# Media distortions about Iraq



## Bobm

The New York Times is joining the liberal media cabal in doing its level best to downplay the discovery of that artillery shell loaded with sarin gas near the Baghdad airport. The latest? It was only a "very small trace" that was discovered. About one gallon of sarin, in liquid form, is a "very small trace" to the Times. 
There is enough sarin gas in four liters to kill over 60,000 people. That would make just one gallon of this stuff an arsenal. To the Times, though, it was just a small trace.


----------



## Bobm

Splashed all over the front pages of everywhere is this lead story: United States bombs Iraqi wedding and kills 40 people, including women and children. Yup...those evil Americans are at it again! The clear insinuation is that the United States goes around bombing civilians on purpose. The mainstream media tilts so far to the left, you have to watch the news on an incline sometimes. It's ridiculous.

So what really happened? As always with stories like this, there are two versions: the anti-American, left-wing biased media's account, and what the Pentagon says happened. What's being reported is that the United States Army, out of the blue, went to a wedding party with helicopters and slaughtered 40 civilians, including women and children (they add that for effect, of course.) The Pentagon says hey, wait a minute, we destroyed a safe house for foreign fighters. A coalition official says a military operation was conducted, the troops came under fire, and they called in close air support and blew the place up.

*The official said forces on the ground recovered numerous weapons, 2 million Iraqi and Syrian dinar, foreign passports and a satcom radio*. What is he talking about? Those sounds like ordinary wedding gifts to me!  :lol: He added: "It is not our belief that there was a wedding party in the open desert." Of course, tell that to the media, who can't stop running the bleeding-heart images of people digging graves and burying their dead.

The United States Military is guilty until proven innocent. If they turn out to be right (and it looks like they are,) there will not be the same fervor dedicated to getting the story right as there was to getting it wrong (unless you watch Fox News Channel.)

When it comes to war reporting, the mainstream media gives yellow journalism a bad name.

What are the terrorists going to say? Are they going to issue a release stating their anger at the US military knocking out one of the safe houses, and killing about 20 terrorists in the process? Somehow, I rather doubt it.

Here's a hint for future Iraqi weddings. Don't have your wedding parties near encampments of terrorist insurgents.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

i love how you say anti american, like by stating half truths that we're unamerican. heck i guess that would make you saddam himself then huh bob?


----------



## cootkiller

Hey Boobm., I've got some land out on long island to sell to you, dirt cheap, I also own a bridge in san fransico that I will sell you. You ignorant S.O.B.

If ignorance is Bliss then Boobm. is the most blissful moron in the U.S.

Article for the Cootkiller Times:

Backwoods, Georgia--Boobm. found to be blundering idiot, and since it is in the paper and on the internet, it is fact, right Boob.

cootkiller


----------



## Bobm

Militant tiger are you in the media?? Why don't you read it over I did'nt call you anti-american....unless of course you do work for the media, which come to think of it may well be in your future. :lol:

Coot every post you make is infantile did you say you teach grade school or attend grade school? Are you really incapable of adult thoughts and communications no matter what the disussion or who its with you name call and denigrate where they come from because you apparently can't discuss issues on their merits. You do provide some comic relief and I do thank you for that.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

you are saying that NO media gives decent information? well damn i guess thier networks of millions upon millions of people around the world are all idiots too huh? like i said you live in a bubble, you dont like information and you just disregard it.


----------



## win4win

Bobm said:


> There is enough sarin gas in four liters to kill over 60,000 people.


Sarin isnt a gas but in a gaseous or aerosol form you would have to confine 60,000 people to the smallest sealed space possible and introduce the poison to kill them. Might be possible but not very realistic. Kinda like the JFK magic bullet theory.


----------



## Plainsman

BobM

Good evening Bob, enjoy your point of view. You know there is extreme left, and extreme right in politics. I think the extreme right ( squadrons of black helicopters are spying on Americans) has got the message that most of the world thinks they are a little goofy. What confuses me is the extreme left ( George Bush is killing people for oil) has not got the message. Both of these groups are not the sharpest tacks in the box. The question that keeps nagging at me is, why are there citizens of this nation, which is the kindest on earth, think that we are so evil. Some of our own soldiers have been killed by friendly fire and any death is a tragedy, but how can people really think our soldiers would kill innocent people on purpose. Do you see the sad irony of this situation. Decent people who would rather be in America with their families are in Iraq risking their lives for people at home that think so little of them. There is so much hate in some hearts that you would think George Bush's finger was on the trigger of every M16 in Iraq. Lets see what this fall brings Bob. We can only hope that concern for freedom and safety will outvote blind hatred. 
Bob, people are on your case to silence you. You must understand that there are those that do not respect the first amendment unless what you say agrees with them. Don't loose you cool, and let them. They reflect the very hatred I spoke of and people will observe that. People will not only measure you by the friends you keep, but they will also measure you by the language of those who oppose you.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

"freedom and safety will outvote blind hatred"

yes, i believe this has been the left's point all along


----------



## Bobm

Thanks Plainsman I agree with you and really don't understand why so many citizens in this country hate it so and are so willing to accuse the finest of our country of war crimes. It is slowly going to destroy us from within.


----------



## Bobm

Much of the media continues to broadcast the pant load that the U.S. military attacked a wedding party in Iraq, killing up to 45 people.

Did I say "much of the media?" How about the entire media ... especially when it comes to the Euro-weenie press. Just take a look at some of the headlines that appeared yesterday:

"Occupation Bombs Iraq Wedding Party" Al Jezerra

"U.S. Raids Iraq Wedding" Pak Tribune, Pakistan

"Carelessness Defies Belief in Attack" The Scotsman

"Coalition Under Fire in Iraq for Wedding Strike" French News Agency

"Iraqis Blame U.S. for Wedding Strike" Reuters

The military is investigating, but Marine Maj. Gen. James N. Mattis said it best at a press conference in Fallujah. "Ten miles from the Syrian border and 80 miles from the nearest city and a wedding party? Don't be naive. Plus, they had 30 males of military age with them. How many people go to the middle of the desert to have a wedding party?" *The General forgot to add "At 3:00 in the morning, no less." *
Also, Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt said several shotguns, handguns, Kalishnikov rifles and machine guns were discovered at the site. They also found jewelry and vehicles that indicated the people gathering weren't exactly wandering sheepherders.

Wedding? I doubt it.....sounds like a terrorist base to me. Kudos to the military for ferreting them out and killing the bastards.


----------



## Bobm

Win4win you may well be correct that 60000 was reported in the media and they are prone to exaggeration however lets say that its only enough to 10 percent of their exaggeration 6000 does it make any difference, of course not the problem is still very real. How many town in ND are smaller than 6000 people imagine that many of our citizen dying at the hands of the terorist bastards.


----------



## Bobm

Plainsman, I don't get a printed version of the Washington Post every day, so I cannot say for sure what can and what cannot be found in the pages of that newspaper. I'm betting, though, that in the past two weeks you haven't found one single story in the Post highlighting things that are going right in Iraq. Not one story about locals befriending American troops. Not one story about the growing Iraqi economy, commerce in Baghdad's shopping districts, new home construction, new schools, new electric service, satellite television receivers sprouting like mushrooms ... not one story.

Ahhhh ... but then there's the story about prison abuse at the Abu Ghraib prison. Today the Post releases yet another batch of photos from the prison. It's as if the Post's editors are demanding that the presses not roll until new pictures are prepared for the front page.

OK ... we get it! Some American soldiers abused --- not tortured, abused --- Iraqi prisoners in Abu Ghraib. Those American soldiers are being punished. One has already been sentenced to a year in jail and is receiving a bad conduct discharge. Other trials are pending. The system is working. What is the purpose of continuously hammering this story day after day after day?

Oh ... we all know what the purpose is. This is a story that hurts George Bush. This is a story that diminishes public support for the Iraqi front of the war on terror. This is a story that comforts those who despise America ... and George Bush.

As I've said before *... remember the media template*. If the story would help Bush, like the beheading of Nick Berg, downplay it. If the story could hurt Bush, like the prison abuse situation, ram it down the reader's throat every single day until it completely runs out of steam. The goal here is to defeat Bush, not to give a fair and objective look at what is going on in our war on terror.

Question: How do you think America would have fared in World War II if the media had obsessed over stories of wrongdoing by American troops? Wouldn't the Nazis have loved to have seen coverage in American newspapers detailing civilian deaths in the bombing raids on German industrial and military targets? Couldn't you see the German high command grinning broadly as they read of demonstrations in the United States demanding an end to the bombings? How many more American deaths would it have taken to finish the job if today's media had been covering yesterday's war?

This isn't World War II. This is World War IV. It's the war against Islamic terrorism. It has nothing to do with our support of the state of Israel. It is a war against a radical and bloodthirsty element of Islam that grows stronger with every depiction of America as the bad guys. These Islamo-fascist murderers don't merely want the infidels out of the Middle East, they want and are by Allah determined to achieve a world dominated by radical Islam. They want you living under their Islamic law, whether you wish to convert to their religion or not. They have attacked us on our own soil, and they plan to do so again. Earlier this week we heard warnings that Al Qaeda was anxious to use either a chemical or biological weapon against Americans at home. Today we read of warnings from the FBI to local law enforcement agencies to be on the lookout for possible Islamic suicide bombers on American soil.

We have a class of people in this country, call them liberals, progressives, Democrats, socialists, elitists, intellectuals ... call them what you like -- but we have a class of people in this country who harbor such an intense hatred for George Bush, economic liberty, capitalism, the American culture and American political strength that they will sacrifice the safety and liberty of future generations of Americans just to see America disgraced in the Middle East and George Bush pushed out of the White House in November.

It's tragic enough that we have to be fighting yet another World War at this time in our history. It's even more tragic that we seem to have so many Americans who are actively pulling for the other side.


----------



## cootkiller

For clarification Boobm.
Yes, I do teach the sixth grade, maybe you should attend some of my Language arts classes as you have made it obvious you need some help when it comes to grammar and spelling and putting together an essay.

I may seem infantile to a person like yourself but the truth of the matter is I come to these forums to talk and discuss HUNTING ISSUES, I just write responses to you for personal entertainment.
When you berate me for personal attacks and name calling you sure show how much of a hypocritical ignoramus that you truly are.

Every time you post you make me truly happy to live in North Dakota, because if everyone in Georgia and the south is like you I don't want to go there.

cootkiller


----------



## Bobm

Cootkiller, If you want to talk hunting why are you in the Politcs not related to hunting forum? My spelling could use some help no doubt but I can read :lol: . And reading is a prerequisite for living in the South, But we will make an exception and let you in if you promise to wear shoes. :lol: Like I said your hat band is too tight! Lighten up


----------



## cootkiller

If you would have read my post you would know that I come here to respond to you for my own personal entertainment. Maybe you need to work on that reading.

cootkiller


----------



## Militant_Tiger

bob the way you talk you would prefer communism to what we have now, why not go over to china?


----------



## Bobm

Coot thats good I hope you find me entertaining, my apology the other day was sincere. And you're correct my reading could always use some improvement.


----------



## jacks

Coot said "When you berate me for personal attacks and name calling you sure show how much of a hypocritical ignoramus that you truly are."

But earlier Coot said " Every time you post you make me truly happy to live in North Dakota, because if everyone in Georgia and the south is like you I don't want to go there. "

And "You ignorant S.O.B. "
And "If ignorance is Bliss then Boobm. is the most blissful moron in the U.S. "
And Finally "Backwoods, Georgia--Boobm. found to be blundering idiot, and since it is in the paper and on the internet, it is fact, right Boob."

Do you know what a hypocrite is Coot? You just defined it for us.

Mt do you think freedom always comes at an easy price? Many soldiers fought for our freedom , so show some respect.


----------



## gandergrinder

Don't worry about Coot Bob. He likes to get every one riled. We all know that the first question on the exam to become a certified teacher is:

What is your political affiliation?

If you say republican you automatically fail. Therefor there is no such thing as a republican teacher. 

How can anyone say they don't like blanket statements?


----------



## cootkiller

But jacks,
I never claimed that I wasn't calling HIM names, I openly admit it. I was also trying to make as much fun of him and his idiotic ideas as possible, so no I would not call myself a hypocrit. HOWEVER, boobm. was saying that alls I do is call names and then he did the same right back, THAT WOULD be a hypocrit.

Another successful grammar and dictionary lesson complete. jacks, test on monday.

cootkiller


----------



## jacks

Are you sure you are attending your language classes?

"But jacks, 
I never claimed that I wasn't calling HIM names, I openly admit it. I was also trying to make as much fun of him and his idiotic ideas as possible, so no I would not call myself a hypocrit. HOWEVER, boobm. was saying that alls I do is call names and then he did the same right back, THAT WOULD be a hypocrit.

Another successful grammar and dictionary lesson complete. jacks, test on monday. "

The word Monday should be capitalized, and proper names. This is how you spell hypocrite. Your last paragraph is just a fragment, and I don't think alls is a word. Maybe you should wait to start that test.


----------



## Plainsman

MT

A couple weeks ago Coot said he didn't like Bush's rich conservative friends like Ted Turner. Most anyone knows that Ted Turner was married to Jane Fonda, and that he gave one billion dollars to the United Nations. Ted is about as liberal as they get. This shows that Coot's opinions are formed without basis, and he is going at it again. I guess he hasn't enough sense to be embarrassed. Now you say BobM would rather have communism than what we have. Evidently you don't understand much about the political spectrum. This is how it works MT. I have very liberal and very conservative friends. The interesting thing is we all think that we are reasonable so we all think we are moderate. The fact is compared to the rest of the world Democrats and Republicans are moderate. Isn't it amazing that we argue so much. Anyway, if you are way right you don't trust representation, and every citizen must vote on every decision to be made. If you move left from a moderate liberal you are a socialist. You would believe that the citizens should be taxed heavily, and that the government should supply health care, food programs, housing etc. Socialist nations tax heavily and believe that the government should take care of most of your needs. Canada has moved this direction. If you move even further left then you believe that the government should take everything from you and redistribute the wealth evenly among citizens with no regard to how much you work, or how important you job is. Ditch digger gets the same pay as a teacher, a doctor, an attorney, everyone gets the same. This is communism. So Mt where do you really think BobM fits in? I don't think he would be in the center of the American political view, but I think he is in the center of the conservative viewpoint. I also don't think you are in the center of the American political view. I would guess you to be in the center of the liberal viewpoint. My point however is that if someone is closer to communism it would be you. That leaves me with the question: if you do not understand political views what are you basing such strong opinions on? Are you basing on fact or strictly misguided emotions? Most liberals will tell you they are kind, considerate, respectful, what happened to you and Coot. You know if you guys get tired of trying to silence Bob, and the weather isn't warn enough yet to find flies that you can pull the wings off of perhaps there are some openings for abusers in the Iraq prisons.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

"Thanks Plainsman I agree with you and really don't understand why so many citizens in this country hate it so and are so willing to accuse the finest of our country of war crimes. "

you know stalin was big on torturing/killing people and then not saying anything about it, sounds quite a bit like what bob is trying to get. i really love your speeches plainsman, you start to talk about the goods and bads of both sides and then switch over to how liberals are evil, you would make a good politician.


----------



## win4win

I am just saying dont rely on a single source for info because speculation is rampant. Remember that sarin attack in a Japanese subway back in the mid 90s? That was between 10 and 12 liters of sarin. Twelve people were killed and about 6000 injured. I agree its nasty stuff.

Not sure which media outlet came out with the 60,000 figure but apparently it wasnt one of the liberally biased ones. :lol: If it were they would have set the number at 3 probably. :wink:


----------



## Plainsman

MT

No I don't think liberals are evil. I think some liberals and some conservatives are. If you don't like the way communism and socialism work then you and I agree I don't like it either. It is a simple fact that liberal view are more closely aligned to them than conservatism. Like I said I have good friends that are liberal. As a matter of fact I'll bet you and coot are both nice enough guys. We would perhaps be good hunting friends if we were in the field together. I know I got on you guys, but my intent was to shock you enough to make you think. You were getting kind of rude. I almost hated to say anything because I am sure you convinced more people to lean conservative than I could. Now get serious for a minute and drop that teenage temper, do you really think Bob would like to torture someone??????? I doubt it, and I doubt if you or coot would either. Is that fair enough for you? Now think these things through and what do you think is the most likely thing that is happening in Iraq. Who do you think the terrorists are more afraid of Bush, or Kerry. Think about it for a while and get back to me. Also, check out factcheck.org both sides have adds that are not 100% right. I'm not asking you to give up your standards just keep an open mind. If you hate someone then you start to feel it is them against you. This isn't a ball game MT if you or I loose we both loose.


----------



## Militant_Tiger

that i can agree with, well most of it anyhow. i just dont feel that we need to instill fear in the mid east anymore, we made our point. you mess with our people and were going to bomb the hell out of you for a few years, and then sit an army right in the middle of your cities. now i feel that we are losing too many people and putting too much money into a point that we've already proved. afghanistan got a whoopin, sadam is out, and the wmd's never came through. i say we get out while we still can, salvage the economy, and quit losing soldiers. iraq still needs some military stability until they can get their democracy moving but we can accomplish that as part of the united nations.


----------



## Plainsman

MT

You know when we put out politics aside we pretty much agree. There are a few things that bother me. I don't much trust the UN after they got caught up in that oil for food scam. Now it looks like Koffe Aunan's ( more than likely spelled wrong) son may have made millions while innocent Iraq people went without proper food and medicine. As far as WMD we know that at one time they did exist. No matter your party affiliation I think you might agree. I believed president Clinton when he thought there were WMD's, and I believed Bush. I am so suspicious of these people that hate us that I still suspect there may be some hidden somewhere. I don't remember the senator, and I don't remember his party affiliation, but do you remember how angry some politicians were when they found we were paying Noriaga of Panama for information. He was a bad person and many politicians didn't want our CIA dealing with this type of person anymore. Well, if you want good information on pigs you have to get in the mud with them. That is why our intelligence was faulty, and it wouldn't have made any difference who was president. I suspect Syria may have hidden some weapons for Sadam. There are other possibilities also. I agree we need to get out of Iraq but after stabilization so we don't have to do this again. I suspect they would like to hit us with a bomb, but even if not we know they would like to hit Israel. Israel will strike back, and we will have a much more serious world war. I wish we could all be reasonable MT, but there are fanatics in this world that just will not be reasonable, they want us dead and nothing else will satisfy them. Anyway, good post. Later


----------



## Bobm

MT, its good your so interested in politics at an early age it shows a good level of intellect, most kids aren't. Politics will have a bigger influence in your life than any other factor other than your health. Let me point out that the "torture" you are talking about is really only humiliation real torture is what Saddam was doing, gouging out the eyes of children raping wives in front of the husbands, repeatedly throwing people off low roofs (3 stories) feeding people to lions ( all documented) ect. Our psychlogical operations making the very machismo arabs parade around with womens underwear on their heads, walk around naked with some girl leading them on a leash ( heck Cootkiller probably pays someone to do that to him on the weekends for fun) :lol: pile up in pyramids naked ect. is not torture. In Saddams world the after leading them around they would of cut something off them, and I'll leave what to your imagination. The media is calling it torture because of their political ajenda and its giving the terrorists encouragement and confidence to continue fighting because they see the division in this country on this issue and thats getting our soldiers killed just like Jane Fonda did during Vietnam. Lastly lets not forget the people they are doing this to to get additional info are not in those jails for Jaywalking some may be innocent but the ones they are targeting were captured trying to kill our soldiers and kill peaceful iraqis that want their land to be Democratic. The most potent WMD the US has is Democracy if we successfuly establish it in the middle east Osama and his ilk will lose any support which is precisely why they terroists are fighting so hard right now prior to the handling over of control to the new Iraqi government. My point all along has been that we are in this thing with both feet and should see it through which will be impossible if our politicians use the situation for political advantage which is what they and their accomplices in the media are doing. Now is not the time for any division among our politicians.


----------



## cootkiller

jacks,
If I would have known I was giving a grammar, language, structure, dictionary,spelling, and dictation lesson I would have looked to edit my post, I thought I was just clarifying the difference between being a hypocrit or not. (Check you dictionary, there is alternate spelling for the word, jabroni.)

Plains(wo)man,
You might be right, but I doubt it. In actuallity, if you have ever done any reading in People magazine or any other social magazine(which I am sure they don't sell under the rock from which you live) you would know that politics is one of the things that broke up the marriange between Jane Fonda and Ted Turner. FYI, Ted Turner is currently into the Buffalo and Cattle ranching business and his business partners are some of the biggest Republicans in North Dakota and Montana. Not my opinion, just fact.
Also, isn't Arnold the governor of California and doesn't his wife belong to one of the most active Democratic families in the history of the United States. So it is possible for the wife to be a Liberal Dem. and the husband to be a conservative Rep.

BAM, chalk up another round to cootkiller.

Boobm.
For your information, unlike you, I don't need to pay for my kicks. I've managed to keep MY marriage(so far) and it is wedded bliss. Try not to be so pig headed , arrogant, and over bearing and maybe your relationships will work out for you in the future. By the way, how is the dating seen in nursing homes.

cootkiller


----------



## Bobm

ootkillers says 


> By the way, how is the dating *seen* in nursing homes.


The dating *scene *is good I hope because I may end up there sooner or later :lol: O great speller Cootkiller. By the way I'm glad your marriage is doing well, keep treating her well and you will be an old happily married man like I some day. Been Married to the same lady since before you were born, which tells you what a saint she must be to put up with me


----------



## Bobm

And coot, *Ted Turner is a flaming liberal *and a real nice guy, very down to earth to speak to, which I've had the pleasure to do a couple times.


----------



## Bobm

MT, one more thing, your take on the economy is based on media distortion
The most recent Fox News / Opinion Dynamics poll asks Americans "How does the economy feel to your family?" Only 31% say it is getting better. An amazing 49% say it is getting worse. Every single economic indicator we have out there says that the economy is getting stronger ... and getting stronger fast. Jobs are being created at a record rate, tax revenues are up, the deficit predictions are going down, manufacturing is up. Everything is up! Yet one-half of Americans say it is getting worse?

Where does this ignorance come from? From the media not reporting the good things that are happening in our economy. One more example of their adjenda and bias.


----------



## Plainsman

Coot

Might be right? Coot if you don't know Ted is a far left liberal you are a rare person indeed, or ill informed. People magazine is slightly better than the other rags at the grocery checkout, but hardly a nationally renowned political reference. As for Ted taking rich republican money. I would imagine Ted would take money from anyone if he is a good business man. You so often denounce the rich. Would both of us not like to have more money? What makes wealthy people evil Coot? I know a few and they are nice people. They provide jobs, they care about their employees. I would think there are some bad ones, but not all Coot. Also, you always say rich and republican in the same breath. Years ago I came across an article on the ten richest senators and nine were democrats. I wish someone would do that again, or perhaps someone will remember this article for me. This doesn't mean much to me, but apparently it does for you.

I agree on the political mixed marriages. I can not imagine how James Carvill and his wife get along. Evidently he doesn't have the temper you do. In ending Coot I'm not sure you are liberal. I say this because someone of your age and education must know you are helping my argument and not yours. Your fellow liberals I am sure are embarrassed at your numerous, and humorous displays. Please don't stop, please. Like I said to MT both of you guys are more than likely really nice people, your just overemotional. So, have a great day Coot, really. Oh, by the way it's nice and dry under my rock today, I might stay under it and just do some reloading or something.


----------



## jacks

Coot said "jacks, 
If I would have known I was giving a grammar, language, structure, dictionary,spelling, and dictation lesson I would have looked to edit my post"

Coot said in an earlier post"Another successful grammar and dictionary lesson complete. jacks, test on monday."

Are you really that stupid?


----------



## Militant_Tiger

bobm, plainsman i couldnt agree more with what you both just said. im aware that it would be the best to establish a democracy over there, as it would spread like wildfire. i agree that all of what you said would be great, and some of it must happen. i think we both have points like that but unfortunately a lot of it wont be able to be accomplished without heavy tolls. we need to find a middleground that is best for everyone, not liberals and conservatives but americans as a whole as well as the iraqi people. :beer:


----------



## Bobm

MT good post, as you know freedom isn't free and what may seem to you to be a heavy toll may be light compared to what might happen in our country if the terrorists aren't stopped. And you comments about all american is exactly what I've been *****ing about, many americans are looking at politics instead of unity in a time of war and that is the biggest threat our soldiers face they can handle the terrorists if we support them


----------



## Plainsman

MT

Hard to believe that we could have misunderstood each other so much to begin with. You have made not my whole day, but May, and June look brighter today. Now if the rest of America could drop their contest of partisan will and try to understand each other the whole country would be stronger economically, militarily, and politically in world standing. The terrorists must drool each time we verbally punch each other. Divide and conccurr is not a new military tactic. We are fighting two wars today, a war abroad, and a war within our nation. It is hard to dig out the truth when our news (if you can call it that) media has no respect for the truth anymore. I wish they were bound by law to announce that what they are saying is opinion or fact. Not to infringe on the first amendment, but to be held accountable for intentional misrepresentation of the facts. I was listening to a radio program this week, and they had soldiers on from Iraq. One stated that he was not as afraid over there as he was here listening to it on the news. Many of them told stories of rebuilding schools, and how most of the Iraq people like them. A much kinder picture than the media presents. Remember the story about our air strike killing all those people at a wedding party. My question is why was that reporter on TV smiling (like when they have bad new about the economy) when he gave the report. I think because he was happy to make our soldiers look bad. That story you hear little of now because the truth came out. All young males, all with weapons, in the middle of the dessert, at a known terrorist safe house, etc. etc. It wasn't a wedding party unless they all had visited Massachusetts lately. Later


----------



## Militant_Tiger

The media has really gone to the dogs, I dont see them as one sided anymore they just want to get viewers. They know that if they showed happy iraqis and safe americans they wouldnt get any viewers. They don't want to ease our fears they want to make sure that we feel that if we are not informed on the latest event we are not safe. I think your idea for a law which forced them to state whether it is fact or opinion would work quite well. It's good to know that we've all been in the same book the whole time, even though we haven't been on the same page until recently.

Tiger


----------



## 4CurlRedleg

It is long overdue to say good-bye to cootkiller, the personal attacks and blatant name calling is at an all time high!!

Get rid of this!!


----------



## Bobm

In a nationally televised address tonight at the Army War College in Carlisle, PA, President Bush is expected to lay out his plans for Iraq. The White House has not asked the broadcast networks to carry it, so it looks like it will only be on Fox News, CNN and MSNBC. Which is probably a good idea politically for the president, since more people sadly care about watching their shows than they do hearing what the president has to say about Iraq. There's no sense in creating a backlash from people who just can't miss "Everyone Loves Raymond", or whatever the name of that wonderful Hollywood touch of reality is. 
All day long you are going to be hearing the talking heads in the media advising us of what the president "needs to say" and what he "has to do." Whatever Bush says tonight will not be good enough for the media, no matter what he says. The only thing we can hope is that people actually watch the speech, and it gets through the thick skulls of the general public (at least the ones that are watching it.) But it will change no minds in the media, so expect non-stop negative spin.

It's interesting how the media and liberals continue to insist Bush is 'running out of time' in Iraq. *Running out of time for what? *We are still on track for the June 30th handover, which has been planned for months. Despite what the headlines say, much Iraq is at peace. What are they talking about? The answer is that they don't care about America's success in the war on terror, all they care about is the defeat of President George W. Bush for re-election. They believe failure in Iraq would ensure that defeat.

Such is their hatred for the man that they will do anything to limit him to a single term.


----------



## cootkiller

4inchmiddleleg,
Here is the violin I am playing for your bleeding heart, EEE EEE EEEEEEE EEE EEEE EEEEEEE EEEEEE.

And again I made no personal attacks until personal attacks were thrown my way first.
Boobm. and his little cronies continue to misinform and make up "facts" so I am out.

cootkiller


----------



## cootkiller

Boobm. 
Do you lick bush's butt crack on Mondays or Tuesdays,
just curious.

cootkiller


----------



## Bobm

Two more posts showcasing Coots intellect


----------



## cootkiller

Hey, it was just a simple question.
Boobm., just a little advice, you need to stop taking everything so seriously, we are not looking for the cure to cancer here. This is an outdoors site where we like to talk about the OUTDOORS.
If you are such a know-it-all and have the answers to all the world's problems, why don't you run for office.
It is know-it-all geeks like you that made the recesses of our lives so fun, it gave us kids to beat up on when we were little and it gives us easy targets to make fun of now. 
I guess the crack licking has commenced.

Oh yeah, having my intelligence insulted by you is like winning the nobel prize. You are from Georgia and you are writing on a web site about North Dakota Outdoors. Have you even been here before or are the people in your area so sick of you that you had to go somewhere else to ***-lick and blow smoke.

cootkiller


----------



## Bobm

Coot, you're the one that needs to lighen up not me. And whats wrong with discussing something like politics especially now? And Chris made this forum so you don't have to look at it unless you want to which I know you secretly do :lol:. I don't doubt you were beating up the smart kids in grade school,jealousy I suppose, though I'm surprised even you are dumb enough to admit it.


----------



## cootkiller

Nope, didn't beat on myself. I said the geeky know-it-all kids. Usually know-it-alls don't really have that much intelligence, the cover up the fact by spouting tons of supposed information that no one really cares about and then labels it and himsflg intelligent.

HMMMMMM, who does that sound like.

cootkiller


----------



## jacks

Coot said"It is know-it-all geeks like you that made the recesses of our lives so fun, it gave us kids to beat up on when we were little and it gives us easy targets to make fun of now. 
I guess the crack licking has commenced. "

And "Nope, didn't beat on myself. I said the geeky know-it-all kids. Usually know-it-alls don't really have that much intelligence, the cover up the fact by spouting tons of supposed information that no one really cares about and then labels it and himsflg intelligent"

It is scary thinking this guy is teaching our kids ? He sounds more like a 3rd grade student. I wonder if he punishes the kids with good grades?


----------



## cootkiller

Sorry I offended you jacks, I was joking as I often do on these threads, I guess people like you and Boobm. can't take a joke, ever.

cootkiller


----------



## MSG Rude

cootkiller said:


> Sorry I offended you jacks, I was joking as I often do on these threads, I guess people like you and Boobm. can't take a joke, ever.
> Posted: Mon May 24, 2004 9:55 am Post subject:
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Hey, it was just a simple question.
> Boobm., just a little advice, you need to stop taking everything so seriously, we are not looking for the cure to cancer here. This is an outdoors site where we like to talk about the OUTDOORS.
> 
> cootkiller


Cootkiller,

Let me help you out on this one. I hate to see you keep opening your education mouth enregards to this topic....

YOU ARE IN THE "POLITICS" SECTION! STOP GIVING THE 'OUTDOORS' BLA BLA BLA...CAN'T TAKE A JOKE BLA BLA BLA STUFF HERE. THIS IS POLITICS.

Now, click the button that says "Forum" at the top and go in to one of the "Outdoors" threads and joke or poke fun at or share your knowledge of the "Outdoors" there. This is a big-boy room where they discuse POLITICS.

Just trying to help ya ol'buddy.  :beer:  Because I really feel  for you almost evertime you post.

Now, no sniveling, butt crack licking, you spelled this wrong, crew-cut reply...just go where they are NOT discusing polotics.

See ya  .


----------



## cootkiller

Big boys?  
You mean people like you and Boobm. spreading your misinformed BS about George W. Bush being the greatest president ever becasue you were brainwashed when you were 18 and entered the military. POPPYCOCK

Politics = Lies and Liars,
that is why I think Boobm. should enter the race, he is one of the greatest there is.

As far as feeling sorry for the cootkiller, don't waste your time, life is so great for me right now I could care less what two ignoramus maximuses like yourself and Boobm. think.

cootkiller


----------



## MSG Rude

cootkiller said:


> Big boys?
> You mean people like you and Boobm. spreading your misinformed BS about George W. Bush being the greatest president ever becasue you were brainwashed when you were 18 and entered the military. POPPYCOCK
> 
> Politics = Lies and Liars,
> that is why I think Boobm. should enter the race, he is one of the greatest there is.
> 
> As far as feeling sorry for the cootkiller, don't waste your time, life is so great for me right now I could care less what two ignoramus maximuses like yourself and Boobm. think.
> 
> cootkiller


It must be great place to live...inside your mind...lots of room, no body to bug you, just those damn voices huhh?

I do not feel sorry for you at all. I feel embarrased for you and that someone like you with your narrow minded ultra left hillbilly, fear the government, Area 51 believing, Government boys can watch you through your TV, Jethro complex having, flag wavier but will do nothing for it butt is teaching kids in North Dakota! I wonder if the parents of those kids know what you are spewing here on this site?!?

My God, if you were teaching my kids, I'd pull them out of public school so fast it would snap the buttons off of your cover-alls! Thank God I have met with all of my kids's teachers and go to PTA's so I have no fear of you teaching them down here!

O'h ya, let me add the favorite...Just kidding with you. You Magnanimous Maximalist!

(Go to the 'M's in your dictionary!)

:beer:


----------



## Bobm

President Bush's speech last night at the Army War College is now being called 'not enough' and being criticized as 'too little, too late.' The media really is getting predictable, aren't they? I guess you have to give them credit for consistency.

The speech was a good one, though not what you would call exciting. The president laid out the plan for turning over power to Iraqis on June 30th, to be followed up with a several other steps. He has a very detailed plan. He even gave the exact troop levels, down to which divisions would be staying a little longer. It was as detailed as detailed could get. They're even going to tear down Abu Ghraib prison. What's not to like?

Well...here come the naysayers and the doom and gloom bunch. *First off, they say, there was no exact date for the troops to pull out. When are we going to be leaving, they howl. Never mind the fact that it would be totally stupid to announce to the terrorists when we would be cutting and running. * :******: Then, you have people like former Secretary of State Madeline Albright saying there's no guarantee the Iraqi people will accept the interim government. So what is our solution? Hand the whole thing over to the U.N.? What a complete and total disaster that would be, but that's what they want. 
The left cannot stand that Bush is sticking to his guns over Iraq, and following through with the plan. *He should be following Clinton's example of governing by polls. Despite the best efforts of the media to make it seem like the worst situation possible, things are back on track and right on schedule. They're just not used to a president that does and means what he says.*


----------



## Bobm

And yet another liberal media distortion about Iraq
Just how irrational can obsessive Bush-hatred make you? Well, try this. Hunter S. Thompson wrote a column for ESPN. It was supposed to be about the Olympics. Thompson wrote about the Abu Ghraib prison situation instead. Here's what Thompson wrote: "Not even the foulest atrocities of Adolf Hitler ever shocked me so badly as these photographs did." He then said that he was ashamed to carry an American passport. There's the liberal mind for you. Making Arab men wear women's panties on their heads is worse than marching Jews to the gas chambers.


----------



## Bobm

It is, as the Wall Street Journal puts it, an "article of faith" among leftist appeasers that there was no connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. No matter what evidence is uncovered .. the left will continue to sing the "no connection" song through eternity. You say that Abu Musab al-Zarkawi, the al Qaeda operative man who beheaded Nick Berg, was protected by Saddam's government after 9/11? You say he got medical care from Saddam Hussein? So what! There's still no proof of any connection between Saddam and al Qaeda. And on and on it goes.

As the Journal says ... it is now politically incorrect to even suggest a Hussein - al Qaeda connection. There never was, and there can never be any proof that there was ... and that's the way things just are!

Well .. here's another reason why the left hates the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal. In today's edition we get the story of one Ahmed Hikmat Shakir. U.S. forces now have proof that Shakir was a Lieutenant Colonel in the Saddam Fedayeen. It seems that Shakir was also present at a meeting in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia at which the 9/11 attacks were planned. Khalid al Midhar was there, so was Nawaz al Hamzi. They were at the controls of the American Airlines flight that crashed into the Pentagon. Others involved in the 9/11 attacks, along with the mastermind of the USS Cole bombing were also there.

But one thing will remain the same. *For now and forever the left will continue to say that there was no connection between Saddam and al Qaeda .... even after we learned that the connection was not only there, but the connection had direct links to the planning of 9/11.*


----------



## Bobm

You know how I'm always claiming the media is not on the USA's side this article really says it better than I can. Read it though to the end where it talks about Jennings and Wallace that will make you sick!

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/jona ... 0528.shtml


----------



## Bobm

And yet another example of the media lies
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04151/323605.stm


----------



## Bobm

The Washington times editorial on how the media has flip flopped on the Saddam Osma bin Laden connection
http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20040601 ... -8522r.htm

Funny how they change their tune if they think it benefits Kerry,isn't it!


----------



## Bobm

Do you realize that at this point the story of the abuse of some Iraqi prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison has received more press coverage for a longer period of time than did the story of the capture of Saddam Hussein? And just why is that? Come on, haven't you been listening? It's because the media believes the story of Abu Ghraib hurts George Busy, while the story of the capture of Saddam Hussein helps George Bush.

You heard what Democrat Billionaire George Soros was up to yesterday, didn't you? Soros is the money behind such leftist anti-Bush organizations as MoveOn.org. He was speaking yesterday before the leftist Campaign for America's Future .. .introduced by The Hilllary. Soros, of course, launched immediately into condemnation of Bush for the Abu Ghraib story.

Now ... get this. This should illustrate the depth of the mindlessness that has been brought on by the obsessive Bush hatred of the left. Soros says that the pictures from Abu Ghraib " .. hit us the same way as the terrorist attack itself."

Three thousand people died in the attacks on the World Trade Towers and the Pentagon. If any of the prisoners died from the abuse at the Abu Ghraib prison, I missed the story. Soros looks at pictures of bodies falling to the streets around the World Trade Towers; at pictures of the wreckage of an American Airlines jet in Pennsylvania, and at pictures of the burning Pentagon, and tells us that these pictures are no worse than the pictures of naked Iraqi men wearing women's panties on their heads.

Soros also repeated the Democratic lie yesterday that there was no connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, and that there were no weapons of mass destruction. Don't bother Soros with the facts, he has hatred to nurture. 
*I hope you've been keeping up with James Taranto's Best of the Web column every afternoon. *With the help of his readers Taranto has been gathering examples of how hard the media works to hammer the Abu Ghraib story each and every day. A newspaper or wire service will run a story that has no direct connection to the Abu Ghraib situation. Then, in the middle some paragraph an editor or writer will insert a gratuitous reference to Abu Ghraib .. just to keep the story out there. Here are some examples from just this week.

From an Associated Press dispatch about the Supreme Court case involving enemy combatant Jose Padilla: "Similarly, the images of prisoner abuse at the U.S.-run Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq are not part of another important case this term testing the legal rights of detainees at another U.S.-operated prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba."

From a New York Times review of "The Great Game" by Frederick Hitz, a book about the CIA: "In 1982, shortly before he volunteered information to the Soviets, some bitter wag at the C.I.A. put up a poster describing the 'Six Phases of a U.S. Government Sponsored Covert Action.' They were listed as enthusiasm, disillusionment, panic, search for the guilty, punishment of the innocent, and praise and honor for the nonparticipants. That may well describe the response to revelations about Abu Ghraib prison and undisclosed activities carried out by the C.I.A. and Special Forces in furtherance of 'the war on terror.' " The Reuterian scare quotes around war on terror are an added fillip.

From a Reuters dispatch about President Bush's visit with "one of his harshest critics," a certain John Paul II: "In the pope's remarks last Thursday, the pontiff did not mention Iraq but it was the first time he has spoken specifically about torture since photographs of U.S. soldiers abusing Iraqis in Abu Ghraib prison emerged last month."

From a New York Times story on John Kerry's slogan, "Let America be America again": "The phrase has surfaced at a time of outrage over the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib, aides noted, and on Thursday in Seattle, Mr. Kerry used it again to articulate his differences from Mr. Bush on foreign policy."

And from an Associated Press article on nonlethal weapons--those that aim only to immobilize the enemy: "But in an era of secret interrogations of al-Qaida suspects and revelations of U.S. abuse of prisoners at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison, Executive Director Doug Johnson of the Minneapolis-based Center for Torture Victims is skeptical." 
Sunday's Times features an article on Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's commencement speech at West Point. It reports that the address "made no mention of the abuse of prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq." That didn't stop the Times from mentioning it..

The Monday Times profiles the late First Lt. Therrel Shane Childers of Powell, Wyo., who died in combat in Iraq last year. "Lieutenant Childers died too soon to see the strife in Iraq today, or the photographs of prisoners being humiliated at the hands of American guards in the Abu Ghraib prison," the Times points out. 
Sooner or later we're going to see a story in The New York Times about some episode of criminality that takes place in Manhattan. The Times editors will insert something like this: "The pictures of the crime scene were not unlike pictures of smiling U.S. reservists next to the body of an Iraqi at the Abu Ghraib prison."

Just wait. uke:


----------



## Bobm

read this article
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commen ... 04_MK.html


----------



## Bobm

UN weapons experts have found 20 engines used in banned Iraqi missiles in a scrap yard in Jordan, along with other equipment that could be used to make weapons of mass destruction. The UN team was following up on an earlier discovery of another Al Samoud 2 missile engine in the Dutch port of Rotterdam. Imagine that! Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and he got rid of them. .Wait..we already knew that

It really might be just a matter of time before somebody finds the whole enchilada. Saddam was hiding something, or he wouldn't have kicked out the UN weapons inspectors in 1998. Where did it go? What did he do with it? Is it in Syria? Jordan? Buried in the desert? Of course, the left and the media are fully on Saddam's side...he couldn't have possibly been lying when he said he had no banned weapons. Given his trustworthy record of compliance, we should have no reason to doubt his story. Uh-huh. uke:

So what is it going to take? Sarin was discovered in Iraq, so was mustard gas. Now these missile engines and WMD-making materials...*when will the doubters believe? The answer is that they already believe. They're not doubters. They know the truth. They're detractors.* Their goal is to defeat George Bush and to weaken America. If tomorrow, the United States announced that they had discovered Iraqi nuclear warheads buried in the desert, Democrats and the media would accuse the Bush administration of planting them there. *Defeating Bush comes first. Protecting us from terrorism comes second ... if at all.*


----------



## Bobm

Nothing like putting the liberals in their place...and this time it comes courtesy of Russian President Vladimir Putin. Speaking during a joint press conference yesterday at the G8 summit in Sea Island, Georgia, Putin was asked about news articles questioning Russia's place at the G8.

He replied that such articles were part of an internal U.S. political debate. Then, he followed up with this little gem:


> "I am deeply convinced that President Bush's political adversaries have no moral right to attack him over Iraq because they did exactly the same. It suffices to recall Yugoslavia. Now look at them. They don't like what President Bush is doing in Iraq."


This is almost too good to be true, but Putin is 100% right. :beer: Liberals like to bash President Bush for allegedly "going it alone" in Iraq (even thought there were other countries involved, and the U.N. did have resolutions on the books threatening Iraq with the use of force.) They love to talk about Bush's unprecedented, unilateral action, but at the same time, Democrats and their buddies in the media conveniently forget about President Clinton bombing the Serbs 5 years ago. *There was no U.N. approval there at all, but as usual, Clinton gets a pass*.

Russia was opposed to American military action in both Yugoslavia and Iraq. But now, Putin is the one calling out the left for playing both sides of the fence.
Priceless.


----------



## Bobm

A new Associated Press poll shows that 57% of Americans think that the United States has lost jobs in the last six months. Wrong. *There have been over 1,200,000 jobs created, not lost, in the last six months. Not only that, but information from employers indicates that new jobs will be created in the coming months at the highest rate in the past decade.*

So .. why don't Americans know how well our economy is doing? Simple, because the mainstream media isn't telling them. All of us have seen headlines telling us of the jobs that have been lost. How many of you can remember one single headline touting job growth?

By and large the editors, reporters, headline writers, publishers, producers and talking heads who bring us the news everyday want John Kerry to win this election. They do not like George Bush. They do not like George Bush because they are liberals. Exceptions? Sure there are, but they comprise less than 10% of the people who will be making the decisions on what you see, read or hear. Again ... remember the template. If a story hurts Bush, hammer it. If it helps Bush, bury it. The true story of our economy helps Bush ... that's why it isn't being told to the vast majority of Americans.

MORE MEDIA BIAS EXPOSED IN POLL

Remember last week's LA Times poll that came out of nowhere showing Kerry had surged ahead of Bush by seven points? Well guess what...according to Roll Call, not counting independents, the poll's results were calculated based on a sample of 38% Democrats and 25% Republicans. Well, no wonder Kerry was ahead by 7 points! To get that result, they had to ask 13% more Democrats! In other words, *the media skewed the results on purpose.* :******: 
*All polls are suspect, *but that should give you pause the next time you hear the media trumpeting some poll. Remember the template...any story that presents President Bush in a negative light gets the most coverage, while any story presenting the president in a positive light gets buried.

*Now the media is forging poll results to make the president look bad. Hopefully you aren't surprised*.

I guess it's all part of the plan. The better you can make Muslim extremists look, the worse you make George Bush's war against Islamic terrorism look. :eyeroll: In London the media is singing the praises of one Sheik Abdul Rahman al-Suday. This Muslim extremist gave a speech in London last week. The Associated Press quoted Sheik Abdul as saying that the history of Islam is a testament to how different communities can live together in peace and harmony. Then along comes the BBC who calls this menace "The world's most celebrated Iman" and credited him for working for "community cohesion." *So, what's the problem here? Neither the Associated Press nor the BBC happened to mention in their coverage of this particular Islamic cleric that in the past he has given speeches calling for the "annihilation of Jews." *He has also referred to Jews as "... the scum of the human race, the rats of the world," and "the offspring of apes and pigs." *Why didn't the AP and BBC report the truth about the Sheik?* Could it possibly be because they felt that this would cause people to be concerned about Islamic extremists like the Sheik? After all, this might cause Americans to support the war on Islamic terrorism .. and we all know who that would help in the election.


----------



## Bobm

We are living in a time where the media in this country no longer reports the news. They no longer report the facts of what happened. They no longer give both sides of the story, so that the citizens of the United States can form their own opinions about current events. No...something else has happened.

Aided and abetted by the rampant stupidity created by government education, the mainstream media now controls the flow of information in this country. Just like communist governments censor what their people see and hear, the liberal media is now deciding how an issue is reported. :******: All news is positioned, stories are selected and written with a clear anti-individual, anti-capitalist, big-government bias. This year, their clear mission is to prevent the re-election of George W. Bush. They will stop at nothing...including withholding information, burying stories and reporting outright lies to achieve their ideological end. The mainstream media has become the propaganda machine for the left.

Never is this more evident than when it comes to the case of the prisoner humiliation at Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad, Iraq. The media calls it "abuse," but what we've seen doesn't meet that standard. Some even go so far as to call it torture, which is a falsehood. Anyway, to do as much damage as possible to the war effort in Iraq, the media continually brings it up, runs as many Abu Ghraib pictures as possible. We're never going to hear the end of it. But that's not the worst part.

The worst is how the media completely ignores Saddam Hussein's abuse at the same prison. Let's take a look at the score. *A few coalition soldiers, who have been or are being disciplined, took photos of prisoners in humiliating positions. Those prisoners suffered no lasting physical damage.* Were the photos and the behavior of those few bad apples wrong? Of course, and the military is dealing with it.

Here is what happened under Saddam's rule at Abu Ghraib. *Decapitations, fingers chopped off one at a time, tongues cut out with a razor blade and prisoners being fed alive to Saddam's Dobermans*. We know this took place because there are videos the media is not showing. In fact, the American Enterprise Institute held a little showing on Tuesday. Journalists were invited to come view the videos taken by Saddam's henchmen in the Abu Ghraib prison as Saddam's torturers actually did their work. Only a very few of our esteemed "journalists" showed up to see the video.

*The problem here is if these journalists show up to watch the videos then they will feel some sort of a responsibility to actually report to their viewers or readers what they saw. If they then print stories about Saddam's atrocities it will make the actions of American Reservists at Abu Ghraib look like child's play.* :******: This would dampen the constant drumbeat of damnation being heaped on our troops and the Bush administration. In short ... it doesn't fit the template.

Oh ... another thing. Remember that liberal icon Ted Kennedy said that Saddam's torture prisons had not been closed, they had just changed management. *If Americans are given the opportunity to compare the Hussein atrocities with the actions taken at Abu Ghraib under American control Kennedy would be made to look like the blithering partisan fool that he is.* Remember, the media will do anything it needs to do to protect the image of The Hero of Chappaquiddick. uke:

Just keep that in mind when you're watching news coverage of the 2004 presidential campaign.


----------



## Bobm

Read this article with some tidbits from me :lol: from the Wall Street Journal, the media distortions continue!!!!
Spinning 9/11
The press ignores the commission's most interesting findings.

Friday, June 18, 2004 12:01 a.m.

We'll say this on behalf of the latest staff reports from the 9/11 Commission: They are far more interesting than the media coverage suggests. *Americans who go online to read the reports will actually learn a few things.* Take the time folks this is important. 
For example, they'll discover new details about the links between al Qaeda and Iran. The conventional wisdom has been that these Shiite and Sunni cultures couldn't meet, but the report says they did so "to cooperate against a common enemy"--the infidel U.S.

Specifically, al Qaeda operatives trained in Iran, and al Qaeda helped Iran-backed Hezbollah terrorists obtain explosives. Al Qaeda was also probably involved in two attacks on U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, including the 1996 bombing of Khobar Towers that killed 19 Americans and injured 372 and had previously been blamed largely on Hezbollah. This certainly sheds some useful light on State Department attempts to "engage" Tehran's mullahs as they attempt to build a nuclear bomb.

Another revelation concerns al Qaeda and anthrax. *The 9/11 panel says al Qaeda had an "ambitious" biological weapons program and "was making advances in its ability to produce anthrax prior to September 11." *( If they follow their playbook we will be hit right before the presidential election like they did in Spain, think thats farfetched why not they were successful with the wimps in Spain :sniper: ) It cites CIA Director George Tenet as saying that al Qaeda's ability to conduct an anthrax attack is "one of the most immediate threats the United States is likely to face." Given that we already were attacked by anthrax, and that we still don't know who did it, this sounds like news too.

Yet nearly all of the media coverage has focused on what the 9/11 panel claims it didn't find--namely, smoking-gun proof that al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein were working together. The country has traveled a long way psychologically from the trauma of September 11 if we are now focusing on the threats that allegedly don't exist instead of those that certainly do.
*Or, to be more precise, we're further from 9/11 but very close to an election.** Thats the real point of this article, the media is lying to us and all of us Democrat and Republicans deserve the truth, we are all Americans first, or at least we should be, I guess the media liars don't feel that way) * If its good for Kerry the hell with honesty :******: 
The "no Saddam link" story is getting so much play because it fits the broader antiwar, anti-Bush narrative that Iraq was a "distraction" from the broader war on terror. So once again the 9/11 Commission is being used to tarnish the Iraqi effort and damage President Bush's credibility in fighting terror. John Kerry surely thinks so because he jumped on the coverage to once again assail Mr. Bush on Iraq.

Even here, though, the staff report is less a "slam dunk," as the CIA likes to say, than the coverage asserts. We are supposed to believe, for example, that the Commission has found out once and for all that there was no meeting in Prague between the Iraqi agent al-Ani and 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta. But the only new evidence the report turns up is that some calls were made from Florida on Atta's cell phone at the same time he was reportedly in Prague.* And since that phone would not have worked in Europe anyway, how do we know someone else wasn't using it?* The Czechs still believe the Atta meeting took place, and the truth is we still don't know for sure.

There's also the testimony the Commission heard Wednesday from Patrick Fitzgerald. The former Manhattan prosecutor was asked about his 1998 indictment against Osama bin Laden that asserted that al Qaeda had an "understanding" with Iraq that it would not "work against that government" and that "on certain projects, specifically including weapons development," they would "work cooperatively." Mr. Fitzgerald testified that "there was that relationship that went from opposing each other to not opposing each other to possibly working with each other."

Somehow the Commission also omitted any reference to Mr. Tenet's 2002 letter to Congress. "We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and al-Qaeda going back a decade," he wrote. And, "We have credible reporting that al-Qaeda's leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire W.M.D. capabilities. ( Gee whiz I guess its just one of those silly litle oversights  )The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to al-Qaeda members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs."

*We could go on, but suffice to say that the report hardly disproves any Saddam-al Qaeda link*. Mr. Bush was entirely correct when he said yesterday that, "The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and al-Qaeda is because there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda." The extent of those ties is the issue, and it is essential to U.S. security that we keep probing them. In particular, the President should order the release of some of the official Iraqi documents that coalition forces have captured in Iraq and that shed additional light on that relationship.
We thought everyone had learned the hard way on 9/11 that the greatest security danger comes not from taking threats too seriously but from dismissing them too easily. Apparently some people(especially the media :******: ) have forgotten that lesson already.


----------



## Bobm

Another good piece about the medias bias, Boortz has it right as usaul...
"What an incredibly bad week for the mainstream media. After watching the performance of such newspapers as The New York Times and The Washington Post, and other news organizations like CNN, The Associated Press and MSNBC, there really can't be any doubt about the blatant leftist bias of the media. The very fact that I'm harping on this situation even today shows how upset I am at the level of blatant bias.

I'm referring, of course, to some of the preliminary staff reports form the 9/11 Commission last week. In brief, the report said that there certainly was evidence of connections between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. The report, however, said that there was no evidence that Saddam and Al Qaeda actually collaborated on terrorist attacks against the United States.

Now ... remember the basic story here. The 9/11 Commission found there was a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Maybe not actual collaboration, but there was a connection. Now ... read the headlines:

*"Saddam, al-Qaeda Not Linked. Sept. 11 Panel's Conclusion at Odds with Administration." *Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

*"9/11 Panel Debunks Saddam Link. Report: No Evidence of al-Qaeda Ties." *Pittsburgh Tribune-Review

Now listen to the words of Keith Olberman of MSNBC last Wednesday. "Memo to vice president: 9/11 Commission finds 'no credible evidence' of any link between al-Qaeda and Iraq."

You've already seen the stories ran by The Washington Post, the New York Times, CNN, Associated Press and more, all saying the same thing; all saying that the panel had found no link between Iraq and al Qaeda.

Now ... what does the Vice Chairman of the Panel say? Lee Hamilton says "There were connections between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's government. We don't disagree with that. What we have said is that we don't have any evidence of a cooperative or a collaborative relationship between Saddam Hussein's government and these al-Qaeda operatives with regard to attacks on the United States."

Here's something else you may not have heard. Last week Vladimir Putin said that he warned the U.S. after 9/11 that his Russian intelligence forces, who were a lot closer to Saddam's regime than our own intelligence forces, had determined that Saddam was preparing terrorist attacks on the United States.

*Read that again. Putin tells us that Saddam was planning terrorist attacks on the US. Did you happen to read that in your local paper? Oh, it was probably there .. but let's just say it doesn't get the same type of headlines as do the false stories saying that Saddam had no connections with al-Qaeda.*

It's bias, Pure, unadulterated bias. The editors at these media outlets are determined to do absolutely everything they can to turn the public against George Bush during this election year. They're going to be voting for Kerry, and they want you to vote for him also. Never have I seen the bias so obvious and strong.

AND NOW THERE'S MORE SADDAM-AL-QAEDA PROOF

The 9/11 Commission has received new information indicating that a senior officer in an elite unit of Saddam's security services may have been a member of Al-Qaeda. Not just a member of Al-Qaeda, but one involved in the planning of the 9/11 hijackings. This is another in a long line of contacts and cooperation between the Al-Qaeda terror network and the government of Saddam Hussein. What else do the media and the Democrats need?

Of course, there are some that still wouldn't be convinced if it was discovered Saddam Hussein was one of the 9/11 hijackers himself. Such is their liberal bias and hatred of President Bush, they will do anything to distort the facts for their own political purpose.

Anyway, speaking on yesterday's 'Meet The Press,' John Lehman, a member of the 9/11 Commission, *said that documents captured in Iraq indicate that at least one officer of Saddam's Fedayeen was a prominent member of Al-Qaeda. This person is thought to have attended a 9/11 planning meeting with two of the hijackers in Malaysia in January 2000*. But wait...I thought there was no link between the attacks of 9/11 and Saddam Hussein? (By the way, I was telling you about this meeting and the Iraqi agent about two weeks ago.)

Just like they've been doing for the past several months, the media will now do everything they can to discredit this report and this evidence. Remember the template: whatever helps President Bush gets buried or is not reported, and whatever hurts the president gets top billing. This most definitely helps Bush.

And what about the Kerry campaign? This creates a bit of a tight spot for Kerry, doesn't it? He's been going around thundering that the administration "misled America." But as the facts pile up, and the truth begins to dictate otherwise, what then for the Democrats?""


----------



## Bobm

Why Don't They Call Them Terrorists? 
By Cliff Kincaid | July 1, 2004 The Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) issued guidelines shortly after 9/11 advising reporters to "take steps against racial profiling in their coverage of the war on terrorism."

*The coverage of the beheading of Paul Johnson has illustrated once again how our media shy away from the term "Islamic terrorists." * uke: After 9/11, Reuters said it would not use the term "terrorists" to describe the terrorists who murdered almost 3,000 people on U.S. soil. Reuters and the New York Times described the killers of Paul Johnson as "militants." The Washington Post called them "Islamic radicals."

The Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) issued guidelines shortly after 9/11 advising reporters to "take steps against racial profiling in their coverage of the war on terrorism." Their concern was the fate of Muslims whose religion might be linked to the perpetrators of the attacks, who were also Muslims. The SPJ was more concerned about the impact of coverage than getting the facts right. The group said, "Avoid using word combinations such as 'Islamic terrorist' or 'Muslim extremist' that are misleading because they link whole religions to criminal activity." It is, therefore, objectionable to mention the religious affiliation of a terrorist who commits mass murder in the name of his religion.

The SPJ said, "Avoid using terms such as 'jihad' unless you are certain of their precise meaning and include the context when they are used in quotations. The basic meaning of 'jihad' is to exert oneself for the good of Islam and to better oneself." That is also a claim advanced by those who practice Islam. But Islamanswers.net says that a follower of Islam "employs whatever force he or she can when confronting that which blocks his or her way; and, when necessary, dies for it." This is the basis of suicide bombings in Israel, Iraq and other countries.

In late May, before the Johnson beheading, Islamic terrorists belonging to the "Al-Qaeda Organization in the Arabian Peninsula" killed 22 people in a weekend of violence. Several foreigners identified as Christians had their throats slit. One hostage said the terrorists "asked us if we were Muslims or Christians." The terrorist group issued a statement praising the attackers as "an honorable example of Muslim youth" and referred to the dead foreigners as "Crusaders," a euphemism for Christians.

The SPJ guidelines say, "Cover the victims of harassment, murder and other hate crimes as thoroughly as you cover the victims of overt terrorist attacks." This reflects a belief that covering the activities of Islamic terrorists might spark violence, harassment or "hate crimes" against Muslims.

The SPJ compares those isolated and rare incidents to the deliberate and premeditated international campaign of an Islamic terrorist group such as al Qaeda. The SPJ wants a global Islamic Jihad against Christians and Jews to be given the same kind of publicity extended to the isolated cases of anti-Muslim activities. This is not just a debate over terminology. Lives hang in the balance. *The media's failure to identify Islamic terrorism for what it is constitutes deception of the American people*. :******: The public has a right to know the nature of the enemy we face. *They are not radicals or militants. They are Islamic terrorists.* :sniper:


----------



## Bobm

Of 'Lies' and WMD
The Senate vindicates President Bush and exposes Joe Wilson as a partisan fraud.

Monday, July 12, 2004 12:01 a.m.

"The Committee did not find any evidence that Administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities."
So reads Conclusion 83 of the Senate Intelligence Committee's report on prewar intelligence on Iraq. The Committee likewise found no evidence of pressure to link Iraq to al Qaeda. So it appears that some of the claims about WMD used by the Bush Administration and others to argue for war in Iraq were mistaken because they were based on erroneous information provided by the CIA.

A few apologies would seem to be in order. Allegations of lying or misleading the nation to war are about the most serious charge that can be leveled against a President. But according to this unanimous study, signed by Jay Rockefeller and seven other Democrats, those frequent charges from prominent Democrats and the media are without merit.

Or to put it more directly, if President Bush was "lying" about WMD, *then so was Mr. Rockefeller *when he relied on CIA evidence to claim in October 2002 that Saddam Hussein's weapons "pose a very real threat to America." *Also lying at the time were John Kerry, John Edwards, Bill and Hillary Clinton, and so on*. Yet Mr. Rockefeller is still suggesting on the talk shows, *based on nothing but inference and innuendo*, that there was undue political Bush "pressure" on CIA analysts.

The West Virginia Democrat also asserted on Friday that Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith has been running a rogue intelligence operation that is "not lawful." Mr. Feith's shop has spent more than 1,800 hours responding to queries from the Senate and has submitted thousands of pages of documents--none of which supports such a charge. *Shouldn't even hyper-partisan Senators have to meet some minimum standard of honesty?*
In fact, the report shows that one of the first allegations of false intelligence was itself a distortion: Mr. Bush's allegedly misleading claim in the 2003 State of the Union address that Iraq had been seeking uranium ore from Africa. The Senate report notes that Presidential accuser and former CIA consultant Joe Wilson *returned from his trip to Africa with no information that cast serious doubt on such a claim*; and that, contrary to Mr. Wilson's public claims, his wife (a CIA employee) was involved in helping arrange his mission.

"When coordinating the State of the Union, no Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) analysts or officials told the National Security Council (NSC) to remove the '16 words' or that there were concerns about the credibility of the Iraq-Niger Uranium reporting," the report says. In short, Joe Wilson is a partisan fraud whose trip disproved nothing, and what CIA doubts there were on Niger weren't shared with the White House.
*The broader CIA failure on Iraq's WMD is troubling, though it is important to keep in mind that this was a global failure. *Every serious intelligence service thought Saddam still had WMD, and the same consensus existed across the entire U.S. intelligence community. One very alarming explanation, says the report, is that the CIA had "no [human] sources collecting against weapons of mass destruction in Iraq after 1998." That's right. Not one source.

When asked why not, a CIA officer replied "because it's very hard to sustain." The report's rather obvious answer is that spying "should be within the norm of the CIA's activities and capabilities," and some blame for this human intelligence failure has to fall on recently departed Director George Tenet and his predecessor, John Deutch.

The Senate report blames these CIA failures not just on management but also on "a risk averse corporate culture." This sounds right, and Acting Director John McLaughlin's rejection of this criticism on Friday is all the more reason for Mr. Bush to name a real replacement. Richard Armitage has been mentioned for the job, but the Deputy Secretary of State has been consistently wrong about Iran, which will be a principal threat going forward, and his and Colin Powell's philosophy at the State Department has been to let the bureaucrats run the place. *We must find a better choice.*
*One real danger now is that the intelligence community will react to this Iraq criticism by taking even fewer risks, or by underestimating future threats as it has so often in the past*. (The failure to detect that Saddam was within a year of having a nuclear bomb prior to the 1991 Gulf War is a prime example.) The process of developing "national intelligence estimates," or NIEs, will only reinforce this sense of internal, lowest-common-denominator, conformity. If the Senate is looking for a place to recommend long-term reform, dispensing with NIEs would be a good place to start.
*Above all, it's important to remember that the Senate report does not claim that the overall assessment of Iraq as a threat was mistaken. *U.N. Resolution 1441 gave Saddam ample opportunity to come clean about his weapons, but he refused. The reports from David Kay and his WMD task force have since shown that Saddam violated 1441 in multiple ways.

Saddam retained a "just-in-time" capability to make WMD, even if he destroyed, hid or removed the "stockpiles" that the CIA believed he had. It's fanciful to think, especially in light of the Oil for Food scandal, that U.N.-led containment was a realistic option for another 12 years, or that once containment ended Saddam wouldn't have expanded his weapons capacity very quickly. *The Senate report makes clear we need a better CIA, not that we should have left in power a homicidal, WMD-using dictator*.


----------

