The media is aimed at the masses. It influences mass public opinion. Public opinion matters to politicians.
please show were the alleged liberal media bias changed the outcome of elections. Repugs/Dems nearly always vote their party. Independents also mostly vote left or right repeatedly.
election results affect policies, media bias doesn't vote in legislatures.
Fox isn't news media. It's the political/public relations arm of the Repugs, tea baggers, VRWC. It has a tiny audience, which is famously declining, of old, white, Euro-Americans. iow, Fox is preaching to the choir, not changing/reversing voters.
got any others?
It is media. And even with a tiny audience it was shown to have an affect on voters. Now multiply that affect by the left leaning media as a whole and you've proven my point.
There's nothing on the left like Fox and the entire VRWC/"movement conservatism" hate/propaganda media. Fox CHANGING voters from Dem to Repug? really?
All Fox might do would be to rouse their non-voting rabble enough to get them to vote Repug/tea bagger. But so ing what in red states, red districts? iow, NO EFFECTIVE CHANGE
Glenn Beck Admits "Liberals, You Were Right" On Iraq - Updated w/Pat Robertson TOO
(HuffPo)"From the beginning, most people on the left were against going into Iraq. I wasn’t.... Liberals, you were right. We shouldn’t have."Beck made this surprising declaration on his radio show on Tuesday while discussing the widening rift between Republicans and Democrats. He urged both parties to come together to oppose another war in Iraq.
"Not one more life. Not one more life. Not one more dollar, not one more airplane, not one more bullet, not one more Marine, not one more arm or leg or eye. Not one more," he said. "This must end now. Now can't we come together on that?"
I really, really hate to give Beck credit but credit I doth give. Tony Blair can SYFPH, Bill Kristol can SYFPH, Paul Wolfowitz can SYFPH! We shouldn't be there and I am very glad our Democratic President of the USA has stated that we won't be sending US men and women into this Heart Of Darkness.I am hopeful that the White House's current stance, that the USA will not use ground forces in Iraq regardless and air support unless the current regime restructures into an inclusive Shia/Sunni/Kurd structure. Preferably with al-Maliki resigning. I do not expect any buy-in from Republicans but this is an indication libertarians and tea partiers may not be seduced by neocon dreams.
I can hope.
BTW, this is not snark. I couldn't figure out how to embed the video but the Huff Post link has it.
Some Special Sauce bumped from the comments:
"Televangelist Pat Robertson on Monday blasted former President George W. Bush for selling Americans a "bill of goods" before the Iraq invasion, which led to the violence that is currently sweeping across the country.During his Monday broadcast, a viewer asked Robertson if there was a solution to the ongoing violence caused by an al Qaeda splinter group, ISIS, threatening to take over Iraq.
"Right now, what we did -- and it was a great mistake to go in there," Robertson explained, pointing out that Saddam Hussein's "bomb maker" had said that the then-dictator "doesn't know how to make an atomic bomb."
"And so to sell the American people on weapons of mass destruction, he had WMD and was getting [concentrated uranium] yellowcake out of Africa and all of that, it was a lot of nonsense," the TV preacher said. "We were sold a bill of goods, we should never have gone into that country!"
http://crooksandliars.com/...
by RASalvatore
AND NOW SOME MORE - Beck continues to ride this Epiphany Train into the FOX studios:
During a Tuesday interview with Fox News' Megyn Kelly, Kelly's former colleague Glenn Beck looked back at his time on the channel, saying he wished he would've spent more time uniting rather than dividing.
"I remember it as an awful lot of fun," Beck said about being on Fox News, "and that I made an awful lot of mistakes, and I wish I could go back and be more uniting in my language. Because I think I played a role, unfortunately, in helping tear the country apart. And it's not who we are.
"I didn't realize how really fragile the people were," Beck continued. "I thought we were kind of a little more in it together. And now I look back and I realize if we could have talked about the uniting principles a little bit more, instead of just the problems, I think I would look back on it a little more fondly."
© groverby grover
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/0...q?detail=email
Liberals were right to stay out, Barak HUSSEIN Obama voted against, Germany said stay out, and the Cheese-Eating-Surrender-Monkeys said stay out, but all USA got was Freedom Fries!
Thanks, Repugs (and you asshole Repug voters)
Tell me again all the wonderful things "modern" Repugs have done for USA!
lol at this gif
[QUOTE=boutons_deux;7440547]Glenn Beck Admits "Liberals, You Were Right" On Iraq - Updated w/Pat Robertson TOO[/URL]
Leave it to Be to post an article without searching for the credibility of it. Sure, Beck said these words. However, there was some creative editing going on. Those Beck quotes were taken from five different paragraphs of his monolog. It gives a skewed perspective of what he was saying to leave so much context out. Snippets put together from five paragraphs of twenty. Shouldn't the contents of his words be understood, especially the context of what is in between?
Paragraph 9:
Paragraph 11:Maybe we could come together now on this nightmare in Iraq. From the beginning, most people on the left were against going into Iraq. I wasn’t. At the time I believed that the United States was under threat from Saddam Hussein. I really truly believed that Saddam Hussein was funding terrorists. We knew that. He was funding the terrorists in Hamas. We knew that he was giving money. We could track that. We knew he hated us. We knew that without a shadow of a doubt. It wasn’t much or a stretch to believe that he would fund a terror strike against us, especially since he would say that. So I took him at his word.
Paragraph 15:Now, in spite of the things I felt at the time when we went into war, liberals said: We shouldn’t get involved. We shouldn’t nation-build. And there was no indication the people of Iraq had the will to be free. I thought that was insulting at the time. Everybody wants to be free. They said we couldn’t force freedom on people. Let me lead with my mistakes. You are right. Liberals, you were right. We shouldn’t have.
Paragraph 16:But, anyway, all of that is gone. And yet, this is something I think that we can come together with, on the right and the left. And it’s this – I have more of a chance of hacking off my loyal listeners and audience by saying this, but so be it: Not one more life. Not one more life. Not one more dollar, not one more airplane, not one more bullet, not one more Marine, not one more arm or leg or eye. Not one more.
Paragraph 17:The people of Iraq have got to work this out themselves. Our days of being the world’s policemen, our days of interventionists is over. If we are directly attacked, so be it. But this must end now.
I'm not going to bother looking for Robertson's, but the source probably did the same thing. However, wouldn't it be prudent to read the whole, in context? Here it is:Can’t we come together on that? Are we not all a people that can come together on that? We don’t want our sacrifice to be a waste. Let me ask you this question: What good will one more life do? To waste one more life, what good will it do, to waste another dollar, let alone another trillion? And conservatives, is there one that believes this President will prosecute a new war in Iraq properly? When the biggest hawk of them all, the Darth Vader of the entire galactic empire, Cheney and George Bush didn’t prosecute it right? No. In the end, the result will be the same. Another group of radicals will pop up again. It is like a never-ending game of whack a mole over there. The only way to prevent Baghdad from being overrun eventually is stay there and continue to fight this militarily in perpetuity. Are you willing to do that?
http://www.glennbeck.com/2014/06/17/...m-home-period/
Why doesn't Obama and liberals learn from the recent past?
Why is he stirring up even more in the Middle East with his incompetent meddling?
Don’t even start with me on your oil an gas. Guess we should have thought about that earlier. Maybe if we use our own oil and gas, we wouldn’t have to worry about this. Liberals, you were against it in the first place. How could you be in favor of more intervention now? How could you possibly be for that after everything you have said about how it’s going to fall apart in the end was right? Everything I said that we could hold it together was wrong.
^does any of that additional context really change what Beck said? And, why do you feel the need to research and defend Glenn Beck? The guys a ing rabble rousing moron.
Yeah, WC -- what does that change?
Apparently, nothing for idiots like you, who cannot see what his real message was.
I simply had to see you Spoutin's source was twisting it.
What is the real message compared to the abridged message?
Enlighten us.
No matter what I say, you will argue. Bye Chumty-dumbty.
Nice cop out.
That's what's keeping you from spreading your knowledge about here?
Dissent?
That's weak and sad.
See...
No matter what I say.
I don't know what message you see when you read the entire piece by Beck, but it certainly is more than what the liberal media is reporting. His message is "I was wrong, you liberals were right, so why are you liberals doing what you said was wrong in the past."
So there is nothing inaccurate about what Beck said about Iraq in 2003.
OK.
I'm glad we agree.
Fox’s Megyn Kelly tells Cheney, history ‘has proven you got it wrong’
With his daughter Liz sitting dutifully beside him, former Vice President Cheney spoke with Fox News personality Megyn Kelly who confronted him over his complaints about the current administration’s efforts in Iraq, pointing out, “Time and time again, history has proven that you got it wrong as well in Iraq, sir.”
Referencing an editorial written by Cheney and his daughter that appeared in the Wall Street Journal, Kelly began by quoting a blog post by Paul Waldman, appearing in the Washington Post where Waldman wrote: “There is not a single person in America — not Bill Kristol, not Paul Wolfowitz, not Don Rumsfeld, no pundit, not even President Bush himself — who has been more wrong and more shamelessly dishonest on the topic of Iraq than Cheney.” Pointing out that Waldman suggests that Cheney is responsible for the mess in Iraq, Kelly invited the former VP to defend himself.
Quoting from the Cheney’s Wall Street Journal op-ed, Kelly read, “Rarely has a U.S. president been so wrong about so much at the expense of so many,” before adding, “Time and time again, history has proven that you got it wrong as well in Iraq, sir.”
Kelly proceeded to list off a collection of quotes from Cheney claiming Saddam Hussein had WMD’s, stating that America would be greeted as liberators, saying the Iraq insurgency was in the last throes, before asking, “Now, with almost a trillion dollars spent there, with almost 4,500 American lives lost there, what do you say to those who say you were so wrong about so much at the expense of so many?’
“No, I just fundamentally disagree, Reagan — I mean Megyn, ” Cheney responded. “You have to go back and look at the track record. We inherited a situation where there was no doubt in anybody’s mind about the extent of Saddam’s involvement in weapons of mass destruction.”
History later showed that Cheney’s people worked in concert with Iraq dissident Ahmed Chalabi to place false information about WMD’s with the New York Times’ Judith Millerwhose stories were cited by Cheney as outside evidence of WMD development.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/06/1...e+Raw+Story%29
I would call that the "outrage effect".
One of the sleazier and more dishonest things that FOX news does.
hehehehehehehehe... that is actually kinda funny.lol at this gif
Listen to the whole interview.Fox’s Megyn Kelly tells Cheney, history ‘has proven you got it wrong’
With his daughter Liz sitting dutifully beside him, former Vice President Cheney spoke with Fox News personality Megyn Kelly who confronted him over his complaints about the current administration’s efforts in Iraq, pointing out, “Time and time again, history has proven that you got it wrong as well in Iraq, sir.”
Referencing an editorial written by Cheney and his daughter that appeared in the Wall Street Journal, Kelly began by quoting a blog post by Paul Waldman, appearing in the Washington Post where Waldman wrote: “There is not a single person in America — not Bill Kristol, not Paul Wolfowitz, not Don Rumsfeld, no pundit, not even President Bush himself — who has been more wrong and more shamelessly dishonest on the topic of Iraq than Cheney.” Pointing out that Waldman suggests that Cheney is responsible for the mess in Iraq, Kelly invited the former VP to defend himself.
Quoting from the Cheney’s Wall Street Journal op-ed, Kelly read, “Rarely has a U.S. president been so wrong about so much at the expense of so many,” before adding, “Time and time again, history has proven that you got it wrong as well in Iraq, sir.”
Kelly proceeded to list off a collection of quotes from Cheney claiming Saddam Hussein had WMD’s, stating that America would be greeted as liberators, saying the Iraq insurgency was in the last throes, before asking, “Now, with almost a trillion dollars spent there, with almost 4,500 American lives lost there, what do you say to those who say you were so wrong about so much at the expense of so many?’
“No, I just fundamentally disagree, Reagan — I mean Megyn, ” Cheney responded. “You have to go back and look at the track record. We inherited a situation where there was no doubt in anybody’s mind about the extent of Saddam’s involvement in weapons of mass destruction.”
History later showed that Cheney’s people worked in concert with Iraq dissident Ahmed Chalabi to place false information about WMD’s with the New York Times’ Judith Millerwhose stories were cited by Cheney as outside evidence of WMD development.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/06/1...e+Raw+Story%29
Kelly let him off the hook big time. The initial recommendations about the size of the force needed to stabilize Iraq was rejected by Cheney as too many troops. So Cheney goes into how Obama rejected the size of the force to be left when he himself vastly underestimated the amount of troops needed in the first place.
Why was there even a need for a surge Mr. Cheney?
Totally left him off the hook because she can't think on her feet because she does not know the event well enough. There was so much more. This was a chance for the GOP to stick it to the T party interview imo.
Awful stuff.
so ur govt approves the funding of isis against syria assad regime, but against them in iraq...
lol i remember obama said he doesnt deal with terrorists...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/10910868/Iraq-crisis-Obama-may-launch-air-strikes-without-Congress-amid-calls-for-Maliki-to-go-live.html
17.09 Chemical weapons produced at the Al Muthanna facility, which Isis today seized, are believed to have included mus gas, Sarin, Tabun, and VX.
Here is the CIA's file on the complex.
Stockpiles of chemical munitions are still stored there. The most dangerous ones have been declared to the UN and are sealed in bunkers.
Although declared, the bunkers contents have yet to be confirmed.
These areas of the compound pose a hazard to civilians and potential blackmarketers.
Numerous bunkers, including eleven cruciform shaped bunkers were exploited. Some of the bunkers were empty. Some of the bunkers contained large quan iesof unfilled chemical munitions, conventional munitions, one-ton shipping containers, old disabled production equipment (presumed disabled under UNSCOM supervision), and other hazardous industrial chemicals.
17.05 The Chemical Weapons Convention, which Iraq joined in 2009, requires it to dispose of the material at Al Muthanna, even though it was declared unusable and "does not pose a significant security risk"
However, the UK goverment has acknowledgeded that the nature of the material contained in the two bunkers would make the destruction process difficult and technically challenging.
Under an agreement signed in Baghdad in July 2012, experts from the MOD’s Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Dstl) were due to provide training to Iraqi personnel in order to help them to dispose of the chemical munitions and agents.
16.52 The remaining chemical weapons from Saddam Hussein's regime are stored in two sealed bunkers, both located at the Al Muthanna Chemicals Weapons Complex, a large site in the western desert some 80km north west of Baghdad.
This was the principal manufacturing plant for both chemical agents and munitions during Saddam Hussein’s rule.
Thousands of tonnes of chemical weapons were produced, stored and deployed by the Saddam Hussein regime. Iraq used these weapons during the Iran - Iraq War (1980 to 1988) and against the Kurds in Halabja in 1988.
16.32 Isis jihadists have seized a chemical weapons facility built by Saddam Hussein which contains a stockpile of old weapons, State Department officials have told the Wall Street Journal:
Nonetheless, the capture of the chemical-weapon stockpile by the forces of the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, known as ISIS or ISIL, the militant group that is seizing territory in the country, has grabbed the attention of the U.S.
"We remain concerned about the seizure of any military site by the ISIL," Jen Psaki, the State Department spokeswoman, said in a written statement. "We do not believe that the complex contains CW materials of military value and it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to safely move the materials."
Good. Dudes are more likely to gas themselves than anyone else.
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
