AP bias ALERT!
I didn't catch this today but Powerline sure did. Here are the two pieces they have on this crazy biasd reporting.
The AP Article
The first commenting
Cadets...NO!
The AP Article
The first commenting
Cadets...NO!
posted by Maddawg at 12/01/2005 06:15:00 PM
12 Comments:
Ok, first of all, using "Powerline" as a source makes baby Jesus cry. It deducts credibility IMMEDIATELY.
Secondly, I'll only take issue with this: "His suggestion that Americans are solidly behind the mission also understates opposition at home." As far into denial as you are, Jim, this is not a biased statement. It is fact.
Show me ANY LEGITAMITE poll, not conducted by some right-wing think-tank who hand-picks its pollees, that shows there is a majority of people in this country who are for the war. Where's the link to that?
I'm sick and tired of hearing conservative warmongers bitch about bias in the news media regarding this, when there is actual cold, hard data that suggests this isn't bias, it is fact.
It may in your eyes deduct credibility if they were trying to present a story. Thats not what they are doing at all. All they do is comment on what AP said. No, the problem is that the AP is saying that the Americans are not behind the midshipman (BTW midshipman, not Cadets!). As powerline pointed out, obviously didn't speak to a single midshipman there.
I don't know where you got that from, Jim. I don't see a section where the AP writer, Calvin Woodward, says that the American people aren't behind the midshipmen. I see a section that says the American people aren't behind the mission, but I don't see a section that says the American people aren't behind the soldiers. Please clarify.
The midshipmen stand for the mission, if you are not behind the mission that the midshipmen dedicate themselves towards, valuing it above life, then you are not behind the midshipmen.
The midshipmen stand for the mission, if you are not behind the mission that the midshipmen dedicate themselves towards, valuing it above life, then you are not behind the midshipmen.
Well, as someone who is behind the midshipmen, but NOT behind the mission, I must be the metaphor-buster. Come up with some other attack on the Democrats, because that one has been...
DEBUNKED!
Long live the Madcow.
Thats not debunked, its simply that you think you are for the midshipmen and not the mission. And you can't be. If you denigrate the mission that they fight in, a mission they give their lives for, you denigrate them and all that they stand for. You say you are for the midshipmen, but you attack, belittle, and attempt to crush all that they stand for.
I don't attack, belittle, and attempt to crush all that they stand for at all. It's that kind of retarded logic that is fracturing this country. "If you're not for the war, you're against the troops." Bullshit. I don't know where you get the nerve to say shit like that. All you're trying to do is incite the military to hate those who care enough about them not to send them to die in a meaningless, pointless, half-baked war. It'd be like me spinning the stem cell debate as "You're either for curing disease, or your against people with those diseases." Obviously that's not the heart of the issue, and if I DID say that, YOU'D be the first idiot to "debunk" it.
Give up on that approach, Jim, because anybody with HALF a brain can see through it.
I am not trying to incite the military, I am part of that military and i am telling you what i think. You are saying the same thing that Cindy Sheehan is saying, "send them to die in a meaningless, pointless, half-baked war' is what you are accusing of happening to the military. In effect, since the war and the mission is pointless and half-baked, we are going over there and some of us are dying for nothing. I, and the majority of the military, don't believe we are fighting and dying for nothing. And frankly, its insulting that you would say that. That is belittling the sacrifice of all the people who serve in Iraq and ecspecially the people who have died over there. We go there for a reason that has nothing to do with fighting a war for oil, or setling a grudge because Saddam tried to kill W's dad. So if you say you don't think that the war is worth the cost of spreading democracy or ensuring that Iraq didn't have WMDs, that is fine and legitimite criticism. However when you accuse us of fighting a "meaningless, pointless, half-baked war" you are insulting the sacrifice of over 2000 men and women who have died by, in effect, saying they died for nothing.
It's amazing that you can turn the loss of over 2000 lives around and blame ME for something.
WHAT I'M SAYING, Jim, is that these 2000+ lives that have been lost have been lost for nothing. I'm not BELITTLING their lives as being lost for nothing, I'm BELITTLING the people that SENT THEM to be lost for nothing. I don't know HOW MUCH CLEARER I CAN SAY IT! I think it's SHAMEFUL, and shows your IGNORANCE, that YOU, a member of this very military, can defend people who are OBVIOUSLY not looking out for your interest as a soldier.
And let's get another thing straight. The war was NEVER about proving the existence of WMD's; those of us who were intelligent knew all along that there were none. That was just a red herring to get us committed to invading.
The war MIGHT have been about "spreading democracy," but that's a hypocritical goal, as Bush the Illiterate is opposed to "nation building." So either he lied about his position, or he lied about the war's mission.
And yes, they ARE going over there and dying for nothing. And I think it's HORRIBLE! I don't know how you can make ME out to be a demon - I DON'T WANT THEM TO BE OVER THERE DYING! I WANT THEM TO BE HOME, WITH THEIR FAMILIES, LIVING NORMAL LIVES!
Do I think we should still be combing the mountains for Al Qaeda? Absolutely. But we shouldn't have had a full-blown invasion followed by a nation-building party without everybody knowing EXACTLY what they were getting into and the REASONS they were getting into them. Jim, if Bush had come out and said, "Lookit, Saddam's a bad guy, they gots human rights violations all over that there place, and we gotta go git 'em. Now who's wit' me?" And if everybody said "YEAH," it woulda been fine.
But he had to go and say they were going to attack the U.S. and our allies with weapons they don't even have. They had to go say that they'd been harboring Osama bin Laden, which they hadn't done. They had to make up all this bullshit to get the majority of people behind the war effort, and THIS is the backfiring of that tactic.
I care about the troops, Jim, much more than you do. I want our troops to be ALIVE, not dead, like you do.
First, personal attack and accusing people on this board will not be tolerated, because of this comment moderation has been enabled.
Second with regard to "BUSH LIED: about the WMD, go to my recent posts today which shows who knows what when, and what we actually found.
Third, when you make outrageous claima like "They said that Iraq was harboring Bin Laden" show me some kind of link. I don't care if you just past the whole code in but show me something, anything, instead of just putting words in people's mouth.
Fourth, when Bush said he was against nation building, he said it in 2000 during the election campagin. It's my opinion, and the opinion of many others, that being more isolationist wasn't going to protect us so the situation changed and so did the policy. Please try to use relevent positions, not stuff 5 years old.
Fifth, the soldiers that are in Iraq pretty much all chose to be there. No one is drafted, they all entered the militray freely and of their own volition. Look at the reenlistment rates to see that the people who are there are not just being sent unwillingly. They don't think they are dying for nothing, they think they are dying for a reason. If nothing else, these servicemembers are responsible for their own lives and their own decisions to be there. Mother's sons and daughters are not dying, MEN and WOMEN are though.
I have all sorts of fantastically witty comments, but I'll keep them to myself and get to the point.
As I read it, madcow, your main point is that you feel our soldiers, airmen, seamen, and marines should be home living "normal lives" and that the government is not looking out for them by sending them to fight.
A "normal" life is not what any of the us who are in, or are about to be in, the military signed up for. We signed up to defend our country's national interests. In this case, that means going to Iraq and unseating a tyrant. It means searching through the land that God forgot in Afghanistan to find terrorist leaders.
We didn't choose those interests. But we defend them anyway. You don't support us by saying that we shouldn't be defending national interests because you don't believe in them, and you don't support us by saying we should have a "normal" life.
You can, however, support us by saying (and believing) that our ideals are worthwhile. By encouraging us to do our jobs well and completely. When you mourn a fallen soldier, do it with the understanding that they died prepared and doing what what they chose to do, and with faith in their cause.
And, uh, thinking you know everything that our leaders know about situations in other countries makes baby jesus cry, too. Whiny little kid, that.
Post a Comment
<< Home