coverage of Ronald Reagan's death has been excessive,

[JBA]

http://www.nypost.com/entertainment/22590.htm



June 9, 2004 -- DAN Rather and Tom Brokaw work for different networks but agree one thing — coverage of Ronald Reagan's death has been excessive, they say.

"Even though everybody is respectful and wants to pay homage to the president, life does go on," Rather told the Philadelphia Inquirer.

"There is other news, like the reality of Iraq," said the "CBS Evening News" anchor. "It got very short shrift this weekend."
Networks have been going almost wall-to-wall with coverage since Reagan passed away Saturday at the age of 93. The former president was diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease nearly 10 years ago.

"Once the herd starts moving in one direction, it's very hard to turn it, even slightly," Rather said. "Nationally, the herd has grown tremendously."

"I think just about everything is over-covered these days," said Brokaw, who anchors the "NBC Nightly News." "The spectrum is so crowded. With all the cable networks, it begins to have a 'video wall' feeling to it."
Jennings said he had mixed feelings about the Reagan coverage.
 
"I'm more inclined to spare coverage — come on [the air], do something meaningful, then get away," he said.
"The last time I had to do it was with O.J. Simpson [during the 1994 car chase], and I had nothing to say after a certain period of time."
Coverage of Reagan's death will continue through Friday's funeral on all the news networks (broadcast and cable). — Post TV Staff


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oo really Dan/tom,, how long have/will we be covering the Abu-Grap-an-Arab prison?

They hate Reagan because he was a popular President, he received more popular votes then any President in the history of the country, took 49 states in his re-election including the liberal haven Massachusetts)

They fear this will help Bush, If Bush is able to position himself as a Reagan Conservative.

Once again, any good will towards Republicans is bad news for the Liberal media and thier canadates.

[Krusher]

yes it is eating into the prison abuse coverage.

[ra]

Reagan was teh man, but I agree it's time to bury him and move on.

[Boroda]

"My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes."

It seems I am in a bad mood today

[LoneStarBuckeye]

Reagan was a great leader is worthy of the coverage.  We have not seen another of his quality since he left office and likely will not in the foreseeable future.

[Yeager]

fediddleing dorks.  Let us have our time.  He will be buried soon enough you fediddleers.

[-MZ-]

Originally posted by Krusher
yes it is eating into the prison abuse coverage.

Here you go.


Legalizing Torture
WASHINGTON POST
OP-ED
Wednesday, June 9, 2004; Page A20

THE BUSH administration assures the country, and the world, that it is complying with U.S. and international laws banning torture and maltreatment of prisoners. But, breaking with a practice of openness that had lasted for decades, it has classified as secret and refused to disclose the techniques of interrogation it is using on foreign detainees at U.S. prisons at Guantanamo Bay and in Afghanistan and Iraq. This is a matter of grave concern because the use of some of the methods that have been reported in the press is regarded by independent experts as well as some of the Pentagon's legal professionals as illegal. The administration has responded that its civilian lawyers have certified its methods as proper -- but it has refused to disclose, or even provide to Congress, the justifying opinions and memos.
 
This week, thanks again to an independent press, we have begun to learn the deeply disturbing truth about the legal opinions that the Pentagon and the Justice Department seek to keep secret. According to copies leaked to several newspapers, they lay out a shocking and immoral set of justifications for torture. In a paper prepared last year under the direction of the Defense Department's chief counsel, and first disclosed by the Wall Street Journal, the president of the United States was declared empowered to disregard U.S. and international law and order the torture of foreign prisoners. Moreover, interrogators following the president's orders were declared immune from punishment. Torture itself was narrowly redefined, so that techniques that inflict pain and mental suffering could be deemed legal. All this was done as a prelude to the designation of 24 interrogation methods for foreign prisoners -- the same techniques, now in use, that President Bush says are humane but refuses to disclose.

There is no justification, legal or moral, for the judgments made by Mr. Bush's political appointees at the Justice and Defense departments. Theirs is the logic of criminal regimes, of dictatorships around the world that sanction torture on grounds of "national security."  For decades the U.S. government has waged diplomatic campaigns against such outlaw governments -- from the military juntas in Argentina and Chile to the current autocracies in Islamic countries such as Algeria and Uzbekistan -- that claim torture is justified when used to combat terrorism. The news that serving U.S. officials have officially endorsed principles once advanced by Augusto Pinochet brings shame on American democracy -- even if it is true, as the administration maintains, that its theories have not been put into practice. Even on paper, the administration's reasoning will provide a ready excuse for dictators, especially those allied with the Bush administration, to go on torturing and killing detainees.

Perhaps the president's lawyers have no interest in the global impact of their policies -- but they should be concerned about the treatment of American servicemen and civilians in foreign countries. Before the Bush administration took office, the Army's interrogation procedures -- which were unclassified -- established this simple and sensible test: No technique should be used that, if used by an enemy on an American, would be regarded as a violation of U.S. or international law. Now, imagine that a hostile government were to force an American to take drugs or endure severe mental stress that fell just short of producing irreversible damage; or pain a little milder than that of "organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death." What if the foreign interrogator of an American "knows that severe pain will result from his actions" but proceeds because causing such pain is not his main objective? What if a foreign leader were to decide that the torture of an American was needed to protect his country's security? Would Americans regard that as legal, or morally acceptable? According to the Bush administration, they should.

[-MZ-]

Ooops!!


Army Now Says G.I. Was Beaten in Role
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Published: June 9, 2004

LOUISVILLE, Ky., June 8 — Reversing itself, the Army said Tuesday that a G.I. was discharged partly because of a head injury he suffered while posing as an uncooperative detainee during a training exercise at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

The Army had previously said Specialist Sean Baker's medical discharge in April was unrelated to the injury he received last year at the detention center, where the United States holds suspected terrorists.

Mr. Baker, 37, a former member of the 438th Military Police Company, said he played the role of an uncooperative prisoner and was beaten so badly by four American soldiers that he suffered a traumatic brain injury and seizures. He said the soldiers only stopped beating him when they realized he might be American.

Bruce Simpson, Mr. Baker's lawyer, said his client is considering a lawsuit.

[Saurdaukar]

Yeah, who cares about Reagan.  He only had the second highest approval ratings of the 20th Century, was loved on a personal level and respected on an ideological level by both sides of the isle.

Give us more stories of the righteous Iraqi freedom fighters avenging the deaths of their family members who were killed by the Zionist supporting Imperialist Americans!

[slimm50]

Originally posted by Boroda
"My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes."

It seems I am in a bad mood today

C'mon, that was a f***ing funny joke. If it were the Russian president  joking off-camera, I'd still laugh.

[Red Tail 444]

We'll have plenty of additional Reagan coverage in August.

Seems the ban on showing flag draped coffins of our war vets/heroes has finally been lifted...

[Yeager]

It seems I am in a bad mood today  
====
could it be because...




YOUR A RUSSIAN!

HAHA!!

[Makarov9]

If it was JFK (without the headwound) croaking at 93 we would have a solid month of coverage. Hell, Brokaw and Rather would be self-flagellating themselves live on TV.

[slimm50]

Originally posted by Makarov9
... Hell, Brokaw and Rather would be self-flagellating themselves live on TV.

Now THAT I'd like to see.

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by Saurdaukar
Yeah, who cares about Reagan.  He only had the second highest approval ratings of the 20th Century

Really?  This graph seems to refute that and it only shows post WW2 Presidents.




Whatt source did you use to reach this conclusion?