Forget the Afghanistan pull out

[Jaboney]

[quote=“Okami”][color=#0040FF]Th eowrd we are looking for here is collusion. NYT and the Obama admin have had an extremely cozy relationship[/color] so that’s why the NYT put old info known since at least 2007 on the front page with a suitably large number.
[…]
This is little more than [color=#0040FF]the NYT giving cover to the Obama Admin[/color] to pushback the withdrawal that is running into so much trouble with the Karzai cartel.[/quote]

[quote=“Okami”]The [color=#0040FF]politico article detailing NYT’s close relationship to the Obama Admin to the detriment of other newsreporters and media[/color]: dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm? … 8f74c77116

Then we had the initial story of how Rahm Emmanual would get on the phone with other democrat operatives and media barons to kill and push news that was about a year and a half ago.

Then we have[color=#0040FF] the large number of reporters working for the Obama Admin, married to democrats, or are hardcore democrat partisans[/color].[/quote]

@Okami

The [color=#0040FF]only thing saving Obama’s ass in Afghanistan is a complacent MSM.[/color] If he was Bush the media would be making every screwup a 24-48 hour montage of how they are screwing it up.

In light of the above, Okami, could you explain the following for me?

mediamatters.org/blog/201006220029

[quote=“Media Matters”]
BTW, Obama’s job approval is up since March, but the NYT decides not to say so

June 22, 2010 2:14 pm ET by Eric Boehlert

And three makes a trend!

I recently noted that both the WashPost and USA Today, when reporting on their latest batch of polling data, forgot to inform readers that Obama’s job approval rating had inched up in recent months. The New York Times now joins in on that reporting oddity.

From the Times today:

[quote]Respondents were nearly evenly split on the president’s handling of the economy — 45 percent approve, 48 percent disapprove. His job approval rating remains just below 50 percent.’
For the record, Obama’s approval rating in the Times poll stands at 47 percent. And yes, that’s up slightly since March (44 percent.)[/quote]

I reason I keep documenting this reporting trend when it comes to Obama’s polling numbers is because I’m detecting a certain awkwardness among Beltway scribes who seem reluctant to acknowledge that, despite the avalanche media criticism the president has been subjected to this spring, and especially in the wake of the BP spill, the public doesn’t seem to be responding to those Beltway critiques.

In other words, we seem to be witnessing the latest chapter of the Beltway media disconnect, where insiders announce a Democratic president is doomed, and the American people turn around and give the president higher marks.[/quote]

[Okami]

So you quote media matters? :roflmao:

Show me the Rasmussen or Gallup poll to back it up.

[Jaboney]

Not the point, is it. The NYT, WashPost and USA Today published polls showing arise in approval for Obama, and each failed to make mention of that rise. Think they would, if as firmly in the hip pocket as you assert.

[Okami]

[quote=“Jaboney”]Not the point, is it. The NYT, WashPost and USA Today published polls showing arise in approval for Obama, and each failed to make mention of that rise. Think they would, if as firmly in the hip pocket as you assert.[/quote]Probably because the Rasmussen and Gallup polls are saying something quite different and they’re not keen to look like they are still wearing kneepads for the Obama Admin. Rasmussen is known for the accuracy of his polls and has been criticized for putting out polls unfavorable to democrats by the White House.

Quoting Media Matters? Why not just use to Xinhua or some 3rd world authoritarian states newspapers?

[Jaboney]

Because it says, [quote]Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.[/quote]Seemed tailor-made for you.

Ok, so, the NYT says approval is at 47%, and that’s up from 43%.

As of June 22, Rasmussen says

Overall, 46% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the president’s performance. Fifty-three percent (53%) disapprove. The Rasmussen Reports Media Meter shows that media coverage of President Obama has been 43% positive over the past week. Since the passage of the health care law, coverage has ranged from a high of 60% positive to a low of 39% positive.

Tracking shows minor ups and downs. Now at 46%, down at 42% a week ago, at 46% two weeks ago.

Gallup shows a slide, dip bump, dip bump,

They’ve got a nice graph showing the same… a low of 46% in March. high of 49% a couple of days ago, now at 48%. here for various days (green line).

Uh-oh. Doesn’t that line up rather nicely with the NYT line? 3% spread, rather than 4%, but still…
But you said it’s Rasmussen that’s noted for his accuracy. And he said:

Presidential Approval Rating:
3/10/2010
43%
6/22/2010
46%
(I’m cherry picking. There’s a lot of data points from March, and Obama only hit 43% twice. Really, I don’t care about such minute changes. I’m just curious as to the foundation of your strident position and readiness to dismiss contrary information… particularly when it’s essentially identical to that gleaned from sites you prefer.)

Oh, and that media bias? On positive and negative coverage…

[Okami]

Media Matters is a democrat front organization started by an ex-Clinton official to reshape negative coverage of democrats into a more positive light by manipulation, lying or providing reporters with already written stories. They only protect democrats and only attack republicans. They’ve had quite a few factual errors and are common misquoters of Limbaugh and other figures on the right. They are to the democrats what Pravda was to the USSR.

Obama is golfing and the CEO of BP is yachting during one of the worst ecological disasters in US history. Only one of those is getting negative coverage in the MSM. I’ll let you guess which. McChrystal and his aides just gave an explosive interview to Rolling Stones magazine. It took awhile for Jimmy Carter to fall after the media pumped him up as will it take some time for Obama to do the same.

[Fortigurn]

Losing hearts and minds in Afghanistan?

While the officers of 3rd Platoon peeled off to talk to a village elder inside a compound, two soldiers walked away from the unit until they reached the far edge of the village. There, in a nearby poppy field, they began looking for someone to kill. “The general consensus was, if we are going to do something that fucking crazy, no one wanted anybody around to witness it,” one of the men later told Army investigators.

On a nearby hill, Spc. Adam Winfield turned to his friend, Pfc. Ashton Moore, and explained that it probably wasn’t a real combat situation. It was more likely a staged killing, he said – a plan the guys had hatched to take out an unarmed Afghan without getting caught.

The photos, obtained by Rolling Stone, portray a front-line culture among U.S. troops in which killing Afghan civilians is less a reason for concern than a cause for celebration. “Most people within the unit disliked the Afghan people, whether it was the Afghan National Police, the Afghan National Army or locals,” one soldier explained to investigators. “Everyone would say they’re savages.”

[Jack_Burton]

I always pull out.

[sandman]

At least those filthy douchebags got caught. Pity nobody will be cutting off THEIR fingers or murdering them just for fun.
I just wonder how many other dirty murdering bastards like that Morlock fellow are out there getting their jollies from offing children and farmers – probably a good number, given what the article says about having to take recruits who would normally be rejected.
Sick but sadly, totally unsurprising.

[Huang_Guang_Chen]

[quote=“Fortigurn”]Losing hearts and minds in Afghanistan?

Ooph! There goes that idea.

HG
Edited: That’s among the most depressing reads I’ve had in quite some time. Afghanistan is fucked. Again.

[sandman]

The photos, obtained by Rolling Stone, portray a front-line culture among U.S. troops

Is it REALLY a front-line culture or a rogue bunch of psychopathic thugs who just happen to have been put into the same unit? The latter sounds unlikely, but there again, if it really IS front-line culture, surely we’d have head about it before now – I mean, these would be atrocities on an industrial scale we’d be talking about.

[anon38216271]

United States to leave Afghanistan in 14 months under peace terms with Taliban...

[DrewC]

We spent two decades of lost blood and treasure fighting them, just so we could hand back the country to them. sigh…

[anon38216271]

@DrewC

We spent two decades of lost blood and treasure fighting them, just so we could hand back the country to them. sigh…

Let’s be honest, who has been able to kick their ass?

[crickets]