So basically you're saying Powell's wasn't real evidence, that he was lying? HAHHAHA. No s!hit!
Most of the world never took seriously neocon talking points about Iraqi nuclear weapons or some sort of alliance between prewar Baghdad and Al Qaeada. When American political hysteria brought back a return of UN weapons inspections, military pressure opened all doors to them, and yet these trained professionals failed to turn up so much as a promising lead on the subject. Of course, after the fact we all (perhaps save a few bona fide dittoheads) knew that the only weapons of mass destruction in all of Iraq were a few rusty old relics with nice "made in the USA" stamps on them.
There's nothing remotely positive to come out of Iraq, and you're just lying to yourself with figures and sum silly data to support what you wanted to hear in the first place.
Facts: The American military can't leave, nor
significantly reduce deployed troops, without leaving the Iraqi's in a quagmire of civil war. You are bound to stay the course, and this will end up being the costliest mistake a national military has ever made in recent history(hell history records are forgivable enuff that you could possibly write it off as just a "mistake", like pundits who think you actually managed to tie Vietnam)
You can see the dividends of their stubborn streaks in the fact that many still talk of demilitarizing Iraq policy as "cut and run" (when the failure to have, at the very minimum, some sort of plan for demilitarization publicized shortly after the invasion was a very real and decisive abandonment of the Iraqi people.)
Quote:
|
Its only right to someone who is far to left, with the obvious exception of Fox News.
|
Conservatives seem to believe that the media is liberal simply because there are a few shows that will have both a liberal guy and a conservative guy talking about the same conservative issues day after day. At no point does anybody ever discuss liberal issues.
Image this. A lefty TV station! It would have been consistently and loudly presenting evidence and argument for the impeachment and trial of the sitting Vice-President, and probably President as well. The sensationalism would have included video showing absence of paid-for stuff, interviews and attempted interviews (Michael Moore/ 60 Minutes/ Fox style) with contractors and offshore bankers, attack journalism focused on Halliburton execs, review footage of W being cozy in Ken Lay's corporate jet, etc.
Conservatives are good for big business and the mainstream media is big business, so it's not hard to see a chain of cause-and-effect there. I mean it would seem pretty clear to me that there has been a shift in the media away from truth-seeking and toward duelling punditry. Features have grown shorter in recent years, and not because reporting techniques have become pithier. There is clearly less emphasis on hard data and more emphasis on partisan opinions. The shift away from a public service paradigm to a commercially competitive paradigm has made reporters and editors much more intent on sensationalism. It is hard for a straight up fact-based piece to be sensational, because the kinds of things that really get people's blood up are generally not supported by actual facts.
And while I don't doubt/care if the members of the media are indeed voting Democrat more than Republican, I DO NOT SEE IT IN THE ACTUAL MEDIA PORTRAYED. Hence, the point is moot. Unless you'd care to show stats that address the liberal-slant of the actual media, not the members behind it. Again, the connection between what the members of the media vote and what they dish out is not apparent, and I challenge anybody to show me any sort of fair statistics that clearly indicate a liberal media bias. Otherwise, give it up and accept the fact that there is no liberal slant to the media