[quote=“Tetsuo”]
Rather is not the media. Rather was one individual part of the media. [/quote]
As a foreigner from a small and far away land, I don’t think you understand the historic role CBS and its anchors have held in the American media.
I can’t believe none of you could resist this until now. 
I can’t believe none of you could resist this until now. [/quote]
So? I don’t care for Michael Moron. I don’t care for drug dealers or paedophiles either.
That’s hilarious. No, I’m quite sure I never heard any such thing, but do feel free to give us a link to whatever idiot said such things.
I can. And I do.
Perhaps we’re watching different media. What do you watch, FOX? 
Are you mocking our intelligence? If it didn’t pose an imminent threat, then Bush is damned for starting the war, no? Bush, through his administration, his spokesman, his VP, etc., have repeatedly emphasized the threat. The word “imminent” has also been used. If you are going to play games with whether the words “imminent threat” vis-a-vis Iraq ever escaped Bush’s lips personally and in that order, as opposed coming from his VP’s or his spokesmen or in synonymous terms, then you are engaging in Sophistry in the worst of that tradition. I have little respect for those who engage in that kind of cheap debate tactic.
“Absolutely.”
[quote=“Tigerman”]I couldn’t disagree more.
Sure, immediately after the 911 attacks, the media praised Bush… but, not completely. Surely you remember the idiotic criticisms about how Bush didn’t jump up immediately and don a superhero cape and go defeat the terrorists single-handedly?
And you cannot deny that the media has distorted Bush’s message re the WOT. The fact that so many remain so ignorant is due partly to their own laziness and partly to the spoon-feeding of misrepresentations by the media. Bush NEVER stated that Iraq posed an “imminent” threat and in fact he went to pains to explain that even though Iraq did not pose an imminent threat, we still needed to wage a pre-emptive war to rid Iraq of Saddam. Yet, how many people, even here, cannot seem to understand this simple fact?[/quote]
If Bush didn’t consider Iraq an imminent threat, then why did he invade in March, 2003? Why not wait until April? Or May?
Until Bush and his supporters can rationally account for this very simple fact, most people are fully justified in believing that Bush felt Saddam was an imminent threat. After all, rule one in life is watch what humans do, not what they say. (this goes for Saddam as well, obviously)
How is the US economy in “pretty fine shape?” Are you focussing exclusively on growth? Do you think the growth in the size of the Federal government under President Bush has any relevance to growth in GDP? How have President Bush’s fiscal policies affected Americans who are capital-poor? Do you argue that under President Bush, the gap between the richest and the poorest Americans is shrinking? If not, then do you think this growing gap - a gap the growth of which is due directly to the policies of President Bush - is, in the long run, good for American capitalism? If not, then how do you reconcile your assertion that President Bush is being treated unfairly by the media with the fact that his fiscal policies’ disparity in wealth creation in fact threatens American capitalism?
I think that when a reporter can’t even stay safe in doing the normal duties of his or her job (e.g., drive from Baghdad airport to Baghdad proper), then reporting “good things” has a fundamental problem.
Not only that, it seems perfectly logical that a growing insurgency in the face of American ineffectiveness is fundamentally relevant to a good understanding of the situation in Iraq, no?
It’s because Bush only told them to “go to Hell” (and I doubt he ever said that, frankly) when it became apparent their unlawful actions were dragging his ship down. Until Ken Lay was indicted, President Bush never met a donor from Enron he wouldn’t grant access to.
Again, look at what Bush does, not what he says (Life 101).
I think you just want positive things said about President Bush because you think he’s a great and misunderstood leader.
Thing is, if one pays attention to what Bush does, not what he says or to what many, many others say for him, it becomes far more likely the reverse is true.
Sorry, I’m with Dragonbones on this one.
My, what unusually thin skin you have today, Comrade. Where is your usual sense of humor?
It’s the juxtaposition I find irresistable: Comrade Stalin says he doesn’t read communist propaganda. Get it?
Certainly, they emphasized a threat. But, an imminent threat… Certainly not. The only two times in all of the many statements made regarding the nature of the threat posed by Saddam were two replies (not statements) made in response to multipart questions… these were made by two low-level officials in the Bush administration and they were corrected subsequently. Even Spinsanity is on record as belittling the significance of these two replies.
And as for the statement below, you illustrate your ignorance of the matter:
[quote]“This is about imminent threat.”
[quote=“flike”]If Bush didn’t consider Iraq an imminent threat, then why did he invade in March, 2003? Why not wait until April? Or May?
Until Bush and his supporters can rationally account for this very simple fact, most people are fully justified in believing that Bush felt Saddam was an imminent threat. After all, rule one in life is watch what humans do, not what they say. (this goes for Saddam as well, obviously)[/quote]
The issue debated was whether or not a pre-emptive war could be justified absent a showing of an “imminent” threat. At international law re the waging of just wars, a pre-emptive war is justified only when the threat sought to be deflected was “imminant”.
Bush argued that due to the nature of WMD, we cannot afford to apply this traditional theory of just war regarding the allowable use of pre-emption, because, by the time the threat of attack by WMD became “imminant”, it would be too late to react.
I agree with this reasoning.
Translation: I don’t have an open mind and am not open to new ideas; therefore, my truth is only what I believe and that is simply what I was taught to believe. 
Translation: I don’t have an open mind and am not open to new ideas; therefore, my truth is only what I believe and that is simply what I was taught to believe. [/quote]
Kiss my grits. I have seen Communists and I have killed Communists. That counts for a hell of alot more than anything you’ve done.
That’s exactly the kind of cheap sophistry I was referring to. The Bush administration spent a phenomenal effort trying to convince the American public that the war was needed due to (whatever synonym of “imminent” you want to insert here) threat, and is now backpedaling as fast as their little legs can carry them. The critics’ referral to an argument of an imminent threat, whether in those exact words or not, is highly relevant to the situation at hand. You can play all the word games you want, but it doesn’t convince – it only irritates.
[quote=“flike”]If Bush didn’t consider Iraq an imminent threat, then why did he invade in March, 2003? Why not wait until April? Or May?
Until Bush and his supporters can rationally account for this very simple fact, most people are fully justified in believing that Bush felt Saddam was an imminent threat. After all, rule one in life is watch what humans do, not what they say. (this goes for Saddam as well, obviously)[/quote]
[quote=“Tigerman”]The issue debated was whether or not a pre-emptive war could be justified absent a showing of an “imminent” threat. At international law re the waging of just wars, a pre-emptive war is justified only when the threat sought to be deflected was “imminant”.
Bush argued that due to the nature of WMD, we cannot afford to apply this traditional theory of just war regarding the allowable use of pre-emption, because, by the time the threat of attack by WMD became “imminant”, it would be too late to react.
I agree with this reasoning.[/quote]
Yes, that’s a rational justification for an extra-legal action (by your definition). It still does not explain why Bush chose to attack in March instead of, say, June.
That’s the crux of the problem. Bush argued that a pre-emptive war was necessary because of the nature of WMD, but in choosing March he effectively snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. It was a fatal mistake because its most significant effect was to rob the coalition of sufficient resources.
And that - coupled with a lack of post-war planning by Bush and overall American ineptness there - is why the media tends not to glorify Bush in the manner you wish.
Nonsense.
The fact is, the issue is one of the legality of waging a pre-emptive war. In a debate/discussion of legal matters, it is appropriate and important to know and to use the correct terminology.
If you were/are not well prepared to discuss the issue, then you have only yourself to blame.
It is obvious that the debate was above your head.
The Bush administration expended lots of effort explaining why the US needed to wage a pre-emptive war when the threat was not yet “imminent”. In the context of the legal issue, “immediate” and “grave” and “growing” are not synonyms of “imminent”.
I reiterate, no word games. You either understad the meanings of the words or you make mistakes, as you are doing now.
The language used was precise and deliberate. Had Bush wanted to characterize the threat as “imminent” he surely had ample opportunity to do so… yet, he never did… not once. Instead, he explicitly stated that the threat was “not yet imminent”.
What part of that do you not understand?
It isn’t my definition. It is widely known and understood. Don’t you remember the opponents arguing that a pre-emptive war would be unjust and that it set a terrible precedent (they are still arguing this)?
I think there were many considerations… it was not an ideal situation… having the troops sitting in the desert for so long… and there were weather concerns as well… I personally think we waited too long to attack… but, I guess Bush wanted to give the UN time to do the right thing… as usual, the UN failed.
Whether it was a fatal mistake remains to be seen.
Those are separate issues and do not account for the media opposition to the pre-emptive invasion prior to the fact.
Why would I want to insult your intelligence?
mediaresearch.org/biasbasics … sp#Massive [/quote]
The Media Research Center? That’s your source??? Oh come on, Tigerman! [quote=“Media Research Center”]The mission of the Media Research Center is to bring balance and responsibility to the news media. Leaders of America’s conservative movement have long believed that within the national news media a strident liberal bias existed that influenced the public’s understanding of critical issues. On October 1, 1987, a group of young determined conservatives set out to not only prove - through sound scientific research - that liberal bias in the media does exist and undermines traditional American values, but also to neutralize its impact on the American political scene. What they launched that fall is the now acclaimed — Media Research Center (MRC).[/quote]
That’s an unbiased source??? There’s no agenda there? Come on, I don’t cite Adbusters, please don’t cite MRC.
Why not give FactCheck.org a try? It’s unbiased, I’m sure that you’ll agree with many, if not most or nearly all of their findings, and they provide links to all of their sources. Try these: Is Bush to Blame for New Orleans Flooding? deals with New Orleans (but should have front-loaded some of their conclusions), this deals with a Bush speech on Iraq, and another deals with the Wilson-Plame-Novak-Rove Blame game. They don’t study media bias, but do provide a good filter for cutting through the crap.
That’s an unbiased source??? There’s no agenda there? Come on, I don’t cite Adbusters, please don’t cite MRC.[/quote]
Attack the message… not the messenger. What statistics from the site do you dispute?
[quote=“Tigerman”]Attack the message… not the messenger. What statistics from the site do you dispute?[/quote]Do you really want to exchange stats from competing “research centers” on media bias, or pick a neutral source and discuss the larger political issue?
Quote Tigerman [quote]In not one of those statements above is the threat characterized as “imminent”. Not one…
The message is crystal clear. [/quote]
So the threat was mounting, real and dangerous, “immediate”, a graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined, serious and growing, terrible, a threat of unique “urgency”, and significant to boot. Lets have a
look at some of what the dictionary says about some of these words.
Mounting - increasing in intensity
Real - actually existing
Immediate - nearest, next, “direct”
Grave - extremely serious or threatening
Serious - not negligable/ dangerous
Urgent - requiring immediate action or attention
Significant - not negligable
To a lawyer all of this might not add up to imminent but by god I bet it added up to just that in the popular imagination. I will go further and bet that the bush administration were betting on exactly the same thing.
I think Bush’s lack of decisiveness with regard to Katrina will compound the reasons behind the failure (I don’t see how we can win, not from here - obviously my opinion).
Can you cite or display a credible scenario where it was a media consipracy to herd American foreign policy away from Bush’s goals there?
Because if my memory serves, it was a case of credible individuals who opposed the invasion of Iraq on President Bush’s timeline (i.e., to proactively forego any additional coalition partners), not a “media consipracy.”
By the way, I find it interesting but not unusual that you wish strongly to hold the media accountable for any current opacity of Bush’s March, 2003, stance, yet you fail to argue even once that Bush or his adminstration are accountable for it at all.
If it’s so important, why doesn’t President Bush hold a townhall meeting now, an open one, and discuss this very thing? More importantly, why did he not do this as many times as necessary to accomplish his communication goals?