Redstate

still have any doubts that the MSM are anti'American?  I'll repeat that, they are anti'American.  

I can take a major paper and spin traffic deaths in this country out of control.  Citizens would be clamoring for more laws, .0 alcohol content, mandatory sentencing for first timers; all I gotta do is grab a Momma "Accident" ala Sheehan.  Don't believe me??? here are the stats:

42,636 killed

16,694 alcohol death related

You tell me, don't think I can have fun with the grieving mother?  The poor Granny who crashed into the tree getting her meds?  Or the rescuer run over?

No my friends, the MSM chooses to run down this country.  So much good news that could balance out the incessant negativity.  Perhaps a boycott is called for.  O nevermind, the way they are losing people why bother calling for one?

If so, I'm in.

as long as we can all figure out how to meet somewhere and remain anonymous.  

It is our season.  First round on me!  Whose the Designated Driver tho?

I'm just across the state from you -- barely an inch on my map.  We could walk and meet somewhere in the middle.

Sounds like the Iraqis are really getting their arms around it!  That should mean a few of ours can come home.

Did Jack hear of any problems with the Iraqi soldiers napping in the afternoon?

"For one thing, the Marine master sergeant had to deal with his trainees' need for naps. The Iraqis were used to training from 6 a.m. until noon, and not resuming until about 5 p.m.

"Until about 4, it was nap break time," said Hinton, of Tuscaloosa County. "That was something that Iraqi higher headquarters wanted to maintain, so we had to work around that."

http://www.al.com/news/birminghamnews/index.ssf?/base/news/1117704060122600
.xml&coll=2

Why, if news agencies are anti-American, do Americans keep gobbling up the news as presented?

When Americans stop buying anti-American news, I guarantee they'll stop printing it in mass quantities.

Maybe with subscriptions down, they'll change...  but I doubt it.  This is because people don't want a paper paper, not because of the content.

that the extinct media wouldn't tell the whole story.

They claim they don't have a bias, and we are supposed to accept that at face value. Yet everyday examples abound of agenda journalism. The old media continues to trade on reputations earned during the heyday of big dailies and the evening network newscasts.

Thank goodness AlGore invented the internet. We who wish have an alternative avenue for news and information. And sites to expose the bias in the old media. NewsBusters

some just aren't aware of the bias.

I have a friend, a widow who is 71. She grew up and lived much of her adult life when the network news dominated. Uncle Walter, et al were the faces of honesty and truthfulness. What you knew about what was going on was fed to you thru these newsmen.

When I first met and became friends with her a few years ago we would have discussions about politics and current events. She was quite interested in things. However, she knew many known facts which I continually countered and completely deconstructed. All of her sources were the MSM news, especially the networks. She still had that attachment to them ingrained from their monopoly during her life.

She asked how she's supposed to get the whole story if she can't count on the sources she's relied on lo these many years. I answered that it was a good thing she had met someone like me. Unfortunately, she's not a computer user. But she now knows to take in the news with a very sceptical mind.

Thus is how so many still accept the gospel as presented by the extinct media. As the generations who grew up with the network news as their sole source of information go to their reward, the sway held over a large portion of the population will continue to recede.

but since the major papers are in major urban areas, where the anti-American fervor is greatest, they just keep laying off people.  Thank goodness for Wal-Mart, oops, most big cities dont let Wal-Mart in.

In case you haven't heard also one of the networks is thinking about dumping there news divison.  CBS had to overbid for football to get a leadin for 60 minutes.  When I was a boy 60 minutes was always # 1 or 2 in the ratings.

The drop is there but to say that the MSM is going to go out of business is a silly argument.  In a country of 300 million there will be an audience.  But, what is plausible, is they will only be preaching to the choir in the end.

How far along are the 9k currently being trained?

While you were in the green zone, what was security like? Were you able to walk around unescorted by troops? Are markets open in the green zone?

Are you able to travel in unarmored vehicles?

I am someone who believes progress is being made but I think the argument could be being made more effectively.

The key points are to focus on specific measures and how they are changing.  General comments are not very convincing.  Likewise, overly optimistic reports create short-term lifts at the cost of credibility (think about the different numbers we have heard about the size of the new army).

The chart Brookings produces is, to me, a good example of how to make a careful, measured but convincing care for improvement (unfortunately somewhat out of date at this point): ttp://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/brochure/infocard01.htm

Note in particular, the polls on the support for the government and optimism for the country's future.  And I think people will believe that kind of report more because it does not try to brush under the table the real (but in the long run probably less important) negative trends in insurgent attacks for example.

Tom

on the declining readership and network news viewers is that they are still the feeders for so many papers and news productions across the USA.

The NYTimes, AP, AlReuters, et al, with their liberal bias feed your local papers for national and international news. Thus, the bias seeps into every paper read across the US.

all I gotta do is grab a Momma "Accident" ala Sheehan

Actually, I'm pretty sure MADD beat you to it.

for progress are not just raw numbers of U.S. servicemen killed or bombings in decline, but stats which show much support we are getting from the population, such as what Joint Chief of Staff Pace noting today 4,300 + tipoffs of where terrorists are, IED's are placed, weapons caches, and valuable intel on strength of opposition and their weaponry.  Great improvement in this type of information, in some provinces 100x greater than 1 year ago.

Brookings, a left leaning organization, would not be my choice of a standard on anything.

since he never said he invented the Internet. And that was a whopper made up by the LIBERAL Times and Post.

"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet."

Here's the transcript.

....we do really need to end up not being PERCEIVED as the bad guys in all of this. That's why the initial undertaking was so risky to begin with. Despite good intentions, problems like Abu Ghraib and accusations that we want to bomb Al Jazeera and worldwide prison camps that used to be Soviet gulags work against us. The big question is, do we end up creating more terrorists than we are vanquishing, especially considering that the brand that primarily benefited from Hussein is primarily interested in Israel and not the U.S --- and apparently not enough of a threat for Israel to do anything about directly.

The point is, any amount of explaining away the severity of the human rights violations mentioned in the above paragraph may work for your party here in the United States, but we need to also pay attention to how these things are going down in the rest of the world --- not because we need to pass an international test --- but because we really need most of the World on our side.

I think any discussion of drawing down troops or time-tables or schedules or not having schedules needs to be done with an eye towards what will benefit us in the long run. What actions will be factors in minimizing the demand for terrorists; what actions will be factors in aiding our ability to foil terrorist plots; even what actions will enable us to benefit economically? I don't know the answers to these.

Getting back to the thread, I think 95% of Americans are proud of the work our soldiers are doing. And we certainly all have different ideas of what anti-Americanism is --- it cuts both ways.

Is at least as important as being preceived as the good guy. The incessant handwringing and all the comparisons to Vietnam, as well as outrage over mild interrogation tactics, have a very real cost.

As in, "creating legislation". If you read a few more words from Blitzer's interview with Gore, you will see that they were talking about legislation Gore co-authored, or "created". All of the pols talk about legislation they "created".

Why should Democrats, looking at the Democratic nomination process, support you instead of Bill Bradley, a friend of yours, a former colleague in the Senate? What do you have to bring to this that he doesn't necessarily bring to this process?

This was the question.

Well, I will be offering -- I'll be offering my vision when my campaign begins. And it will be comprehensive and sweeping. And I hope that it will be compelling enough to draw people toward it. I feel that it will be.

But it will emerge from my dialogue with the American people. I've traveled to every part of this country during the last six years. During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system.

During a quarter century of public service, including most of it long before I came into my current job, I have worked to try to improve the quality of life in our country and in our world. And what I've seen during that experience is an emerging future that's very exciting, about which I'm very optimistic, and toward which I want to lead.

This is the entire answer. They don't mention "creating legislation" here and the question is very general... essentially why should people vote for you. We should vote for him partly because he "took the initiative in creating the internet."

It is still a lie however you want to spin it. A stupid, pointless lie, but a lie none-the-less. Your spin isn't any more accurate than the "invented the internet" spin.

but Gore is far from stupid and taken in context any rational person cannot possibly believe that he was talking about having the technical knowledge to put together a communications network. And Gore, who again is not an idiot, cannot possibly have thought that it would be interpreted that way. As a congressman, when you create something, it obviously has to do with legislation. Anyone who would interpret it as Republicans and the New York Times has ever since is only interested in smearing Al Gore.

I know AlGore didn't invent the internet. And why not smear AlGore? It's so easy. Especially lately since he's gone so unhinged.

To have credibility, I think that Rep. Kingston (and by extension, the administration) needs to be more honest when assessing progress in Iraq.  Attacks against US troops went from 30 a day in October 2003, to 50 a day by October 2004.  And October 2005? There are, on an average, 100 attacks per day.  Oil production is below pre-war levels.  The availability of water and electricity is below pre-war levels.  And the circumstances of the vehicle accident the other day that injured two Congressmen (Murphy and Marshall) once again highlighted that we are unable to secure the two mile stretch of highway between the airport and the Green Zone.  And how confident can one be when told about X number of trained Iraqi troops?  The reported numbers have changed over and over.

These are all realities that are being ignored or simply glossed over and until they are realistically addressed, reports of progress with troops or conditions in Iraq won't be taken seriously by the American people.  

I've been a Democrat most of my life and I don't think it simply cuts both ways in the current debate and I'll tell you why. RFK spoke at Columbia in NY in 1965 and said of the then Vietnam war that it was painful to be forced to make a distinction between one's government and one's country. Painful.  The trouble with much, not all, of today's left is that they show no sign of pain. There is schadenfreude aplenty and lots of plain old glee at every bit of bad news. They put opposition to their government above their country.  I do NOT see Doug in SF's post as falling into this category by the way, but I don't think it cuts both ways because there are real consequences for America when these issues are raised in the way that criticizes not only the party in government but undermines the war effort itself.  As zuiko points out it has a cost and to act with utter disregard toward that cost opens one to the charge of anti Americanism and defeatism. I think it was Blackfive that caught the problem with a certain segment of the left when he characterized a recent anti war march as an anti victory march.

on our fears.

We do not and have not created terrorists, anymore than any other peoples created us. We did invite their aggression thru perceived weakness since Vietnam-Iran 1979-Lebanon-Leaving Saddam in power 1991-Somalia-numerous 90's attcaks esp 1993 wtc bombing  which led to 911.

The perception was earned, not because a majority of Americans are not willing to fight and win, but because the msm-dem party deems the US unworthy of defending.

The perception items you cite are the obcession of the left worldwide, not most Ameircans or muslims for that matter.

see wwii

a war we won

we are fighting an ideology born of cultural failure and we are winning and we will win

12 months of attcaks couldnt beat bush in 2004

the impotence of the left msm dem libs is showing

and if the gop elected senate ever notices it, watch out for spine growth

but the dem problem is that when elctions are held, unlike mere polls, a choice is presented

and we win

DAMM: Drunks Against Mad Mothers

I must have missed the comment where he was called an idiot.  Preemptive strike?

All evidence to the contrary.

Everyone, in case you didn't catch this, Doug is certain that Al Gore is not an idiot. For full clarity, he's also far from stupid. He's also not a moron, imbecile, or cretin.

Not only that, but apparently Congressmen are given the power of creating ex nihilo through the Act of Legislation. Gods truly walk among us.

Personally, when I call him a dummy it is less a reference to his IQ than to his mannequin-like, charisma-free personality.

Perhaps this discussion should be continued in a separate thread.

...and that's what makes him dangerous.

everything the guy does is calculated 100 times.  even his "unhinged" is pre-planned and scripted.

How much would Bill and Hill love it if AlGore hopped into the 08 fray.  1 quick way to make her look like she's a centrist. Shakespeare couldnt write this stuff.

You are right: he is NOT an idiot --- I'm sooo happy you got that part. Now I know it might be very difficult to hold on to that part while coming up with a slightly more complex idea: that he would have to be an idiot to try to take credit for inventing the Internet. Clearly that isn't what he was doing.

.....you're also having a little trouble with the very complex "if A is true, then one can logically draw conclusion B" mode of thinking. I have to give you credit for the getting the first half, though.

...the thread is about what the MSM are doing ---not really a report about Iraq. For every story you cite as evidence that the MSM are liberal there is another that indicates quite the opposite. One of our contributors here unwittingly mentioned Gore, so I thought that it would be a good time to point this out.

Whatever is going on with the MSM, being liberal or conservative doesn't have all that much to do with it. I'm pretty sure accuracy is not in the picture, however.

First, because my name is Thomas, not Mike; second, because your "mode of thinking" necessarily involves something we call "a priori assumptions," so your example is kinda cruddy on its face.

Good luck.

and it is true that anyone who has meddled for decades in a region with more than its fair share of religious fanatics would be unwise to show weakness. I would note though that Israel has managed quite well to avoid being perceived as weak, despite being far more judicious in whom it chooses to attack, and despite being under far more of a threat, especially from Saddam Hussein.

Of course, the question is what do we do now, not whether we should have attacked in the first place (though I feel that there are those who should bear some responsibility for that decision).

Personally, I have not ruled out some sort of solution such as doubling the number of troops in order to more quickly ensure stability and to garner support among the populace, and to strengthen our resolve to put down the uprising. However, as in Vietnam, there is very little evidence that this would work. Not only that, if it did not work, it would be quite clear just how weak we are (i.e. we could go all out and still not achieve our objectives). If we quit now, we would clearly have not given our all, and thus shown a lack of resolve in the matter of ensuring peace in Iraq rather than showing weakness. There is a difference. There are major downsides to that too, of course.

about misnaming you. However, in this case the conclusion that most of you draw with regard to Mr. Gore's Internet comments is at least as "a priori" as the one I draw. Thus it comes down to which conclusion is more likely to be the case. I argue that it is extremely unlikely that Mr. Gore would ever indicate that he is responsible in any way for the technical aspect of the Internet. Yet many, including the liberal New York Times, insist that this is what he did.

down to the fact that Gore was an notorious fabulist. Whoppers were a way of life and this story never would have stuck without his long track record of playing fast and loose with the truth.

"...he would have to be an idiot to try to take credit for inventing the Internet."

That thought never whistled through my head.

Most teacher's pets are not idiots, but that doesn't stop them from constantly drawing attention to their intellect and exaggerating their accomplishments to garner praise and perks.  The "teacher's pet from hell" (MoDo said it, not me) got too specific in his over-reaching, and he was properly ridiculed for it.  He should have stuck with his generic "took the initiative in initiating a broad range of vast initiatives that did great things" blather.

I said note in particular polls showing support for the government and optimism about the future.  Those are much broader measures than the number of tipoffs.  That said, if we chose to consistently present a measure like that over time it would be good thing.  Constantly creating new measures is not so good.

As for the comment on Brookings, glad to know you are open-minded.

Tom

Our military, of what cowards they have become. I just finished reading the autobiography of a long time Navy Seal who served as both enlisted and officer from '59 - '89. Instead of Warriors we have Politicians and Ticket Punching Career Men which translates to Pansy or perhaps a more direct translation would be P*ssies. Hell, all of us that were at the Pentagon saw it first hand. And all this adds up to yet another broken mechanism in our country. Sad.

How long do you think we are going to make it?

James Marcinik

I agree that the case for improvement is getting stronger, but can be explained better.  I am in favor of any metrics that can be effective in support.

Polls that are conducted properly (large enough samples, diverse cross sections, etc.) and structured to reveal truth about public opinion are valid and worth noting and structuring arguments around, but as you know, polls can also be easily manipulated to manufacture desired answers with leading questions.

Would love to have seen the chart, but unfortunately can't seem to locate it.  My point is that Brookings has a track record of opposing conservatism, as one should expect of a socialist/liberal think tank.  Whatever blows your hair back, Tom.  But don't expect only  accolades and no skepicism when using them as the lynchpin of any point of view.  I do consider myself to have an open mind, but am a staunch conservative (my wife jokes that I'm just to the right of Atilla the Hun).  

Some posts are curt, and by their nature appear condescending.  When I replied to your last post, that wasn't my intention.  I enjoy our discourse, and I don't take anything personally.  Hope you feel the same way.  

 

Regardless, he might have been able to play that whle "I created the Internet" thing off and still won if he wasn't as interesting as drying paint.

In the end, that's what cost him the election.

Just because a handful of vocal veterans are trying to give the rest of us a bad name does NOT mean the American Military is filled with cowardly, ticket-punching, political career men.

The Vast majoriy of us are solid soldiers who merely do our jobs as best we can.

Appreciate the response and the courtesy.