TIME has chosen GWBush as their Man of the Year. This leftist media is out of control…
RSU,
In the same article, before they edited it, as AP often does several times, it stated in a lone single paragraph (but of a paraphrase):
“The award can go to both good and bad individuals”
Something like that. Heh.
As for the award, I don’t think the award is a glorification of Bush as much as a recognition that in 2004, no one had a bigger impact. Not so shocking really - he did win a presidential election.
To suggest that the media is somehow not left-leaning because TIME magazine gave Bush MOTY is misplaced. No one put a bigger stamp on 2004, regardless of your opinion of Bush.
ILOVEGEORGEWBUSH1,
Doesn’t it delight the imagination to think of those Time weenies holding their nose and acknowledging the obvious!?!
Time is just slightly to the right of the New York Times. I canceled my subscription in disgust about ten years ago. Every year I’ll read two to three of their issues. Unfortunately, they continue to exhibit an obvious liberal bias.
If anyone has even the slightest doubt that I am speaking the truth, I encourage you to read some of the pre-election coverage. I’d love to see the percentage of Time employees who voted for “I’ve had one position on Iraq” Kerry.
JeffR
Jeff –
I had a subscription to TIME back in college. I cancelled it when the editors announced they were no longer going to simply report the news, but rather were going to interpret it. At the time I wanted a news source, not an opinion journal. They quickly backed off of that stated position, but the stories didn’t change much, if at all. Strange, that…
RSU –
Thunderbolt had it right. I saw a TIME editor on TV this weekend going through great pains to explain that the choice did not amount to an endorsement of Bush or any Bush policies, but simply was a recognition of his impact on the news. The phraseology they employed was interesting – I particularly remember the phrase “bent reality to his will.”
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
I particularly remember the phrase “bent reality to his will.”[/quote]
Just a question. Now that you know the intel used to invade Iraq was “mistaken - that word is for thunderbolt”, and now that you know, while getting rid of Saddam was a benefit, that this war will not have any real lasting effect on terrorism and that our main defense against terrorism is the enhanced security forces on this side of the ocean, do you completely disagree with that statement? If so, why? Do you remember the president commenting that he made no mistakes? Do you agree that no mistakes were made?
I agree that a news source should not be opinionated. That is my main gripe with FOX news because, while many other news sources will at least try to apologize for it, they are blatant with it and are largely accepted in spite of this. That speaks volumes about hypocricy. I generally get my news from several sources in order to read between the lines. What bothers me are those who completely disregard, as you claim you did, the news from one source because of a political stance. It means that you ONLY look for news that supports your point of view and care nothing for the opposite view which would more than likely give a more rounded picture of the situation. My channels are constantly shifting between MSNBC, FOX, CNN, and ESPN as far as most major world issues. What sense would it make for me to avoid one of those sources completely?
Why proffessor X? Common buddy, a proffessor should know the answer to that. CONTROL. Beleive in the same political, religion, and moral ethics that I “Time magazine Man of the Year” George Bush beleive in or it’s war. This guy is such a lying cocksucking bag of puke that I feel all warm and tingley inside if someone would put his fucking brains out all over the teleprompter during his next ego trip…oh I mean speech. That would be if he even had a brain in the first place and wasn’t merely a puppet put into place by the nameless/unseen elitetist few who basically run this world and put this puppet in place to run the United States as they please.
[quote]Wideguy wrote:
Why proffessor X? Common buddy, a proffessor should know the answer to that. CONTROL. Beleive in the same political, religion, and moral ethics that I “Time magazine Man of the Year” George Bush beleive in or it’s war. This guy is such a lying cocksucking bag of puke that I feel all warm and tingley inside if someone would put his fucking brains out all over the teleprompter during his next ego trip…oh I mean speech. That would be if he even had a brain in the first place and wasn’t merely a puppet put into place by the nameless/unseen elitetist few who basically run this world and put this puppet in place to run the United States as they please. [/quote]
Seriously, Wideguy - Tell us how you really feel. Stop dancing around with all the pleasantries.
Wideguy wrote:
“Why proffessor X? Common buddy, a proffessor should know the answer to that. CONTROL. Beleive in the same political, religion, and moral ethics that I “Time magazine Man of the Year” George Bush beleive in or it’s war. This guy is such a lying cocksucking bag of puke that I feel all warm and tingley inside if someone would put his fucking brains out all over the teleprompter during his next ego trip…oh I mean speech. That would be if he even had a brain in the first place and wasn’t merely a puppet put into place by the nameless/unseen elitetist few who basically run this world and put this puppet in place to run the United States as they please.”
Does anyone know the FBI hotline? I think this guy will have a few visitors next time the President arrives in his hometown.
JeffR
My pal P.O.X. wrote:
"Just a question. Now that you know the intel used to invade Iraq was “mistaken - that word is for thunderbolt”,
News flash: We’ve found WMD in Iraq. Not the warehouses full, but they had plenty of time to move them. Note: See Syria/Middle Eastern trash heaps.
“and now that you know, while getting rid of Saddam was a benefit, that this war will not have any real lasting effect on terrorism and that our main defense against terrorism is the enhanced security forces on this side of the ocean,”
Wrong. See Libya. Remember the 500,000 tons of VX/ricin/nuclear weapons that are now sitting in NEW YORK.
See the power of deterrance.
“do you completely disagree with that statement? If so, why? Do you remember the president commenting that he made no mistakes? Do you agree that no mistakes were made?”
Actually, he stated clearly this year that he overestimated the Iraqi war machine. He went on to say that many of the defeated army members melted into the background and we are now fighting them. He stated he wanted us to have defeated more of them on the battlefield.
"I agree that a news source should not be opinionated. That is my main gripe with FOX news because, while many other news sources will at least try to apologize for it, they are blatant with it and are largely accepted in spite of this. That speaks volumes about hypocricy. I generally get my news from several sources in order to read between the lines. What bothers me are those who completely disregard, as you claim you did, the news from one source because of a political stance. It means that you ONLY look for news that supports your point of view and care nothing for the opposite view which would more than likely give a more rounded picture of the situation. My channels are constantly shifting between MSNBC, FOX, CNN, and ESPN as far as most major world issues. What sense would it make for me to avoid one of those sources completely?[/quote]
From your posts, it seems you watch too much ESPN. Your political understanding seems rather tenuous. (Couldn’t resist!!!)
If you really watched FOX you would see that they have MANY liberals that routinely have air time.
It’s so fun talking to you!!!
JeffR
[quote]JeffR wrote:
My pal P.O.X. wrote:
"Just a question. Now that you know the intel used to invade Iraq was “mistaken - that word is for thunderbolt”,
News flash: We’ve found WMD in Iraq. Not the warehouses full, but they had plenty of time to move them. Note: See Syria/Middle Eastern trash heaps.[/quote]
Ah, I see. They moved them. JeffR, your posts read like someone much younger and much more gullible wrote them. I would not be surprised if you actually believed that ephedrine was a mass killer and that creatine shouldn’t be used until more tests are run. I mean, they did say that on the news. I just didn’t want you to think that I was avoiding your posts for no reason. I try not to let these arguments fall into fourth grade name calling territory. Oops, Like Brittany Spears, I did it again.
P.O.X.,
Great post!!!
You ridicule me for advancing the theory that they moved the weapons.
I’m sorry, are you saying that it’s inconceivable that Hussein tried to hide his dirty laundry?
Please see satellite photos of trucks moving ENTIRE STRUCTURES prior to the war.
Please see what BB posted about a month ago. His article showed that weapons components from Hussein (marked that is) are showing up in shit heaps across the Middle East.
We know for a fact that he buried ordinance in the desert. Is it inconceivable to you that he moved/buried large stockpiles?
Do you totally discount people like CDM who (after being a pilot in Iraq) says just how easy it would be to hide the ordinance?
Oh, I know, “Hussein couldn’t have still had the weapons the U.N./Clinton knew they had in 1998” “NO, NO, NO!!!”
You’d be forced to agree with W., wouldn’t you!!!
I’d laugh out loud at you if you weren’t so sad. Like I’ve said countless times, if the lack of warehouses full of weapons bothers you, there are seventy four other reasons to invade Iraq.
Let me reiterate, we’ve found biological/chemical weapons/manuals/photos/labs/manufacturing plants already in Iraq. I’m not sure how much more proof you need.
You act as though you’d like to bend the facts to suit your theory that W. is the real problem in this world.
You are funny in a tragic, hide your head in the sand way.
Have a wonderful day!!!
JeffR
Wideguy:
That post was even low for you. I think you better stick to the “sex threads.” Worrying about how many girls you’ve had over the past year seems more your speed.
(That is without a doubt the most ignorant post I have ever read on this forum! Furthermore, I am surprised that the moderators would allow, it as it borders on threatening.)
Ah yes, brings back memories…
Time Magazines’s 1938 Man of the Year - Adolf Hitler
http://www.scrapbookpages.com/DachauMemorial/TimeCover.html
Time Magazines’s 1942 Man of the Year - Joseph Stalin
http://www.plp.org/misc/timemagstalin.html
JusttheFacts,
Excellent post!!!
They definetly screwed up on those two!!!
However, George W. joins:
1927-Charles Lindbergh
1930-Mohandas Gandhi
1990-George Bush Senior.
They are especially prescient when they pick the person twice:
1932-1934-FDR
1940-1949-Winston Churchill
1943-1947-George Marshall
1944-1959-Dwight Eisenhower
1945-1948-Harry Truman
1980-1983-Ronald Reagan
1987-1989-M. Gorbachev
and
George W. Bush: 2000-2004.
In summary, some of the one-time winners have been off. However, if they’ve been selected twice, they are RIGHT ON!!!
JeffR
It certainly can’t be argued that Saddam DID in fact have WMD’s.
BURYING UNCOMFORTABLE NEWS ON IRAQ
[i]by Michael Griffin
Media Studies
Macalester College, St. Paul, Minnesota
POSTED OCTOBER 31, 2002 --[/i]
“In early September, British newspapers, including the Sunday Herald of Glasgow, printed information from reports by the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, which oversees American exports policy, and from U.S. Department of Defense documents that confirmed U.S. and British sales of chemical and biological weapons agents to Iraq during the successive administrations of Ronald Reagan and George Bush, Sr. These U.S. Government records reveal that the U.S. sold materials, including anthrax, VX nerve gas, West Nile fever germs, and botulism (among other biological agents) right up until March of 1992, after the end of the Gulf War.”
"According to the Sunday Herald, the Senate committee report states, “The United States provided the government of Iraq with ‘dual use’ licensed materials which assisted in the development of Iraqi chemical, biological and missile-system programs.” And this assistance, according to the report, included “chemical warfare-agent precursors, chemical warfare-agent production facility plans and technical drawings, chemical warfare filling equipment, biological warfare-related materials, missile fabrication equipment and missile system guidance equipment.”
"Many of those who have seen these Senate committee reports believe that the information contained in them makes up much of the “compelling evidence” that the current Bush administration claims to have that Iraq is in possession of dangerous weapons of mass destruction. It also may explain why the Bush and Blair administrations claim to have such evidence but refuse to reveal the evidence to the American or British publics. Neither leader wants this embarrassing information to become widely known. Neither wants to admit that it was the Western powers, and especially the U.S., that armed Saddam with these weapons of mass destruction; and that is why he has them."
Of course we all know the ‘Liberal Media’ just beat this story to death ; )
[quote]
BostonBarrister wrote:
I particularly remember the phrase “bent reality to his will.”
Professor X wrote:
Just a question. Now that you know the intel used to invade Iraq was “mistaken - that word is for thunderbolt”, and now that you know, while getting rid of Saddam was a benefit, that this war will not have any real lasting effect on terrorism and that our main defense against terrorism is the enhanced security forces on this side of the ocean, do you completely disagree with that statement? If so, why? Do you remember the president commenting that he made no mistakes? Do you agree that no mistakes were made? [/quote]
Prof X:
Without re-hashing all of our Iraq threads yet again, I do disagree with that statement. I think Iraq has a lot of meaning in the Global War on Terror (GWOT), not least because it is drawing in people who would be out causing terror or acting against U.S. interests elsewhere (specifically al Queda and all the foreign terrorists who have come into Iraq). If/when Iraq stabilizes (the difference between “if” and “when” will depend on how one defines “stabilizes”), it will provide a way to affect terrorism again by providing a platform to pressure Iran and Syrian on the one hand, and Saudi Arabia on the other, to either cease and desist in sponsoring terrorism (Iran and Syria) or to police their own lands better (Saudi Arabia).
Now, of course I don’t agree that no mistakes were made – but then again, I never expected the war to be prosecuted without mistakes. I think a lot of claims were made on the campaign due to political calculations – and I think more calculations are made with international politics in mind (thus, they will not be going on TV and saying “We made all sorts of mistakes” - rather, they will try to fix the mistakes while minimizing the focus on mistakes. I believe they see the need to project a strong front to the Arab world).
quote]
Professor X wrote:
I agree that a news source should not be opinionated. That is my main gripe with FOX news because, while many other news sources will at least try to apologize for it, they are blatant with it and are largely accepted in spite of this. That speaks volumes about hypocricy. I generally get my news from several sources in order to read between the lines. What bothers me are those who completely disregard, as you claim you did, the news from one source because of a political stance. It means that you ONLY look for news that supports your point of view and care nothing for the opposite view which would more than likely give a more rounded picture of the situation. My channels are constantly shifting between MSNBC, FOX, CNN, and ESPN as far as most major world issues. What sense would it make for me to avoid one of those sources completely? [/quote]
All I said was I cancelled my subscription when I was in college because TIME announced it was going to “interpret” the news rather than report it. But it was implicit that I was still using them as a news source – I made an evaluation of how their articles went after they reversed the stated policy that had annoyed me.
My sources tend to be all over the place, but I start with a healthy dose of the Wall Street Journal and the Economist – and I probably watch more ESPN than I would care to admit. I’m not counting WWE Raw as a news source.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Wideguy:
That post was even low for you. I think you better stick to the “sex threads.” Worrying about how many girls you’ve had over the past year seems more your speed.
(That is without a doubt the most ignorant post I have ever read on this forum! Furthermore, I am surprised that the moderators would allow, it as it borders on threatening.)[/quote]
Wideguy, I didn’t agree with some of what you said, but props for generating this kind of response from the zebelina. It should take a little while to get this knot in her Maidenforms untwisted.
zebbie, maybe you better stick to the chin-up threads, that seems to be more your speed.
[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
It certainly can’t be argued that Saddam DID in fact have WMD’s.
BURYING UNCOMFORTABLE NEWS ON IRAQ
[i]by Michael Griffin
Media Studies
Macalester College, St. Paul, Minnesota
POSTED OCTOBER 31, 2002 --[/i]
“In early September, British newspapers, including the Sunday Herald of Glasgow, printed information from reports by the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, which oversees American exports policy, and from U.S. Department of Defense documents that confirmed U.S. and British sales of chemical and biological weapons agents to Iraq during the successive administrations of Ronald Reagan and George Bush, Sr. These U.S. Government records reveal that the U.S. sold materials, including anthrax, VX nerve gas, West Nile fever germs, and botulism (among other biological agents) right up until March of 1992, after the end of the Gulf War.”
"According to the Sunday Herald, the Senate committee report states, “The United States provided the government of Iraq with ‘dual use’ licensed materials which assisted in the development of Iraqi chemical, biological and missile-system programs.” And this assistance, according to the report, included “chemical warfare-agent precursors, chemical warfare-agent production facility plans and technical drawings, chemical warfare filling equipment, biological warfare-related materials, missile fabrication equipment and missile system guidance equipment.”
"Many of those who have seen these Senate committee reports believe that the information contained in them makes up much of the “compelling evidence” that the current Bush administration claims to have that Iraq is in possession of dangerous weapons of mass destruction. It also may explain why the Bush and Blair administrations claim to have such evidence but refuse to reveal the evidence to the American or British publics. Neither leader wants this embarrassing information to become widely known. Neither wants to admit that it was the Western powers, and especially the U.S., that armed Saddam with these weapons of mass destruction; and that is why he has them."
Of course we all know the ‘Liberal Media’ just beat this story to death ; )[/quote]
I mentioned this in the other thread in terms of sarin gas. They got it from us. To then turn around and claim that this is why we need to attack leaves me speechless.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Without re-hashing all of our Iraq threads yet again, I do disagree with that statement. I think Iraq has a lot of meaning in the Global War on Terror (GWOT), not least because it is drawing in people who would be out causing terror or acting against U.S. interests elsewhere.[/quote]
I think the war in Iraq is a showcase of military strategy to the entire world and nothing else. I don’t think it has deterred one person away from acts of terrorism if they already had their minds in that vane to begin with. Yes, those fighting our soldiers are being kept busy, however, exactly how foolish would one have to be to think that there weren’t dormant cells sitting right here in America waiting on an opportunity? We have increased security around the country and THAT is the only thing that will help prevent another attack. I think it would be very naive to think that we have stopped terrorism here or across the globe because of Iraq.
JusttheFacts,
Great post!!!
You are on a roll today!!!
I read the article you linked.
I don’t have the time or the inclination to look into the authenticity of the claims you presented here.
I would like to ask what is your motivation for posting this article?
Based on your previous posts, I can assume it is an attempt to lay the blame of Saddam’s actions at the foot of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.
My next question being; if your most outlandish theories are, in fact, one hundred percent correct, doesn’t that make the United States EVEN MORE RESPONSIBLE FOR DISARMING SADDAM?!?
Those of us who have supported the invasion of Iraq from the beginning often find ourselves scratching our head at the left’s circuitous logic.
If you believe everything in the article YOU POSTED, wouldn’t it follow that Saddam was in possession of WMD AND that we had an obligation to disarm him?
Imagine yourself in the shoes of GWB and Tony Blair in 2003. For the sake of argument, imagine they both believed everything you wrote in your article. Didn’t it make sense for them to invade Iraq? Didn’t they, in fact, do the responsible thing? If the answer is no, who else would have stepped up to the plate?
If the whole point of the article was to refute the obvious liberal media bias, how would CNN/CBS/New York Times posting your article in 2002 have changed anything? Do you think that most people would have said, “Oh, we can’t invade because we gave biological/chemical precursors to Iraq in the 80’s and early 90’s?”
Again, I think you are trying to say we are responsible for Saddam’s WMD AND we are therefore not responsible for removing him.
WOW!!!
Please help me understand. I am trying very hard to follow your thinking.
Oh, if this is just residual Anybody But Bush horseshit, please indicate that.
Thanks!!!
JeffR