CNN "Fact Checks" Obama's Gun Stance

The "Facts" (as "discovered" after some really serious digging by CNN)

"On his campaign Web site, Obama says he respects the Second Amendment right to bear arms and "will protect the rights of hunters and other law-abiding Americans to purchase, own, transport and use guns."

Read the rest of the "facts" here...

Granted, we all know that campaign ads can stretch credulity, but just how credulous is CNN that it goes to the politicians website for "facts?"

UPDATE: As there are a number of additonal "Fact articles" today with nary a one linking to Factcheck.org it would appear that once CNN has gotten you used to their writings using Factcheck and the "veracity" of it, they no longer use that source. Once they have you hooked, you might not question it anymore.

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

EXCLUSIVE - Larry King Gets Ahmadinejad's Take on Our Politicians

Oh boy! Cool beans!!!

TONIGHT: Ahmadinejad Exclusive

Tonight, a "Larry King Live" exclusive! His interview with Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Get his take on America's political candidates in a revealing hour!


...guess Columbia was booked this time...

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Biden VP Selection Remark - GONE!!

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Msm Works to Out-Pace the Administration

From the LA Times:

“The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is expected to advise President Bush to reduce the U.S. force in Iraq next year by almost half, potentially creating a rift with top White House officials and other military commanders over the course of the war.”

Is how the article at LA Times opens. The “potential rift” is a seed among many meant to plant doubt in who to believe and what is reality. A potential rift for one assumes the generals and administration do not communicate; if a “news” source can get this, let’s comfortably assume the administration knows as well.

Part of the rift portent could be that:

“Any discord among the top U.S. generals could be awkward for Bush, who professes to rely heavily on advice from military leaders.”

The president only “professes” which is based on past “anonymous sources” and some general officers. If the president sided with these few naysayers all would be fine according to the msm I’m sure. The “profess” is their mistrust of the administrations leaning toward the 90% of general officers that probably don’t see the same issue as the handful that have whined have.

The LA Times and others will continue to report with “anonymous officials” as it adds all the more dirt to the build-up in the “war of the analogies”

Curiosity enters the equation when:

“According to a senior administration official, the Joint Chiefs in recent weeks have pressed concerns that the Iraq war has degraded the U.S. military's ability to respond, if needed, to other threats, such as Iran.”

I say curiosity due to the fact Iran will have to nuke us to wake us up and I don’t think they’ll be in that much of a hurry to do that at the moment as they’ve got too much going for them through their meddling in the region. After Iraq we should just have a parade military…we don’t deserve to be defended.

This is all not really news when you stop to think about it. It is just par for the course, when planning and the like continues to take place. The military cannot just one day jump up and decide it is leaving the next day.

“The chiefs are pushing for a significant decrease in troop levels once the current buildup comes to an end -- perhaps to about half of the 20 combat brigades now in Iraq. Along with support units, that would lower the U.S. presence to fewer than 100,000 troops from the current 162,000.”

Perhaps that will be doable, perhaps not as prescience of this kind is only so much preparation toward not believing Petraeus in July on his report due in mid-September.

Part of the mission of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is to ensure military is prepared for future necessities; not having enough military to take on an Iran does not make Iraq any less important.

Trackback: http://haloscan.com/tb/blandlyurbane/8421644533961969036

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Dear MSM, Vietnam analogies Cut Both Ways

Were blogger not too temperamental at times, the quote below would have been included in the previous post as a partial example of analogies cutting both ways:

"President Bush provoked liberal outrage when he cited the Vietnam war in making the case for the war in his speech at the VFW convention. Of course, Vietnam analogies cut both ways. The Iraq war is, as critics point out, like Vietnam in that we are trying to create a legitimate, capable government in the midst of a brutal war of insurgency — and learning (or re-learning) how arduous and complicated a task that is. But Bush was right to remind us of the horrific humanitarian costs of the precipitous withdrawal from Southeast Asia demanded by liberals in the 1970s. He might have mentioned another similarity with Vietnam — how Democrats were in such a fever to pullout that they disregarded any encouraging signs on the ground and abandoned all strategic sense."

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

The Medias and Democrats Iraq; a crack in the veneer

Rather than being a case of vindication it is more relief that we are not insane. Some may want to jump up and down with a loud ‘I told you so’ but it is more than that. The relief comes from the crack in the veneer that blocked the light of fact.

There has never been any doubt in the mind of many that Iraq can be a violent place. The daily death and mayhem is not ignored, the separated families are not mere trifles, and the challenges are recognized; but through it and standing for continuing with our actions was and is not a political game of we can’t lose this.

It is the ramifications of not succeeding, of not quitting too soon or let’s try this hopefully improved tactic. It is not that we want this to go on endlessly throwing our military at the enemy as if they are so many chips in the pot. Iraq obviously cannot go on for years and years more as though it’s not big deal.

We have learned through the historical lessons of our military that its success is in its ability to adapt and improve based upon what it is faced with; because of our nations past, even in the face of failures, that we can complete and do what we set out to do.

Not blind optimism, rose tinted glasses or blind faith, but an understanding that if what we are up against involves a long struggle then we cannot expect an over night success or even success in half a decade.

The veneer the light seeps through is an OpEd in of all places The NY Times; a media when faced with the reality that certain successes cannot be ignored; a new tactic being followed through on by a president continuously harangued with criticism of his policies, his hard-headedness and refusal to change course. The veneer cracked shows more that those appearing to have nothing but “criticism of the Bush administration's policies designed more to hurt Bush than to win the war.”

As Debra Saunders wrote of an article in the Times that Janet Elder wrote based upon the papers poll “found that the number of Americans who think it was right for the United States to go to war in Iraq rose from 35 percent in May to percent 42 percent in mid-Jul” which lead to another poll:

“the increased support for the decision to go to war was "counterintuitive" and because it "could not be easily explained, the paper went back and did another poll on the very same subject."’

Regarding the articles title “Same Question, Different Answer. Hmmm,” Saunders suggests, “America's Paper of Record Out of Touch With American Public."

Now that makes me smile, but only just; it is this very fact that should cause so much concern. The media is the trough that we feed from. It is not our ally or friend, it is a business and a business that influences the views of so many. It would not be so out of touch if it actually did its job, rather than play its own version of power politics.

It has taken pushing, shoving, posting and screaming to allow this one glimmer of reality through and it shouldn’t have. Rather than catch on and look into the various aspects of what is going on in an effort to report more accurately and with less bias (which they don’t recognize), they will likely regroup and push back harder.

They will push back harder because they don’t want to lose. Much like the Democrats in office, it is not so much about “the war” it is about power. There is a bit of a tizzy going on these days, which is best brought forth by Spree at Wake up America, “Democrats in the house starting to panic;” where she finds the time or energy I have no clue, but the wheel once invented doesn’t really need to be re-invented so pop over while I go back to sleep.

Oh, yeah…wouldn’t it be nice if they weren’t in a panic about their own a*ses?

Trackback: http://haloscan.com/tb/blandlyurbane/6320305727366976785

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Perri Nelson's Website, Nanotechnology Today, Right Truth, Shadowscope, The Pet Haven Blog, Stuck On Stupid, Webloggin, Leaning Straight Up, The Amboy Times, Conservative Thoughts, The World According to Carl, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, High Desert Wanderer, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

More Troops for BLOODY Iraq Province and Peace from Iran

CNN has the goods with a great headline:

“U.S. general wants more troops for bloody Iraq province”

Make no mistake, nothing is pretty, that’s why they say “war is hell.”

Army Major General Benjamin R. Mixon, commander 25^th Inf Div said:

‘"I do not have enough soldiers right now in Diyala province to get that security situation moving"’

‘"We have plans to put additional forces in that area. ... We have put additional forces in there over that last couple months, an additional Stryker battalion, but I'm going to need additional forces in Diyala province to get that situation to a more acceptable level."’

Don’t get this post wrong, but this is where it is assumed CNN uses when deciding upon the headline. An assumption is made as this is the only area in the article where violence is noted:

“The level of violence has increased in Diyala, Mixon said, because the forces are increasing their offensive operations against the insurgents, many of whom have left Baghdad during the recent security crackdown, and because al Qaeda in Iraq has made Diyala a focus.”

Insurgents and in the next paragraphs enemy referred to are mainly al Qaeda members, included in the province is the town where Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was flattened by a U.S. airstrike.

This particular province (Diyala) borders Iran and has been a good hiding places for the enemy.

Speaking of Iran, earlier today Provisional Tehran Friday Prayer Leader Ayatollah Mohammad Emami Kashani during the weekly Friday Sermon said of the U.S. in Iraq:

‘"The only important point for the US statesmen is that 4,000 US soldiers have got killed in Iraq, not caring a bit about the huge number of the innocent Iraqis that have got killed at home due to the US arrogant policies."’

Pretty nice use of Democrat obstinance, no?

Hans Blix is back in the news; Iranian news anyway. It appears he believes since Tehran was not required to suspend uranium enrichment, had the Iranians ‘“been asked to do so in return for achieving some really greater advantage, that would have been worth consideration."’

Perfect diplomatic blindness and logic, considering Ahmadinejad always says something like:

"The Iranian people will continue to defend its legitimate demands and rights [in the nuclear sphere], and will not yield an inch."

RECENT STATEMENTS OF PEACE AND LOVE TO MANKIND

So let that be a warning?

In Lebanon:

“Prominent Lebanese Shi'a source of jurisprudence Allameh Mohammad-Hussain Fazlallah here Friday warned Arab countries not to harmonize with US anti-Iranian efforts.”

‘"The Iranian officials have also very frankly stressed in all their meetings and negotiations that Tehran's nuclear program is entirely peaceful, posing absolutely no security threat against the region, or beyond."’

Our intentions are entirely peaceful, especially with “peaceful nukes.”

Iran's Supreme National Security Council member, Bahador Aminian said:

“Muslim world should make maximum benefit of the unique good opportunities that are available to it.”

‘"Despite extensive problems and plots hatched by enemies against the world of Islam, opportunities should be used in the best way to properly introduce and define the religion of Islam.”’

Did somebody say Jihad?

Speaking at the 16th Graduation Ceremony of Commanders and Army Headquarters Officers, Major General Seyyed Hassan Firouzabadi said:

The “Iranian military forces' readiness for countering ultra-regional threats and achieving victory in uneven wars.”

‘"The prophecy of our military schools' graduates today is to merge their scientific know-how with actual practice, since the real value of a true soldier is to be ready for entering the scenes of Jihad bravely in the sacred way of the Truth."’

Sleep well….peace is at hand…

15 Hostages
Victims of Misunderstanding
Tehran Tehrrorists
Iran and the peaceful nukes

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

The U.S.’ Number One Spy

The Times and Dems for the most part have always coined the NSA eavesdropping program as spying or domestic spying. Now, the next iteration of the program has straight referred to as “his spying program,” however this program is a ramp up of the 1978 FISA law; the FISA of course is what everyone in opposition called for.

As the Times sees it:

“For more than five years, President Bush authorized government spying on phone calls and e-mail to and from the United States without warrants.”

“Mr. Bush’s motivations for submitting this bill now seem obvious. The courts have rejected his claim that 9/11 gave him virtually unchecked powers, and he faces a Democratic majority in Congress that is willing to exercise its oversight responsibilities. That, presumably, is why his bill grants immunity to telecommunications companies that cooperated in five years of illegal eavesdropping. It also strips the power to hear claims against the spying program from all courts except the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which meets in secret.”

Whereas the FISA court has always met in secret and this was ok to all; it now is not.

“FISA is the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which establishes a legal regime for "foreign intelligence" surveillance separate from ordinary law enforcement surveillance. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, Pub. L. No. 95- 511, 92 Stat. 1783 (codified as amended at 50 U.S.C. §§ 1801-1811, 1821-1829, 1841-1846, 1861-62).”

Obviously we don’t want the government prying where it shouldn’t, also just as obviously we need a government that can pry when and where appropriate. It has been the Times, the Dems and the rest of the msm that has misled exactly what these programs are since the NSA revelation.

If the media took this stream of paranoia that they feel about President Bush and used it elsewhere we might all understand the threat we really face better. We need an honest reporting on the necessary tools for the new type of enemy warfare brought to us after September 11, 2001.

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

A Gift from the Democratically Elected President of an Islamic Republic

TIME magazine explains to the dull masses what message it was that Iran was sending? Beyond the gift(s) that is:

“President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad called a "gift to the British people" was a notable victory for Iranian pragmatists over hard-liners — one that could even build momentum within Tehran's power structure and in Western capitals for a diplomatic solution to the standoff over Iran's uranium-enrichment program.”

I always enjoy TIME’s take on what it was that took place before our very eyes and analyzes for us that which we cannot for ourselves. One of my favorite gems was upon the revelation of Iran’s restarting its nuclear program:

"One of the ironies of Iran's latest confrontation with the West is that it is the product of are you ready for this? democratic politics. President Mahmoud Ahmedinajad's move towards restarting work on the country's nuclear program is the classic maneuver of an elected leader caught in a political bind."

Three possible keys as to why the Tehrrorists in Tehran may have taken the “15 victims of a misunderstanding,” or as Time scolds; “(a)lthough President Bush declared that Iran had seized the 15 sailors and marines as "hostages," was these messages:

“· Don't think about attacking Iran, because it has the capacity to threaten Western interests in the Gulf and throughout the Middle East, directly as well as through allies in Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine;

· Expect Iran to instigate trouble if the West continues to punish Iran for what it sees simply as exercising as its legal right to nuclear technology; and,

· Iran will play tit-for-tat if U.S. forces continue arresting Iranian officials working inside Iraq, as in the Jan. 11 raid on an Iranian consular facility in Erbil where five Iranians were detained.”

Time feels that Iran “sudden decision,” rather than a backing down, might be attributed to that “Western pressure on the Iranian regime,” may be bearing fruit much like a citrus tree in northern climes during the dead of winter. But it might also mean that may have “achieved some of its objectives.”

Time writes that the “gift,” is that being a “peaceful end to the naval dispute,” that this “is a victory for diplomacy.” This should give a boost and perhaps room for the Iranian chief nuke negotiator, Larijani to succeed in the “talks” with the West. However, real success will more depend upon as Time sees it:

“whether the U.S., following Britain's example, is willing to give diplomacy a real chance.”

This seems to be the take on the situation from The NY Times in an Op-Ed piece today:

“just as Iran will meet confrontation with confrontation, it will respond to what it perceives as flexibility with pragmatism. This message is worth heeding as the United States and Iran seem to be moving inexorably toward conflict.”

The choice the U.S. faces now is:

“it will have to either escalate its confrontational policy or adopt a policy of engagement. Far from arresting the Iranian danger, escalation would most likely present the United States with new perils.”

What escapes them is that there are “perils” in the steps taken to arrive at the outcome of the “15 victims of a misunderstanding.” Nothing of harm will come to those that bend over backward to the likes of the Tehrrorists in Tehran and you can take this to the bank according to the msm because they know and we don’t.

One thing I note that neither of these two media fonts seem to have caught on to is, this one for Time. The magazine might have considered a fourth aim that may have guided the Tehrrorists actions:

• Iran will play the media for all it is worth as there is no better ally in the hard headed manipulation of reality; with the exception of the Democrat party.

This however may have had the affect of changing the angle of the analysis; an analysis mired in the msm mindset of being in the know and being in the right. Just another lesson for the administration in the laundry list of advice the president should have taken from the elders of knowledge in the media.

The NY Times Op-ed believes, “Iran today sees regional stability in its interest,” which goes a long way toward describing and understanding Iran’s continued sowing of instability in the region. And sees the U.S. “provocative naval deployments in the Persian Gulf,” as the bigger piece of the puzzle; nicely in-line with one of the al Qaeda justifications for 9/11.

“After 28 years of sanctions and containment, it is time to accept that pressure has not tempered Iran’s behavior.” As “sanctions and containment,” cannot make up for the rest of the international community not following suit and doing the same; France, Russia, the EU just won’t cooperate because the Americans are stupid….see? it just won’t work, especially with us (them) continuing big business with the Islamic Republic.

President Mahmoud “Momo” Ahmadinejad has offered the dove of peace to the media and the Left. He has given “diplomacy” another chance to thrive and delay; he has given additional truth to the lie (maybe not) that the West is weak. Ultimately though, I’m starting to think he is right and we should be just a bit more concerned about this fact than many of us choose to be.

Recent pronouncements of peace and love from the President of the Islamic Republic of Iran:

• “We don’t shy away from declaring that Islam is ready to rule the world.”
• “The wave of the Islamist revolution will soon reach the entire world.”
• “In parallel to the official political war there is a hidden war going on and the Islamic states should benefit from their economic potential to cut off the hands of the enemies.”
• "The UN Resolution was a stillbirth. Even if the UN would come up with ten more resolutions it will not affect he Iranian economy and politics.”
• "Zionist rulers are selfish to the extent that prevent even their own or Western scientists from doing research on the public opinion's important question on Holocaust." "There are still questions... maybe in your so-called Holocaust more than six million Jews were massacred (during World War II), so why do you not allow people to undertake new research?"
• "The real cure for the conflict is elimination of the Zionist regime."

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Trackback for this post: http://haloscan.com/tb/blandlyurbane/2630698657529203997
Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -

Appearances and Perceptions: Dems and the Media

I’ve been painfully busy as of late and have had very little time to post, but yesterday I did post a couple, one of which was “When Democrats say it’s a Big Deal, it Isn’t.”

I received a really good comment from a John (no, I’m not a pro, but I do play one on TV), and is as follows:

“Obviously this blogger has never practised law. It's an incredibly big deal. Forget all the spin, it is SOP to replace all or most US attorneys at the start of a new presidency. Clinton replaced all but so did Reagan in 1981. After that it very unusual for any to lose their jobs during a president's term and they occupy a quasi monarchical position while in office. Real or apparent political interference is a complete no no. Hence the total silence on the Republican benches of congress because they realize how big a deal this is. Given what has happened, Gonzales is probably a goner and it is probable that several of these staffers are in serious legal jeopardy. Schumer has the white house and DOJ on the ropes over this and he knows it.”

Beyond the point that I don’t “practice” anything and without a doubt law; for that I would point John and/or anyone else to someone that has and perhaps does still practice law, Andrew McCarthy, “Playing Politics with Politics.” Please argue this case with him and not me; however you may do this by commenting at this post. Also, the editors at NRO do have a few words to speak of in regard to the subject here, with “Mismanagement of Justice.”

All of the above aside, with the exception of the comment; I commented back that I agreed with the assessment of, “Real or apparent political interference is a complete no no.,” as it speaks to how it can or may appear.

The comment struck a nerve as far as appearances go and what it is politics and/or politicians do with appearances. Appearance goes hand and foot (in mouth) with perception, but an appearance or perception does not make it true nor false for that matter. We all may see the same thing, but walk away with a different impression based upon our perception(s) of an event. In this case the administration did something that appears to many as something scandalous and/or criminal, while others, which include myself whether through ignorance or not, although it is ignorance in the sense that I am ignorant of why in reality it has taken place; perceive it as standard operating procedure for politics.

Again as I began this mess, the use of the term appear as appropriate to appearance is what really bothered me and got me to thinking (something else I don’t practice). Appearance is exactly what the Democrat party and msm has had to work with and has done so with a feverish passion ever since George W. Bush took office. Granted, they at the least are just playing politics or hawking “news” and it appears to me that that is all they are doing (endless debate here), however I believe what they have done is to everyone’s detriment.

NSA Surveillance is the government spying. Katrina happened because Bush is/did not sign on with Kyoto. The Federal response to Katrina was racism in action. The supposed leak in the Joseph Wilson episode was just in retaliation for “speaking truth to power,” forget about Wilson’s lies, Iraq is just for oil, for Dad, for the military industrial complex, for imperialistic reasons……..I could go on and on, but won’t bother.

In each of these instances the Dems and msm (hence this blogs name), took each of these scenarios and made them appear as fact; this even when each reacted and stood (in few if any instances beyond 9/11, Afghanistan, WMDs and Iraq and this may be stretching it), on the side of the perception of the administration. For the sake of this post, I won’t bother going into wordy detail about each as I would imagine perception has/is already taking place as to what kind of an *ss this blogger is; that and most instances have already been covered enough that a reader wouldn’t need any detail.

Appearance, perception and reality don’t all fit together at least as far as they lead to one seeing a reality that isn’t. I believe the msm and Dems, as well as others that feel the need to for whatever psychosis (my perception), have done much damage to this country and the world as a whole. From the msm’s “unbiased” reporting and the Dems politics as usual have come countless opportunities to see and believe many appearances that just are not so. What this has wrought is a world that will prove much more difficult to fix than either of them could ever imagine or perceive.

Most if not all readers will get the gist of what I’m saying regardless of their side of the political spectrum. We have lived each and every episode together over the past six plus years regardless of the perception we walk away with. I think many need pull their heads out of their *sses and select a new conditioner, while others will think the same of me and mine.

Others will think, what’s your point? These latter will just have to practice thinking a little bit more often. Or maybe I just need to learn how to make a point.

Please Note: this blogger is not a psychiatrist, sociologist or any other professional that may or may not be qualified to make the preceeding statements; it’s just my opinion.

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Trackback for this Post: http://haloscan.com/tb/blandlyurbane/2557739836505641663

NY Times, Washington Post - Seeing the Same Thing Differently

Is mass confusion a Democrat plan for retaining a majority?

According to the New York Times, Senator Mitch McConnell remarked on Democrat plans:

“Democrats in the Senate have, at latest count, had 16 versions of various proposals to interfere with the president’s ability and General Petraeus’s ability to conduct this mission successfully.”

The Dems do not appear to be united in any real sense of the word, at least as far as they were last June when:

"Democratic leaders voted against a plan supported by Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts calling for a similar withdrawal."

Well one has to take this with a grain of salt as it was prior to the November elections. For added flavor the Times adds:

"Democratic strategists say that support for a timetable has steadily grown because of the conditions in Iraq, what they perceive as Mr. Bush’s resistance to change and the widespread support among the public for a clear-cut end to the war."

Might the "resistance to change" be more properly attributed to claims by Democrats regarding the president. It is after all the Democrats that have trumpeted the "surge" as the third one while excluding the fact that previous "surges" were for election purposes in Iraq with the numbers going back down afterward. "This is the third time we are going down this path. Two times this has not worked," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. "Why are they doing this now? That question remains."

Beyond the reader just being confused in general by anything out of the Democratic Leaderships mouths; two major newspapers, The New York Times and The Washington Post display further layers to confusion with business as usual.

The Times entitled this "factual" news with, "Democrats Rally Behind a Pullout From Iraq in ’08" while the Post sees it as "Bush Threatens to Veto Democrats' Iraq Plan." Headlines alone have the power to sway, especially to those that do not take the time to actually read any with the exception of the time spent perusing them while waiting in line at the check out.

The Times didn't really see anything to indicate the lack of a "rally" behind a pullout (should be redeployment to the only possible place in the M.E., Betwixt), yet the Post said it was anything but and would require more coaxing and editing.

Where do you get your news? I think I know where these papers get theirs....

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Whose “Intelligence,” is more Intelligent? The MSM or Governments

I was alerted to the existence of this “piece” by an article written my James S. Robbins at National Review Online, entitled, “Al Qaeda is back?”

The Robbins article questions the nearly unanimous opinion as fact, that the U.S. is losing or fighting a losing battle against the almost omnipotent al Qaeda. The article here, may appear to some as a piece preaching to the choir, but isn’t to anyone that may be interested in weighing the possibilities/points themselves.

That said I’m off in a slightly different direction; that being questioning the “balance,” of the decision(s) made by the msm writers and editorialists as to which “facts” are the appropriate ones for a given article.

Last week I posted regarding an editorial or two, the writers of which appeared to use their own paper as the source for the “facts.” This I believe is part of the msms problem; that being the bubble they inhabit forces them to use their own material, which in turn strengthens the belief that they know these tidbits as fact because they read it in the paper.

On Valentines Day of all times, the NY Times railed on the Bush Administration regarding the tentative agreement with North Korea asking (italics mine):

“The obvious question to ask is: What took so long? And even more important: Will President Bush learn from this belated success? Will he finally allow his diplomats to try negotiation and even compromise with other bad and undeniably dangerous governments?”

I in turn asked:

"What took so long? What is taking the Times so long? The Times and those opposed to “anything Bush,” insisted upon a “multi-lateral (while ignoring anything “multi” about it),” response to Saddam’s Iraq, while insisting upon a “uni-lateral (is there a pattern of opposites here?),” approach to North Koreas snubbing of the infamous 1994 “Agreed Framework.”

The day previous found the editorial board up in arms over the “nameless briefers,” involved in the “supersecret briefing in Baghdad by a group of American military officials whose names could not be revealed.” Yet another instance of lessons not learned; “how little this administration has learned from its failures is a constant source of amazement. It seems the bigger the failure, the less it learns.”

I wondered which scenario the paper felt would suffice in satisfying its unquenchable need for meat from either the left or right buttock of the president, since the editorial took both sides, which leaves nothing to counter with. Here, they expect conclusiveness:

“And perhaps in time, the administration will be able to prove conclusively that the weapons came from arms factories in Iran.”

Yet, a little further down:

“We have no doubt about Iran’s malign intent. Iran is defying the Security Council’s order to halt its nuclear activities, and it is certainly meddling inside Iraq.”

Ultimately, I guess neither scenario will satisfy the paper.

The Washington Post had an article that does not allow for any possibility of anything, save for what it sees as obvious, which can be found in my post “The Demuring Pace on Iran and the Possibility Denying Media.” The Post also uses various language and “facts” to “color our news.”

Today, thanks to Mr. Robbins (I had no time for perusing today, except for Robbins and the article in question), I get to note the hypocritical “balance,” of the NY Times again, and only one paragraph is needed as example:

“The intelligence and counterterrorism officials would discuss the classified intelligence only on the condition of anonymity. They would not provide some of the evidence that led them to their assessments, saying that revealing the information would disclose too much about the sources and methods of intelligence collection.”

An awful wordy and redundant post on my part if only to illustrate the obvious (though not to them or are they just dishonest); the msm is not a font of balanced honesty or its most trusted source for information, facts and history is itself. Oh yeah, and the impression one gets that "anonymity" is only acceptable to the "trusted" elite media.

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Trackback for this post: http://haloscan.com/tb/blandlyurbane/1628584583999462915

The Lesson of N.K., at least the One the Times Learned?

Reading and posting on yesterdays lead editorial in The New York Times, about which Tony Snow referred to as, “what may be the dumbest lead of an editorial I've seen in a long time today,” and concluded myself that, “they have taken very little time considering anything but their own words. The end run for them is that they believe their own supposition.”

After reading today’s lead editorial I am convinced that this is a fact; the board gets its news from the very paper they work for.

This morning’s still has the target of President Bush, but the arrow in their quiver is North Korea.

The board wastes no time firing the quiver rather than the arrow itself:

“It is welcome news that North Korea has agreed to move toward dismantling its nuclear weapons program in exchange for fuel oil and international acceptance — including the hope of eventual recognition by the United States. When dealing with Pyongyang (and for that matter, the Bush administration), a lot can slip betwixt the cup and the lip. But if all goes as agreed, the world will be safer.”

“The obvious question to ask is: What took so long? And even more important: Will President Bush learn from this belated success? Will he finally allow his diplomats to try negotiation and even compromise with other bad and undeniably dangerous governments?”

What took so long? What is taking the Times so long? The Times and those opposed to “anything Bush,” insisted upon a “multi-lateral (while ignoring anything “multi” about it),” response to Saddam’s Iraq, while insisting upon a “uni-lateral (is there a pattern of opposites here?),” approach to North Koreas snubbing of the infamous 1994 “Agreed Framework.”

The “Agreed Framework,” should be a lesson in the lengths to which naiveté can be stretched and should be recognized as such considering it was brought about by the “stalwart” efforts of “accomplishment free” former president James Earl Carter and former IAEA head honcho Hans Blix. Oh, and it’s utter failure as well.

Today, following a breakthrough in negotiations with North Korea, we may be looking at the very same type of agreement. “The Paper of Record” considers this the appropriate way to do things. For all the numerous and almost daily instances the Times has castigated the Administration for doing the same things over and over only to end up with the same results, one would think the paper might catch on to this very activity within its own walls. Instead, it feels vindicated in this “breakthrough,” rather than noticing the possibility that this “new framework,” is much like the previous. Might the paper take the president to task for possibly making the same mistake the previous administration made? This would serve the public much better than the Times twisting a “gotcha,” out of thin imaginary air.

In order for the media to do a decent job, it needs to remember facts and history (or at least re-read, rather than re-write it); not its wishful thinking that it is omnipotent. If the MSM did not have such sway in the attitudes and education of the American public, I wouldn’t give it a second thought. Unfortunately this is not the case. Fortunately though, if the NYT keeps this up, the “old gray lady,” will wither away and be recognized as the tabloid it has become.

I considered writing a parody of this “editorial,” but cannot improve on the original work in question.

Read it and weep: “The Lesson of North Korea.”
Trackback for this post: http://haloscan.com/tb/blandlyurbane/6818711978766768637

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

"Iran and the Generic Briefers," by the Blameless Media

Opinion from The New York Times, labeled as such (thanks):

“Before things get any more out of hand, President Bush needs to make his intentions toward Iran clear. And Congress needs to make it clear that this time it will be neither tricked nor bullied into supporting another disastrous war.”

“How little this administration has learned from its failures is a constant source of amazement. It seems the bigger the failure, the less it learns.”

Had President Bush attended the New York Times re-Education Camp, he may have avoided the wrath of the it and others. To the msm, there is likely nothing more annoying than not being able to convince the entire country that they know.

Having used the entire Bush Presidency working tirelessly to undermine his actions and the actions of the country through him, they have taken very little time considering anything but their own words. The end run for them is that they believe their own supposition.

Adding insult to an unrecognized self inflicted wound, the Times editorial allowed:

“And perhaps in time, the administration will be able to prove conclusively that the weapons came from arms factories in Iran.”

The self inflicted wound being further down the “piece (pun always intended)”:

“We have no doubt about Iran’s malign intent. Iran is defying the Security Council’s order to halt its nuclear activities, and it is certainly meddling inside Iraq.”

The paper wastes no time getting down to the business of dressing down the president, but spends zero time enlightening themselves. ‘We don’t doubt, although we want conclusiveness from the administration.’ By now they should know “conclusive” is not part of the intelligence community’s vocabulary. But that would require recognizing their failures in order to learn from them. This I find “a constant source of amazement.”

Knowing full well (though maybe not), that they can play with all sorts or rumor as fact and spread it as such, the Times’ finds their “credibility,” is sorely lacking and “shrill accusations and saber rattling,” won’t change that fact.

It’s time for conclusive “intelligence” from The New York Times.

Trackback for this post: http://haloscan.com/tb/blandlyurbane/5963389269531271299

The MSM is NOT Liberally Biased

For the sake of argument, let’s say that the main stream media is not liberally biased, but is middle of the road as they claim.

Then how is exempting American Samoa from the minimum wage increase middle of the road? Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said two weeks ago when the exemption was noted:

"I have asked the education and labor committee as they go forward with the legislation to make sure that all of the territories have to comply with U.S. law on the minimum wage,"

Yesterday according to the Washington Times (good luck finding it elsewhere):

“The Democrat-controlled Senate took up a bill yesterday that would raise the minimum wage across the United States and its territories but exempt American Samoa, where tuna canneries pay workers $3.26 an hour.”

It’s odd that something this fishy (pun intended) has not raised the interest of the msm as it would were it the other side of the aisle slipping in this loophole.

Raising the minimum wage wouldn’t have the negative effect on employment, pricing or anything along those lines as Democrats claim. Oddly enough, this would happen in American Samoa if the wage were raised from the $3.26/hr now paid there, at least according to Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, a nonvoting Democrat representing American Samoa:

A "decrease in production or departure of one or both of the two canneries in American Samoa could devastate the local economy, resulting in massive layoffs and insurmountable financial difficulties."

"The truth is the global tuna industry is so competitive that it is no longer possible for the federal government to demand mainland minimum-wage rates for American Samoa without causing the collapse of our economy and making us welfare wards of the federal government.”

Hmmmm, but nothing like layoffs would happen in the continental United States.

They’re just not interested because it’s so middle of the road, leaning neither Right or Left.

Maliki: More Weapons, Less Advice - TIME

Charles Crain of TIME provides a fine example of msm "unbiased" reporting:

"Maliki — taking a page from President Bush's political playbook — said that by wavering in its support for the Iraqi government, the Administration was emboldening terrorists. Insurgents might take such comments as a sign "that they have defeated the American Administration," Maliki said."

You see, Bush doesn't actually believe in anything he says or does, it's all just part of his cynical "political playbook."

To Crain et al, there is no truth to the reality in Iraq...only politics as usual.