Just how jacked up the MSM can be - and libs fall for it all the time

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by -Cp, Aug 13, 2006.

  1. -Cp
    Offline

    -Cp Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,911
    Thanks Received:
    360
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Earth
    Ratings:
    +363
  2. Stephanie
    Offline

    Stephanie Diamond Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2004
    Messages:
    70,236
    Thanks Received:
    10,817
    Trophy Points:
    2,040
    Ratings:
    +27,359
    All so very true, CP.
    I've been following these stories on a couple different sites...

    This site has been on it for quite awhile - http://www.eureferendum.blogspot.com/

    Also lgf, and Michelle Malkin..

    It's gotten to the point, where you can't trust the media any longer..

    And it seems you have to try and separate the BS from the truth...

    And then of course there's the bias....

    :tdown2:
     
  3. red states rule
    Offline

    red states rule Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    16,011
    Thanks Received:
    571
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +572
    This is another good example of the liberal media and hopw they want to destroy America and Pres Bush


    Hangin' in the Hamptons? Krugman, Herbert Sound Same Song
    Posted by Mark Finkelstein on August 14, 2006 - 07:29.
    Were New York Times columnists Paul Krugman and Bob Herbert hangin' in the Hamptons this weekend? Exchanging ideas at a chic cocktail party with ocean views? You might think so, judging by their columns this morning in which they sound such similar themes.

    Compare Krugman: "The Bush administration and its allies in Congress saw the terrorist threat not as a problem to be solved, but as a political opportunity to be exploited."

    With Hebert: "Will [Americans] continue to fall for the political exploitation of their fears of terrorism?"

    Other annotated excerpts, first from Herbert's column, Aiding Our Enemies [subscription required. Note to readers: despite my reluctance to patronize the NY Times, I broke down and subscribed over the weekends. I subscribe, read and report back, so you don't have to!]

    "The catastrophic war in Iraq, which has caused the deaths of tens of thousands, was a strategic mistake of the highest magnitude. It diverted our focus, energy and resources from the real enemy, Al Qaeda and its offshoots."

    No wonder then that Al-Qaeda has successfully attacked the US on a number of occasions since the Iraq war began. Wait: no they haven't. There are no guarantees in this game, of course. But if Hebert is going to excoriate the Bush administration for making us more vulnerable at home, shouldn't he praise it for having protected us so far?

    "The debacle in Iraq, and inhumane policies like torture, rendition and the incarceration of Muslims without trial at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, serve only to strengthen the appeal of militants who are single-mindedly dedicated to the destruction of American lives."

    Given all those American misdeeds in Iraq and Guantanamo, it's no wonder that Al-Qaeda attacked us on 9/11. . . except for the fact that 9/11 came two years before we went into Iraq. So what was it that the Clinton administration did over the eight years preceding 9/11 that so provoked Al-Qaeda? Could it have been Clinton's fecklessness in the face of multiple Al-Qaeda attacks on US interests, from the Cole to the first WTC bombing at the very beginning of the Clinton administration?

    Herbert approvingly cites Jessica Stern, author of “Terror in the Name of God: Why Religious Militants Kill” who has said:

    “We’re in a world where Islamist terrorist leaders are teaching their followers that they have been humiliated . . . Terrorist leaders teach their followers that not only is this humiliating, but somebody else is to blame — and that’s us. They say that we have deliberately set out to destroy the Islamic world and humiliate Muslims.”

    So which is it, Mr. Herbert? Do you want us, as your column urges, to focus "like a laser on the fight against Al Qaeda-type terrorism"? Or do we need to give Al-Qaeda a hug so they won't feel humiliated?

    Turning now to Krugman, who in his column, Hoping for Fear [subscription required], accuses the Bush administration of "cynicism" and "political motives" in pushing for the arrests of the latest terror plot suspects earlier than our British counterparts did.

    For a New York Times representative, this is the height of chutzpah. We can all imagine the headlines had we heeded the Brits: "Bush Administration Let Terrorists Conduct 'Dry Run'".

    But weighing even heavier on the Bush administration's mind might well have been the concern that had it not acted sooner-rather-than-later, the Times or another sterling member of the MSM would have alerted the terrorists by divulging the story. There were reports that so concerned was Homeland Security Chief Chertoff about leaks that he typed his own reports on the matter on his personal, secure computer. And given the Times deplorable track record in the area, just who can we imagine was the object of Chertoff's concern?

    http://newsbusters.org/node/6951
     
  4. PsuedoGhost
    Offline

    PsuedoGhost Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2006
    Messages:
    206
    Thanks Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +15

    Must you always quote op ed pieces to sound like a complete jackass? Moreover one which makes this mother of all claims:

    Which explains the tremendously strong ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda? Or is it perhaps because we rooted them out of Afghanistan? Hmmm... Who knows... But I think that those of us who live in reality all know that its because of what happened in Afghanistan.
     
  5. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
    We killed em all in Afghanistan ???:shocked:
     
  6. PsuedoGhost
    Offline

    PsuedoGhost Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2006
    Messages:
    206
    Thanks Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +15
    You're three for three tonight Dillo. Putting words into other people's mouths again...
     
  7. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    whatever happened to 'telling' the news? For stories, I go to Borders:

    http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=081506C

     
  8. red states rule
    Offline

    red states rule Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    16,011
    Thanks Received:
    571
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +572
     
  9. jillian
    Offline

    jillian Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2006
    Messages:
    69,555
    Thanks Received:
    13,012
    Trophy Points:
    2,220
    Location:
    The Other Side of Paradise
    Ratings:
    +22,432
    I'm not sure anyone has EVER just "told the news"....not about anything important and certainly not about anything on which people are deeply divided.
     
  10. red states rule
    Offline

    red states rule Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2006
    Messages:
    16,011
    Thanks Received:
    571
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +572
    The liberal media is clearly "reporting" the DNC talking points and passing it off as news

    http://newsbusters.org/node/7018

    CNBC’s Jim Cramer on Today: Oil Companies Are The Profiteers of Terror
    Posted by Scott Whitlock on August 16, 2006 - 14:43.
    Jim Cramer, the host of CNBC’s "Mad Money," appeared on the August 16th edition of "Today." Guest-host Lester Holt quizzed the always verbose financial adviser on which stocks are best in an age of terror. Holt prefaced the piece, which aired at 7:14AM EDT, by noting that Americans live in a volatile age and that he wasn’t advocating exploiting unrest in the Middle East, but that investors must react to such developments. Cramer agreed, saying that profiting from such pain "sounds ugly." A few minutes later, prompted by a question about buying stock in oil companies, he responded this way:

    Cramer: "That's the profit area. You got to where I can talk about making money off of terror."

    Holt: "Then we can gripe to ourselves."

    Cramer: "Yes, and anywhere you pump. You can go to Exxon, Chevron, Conoco Phillips. These are all good investments off of terror. They are the profit plays. And if you want to be one of these profiteers of what's going on, just own an oil company."

    Profiteers off of terror? Cramer may find the term ugly, but when it comes to oil companies, he apparently has no trouble throwing the word around.
     

Share This Page