Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 39

Thread: Now that a Democrat will be President, corporate media vows to ask tough questions

  1. #16
    Elite Member witchcurlgirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Acerbia
    Posts
    33,703

    Default

    I love Helen Thomas. She's one of the few journos that really do the job.

    She's great...Her, Bill Moyers, Glenn Greenwald...a few others
    It's no longer a dog whistle, it's a fucking trombone


    All of God's children are not beautiful. Most of God's children are, in fact, barely presentable.


    If I wanted the government in my womb I'd fuck a Senator

  2. #17
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,372

    Default

    Helen thomas was the 1 person who tried. ONE.

    Nobody ever answered her either. She didn't get any answers. She was then basically shunned.

    Again, where were you?
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  3. #18
    Elite Member kingcap72's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    10 miles from Pootie Tang
    Posts
    21,909

    Default

    I remember when Helen Thomas gave Bush hell AFTER the war started. But where were Thomas and the rest of the reporters with the tough questions before we went into Iraq?

  4. #19
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,372

    Default

    They were toeing the line, putting up whooshy graphics and neglecting to ask even the most basic of questions.. you know, like "since the WMD thing is false, why are we invading?"
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  5. #20
    Elite Member MohandasKGanja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Wherever my kids are
    Posts
    26,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kingcap72 View Post
    I remember when Helen Thomas gave Bush hell AFTER the war started. But where were Thomas and the rest of the reporters with the tough questions before we went into Iraq?
    The problem was it wasn't just Bush stating that Iraq had WMD's. It wasn't just Bush monolithically making the claim that Iraq was a threat.

  6. #21
    Elite Member kingcap72's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    10 miles from Pootie Tang
    Posts
    21,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grimmlok View Post
    They were toeing the line, putting up whooshy graphics and neglecting to ask even the most basic of questions.. you know, like "since the WMD thing is false, why are we invading?"
    Yeah, that. And also the fact that the major corporations that own the newspapers and networks are primarily run by Republicans who supported Bush.
    Plus, nobody wanted to be seen as 'unpatriotic' or 'not supporting the troops,' which was the usual line if you disagreed with the war in Iraq back then.

    Quote Originally Posted by MohandasKGanja View Post
    The problem was it wasn't just Bush stating that Iraq had WMD's. It wasn't just Bush monolithically making the claim that Iraq was a threat.
    It started with Bush and his entire administration cooking up this entire WMD story as a justification to go into Iraq. And one of the ways Bush duped most of the country into going along with it was that he kept trying to associate Iraq with the 9/11 attacks, which is why you still have people that believe Iraq was responsible for 9/11.

  7. #22
    Elite Member MohandasKGanja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Wherever my kids are
    Posts
    26,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Grimmlok View Post
    Helen thomas was the 1 person who tried. ONE.

    Nobody ever answered her either. She didn't get any answers. She was then basically shunned.

    Again, where were you?
    Helen was not the only reporter who asked Bush tough question. I mentioned David Gregory earlier. Gregory repeatedly confronted Bush. Below is an example:

    YouTube - Bush Spars w/ David Gregory

  8. #23
    Elite Member MohandasKGanja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Wherever my kids are
    Posts
    26,031

    Default

    And almost a year ago, Andrew Sullivan laid out a case that the Bush Administration had engaged in war crimes:

    The torture tape fingering Bush as a war criminal - Times Online

  9. #24
    Elite Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,250

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kingcap72 View Post
    Bush didn't have any real pressure from the media during the lead-up to the war, which is why they took so much heat after the fact. And Rather ended up being pushed out in retaliation for that Bush National Guard story. And that was the way it was, if you questioned Bush you got burned. Which is what happened with Valerie Plame after her husband called Dubya out on the yellow uranium.

    The media didn't start putting any real pressure on Dubya until the aftermath of Katrina. Which is one of the reasons that he's been a lameduck president since 2005.

    You're right. Katrina and the sad story of Brownie and the Homeland Security Sec. is what got the media off their asses.

  10. #25
    Elite Member bychance's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    5,294

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kingcap72 View Post
    Reporters want to ask tougher questions with Obama, but wouldn't ask tough questions when Dubya railroaded us into Iraq. The media has become a joke.
    dont you know the librul msm has it in teh can for NObama?!.

  11. #26
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,372

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MohandasKGanja View Post
    The problem was it wasn't just Bush stating that Iraq had WMD's. It wasn't just Bush monolithically making the claim that Iraq was a threat.
    Actually yes it was. THe UN stated that Saddam had no cabability. 'Old Europe' told Bush much the same. Nobody in the US seemed to have the balls to contradict Bush, least of all the media, so while you were ensconced in your l;ittle bubble of filtered and biased news, the rest of the planet was going "are you fucking SERIOUS"
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  12. #27
    Elite Member MohandasKGanja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Wherever my kids are
    Posts
    26,031

    Default

    I'm not sure I agree with you on no capability, or whether Bush was the only one to claim Iraq had it. Here's what I'm talking about:

    Feb. 4, 1998, Message from President Clinton to the Senate:

    "The policies and actions of the Saddam Hussein regime continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States, as well as to regional peace and security. (Signed William J. Clinton, President of the United States)"

    Feb. 25, 1998, Tom DASCHLE:
    "If fully implemented, this commitment will allow UNSCOM to fulfill its mission: First, to find and destroy all of Iraq’s chemical, biological and nuclear weapons; second, to find and destroy the missiles that could deliver these weapons; and, third, to institute a system for long-term monitoring to make sure Iraq doesn’t do it again.


    The United States remains resolved to secure, by whatever means necessary, Iraq’s full compliance with its commitment to destroy its weapons of mass destruction. So again, it will be diplomacy backed up by force. So long as diplomacy works, force will not be necessary. At the very moment diplomacy appears not to be working, force will be employed. So, let there be no mistake. This is not a question of breathing room. This is not a question of simply delaying and somehow, then, obviating the need for the use of force should it be required. It will be there.


    So, Mr. President, we have made great progress on paper over the last 72 hours."

    Mar. 12, 1998, Byron DORGAN:


    "Iraq possesses a chemical weapons program and a biological weapons program. Its chemical stockpile contained 40,000 chemical weapons munitions; 480,000 liters of chemical weapons agents; and 8 delivery systems.


    Iraq’s biological weapons arsenal included 8,500 liters of anthrax; 19,000 liters of botulinum toxin; and 2,200 liters of alfatoxin. This program was in violation of the Biological Weapons Convention, to which Iraq is a party."

    Mar. 12, 1998, Joe BIDEN:


    "No one should doubt for a moment the resolve of the United States to respond with force, if necessary, to Iraq’s continued flagrant violation of United Nations Security Council resolutions.


    Vigorous diplomacy has been pursued over the past three months, but, thus far, Saddam Hussein has shown that he has no interest in a peaceful solution on anything other than his own terms. We cannot allow this tyrant to prevail over the will of the international community. Our national security would be seriously compromised by a failure to stand up to the challenge he has confronted us with.


    Our strategic objective is to contain Saddam Hussein and curtail his ability to produce the most deadly weapons known to mankind...Left unchecked, Saddam Hussein would in short order be in a position to threaten and blackmail our regional allies, our troops, and, indeed, our nation."

    Mar. 12, 1998, written statement by Carl LEVIN:


    "I want to express my support for President Clinton, in consultation with Congress and consistent with the United States Constitution and laws, taking necessary and appropriate actions to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.


    Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction...and the means to deliver them are a menace to international peace and security. They pose a threat to Iraq’s neighbors, to U.S. forces in the Gulf region, to the world’s energy supplies, and to the integrity and credibility of the United Nations Security Council."

  13. #28
    Elite Member Grimmlok's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    In WhoreLand fucking your MOM
    Posts
    55,372

    Default

    Saddam was contained by 2 no fly zones bookending his country. The only actual means of delivering any kind of ordnance that he had left were idiotic SAM sites he kept trying to build, and which the US kept knocking out every other year.

    He had no chemical weapons manufacturing capabilities, certainly no nuclear ones, and the only weapons he had at his disposal were antiquated and rusting tanks left over from the 1980's. He had no airforce left to speak of after gulf war 1, and even then he was using 30 year old MiGs.

    But, despite the UN inspectors repeatedly telling Bush there were no such facilities, Bush gave them 72 hours to vacat ethe country because hey.. he didn't build up billions in arms and men in the middle east for nothing, and he was going to invade anyway.

    Also doubly amusing is the hypocritical stance of anybody in the US government railing against some other nation not obeying UN resolutions, when let's see.. Israel, being a US ally, has about 30 or 40 they've blithely ignored.. the Saudi's as well... I'm sure the US has a number of them...

    *sighs*

    Really, the whole thing is blatantly idiotic. Ritualistic chest thumping and kabuki dance to cover up activities that, if truthfully exposed, would be seen for the sham that they are.
    I am from the American CIA and I have a radio in my head. I am going to kill you.

  14. #29
    Elite Member MohandasKGanja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Wherever my kids are
    Posts
    26,031

    Default

    I'm not in favor of our engagement in Iraq or the huge drain in international prestige and resources that have accompanied it. However, I wanted to place what Bush did in context with what other people (particularly non-Bush Administration people) were saying at the time. And saying them right up to the invasion date:

    "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
    Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.


    "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
    Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.


    "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
    Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

  15. #30
    Elite Member MohandasKGanja's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Wherever my kids are
    Posts
    26,031

    Default

    I also agree that the entity that really mattered was the U.N inspection teams which found some programs but no actual WMD's. And their findings, despite being ridiculed by the Bush Administration before the war, were validated afterward.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. President-Elect Barack Obama takes questions from 3rd graders
    By Moongirl in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: December 17th, 2008, 10:49 AM
  2. Tough transition expected for new president
    By kingcap72 in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: October 25th, 2008, 11:23 PM
  3. Corporate media covers for John McCain's mistakes
    By Grimmlok in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: July 25th, 2008, 05:24 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: June 4th, 2006, 11:31 PM
  5. Heath Ledger vows better media relations
    By MaryJane in forum Gossip Archive
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: January 14th, 2006, 05:28 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •