Downing Street memo

About Rove!!!!!

 

Hostile press??
You mean like Jeff Gannon/James Guckert? That dude was in the White House press corps since the Supreme Court elected GW in 2000. Finally got outed when someone else did a little research after his questions got completely off beat and discovered he was a Republican schill planted there so questions could be directed in his direction should someone actually ask a tough question. By the way, Gannon/Guckert's real job is being a guy prostitute and hosting two gay porn websites. But then with GW and his team being good moral Christians, I'm sure they were only good wholesome Christian gay porn websites. :bootyshake:

It is not liberal bias when the press burys the revelation that a republican president lied to get into a war that has cost nearly 1,800 American servicemen's lives (so far) and wounding 13,000 others, and also keep it on the front pages for years the fact that Clinton lied to Congress about something that was no damn business of congress'.

 

tleonhar:

I thought you all was supposed to be the "tolerant" ones?? One example of a reported who soft balled the President on a question, and YOUR tolerant guys outed him. Hypocrites..I don't like his lifestyle, and neither does a lot of people, but in the performance of his job, I would have been content to leave that alone.

Yes, darn right the press is hostile..as for your other rants they are views, which differ from mine. Destruction of your political opponents has come to a new art form, both sides do it, and I believe your side does it more., and more importantly the American people are SICK of it.

Night you all, I'll check the slinging tomorrow and fire back then.

 

NOOOWWWW I get it.

If a news group uncovers wrongdoing and/or corruption of any kind by anyone in government, like Chapaquiddik (sp?), Watergate, Monica Lewinski (even though not relevant), Iran Contra, and now possible acts of treason. Then reports it to the public. They are liberal biased and hostile to the president.

But on the other hand, a news group that only reports Happy news about the GOP. But makes sure it reports all the dirt it can uncover or fabricate about the Democrats. Or as faux news president Ruppert Murdock says "The news is what I say is the news", then they are fair and balanced.

Glad I got that straight :lol:

By the way IA, that is a direct quote from Ruppert Murdock...

 

So what..Ny Times has "All the News we see fit to Print" or they should have.......nothing to say about the hypocracy..seems like there is 2 standards for all of this..but that is my opinion. No the press should not strictly report the good spin.

But they definetly should not make news, selectively ignore certain information..found one just the other day..they did report about CBS getting sued by Westmoreland, but niftly left out at the time the fact CBS settled, on the 18th day of the trial and just before the Jury was about to get the case.

And sure Iraq is costly in terms of lives of soldiers, 1800 +., but the media is totally failing to report any good stories and accomplishments that U.S. and its Allies have done there. That is not spin but first hand information I have received OVER and OVER from service personnel there. I like a fair and responsible press, USA Today is a good example, the Wall Street Journal also. The NY Times, Los Ang. Times., and many others choose to co-mingle news and opinions of its management, publishers, owners and the likes. Take the NY Times, constantly reporting negative stories on headline banner, then if it does not work out, the real end of the story is located usually in the rear of the pages. Take issues., if the Times likes the issue it is page one or close, and reported upon multiple times, if it is content the Times does not agree with, either it is not published at all, or it goes WAY back. If you talk to any of the FOX folks including many many ex- CNN staff (start with Heraldo and Greta Van Surtern), you'll find that Mr Murdock has NEVER interferred with, reviewed or killed any content from that news network. Try that with "CNN" and its owner, Mr Ted Turner, or the NY Times and Mr Saltzberger. I am not naive, and innocent enough to just lap up the garbage from EITHER side. My cousin's husband is a camera man from FOX SPORTS., who used to work for CNN, and he says the same thing.

 

PS I know Ted Turner is the EX owner of CNN

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IALTMANN\";p=\"102675)</div>

Which is it? Is morale high among the troops, or have dissenters at home magically caused them to fail at their mission?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tleonhar\";p=\"109250)</div>

Yep. We saw it in Vietnam--that other quagmire that became unpopular and caused the wingers to foam at the mouth.

Shooting the messenger, that old fad, is back again.

If only we had state-run media to report only good news from Iraq. The people love us, the car bombs are merely celebratory, electricity and water work all the time, and we have always been at war with Oceania.

Jesus.

 

Orsino
If only we had state-run media to report only good news from Iraq. The people love us, the car bombs are merely celebratory, electricity and water work all the time...


Hey I never hear about the electricity, schools and water works, and industry and all that..

All I can say is Alqueada and Osamah and the rest thank you for the courageous coverage of the turmoil we do because of the injustices and atrocious conduct of the evil infidel invaders. I guess just like before we can turn the war using the media and its people, and not worry about it later when we get the rest of the infidels and muslim flags fly, starting with England and Europe then beyond.

I guess that is what you are saying ??

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IALTMANN\";p=\"110275)</div>

Yep. Successful policies must be reality-based, and not predicated upon illusions of ourselves as great white liberators who only fire blanks.

"All the turmoil," lest you forget, consists of real people whose lives and lifestyles have been ripped apart, first by Saddam, and now by insurgents and our own uniformed troops (and civilian contractors working without any democratic oversight).

When one advocates ignoring all the pain and death, one is not getting any closer to a solution. Sensible policy recognizes that no matter how well-intentioned many of us are, the effect of our invasion and conquest of Iraq looks pretty much like Saddam's regime. We can't bring back the dead we killed, but surely even you must recognize that unless we make the lives of the survivors better, we're just another power ruling by force. And failing at it. Of the hundreds of billions spent to prosecute the war

Do you want our occupation accepted? If so, how do you think we should act in Iraq? Realizing that only the insane expect different results when repeating the same action, how do you think our policy should change in order to secure victory (whichever definition of that term you prefer)?

 

It only has to do with stopping terrorism and establishing some form of a more democratic system in a Muslim country. Granted our side has to resort to bad things., war is never good, but there has to be a limit that a high road taken must reach, and this 911 and LONDON and many others before are that limit, or line in the sand.

I cannot imagine the current slate of terrorist and Muslim extremists running their world, just sitting there and being content. They have had their world and have failed to even take care of their own, I have been there in the Muslim world. And no it was not exploitation, the civilized world has given and made those lands incredibly rich, it just has not filtered down. Sometimes we have been and are forced to accept some rulers and evils simply because the alternative is something even worse. Perhaps when a nuclear weapon hits the US and also effects Canada, mayyyybe this will be more understood. Currently the Muslim world in general wants total destruction of the non Islamic world, and all non Muslim either converted or dead, that is their long term desire. I just do not see how we can sit there, and let it come, Clinton tried that. I thank the "stars" (can't say God anymore) that our President has finally put priorities in their proper perspective.

 

"it's been shown that Saddam was not involved in 9/11 or any other worldwide terrorism schemes"

You have got to be kidding..what have you been reading???

 

"The muslim religion has nothing to do with anything you see reflected in terrorism and suggesting so only extends the misunderstanding."

Read the Koran

 

"why we're not liberating the people of Sudan and S. Africa and N. Korea and China who are equally oppressed by their current regimes."

This is called reality..

Sudan: this society still has slaves, this society helped Hussein hide weapons, this society help Hussein with nuclear materials. Millions of displaced africans and internal strife for years, even during previous administrations. We do not have the money or capability to do a whole lot alone. And any efforts that way would of course be protested upon by the left.

South Africa: It was the left that wanted Apartheid dismantled, thus one evil is replaced with another.

South and North Korea: from the air at night North Korea is easy to see, darkness. This country was given means to make NUKES., by a previous administration. Now reality forces that country to be dealt with in a different manner. Many will blame Bush for that, I blame North Korea. The new treaty sought by the North wants the country re-unified at some point, much like China and Taiwan., how is that fair to the U.S. and the thousands of Soldiers who made the ultimate sacrifice, and the South Koreans, if they lose rights
to a free society.

China: We again gave them the means, and are doing it still. They have unimaginable capabilities and it could lead the world to Armagedeon. We will wrongly and probably let them take the Taiwan peninsula at a certain time. China is set to destroy this country economically first and then use its military style to control what China wants to control, and if there are protests, remember Tianaman Square.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IALTMANN\";p=\"110424)</div>

This post is not directed at IA but about what he said. I think it's important that we be accurate when we discuss things him.

When we are not accurate, it allows IA to jump on our points.

And although the entire reality based community now knows that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, and even GW himself has agreed with this, it HAS been shown that Saddam was a major player in world terrorism. So IA is right on this.

Unfortunately, Saddam was a major player in world terrorism back when Reagan and Bush 1 were president, and about the same time that that picture of Rumsfeld was taken with him shaking Saddams hand. But ever since the first gulf war, as well as 10 years of sanctions, his ability to assist world terror was spent.

So by the time we invaded Iraq in 2003, Saddam was a minor, trivial, two bit player in world terror. This is not in dispute among the reality based.

By 2003, the only terrorism that Saddam was involved in was praising suicide bombers and contributing some money to the families of those bombers. Now this was certainly not nice, but it was "two bit" in terms of him being a "playa".

But don't blame IA for missing the point on things like this. Our corporate media loves what GW has given them, and they will do everything to obfuscate the connection between Saddam and Iraq and terror and 9/11. Indeed, GW still continues to work Iraq and Saddam into the war on terror into all his speechs. Watch him. In every speech he uses Iraq and the war on terror, or the words 9/11 in the same sentence. This is done because it is imperative to keep the delusion going that one has something to do with the other. Without the continuance of this myth, even more people would be turing against this sideshow in Iraq.

And have you seen the current talking point on this? Now the language is there exists a "pre 9/11" mindset versus those that truly "learned" something from 9/11. So without saying that Iraq caused 9/11, they can make the inference that those that criticize the Iraq tangent are victims of the "pre 9/11" mindset. And that those that support the Iraq war "learned" something from 9/11. Keep your eyes open, this new language seems to be all the rage.

If you think about it, this new language is truly a brilliant strategy and of course it will work on some people. So when IA makes these kinds of statements, be kind to him. Billions have been spent to get him, and others, to think like this.

And it's just a matter of time before we are at war with Oceana. Or have we always been at war with Oceana?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IALTMANN\";p=\"110430)</div>

Little correction, Taiwan is an island, not a peninsula.

 

And another "fact" thrown out by IA that is reality challenged. That North Korea's now having nuclear weapons is due to things Clinton did. This is also not consistent with reality, but its important to blame someone else otherwise GW, who's fault it really is, might get blamed.

I no longer respond to IA as it is clearly fruitless. But I do not like his fabrications sitting out there unchallenged.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(IALTMANN\";p=\"110407)</div>

You believe this based on what evidence?