RUMSFELD's WAR

[Superlative]

Only PBS can get away with this kind of thing, cause they are publicly funded, and they dont have to cater to advertisers. God Bless PBS, not that i believe in god or anything, but if there was a god, he would watch PBS, I assume

You have to watch it. well, you dont have to, but it basically shows Rumsfeld manipulating things to start a war.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/pentagon/view/


In "Rumsfeld's War," FRONTLINE and The Washington Post join forces for the first time to investigate Donald Rumsfeld's contentious battle with the Pentagon bureaucracy to assert civilian control of the military and remake the way America fights.

This report traces Donald Rumsfeld's career from his time as an adviser to President Nixon to his rise as the oft-seen and well-known face of the George W. Bush administration during the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. In interviews with key administration officials, military leaders, and reporters from The Washington Post, the documentary examines how a secretary of defense bent on reform became a secretary of war accused of ignoring the advice of his generals.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/pentagon/view/

 

[Superlative]

February 2003

As the military mobilizes for a war in Iraq, the internal debate being waged in the Pentagon over troop size becomes public. Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric Shinseki testifies before the Senate Armed Services Committee that he believes at least "several hundred thousand troops" are necessary to remove Hussein and secure Iraq. But the Pentagon civilian hawks, including Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, think the number needed could be far lower and they try to discredit Shinseki. Ultimately, the war plan calls for 140,000 troops, a number between the two opposing estimates.



"...the secretary's critics allege that Rumsfeld's push for unconventional thinking effectively marginalized advice about troop strength."

"....Being stubborn, holding to your convictions is good to a point, but when the evidence around you indicates your position is not tenable, then you ought to start adapting to the situation,"

That stubbornness, some officers say, led Rumsfeld to put the military in the difficult position of fighting in simultaneous conflicts against an unconventional enemy.

With mounting casualties in Iraq and without a clear exit strategy in either Iraq or Afghanistan, Rumsfeld's critics charge the secretary has pushed too far. The danger, they say, is a military incapable of effectively fighting the next major conflict.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/pentagon/etc/cronfeld.html

 

[Superlative]

1997
The Rumsfeld Commission's report, released in July 1998, finds that the risk of a missile attack against the U.S. is greater than the intelligence agencies had reported. The report claims that some countries will be able to "inflict major destruction" on the U.S. within five years of deciding to do so. It goes on to name three countries in particular - Iran, Iraq and North Korea - as the countries most dangerous to U.S. safety because they appear to be developing nuclear weapons.

On Jan. 26, 1998, the "Project for a New American Century", a conservative think tank based in Washington, makes public a letter to President Clinton calling for the removal of Saddam Hussein from power. It is signed by 18 people, among them prominent members of the future Bush administration: Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Armitage, Richard Perle and Don Rumsfeld.

In what is no doubt a response to public pressure created by the letter, President Clinton signs a bill in late-1998 authorizing up to $97 million to Iraqi opposition forces "to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein" and "promote the emergence of a democratic government." "Though not widely understood," writes Bob Woodward, in his book Plan of Attack, "the baseline policy was clearly 'regime change'."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/pentagon/etc/cronfeld.html

 

[Superlative]

January - August 2001

Immediately after taking office, Rumsfeld begins to reassert civilian control over the Pentagon, a department that had been run by the uniform military in recent years. "It was a pretty tough process," says Thomas Ricks, "A lot of friction in those first months, with Rumsfeld saying, 'No, I don't think you heard me clearly. I'm the boss. I want to do it this way'." He undertakes an exhaustive review of all of the military's contingency plans and personally interviews candidates for promotion at the highest levels. Says Ricks, "[There was] a lot of resentment of that in the military."


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/pentagon/etc/cronfeld.html

 

[Superlative]

When a terrorist-hijacked plane plows into the Pentagon on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001

Discussion of attacking Iraq is tabled - temporarily; instead, the U.S. will go after the bin Laden-backed Taliban regime in Afghanistan. But the attacks against the U.S. prove to Rumsfeld that more than ever, transforming the military is a necessity.

Oct. 7, 2001

Less than a month after the 9/11 attacks, about 100 CIA paramilitary officers arrive in Afghanistan as part of a covert war plan developed by the CIA. Temporarily, Rumsfeld and the U.S. Army are sidelined because the Joint Chiefs have given Rumsfeld a war plan for Afghanistan that would take too long to execute and would employ too many ground troops. The CIA's plan, on the other hand is creative, light and nimble -- and seems the epitome of military "transformation."

Although the Army is out, Rumsfeld manages to get Special Forces included in the war plan. And he reasserts his power by giving daily, televised press conferences about the war's progress. The secretary's straightforwardness, along with his personal charm, makes him a temporary media celebrity. The briefings also make clear that Rumsfeld, not the uniformed military, is in charge. "You see the contrast to the first Gulf War," says James Mann. "This time the secretary of defense is the guy at the podium and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs is the guy who is kind of in uniform, sort of standing behind nodding. But Rumsfeld is the driving force."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/pentagon/etc/cronfeld.html

 

[Superlative]

November 2001

Even as the war in Afghanistan continues, the president's cabinet begins looking at possible military action against other countries. Since the previous winter, Rumsfeld has been personally redrafting all of America's contingency plans, which he feels are out-of-date, including the plan for invading Iraq. When President Bush asks Rumsfeld just before Thanksgiving 2001 to secretly begin drawing up a new war plan for Iraq, Rumsfeld is prepared.


January - September 2002

Beginning with the president's State of the Union Address in January 2002 and culminating with the release of the new National Security Strategy in September 2002, the Bush administration begins laying out a new hardline foreign policy, known as the Bush Doctrine. Its centerpiece is the policy of pre-emptive action. Rumsfeld explains the new policy in a January 2002 speech: "Defending against terrorism and other emerging 21st century threats requires that we take the war to the enemy. The best and in some cases the only defense is a good offense."

March 2003
On Mar. 19, the U.S. invades Iraq; three weeks later, Baghdad falls. "I think the plan was less transformational and daring than Rumsfeld hoped it would be," says Thomas Ricks, "It was a hybrid. It was a lot of the old and some of the new, probably more of the old than Rumsfeld would like to acknowledge."

 

[Superlative]

In April 2004, Seymour Hersh and CBS break the story on the shocking abuse of Iraqi detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison. There are calls for Rumsfeld's resignation, even his removal. Then in August 2004, two former Secretaries of Defense, James Schlessinger and Harold Brown, weigh in. Their report on Abu Ghraib finds that circulated policy memos indirectly led to some of the nonviolent and nonsexual abuse at Abu Ghraib. "I think he must have been a little surprised when he read the Schlesinger report to see his peers, a couple of former Secretaries of Defense, weigh against him and find him wanting," says the Washington Post's Thomas Ricks. "…But the report was broader than that. It faulted the entire handling of Iraq in that crucial period as the insurgency developed and developed into a full-blown opposition to the U.S. presence in Iraq."

By the autumn of 2004, 135,000 U.S. troops remain in Iraq. The initial uncontrolled looting and widespread civil unrest that erupted soon after the spring 2003 invasion has now spawned a large insurgency against coalition forces and the U.S.-backed Iraqi government. With mounting casualties in Iraq and without a clear exit strategy in either Iraq or Afghanistan, Rumsfeld's critics charge the secretary has pushed too far. The danger, they say, is a military incapable of effectively fighting the next major conflict.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/pentagon/etc/cronfeld.html

 

[dilloduck]

In April 2004, Seymour Hersh and CBS break the story on the shocking abuse of Iraqi detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison. There are calls for Rumsfeld's resignation, even his removal. Then in August 2004, two former Secretaries of Defense, James Schlessinger and Harold Brown, weigh in. Their report on Abu Ghraib finds that circulated policy memos indirectly led to some of the nonviolent and nonsexual abuse at Abu Ghraib. "I think he must have been a little surprised when he read the Schlesinger report to see his peers, a couple of former Secretaries of Defense, weigh against him and find him wanting," says the Washington Post's Thomas Ricks. "…But the report was broader than that. It faulted the entire handling of Iraq in that crucial period as the insurgency developed and developed into a full-blown opposition to the U.S. presence in Iraq."

By the autumn of 2004, 135,000 U.S. troops remain in Iraq. The initial uncontrolled looting and widespread civil unrest that erupted soon after the spring 2003 invasion has now spawned a large insurgency against coalition forces and the U.S.-backed Iraqi government. With mounting casualties in Iraq and without a clear exit strategy in either Iraq or Afghanistan, Rumsfeld's critics charge the secretary has pushed too far. The danger, they say, is a military incapable of effectively fighting the next major conflict.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/pentagon/etc/cronfeld.html

And the problem is?

 

[Superlative]

And the problem is?

There's no problem.


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...pentagon/view/


Did you watch PBS Frontline?

 

[Superlative]

"The Dark Side"

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/view/


In "The Dark Side," FRONTLINE tells the story of the vice president's role as the chief architect of the war on terror, and his battle with Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet for control of the "dark side." Drawing on more than 40 interviews and thousands of documents, the film provides a step-by-step examination of what happened inside the councils of war.



"A lot of what needs to be done here will have to be done quietly, without any discussion, using sources and methods that are available to our intelligence agencies," Cheney told Americans just after 9/11. He warned the public that the government would have to operate on the "dark side."


Early in the Bush administration, Cheney placed a group of allies throughout the government who advocated a robust and pre-emptive foreign policy, especially regarding Iraq. But a potential obstacle was Tenet, a holdover from the Clinton administration who had survived the transition by bypassing Cheney and creating a personal bond with the president.

After the attacks on 9/11, Cheney seized the initiative and pushed for expanding presidential power, transforming America's intelligence agencies and bringing the war on terror to Iraq. Cheney's primary ally in this effort was Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

"You have this wiring diagram that we all know of about national security, but now there's a new line on it. There's a line from the vice president directly to the secretary of defense, and it's as though there's a private line, private communication between those two," former National Security Council staffer Richard Clarke tells FRONTLINE.

In the initial stages of the war on terror, Tenet's CIA was rising to prominence as the lead agency in the Afghanistan war. But when Tenet insisted in his personal meetings with the president that there was no connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq, Cheney and Rumsfeld initiated a secret program to re-examine the evidence and marginalize the agency and Tenet. Through interviews with DoD staffers who sifted through mountains of raw intelligence, FRONTLINE details how questionable intelligence was "stovepiped" to the vice president and presented to the public.

From stories of Iraq buying yellowcake uranium from Niger to claims that 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta had met with an Iraqi agent in Prague, "The Dark Side" dissects the now-familiar assertions that led the nation to war. The program also receounts the vice president's unprecedented visits to the CIA, where he questioned mid-level analysts on their conclusions. CIA officers who were there at the time say the message was clear: Cheney wanted evidence that Iraq was a threat.

At the center of the administration's case for war was a classified October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate that found evidence of an Iraqi weapons of mass destruction program. But Paul Pillar, one of the report's principal authors, now admits to FRONTLINE that the NIE was written quickly in a highly politicized environment, one in which the decision to go to war had already been made. Pillar also reveals that he regrets participating in writing a subsequent public "white paper" on Iraqi WMD. "What was the purpose of it? The purpose was to strengthen the case for going to war with the American public. Is it proper for the intelligence community to publish papers for that purpose? I don't think so, and I regret having had a role in it," Pillar says.

For the first time, FRONTLINE tells of George Tenet's personal struggle in the run-up to the Iraq war through the accounts of his closest advisers.

"He, I think, asked himself whether or not he wanted to continue on that road and to be part of it. And I think there was a lot of agonizing that George went through about what would be in the best interest of the country and national interest, or whether or not he would stay in that position and continue along a course that I think he had misgivings about," says John Brennan, former deputy executive director of the CIA.

Tenet chose to stay, but after the failure to find Iraqi WMD, the tension between the agency and Cheney's allies grew to the point that some in the administration believed the CIA had launched a covert war to undermine the president. In response, Cheney's office waged a campaign to distance itself from the prewar intelligence the vice president had helped to cultivate. Under pressure, Tenet resigned. Cheney's chief of staff, Scooter Libby, would later admit to leaking key sections of the NIE -- authorized, he says, by Cheney. Libby also stated that the vice president told him that President Bush had declassified the material. Insiders tell FRONTLINE that the leak was part of the battle between the vice president and the CIA -- a battle that many believe has destroyed the CIA.

 

[hjmick]

Only PBS can get away with this kind of thing, cause they are publicly funded, and they dont have to cater to advertisers. God damn PBS

Producer: PBS dropped 'Islam vs. Islamists' on political grounds
Dennis Wagner
The Arizona Republic
Apr. 10, 2007 12:00 AM

The producer of a tax-financed documentary on Islamic extremism claims his film has been dropped for political reasons from a television series that airs next week on more than 300 PBS stations nationwide.

Key portions of the documentary focus on Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser of Phoenix and his American Islamic Forum for Democracy, a non-profit organization of Muslim Americans who advocate patriotism, constitutional democracy and a separation of church and state.

Martyn Burke says that the Public Broadcasting Service and project managers at station WETA in Washington, D.C., excluded his documentary, Islam vs. Islamists, from the series America at a Crossroads after he refused to fire two co-producers affiliated with a conservative think tank.

"I was ordered to fire my two partners (who brought me into this project) on political grounds," Burke said in a complaint letter to PBS and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which supplied funds for the films.

Burke wrote that his documentary depicts the plight of moderate Muslims who are silenced by Islamic extremists, adding, "Now it appears to be PBS and CPB who are silencing them."

A Jan. 30 news release by the corporation listed Islam vs. Islamists as one of eight films to be presented in the opening series.

Mary Stewart, vice president of external affairs at WETA, said Burke's documentary was not completed on time to be among 11 documentaries that will be aired beginning Sunday. Stewart said the picture may be broadcast by PBS at a later date.

"The film is a strong film," Stewart said. "I'm still hoping to see this in the Crossroads initiative."

Jeff Bieber, WETA's executive producer for Crossroads, gave a substantially different explanation. He said Burke's film had "serious structural problems (and) . . . was irresponsible because the writing was alarmist, and it wasn't fair."

"They're crying foul, and there was no foul ball," Bieber added. "The problem is in their film."

Federally funded films

The controversy involves a collection of documentaries financed with $20 million in federal grants from the corporation, which conceived Crossroads in 2004 to enhance public understanding of terrorism, homeland security and other crucial issues in the post-9/11 era. Independent filmmakers submitted 430 proposals. Full production grants were given to 21 of those, including Islam vs. Islamists, which received $700,000.

Subtitled Voices From the Muslim Center, Burke says his film "attempts to answer the question: 'Where are the moderate Muslims?' The answer is, 'Wherever they are, they are reviled and sometimes attacked' " by extremists.

Michael Levy, a spokesman for CPB, said the corporation set up the Crossroads project and provided funding, but turned over management and content control to PBS and WETA 13 months ago.

After that, Burke says in his Feb. 23 complaint letter, he "consistently encountered actions by the PBS series producers that violate the basic tenets of journalism in America."

PBS officials turned down interview requests.

Debate about bias

The dispute adds to a running debate about political bias in the nation's publicly funded television business. In 2004, filmmakers complained that CPB was pushing a right-wing agenda for the Crossroads series. A year later, CPB President Kenneth Tomlinson sought to eliminate what he saw as a liberal bias at PBS. He was forced to resign after an inspector general's report found that he violated federal rules and ethics standards in the process.

Burke's credits include Pirates of Silicon Valley, a movie about the founders of Microsoft, and The Hollywood Ten, a documentary about blacklisted leftists in the motion picture industry during the 1950s.

In the making of Islam vs. Islamists, Burke's co-producers were Frank Gaffney, president of the Center for Security Policy, and Alex Alexiev, the non-profit organization's vice president. Both men are neo-conservatives who have written on the threat of "Islamofascism" to the free world.

Before filming began last year, Burke says, Bieber asked him, "Don't you check into the politics of the people you work with?"


complete article...

While I do enjoy most of what I find on PBS, I am also of the opinion that they tend to a liberal slant, not bias mind, just a slant. Now, having not seen the film in question, we obviously can't determine which side of the story is accurate. Unfortunately, it would appear as if we won't be given the opportunity to decide for ourselves. If you ask me, that's not right.

 

[Superlative]

Well I guess we will have to wait and see "If it airs at a later date" I would like to see it.
Shoot me a message if it comes out, and I miss it.

 

[hjmick]

Well I guess we will have to wait and see "If it airs at a later date" I would like to see it.
Shoot me a message if it comes out, and I miss it.

I'll try to remember to do that. I'd like to see it too. It'll probably wind up on YouTube like everything else, LOL.

 

[hjmick]

I watched it. It was very interesting. Some of it surprised me, some did not.

There seemed to be more than one instance of Bush not getting good information, or he was lied to. On some level it would apear as if he was decieved. Sadly it gives the appearance tha Bush was manipulated into going into Iraq.

I do not think the removal of Hussein was a bad idea, but it was poorly executed, this poor execution continues to this day, and it should have waited until we got bin Laden and secured Afghanistan.

I don't know anyone who would argue that Hussein wasn't a threat to the region, or at least a percieved threat. His reluctance to answer for his chemical weapons adequately didn't help him. I imagine that he didn't want to appear weak to his neighbors which is probably why he wouldn't give up the information. Shooting at coalition aircraft in the no-fly zone wasn't smart either. Paying the families of suicide bombers looks bad as well.

At the same time, some very important members of the administration didn't do the job they were supposed to do, Tenet tried, but failed. Add to that intel that wasn't properly vetted and here we are.

You can also understand Cheney's reluctance to trust the CIA when you consider his previous dealings with them.

All in all, every ingredient you need to really mess things up.

And this analysis comes to you from one who has voted Republican since Reagan.

 

[Superlative]

I watched it. It was very interesting. Some of it surprised me, some did not.

I do not think the removal of Hussein was a bad idea, but it was poorly executed, this poor execution continues to this day, and it should have waited until we got bin Laden and secured Afghanistan.

I don't know anyone who would argue that Hussein wasn't a threat to the region, or at least a percieved threat. His reluctance to answer for his chemical weapons adequately didn't help him. I imagine that he didn't want to appear weak to his neighbors which is probably why he wouldn't give up the information. Shooting at coalition aircraft in the no-fly zone wasn't smart either. Paying the families of suicide bombers looks bad as well.

At the same time, some very important members of the administration didn't do the job they were supposed to do, Tenet tried, but failed. Add to that intel that wasn't properly vetted and here we are.

All in all, every ingredient you need to really mess things up.

And this analysis comes to you from one who has voted Republican since Reagan. [/

I dont understand why the US and Middle eastern countries see comprimise and reason as weakness.

Suicide bombers are promoted and viewed as famous heroes and martyrs after they die. (even children)


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/view/

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/pentagon/view/

 

[red states rule]

Empowering the terrorists
TODAY'S EDITORIAL
April 16, 2007


"I don't want to push the Maliki government by congressional actions that will empower the terrorists. That's the difference between me and our Democratic friends." -- Sen. Lindsey Graham Lindsey Graham, South Carolina Republican, has cut through the preening and pontificating on Capitol Hill to succinctly describe the differences between President Bush and the Democrats on Iraq. The question is whether Congress will give the U.S. military the resources to do the job against the jihadists, or merely score cheap points against the elected Iraqi government. This appears to be what Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, who appeared with Mr. Graham, has set out to do.
Reversing errors made during de-Ba'athification and coming up with a plan to share oil revenues are desirable things. But they are clearly secondary to the number one imperative: security for millions of innocent Iraqis who are being preyed on by terrorists and other criminal thugs. Troop reinforcements have arrived, and there are hopeful signs. Some areas of Baghdad appear to be less dangerous; the Iraqi Army is doing a better job; and Sunni militias in Anbar province are turning against al Qaeda. But for now, the 150,000 U.S. combat troops in Iraq are engaged in a difficult struggle to maintain stability. Although the Iraqis have made some important strides on the security front, they are nowhere near able to take over the job from the coalition, nor will they be able to do that soon.
By pushing to weaken U.S. combat forces to ineffectiveness by next year, the Iraq war-funding bills passed by the House and Senate on largely party-line votes send plain messages to Tehran, al Qaeda and the other jihadists seeking to drive the United States out of the Middle East: Hold out for another 16 months or so, and Iraq will be yours. The Senate-passed bill, rammed through by Majority Leader Harry Reid, would begin withdrawing U.S. troops within 18 weeks of passage, with a March 31, 2008 goal of ending combat operations in Iraq. The House bill pushed by Speaker Nancy Pelosi would set a firm deadline. By Aug. 31, 2008, all U.S. combat forces must be withdrawn from Iraq. Smaller-sized forces would in theory remain in Iraq to conduct military training for the Iraqis and to carry out "counterterrorism training and security operations." This is unrealistic, and risks setting up a reprise of Saigon 1975, when the enemy overruns a collapsing government abandoned by the United States.
President Bush is determined to prevent that, and he rightly promises to veto legislation to enable the terrorists. On Wednesday the president will meet Mrs. Pelosi and Mr. Reid at the White House to discuss the supplemental spending bills. For a time last week, the congressional leaders were reluctant to go to the White House because the president is not willing to discuss "compromise" with them. But Mrs. Pelosi was effectively needled by critics who said that if she could travel to Syria to talk to a dictator, President Bashar Assad, she ought to find time to go to the White House to discuss legislation for sending ammunition (and bandages) to American soldiers. So she and Mr. Reid grumpily agreed to meet with Mr. Bush, but insist they expect to use the occasion to push the president to see things their way.
When they do this and lecture us on how they "support the troops," we trust that Mr. Bush will set the record straight. By refusing to enact a "clean" emergency funding measure, Congress has inexcusably delayed critical support for operations in Iraq. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who has performed skillfully, and eight other congressional Republicans sent a letter to Mrs. Pelosi rebuking her failure to appoint conferees to work on the legislation. Mr. McConnell and his colleagues reminded the speaker that U.S. Army Chief of Staff Peter Schoomaker has written that "without approval of the supplemental funds in April, we will be forced to take increasingly draconian measures which will impact Army readiness and impose hardships on our soldiers and their families." Secretary of Defense Robert Gates further emphasized the damaging effects of delay: "This kind of disruption to key programs will have a genuinely adverse effect on the readiness of the Army and the quality of life for soldiers and their families."
Noting that the Senate returned from vacation last week, the Republican lawmakers asked Mrs. Pelosi to cancel the remainder of the House vacation to return to Washington and "work in good faith to pass a clean supplemental funding bull that the President can sign as soon as possible. Every day that we don't fund our troops is a day their ability to fight this war is weakened." Mrs. Pelosi ignored this. It's her prerogative to do so, but she should spare the president and the American people the nonsense about how strongly Democrats "support the troops."

http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20070415-095042-6593r.htm

 

[Superlative]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/view/

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...pentagon/view/

Did you watch Frontline?

or do you just blindly pick a thread and paste republican editorials?

If you watch them, which you wont, Im sure you will find them incredibly fascinating pieces of "Liberal" media.

Unlike FOXNEWS, PBS adheres to the idea of Journalistic integrity, they look for facts, and then deliver a news story.

 

[red states rule]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/darkside/view/

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...pentagon/view/

Did you watch Frontline?

or do you just blindly pick a thread and paste republican editorials?

If you watch them, which you wont, Im sure you will find them incredibly fascinating pieces of "Liberal" media.

Unlike FOXNEWS, PBS adheres to the idea of Journalistic integrity, they look for facts, and then deliver a news story.

and tilts way to the left

 

[Superlative]

and tilts way to the left

so what your saying is that the truth is on the left and the right lies?

 

[red states rule]

so what your saying is that the truth is on the left and the right lies?

PBS is a very liberal network

I wonder why with 500 cable channels, tax money is still needed to fund thisnetwork