Quote:
Journalism's Lazy Lie Protectors
Media Bias: Left-wing activists claim "at least 935 false statements" by the Bush administration on Iraq, and the charge gets reported as if it were a scientific finding. Doesn't it follow that top Democrats also lied about Iraq?
|
Asking a question like this doesn't disprove the data
Quote:
|
The so-called Center For Public Integrity is a "non-profit" funded by the profits of left-wing billionaire George Soros. It also gets foundation support from the Heinz Endowments, chaired by Teresa Heinz, wife of Democratic Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry.
|
ok but it still wouldn't make it impossible to fact check this data.
Quote:
|
You'd think that in a presidential campaign year, a "study" by an organization propped up with money from someone who contributed more to defeat George W. Bush than anyone, plus cash from the wife of the man who ran against Bush in 2004, would be treated skeptically by our oh-so-impartial and professional mainstream media.
|
Yeah, it would make me skeptical, but thats why I'd fact check the data, but instead...
Quote:
|
Not a chance. This week, when Soros' group accused the White House and Bush cabinet secretaries of making hundreds of deceitful assertions about Saddam Hussein and his nuclear ambitions, the activist organization was treated as an objective source.
|
I don't think they were treated as "objective" any more than any other source, it's up to the reader to decide how they treat it. Are you treating it objectively? The fact that this author goes on to rename it "Soros' Group" is pretty much taking pot shots at a scapegoat that doesn't refute the data.
go fact check it, not sit there and bash a figurehead. Then come back and refute the data that is inconsistent.
Quote:
|
The Associated Press, for instance, called it simply "A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations." The New York Times called the outfit "a research group that focuses on ethics in government and public policy." No mention of Soros. No mention of Kerry.
|
Well, they fund it, they don't directly run it, do they? *shrug* Again, to attack the integrity of the data simply because of the political alignment of who funds them because you're skeptical of it being true or not is one thing, but here we go, fact check it yourself if you care.
Quote:
Some might insist that a president so obsessed with overthrowing Saddam should be held accountable for his words — a commander-in-chief who insists that "there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for" in Iraq after George H.W. Bush's first Gulf War, and who worries that "We might have gotten it all; we might have gotten half of it; we might have gotten none of it."
Isn't it reasonable to suspect paranoia of a president who wanted Iraq to be told "if you don't cooperate the penalty could be regime change, not just continued sanction" because it was resisting UN weapons inspections?
But those are all Bill Clinton's words, speaking in July, 2003, defending George W. Bush's policy in Iraq at a time when the Iraq invasion was wildly popular. He was also the Democratic president who in 1998 nearly invaded Iraq himself after signing an executive order making regime change there the U.S.' official policy.
|
Yeah, Clinton went about it the right way, gave saddam ample time and way too many chances to comply, and Saddam publicly spit in the face of the terms he was given. Bush said "omg my towers fell down" and used Saddam as a scapegoat, and guess what, Osama is still running around free, and hell, it's still up to you to believe whether or not either saddam OR osama had anything to do with 9/11 That is a whole seperate discussion.
Quote:
That year, with Congress impeaching him, Clinton defended attacking Iraq, saying, "Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors with nuclear weapons, poison gas or biological weapons."
Also that year, then-House Democratic leader Dick Gephardt said of our Iraq policy, "the goal is to impair Saddam Hussein's ability to prosecute war with weapons of mass destruction and to impair Saddam Hussein's ability to wage war against his neighbors."
But the most impassioned words against Saddam may have come from Hillary Clinton, who in October 2002 said on the Senate floor, "The facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt."
Today's front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination pointed out in her floor speech that U.N. inspectors "found and destroyed far more weapons of mass destruction capability than were destroyed in the Gulf War, including thousands of chemical weapons, large volumes of chemical and biological stocks, a number of missiles and warheads, a major lab equipped to produce anthrax and other bio-weapons, as well as substantial nuclear facilities."
According to Hillary then, "if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Stating that "my decision is influenced by my eight years of experience on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue in the White House," Hillary claimed her vote authorizing war against Iraq "says clearly to Saddam Hussein, 'This is your last chance. Disarm or be disarmed.' "
|
So Hillary was president, like, ever? who cares what she has to say about it, she wasn't ever in charge of anything important. She still isn't.
yay for more irrelevant scapegoats. How about those 935 lies?
Quote:
|
So Vice President Dick Cheney, secretaries of state Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld are all called liars by Soros' research center, yet it somehow chose not to include the "lies" that came from the mouths of Democrats, including both Clintons, in the hundreds of statements in its online database.
|
because the lies linking saddam to al-queda as a reason to invade iraq due to weapons of mass destruction were ever true?
the gulf war in the 90's actually showed results of dismantled and destroyed scud launchers, what does this "shock and awe" in retaliation for 9/11 have to show? dick, just dick.
Quote:
|
No one should doubt the threat that Saddam Hussein posed to the world, nor the wisdom of ousting him.
|
he was pretty much defenseless and worthless as a threat after the gulf war imo, but thats a moot discussion, as he's dead.
Quote:
|
In an interview scheduled to be broadcast this coming Sunday on CBS' 60 Minutes, George Piro, the FBI agent who interrogated Saddam for months after his capture, says Saddam had every intention of restarting his entire WMD program.
|
hey, better watch for the liberal counter article that will show him being funded by the regime of bush, and a liar, and, god damn I hate politics.
Quote:
"Saddam still had the engineers," according to Piro. "He wanted to pursue all of WMD . . . to reconstitute his entire WMD program" including chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, Piro tells CBS.
What's next on the agenda for Soros' "public integrity" center, to be dutifully reported as fact in the major media — a study showing that FBI agents are lying about Iraq,
|
ok so not once did this article refute any of the lies, instead it tries to go "hey bush wasn't the only liar" then tried to paint the source as a puppet to a figurehead that republicans can hate simply due to the fact that it's a well known liberal.
so um, all alignments aside, where are the counter facts?