Fox's Hannity Draws 1.05 Mil. in Debut

[RA]

1st off i have to make one thing clear, I am not democrat or republican...democrats take the same campaign contributions that republics do, and cater to the same corporate interests...

Now, you posted articles of how journalists vote, how the public "perceives" the news, and admissions that cbs insiders tilt left, and may even tilt there stories that way...all well and good, and i wont argue that...

But in media absence is as vital as presence...leaving out stories or failing to provide context can totally warp a story, without ever telling a lie...and ownership determines whats NOT to be shown.

...As i stated in the 1st post many journalists are liberal, but they also have no say on what guests will come on and which stories are off limits to them. The owners do...

The media is owned by powerful media conglomerates, the same people tied into the defence industry, and other large corporations...Do i have to dig up a study to show you how most of these big buinsness fat cats vote? So whats more important, the anchors, or the owners of the station? I think its clear the owners have much more influence over how the channel presents the news over a bottom of the barrel anchor, or even producer for that matter...

Liberal bias of the journalists effects nothing when ownership chooses guests and picks which stories are to be shown or not shown...

The last last point id like to make is the issue of nationalism bias...Nationalism runs through ALL mainstream media in the US, and has a huge effect on how people perceive policy, foreign and domestic...This nationalism bias is obvious, especially on the lead up to the Iraq war and after 9-11...Wether you agreed or not, the war had to be presented as just, and any questioning would be viewed as unamerican...any questioning of policy after 9-11 would be viewed in the same light...

Its this combination of big buisness ownership, nationalism, lack of context , and influencial watch dog groups that make the main stream media all center-right...you responded with opinions by bernard goldberg a long time enemy of cbs...and studies showing how the anchors swing...unless you want to try to tell me that the anchor has more swing in news presentation than the ownership, than that fact is completly irrelevant...

bottom line, NUMBERS DO NOT LIE, republicans have more airtime on every single channel on TV...no studies exist that show otherwise...Owners of the channels are largely republican...Every single anchor can be liberal but if the stories and guests are chosen by the mostly republican owners...what difference does it make...

If all anchors were obvious repubs it would be too obvious...But throw a few liberals around and people like you who only like to see the surface of things ignore the ownership and real power that pull the string...Remeber propaganda relies on the fact that the people that view dont realize it!...by throwing a few "liberal" anchors on TV it takes your eyes off the people who really pull the strings...a genious technique really


JOB

Right after 9/11 the media did lay off and did have a sense of nationalism. We were attacked....why wouldnt they? But slowly its came back around again. Every news story on CNN is bashing Bush or the war. I would say CNN is way more liberal than Fox is conservative.

[juicedOUTbrain]

Right after 9/11 the media did lay off and did have a sense of nationalism. We were attacked....why wouldnt they? But slowly its came back around again. Every news story on CNN is bashing Bush or the war. I would say CNN is way more liberal than Fox is conservative.

Nothing is wrong with that...but although the nationalism did wear off a little bit, there is always a hint of nationalism bias in the media, and there probably should be...

But i have news for you...Reality is bashing bush! DO you want them to pretend the war is going well? Or that we found WMD? Do want the media to report all the good news? Too bad the western media cant even walk the streets of Iraq without being kidnapped...

Reality has a liberal bias, at the moment...So accurate reporting will look bad for bush...

[RA]

Nothing is wrong with that...but although the nationalism did wear off a little bit, there is always a hint of nationalism bias in the media, and there probably should be...

But i have news for you...Reality is bashing bush! DO you want them to pretend the war is going well? Or that we found WMD? Do want the media to report all the good news? Too bad the western media cant even walk the streets of Iraq without being kidnapped...

Reality has a liberal bias, at the moment...So accurate reporting will look bad for bush...

I would say its not going exactly as planned but Im also not going to say we are losing by a long shot. Do you know any war zone in history that the media should be allowed to walk through? What a ridiculous notion.

We havent really been privey to numbers but the president said about a month ago that we had killed around 6500 insurgents just recently. We are winning. If you measure it by any war in history that would be true.

Its the damn pot smoking protesting hippies that now run the news organizations that make it out to be different.

[juicedOUTbrain]

I would say its not going exactly as planned but Im also not going to say we are losing by a long shot. Do you know any war zone in history that the media should be allowed to walk through? What a ridiculous notion.

We havent really been privey to numbers but the president said about a month ago that we had killed around 6500 insurgents just recently. We are winning. If you measure it by any war in history that would be true.

Its the damn pot smoking protesting hippies that now run the news organizations that make it out to be different.

The latest National Intelligence Estimate report, and the Iraq Study Group or Baker-Hamilton report both recently delared that we were failing in Iraq and afghanistan and that violence was on the increase In both countries. So I dont know where you get the assertion that we are winning? We lost 4 helicopters in the past 2 weeks...

Id like to know exactly how you define success? Stabily? That is looking more and more unlikey, IMHO... Even if we have stability, how will it be good for the US with people like Al-Sadr in the govenment? I still dont see how this war has benfitted anyone so far...(except the kurds).

And I dont know if "pot smoking hippies" make up the 70% of americans that view the iraq policy as a failure. I guess a lot of republicans in the congress, and even bushs ex-generals are just "pot smoking hippies".

[chief_willie]

Jesus Logan do you have a life ? You must be one of most well read dudes on the planet !!!

THAT is hilarious!!!!!! Juiced is owning him on this thread.

[RA]

The latest National Intelligence Estimate report, and the Iraq Study Group or Baker-Hamilton report both recently delared that we were failing in Iraq and afghanistan and that violence was on the increase In both countries. So I dont know where you get the assertion that we are winning? We lost 4 helicopters in the past 2 weeks...

Numbers juiced, numbers

Id like to know exactly how you define success? Stabily? That is looking more and more unlikey, IMHO... Even if we have stability, how will it be good for the US with people like Al-Sadr in the govenment? I still dont see how this war has benfitted anyone so far...(except the kurds).

Yeah, I would define that as success but not wheather we are winning or losing.

And I dont know if "pot smoking hippies" make up the 70% of americans that view the iraq policy as a failure. I guess a lot of republicans in the congress, and even bushs ex-generals are just "pot smoking hippies".

The Republicans in congress have been pussies for years. When they were 50/50 in the senate with the vp being the tie breaker the damn reps shared power..the dems would never do that.....

Anyway the hippies I was talking about are the lib media. With them banging the drums constantly of course the ex generals are going to try to detatch their name from it in case we cut and run.

[juicedOUTbrain]

The Republicans in congress have been pussies for years. When they were 50/50 in the senate with the vp being the tie breaker the damn reps shared power..the dems would never do that.....

A 50/ 50 balance has not been in place since the 1st to years of bush's presidency which were dominated by the 9-11 attacks...The country was united, and the democrats supported the president, not the other way around. When clinton was in office and the republicans controlled the house, they completely stone walled clinton at every turn.

As for the war in every way you look at it, militarily, ideologically, politically, and economically we are losing the war, and at the very least we are not winning. Again, I still dont know how you make that assertion. And I dont understand how the media could cover it any other way, minus not showing it at all...

From Washington Post interview with President Bush

"President Bush acknowledged for the first time yesterday that the United States is not winning the war in Iraq and said he plans to expand the overall size of the "stressed" U.S. armed forces to meet the challenges of a long-term global struggle against terrorists."

"As he searches for a new strategy for Iraq, Bush has now adopted the formula advanced by his top military adviser to describe the situation. "We're not winning, we're not losing," Bush said in an interview with The Washington Post. The assessment was a striking reversal for a president who, days before the November elections, declared, "Absolutely, we're winning.""

"Bush, who has always said that the United States is headed for victory in Iraq, conceded yesterday what Gates, Powell and most Americans in polls have already concluded. "An interesting construct that General Pace uses is, 'We're not winning, we're not losing,' " Bush said, referring to Marine Gen. Peter Pace, the Joint Chiefs chairman, who was spotted near the Oval Office before the interview. "There's been some very positive developments. . . . [But] obviously the real problem we face is the sectarian violence that needs to be dealt with.""

Im glad you have more confidence in the situation than President Bush has Remember hope and faith are not strategies...

Anyway the hippies I was talking about are the lib media. With them banging the drums constantly of course the ex generals are going to try to detatch their name from it in case we cut and run.

Again opposing an ideological war without a clear threat to national security or its neighbors, and without having an exit strategy does not make you a hippy. George bush senior thought going into bahgdad in 1991 was a bad idea...Is he a hippy?

Does supporting such a war make you a war monger? Its easy to sit on the sidelines and support a war that does not imporove national security...why dont you strap up and go if it is so neccasary...

I know many friends and co-workers that have fought in Iraq, some that never came back...This unneccasary war is destroying thousands upon thousands of peoples lives literally and figuratively, and it makes me sick...

Why dont you tell me how a Shiaa dominated stable Iraq (which is the best case scenario) will be of any benefit to the US, over the brutal but secular regime of saddam hussein...

[RA]

A 50/ 50 balance has not been in place since the 1st to years of bush's presidency which were dominated by the 9-11 attacks...The country was united, and the democrats supported the president, not the other way around. When clinton was in office and the republicans controlled the house, they completely stone walled clinton at every turn.

I dont think your listening. I was pointing out how the Republicans in congress were pussies. Like I said the shared power deal would have never been proposed by Democrats.

As for the war in every way you look at it, militarily, ideologically, politically, and economically we are losing the war, and at the very least we are not winning. Again, I still dont know how you make that assertion. And I dont understand how the media could cover it any other way, minus not showing it at all...


Thats your opinion. I already stated why.






Again opposing an ideological war without a clear threat to national security or its neighbors, and without having an exit strategy does not make you a hippy. George bush senior thought going into bahgdad in 1991 was a bad idea...Is he a hippy?

Has nothing to do with the current situation.

Does supporting such a war make you a war monger? Its easy to sit on the sidelines and support a war that does not imporove national security...why dont you strap up and go if it is so neccasary...

Ive heard this argument before. So every non-soldier is not to have an opinion. Complete and utter bullshit.

I know many friends and co-workers that have fought in Iraq, some that never came back...This unneccasary war is destroying thousands upon thousands of peoples lives literally and figuratively, and it makes me sick...

Someone close to me was killed in Iraq but Im not getting into it to win a stupid argument.

Why dont you tell me how a Shiaa dominated stable Iraq (which is the best case scenario) will be of any benefit to the US, over the regime of saddam hussein...

If not having a U.S. freindly country in the Mid-East wasnt enough, they wont be helping to finance and train terrorists anymore and ultimately if successful this puts a lot of pressure on Iran. Why do you think they've been banging the drums so loud?

[juicedOUTbrain]

As for the war in every way you look at it, militarily, ideologically, politically, and economically we are losing the war, and at the very least we are not winning. Again, I still dont know how you make that assertion. And I dont understand how the media could cover it any other way, minus not showing it at all...


Thats your opinion. I already stated why

Thats the presidents opinion...He states our soldiers are winning the battles but losing on all other fronts, which are more important, IMHO...

If not having a U.S. freindly country in the Mid-East wasnt enough, they wont be helping to finance and train terrorists anymore and ultimately if successful this puts a lot of pressure on Iran. Why do you think they've been banging the drums so loud?

First off, Israel is in the middle east. They are our closest allie and the 3rd most powerful military force in the world. And If you really think US friendly governments in the ME cant breed anti-US radacalism, just ask the 19 Saudi hijackers that hit us on 9-11.

Having Saddam in power was pressure on Iran. Creating a power vacuum next to Iran has given Iran even more influence in the region, not less...All this while at the same time making our intentions towards them clear...Malikis government also refuses to take sides against its neighbor...

Saddam was a sworn enemy of islamic radicals because of his secular government. The only Islamic group in Iraq was Ansar AL-Islam and they were in the kurdish north trying to depose Saddam. Its the shiaa elements that are in power now such as Al-Sadr that are sympathetic to extremists.

All the other "intelligence" linking saddam to islamic groups turned out to be false, and possibly intentionally so...but people love to repeat that it existed over and over...I guess if you say something enought times, it makes it true

From Asia Times

Though Islamism has long historical roots in the area, Ansar al-Islam was officially created on September 1, 2001. Taking control of a mountainous enclave of villages near the town of Halabja, the group resides not far from the Iranian border in the northeast of the country. Estimated to have roughly 200 men, the band of fighters have expressed their desire to impose an Islamic state in the Kurdish territories of northern Iraq. Their disdain for and armed conflict with secular Kurdish parties in these parts is only slightly surpassed by their fierce hatred for Saddam and his years of anti-Kurdish (and secular) policies in the area.

As a fundamentalist and Islamist group, Ansar in all likelihood shares many of al-Qaeda’s ideals. Some of Ansar’s followers probably fought in Afghanistan with the Taliban. But establishing a concrete and material connection, such as arms, training, logistics or monies, between the group and al-Qaeda has not occurred largely because there is no independent access to Ansar-controlled areas. In fact, there are also real concerns about the sources from which Powell draws his information about the group.

The only militants that Saddam supported were in palestine. The palestinian militants are supported by every single middle eastern government and even some western governments, so that was no excuse to invade a sovern country, IMO...

[juicedOUTbrain]

We've also lost the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people, which was the most important battle, IMO...How can we be successful in any other way, without the support of the population?

From the Washington Post
"Four out of five Iraqis oppose the presence of U.S. and British troops in their country, and two out of five believe insurgent attacks on those troops are justified, according to a "secret" poll conducted by the British Ministry of Defense."

The poll's findings as reported by the Sunday Telegraph:

• 45 percent of Iraqis believe attacks against British and American troops are justified - rising to 65 percent in the British-controlled Maysan province;

• 82 percent are "strongly opposed" to the presence of coalition troops;

• 67 percent of Iraqis feel less secure because of the occupation;

• 43 percent of Iraqis believe conditions for peace and stability have worsened;

• 72 percent do not have confidence in the multi-national forces.

• less than one percent of the population believes coalition forces are responsible for any improvement in security.

It demonstrates for the first time the true strength of anti-Western feeling in Iraq after more than two and a half years of bloody occupation," according to the Telegraph. A spokesman for the British Conservative Party was quoted as saying, "The coalition is now part of the problem and not the solution."

Source

[Kärnfysikern]

Just a quick question

Is israel realy number 3 in military power? I would imagine that China, India, France, Germany, UK, Russia would be ahead and maby japan?

[juicedOUTbrain]

Originally Posted by johan
Just a quick question

Is israel realy number 3 in military power? I would imagine that China, India, France, Germany, UK, Russia would be ahead and maby japan?

In raw numbers they are the 8th largest, but in terms of combat power they are 3rd...This excludes the fact that they possess hundreds of US supplied nuclear weapons...

From StrategyPage.com

Which country on the planet has the most powerful armed forces? It's not a matter of numbers, although that's a major factor. It's more a matter of other things that are not often discussed.

By size (number of troops), the top ten nations looks like this;

China
United States
India
Korea, North
Russia
Korea, South
Pakistan
Israel
Turkey
Iran

But anyone who has studied military history knows that the number of troops is a misleading measure. There are several factors that make the troops of one army more effective than others. The most obvious modifying factor is weapons and equipment (quantity and quality). Closely related to this are the “combat support” elements. The most important of these are logistics (being able to move troops, and their supplies, long distances and in a timely manner) and maintenance (keeping things in repair and running under all conditions.) Then there are the intangibles (like leadership, training and the most intangible item of all; military tradition.) Apply all of those to the raw number of troops and you get different number. This number is called "combat power."

Top Ten By Combat Power

United States
China
Israel
India
Russia
Korea, South
Korea, North
United Kingdom
Turkey
Pakistan

The most unusual entry here is Israel. But this is because Israel is one of the few nations to have a reserve army that can be mobilized for action more quickly than most countries can get their active duties into shape for combat. The mobilized Israeli armed forces number over half a million troops. In addition, the Israelis have world class equipment and weapons, as well as exceptional intangibles. The downsize of this is that mobilizing its armed forces also cripples the Israeli economy. Under these conditions, Israel must conduct a war that ends within a few months. After that, supplying the armed forces becomes difficult and actual combat power begins to decline.

The other nations in the top ten have large armed forces that are well equipped and trained, at least compared to most nations farther down on the list. Britain’s armed forces, like Israel’s, are better equipped, trained and more experienced than most. Turkey benefits from having a strong military tradition and excellent leadership at the small unit level, as well as good combat training.

Overall, the U.S. combat power is about three times that of second place China, and ten times that of tenth place Pakistan. But another modifying factor is how you plan to use that combat power. Wars are not fought in a vacuum, but in places that often inconvenient places for one side. Most armed forces are optimized for fighting on their own borders; for defending the homeland. Only the United States is capable of quickly moving lots of combat power to anywhere on the planet. Moreover, given a few months, the United States can put enough combat power just about anywhere, and become the major military force in that neighborhood. Countries like Britain and France can move some forces to just about anywhere on the planet. But no one can put forces anywhere quite like the United States.

For most nations with powerful armed forces, it's mainly a matter of having the most formidable military force in the neighborhood.

Source

Russia, France, Germany all have pretty good defensive armies, but are not mobile enough to be considered superpowers. Japan has not had an army capable of offense since 1947, they maintain a small defence force and rely on the US for protection

[mcpeepants]

The Republicans in congress have been pussies for years. When they were 50/50 in the senate with the vp being the tie breaker the damn reps shared power..the dems would never do that.....

Anyway the hippies I was talking about are the lib media. With them banging the drums constantly of course the ex generals are going to try to detatch their name from it in case we cut and run.

Most of Bush's important agenda was passed when dems had 51-49 majority. A couple months before 9-11 republican Jim Jeffords became an independent and caucused with the democratics effectively ending the 50-50 tie. Bush passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force (start "war on terror" and used to expand his powers), the Patriot Act, and the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq while democrats had the majority.

[mcpeepants]

In raw numbers they are the 8th largest, but in terms of combat power they are 3rd...This excludes the fact that they possess hundreds of US supplied nuclear weapons...



Source

Russia, France, Germany all have pretty good defensive armies, but are not mobile enough to be considered superpowers. Japan has not had an army capable of offense since 1947, they maintain a small defence force and rely on the US for protection

Does Israel have that many soldiers? Especially considering it has 7-8 million people. I'm pretty sure Turkey and Iran have over a million soldiers each. Does combat power relate in any way to winning a war? Even with it's technological prowess and nukes, there is no way Israel could be Russia, India, or Pakistan because there land mass is so huge compared to Israel.

[Kärnfysikern]

In raw numbers they are the 8th largest, but in terms of combat power they are 3rd...This excludes the fact that they possess hundreds of US supplied nuclear weapons...



Source

Russia, France, Germany all have pretty good defensive armies, but are not mobile enough to be considered superpowers. Japan has not had an army capable of offense since 1947, they maintain a small defence force and rely on the US for protection

Combat power seems like a very subjective thing. Seems supect that both india and israel would rank above russia. Israel has no navy to speak of, atleast not compared to Russia.

I dont think Israels nukes are us supplied, I have never read anything that would indicate it.
The Israeli nuclear weapons program was most probably created with UK and france support before Israel gained the strong support of the US. No one knows except israel offcourse. But documents have surfaced that show french and brittish support.

[juicedOUTbrain]

Originally Posted by johan

Combat power seems like a very subjective thing. Seems supect that both india and israel would rank above russia. Israel has no navy to speak of, atleast not compared to Russia.

Russias navy has suffered a terrible decline since the fall of the Soviet Union

From Wikipedia

The collapse of the Soviet Union led to a severe decline in the Russian Navy. Defence expenditure was severely reduced. Many ships were scrapped or laid up as accommodation ships at naval bases, and the building programme was essentially stopped. However Sergey Gorshkov's buildup during the Soviet period had emphasised ships over support facilities, and Gorshkov had also retained ships in service that were beyond their effective lifetimes, so a reduction was due anyway.[3] What made matters worse was the impractical variety of vessels which the military industrial complex, with the support of the leadership, forced on the navy - taking modifications into account, the Soviet Navy in the mid 1980s had nearly 250 different ship types. [4]The Kiev class aviation cruisers and many other ships were prematurely retired. Funds were only allocated for the completion of ships ordered prior to the collapse of the USSR, as well as for refits and repairs on fleet ships taken out of service since. However, the construction times for these ships tended to stretch out extensively: in 2003 it was reported that the Akula class SSN Nerpa had been under construction for fifteen years.[5] Storage of decommissioned nuclear submarines in ports such as Murmansk became a significant issue, with the Bellona Foundation reporting details of lowered readiness. Naval bases outside Russia, such as Cam Rahn Bay in Vietnam, were gradually closed, with the exception of the bases in the Crimea, leased from Ukraine to support the Black Sea Fleet. Naval Aviation declined as well from its height as Soviet Naval Aviation, dropping from an estimated 60,000 personnel with some 1,100 combat aircraft in 1992 to 35,000 personnel with around 270 combat aircraft in 2006.[6] In 2002, out of 584 naval aviation crews only 156 were combat ready, and 77 ready for night flying. Average annual flying time was 21.7 hours, compared to 24 hours in 1999.[7] However since 2002 these figures may have improved.

Training and readiness also suffered severely. In 1995 only two missile submarines at a time were being maintained on station, from the Northern and Pacific Fleets.[8] The decline culminated in the loss of the Kursk submarine during the Northern Fleet summer exercise that was intended to back up the publication of a new naval doctrine.[9] The exercise, involving some 30 submarines and surface ships, was to have culminated with the deployment of the Admiral Kuznetsov battle group to the Mediterranean.

As of 2006, The Russian Navy has 50 atomic submarines, compared to 170 vessels in 1991, but only 26 of them are in operation now. The Navy plans to reduce the number to 20 submarines, 10 missile submarines of the strategic purpose and 10 multi-purpose atomic vessels, under unofficial reports

Source

Israel does have a pretty powerful navy....It may not be the biggest but its extremly mobile and all of the technology is top of the line...

I dont think Israels nukes are us supplied, I have never read anything that would indicate it.
The Israeli nuclear weapons program was most probably created with UK and france support before Israel gained the strong support of the US. No one knows except israel offcourse. But documents have surfaced that show french and brittish support.

Not 100% sure because they fail to even admit that they have them. I wouldnt be surprised if France and Britain gave them some nukes. But they do reportedly have hundreds of nuclear missiles, and I doubt that none came from the US who is the number one nuke manufacturer in the world and Israeli strongest allie...

[Kärnfysikern]

Yeah russias navy is declining. But they still got 26 more nuclear subs than Israel and more surface power Now with Russia on the rise again I doubt Putin will let the old naval power rust anymore.

Id still say that Russia along with the states has the best arms technology. Its just that russia doesnt have enough cash to mass produce. I doubt russia is selling its best stuff to india or china and I dont think america is selling its best stuff to Israel either.

I dont think america has provided nukes to israel mostly because Israel can make them themself without a problem and I dont think USA would want to go through the outrage incase they where cought. It would be such a huge break against the NPT that no one could ever trust america when it comes to treaties again.

[juicedOUTbrain]

Yeah russias navy is declining. But they still got 26 more nuclear subs than Israel and more surface power. Now with Russia on the rise again I doubt Putin will let the old naval power rust anymore.

Id still say that Russia along with the states has the best arms technology. Its just that russia doesnt have enough cash to mass produce. I doubt russia is selling its best stuff to india or china and I dont think america is selling its best stuff to Israel either.

I dont think america has provided nukes to israel mostly because Israel can make them themself without a problem and I dont think USA would want to go through the outrage incase they where cought. It would be such a huge break against the NPT that no one could ever trust america when it comes to treaties again.

Fair enough. I dont know the details enough to really disagree...Combat power is a very subjective thing...but the only way to measure military power objectively is to count raw numbers, of ships, personell etc...That method would not be 100% accurate, IMO...

But the point was, that we already have a powerful allie in the ME, and destabilizing Iraq does little or nothing to improve the security of the US. In fact, I would argue it has made our security problem worse. By increasing radicalism, and giving Iran more influence in the region.

I dont have the answer to the problem, but I dont trust the President, who got us into this mess, to get us out...

[Kärnfysikern]

Fair enough. I dont know the details enough to really disagree...Combat power is a very subjective thing...but the only way to measure military power objectively is to count raw numbers, of ships, personell etc...That method would not be 100% accurate, IMO...

But the point was, that we already have a powerful allie in the ME, and destabilizing Iraq does little or nothing to improve the security of the US. In fact, I would argue it has made our security problem worse. By increasing radicalism, and giving Iran more influence in the region.

I dont have the answer to the problem, but I dont trust the President, who got us into this mess, to get us out...

I also feel that Iraq has made the region, and long term possibly the entire western world, more unsafe. Im hoping there will be a good resolution to the conflict. But I dont se how. That wont happen offcourse because it would be political suicide for anyone suggesting it.

At this time whats done is done, I dont agree with the war but now I would acctualy like to se the EU step in bigtime. We need to be a part of stabilising Iraq.

[Logan13]

1st off i have to make one thing clear, I am not democrat or republican...democrats take the same campaign contributions that republics do, and cater to the same corporate interests...

Now, you posted articles of how journalists vote, how the public "perceives" the news, and admissions that cbs insiders tilt left, and may even tilt there stories that way...all well and good, and i wont argue that...

But in media absence is as vital as presence...leaving out stories or failing to provide context can totally warp a story, without ever telling a lie...and ownership determines whats NOT to be shown.

...As i stated in the 1st post many journalists are liberal, but they also have no say on what guests will come on and which stories are off limits to them. The owners do...

The media is owned by powerful media conglomerates, the same people tied into the defence industry, and other large corporations...Do i have to dig up a study to show you how most of these big buinsness fat cats vote? So whats more important, the anchors, or the owners of the station? I think its clear the owners have much more influence over how the channel presents the news over a bottom of the barrel anchor, or even producer for that matter...

Liberal bias of the journalists effects nothing when ownership chooses guests and picks which stories are to be shown or not shown...

The last last point id like to make is the issue of nationalism bias...Nationalism runs through ALL mainstream media in the US, and has a huge effect on how people perceive policy, foreign and domestic...This nationalism bias is obvious, especially on the lead up to the Iraq war and after 9-11...Wether you agreed or not, the war had to be presented as just, and any questioning would be viewed as unamerican...any questioning of policy after 9-11 would be viewed in the same light...

Its this combination of big buisness ownership, nationalism, lack of context , and influencial watch dog groups that make the main stream media all center-right...you responded with opinions by bernard goldberg a long time enemy of cbs...and studies showing how the anchors swing...unless you want to try to tell me that the anchor has more swing in news presentation than the ownership, than that fact is completly irrelevant...

bottom line, NUMBERS DO NOT LIE, republicans have more airtime on every single channel on TV...no studies exist that show otherwise...Owners of the channels are largely republican...Every single anchor can be liberal but if the stories and guests are chosen by the mostly republican owners...what difference does it make...

If all anchors were obvious repubs it would be too obvious...But throw a few liberals around and people like you who only like to see the surface of things ignore the ownership and real power that pull the string...Remeber propaganda relies on the fact that the people that view dont realize it!...by throwing a few "liberal" anchors on TV it takes your eyes off the people who really pull the strings...a genious technique really


JOB

Again, the republicans do not get more airtime because the media is talking them up. They get more airtime because they are usually getting bashed.
There was no reason that the New York Times needed to run 32 successive front page articles on Abu Ghraib. If that doesn't spell bias, I do not know what does. Obviously, leaving out stories or failing to provide context can totally warp a story, but this goes in both directions.

[Logan13]

THAT is hilarious!!!!!! Juiced is owning him on this thread.

You wish that were true. BTW, thanks for adding to the thread..........

[Logan13]

I also feel that Iraq has made the region, and long term possibly the entire western world, more unsafe. Im hoping there will be a good resolution to the conflict. But I dont se how. That wont happen offcourse because it would be political suicide for anyone suggesting it.

At this time whats done is done, I dont agree with the war but now I would acctualy like to se the EU step in bigtime. We need to be a part of stabilising Iraq.

Iraq may have increased localized radicalism. It is not so much that more individuals have been turned radical, it is more to the point that the Iraqi war has created a place for radicals from all over the world to congregate. It is in everyone's best interest to secure Iraq, not just the US's.

[juicedOUTbrain]

Originally Posted by Logan13
Again, the republicans do not get more airtime because the media is talking them up. They get more airtime because they are usually getting bashed.
There was no reason that the New York Times needed to run 32 successive front page articles on Abu Ghraib. If that doesn't spell bias, I do not know what does. Obviously, leaving out stories or failing to provide context can totally warp a story, but this goes in both directions.

Ok the Republicans outnumber democrats so the pundits can bash them, got it...Ill give you the benefit of the doubt on that even though I dont believe it...But even IF it were true, The Republicans have ample oppurtunity to defend themselves.

Its also important to mention that MOST mediators in the mainstream media question democrats and republican equally...Its the fact that the presidents policies have failed, and a responsible media is holding them to account, that gives those interviews a much more powerful punch.

The fact remains that most media ownership has, and remains to be republican, and this ownership chooses which stories will be shown or not. Combine this with the fact that most apprearances are republican...They may not have a right wing bias but the notion that they have a liberal bias is absolutley ridiculous, and a clear strategy by the GOP to discredit the media that is doing its job to hold president bush to account for his failed foreign policy.

As for Abu Gahrib, Are you implying that this was not a signifigant strory. Obviously you dont want it on the front page because it harms the policy that you support. But the fact is it was a defining moment in the war, and the possiblility that "torture" orders were passed down from above in the United States was an explosive story.

Remember, after there were no WMDs, and no Al-Queda ties, the reason for war shifted to saving the iraqi people from events like these, and the reports of torture at Abu-Gahrib, and Guantanamo went directly against this assertion.

Do you honestly think it should have been covered less? Take a look at how the international press covered that story, than tell me any of our mainstream papers were biased...

Iraq may have increased localized radicalism. It is not so much that more individuals have been turned radical, it is more to the point that the Iraqi war has created a place for radicals from all over the world to congregate. It is in everyone's best interest to secure Iraq, not just the US's.

Almost all of the Insurgency has been racalized Iraqi's. And only a very small percentage of the insurgency are foreign fighters. The Defence Department estimates there are over 200,000 full or part time insurgents. Of this 200,000 there roughly 1000 foreign jihadists present in Iraq based on a study by the International Institute for Strategic Studies. This leaves foreigners responsible for around 5% of the resistance. However, This small group of fighters have become very influencial in escalating the sectarian violence.

Article from Global Security.org
In January 2005 Iraqi intelligence service director General Mohamed A**ullah Shahwani said that Iraq's insurgency consited of at least 40,000 hardcore fighters, out of a total of more than 200,000 part-time fighters and volunteers who provide intelligence, logistics and shelter. Shahwani said the resistance enjoyed wide backing in the Sunni provinces of Baghdad, Babel, Salahuddin, Diyala, Nineveh and Tamim. Shahwani said the Baath, with a core fighting strength of more than 20,000, had split into three factions. The main one, still owing allegiance to jailed dictator Saddam Hussein, is operating out of Syria. It is led by Saddam's half-brother Sabawi Ibrahim al-Hassan and former aide Mohamed Yunis al-Ahmed, who provide funding to their connections in Mosul, Samarra, Baquba, Kirkuk and Tikrit. Izzat Ibrahim al-Duri is still in Iraq. Two other factions have broken from Saddam, but have yet to mount any attacks. Islamist factions range from Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's al-Qaeda affiliate to Ansar al-Sunna and Ansar al-Islam.

A picture of the composition of the insurgency, though in constant flux, has come into somewhat greater focus. London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies estimates roughly 1,000 foreign Islamic jihadists have joined the insurgency. And there is no doubt many of these have had a dramatic effect on perceptions of the insurgency through high-profile video-taped kidnappings and beheadings. However, American officials believe that the greatest obstacles to stability are the native insurgents that predominate in the Sunni triangle. Significantly, many secular Sunni leaders were being surpassed in influence by Sunni militants. This development mirrors the rise of militant Shia cleric and militia leader Moqtada al-Sadr vis-à-vis the more moderate Shia cleric Grand Ayatollah al-Sistani.

Source

The foreign and domestic insurgency in Iraq is a result of the occupation and was very predictable. It was one of George HW Bushs main reasons for not toppling Saddam Hussein in the 1991 Gulf War.

From A World Transformed: The Memoir of George HW Bush

"Trying to eliminate Saddam ... would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible ... We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq ... there was no viable 'exit strategy' we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land." (1998)

[juicedOUTbrain]

Originally Posted by Logan13
Again, the republicans do not get more airtime because the media is talking them up. They get more airtime because they are usually getting bashed.
There was no reason that the New York Times needed to run 32 successive front page articles on Abu Ghraib. If that doesn't spell bias, I do not know what does. Obviously, leaving out stories or failing to provide context can totally warp a story, but this goes in both directions.

This also underscores the fact that one of the studies done on Sunday panel discussion shows such as Face the Nation and Meet the Press Republicans signifigantly outnumbered democrats. These shows have no "opinionated host" only a nuetral moderator asks questions but does not add his opinions. The study revealed that in 2 and 3 way panel discussions republicans outnumbered democrats, and hard right republicans were often paired against moderate democrats instead of the corresponding progressives.

Your claim that more republicans appear in the mainstream media, soley to get "beat up on" is ridiculous, especially considering the owners of the channels who select them are overwhelmingly conservative... Please show me what basis you form this opinion on.

[Logan13]

Almost all of the Insurgency has been racalized Iraqi's. And only a very small percentage of the insurgency are foreign fighters. The Defence Department estimates there are over 200,000 full or part time insurgents. Of this 200,000 there roughly 1000 foreign jihadists present in Iraq based on a study by the International Institute for Strategic Studies. This leaves foreigners responsible for around 5% of the resistance. However, This small group of fighters have become very influencial in escalating the sectarian violence.

The foreign and domestic insurgency in Iraq is a result of the occupation and was very predictable. It was one of George HW Bushs main reasons for not toppling Saddam Hussein in the 1991 Gulf War.

This insurgency is being financed and supplied militarily by outside forces, namely Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, and Al Quaeda. To simply say that the majority of insurgents in Iraq are iraqis does not give one a true picture about the fighters there. Without such outside forces, there would not be so much fighting going on there today. You have obviously sparsed your sourcing and commentary in order to paint the picture that you wish to convey on Iraq. But by doing so, as with the whole "Republicans get more airtime" when you failed to mention what this airtime was used for (negative depictions), you do not give an accurate presentation of what is actually going on. I would think that if you are going to take the time to type as much as you have in this thread, you would have been able to incorporate a much more accurate view than you have been able to do so, albiet only if you were able to put your bias away in the pursuit of truth.
Al-Qaeda: Claimed 12,000 Fighters in Iraq Prior Surge
AP
11/10/06
CAIRO (AP) - Abu Hamza al-Muhajir, AKA Abu Ayyub al-Masri, assumed leadership of al-Qaeda in Iraq when Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was killed in a U.S. airstrike in June. Al-Muhajir bragged his terrorist organization had 12,000 fighters in Iraq and praised U.S. voters for handing Democrats majorities in both houses of Congress.


Iranian Government Behind Shipping Weapons to Iraq
http://www.netscape.com/viewstory/20...289&frame=true

WASHINGTON, Sept. 28, 2006 – The Iranian government is behind shipping components used to make improvised explosive devices to Iraqi insurgents, a senior intelligence official in Iraq said yesterday.
Labels on weapons stocks seized inside and outside Iraq point to Iranian government complicity in arming Shiite militias in Iraq, Army Maj. Gen. Richard Zahner, the deputy chief of staff for intelligence with Multinational Force Iraq, said at a news roundtable.

U.S. officials have said in the past that Iran is fomenting instability in Iraq. In August, Army Brig. Gen. Michael Barbero said that the Iranian government is training many members of the Shiite insurgency in Iraq. Barbero is the deputy operations chief on the Joint Staff.

“Iran is definitely a destabilizing force in Iraq,” Barbero said during an Aug. 23 Pentagon news conference. “I think it's irrefutable that Iran is responsible for training, funding and equipping some of these Shiia extremist groups and also providing advanced (improvised explosive device) technology to them, and there's clear evidence of that.”

Zahner said Iran is funneling millions of dollars for military goods into Iraq. He noted that labels on C-4 explosive found in Baghdad make it clear where the munitions came from. “You'll find a red label on the C-4 printed in English and will tell you the lot number and name of the manufacturer,” he said.

In 2002, the Israelis seized a small ship bringing military supplies to Hezbollah. “Compare the labels on the military C-4 in that and tell me if they're not identical,” Zahner said.

He said British, Iraqi and American officials in Basra also have found blocks of C-4. “You will see the same red label for each and every one of those,” he said.

Zahner also said it’s clear that the Iranian government is behind the munitions shipments. “I will tell you that the control of military-grade explosives in Iran is controlled through the state apparatus and is not committed through rogue elements right there,” he said. “It is a deliberate decision on the part of elements associated with the Iranian government to affect this type of activities.”

Hezbollah said to help Iraq militias
NEW York Times
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/11/...128militia.php
11/28/06
WASHINGTON: A senior American intelligence official said Monday that the Iranian-backed group Hezbollah had been training members of the Mahdi Army, the Iraqi Shiite militia led by Moktada al-Sadr.

The official said that 1,000 to 2,000 fighters from the Mahdi Army and other Shiite militias had been trained by Hezbollah in Lebanon. A small number of Hezbollah operatives have also visited Iraq to help with training, the official said.

Iran has facilitated the link between Hezbollah and the Shiite militias in Iraq, the official said. Syrian officials have also cooperated, though there is debate about whether it has the blessing of the senior leaders in Syria.

The intelligence official spoke on condition of anonymity under rules set by his agency, and discussed Iran's role in response to questions from a reporter.

The interview occurred at a time of intense debate over whether the United States should enlist Iran's help in stabilizing Iraq. The Iraq Study Group, directed by James A. Baker III, a former Republican secretary of state, and Lee H. Hamilton, a former Democratic lawmaker, is expected to call for direct talks with Tehran.

After bombing, Iraqis say security has decreased
Infighting hurting their case, Palestinians fear
News Analysis: Tehran's nuclear bravado may exceed its expertiseThe claim about Hezbollah's role in training Shiite militias could strengthen the hand of those in the Bush administration who oppose a major new diplomatic involvement with Iran.

The new American account is consistent with a claim made in Iraq this summer by a mid-level Mahdi commander, who said his militia had sent 300 fighters to Lebanon, ostensibly to fight alongside Hezbollah. "They are the best-trained fighters in the Mahdi Army," he said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

The specific assertions about Iran's role went beyond those made publicly by senior American officials, though Gen. Michael V. Hayden, the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, did tell Congress this month that "the Iranian hand is stoking violence" in Iraq.

The American intelligence on Hezbollah was based on human sources, electronic means and interviews with detainees captured in Iraq.

American officials say the Iranians have also provided direct support to Shiite militias in Iraq, including explosives and trigger devices for roadside bombs, and training for several thousand fighters, mostly in Iran. The training is carried out by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and the Ministry of Intelligence and Security, they say.

In Congressional testimony this month, Hayden said he was initially skeptical of reports of Iran's role but changed his mind after reviewing intelligence reports.

"I'll admit personally," he said at one point in the hearing, "that I have come late to this conclusion, but I have all the zeal of a convert as to the ill effect that the Iranians are having on the situation in Iraq."

Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples, the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, offered a similar assessment in his testimony.

Neither Hayden nor Maples described Hezbollah's role during the hearing.

In the interview on Monday, the senior intelligence official was asked for further details about the purported Iranian role.

"They have been a link to Lebanese Hezbollah and have helped facilitate Hezbollah training inside of Iraq, but more importantly Jaish al-Mahdi members going to Lebanon," the official said, describing Iran's role and using the Arabic name for the Mahdi Army.

The official said the Hezbollah training had been conducted with the knowledge of Sadr, the most influential Shiite cleric.

While Iran wants a stable Iraq, the official said, it sees an advantage in "managed instability in the near term" to bog down the American military and defeat the Bush administration's objectives in the region.

"There seems to have been a strategic decision taken sometime over late winter or early spring by Damascus, Tehran, along with their partners in Lebanese Hezbollah, to provide more support to Sadr to increase pressure on the U.S.," the American intelligence official said.

Some Middle East experts were skeptical about the assessment of Hezbollah's training role.

"That sound to me a little bit strained," said Flynt Leverett, a senior fellow at the New America Foundation and a Middle East expert formerly on the National Security Council staff. "I have a hard time thinking it is a really significant piece of what we are seeing play out on the ground with the various Shiite militia forces."

But other specialists found the assessment plausible. "I think it is plausible because Hezbollah is the best in the business, and it enhances their position with Iran, Syria and Iraq," said Judith Kipper, of the Council on Foreign Relations.

The Mahdi Army and other militia fighters traveled to Lebanon in groups of 15 and 20 and some were present during the fighting between Hezbollah and Israel this summer, though there was no indication they had taken part in the fighting, the American intelligence official said.

[Logan13]

This also underscores the fact that one of the studies done on Sunday panel discussion shows such as Face the Nation and Meet the Press Republicans signifigantly outnumbered democrats. These shows have no "opinionated host" only a nuetral moderator asks questions but does not add his opinions. The study revealed that in 2 and 3 way panel discussions republicans outnumbered democrats, and hard right republicans were often paired against moderate democrats instead of the corresponding progressives.

Now I have read plenty of criticism of this war in this thread, and for good reason. Now I would like to pose something that is much harder to you. With the understanding that we are there and we are not leaving Iraq anytime soon, what do you think should be done to solve the problem that is Iraq? It is easy to criticize, especially with hindsight, let's see how your problem solving skills rank?

[juicedOUTbrain]

Ok, Ive sparced my sources to paint a picture? You are citing the bragging of an Al-Queda leader, while I cited an official International Institute for Strategic Studies study...but im citing bad sources? and please provide a link to your sources.

And Ill repeat:

Originally Posted by juicedOUTbrain
This leaves foreigners responsible for around 5% of the resistance. However, This small group of fighters have become very influencial in escalating the sectarian violence.

That does not mean that:

Originally Posted by Logan13
...the Iraqi war has created a place for radicals from all over the world to congregate.

Again, these results were very predictable....And the reason why the invasion of Iraq was bad idea.

[Logan13]

This also underscores the fact that one of the studies done on Sunday panel discussion shows such as Face the Nation and Meet the Press Republicans signifigantly outnumbered democrats. These shows have no "opinionated host" only a nuetral moderator asks questions but does not add his opinions. The study revealed that in 2 and 3 way panel discussions republicans outnumbered democrats, and hard right republicans were often paired against moderate democrats instead of the corresponding progressives.

Your claim that more republicans appear in the mainstream media, soley to get "beat up on" is ridiculous, especially considering the owners of the channels who select them are overwhelmingly conservative... Please show me what you basis you form this opinion on.

Oh Yes, Ted Turner is a great example of one of these "overwhelmingly conservative owners"..........

[Logan13]

Again, these results were very predictable....And the reason why the invasion of Iraq was bad idea.

Radical ideaology has congregated in Iraq, from outside sources. The Iraqi's would not have been able to wage this insurgency without the likes of Iran and company. They might not be on the ground, but they are there nonetheless.

[Logan13]

Originally Posted by juicedOUTbrain
This leaves foreigners responsible for around 5% of the resistance. However, This small group of fighters have become very influencial in escalating the sectarian violence.

I'll repeat:
Perhaps 5% of the actual fighters on the ground, but this entire insurgency has been possible only because of outside forces. It is not as though the Iraqi people have picked up pitchforks and gone into civil war, they have been supplied with leadership, funds, and weaponry by sources that I have previously named. The Iraqi fighters are merely pawns who are doing the bidding of these influences...........

[juicedOUTbrain]

Ok its no easy task but ill take a shot at it:

1st off considering that 82% of Iraqs are opposed to US troops, and 67% feel our presence makes the country "less secure" I believe we should begin a phased withdrawl of our troops...which would put pressure on moderate Iraqis to step up to the plate.

2nd, I think we should offer hardline religious clerics such as Al-Sadr stronger roles in the government, as the lesser of two evils...As long as leaders like Al-Sadr have no place in the government their militant actions will continue...

3rd, we should encourage Maliki to take a harder stance on Shiaa militias so the sunnis feel they are not being persecuted against. He has promised to do this, but if he is incapable, he should be replaced...This problem is very complex because as a Shiaa leader, the more he cracks down on his own sect the less legitimacy they will give him, what a cluster ****!

4th, we should offer iraqis better rewards for remaining loyal to the government and proving it. Money will make dual loyaltys disappear fairly quickly and considering the amount of money weve spent on this mess I think we can afford it.

5th, we should engage in negotiations with Iran and Syria...Both countrys want to talk, but we have refused. If Iran wants concessions to assure it we will not attack, give it to them. If they want permission to have nuclear power, give it to them under very strict circumstances (weapons inspections, limited resources, etc...)

6th, We should take the money we are giving to private contractors to rebuild Iraq, and give it directly to private Iraqi contractors in the form of materials, tools, etc. I dont think we should give them money because the situation we have created would make that a risky feet. But helping them rebuild would take away some of the reasons for the hatred (were only there to spread capatilism, and make these co's rich, etc) It would also stimulate the economy which could only improve the security situation.

and finally 7th, How about we stop relying on the asshole that got us into this mess, to get us out...The Iraq study group and others have given him dozens of recommendations, which at this point have not been followed...In fact he went directly against some of them by "surging" troops and taking an even harder stance against Iran.

Even if these things are all done, theres no gaurentee that Iraq will ever be able to be called a success, which is exactly my point. This guy entered a war irresponsibly with no clear exit strategy, and created the chaos we see today. And to say "in hindsight" couldnt be further from the truth, as I showed you from GHWBs past quotes, these results were extremely predictable...

I opposed this war from the beginning, Its not my responsibility to get us out...Its bushs responsibilty to bring something good out of this, and if he cant, take our brave soldiers out of harms way immediately...

[juicedOUTbrain]

I'll repeat:
Perhaps 5% of the actual fighters on the ground, but this entire insurgency has been possible only because of outside forces. It is not as though the Iraqi people have picked up pitchforks and gone into civil war, they have been supplied with leadership, funds, and weaponry by sources that I have previously named. The Iraqi fighters are merely pawns who are doing the bidding of these influences...........

And your going to tell me that these things weren't predictable? Give me a break. Even IF and dare i say IF, there was no outside influence there would still be an insurgency today. The extent of which, I dont know...but there would be resistance...

And your post is just proving my point...This war has increased radicalization of the region because of regional forces "protecting" thier muslim brothers...

So how exactly is a Governement dominated by religious Shiaa leaders, and allied with Iran better than Saddams brutal but secular regime, in terms of the USs security? And a stable shiaa lead government is the best scenario we have at this point...

[Logan13]

I agree, if we could get the Iraqi people busy making money by rebuilding their city, they just might put down their arms long enough for this gov't to become stable.
We are talking to Iran, it is just behind the scenes. But what do we have to offer Iran that is more valuable to them than Iraq? Make no mistake about it, Iran wants Iraq in the end. No matter what we talk about and negotiate, controlling Iraq is worth much more than we can give.

[Logan13]

And your going to tell me that these things weren't predictable? Give me a break. Even IF and dare i say IF, there was no outside influence there would still be an insurgency today. The extent of which, I dont know...but there would be resistance...

I never said anything about this not being predictable. But how exactly would they be able to wage a resistance without the outside sources?

And your post is just proving my point...This war has increased radicalization of the region because of regional forces "protecting" thier muslim brothers...
This goes beyond "protecting", there is a goal behind this insurgency. Namely the control of Iraq.
So how exactly is a Governement dominated by religious Shiaa leaders, and allied with Iran better than Saddams brutal but secular regime, in terms of the USs security? And a stable shiaa lead government is the best scenario we have at this point...

We will not leave until this is not our best scenario, as this is merely a snapshot in time. So how would pulling all of our troops out increase US security?

[juicedOUTbrain]

I agree, if we could get the Iraqi people busy making money by rebuilding their city, they just might put down their arms long enough for this gov't to become stable.
We are talking to Iran, it is just behind the scenes. But what do we have to offer Iran that is more valuable to them than Iraq? Make no mistake about it, Iran wants Iraq in the end. No matter what we talk about and negotiate, controlling Iraq is worth much more than we can give.

Which is exactly why I feel invading Iraq was such a mistake in the first place...Will you admit this?

Originally Posted by Logan13
Oh Yes, Ted Turner is a great example of one of these "overwhelmingly conservative owners"..........

Ted Turner was only the founder of CNN until 2004 I believe, The owner is now AOL-Time Warner, which is owned by wallstreet fatcat Richard D. Parsons.

Richard Parsons was a lawyer for Republican Vice President and Governer Nelson Rockafeller. And is on the BOD's of Citigroup Financial.

Richard Parsons gave 300,000 dollars to various candiates and PACs since 1988. 68% of that money went directly to republican candidates including George W Bush, while only 4% went to democrats. The remaining 28% went to various PACs (mostly republican) supporting internet regulation, deregulating telecommunications laws, and

Source- Breakdown of Richard Parsons contributions

So yes, the owner of CNN is a republican...

[juicedOUTbrain]

Originally Posted by Logan13
how exactly would they be able to wage a resistance without the outside sources?

Like the palestinians do, with machine guns and rocks

Originally Posted by Logan13
We will not leave until this is not our best scenario, as this is merely a snapshot in time. So how would pulling all of our troops out increase US security?

I guess were gonna be there for a while than. I wonder how many more soldiers will loose there lives? I wonder how many more Iraq civilians will pay the price for our mistake? What other realistic scenario do you suggest? Democracy is mob rules...The majority of the mob is shiaa...

How will pulling out make us safer? It will give the country a better chance of regaining security, and it will lower resentment against the United States, around the world and especially in the middle east.

[Logan13]

How will pulling out make us safer? It will give the country a better chance of regaining security, and it will lower resentment against the United States, around the world and especially in the middle east.

That didn't work in Somalia, now did it?

[juicedOUTbrain]

That didn't work in Somalia, now did it?

Every situation is different. I dont think there is much chance of a successful outcome, although I pray for one. You think there will be and we should hedge our bets and wait it out. Thats a respectable position, so we can agree to disagree...

Originally Posted by Logan13
Oh Yes, Ted Turner is a great example of one of these "overwhelmingly conservative owners"..........

But, back to the topic at hand, media bias...

Ted Turner is no longer the owner, Time Warner bought CNN in late 2003. The Chairman of AOL-Time Warner is Richard Parsons, a longtime republican and ex-lawyer for republican Vice President Nelson Rockafeller. Richard Parsons gave 96% of his $300,000 worth of campaign contributions to republicans and only 4% to democrats. Source

while poking around on that source, I came across an interesting statistic. Both Aderson Cooper and Lou Dobbs gave 100% of their campaign contributions to George Bush in the 2004 election.

So lets get this straight, The owner of CNN Richard Parsons is a long time republican and gave 96% of his contributions to republican sources since 1988. Anderson Cooper, a former CIA employee and Lou Dobbs (the two most "liberal" commentators) gave 100% to republicans, and the other main anchor, Wolf Blitzer, is a former lobbyist for AIPAC. The channels premier conservative commentator, Glenn Beck, is the closest thing on TV to a nazi and the channel gives the GOP a slight advantage in appearance. But your still going to tell me that CNN has a liberal bias??? Hell, even the ex-founder of CNN admitted to having a pro-war bias, because of the nationalist climate created by media mogul Rupert Murdoch.

But wait, the republicans are just on to take a beating...right? The techniques CNN as well as other MSM media sources use to push their agenda is a genious one...If I didnt spend time looking into the underside of things I would propably buy it...But like I said before, Its not what they show you, but what they dont that counts...

And its important to note AOL-Time Warner owns a huge list of entertainment assets including Warner Bros, AOL, Compuserve, Time Magazine, CNN, Headline News, and dozens of other outlets. Its not just the news its all media from entertainment to movies to the radio that shapes the nationalist view of Americans... If you want me to elaborate on MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS or Fox, and why they have a center-right bias, I can. Those would be easy...

Put it this way, If you had an agenda would it be easier to push if a. you admitted your agenda or b. you have the appearance of fairness...

Fox is just a mutt, that has lost absolutely all journalistic standards of integrity...Carl Cameron who reported on The 04 campaign was simultaneously campaigning for the Bush-Cheny campaign...I dont even consider it news, i consider it 24 hour commentary...

[Logan13]

Ted Turner was only the founder of CNN until 2004 I believe, The owner is now AOL-Time Warner, which is owned by wallstreet fatcat Richard D. Parsons.

Come on, you can do better than to sparse this as well. Seems that you have a habit of giving half of the story......
Richard Parsons was a lawyer for Republican Vice President and Governer Nelson Rockafeller(A leader of the liberal wing of the Republican Party.)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_Rockefeller
Politically, Parsons has described himself in the press as a Rockefeller Republican: fiscally conservative and socially liberal. http://money.cnn.com/2001/12/05/ceos/parsons_profile/

Richard Parsons gave 300,000 dollars to various candiates and PACs since 1988. 68% of that money went directly to republican candidates including George W Bush, while only 4% went to democrats. The remaining 28% went to various PACs (mostly republican) supporting internet regulation, deregulating telecommunications laws, and

Source- Breakdown of Richard Parsons contributions

So yes, the owner of CNN is a republican...

The problem with your thinking is that these companies are run by a board, not a single individual. I have obviously now given a much clearer view on Parsons than you offered. Let me expand on this a bit for you.
Charles Prince (CEO Citigroup) donations 56.3%dem/30%rep
http://www.newsmeat.com/ceo_politica...les_Prince.php
Sandy Weill (Citigroup chairman) donations 36.3% dem/13% rep
http://www.newsmeat.com/ceo_politica...andy_Weill.php
Disney own ABC:
Michael Eisner(Disney ceo 1984-2005) donations 53%dem/14%rep
http://www.newsmeat.com/ceo_politica...ael_Eisner.php
Robert Iger(Disney CEO) donations 57%dem/14%rep
http://www.newsmeat.com/ceo_politica...obert_Iger.php
Eric Schmidt (Google chairman & CEO) donations 89%dem/3%rep
http://www.newsmeat.com/ceo_politica...ic_Schmidt.php
NBC Television
SOFT MONEY DONATIONS: 01-02
To Democrats: $5,500 (81%)
To Republicans: $1,250 (19%)
Total: $6,750
http://www.opensecrets.org/softmoney...&txtCycle=2002
General Electric(owner of NBC)
SOFT MONEY DONATIONS: 2001-2002
To Democrats: $283,000 (39%)
To Republicans: $450,812 (61%)
Total: $733,812
http://www.opensecrets.org/softmoney...me&txtultorg=y
CBS Television Network
To Democrats: $541 (100%)
To Republicans: $0 (0%)
Total: $541
http://www.opensecrets.org/softmoney...&txtCycle=2002
Viacom Inc(owner of CBS)
SOFT MONEY DONATIONS: 2001-2002
To Democrats: $1,344,041 (99%)
To Republicans: $19,000 (1%)
Total: $1,363,041
http://www.opensecrets.org/softmoney...me&txtultorg=y
AOL Time Warner
SOFT MONEY DONATIONS: 2001-2002
To Democrats: $341,668 (75%)
To Republicans: $113,150 (25%)
Total: $457,768
http://www.opensecrets.org/softmoney...&txtCycle=2002
Time Warner
SOFT MONEY DONATIONS
To Democrats: $605,137 (64%)
To Republicans: $341,590 (36%)
Total: $948,605
http://www.opensecrets.org/softmoney...&txtCycle=2000
News Corp(owner of Fox)
SOFT MONEY DONATIONS: 2001-2002
To Democrats: $95,031 (18%)
To Republicans: $423,487 (82%)
Total: $518,518
http://www.opensecrets.org/softmoney...me&txtultorg=y
Newsweb Corp(own a few Air America affiliates)
SOFT MONEY DONATIONS: 2001-2002
To Democrats: $7,390,000 (100%)
To Republicans: $0 (0%)
Total: $7,390,000
http://www.opensecrets.org/softmoney...2&txtSort=name

Other top soft money donors:
http://www.opensecrets.org/softmoney...2&txtSort=amnt

Do the math............

[Logan13]

Ted Turner is no longer the owner, Time Warner bought CNN in late 2003. The Chairman of AOL-Time Warner is Richard Parsons, a longtime republican and ex-lawyer for republican Vice President Nelson Rockafeller. Richard Parsons gave 96% of his $300,000 worth of campaign contributions to republicans and only 4% to democrats. Source

while poking around on that source, I came across an interesting statistic. Both Aderson Cooper and Lou Dobbs gave 100% of their campaign contributions to George Bush in the 2004 election.


And its important to note AOL-Time Warner owns a huge list of entertainment assets including Warner Bros, AOL, Compuserve, Time Magazine, CNN, He

I will show you where the money goes. These are corporate donations, not individual. Corporations are run by a board and shareholders, not by an individual. Corporate donations are voted on.
Check out these tables. Obvious slant to the left among contributors.
Top Media Contributors to Federal Candidates and Parties - 2006 election 62% Democrat/ 32% Republican
http://www.opensecrets.org/industrie...ib.asp?Ind=B02

Top Media Contributors to Federal Candidates and Parties - 2004 election 69% Democrat / 31% Republican
http://www.opensecrets.org/industrie...B02&Cycle=2004