Posting Towards Gomorrah

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
I would expect Peter Jennings to report about how seriously our military is in trouble if it needs to find out about enemy troop movements from Peter Jennings.

the press has no idea what is right. you make jokes, but AP/UPI photographers have published tons of photos of Iraqui insurgents shooting at US troops. That is they are with the insurgents. The "Peter Jennings" question isn't really a hypo- it actually has come up, and been answered in the negative.

And read the weird mental gymnastics the NYT guy went through from the link I posted. who the fuck is he to jepoardize an apparently important program based upon the standards he put together. He almost starts with a standard of "the US is wrong with this program, and unless it proves it's not, we are publishing."

fucked. up.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
CNN was playing the same vids for weeks on end. I suppose that wasn't long enough, though -- right? I mean, people have forgotten that we were attacked on 9/11, right?

Little-known fact: No Democrats were killed on 9/11. Only Republicans. Apparently the Democrats knew in advance and stayed away from the WTC and Pentagon (not hard for them, heh heh) and off the planes.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Um...no.

Within minutes of first being shown, what disappeared were videos of those Palestinians jumping around in glee, handing out "sweets" and whatever else those god-forsaken bastards like to do when people die.

That CNN and other news outlets chose to whitewash the open support of the attacks in the Arab world - even way back then - is telling.

And yet, every person I've ever spoken to knows about that footage.

And the b.s. that it was footage from the Gulf War was pretty publicly debunked.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I had no idea what was behind that crack-addled post, but figured I'd let you confirm that you wanted to smear and move on. And now you have.

Ummmm, crack . . . No, wait . . .

You were serious? You don't know of whom I'd be speaking?

I'd not go into the origins of the problem - the whole Carter, Clinton, Albright thing - that's unresponsive to the issue of actions taken currently to actively and intentionally undercut our chosen executive's choice of actions.

No, I'd probably speak of how Kim is a megalomaniac who is best fed and encouraged when Kerry, who is outraged that Bush tries to go it alone in the ME (a moronic assertion in its own right) is also, simultaneously, outraged that Bush WON'T go it alone in NorKor now. Naked partisan play that hurts our efforts to make the world safer, for the sake of the KosKidz votes.

Or by pronouncements by ex-presidents Carter and Clinton, both so eager to shed their own rightful blame that they're willing to blow through traditions of ex-prez silence and publicly scorn Bush for the same issue and thus encourage, again, the bad-hair-day nutjob.

And, need I name all the DemPols who chimed in on those exact same stoopid arguments? No, I think not.

Like I said - you already knew what I was going to say.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by bilmore
Ummmm, crack . . . No, wait . . .

You were serious? You don't know of whom I'd be speaking?

I'd not go into the origins of the problem - the whole Carter, Clinton, Albright thing - that's unresponsive to the issue of actions taken currently to actively and intentionally undercut our chosen executive's choice of actions.

No, I'd probably speak of how Kim is a megalomaniac who is best fed and encouraged when Kerry, who is outraged that Bush tries to go it alone in the ME (a moronic assertion in its own right) is also, simultaneously, outraged that Bush WON'T go it alone in NorKor now. Naked partisan play that hurts our efforts to make the world safer, for the sake of the KosKidz votes.

Or by pronouncements by ex-presidents Carter and Clinton, both so eager to shed their own rightful blame that they're willing to blow through traditions of ex-prez silence and publicly scorn Bush for the same issue and thus encourage, again, the bad-hair-day nutjob.

And, need I name all the DemPols who chimed in on those exact same stoopid arguments? No, I think not.

Like I said - you already knew what I was going to say.

you really don't want to open this can of worms. Ty's arguments here were so twisted they were almost vomit inducing.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I don't disagree with that. But I also think that U.S. media ought to be in the business of reporting hard truths rather than softpedaling or avoiding bad news because it might "provide aid and comfort to the enemy." The reasons for this are both principled and pragmatic.

I agree with that somewhat.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop Suppose -- hypothetically -- that the country was at war in, say, Vietnam, under an incompetent Democratic president. We -- our country, our troops -- would be better off if the press was reporting on the president's incompetence, rather than covering it up for fear of giving aid and comfort to the Vietnamese.

You lose me here. I think many of the reporters during Vietnam got incredibly irresponsible after the Tet offensive. They became cheerleaders for the other side.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Penske, why do you hate homosexuals? Why?

Hillary's a lesbian? This I did not know. I thought the Mary Steenburgen thing was a rumour, no?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
Ummmm, crack . . . No, wait . . .

You were serious? You don't know of whom I'd be speaking?

I'd not go into the origins of the problem - the whole Carter, Clinton, Albright thing - that's unresponsive to the issue of actions taken currently to actively and intentionally undercut our chosen executive's choice of actions.

No, I'd probably speak of how Kim is a megalomaniac who is best fed and encouraged when Kerry, who is outraged that Bush tries to go it alone in the ME (a moronic assertion in its own right) is also, simultaneously, outraged that Bush WON'T go it alone in NorKor now. Naked partisan play that hurts our efforts to make the world safer, for the sake of the KosKidz votes.

Or by pronouncements by ex-presidents Carter and Clinton, both so eager to shed their own rightful blame that they're willing to blow through traditions of ex-prez silence and publicly scorn Bush for the same issue and thus encourage, again, the bad-hair-day nutjob.

And, need I name all the DemPols who chimed in on those exact same stoopid arguments? No, I think not.

Like I said - you already knew what I was going to say.

Now that you've said it, I still have no idea what you're talking about. Except that expressing disagreement with the President about a matter of foreign policy is treason.*

* Provided that the President is a Republican and the speaker is a Democrat. Republicans criticizing Republican Presidents are signs that the GOP is a big tent and entertains a diversity of viewpoints. Democrats criticizing a Democratic President are proof that Republicans are right. Republicans criticizing a Democratic President are patriots trying to prevent the President from diverting attention from his fondness for oral sex, etc.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Gattigap
It's difficult to follow precisely what you mean here . . .

Placing "rangel" in a sentence which also includes the concept of "spending restraint" is just . . . I mean . . . Damn, now my stomach hurts worse.

Bush does own a veto pen. Right?

I'm thinking, yes. He probably got one in the New President's Welcome Wagon package. No one is sure where he left it, though. Laura is looking, and is going to let us know . . .

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
you really don't want to open this can of worms. Ty's arguments here were so twisted they were almost vomit inducing.

My arguments were all about our North Korea policy under Clinton. But bilmore doesn't want to go back that far, so he has discovered that North Korea was able to build a nuclear bomb because John Kerry and others disagreed with George W. Bush.

Frankly, by his logic we're lucky that Zimbabwe and Cuba aren't about to nuke us.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Except when they're running Al Qaeda snuff films?

No, no -- they are NOT supposed to show Al Qaeda killing American soldiers. They ARE supposed to show Americans being killed by Al Qaeda, and they must do so day after day for at least a few months or they are With The Terrorists.

Of course, they are NOT allowed to show dead American soldiers in coffins. Because that would upset the families of those soldiers. But they should have shown Americans dying in WTC for months on end, because the families of those people aren't very important (some have voted Democratic).

It's easier to understand the logic of Bilmore, Slave, et al. if you start from the premise that the Media is Evil, the "failures" of the Bush Admin are the fault of the media (except when we Terrorcrats beat them to the back-stab), and all of their actions and inactions stem therefrom.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
diverting attention from his fondness for oral sex, etc.

actually should read "diverting attention from his fondness for Perjury, in this case lying directly to a federal judge under oath, and obstruction of justice."

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
you really don't want to open this can of worms. Ty's arguments here were so twisted they were almost vomit inducing.

With Billmoor back the demise of this Board's demo contingent is assured.

I sense this is an omen of the upcoming retainer of the Congressional majority by Americans.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
You lose me here. I think many of the reporters during Vietnam got incredibly irresponsible after the Tet offensive. They became cheerleaders for the other side.

I don't think reporters should ever be cheerleaders. To the extent that it happens, I would say it has much more to do with consumers preferring cheerleading over more responsible reporting.

I called my hypothetical a "hypothetical" to avoid discussing the actual coverage of the Vietnam War. So you kinda missed the point.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
The liberal media and the politicians that they run cover for carefully censour and bias the news to avoid letting the sheeple realise how the Dems' (i) collaboration with and appeasement of Yasser Arafat and other Islamofacist terrorists and (ii) negligence in failing to get bin Laden when he was offered to Clinton by the Sudan led directly to such a brutal and horrific attack on America.

I see that, with Bilmore back and Slave awake, Penske has decided he can go back to being a complete lunatic.

Familiar, though not really comforting.

S_A_M