invested.

The week between Christmas and New Year's was not a week where I had that time and energy. What time I did have was spent in fun -- making childish, immature trolls like you look like the total jackasses you really are.

Thanks for the opportunity to clear that up for you. Now, what's your excuse?

Oh yeah - the people at Wizbang didn't invite you to write. Wow. Thats sad. I wonder why?

Ahh - see - no response ... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

Ahh - see - no response --- when I get busy or lose track of a thread that is the point where conservative wingnuts accuse me of "avoiding the question because you're embarrassed bwaaahaahaa!" or some other nonsense.

Believe it or not, I actually have a life to live and this board is not a terribly high priority.

Your point: In addition, the median American income since 2001 has remained flat or decreased in the past 6 years.

I disproved it.
-=Mike

Lee, _Mike_ wasn't invited ... (Below threshold)

Lee, _Mike_ wasn't invited to Wizbang Blue beause he didn't qualify. But he's certainly welcome to sign up for the Bomb Squad -- as are you, for that matter.

J.

This is fascinating. Jay Te... (Below threshold)
ChrisO:

This is fascinating. Jay Tea's original post made the point that the press errs against Bush every. single. time. Interestingly, he doesn't see fit to include even a single example. Then within a few comments, Mike is referring to it as "conclusive proof of deception." Somehow Jay Tea managed to offer conclusive proof simply by stating his opinion and not offering a single supporting example. Boy, that's a pretty low threshold of proof.

Now, after however many comments, I haven't seen one comment that contained an example supporting Jay Tea's thesis. Not one. Yet the fawning sycophants on this board continue to crow about how the lefties are ignoring their "facts." What facts? Please refer me to one comment that provided a link to stories where the press erred in such a way as to make Bush look bad. Because remember, it happens every.single.time.

Not to mention that it's a classic straw man argument. The proper comparison should be to stories where the press erred in a way that made Democrats look bad. And there's tons of those.

And a special shout out to the refreshingly fact-free Lissa Kay, who interrupts her name calling just long enough to criticize others for calling names. Lissa, that snarky "the grownups are talking now" tone was old about two years ago. And your laughable link to that ABC News story is supposed to prove exactly what? It was no secret that Saddam supported some Palestinian terrorists. But I really don't think the American people thought we should go to war to stop people from setting off bombs in Israel. So it's the link to Osama that's important. And what did the video say? Three intelligence sources said a member of the Iraqi government met with Osama, although they don't know what was discussed. But they're sure he offere Iraq's support. If they don't know what was discussed, how are they so sure, particularly since there have been no subsequent revelations to support that idea? Hardly the smoking gun you make it out to be.

Basically, the right has been getting by with a Catch-22.
"Even the Clinton Administration thought Saddam had WMDs."
But apparently Clinton didn't think it rose to the level where we had to invade.
"Yes, but that's because he was a wimp."

So Bush is superior to Clinton, because he went to war over false information, and Clinton didn't. I don't think that makes Bush look so good.

Face it, the press is neither left nor right, altrhough there are examples of both. The press is beholden to whoever's in power. They fawned over Clinton when he was riding high, then turned on him viciously when he appeared wounded. Same with Bush. It's no accident that the press cheerleaded for the war when Bush's approval rating was in the 90s, and only found the courage to ask tough questions when Bush was on the ropes.

The reporting on Whitewater was horrific and lazy, and the press's misleading characterizations of Al Gore are the main reason he didn't win by a large enough margin that the election couldn't be taken away from him.

Lee:<br ... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

Lee:


It takes me seconds to shoot holes in moronic arguments like the dribble you post here, but I approach blog postings more seriously, and with a lot more time invested.

Oh please! The amount of time you spend posting your inane comments here? Note that JayTea often publishes several pieces per day.

The fact of the matter is that you aren't capable of producing a coherent, constructive argument. All of your post here are nothing more than 'sniping' to try to pick apart others arguments. Any moron can criticize others (as you've proven time and time again), but it takes something more to present a reasoned, constructive piece (which you're obviously incapable of).

Lee:


Oh yeah - the people at Wizbang didn't invite you to write. Wow. Thats sad. I wonder why?

ROFL! Perhaps, that would probably because Wizbang 'Blue' was intended for 'Liberal' commenters. Even you should be able to determine that I'm not on the 'Liberal' side of the fence. Not really quick there are you ? (no surprise there)

Jay has invited you to writ... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Jay has invited you to write for the Bomb Squad, Mike. You're going to do it aren't you?

I guess Mike's Mom makes hi... (Below threshold)
Lee:

I guess Mike's Mom makes him go to bed at 10.

ChrisO, perhaps you didn't ... (Below threshold)

ChrisO, perhaps you didn't notice, but the last three words of my original piece were linked to three such examples. If you click on "Every," "Single," and "Time" you will be taken to stories showing precisely what I was talking about.

J.

Your point: I... (Below threshold)
Lee:

Your point: In addition, the median American income since 2001 has remained flat or decreased in the past 6 years.

I disproved it.
-=Mike

I don't think so, Mike. All that's been proven is that one the facts are out there for everyone to see - you guys are proven to be lying, ignorant jackasses. A 2.5% inflation rate makes the income flat up until 2006 - or do you need help with the math?

underscoreMike: You are going to sign up for the Bomb Squad, right?

Mike?

Mike?




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy