Newsvine
  • Welcome
  • Help
  • Report Bug
  • Conversation Tracker
  • Your Column
  • Replies
  • Friends
Type Comments Since You Last CheckedArticle Source Last Checked Stop Tracking All Clear Tracking All
Advertise | AdChoices
Log In | Register
Close the Login Panel
Existing users log in below. New users please register for a free account.

New Users:

Existing Users:

E-Mail:
Password:
Forgot Password?
Please enter the e-mail address or domain name you registered with:
E-Mail/Domain:
Back to Login
Log Out
  • Top News
  • Local News
  • World
  • U.S.
  • Sports
  • Politics
  • Tech
  • Entertainment
  • Science
  • Business
  • Health
  • Odd News
  • More
    • Arts
    • Education
    • Environment
    • Fashion
    • History
    • Home & Garden
    • Not News
    • Religion
    • Travel
Visit Texasguy01's column >>

TEXASGUY01

Engineering a better America
Articles Posted: 42  Links Seeded: 1868
Member Since: 6/2008  Last Seen: 5/18/2012

What is Newsvine?

Updated continuously by citizens like you, Newsvine is an instant reflection of what the world is talking about at any given moment.

Get a Free Account
Help
Fun Stuff
  • Your Clippings
  • Leaderboard
  • E-Mail Alerts
  • Top of the Vine
  • Newsvine Live
  • Newsvine Archives
  • The Greenhouse
  • Recommended Articles
  • Wall of Vineness
Put a Seed Newsvine link on your own site

Red, White, and Partisan How the Media Furor Over Bush's War on Terror Vanished Under Obama

Seeded on Fri Sep 9, 2011 10:35 AM EDT
Read ArticleArticle Source: MRC Latest Headlines
politics, obama, bush, war, media, terror, liberal, spin
Seeded by Texasguy01
Advertise | AdChoices

The premeditated murder of thousands of Americans on September 11, 2001 unified the United States, in grief over the attacks and in resolve to never let it happen again. Just as Members of Congress stood together as one on the Capitol steps to sing “God Bless America,” the American major media united with the people in their collective shock and outrage.    

But that feeling did not last. Within a month, America went to war in Afghanistan, and the media returned to its traditional pose of being above “nationalistic fervor.” Instead, the media coverage grew dark and foreboding, presenting America as a malignant force many Americans didn’t recognize. 

When Barack Obama was elected, the pessimism faded, and so did the skepticism. Even Obama’s continuation of certain Bush anti-terror policies didn’t outrage the media. To review how the broadcast television networks portrayed the War on Terror in the decade since 9/11, the Media Research Center has identified major trends that stand out from ten years of media analysis. The Bush policy was often reviled, and the Obama policy was often ignored or praised:

 

  • Under Bush, anchors and reporters painted the War on Terror as a dark era in American history where our civil liberties were vanishing. Terrorist suspects were often treated as morally superior to their U.S. military captors.
  • Under Obama, the picture of unjustly detained terror suspects faded from view, and Guantanamo faded as an international outrage.
  • Under Bush, the networks eagerly promoted partisan talking points that cast the  administration as villainous or inept in its handling of the War on Terror – or, even worse, somehow to blame for the 9/11 attacks themselves.
  • Under Obama, the media’s coverage of Obama’s failures on terrorism (the mass murder at Fort Hood and the near misses above Detroit and in Times Square) diverted the subject from Obama’s performance  to other controversies (like America’s alleged “Islamophobia”). When Obama’s performance succeeded – as in his command of the mission to kill Osama bin Laden – the subject wasn’t changed.
  • Under Bush, TV journalists were so averse to nationalism that they found allusions to an “axis of evil” in the world to be grotesque, and obsessed over the unpopularity of Bush’s America in Europe and the Middle East.
  • Under Obama, the media simply assumed that a less nationalistic Obama's outreach to the Muslim world (including his speech in Cairo) would warm global opinion, and ignored surveys that belied that assumption.

 

  • Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.

Published to:

  • Texasguy01's Column, All of Newsvine
  • Groups: none
  • Regions: none
  • Public Discussion (87)
Texasguy01

Also the article leaves out "Code Pink" and their escapades under Bush and the supposedly anti war group suddenly calling for the physical destruction of Israel under Obama. An amazing change of heart. The lesson is not lost on me at least.

  • 9 votes
Reply#1 - Fri Sep 9, 2011 10:37 AM EDT
wmolaw

Texas:

It is shocking, isn't it. It is a lesson which all in this Country should learn about the MSM.

  • 3 votes
#1.1 - Fri Sep 9, 2011 12:03 PM EDT
badchess

Strange that code pink sides with people who try to kill civilians with rockets.

  • 5 votes
#1.2 - Fri Sep 9, 2011 12:11 PM EDT
hard2port

Face it, the Texas chimp couldn't bring himself to order the death of a family member of his Saudi business pals. George W. Bush = War Criminal, traitor, economic terrorist, liar, moron.

  • 9 votes
#1.3 - Fri Sep 9, 2011 12:31 PM EDT
badchess

Is there some reason you wish to have random Saudis killed?

A good Arab is a dead Arab perhaps?

Obama = war criminal, traitor, economic terrorist, bigot, liar, moron.

  • 6 votes
#1.4 - Fri Sep 9, 2011 12:40 PM EDT
Common Sense Mike

Democrats could care less about our military or either of these wars. It was all about regaining political power. The amazing thing is how so many have their head stuck so far up that donkeys butt that they can't see the reality of the situation. 2006 Democrats won control of the House and Senate, campaigning on bringing our troops home and ending the wars......yet their first official act as a Congress was voting for the surge. Look at all the promises Obama made and the criticisms he had for the Bush Administration on this subject....yet he has changed nothing and continues to follow Bush's policies. And you are right.....there has been a stark contrast of how the media has reported on this subject, even though it's been the same policies and actions by both Bush and Obama.

  • 4 votes
#1.5 - Fri Sep 9, 2011 2:18 PM EDT
lib50

We are STILL paying for the mistakes Bush made in the "War on Terror". The worst was invading Iraq under FALSE pretenses, which led to the concentration of attention/troops/money in Iraq instead of the real problems in Afghanistan. One more time. Bush started a war of choice instead of fighting the war of necessity (which is why we are still there trying to tamp down the Taliban).

Democrats could care less about our military or either of these wars.

How dare you. My son fought in Iraq and is lucky to be alive today. If anybody could care less about them it is teapubs. The only reason they pay any attention to either is because their corporate bosses make tons of money off of taxpayers (Haliburton, etc).

  • 1 vote
#1.6 - Fri Sep 9, 2011 2:53 PM EDT
Reply
Door King

The press fell all over itself to give Bush a blow job when we invaded Afghanistan. Your history is a bit off.

  • 10 votes
#2 - Fri Sep 9, 2011 11:12 AM EDT
JEFFINVA

Not to mention the demonization of whomever even questioned why we went into Iraq or showed that they were against us going.

Remember the Dixie Chicks?

  • 14 votes
#2.1 - Fri Sep 9, 2011 11:36 AM EDT
Texasguy01

I do remember the media making fun of Bush for not invading Iraq and Afghanistan until he did it and the castigating him for doing it.

  • 3 votes
#2.2 - Fri Sep 9, 2011 11:54 AM EDT
tyler-1708225

"Remember the Dixie Chicks?"

You might want to remember what all those 3 idiots said and did non politically that contributed to their being dismissed by the industry and fans that paid their bills. How are all those boycotts doing that the democrats have going. You call for another one every week.

  • 4 votes
#2.3 - Fri Sep 9, 2011 12:09 PM EDT
badchess

Yes, that is why the mainstream press waited maybe 10 days before using the term "quagmire" in respect to the invasion.

  • 3 votes
#2.4 - Fri Sep 9, 2011 12:09 PM EDT
Fred Evil

I do remember the media making fun of Bush for not invading Iraq and Afghanistan

Really? Because I distinctly remember the press having a field day with the Iraq invasion. How anyone who stood against it was labeled 'Anti-American' or a dreadful pacifist. Making fun of him I never saw, the majority pretty much spent their time backing everything he did, until they realized he was wrong, as many of us had been saying for months.

Afghanistan was the right thing to do, Iraq was not. I will still praise and lambast Bush for those decisions respectively.

  • 8 votes
#2.5 - Fri Sep 9, 2011 12:23 PM EDT
badchess

I dunno. Given the deaths due to sanctions, and the ongoing non-stop air-war against Iraq, it seems to me getting it "over with" was better both in a long term strategic reasons as well as humanitarian reasons.

  • 1 vote
#2.6 - Fri Sep 9, 2011 12:29 PM EDT
Brian-497171

I do remember the media making fun of Bush for not invading Iraq

WTF are you talking about?

  • 4 votes
#2.7 - Fri Sep 9, 2011 12:32 PM EDT
Texasguy01

Here is a good place to start. It has become the topic of study why such media bias was present. This is a powerful fact to acknowledge that the media lead the US to war including such liberal sources as the New York Times by publishing misinformation and in some cases lies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_coverage_of_the_Iraq_War

Criticisms of pro-invasion bias


A study found that in the lead up to the Iraq War, most sources were overwhelmingly in favor of the invasion.

A University of Maryland study on American public opinion found that:

  • Fifty-seven percent of mainstream media viewers believed the falsity that Iraq gave substantial support to Al-Qaeda, or was directly involved in the September 11 attacks (48% after invasion).
  • Sixty-nine percent believed the falsity that Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the September 11 attacks.
  • Twenty-two percent believed the falsity that weapons of mass destruction had been found in Iraq. (Twenty-one percent believed that chem/bio weapons had actually been used against U.S. soldiers in Iraq during 2003)
  • In the composite analysis of the PIPA study, 80% of Fox News watchers had one or more of these misperceptions, in contrast to 71% for CBS and 27% who tuned to NPR/PBS.[17]

In 2003, a study released by Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting stated the network news disproportionately focused on pro-war sources and left out many anti-war sources. According to the study, 64% of total sources were in favor of the Iraq War while total anti-war sources made up 10% of the media (only 3% of US sources were anti-war). The study stated that "viewers were more than six times as likely to see a pro-war source as one who was anti-war; with U.S. guests alone, the ratio increases to 25 to 1."[18]

FAIR also conducted a similar study in February 2004. According to the study, which took place during October 2003, current or former government or military officials accounted for 76 percent of all 319 sources for news stories about Iraq which aired on network news channels.[19]

After the invasion, the editors of the New York Times apologized for its coverage of Hussein's alleged weapons programs, acknowledging that "we wish we had been more aggressive in re-examining the claims (related to Iraqi weapons programs) as new evidence emerged — or failed to emerge."[20]

During the invasion, critics argued that the mainstream media unduly focused on optimistic events, such as the toppling of a Saddam Hussein statue in Firdos Square, which was staged with the help of the U.S. military forces, thus downplaying more negative news developments.[21] In particular, the mainstream media has been criticized for underreporting news about Iraqi civilian casualties, which are estimated to be anywhere between 100,000 and 650,000.[22]

As the security situation in Iraq has worsened since the invasion, many journalists have found it increasingly difficult to report from Iraq without jeopardizing their lives. Some media outlets, unable to afford the cost of additional security, have even abandoned their bureaus in Baghdad. This trend has forced journalists to depend even more heavily on U.S. military sources, which has led some critics to call into question the impartiality of their reports on events such as the Iraqi elections.[23]

A post-2008 election poll by FactCheck.org found that 48% of Americans believe Hussein played a role in the 9/11 attacks; the group concluded that "voters, once deceived, tend to stay that way despite all evidence."[24]

  • 2 votes
#2.8 - Fri Sep 9, 2011 12:59 PM EDT
wmolaw

Afghanistan was the right thing to do, Iraq was not. I will still praise and lambast Bush for those decisions respectively.

Ah, that is the dem line.

And that line has gotten more American soldiers killed in Afghanistan under Obama in 2 years than under both terms of Bush,

and we have nothing to show for it in Afghanistan!

  • 4 votes
#2.9 - Fri Sep 9, 2011 1:08 PM EDT
JEFFINVA

What do we have to show for it in Iraq? 1,000+ dead soldiers? Some garbage temp government? Sure as hell isn't good oil prices.

Also Texas-

If I want to know who's leading in the running for election I'll look at polls. If I'm determining if going to war was smart the LAST thing I would do is find out what the public thinks is best.

  • 4 votes
#2.10 - Fri Sep 9, 2011 1:24 PM EDT
Fred Evil

And that line has gotten more American soldiers killed in Afghanistan under Obama in 2 years than under both terms of Bush,

What is the point? Afghanistan is where the bastards who enacted 9/11 were based. Driving the Taliban out, or at least underground, is an appropriate goal. And isn't the standard GOP line, "Better to fight them there, than here?" I agree, we've been left to a bit of a quagmire by Bush, because he didn't have much of a plan besides killing the F'ers who attacked us. I applauded at the time, but neither he NOR Obama seem to have an appropriate out, where we don't essentially abandon Afghanistan back to the Taliban and al Qaeda, do you?

  • 2 votes
#2.11 - Fri Sep 9, 2011 1:38 PM EDT
cowboygrandpa

Fred Evil:

#2.11

Right on !!! When OBL left Afghanistan, it was time for us to pull out and get after him. Not stay and punish our soldiers or the civilian population for the acts done by OBL.

Iraq was a huge mistake, and the cost just keeps growing.

Bush was a huge mistake and the cost just keeps growing.

  • 3 votes
#2.12 - Fri Sep 9, 2011 1:58 PM EDT
wmolaw

Fred:

but neither he NOR Obama seem to have an appropriate out, where we don't essentially abandon Afghanistan back to the Taliban and al Qaeda, do you?

Nope, and this is EXACTLY my point. Bush didn't invade AFghanistan because he KNEW that such an invasion would be worthless. His goal, kill and disrupt, period.

Iraq, well, I lost a damn bet on that war, still can't believe he went there.

But no, I don't, and that's my point. They don't, our generals don't, no one does, so let's just get the hell out! No use staying to accomplish something that we don't even know what it is!

  • 3 votes
#2.13 - Fri Sep 9, 2011 2:12 PM EDT
Common Sense Mike

Sure as hell isn't good oil prices.

Yet that was the cry of the media and the left in this country for how long? We invaded Iraq for the oil.........without ever stating the fact that all of the oil was continuing to go to Europe, where it had gone before we invaded. Yet..."Blood for Oil" continued to be the cry of liberals.

  • 3 votes
#2.14 - Fri Sep 9, 2011 2:23 PM EDT
lib50

and we have nothing to show for it in Afghanistan!

After wasting 8 years to focus on Iraq, I put that on Bush/Cheney. What exactly do you want Obama to do?

  • 1 vote
#2.15 - Fri Sep 9, 2011 2:57 PM EDT
wmolaw

Get out.

  • 1 vote
#2.16 - Fri Sep 9, 2011 3:28 PM EDT
Fred Evil

They don't, our generals don't, no one does, so let's just get the hell out! No use staying to accomplish something that we don't even know what it is!

I wish I could disagree and assert that we DO have a plan, at least winning hearts and minds, but I'm no longer sure that's really possible. Keeping the Taliban out of power certainly would also be a good goal, but how to we accomplish that militarily?

I don't think we can....I think you may have convinced me that we need to be out of Afghanistan as well as Iraq, sooner rather than later. I'm just afraid of what the resulting power vacuum would result in...

    #2.17 - Fri Sep 9, 2011 3:33 PM EDT
    lib50

    Getting into war is so much easier than getting out, taking into account all of the possible consequences. Just pulling out could create WAY more danger and problems (not to mention it takes time). It really is too bad 100% focus was not on Afghanistan in the first place, we'd probably have been out years ago.

      #2.18 - Fri Sep 9, 2011 5:12 PM EDT
      Reply
      More Than Happy

      W. and acting-President Cheney seemed to delight in scaring the American people for their own ends, using the real threat of the terrorists as an excuse. Then, they started torture as official policy just for the sheer sadistic pleasure of it.

      THAT'S why the supposed 'media furor' has ended under Obama. Inertia aside, Obama actually sees the law and common decency as a help against the terrorists, not as an obstacle!

      • 5 votes
      Reply#3 - Fri Sep 9, 2011 11:13 AM EDT
      wmolaw

      More:

      Obama has killed more Americans in Afghanistan than Bush did in both of his terms.

      And what have we gotten for it? What's the end game in that torn land?

      The same as it always was, we leave, period. Bush understood that.

      • 6 votes
      #3.1 - Fri Sep 9, 2011 12:05 PM EDT
      More Than Happy

      wmolaw, what's your point? Do you think the 'media furor' against W.'s lies about Iraqi WMD's and torture (and everything else) is totally unfounded? No one's perfect, but Obama's at least trying to preserve what makes America America.

      • 4 votes
      #3.2 - Fri Sep 9, 2011 12:23 PM EDT
      Fred Evil

      Obama has killed more Americans in Afghanistan than Bush did in both of his terms.

      Oh, I see, Osama is killed, he gets no credit, but American servicemen die doing the RIGHT THING, and he takes the 'blame?' The right never has any problem distorting reality, do you?

      The same as it always was, we leave, period. Bush understood that.

      What?! Then we didn't we? Why leave it for the next President? That makes NO sense.

      • 5 votes
      #3.3 - Fri Sep 9, 2011 12:24 PM EDT
      More Than Happy

      Retreating into nihilism is a common tactic of the cornered.

      • 1 vote
      #3.4 - Fri Sep 9, 2011 12:27 PM EDT
      wmolaw

      Fred:

      Ah, need a geography lesson?

      Fact is that Obama has not accomplished anything substantive in AFghanistan that is going to help our Country, or that Country. Bush understood that which is why he never went full hog in Afghanistan, he LEARNED the lesson that was so bloodily taught to the Russians, Obama never did.

      But, I will say, Obama was roped into it. He HAD to take the "Afghanistan good, Iraq" bad position during his campaign because that was the DNC line, he had no choice. And then when elected, he had to follow through.

      Hell, even the Taliban won't negotiate with Obama now (though he's trying like hell!), for they know he's leaving, he's told them enough times!

      • 2 votes
      #3.5 - Fri Sep 9, 2011 1:12 PM EDT
      Fred Evil

      Ah, need a geography lesson?

      Why would I?

      He HAD to take the "Afghanistan good, Iraq" bad position during his campaign because that was the DNC line

      It's also correct, and has been my position since before we invaded Iraq.

      • 1 vote
      #3.6 - Fri Sep 9, 2011 1:31 PM EDT
      lib50

      He HAD to take the "Afghanistan good, Iraq" bad position during his campaign because that was the DNC line, he had no choice.

      He took the position because it was the RIGHT position. Whatever you are trying to do is not working. We all know exactly how and why we got to this point in both wars, and you don't seem to get it.

        #3.7 - Fri Sep 9, 2011 3:19 PM EDT
        badchess

        We all know exactly how and why we got to this point in both wars, and you don't seem to get it.

        Amazing how adroitly you can contradict yourself within the same sentence.

        • 1 vote
        #3.8 - Fri Sep 9, 2011 3:29 PM EDT
        wmolaw

        Lib:

        No, it wasn't. I won't dispute that we should never have gone into Iraq, hell I agree! Hell, I lost a damned bet to Jack Gillis on that one, the ONLY time I've ever lost to Gillis!

        But Afghanistan is not the "right" war. It shouldn't be a war at all, not really. Bomb the hell out of them, drone em down, stay out of reach, keep boots off the ground pretty much, and don't, under any circumstances try to nation build.

        Bush was doing it right in Afghanistan. Obama felt he had to do it differently, why, I stated why above.

        And lots of young men lost their lives because of it.

        • 1 vote
        #3.9 - Fri Sep 9, 2011 3:31 PM EDT
        wmolaw

        Badchess:

        Okay, that was FUNNY AS HELL!

        I didn't even notice it, but once you pointed it out it was as clear as a bell!

        • 1 vote
        #3.10 - Fri Sep 9, 2011 3:32 PM EDT
        lib50

        Ok, I concede the contradiction.

        Those of us paying attention know exactly how and why we got to this point in both wars. You must have been focused on something else.

        Correction.

        • 1 vote
        #3.11 - Fri Sep 9, 2011 5:19 PM EDT
        Reply
        DBE928

        The media hated Bush and loves Obama. That is the reason for the differential treatment.

        • 5 votes
        #4 - Fri Sep 9, 2011 12:00 PM EDT
        More Than Happy

        As they should. W. was a giant POS, and Obama's trying really hard to clean up his mess.

        • 2 votes
        #4.1 - Fri Sep 9, 2011 12:03 PM EDT
        wmolaw

        More:

        Ah, sure. The more we see of Obama, the more we see that he is a low rent pos as well.

        What do you know, eh?

        Maybe we should learn the lesson and understand that most of politicians are, at heart, pos's!

        • 3 votes
        #4.2 - Fri Sep 9, 2011 12:06 PM EDT
        More Than Happy

        Maybe we should learn the lesson and understand that most of politicians are, at heart, pos's!

        That's not a lesson, that's a cop-out. There are still good people out there, and almost none of them have found their way into the national leadership of the GOP these days. Torture is un-American!

        • 4 votes
        #4.3 - Fri Sep 9, 2011 12:20 PM EDT
        Brian-497171

        The media hated Bush

        The WORLD hated Bush & Co.

        Don't flatter yourself.

        • 3 votes
        #4.4 - Fri Sep 9, 2011 12:34 PM EDT
        badchess

        Rather anthropomorphic of you.

        I suspect the world has no feelings for Bush.

        Personally, I thought he was another big government politician who spends too much. Like Obama, but with a smaller credit limit.

        • 4 votes
        #4.5 - Fri Sep 9, 2011 12:41 PM EDT
        wmolaw

        happy:

        Actually, it's the traitorous damn dems that are destroying this Country!

        And if torture ain't such a great thing, why did Obama use the fruits of waterboarding to find Osama, that you guys now consider the most spectacular event in the history of the world!

        That is just, well, contradictory, to put a nice word to it.

        • 2 votes
        #4.6 - Fri Sep 9, 2011 1:13 PM EDT
        wmolaw

        Brian:

        And the WORLD thought they would like a compliant, know nothing president like Obama.

        Instead, they are discovering that without strong leadership from the USA, the rest of the world suffers.

        They now think Obama is a putz, a bit late, most of those with an IQ over 50 and who don't get "shivers" up our leg when we look at him, knew that some time ago.

        • 3 votes
        #4.7 - Fri Sep 9, 2011 1:15 PM EDT
        More Than Happy

        And if torture ain't such a great thing, why did Obama use the fruits of waterboarding to find Osama, that you guys now consider the most spectacular event in the history of the world!

        Uh, what? Waterboarding didn't find Osama, an informant and a good ol' massive payoff did.

        Actually, it's the traitorous damn dems that are destroying this Country!

        I disagree. Eric Cantor is a specific person who's destroying this country - he's holding his own constituents hostage for hurricane aid, for God's sake!

        • 1 vote
        #4.8 - Fri Sep 9, 2011 2:22 PM EDT
        badchess

        Waterboarding didn't find Osama, an informant and a good ol' massive payoff did.

        Depends on who you talk to. our current AG dodges and weaves and comes out with a courageous "I don't know." but past officials are less reticent.

        In an interview with Time magazine, the former director of the CIA’s counterterrorism center, Jose Rodriguez, said the first important leads about Kuwaiti came from alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) and Abu Farraj al-Libbi, the third-ranking Al Qaeda leader at the time of his capture. Both men were interrogated at secret CIA “black sites,” where Mr. Mohammed was subject to waterboarding 183 times.

        “Information provided by KSM and [Mr. Libbi] about bin Laden’s courier was the lead information that eventually led to the location of the compound and the operation that led to his death,” Mr. Rodriguez is quoted as saying.

        Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told Fox News’s Sean Hannity that the Obama administration would not have had “the kinds of intelligence that was critically important,” but for the aggressive efforts of the Bush administration.

        “Anyone who suggests that the enhanced techniques, let’s be blunt – waterboarding – did not produce an enormous amount of valuable intelligence just isn’t facing the truth,” he said.

        Attorney General Eric Holder was asked during a House Judiciary subcommittee hearing on Tuesday whether any intelligence information that led to the bin Laden mission was the result of enhanced interrogation techniques.

        “There was a mosaic of sources that led to the identification of the people who led to [bin Laden],” the attorney general said.

        “I understand that,” replied Rep. Dan Lungren (R) of California. “But were any pieces of that mosaic the result of enhanced interrogation techniques?”

        Attorney General Holder: “I do not know.”

        http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2011/0505/Did-harsh-interrogation-tactics-help-US-find-Osama-bin-Laden

        • 1 vote
        #4.9 - Fri Sep 9, 2011 2:59 PM EDT
        More Than Happy

        If Donald Rumsfeld or Sean Hannity (or anyone in the W.'s cult) told me that the sky was blue, I'd still have to go outside to check it for myself. They're desperate to rationalize their nonsense because Obama did what they couldn't!

        But that's all besides the point. Torture is un-American, sadistic crap.

          #4.10 - Fri Sep 9, 2011 3:15 PM EDT
          badchess

          I find Obama's speeches to be torture, can we make them stop?

          • 2 votes
          #4.11 - Fri Sep 9, 2011 3:30 PM EDT
          lib50

          I thought he was another big government politician who spends too much. Like Obama, but with a smaller credit limit.

          Please, republicans spent like there was no tomorrow and grew the deficit more.

          http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/07/the-chart-that-should-accompany-all-discussions-of-the-debt-ceiling/242484/

          Just because Bush didn't add the cost of the wars into his budgets doesn't mean he wasn't the cause of it. Not to mention the unpaid tax cuts.

            #4.12 - Fri Sep 9, 2011 3:39 PM EDT
            More Than Happy

            Not until January 2017, badchess.

              #4.13 - Fri Sep 9, 2011 3:45 PM EDT
              badchess

              You mean he is going to go around fund raising even after he loses the next election?

              • 1 vote
              #4.14 - Fri Sep 9, 2011 4:18 PM EDT
              More Than Happy

              I mean that the GOP has no candidate in 2012; Romney and Perry are both compromised.

                #4.15 - Fri Sep 9, 2011 5:07 PM EDT
                badchess

                I'd say Obama is as well.

                Guess we'll see.

                • 1 vote
                #4.16 - Fri Sep 9, 2011 5:45 PM EDT
                wmolaw

                I don't think we've seen the pub candidate yet, at least I hope we haven't!

                • 2 votes
                #4.17 - Sun Sep 11, 2011 5:26 PM EDT
                badchess

                I dunno, maybe that is the beer servers of America candidate...

                • 2 votes
                #4.18 - Mon Sep 12, 2011 7:06 AM EDT
                Common Sense Mike

                I find Obama's speeches to be torture, can we make them stop?

                I am with you there.....could somebody please waterboard me during the next one?

                • 2 votes
                #4.19 - Tue Sep 13, 2011 3:15 PM EDT
                Reply
                tyler-1708225

                What happened to Cindy Sheehan, the media's golden girl? How many months did they camp out with her anyway? It might not be in the press, nationally, but it is here locally. We are questioning what happened to all those anti-war demonstrators that were so active on the expressway every week. What happened to all those signs decorating yards that said "Peace, not war" and "War is not the answer." Of course they are hiding their faces and not replying. It's sad they had so little dedication to their mission.

                • 4 votes
                Reply#5 - Fri Sep 9, 2011 12:00 PM EDT
                Texasguy01

                My point exactly. It looked like a fake created group just to try and discredit Bush.

                • 5 votes
                #5.1 - Fri Sep 9, 2011 12:04 PM EDT
                Reply
                tyler-1708225

                Political groups is all any of them were, Sheehan and her supporters, Pink Code, the protesters.

                • 1 vote
                Reply#6 - Fri Sep 9, 2011 12:16 PM EDT
                Brian-497171

                Speaking of political groups, tyler, where was the T-Party protests on the DC Mall against Bush's reckless spending and Bush's needless world policing?

                • 2 votes
                #6.1 - Fri Sep 9, 2011 12:38 PM EDT
                tyler-1708225

                #6. Brian, the tea party was formed for that very same reason to stop all outrageous spending. Now if they magically disappear from the spotlight, should Obama get defeated, we can discuss that. It's hard to predict the future so I stick with present day facts. And that is that the groups mentioned did a fast retreat when Obama was elected. I'm not a tea party member.

                • 2 votes
                #6.2 - Fri Sep 9, 2011 1:06 PM EDT
                Brian-497171

                So they were protesting Bush, or not?

                • 1 vote
                #6.3 - Fri Sep 9, 2011 1:08 PM EDT
                badchess

                Gosh, since they did not yet exist, probably not.

                In much the same way that Code Pink was not protesting Lyndon Johnson.

                • 3 votes
                #6.4 - Fri Sep 9, 2011 1:12 PM EDT
                wmolaw

                LOL.

                Speaking of political groups, tyler, where was the T-Party protests on the DC Mall against Bush's reckless spending and Bush's needless world policing?

                Funny. Guess you need a bit of a timeline, eh?

                • 2 votes
                #6.5 - Fri Sep 9, 2011 1:16 PM EDT
                Brian-497171

                Oh, so it wasn't the wasteful spending of Bush that spurred the need for the T-Party.

                • 1 vote
                #6.6 - Fri Sep 9, 2011 1:18 PM EDT
                tyler-1708225

                I'm not a member, their mission is government spending, so they obviously felt with the outragious spending of the Bush administration it was time to organize and work toward stopping it from here on in. So far they haven't deserted their mission and unless they do there is no comparison. Everything starts some where, war protesting, spending protesting. It would be silly to say we won't protest the war until it is over and it would be silly to wait for the outrageous spending to stop to protest it.

                • 2 votes
                #6.7 - Fri Sep 9, 2011 1:30 PM EDT
                Reply
                jpokergman

                You guys are really going to justify a bias in media?

                Just because it is temporarily breaking your way?

                Don't you remember how repressive the media was just a few short decades ago? What happens if the other guys get a hold of the Mainstream?

                As for me I would be happy with Robots Spitting out "Just the facts".......For the new broadcasts.

                Political commentaries.....Could then be just listed .....as ADULT ENTERTAINMENT!

                • 3 votes
                Reply#7 - Fri Sep 9, 2011 12:34 PM EDT
                wmolaw

                Agreed.

                • 2 votes
                #7.1 - Fri Sep 9, 2011 1:16 PM EDT
                Reply
                Dryver008

                There is some meat to this story. We've had record deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq since Obama took office. But these stories never seem to make it to light. I can only guess the intent is to give people the illusion that our President has things under control.

                Further proof. Just walk your way through the major media sites. ABC, CBS, MSNBC all blame the economic mess on Bohner and the Republicans. What they fail to mention is that that Pelosi controlled that same chamber for two years prior and she never even presented a budget to be voted on. Just spend spend spend. Borrow borrow borrow. Job loss after job loss.

                I'm curious the Liberal media will cover this Obama/Solyndra money laundering scam. The FBI raided their offices just yesterday. Curious to see how they try to explain the disappearance of 500 million in stimulus money and their generous political contributions they made to the prominent Democrats. They better hope Obama gets a second term and Eric Holder can refuse to press charges. Because when the GOP wins the Presidency in 2012 I'm sure some prosecutions are surely to come.

                • 3 votes
                Reply#8 - Fri Sep 9, 2011 1:00 PM EDT
                badchess

                It is an interesting fact that Democratic districts tended to get twice as much stimulus money than Republican districts.

                Almost as if the real purpose was to pay off allies, and not to stimulate the economy.

                • 3 votes
                #8.1 - Fri Sep 9, 2011 1:13 PM EDT
                wmolaw

                Almost as if the real purpose was to pay off allies, and not to stimulate the economy.

                Ya Think!

                Hell, I just seeded a story about a little company/contributer/briber of Obama who went broke after getting half a billion in Stimulus!

                Half, probably, is sitting in a Cayman account with BHO written on the checkbook!

                • 2 votes
                #8.2 - Fri Sep 9, 2011 1:18 PM EDT
                Dryver008

                The FBI seized the contributor's office yesterday. it's going to be interesting to see which Democrat crooks benefitted from this money laundering scheme.

                • 4 votes
                #8.3 - Fri Sep 9, 2011 1:58 PM EDT
                wmolaw

                Dryer:

                The REAL money is probably hidden so deeply that it will never be found.

                Here's an idea, check Obama's freezer!

                William Jefferson

                • 4 votes
                #8.4 - Fri Sep 9, 2011 2:14 PM EDT
                Dryver008

                It took a while for Jefferson to get prosecuted. John Conyer's wife too. I'll say this though. Jefferson's scandal is small potatoes compared to this one. We're talking half a billion dollars.

                • 1 vote
                #8.5 - Fri Sep 9, 2011 3:36 PM EDT
                Reply
                IndependentVoter

                Curious Logic:

                Stopping Saddam Hussein by force was wrong because he did not have WMD. Using force against the Taliban is OK despite no one even claiming the Taliban has, or ever had, or ever intend to obtain, WMD. It was also OK to use force against the government of Yugoslavia, which had no WMD and had never harmed or threatened anyone outside Yugoslavia.

                Using force against Saddam Hussein just because he was a mass murderer was wrong because we cannot be the policeman for the world. This despite two wars that he started, killing about one million people, mostly Muslims; despite hundreds of mass graves containing hundreds of thousand of bodies; despite using chemical weapons on his own people; and despite a record of torture. However, using force, including the bombing of population centers, against the Serbs for killing perhaps 2,000 people -- many in the KLA, a certified terrorist organization -- was OK.

                It was wrong to use force against Saddam Hussein because the inspections/sanctions regime was working. However, the inspections/sanctions regime was wrong because it was killing half a million Iraqi children.

                It was foolish to let Saddam Hussein go in 1991. It was foolish to go after him in 2003.

                Huh?

                • 4 votes
                Reply#9 - Fri Sep 9, 2011 1:02 PM EDT
                wmolaw

                Rationality was never the forte of the left, we all know that.

                Whatever Bush did, BAD, same things under Obama, BRILLIANT!

                Bah, hypocritical humbug!

                • 4 votes
                #9.1 - Fri Sep 9, 2011 1:19 PM EDT
                badchess

                Clinton attacks other countries without consulting with congress = good

                Bush attacks other countries after consulting with congress = bad

                Obama attacks other countries without consulting with congress = good

                I'm sensing a theme here from the Democrats...

                • 5 votes
                #9.2 - Fri Sep 9, 2011 1:22 PM EDT
                wmolaw

                LOL.

                • 4 votes
                #9.3 - Fri Sep 9, 2011 2:14 PM EDT
                Reply
                Scott D-552243

                What was that mission in Iraq ,anybody ever figure that one out?

                Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11

                  Reply#10 - Fri Sep 9, 2011 2:56 PM EDT
                  badchess

                  What was the mission in Libya, anybody ever figure that one out?

                  Libya had nothing to do with 9-11.

                  • 2 votes
                  #10.1 - Fri Sep 9, 2011 3:02 PM EDT
                  More Than Happy

                  To keep Quaddafi from brutalizing his own people, badchess. For once, we actually stopped a POS dictator from slaughtering his own before it happened, and the right-wing in this country can't stop bitching about it.

                  Removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq was a good idea. But there are ways to do things and ways NOT to do things, and W. went about it in about the worst way possible at every turn.

                    #10.2 - Fri Sep 9, 2011 3:16 PM EDT
                    Dryver008

                    If a group of revolutionaries formed and Army and stormed Washington D.C. the U.S. military would have shown up in full force to protect the sovereignty of our government. The exact same thing that Qaddafi did. The same thing ANY government would have done. With all of the atrocities going on all over the world and the US doesn't even bat an eye, why is it so damned important to invade Libya. I tell you why. NATO and the UN told our President to do so. That's why.

                    • 1 vote
                    #10.3 - Fri Sep 9, 2011 3:34 PM EDT
                    badchess

                    Well, in point of fact, Quaddafi had been brutalizing his people for decades. I'd hardly say we stopped him "before" slaughtering his own people.

                    As for Saddam, Bush should have just stuck with the sanctions (that killed 500,000+ children) and the daily cruise missile and bomb attacks, because that Bill Clinton "policy of regime change" was working so well.

                    Personally I have no problem with removing Quaddafi, had Obama made his case to congress before taking action, you know, like that guy Bush did.

                    Let me just repeat that last part: I don't care what party the president is, before utilizing US military forces I'd prefer he get congress to vote on it.

                    • 2 votes
                    #10.4 - Fri Sep 9, 2011 3:36 PM EDT
                    wmolaw

                    More:

                    LOL, how bizarre!

                    Dems go after dictator (who, by the way, has done nothing for years and years and got RID of WMD's that he did have because of the way Bush went after Saddam which NATO and the libs have yet to thank Bush for), GOOD,

                    Pub goes after dictator, BAD.

                    You guys are like that poor young girl in the Exorcist, your head just keeps spinning around and around!

                    • 2 votes
                    #10.5 - Fri Sep 9, 2011 3:36 PM EDT
                    wmolaw

                    Let me just repeat that last part: I don't care what party the president is, before utilizing US military forces I'd prefer he get congress to vote on it.

                    Oh come on, lefties/dems/libs just don't act that way, they don't need no stinking permission!

                    They just whine like hell when a pub doesn't ask for theirs, however!

                    and that would be defined as?

                    • 2 votes
                    #10.6 - Fri Sep 9, 2011 3:37 PM EDT
                    Reply
                    Leave a Comment:
                    You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead.
                    You're in XHTML Mode. If you prefer, you can use Easy Mode instead.
                    (XHTML tags allowed - a,b,blockquote,br,code,dd,dl,dt,del,em,h2,h3,h4,i,ins,li,ol,p,pre,q,strong,ul)
                    Newsvine Privacy Statement
                    As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
                    FUN STUFF:
                    • Leaderboard |
                    • E-Mail Alerts |
                    • Top of the Vine |
                    • Newsvine Live |
                    • Newsvine Archives |
                    • The Greenhouse |
                    COMPANY STUFF:
                    • Code of Honor |
                    • Company Info |
                    • Contact Us |
                    • Jobs |
                    • User Agreement |
                    • Privacy Policy |
                    • About our ads
                    LEGAL STUFF:
                    • © 2005-2012 Newsvine, Inc. |
                    • Newsvine® is a registered trademark of Newsvine, Inc. |
                    • Newsvine is a property of msnbc.com