[Jawbone54]

Voters Believe Media Bias is Very Real

97% of Republicans say the media is liberal
66% of Independents that the media is liberal
23% of Independents say the media is conservative
66% of Democrats say the media is conservative
17% of Democrats say the media is liberal

Only 11% of the voting public thinks that the media is objective and unbiased.

If that is the case, and we don't really trust what they're saying, then why do we keep watching the same old crap? And furthermore, even if you agree with the media outlet that you're watching, can you still trust them? If you're a liberal, can you trust everything CNN says? If you're a conservative, can you trust FOX News? Not only do you have to filter everything coming from an opposing news outlet, but also the ones that you "trust."

The question I'm asking is this...

IS THE NEWS REALLY THE NEWS ANYMORE? Or was it ever, and we just weren't aware of it?

[- - e r i k - -]

Funny how no republican see media as conservative. Hmmm.

[analogika]

Indeed. That alone says everything you need to know about media political "bias".

I have some problems with Al Franken, but I'll have to agree with him on this one:

The real bias in the media is the corporate bias, the maintain-a-thirty-second-attention-span bias, the bullshit-sells-better-than-news bias that keeps Anna Nicole and Paris Hilton in the top news slot while over 1,000 people were killed in Iraq last month, the why-broadcast-an-in-depth-report-when-we-capture-more-viewers-with-two-pundits-briefed-in-three-minutes-with-two-xeroxed-articles-screaming-at-each-other-on-the-air bias.

People watch that **** and come away thinking they're "informed".

This wouldn't be a real problem except for the fact that Informed Citizenry is the absolute fundament, the single most essential ingredient, of democracy.

[ebuddy]

I think Jawbone kind of uncovered the issue with the CNN/FOX News breakdown. When Conservatives are asked whether or not the media is biased they immediately think of CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, New York Times, the LA Times, the Washington Post, the Boston Globe, the Chicago Tribune etc... When Liberals are asked whether or not the media is biased they immediately think of Fox News. The result? Most people thinking there is a media bias.

That said, media bias toward the left is a well-documented phenomena;
- 89% of Washington journalists voted for Clinton in 1992, compared to 43% percent of non-journalists.
- 23% of the public describe themselves as liberal, compared to 55% of journalists.
- 49% of the public is pro-choice, but 82% percent of journalists are pro-choice.
- 75% of the public favors the death penalty, compared to 47% of journalists.

There are numerous comparisons to show a media bias to the left. Many of the above-named media outlets have watched a significant decline in their reader/viewership while Fox News has "generally" enjoyed their new choice for news. There's a reason "fair and balanced" was a brilliant marketing campaign. Whether or not they are is admittedly debatable.

No news outlet is perfect and I think it is unreasonable to expect an entity of opinionated humans to offer absolutely no slant to their stories. Some are more blatant than others.

*edited to include; I agree with Franken and analogika on the whole Anna Nicole thing. This is freakin' ridiculous already. It was a non-story before it began. I don't want to hear about the severely dysfunctional life of a "star", her death, and all the pathetic implications of her poor child and all that loot. This is the absolute lowest common denominator.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Funny how no republican see media as conservative. Hmmm.

Just being honest...

Good thing to know that atleast 17% of dems are honest.

[analogika]

[Powerbook]

Originally Posted by analogika 

...

People watch that **** and come away thinking they're "informed".

This wouldn't be a real problem except for the fact that Informed Citizenry is the absolute fundament, the single most essential ingredient, of democracy.

Exactly. And that is where one can attach the quote from John Kerry, analogously: Educate/inform yourself or you'll be stuck in something like Iraq.

Regards
PB.

[Kevin]

Yeah an Kerry was a huge jackass for saying that.

[Powerbook]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Yeah an Kerry was a huge jackass for saying that.

Yeah, he should have cried havoc and hoised the flag of "Mission Accomplished".

PB.

[besson3c]

What Al Franken says is absolutely correct. Whether the media is left or right is pretty much irrelevant so long as it is ADD and lacking substance. I'd be willing to bet that anyone could listen to an NPR segment that had a bias and *still* come out more informed and equipped to formulate a well thought-out opinion than if they only listened to the cable news programs.

ebuddy, I wouldn't put too much thought into all these numbers. They are interesting, useful in context, I'm not even refuting their validity, but I think it would be foolish to make assertions based on these numbers alone without knowing more about how they came up with these. There are soooo many variables to account for.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Powerbook 

Yeah, he should have cried havoc and hoised the flag of "Mission Accomplished".

Someone this day and age still misinterpreting "mission accomplished"

Even after being corrected. tsk tsk.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I think Jawbone kind of uncovered the issue with the CNN/FOX News breakdown. When Conservatives are asked whether or not the media is biased they immediately think of CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, New York Times, the LA Times, the Washington Post, the Boston Globe, the Chicago Tribune etc... When Liberals are asked whether or not the media is biased they immediately think of Fox News. The result? Most people thinking there is a media bias.

That said, media bias toward the left is a well-documented phenomena;
- 89% of Washington journalists voted for Clinton in 1992, compared to 43% percent of non-journalists.
- 23% of the public describe themselves as liberal, compared to 55% of journalists.
- 49% of the public is pro-choice, but 82% percent of journalists are pro-choice.
- 75% of the public favors the death penalty, compared to 47% of journalists.

There are numerous comparisons to show a media bias to the left.

Actually, that's more an indication of the PUBLIC's bias towards the RIGHT.

What I said above about INFORMED CITIZENRY? Journalists are by definition Informed Citizens. It's their job to be.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by analogika 

Actually, that's more an indication of the PUBLIC's bias towards the RIGHT.

No because the public numbers aren't as disproportionate. The Public here in the US is about 50/50 split. NOT SO in the media.

What I said above about INFORMED CITIZENRY? Journalists are by definition Informed Citizens. It's their job to be.

They are human just like everyone else. Prone to bias, and wanting to believe what they want to regardless of what the facts are.

Today's journalists job isn't to inform. It's to sell papers/magazines/web hits.

Otherwise we'd hear everything, and not just what they think will "sell" or get people's "attention"

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Today's journalists job isn't to inform. It's to sell papers/magazines/web hits.

Not prone to overgeneralizations? No siree!

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Not prone to overgeneralizations? No siree!

e r i k it seems all you do is hop from thread to thread making smarmy silly posts. ..

No over-generalization.

Those that are in charge are more concerned with RATINGS, HITS, and SALES than "getting the information to the public"

While I am SURE there are exceptions. This above is the norm.

As a matter of fact, in most newspapers you'll find the ad reps being treated and payed better than the writers.

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Someone this day and age still misinterpreting "mission accomplished"

Even after being corrected. tsk tsk.

IIRC, you never made your point and stuck you fingers in your ears going "lalalalalala".

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

As a matter of fact, in most newspapers you'll find the ad reps being treated and payed better than the writers.

This is true, but I don't think it's really part of a new trend. Most reporters have always had **** salaries, as far as I'm aware.

Anyway, I'd be much more interested in seeing a study on how accurately people perceive media bias. Polling people just finds out perception, not whether something is actually happening. Take stories from CNN and say they came from Fox and see how people react. Find out the reporters' actual political beliefs and see whether those are the same biases people are accusing them of, or whether people are simply making knee-jerk reactions to statements that don't pander to their own biases.

[Millennium]

83% of Americans see media bias...

...in other news, 17% of Americans are not examining their media hard enough.

All media is biased, one way or another. This cannot be avoided; media providers are human beings with only an extremely limited ability to truly see viewpoints other than their own. As far as the existence of bias goes, the only real differences between outlets are the directions they point and to what degrees.

To truly remove bias, you'd have to either inundate the viewer with more facts than a person can hope to take in, or you'd have to remove all facts from reporting completely. The first of these is impractical, and the second misses the whole point of journalism, so we're stuck with some bias. But this doesn't have to be a Bad Thing, as long as media outlets are open and honest about what their biases are. When a person is aware of the bias in an outlet, he can take in information from many sources, using his knowledge of the different biases in each one to eventually figure out a decent approximation of the whole story. However, this only happens when media outlets are honest about their biases.

The danger in today's media is that almost all of the mainstream outlets pretend to be unbiased. This is basically a business decision: by hiding aspects of your bias that offend some people, you appeal to a wider audience. But it is dangerous in the extreme, as it warps viewers' understanding of exactly what "neutrality" and "objectivity" mean.

What needs to happen is that there need to be better policies on disclosure. Drop the pretense of objectivity, let people know where the biases really are, and then let them sort things out for themselves.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Rumor 

IIRC, you never made your point and stuck you fingers in your ears going "lalalalalala".

It's been made a jillion times in here.

[sek929]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Someone this day and age still misinterpreting "mission accomplished"

Spin alert! Spin alert!

The message was clear, all the backpedaling and after-the-fact-of spinning is misinterpreting.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by sek929 

Spin alert! Spin alert!

The message was clear, all the backpedaling and after-the-fact-of spinning is misinterpreting.

*sigh* I like you sek. I really do. That is why I wish it was someone else that had made this post.

No, it wasn't a backpedal. It was a lefty spin.

There is no backpedal when he contradicts that very idea in the same speech he "claimed" "Mission Accomplished"

Here ya go.

We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We are bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous. We are pursuing and finding leaders of the old regime, who will be held to account for their crimes. We have begun the search for hidden chemical and biological weapons, and already know of hundreds of sites that will be investigated. We are helping to rebuild Iraq, where the dictator built palaces for himself, instead of hospitals and schools. And we will stand with the new leaders of Iraq as they establish a government of, by, and for the Iraqi people. The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. [b]Our coalition will stay until our work is done. And then we will leave — and we will leave behind a free Iraq.
The Battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11th, 2001, and still goes on.

The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror.We have removed an ally of al-Qaida, and cut off a source of terrorist funding. And this much is certain: No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more

So yeah. Not backpedal. Bush said during the SAME SPEACH that it wasn't done.

That there was STILL more dangerous work to be done in Iraq. And we weren't going to leave until it WAS done.

"Mission Accomplished" was liberating Iraq from Saddam's regime. That is all.

Bush said too many contradicting things for it to mean more than that. Sorry.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

That said, media bias toward the left is a well-documented phenomena;
- 89% of Washington journalists voted for Clinton in 1992, compared to 43% percent of non-journalists.
- 23% of the public describe themselves as liberal, compared to 55% of journalists.
- 49% of the public is pro-choice, but 82% percent of journalists are pro-choice.
- 75% of the public favors the death penalty, compared to 47% of journalists.

First, that's not proof of media bias. Second, I'd like to see where those numbers came from. (Sorry, but I'm reluctant to assume that any conservative "data" are actually true any more.)

But assuming that they are true, it's an interesting selection of surveys, because it focuses on certain types of social issues: abortion, death penalty. I also bet that most elite Washington journalists aren't as "conservative" as the American people on things like gay marriage, guns, and on whether they watch nascar and go hunting.

But here's the catch: I doubt many liberals would argue that elite reporters in DC are conservative on social issues like abortion and the death penalty. Liberals usually complain that the media are conservative on economic issues and, in more recent years, national security and war issues.

Here's a large survey of journalists' views on a variety of issues, and yes, they are more liberal than Americans on social issues, but they are more conservative than Americans on economic issues - things like international trade, social security and medicare, corporate power, and taxes.

I also personally believe, though I have no studies to support it, that elite Washington journalists are more pro-war and pro-government on national-security types of issues than the American public. That's why you find that even supposedly liberal editorial boards like the Washington Post and the New Republic supporting the war in Iraq at least as much as any conservative group.

I'd say it's more a matter of "elite" (or perhaps "rich") people's opinions vs. regular people. Elites, even conservative elites, I'd guess, are probably not opposed to gay marriage and abortion as much as the "fly-over" country, but they're also probably more in favor of tax cuts for the rich and privatizing social security and free trade agreements and corporate parachutes than that same fly-over country.

[sek929]

I know if you look at every minuscule detail one could be able to say that.

Fact is, when you stand on an aircraft carrier with a sign larger than most houses saying "Mission Accomplished" you're not trying to project that a long hard road is ahead, you're projecting that the job is done.

I'm not trying to refute what he said, but it's not what he said that was supposed to get the message across. No one pulls a stunt like this in order to convey the massive MASSIVE amount of 'work' that was still left to do in Iraq.

Media bias thread comment -> It was done as a photo-op, as a glossy shot that Fox news, MSNBC, and CNN could plaster all over the crap-o-vision to get everyone to rah-rah about the war being "won" not in a final sense, but that we were certainly "winning."

I appreciate your civility Kev, and I try my best to extend it to you

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

So yeah. Not backpedal. Bush said during the SAME SPEACH that it wasn't done.

That there was STILL more dangerous work to be done in Iraq. And we weren't going to leave until it WAS done.

"Mission Accomplished" was liberating Iraq from Saddam's regime. That is all.

Bush said too many contradicting things for it to mean more than that. Sorry.

I don't know how this got into this thread, but you've already been told about this before, and here you are trying again. The Mission wasn't Accomplished. Iraq had not been Liberated. The Battle of Iraq was not over. They said it was. The rest is "Bush can do no wrong" spin that all but a few dead-enders even among Republicans have given up.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

e r i k it seems all you do is hop from thread to thread making smarmy silly posts. ..

Oh, the irony. Pot, kettle.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by sek929 

I know if you look at every minuscule detail one could be able to say that.

miniscule detail? Practically his whole speech. You haven't read it have you?

Fact is, when you stand on an aircraft carrier with a sign larger than most houses saying "Mission Accomplished" you're not trying to project that a long hard road is ahead, you're projecting that the job is done.

If ANYONE thought that means they were projecting everything was done, they simply were not paying attention, and it's the fault of their own.

I'm not trying to refute what he said, but it's not what he said that was supposed to get the message across.

Actually it was. His speech was a larger part of the message than a sign.
The sign was overblown by the media. And spun by the left.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

I don't know how this got into this thread, but you've already been told about this before, and here you are trying again.

LOL!



You mean you POORLY tried to spin it and got smacked down multiple times when others including me posted the facts. Which hit a sore spot in you that you are still obviously feeling!

The Mission wasn't Accomplished. Iraq had not been Liberated. The Battle of Iraq was not over. They said it was.

The mission to topple over Saddam's reign WAS ACCOMPLISHED. That is what that MISSION was about!

I don't expect you to get out of character an ever admit you were wrong about this Brussell. It would be far too hurtful to your pride obviously.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Good lord people can beat a dead horse.

The whole notion of individual "missions" and them being "accomplished" during a war, has never been exclusively used as a blanket statement meaning the entire war or conflict was over. Stating "Mission accomplished' when a fleet of B-17s returned from a bombing mission against a target wasn't used to mean "Hey, the whole war is now over!"

Plenty of politicians and military brass , etc. have used that exact term when praising service people having completed a MISSION within the context of a larger war, without it meaning the entire freakin' war was over.

This is just another stupid exercise in "Bash bush for everything" at the expense of the military that the left just refuses to drop.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

LOL!



You mean you POORLY tried to spin it and got smacked down multiple times when others including me posted the facts. Which hit a sore spot in you that you are still obviously feeling!

The mission to topple over Saddam's reign WAS ACCOMPLISHED. That is what that MISSION was about!

I don't expect you to get out of character an ever admit you were wrong about this Brussell. It would be far too hurtful to your pride obviously.

I know how un-seriously so many Bushies take things like wars, but that's a lot of smileys even for one of them. You even had to go somewhere else to find extra smileys that MacNN doesn't have! Gee, this dying of 3000 Americans in Iraq after the "Mission was Accomplished" sure is a huge laugh, I think I'll go get some extra-special internet smileys!

Iraq wasn't yet liberated. The battle of Baghdad wasn't won. This wasn't a victory against terrorism. Major combat operations weren't over. Bush claimed all of those things had happened. He didn't just claim that we had overthrown Saddam, Bush only referred to that in one small remark in the entire speech. He claimed Iraq was free, that it had been liberated, that the Battle of Baghdad had been won, that major combat operation had ended, and that we had achieved a victory against terrorism. That was what he talked on and on about, and that was the mission he claimed had been accomplished.

He was wrong, and every serious person sees it, if they put down their hunt for new smiley-faces long enough.

It sounds like something my 2nd-grader would try to pull: If I told her to clean her room and she picked up one toy and said "Mission Accomplished" she'd get punished. But apparently you'd try to argue that she really had accomplished her mission, she just had a different mission in mind than the real one.

Now you've been corrected on this, so I'll call you on it whenever you bring it up again.

[BRussell]

I'm not even sure why it's being discussed in this thread, but the reason I think it's important is that it reveals what I thought everyone, even Bush's supporters, know now to be true: That our government didn't take the occupation phase of the Iraq war seriously. They planned and presented the war based on how easy it would be, how Iraq oil would pay for everything, and how we'd be done in a few weeks. That lack of insight into how difficult it would be is the most important basic fact of the most important policy of this president, and it is symbolized by that Mission Accomplished claim. That's why it is important.

Not sure what it has to do with media bias though.

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Good lord people can beat a dead horse.

The whole notion of individual "missions" and them being "accomplished" during a war, has never been exclusively used as a blanket statement meaning the entire war or conflict was over. Stating "Mission accomplished' when a fleet of B-17s returned from a bombing mission against a target wasn't used to mean "Hey, the whole war is now over!"

Plenty of politicians and military brass , etc. have used that exact term when praising service people having completed a MISSION within the context of a larger war, without it meaning the entire freakin' war was over.

This is just another stupid exercise in "Bash bush for everything" at the expense of the military that the left just refuses to drop.

[Kevin]

If you don't mind BR, I am going to clip your silliness and just reply to what we are talking about.

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Iraq wasn't yet liberated. The battle of Baghdad wasn't won.

Saddam was no longer in power. Yes or No? No.

Not that is relevant as to what it meant.

Major combat operations weren't over.

Compared to the major combat of that? Yes. Since then there wasn't a massive effort at attacking Iraq. Bush did say that the danger was no over. That there was STILL dangerous things to be taken care of in Iraq.

He didn't just claim that we had overthrown Saddam, he claimed Iraq was free,

Free from Saddam. You know, what that mission was about.

that it had been liberated,

From Saddam.

that the Battle of Baghdad had been won

It had. Saddam lost.

and that we had achieved a victory against terrorism.

No, this was a victory AGAINST terrorism. Not that the War on Terror was over.

He was wrong,

No he wasn't. You are spinning. Brussell is wrong.

and every serious person sees it,

Projection.

Now you've been corrected on this, so I'll call you on it whenever you bring it up again.

You didn't correct me. All you did is spew the same opinion that was debunked the last time.

I gave you facts on what he said. What he said that contradicted what you claim.

You gave me spin and opinion. You lose again.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

Good lord people can beat a dead horse.

The whole notion of individual "missions" and them being "accomplished" during a war, has never been exclusively used as a blanket statement meaning the entire war or conflict was over. Stating "Mission accomplished' when a fleet of B-17s returned from a bombing mission against a target wasn't used to mean "Hey, the whole war is now over!"

Plenty of politicians and military brass , etc. have used that exact term when praising service people having completed a MISSION within the context of a larger war, without it meaning the entire freakin' war was over.

This is just another stupid exercise in "Bash bush for everything" at the expense of the military that the left just refuses to drop.

Indeed. But I don't think this is the case with BR.

It's personal with him.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

And like I said, beating a dead horse again and again and again.

The aircraft carrier that the banner hung on had a specific mission that had been accomplished. Military people have always used the term Mission Accomplished to mean just that- the completion of a MISSION! The intended effect in any event, was in praise of military people doing a good job, not to make some smarmy idiot leftists sitting on their fat asses back home feel superior. Jeeze you people are dense.

If the term used was "War Over" you might have a point, but Mission Accomplished does not, and has never exclusively meant "War Over.'

Your example is below 2nd grade level- if you'd told your 2nd grader that even though the 'war' was cleaning up the entire house, but her MISSION as an individual "unit' of the larger team was cleaning her room, then she'd be perfectly right to state "mission accomplished" after cleaning her room, even though the entire house wasn't clean. Perhaps you need to go back to 2nd grade to learn some basic logic devoid of bitter partisan bullcrap.

[OldManMac]

You know exactly what that Mission Accomplished sign was intended to portray, and you're being disingenuous and intellectually dishonest to portray it as anything else.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

You know exactly what that Mission Accomplished sign was intended to portray, and you're being disingenuous and intellectually dishonest to portray it as anything else.

Unless you are talking to Brussell you are WAAY off base there. WAAY.

You can't read Bush's speech and think it means what he claims it does WITHOUT being intellectually dishonest.

[BRussell]

Again, both of you should actually read Bush's speech. It is simply not true what Kevin claims, that Bush talked only about toppling Saddam. He said the Battle of Baghdad had been won, that Iraq had been liberated, that we had achieved a victory against terrorism, that Iraq was now free, that a new era had arrived, and many other quite broad claims. There was only one side reference to the tyrant having fallen.

Crash, I really don't know how you can say that it's partisan bullcrap to point out what almost every Republican has long since acknowledged, that Bush didn't properly plan for everything that occurred after that "Mission Accomplished" speech, and that the real war had only just begun. This is not some minor issue, it's the defining fact of the most important policy of this administration.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Indeed. But I don't think this is the case with BR.

It's personal with him.

I think you're mistaking the feeling of the facts escaping your arguments for the feeling that it's personal for me.

[edit]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Unless you are talking to Brussell you are WAAY off base there. WAAY.

Wow I have a stalker. Sorry kev, but I don't live in Massachusetts, so marriage is out of the question.

You can't read Bush's speech and think it means what he claims it does WITHOUT being intellectually dishonest.

You're claiming that Bush only referred to toppling Saddam. You can't claim that while being intellectually honest. There are about 2000 words in that speech, and only about 4 refer to toppling Saddam. Most of the rest of it is about how everything is so great, Iraq is liberated, major combat operation had ended, Iraq is free, we had achieved a victory over terrorism, etc. all of which we now know was false.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Unless you are talking to Brussell you are WAAY off base there. WAAY.

You can't read Bush's speech and think it means what he claims it does WITHOUT being intellectually dishonest.

I can, because I know how to read and comprehend things. " Major combat operations in Iraq have ended (not true). In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. (Applause.) And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country (it's in worse shape now than when we entered).

In this battle, we have fought for the cause of liberty, and for the peace of the world. Our nation and our coalition are proud of this accomplishment -- yet, it is you, the members of the United States military, who achieved it. Your courage, your willingness to face danger for your country and for each other, made this day possible. Because of you, our nation is more secure. Because of you, the tyrant has fallen (true), and Iraq is free(not true). (Applause.)"

It's simply astonishing that you would try to defend the undefendable, but it doesn't surprise me either. You no doubt still believe that we went there to establish a democracy.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

I think you're mistaking the feeling of the facts escaping your arguments for the feeling that it's personal for me.

His response is typical for him, and for those who run out of arguments to augment their indefensible position.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by BRussell

Bush didn't properly plan for everything that occurred after that "Mission Accomplished" speech, and that the real war had only just begun. This is not some minor issue, it's the defining fact of the most important policy of this administration.

I'll say it again: "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" does not = WAR OVER.

The term has never been used exclusively to mean war over. As I said before, the term wasn't being used for your self-centered benefit anyway, it was to commend service people for accomplishing their mission that they were asked to do.

ALL any of this is about for you is scoring your cheap political jabs at Bush, not recognizing that praising the military for having accomplished a very tough mission they'd been sent on is an honorable goal,and is an absolute necessity from their leaders, most of all, their commander-in-chief. You of course could care less about any of that, you just want to make a petty, cheap political jab out of it. It's friggen disgusting, and just shows how deep your Bush hatred runs.

[OldManMac]

CH, apparently you don't understand the meaning of "In the battle for Iraq, The United States and our allies have prevailed," or "Iraq is free." Anyone can read the speech on BR's link, and it is quite clear that he's talking about the Iraq War, not some specific mission! Bush meant specifically what he said, and he was wrong, and you're wrong to try to defend it; unfortunately, you no doubt won't stop trying. It has nothing to do with hatred of Bush either. It has to do with comprehension skills and you trying to spin this into something that isn't there.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

CH, apparently you don't understand the meaning of "In the battle for Iraq, The United States and our allies have prevailed," or "Iraq is free." Anyone can read the speech on BR's link, and it is quite clear that he's talking about the Iraq War, not some specific mission! meant specifically what he said, and he was wrong, and you're wrong to try to defend it; unfortunately, you no doubt won't stop trying.

Bush was talking about "major combat operations" in toppling of Saddam's regime, and he was correct that those operations, the ones that the crew were a part of and had completed, were over. He wasn't speaking with a crystal ball about subsequent combat operations that have come since in rebuilding Iraq, and that the servicepeople he was addressing may or may not even have been a part of.

Whenever military commanders have completed major operations, they've praised their troops for what actuallly WAS accomplished by them, not chiding them about not winning the entire friggen war.

In your petty little partisan worldview, Eisenhower would have been wrong to commend the troops after the D-Day invasion because gee, even though they'd accomplished that mission, they hadn't magically won the entire war. Until troops win an entire war, we can never praise them or say "mission accomplished!" It's just stupid, and shows how you'll cling forever to your petty goals of gloom and doom and downplaying anything related to the troops at all cost if you think it'll help you "get Bush". Pathetic.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

CH, apparently you don't understand the meaning of "In the battle for Iraq, The United States and our allies have prevailed," or "Iraq is free." Anyone can read the speech on BR's link, and it is quite clear that he's talking about the Iraq War, not some specific mission!

He was speaking about the mission to overthrow Saddam Karl. Why else would he say there was STILL a lot of dangerous work to be done if he believed it was over KarlG?

What you are doing is saying what you WANT Bush to have meant. Too bad. Bush said otherwise in his own words.

Bush meant specifically what he said

Yes, yes he did. And you are distorting it.

It has to do with comprehension skills and you trying to spin this into something that isn't there.

Indeed it is!

Originally Posted by Bush

We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We are bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous. We are pursuing and finding leaders of the old regime, who will be held to account for their crimes.

How do you comprehend that Karl?

And it's surely there.

YOU are being intellectually dishonest.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

I'll say it again: "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" does not = WAR OVER.

The term has never been used exclusively to mean war over. As I said before, the term wasn't being used for your self-centered benefit anyway, it was to commend service people for accomplishing their mission that they were asked to do.

ALL any of this is about for you is scoring your cheap political jabs at Bush, not recognizing that praising the military for having accomplished a very tough mission they'd been sent on is an honorable goal,and is an absolute necessity from their leaders, most of all, their commander-in-chief. You of course could care less about any of that, you just want to make a petty, cheap political jab out of it. It's friggen disgusting, and just shows how deep your Bush hatred runs.

So I'm a friggen disgusting petty cheap Bush hater. In the meantime, the president of our country engages in what most every Republican politician, not to mention everyone else in the country and around the world, believes was at best a seriously mishandled war, and you have no criticism for him.

If you believe that speech was for a small group of military people, rather than for the consumption of the American public, this Bush-loving of yours has really blinded you, crash.

Neither KarlG nor I have tried to claim that Bush meant anything other than what he himself claimed he meant: That major combat operations had ended, that Iraq was liberated, that Iraq was free, that the battle of Iraq had been won, and a victory had been achieved against terrorism. That what Bush meant, because that's what he said.

But apparently you're going to continue to defend Bush for making those false claims, and call me a friggen disgusting petty cheap Bush hater for pointing out that he made those false claims.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

So I'm a friggen disgusting petty cheap Bush hater. In the meantime, the president of our country engages in what most every Republican politician, not to mention everyone else in the country and around the world, believes was at best a seriously mishandled war, and you have no criticism for him.

What does this have to do with what we are talking about Brussell? Nothing. You are attempting to divert. Stay on target.

Neither KarlG nor I have tried to claim that Bush meant anything other than what he himself claimed he meant: That major combat operations had ended, that Iraq was liberated, that Iraq was free, that the battle of Iraq had been won, and a victory had been achieved against terrorism. That what Bush meant, because that's what he said.

You are taking it out of context to mean something it is not. Bush himself said things that goes DIRECTLY against what you CLAIM he "meant" AKA Baseless accusations.

You either are going to have to admit that either

1. Bush's speech writers wrote contradicting lines (Highly unlikely)
2. You are wrong.

Nothing in your post here ads anything to your already horrible argument. Nothing.


Let me post that again. Since the two of you keep dodging it.

We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We are bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous. We are pursuing and finding leaders of the old regime, who will be held to account for their crimes.

That means the effort in Iraq is still ongoing. That there is still difficult dangerous work ahead. For those with comprehension problems.

Totally going against what you CLAIM he meant.

After reading that, and you still make said claims, you are only lying to yourself.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

So I'm a friggen disgusting petty cheap Bush hater. In the meantime, the president of our country engages in what most every Republican politician, not to mention everyone else in the country and around the world, believes was at best a seriously mishandled war, and you have no criticism for him.

PERFECT example- that all this is about for you criticizing Bush, not COMMENDING the troops! Yes, gee, Bush should have stood up and said, "Hey, you're all a bunch of failures, your mission wasn't accomplished, and your efforts were all in vain. I'm telling you this, so that smarmy selfish liberals sitting on their fat duffs back in the states won't be offended by anyone praising you for the jobs you've done, and won't be offended that the message we send you isn't constant gloom and doom."

If you believe that speech was for a small group of military people, rather than for the consumption of the American public, this Bush-loving of yours has really blinded you, crash.

You've been corrected a million times on the speech, its context, its purpose, and on the parts you always leave out. It wasn't stated with a crystal ball, it was made about what was considered (wrongly or rightly) the case at the time, for the benefit of the nation, but also to recognize and reward the accomplishments of the troops who actually deserve MORE praise for what they've done and continue to do, not less and less as people like you would like (and indeed have managed to foster) for your petty political reasons.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by KarlG 

CH, apparently you don't understand the meaning of "In the battle for Iraq, The United States and our allies have prevailed," or "Iraq is free." Anyone can read the speech on BR's link, and it is quite clear that he's talking about the Iraq War, not some specific mission! Bush meant specifically what he said, and he was wrong, and you're wrong to try to defend it; unfortunately, you no doubt won't stop trying. It has nothing to do with hatred of Bush either. It has to do with comprehension skills and you trying to spin this into something that isn't there.

You know, I've had this same debate several times, and it only this time has occurred to me why otherwise rational people like crash and kevin go so nuts about this. It's because that "Mission Accomplished" banner and that speech are the perfect, concrete example of the most important flaw of the Bush administration: The poor planning of the war in Iraq. There's just no way you could both support Bush whole-heartedly and at the same time acknowledge that he made such a massively consequential mistake as not planning for the consequences of the war in Iraq. One of the two has to go, and of course it's not going to be the Bush worship.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

You've been corrected a million times on the speech, its context, its purpose, and on the parts you always leave out.

And always dodges. If his rant as so just, he wouldn't have to.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

You know, I've had this same debate several times, and it only this time has occurred to me why otherwise rational people like crash and kevin go so nuts about this.

Um, we aren't the ones that keep bringing up thread after thread. So said statement above is dishonest.

Does it get old that you and a few others keep spinning it? Yes. Our reaction is a normal one considering your refusal to admit you are wrong.

It's because that "Mission Accomplished" banner and that speech are the perfect, concrete example of the most important flaw of the Bush administration: The poor planning of the war in Iraq. There's just no way you could both support Bush whole-heartedly and at the same time acknowledge that he made such a massively consequential mistake as not planning for the consequences of the war in Iraq. One of the two has to go, and of course it's not going to be the Bush worship.

Projection. Not only that, it's a dishonest one.

You have no game Brussell. You didn't even make it to the plate.

You are still in the dugout talking ****.

[besson3c]

It just occurred to me after this apple fell on my head this morning that Bush is not a very good president.