FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Why the Democrats don't have any great leaders either..





S3nd K3ys
The (Very) Big Lie

It's sad, but the bottom line is this: The mainstream media is one of the best tools the terrorists have.
LeviticusMky
It has to be said that this article is biased. I know full well that there's plenty of liberal propaganda out there, but this is the conservative equivalent.

I will always be very wary of anything that does nothing but praise a political ideology. The article focuses on the series of political positions and spins that the Dems have tried out on the Bush admin., but fails to address the real issues behind the Iraq conflict, namely the debt it has put us in and the lack of cooperation with other nations in the region.

The fact of the matter remains, regardless of whether the Dems or The Bush admin is lying, the main reason that we went to war was a false one. Sure we liberated the people, sure we opened the middle east, we still did it on a false pretense, no matter whose fault it was.

In response to the lack of good leadership, anyone who is attracted to power should not be allowed to hold it. Democrats and Republicans are alike in this regard.
illini319
While the article is obviously slanted towards the right, and your subject line extends the article's theme, I think you bring up an interesting point worth discussing (at least more so than partisan politics):

As a whole, the press have a very large responsibility in the distribution of information since, depending on how they spin it (and spin they will), they will incite strong emotional responses from their subscribers. The whole freedom of press thing has always been a touchy subject. Is having information a nanosecond after an event really what we need? How robust is the verification process? How reliable is the media source? Does the public, at large, even consider these points seriously? AND, how does up-to-the-minute reporting actually marginalize anti-terrorist efforts?
S3nd K3ys
LeviticusMky wrote:
...The article focuses on the series of political positions and spins that the Dems have tried out on the Bush admin., but fails to address the real issues behind the Iraq conflict, namely the debt it has put us in and the lack of cooperation with other nations in the region.


The article isn't titled The Real Issues For The Iraqi Conflict, it's titled The (Very) Big Lie.
S3nd K3ys
illini319 wrote:
Is having information a nanosecond after an event really what we need? How robust is the verification process? How reliable is the media source? Does the public, at large, even consider these points seriously? AND, how does up-to-the-minute reporting actually marginalize anti-terrorist efforts?


Good points, and I agree with you. The media should NOT be involved so much. The intel should be verified and determined suitable for public broadcast.

But still, the fact remains that those calling Bush a liar have absolutely NO proof that I've seen.
illini319
Well, I don't think it's that simple. "lying" is, at best, a semantic especially regarding this issue. As I'm sure we all know, there is a lot of chatter that our intelligence officials (actually computers first) sift through. These are through tapped lines (computers, phones, etc.) or through other means we probably don't even know about. In addition to this, there are more active methods in intelligence gathering (satellite imagery, spy planes, blah blah blah). All of these avenues of information gathering has a basic problem: signal-to-noise ratio. How do we know what's real from not real. So... when a president decides to go to war, based on intelligence that supposedly justifies that war, and months later we find no credible evidence that corroborates initial claims of intelligence we are left with a conundrum. That is, did this administration falsify claims, as hard-line Dems would argue,? or was this simply a failure of intelligence? or was this an exaggeration of hard-to-verify evidence? The simple fact: we will never know. This my friends is called plausible deniability. Plausible deniability because of the very nature of intelligence gathering. The actions of this administration, malevolent or not, were carefully constructed. Arguments against improper use of intelligence simply won't fly (especially after 9/11). This does not justify Bush. Nor, does it justify those who seek to discredit Bush. It's a stalemate.

When WMD and Iraq are mentioned in close proximity to each other, what did we do? If a nation explicitly says that they are making WMD (oh, let's see... N. Korea), what should we do?

Agenda is as agenda does.
wolfhnd
The problem with the whole line of reasoning is that if it is true that we went to war to stop WMD's in Iraq and this is always a good thing then it would be logical to go to war against China because they may be building a bigger Hydrogen Bomb. There simply is not logic in it and is purely a political tool.

The war may have been justified but it requires a whole series of circumstances to establish that.

The truth is that Clinton did have sex with that woman and Bush did tell a whopper about just exactly what the threat from WMD's in Iraq actually was. For all we know the Russians are selling WMD's to the terrorist as we type.

The only logical reason to have gone to war is to reduce the number of terrorist that are likely to attack the US. I as a believe in the fly trap theory believe that a large number of potential terrorist have been killed. What we cannot know is if the number of terrorist killed offsets the number created.

If you try and oversimplify the issues you simply create poor logic and that I'm afraid is an all to common product of the political system in any country if the government is conservative or liberal.

The suggestion that the liberal press is lying is a bit silly. Of course the press is liberal, by definition news is a liberal process. Liberal= Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.
S3nd K3ys
wolfhnd wrote:
The problem with the whole line of reasoning is that if it is true that we went to war to stop WMD's in Iraq and this is always a good thing then it would be logical to go to war against China because they may be building a bigger Hydrogen Bomb. ...


True. But China isn't as bad about supplying/funding/training/housing terrorists as places like Iraq are. China's time will come, I'm sure. Especially considering the recent events over there.

Quote:
The truth is that Clinton did have sex with that woman and Bush did tell a whopper about just exactly what the threat from WMD's in Iraq actually was. For all we know the Russians are selling WMD's to the terrorist as we type.


Again, intel officials provided Bush with the intel, as well as the rest of the world. So why is it that now everyone that previously agreed with the intel now pretends like it never happened? Easy answer; to slander Bush and get the Dems some more of the power back that the foolishly drove away in recent years. (I say drove away because they did drive it away. I'm an example of Dems turned Repub.)


Quote:

The suggestion that the liberal press is lying is a bit silly. ...


Um, yeah. Tell that to people like Dan Blather.
rwojick
The American Constitution is the greatest "anti terror" system ever devised.

The system has the Accuser, or Plaintiff, WRITE UP the complaint and PRESENT THE EVIDENCE to both the ACCUSED and the COURT.

Did the 9-11 terrorists WRITE UP their comlaint and present the evidence? No. That is why we despise them. But they are dead. Still, the fact that they did not engage in a fair fight is why we despise them.

Did we write up the complaint and present the evidence when we accused Iraq? I don't think we did. Was our evidence presented to a Court and to Saddam and was he given 30 days to explain it? I don't think it was.

You have to DEFINE the TERRORIST before you FIGHT HIM. If you just shoot someone and then say "he was a terrorist after he is dead" then our system does not support you.

Each person is PROTECTED by the BILL OF RIGHTS. If you don't beleive that and you are fighting then you are just "wavin at air"!
wolfhnd
The supposed forged papers as best anyone can tell are a very close facsimile to the originals. It was the content not the source that we should have been discussing.

Before you go off on a tangent, yes Clinton was involved in shady deals in Whitewater but it's not just the dems that benefit from cover ups. To a large degree the press only likes scandals they can control. You think no one in the press knew about the Enron connection to the California energy crises? The Bush service record and the Whitewater deal were a type of story that they couldn't control so they let them slide by.

It is more likely that the most destructive forces in what news we receive are not the liberalness of the press but two very different but intractable sources, cooperate interests and the fear of mob mentality.
Related topics
The Trial of Saddam
science vs. religion
blond guy joke
Nuclear War?
Public Speaking Advice (Grade + High School Level Edition)
Intel Vs Amd
50 reasons why its great to be a guy
Father of the nation
Why people hate Windows?
Why Hinduism is dangerous?
Team Fortress 2
Republican poll numbers crashing
Three little words that have pissed so many people off.
The value of being fake
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Discuss World News

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.