Posted on 05/18/2004 8:55:45 AM PDT by areafiftyone
Yes and how about the news last week that passengers on the "train wreck" in North Korea were Syrians with "heavy equipment"...Thank God for Bush, had we not gone into Iraq these forces would have been used against us here in the US...Thank God for the CIA\Delta\Seal operatives that took out the North Korean train...
is there a link to a story on that, the "jugs" of chemical weapons? I hadn't even seen anything that showed the test results on that (alleged) stuff. this whole jordanian story fell off the map.
That's the threshold for the media admitting Saddam had WMD. Finding anything short of that will be rationalized away as an attempt by the President at political damage control.
No, they would just blame it on America's actions just like Nick Berg's father is blaming his son's death on America because of the prison scandal. Even if a nuke goes off in Europe, we will be considered a causal factor. That's just the way Euroscum thinks. It's always America's fault.
Since carbs=bad, this is affirmation of the diet. ;^)
Carbamate -- isn't that what Jabba the Hutt encased Hans Solo in?
put womens panties on the head of the wmds. Sure fire way to coverage.
Wasn't that the monkey's name in Aladdin?
There is no way government can force the media to do anything. A little thing called the First Amendment stands in the way. The White House could hold a dramatic news conference, with the President standing next to a table full of Iraqi WMD, and the hostile media would still find a way to diminish the moment.
Even in this era when alternative news sources are plentiful, there are many ways the so-called mainstream media shape what passes for news consumed by most people. One method is omission — if it isn't mentioned by Peter, Tom, Dan, Katie/Matt, Diane/Charlie, or the local "happy talk" news, the vast majority of the public remains uninformed. Another method is emphasis (spin): Yep, they found a shell filled with sarin, but it was old, rusty, probably just one that someone forgot about years ago.
When they combine both omission and spin, the effect is quite powerful. A current example is the fuss made the last couple of days over Seymour Hersh's article. He got a lot of face time on TV, always introduced as the "Pulitzer-prize-winning reporter" to emphasize that what he says should be taken as gospel. What the "mainstream" media omits is Hersh's long history of reportorial lies and misrepresentation. What the public is left with is the notion that Donald Rumsfeld all but ordered Iraqi prisoners to be abused. That is not true. Most in the media know it's not true. But the lie serves a purpose.
If I could wave a magic wand and effect reforms in modern journalism, I'd require:
(1) At least one named source in each story (i.e., no stories that rely totally on anonymous sources).
(2) Restoration of balance to libel and slander laws, making it easier for both "public" and private citizens to hold the media accountable through civil lawsuits.
(3) Tossing the silly notion of "objectivity" overboard. No human being is ever totally objective. Let every reporter and commentator inform the public of their political, corporate, and other affiliations, and let the chips fall where they may.
(4) Overturning the Supreme Court decision (Pentagon Papers) that said it is OK for journalists to steal in order to obtain source material for their stories.
;OK, so does "Abu" mean psychotic, fanatical, murderous, or
;all of the above?
What happens if you combine Abu and Mohammed in the same name ?
"Abu Mohammed Abu Osama" or somesuch.
Frankly I think the reason the terrorists have not succeeded more is because there names all contain 42 words. When the have a terror conference they have to spend so much time introducing each other they never get past the "icebreaker" when the conference is over.
Let the WMD issue grow and grow until all the prison "abuse" has no further legs. We are on our way to a spreadsheet of information. Timing is everything.
I will tell you the exact reason why this isn't going to get reported. The White House doesn't want it reported.
Reporting this politicizes the discovery of WMD. That being said, this gives Al Zarko and other terrorists cart blanche to use them against troops. "Well since they know we are using them, might as well make a big showing of it."
We ramp up our bio/chem protection units, we discover where the mother load is and then go before the American public.
Bush knows 1 shell won't get traction due to the lefts media bias. A warehouse full forces media attention. In addition if they only find a few, they can still say during the debates that they were found.
We all know that the "where is the WMD" will come up during the debates. They were found and Bush saying they were found cannot be refuted. Especially by Kerry on a stage in front of the entiure free world.
Bush is 4/5 of the way to a straight flush. he is just waiting for that last card to get played.
Agreed. I second that statement. The Bush PR Team double-sucks!
Bin = "Son of"
I think the democrats know this story is going to grow. Kerry recently made comments that we may find WMD. Last night on H&C (I think it was H&C) some leftist was spinning like crazy -- not trying to deny that the sarin is part of Saddam's arsenal, but rather trying to give the democrats credit for knowing about WMD and blaming Bush for not dealing with the WMD in the correct way.
They're prepping for what they believe is coming.
That's frightfully close to
"Don't worry mister B, I have a cunning plan to solve the problem."
I love W, but I must agree with you -- his PR team sux. No other way to put it. There is SO MUCH he should be sharing with the American public. What we are doing, and WHY it is important to the US and our future that we do it. What is the real meaning of 'finds' like this. And if Bush does not use the bully pulpit to tell these stories, they will not be told. It is a vain hope to think they will be reported in the future if the media thinks they can get a scoop. They've already proven that they don't care about getting scoops -- all they care about is 'getting' W.
It isn't even the election so much as the importance of LEADING the American public -- so that we have pride and the will to live again. As opposed to Kerry and the media, who obviously think we should be ashamed of ourselves, and indulge in endless self-flagellation, and not even fight to protect ourselves!
Clinton was on TV every single night. Surely a good PR man could come up with an event or story angle that they would be almost obliged to cover. And surely he could come up with a decent team to ensure that the country is covered from coast to coast. The fractious fools in the GOP are no help at all.
Wish I had my own top-flight PR firm right now! :-)
You have a strong possibility of being right on that.
Be careful about declarative sentences. In point of fact, the US gov't has curtailed 1st ammendment rights when asserting national security. Take a look at SCHENCK v. U.S. , 249 U.S. 47 (1919). Here's an important passage:
"When a nation is at war many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right."
To address your second point, I believe you place too much emphasis on the media's influence. People who care about such things can easily get the information they require. I still haven't seen/heard anything that would lead one to conclude that Bush won't hammer Kerry this November.
I searched high and low for the photos and haven't yet been able to find them again. I saw the pictures of a warehouse full of blue plastic carboys that were identified by the Jordanians as the "chemicals" captured when they busted the terrorists. I saw that on an FR thread. I searched FR by "chemical bomb" and "jordan" and went through dozens of links, including most the links I found on those threads. I even tried searching Google (both regular and image Google), but the number of hits is over 20,000! I still came up snake eyes! If I ever come across them again, you'll be pinged.
--Boot Hill
And that is the truth. The United States of 1919 is so vastly different from the United States of today that we may as well be talking about the politics of aliens on Mars.
As for the media's influence, I think this November's election will tell the tale.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.