I hate the media

[JB73]

not only for showing and glorifying what i posted in the suicide bomber thread but this too

front page of today's paper here in Milwaukee, the headline said that the "white house" failed in protecting us from sept 11.

The Clinton administration had "no higher priority" than combatting terrorists while the Bush administration made it "an important issue but not an urgent issue" in the months before Sept. 11, 2001, said Richard Clarke

are these totally tubular people for real?!?!

luckily they covered their own arse with this comment:

The reports suggest that many of the Clinton administration's policies also were ineffectual, revealing significant new details about as many as four missed opportunities to kill or capture bin Laden in 1998 and 1999.

i guess they just dont know what to say

if there ever was an example of "liberal media" today's Milwaukee Urnial is a shining example.

[Glasses]

I think Clarke gave an advice to the board and gave no blames to any administatration they tried to corner him , but thatdidn't work I think he was very eloquent and put his point forth. He said  it could not have stopped perhaps sept 11 but it may have  significantly disassembled Al qaeda if both Clinton and Bush admins have acted more agressively to the terrorist threat.

[Pongo]

Ya that press is so silly. Like calling the council looking into 9/11 independent..lol
who appointed it?

[Thud]

But of course you do, as long as they don't echo your very own personal beliefes that is.

A person who is in all probability in the best position of all to judge objectively what the priority of countering terrorism has been over the last decades is immediately discarded as a liar.

If he would have stated that the Clinton administration had neglected terrorism as an issue, his statement would be all over the BBS with the more conservatively minded posters crying out "I told you so, lib dweebs" as if their very lives depended on it...

As always, so transparent...

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by Thud
A person who is in all probability in the best position of all to judge objectively what the priority of countering terrorism has been over the last decades is immediately discarded as a liar.

If he would have stated that the Clinton administration had neglected terrorism as an issue, his statement would be all over the BBS with the more conservatively minded posters crying out "I told you so, lib dweebs" as if their very lives depended on it...

 

Umm, he *is* a liar, we just don't know if he's lying now, or lying then.  And, he mentioned that Clinton had terrorism as his highest priority, another outright lie.  Cover up was his highest priority (Hiya Monica!)  Nice try Weazel, please  play again!

[lord dolf vader]

dont bother his link goes to fox "news"

"cleared by the White House on Wednesday for distribution,"


only important part of it.

try reading a book at work. it might help

[Ripsnort]

Isn't it interesting that reporters aren't talking about the chapter of "Against All Enemies" that describes how Osama bin Laden cooperated with Iraqi scientists to make weapons of mass destruction - a development that, if true, would more than justify President Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq?

[lazs2]

I don't watch the news or read newspapers unless there is a war or huge natural disaster.   There is no truth whatsoever in any news story.  

You will find your life goes much better if you don't watch the news very often.... newspapers are lucky to get the name of the newspaper and todays date right... total waste of paper.

lazs

[Ripsnort]

LDF, Thud, heres another source for you, but I suppose Yahoo is a right wing tool of the media, too, no?

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=544&u=/ap/20040323/ap_on_go_pr_wh/terrorism_adviser_3&printer=1

[Thud]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
Umm, he *is* a liar, we just don't know if he's lying now, or lying then.  And, he mentioned that Clinton had terrorism as his highest priority, another outright lie.  Cover up was his highest priority (Hiya Monica!)  Nice try Weazel, please  play again!

You don't know anything, only that if and only if Fox reporter Jim Angle speaks the truth Clarke has made two inconsistent statements. Now if only we would be sure that Fox speaks the truth....  

[Thud]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
LDF, Thud, heres another source for you, but I suppose Yahoo is a right wing tool of the media, too, no?

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=544&u=/ap/20040323/ap_on_go_pr_wh/terrorism_adviser_3&printer=1

More of the same, another source that refers to the white house either issuing or endorsing a publication that favors them. If you are objective you know that these hardly are convincing statements. Think about it if it was the other way around.

[Dune]

I don't suppose it's occured to you that you are doing the same thing you accuse Rip of?  The second he posts something that you or LDV don't approve of you claim "It's Fox News and must be a lie" and stick your head in the sand.  In other words, you refuse to believe the facts posted because "they don't echo your very own personal beliefes..."

Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.

[muckmaw]

Here's the second biggest lie ever said under oath:

Clarke, who resigned 13 months ago, said the Clinton administration was active in tracking Osama bin Laden (news - web sites)'s al Qaeda network but the Bush administration, which took office in January 2001, did not consider the issue urgent.

Right there, the BS meter buried the needle.

PS, I love the way 60 minutes did such an investigative piece on Clarke's Book...I mean what do they have at stake...they're not biased, right? They're the #1 Television News Magazine...Oh wait, you mean Simon and Schuster, the publisher of Clarks book is a part of...Wha..CBS/VIACOM. Oh my...who could have imagined...

Fuggin' BS Media. Lazs, you hit it right on the head, pal.

[Pongo]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
Isn't it interesting that reporters aren't talking about the chapter of "Against All Enemies" that describes how Osama bin Laden cooperated with Iraqi scientists to make weapons of mass destruction - a development that, if true, would more than justify President Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq?

Is this an addmition that there has been no such justification provided to date?

[Thud]

Originally posted by Dune
I don't suppose it's occured to you that you are doing the same thing you accuse Rip of?  The second he posts something that you or LDV don't approve of you claim "It's Fox News and must be a lie" and stick your head in the sand.  In other words, you refuse to believe the facts posted because "they don't echo your very own personal beliefes..."

Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle.

I just pointed out exactly that and I quote "Think about it if it was the other way around." It simply implies that his arguments and sources are as legitimate as he judges those who support my viewpoint to be. Ergo, him referring to a white house endorsed/issued source is the same as myself quoting the Kerry-campaign for example. I think you know what validity he usually attaches to such sources, eh?  (liberal media bias etc.)

BTW, I am very pot and kettle aware, I usually prefer being the kettle though.