Is there some sort of daily Right Wing Memo? - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

KMA-628 · 03-22-2005, 10:43 AM

yep, you're right. I read past that part.

roachboy · 03-22-2005, 12:12 PM

kma--when that does happen, it is a tactical mistake.

that said, it would be nice to see conservatives who are willing to place their premises on the line for discussion and not resort to simply rehashing talking points sent down to them from on high.

stevo · 03-22-2005, 12:18 PM

"as you can see from this thread alone" means nothing. Shall I point to a thread where conservatives did not use one-lines and libs did? and then use that as my evidence that libs rely on one-liners to get their message out, and conservatives use extended dialogue?

One thread proves nothing. I can't wait untill I get tomorrows right-wing memo in the mail, then I'll show the lots of ya.

nofnway · 03-22-2005, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

One "side" has had remarkable success doing whatever it takes to "guide" American voters to vote against their own best interests.

That's not a talking point?....oh how many times have I heard this. It is truly irksome. The pure arrogance of it.

Manx · 03-22-2005, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

"as you can see from this thread alone" means nothing. Shall I point to a thread where conservatives did not use one-lines and libs did? and then use that as my evidence that libs rely on one-liners to get their message out, and conservatives use extended dialogue?

One thread proves nothing. I can't wait untill I get tomorrows right-wing memo in the mail, then I'll show the lots of ya.

Of course it means something.

What you essentially did was this:

A lot of liberals think conservatives are stupid, but really they just can't accept that conservatives think differently. Therefore, no matter what I say (for example, err on the side of life), it is applicable and well thought through.

But since no one claimed that any statement (for example, err on the side of life) is due to the stupidity of conservatives, what you tried to do was simply to mask on empty statement behind yet another empty statement.

Instead of describing HOW the err on the side of life statement is AT ALL applicable to the Schiavo case, you simply reiterated that it is and then tried to change the subject.

nofnway · 03-22-2005, 01:21 PM

There have always been liberal foundations funding and developing the left leaning ideology....

Ford
Rockefeller
Pew

and so on. Outspending their conservative counterparts 10 to 1 or more (Capital research center)

The current development of a broad developing, tightly woven right leaning movement is not the creation of the current administration but more a reaction to the longstanding dominance of the liberal ideology.

It seems when the right is willing to put their money where their mouth is, they are focusing on a set of core issues. Developing ideas and intellectual talent for the long haul. Creating a cohesive movement.
I notice the efforts of the left leaning machine being fractured by so many competing interests, many of them less than societally universal. Attacking individual issues piecemeal, splintering support.

It has taken more than thirty years of focused, concentrated effort to arrive at this point. I really think that the liberal establishment wrongly assumed things would always remain the same and they would hold their power without challenge....that said, once they finally overcome their denial of the situation they will finally get down to developing ideas to compete with the right wing machine. And so the pendulum swings.

stevo · 03-22-2005, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manx

Of course it means something.

What you essentially did was this:

A lot of liberals think conservatives are stupid, but really they just can't accept that conservatives think differently. Therefore, no matter what I say (for example, err on the side of life), it is applicable and well thought through.

But since no one claimed that any statement (for example, err on the side of life) is due to the stupidity of conservatives, what you tried to do was simply to mask on empty statement behind yet another empty statement.

Instead of describing HOW the err on the side of life statement is AT ALL applicable to the Schiavo case, you simply reiterated that it is and then tried to change the subject.

First, I didn't think this thread was about the shaivo case.

Second, I've probably said "err on the side of life" once, possibly twice, always at the end of a statement specifying why I feel that way. Don't act like I posted a one-liner by itself.

You read that one-line and it doesn't matter what else was said because I'm using a "generic one-line phrase." Even if those are my own words, from my own brain, and I didn't hear them first on the radio or read them in my daily breefing from mr. rove.

Manx · 03-22-2005, 01:30 PM

nofnway - What you celebrate as a means to gaining power, I deride as a means of preventing meaningful discussion.

Though you may be correct that the only way to combat intentional ignorance is with equal and opposite intentional ignorance, I certainly hope you're mistaken.

steveo - You have never described how you can hold the "err on the side of life" while I too hold that opinion, while I also support Terri Schiavo's wishes. You haven't because all you feel the need to do is repeat the mantra. It is an empty statement. You've been given opportunity to fill it, but you haven't because you can't. So instead you decided to claim it is a generic liberals fault for not accepting your empty statement.

nofnway · 03-22-2005, 02:56 PM

Insisting there is some sort of imbalance in the exchange of ideas is a strong motivating impetus for a political movement...ideas lead to movements lead to political support lead to policies lead to debate lead to ideas.

Most people I encounter on a day to day basis are operatiing on a sort of auto-pilot, asleep to any intellectual endeavor...the only way they seem to be reached is through the constant repetition of a single theme. Most topics (read almost all) are too complex to distill into 1 unifying expression so you use the tools you have. Grab the attention and attempt to convince or persuade. If the "mantra" is available and suits the moment it will surely be used.

Intentional ignorance is for some intentional bliss. 1 in a dozen or so people I talked to can tell me they read a book in the last year. I can't remember when the last time a family member, neighbor, or acquaintance detailed to me the results of some intellectual pursuit.....These are college educated people....asleep.

Pound Pound Pound just to get through....

nofnway · 03-22-2005, 02:57 PM

We can have the meaningful discussion

analog · 03-22-2005, 10:43 PM

I'm just waiting for someone on death row to pull this "err on the side of life" bullshit.

By the way, this is not turning into a fourth (fifth? sixth?) Schiavo thread. So make sure to stick to... whatever the topic is actually trying to cause a discussion about.

host · 03-23-2005, 03:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nofnway

That's not a talking point?....oh how many times have I heard this. It is truly irksome. The pure arrogance of it.

What you mistake for "pure arrogance" is my reaction to what I conclude to be
irrational behavior. I don't know about you, but I notice that the following
report, excerpted below, was publicly available for 10 weeks before last November's national election. The majority of voters in two of the sixth states
that were the most adversely recently impacted in actual dollar terms by federal tax and budget policies, Florida and Texas, apparently reacted by voting for more of the same.

Here is an excerpt from the linked quote box below:

Quote:

The 11 states in which federal policies have imposed the greatest net costs, averaging at least 10 percent of their general fund budgets over the course of the fiscal crisis, are Florida, Nevada, Missouri, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, Colorado, South Carolina, Texas, Oklahoma, and South Dakota.

* The states bearing the greatest relative cost of federal policies tend to be among the least affluent states in the country, as measured by per capita income and poverty rate. Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and South Carolina are among the ten states with the lowest average per capita incomes and highest poverty rates in the country. They also are among the states most harmed by federal policies.

Note the named states. I see only states where a majority voted for continuation, and I have to assume, validation, of Bush administration and
federal Republican Legislative intiatives and policies that cost the constituents of those states signifigant amounts of money because the recently formulated and implemented federal policies shift the tax burden from those who formerly paid more, onto them. These voters respond to this by voting for more of it. That strikes me as voting against their best financial interests. I see the house and senate representatives from these same states voting overwhelmingly to make bankruptcy more financially burdensome for the constituents of these same states, <br>all of which have higher than average per capita household chapter 7 bankruptcy filing rates.

If my reaction to people voting in large numbers for policies that sell them out
financially to special interests, while burderning them at the same time with unprecedented state and federal budget deficits, both in size and in projected duration, by describing their voting as being against their own best interests,
strikes you as "pure arrogance", how do you react to and describe the voting behavior of the majorities in the above mentioned states?

Quote:

<a href="http://www.cbpp.org/5-12-04sfp.htm">PASSING DOWN THE DEFICIT: FEDERAL POLICIES CONTRIBUTE TO THE SEVERITY OF THE STATE FISCAL CRISIS</a> The source is the non-partisan <b>Center on Budget and Policy Priorities</b>
........... Federal policies, which have reduced state revenues and imposed additional costs on states, have played a significant role in enlarging these deficits and are impeding states’ fiscal recovery. These federal policies have contributed significantly to the need for states and localities to make expenditure cuts and enact tax increases to bring their budgets into balance.

* Federal policies have cost states and localities more than $175 billion over the four-year course of the state fiscal crisis, from state fiscal year 2002 through fiscal year 2005.

* These costs have averaged 8.4 percent of total state general fund budgets during that time, a large amount.

* The federal government provided $20 billion in federal fiscal relief to the states in 2003. This $20 billion helped states avoid some budget cuts and tax increases, but it pales in comparison to the magnitude of the state fiscal crisis and to the more than $175 billion in state costs and forgone revenues over the 2002-2005 period that are attributable to federal policies. (See Figure 1.)

In seven states, the net cost of these federal policies — the total cost less the offsetting fiscal relief — exceeds $5 billion over the course of the fiscal crisis. The states with the largest net losses from federal policies are California ($23 billion), New York ($13 billion), Texas ($12 billion), Florida ($11 billion), Illinois ($6 billion), Michigan ($6 billion), and Pennsylvania ($5 billion).

The net loss relative to the size of state budgets varies substantially by state, from a low of 1.4 percent of the general fund budget in Alaska to a high of 13.3 percent in Florida. The 11 states in which federal policies have imposed the greatest net costs, averaging at least 10 percent of their general fund budgets over the course of the fiscal crisis, are Florida, Nevada, Missouri, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, Colorado, South Carolina, Texas, Oklahoma, and South Dakota.

* The states bearing the greatest relative cost of federal policies tend to be among the least affluent states in the country, as measured by per capita income and poverty rate. Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and South Carolina are among the ten states with the lowest average per capita incomes and highest poverty rates in the country. They also are among the states most harmed by federal policies.

* Eight of the 10 poorest states — Arkansas, Mississippi, West Virginia, Louisiana, Alabama, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Arizona — are among the 20 states with the most severe losses resulting from federal policies.

* States that have a relatively heavy reliance on federal funding for their budgets also are among those that have been hardest hit. Of the 11 states with the greatest losses as a share of their budgets, six — Missouri, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, South Carolina, and South Dakota — are among the 20 states that derive the highest proportion of their revenues from federal funds.

* States that are most reliant on raising revenues through a sales tax are another group that is bearing a high cost of federal policies. Among the 11 states with the greatest loss from federal policies relative to their budgets, Florida, Nevada, Mississippi, Texas, and South Dakota are also among the 10 states with the greatest reliance on sales taxes for revenues. As described below, federal policies that bar states from levying or effectively collecting sales taxes on certain items or transactions are among the most costly of the federal provisions affecting states.

* Finally, five of the 11 states with the greatest relative loss from federal policies have lost a significant amount of revenue as a result of the federal tax changes of the past three years. Florida, Missouri, Louisiana, Colorado, and Oklahoma all fall into this category due to their failure to decouple their tax codes from these federal changes.

At least five areas of federal policies have contributed to these monetary losses and to the fiscal distress of the states: federal tax policy, federal preemption of state and local taxing authority, the failure of Congress to address Supreme Court rulings that prevent states and localities from collecting taxes owed to them, mandates that require states to spend funds for particular purposes, and federal Medicare and Medicaid policies that have become expensive for states....................

Locobot · 03-29-2005, 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KMA-628

From the top-dog of the liberals, Howard Dean:
One major reason his party lost the 2004 race to the "brain-dead" Republicans is......

Way to take an out of context quote out of context KMA... I clicked your link-a word of advice-in the future don't make it so easy for us to call you on your bullshit. Dean used the word "brain-dead" without the complete quote we don't know what that was actually in reference to.

KMA-628 · 03-29-2005, 10:09 PM

That is a direct quote from the article, I didn't write that, I merely copied it.

The article clearly states that Dean was calling Republicans "brain-dead"--his words, not mine.

If you have an issue with the person who wrote the article, speak with them. I quoted part of a sentence, that is all....the part of the sentence pertinent to my point.

The little dots at the end are usually understood to mean there is more to the sentence.

Sorry, no bullshit here. Especially when I use exact quotes from the article and then provide a link to the article.

Locobot · 03-29-2005, 10:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KMA-628

That is a direct quote from the article, I didn't write that, I merely copied it.

The article clearly states that Dean was calling Republicans "brain-dead"--his words, not mine.

No, that's not what the article clearly says. "Brain-dead" was his word "republican" was the author's addition, otherwise it would have read "brain-dead republicans" see the difference? Sorry I accused you of bullshitting when this was apparently just ignorance on your part.

Quote:

If you have an issue with the person who wrote the article, speak with them. I quoted part of a sentence, that is all....the part of the sentence pertinent to my point.

hence my "out of context" accusation. In fact this is an article about Dean's admiration of the Republican's system of diseminating information, exactly the topic of this thread. It doesn't make sense for Dean to describe Republicans as brain-dead in a speech about how he plans to co-opt their strategies.

Quote:

The little dots at the end are usually understood to mean there is more to the sentence.

Sorry, no bullshit here. Especially when I use exact quotes from the article and then provide a link to the article.

Yeah I thought that was a little brash

Take the time to read what you cut and paste and watch those quotation marks!

host · 11-20-2007, 12:19 AM

I posted this "stuff" on the <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?p=2340102">"Who's Next"</a> thread here, about two weeks ago:

Quote:

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...88#post2341388
...Now...we're not talking about the AP being unable to get their guy released, we're talking about them, despite their connections and ability to generate a huge amount of worldwide publiciity in protest, as in the example above, on one of their web pages, but about being unable to even pressure the US military to explain what the man has done to deserve indefinite detention, let alone the next customary step, a reading of the charges against him, and a hearing before a military or a civilian court....

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...in#post2340102

Quote:

http://www.ap.org/bilalhussein/

THE DETENTION OF AP PHOTOGRAPHER BILAL HUSSEIN

....AP executives said an internal review of his work did not find anything to indicate inappropriate contact with insurgents, <h3>and any evidence against him should be brought to the Iraqi criminal justice system....</h3>

On monday, Nov. 19, AP released this:

Quote:

http://www.ap.org/pages/about/whatsnew/wn_111907a.html
11/19/2007

U.S. military to seek criminal case against AP photographer detained in Iraq

By BRIAN MURPHY
Associated Press Writer

NEW YORK (AP) -- The U.S. military plans to seek a criminal case in an Iraqi court against an award-winning Associated Press photographer but is refusing to disclose what evidence or accusations would be presented.

An AP attorney on Monday strongly protested the decision, calling the U.S. military plans a "sham of due process." The journalist, Bilal Hussein, has already been imprisoned without charges for more than 19 months.

In Washington, Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell explained the decision to bring charges now by saying "new evidence has come to light" about Hussein, but said the information would remain in government hands until the formal complaint is filed with Iraqi authorities.

Morrell asserted the military has "convincing and irrefutable evidence that Bilal Hussein is a threat to stability and security in Iraq as a link to insurgent activity" and called Hussein "a terrorist operative who infiltrated the AP."

AP Associate General Counsel Dave Tomlin rejected the claim: "That's what the military has been saying for 19 months, <h3>but whenever we ask to see what's so convincing we get back something that isn't convincing at all."</h3>

The case has drawn attention from press groups as another example of the complications for Iraqis chronicling the war in their homeland — including death squads that target local journalists working for Western media and apparent scrutiny from U.S. intelligence agents.

A public affairs officer notified the AP on Sunday that the military intends to submit a written complaint against Hussein that would bring the case into the Iraqi justice system as early as Nov. 29. Under Iraqi codes, an investigative magistrate will decide whether there are grounds to try Hussein, 36, who was seized in the western Iraqi city of Ramadi on April 12, 2006.

Tomlin said the defense for Hussein is being forced to work "totally in the dark."

The military has not yet defined the specific charges against Hussein. Previously, the military has pointed to a range of suspicions that attempt to link him to insurgent activity.

The AP also contends it has been blocked by the military from mounting a comprehensive defense for Hussein, who was part of the AP's Pulitzer Prize-winning photo team in 2005.

Soon after Hussein was taken into custody, the AP appealed to the U.S. military either to release him or bring the case to trial — saying there was no evidence to support his detention. <h3>However, Tomlin said that the military is now attempting to build a case based on "stale" evidence and discredited testimony. He also noted that the U.S. military investigators who initially handled the case have left the country.</h3>

The AP says various accusations were floated unofficially against Hussein and then apparently withdrawn with little explanation.

Tomlin said the AP has faced chronic difficulties in meeting Hussein at the Camp Cropper detention facility in Baghdad and that its own intensive investigations of the case — conducted by a former federal prosecutor, Paul Gardephe — have found no support for allegations he was anything other than a working journalist in a war zone.

"While we are hopeful that there could be some resolution to Bilal Hussein's long detention, we have grave concerns that his rights under the law continue to be ignored and even abused," said AP President and CEO Tom Curley.

"The steps the U.S. military is now taking continue to deny Bilal his right to due process and, in turn, may deny him a chance at a fair trial. The treatment of Bilal represents a miscarriage of the very justice and rule of law that the United States is claiming to help Iraq achieve. At this point, we believe the correct recourse is the immediate release of Bilal," Curley added.

Hussein, a native of Fallujah and a member of a prominent clan in the western province of Anbar, began work for the AP in the summer of 2004 as the anti-U.S. insurgency was gaining ground.

On the morning of April 12, 2006, Hussein was out buying bread for breakfast when he heard a blast on a nearby street in Ramadi, according to the AP investigation. He dashed home and allowed several strangers to follow — as was customary to offer shelter during unrest in the city. Marines later arrived and used Bilal's apartment as a temporary observation post.

<h3>Hussein told the AP he was later taken into custody by the Marines who also confiscated equipment including a laptop and satellite phone. The guests he invited into his apartment amid the chaos were also detained.

On Monday, Morrell said two guests in the apartment that day were "suspected insurgents" and that one of them later was convicted in a court of having a phony ID. It was unclear whether he remained in custody or was released.</h3>

Calls for Hussein's freedom have been backed by groups such as the Committee to Protect Journalists.

Tomlin said it remains unclear what accusations, evidence and possible witnesses will be presented by military prosecutors in Baghdad.

"They are telling us nothing. ... We are operating totally in the dark," said Tomlin, who added that the military's unfair handling of the case is "playing with a man's future and maybe his life."

Although it's unclear what specific allegations may be presented against Hussein, convictions linked to aiding militants in Iraq could bring the death penalty, said Tomlin.

<h3>U.S. military officials in Iraq did not immediately respond to AP questions about what precise accusations are planned against Hussein.</h3>

Previously, the military has outlined a host of possible lines of investigation, <h3>including claims that Hussein offered to provide false identification to a sniper seeking to evade U.S.-led forces and that Hussein took photographs that were synchronized with insurgent blasts.

The AP inquiry found no support for either of those claims. The bulk of the photographs Hussein provided the AP were not about insurgent activity; he detailed both the aftermath of attacks and the daily lives of Iraqis in the war zone. There was no evidence that any images were coordinated with the insurgents or showed the instant of an attack.</h3>

Tomlin also questioned the U.S. military claims that Hussein's fate rests solely with Iraqi justice. Noting that Hussein has been in the sole custody and control of the U.S. military, he said it's up to military prosecutors to lay out the allegations and "it's impossible that they don't have a specific set of charges drawn up."

Gardephe, now a New York-based attorney, said the AP has offered evidence to counter the allegations so far raised by the military. But, he noted, it's possible the military could introduce new charges at the hearing that could include classified material.

"This makes it impossible to put together a defense," said Gardephe, who is leading the defense team and plans to arrive in Baghdad next week. "At the moment, it looks like we can do little more than show up ... and try to put together a defense during the proceedings."

One option, he said, is to contend that the Pentagon's handling of Hussein violated Iraqi legal tenets brought in by Washington after the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003. Among the possible challenges: AP claims that Hussein was interrogated at Camp Cropper this year without legal counsel.

Hussein is one of the highest-profile Iraqi journalists in U.S. custody.

In April 2006 — just days before Hussein was detained — an Iraqi cameraman working for CBS News was acquitted of insurgent activity. Abdul Ameer Younis Hussein was held for about a year after being detained while filming the aftermath of a bombing in the northern city of Mosul.

Tomlin, however, said that freedom for Bilal Hussein, who is not related to the cameraman working for CBS, isn't guaranteed even if the judge rejects the eventual U.S. charges. The military can indefinitely hold suspects considered security risks in Iraq.

"Even if he comes out the other side with an acquittal — as we certainly hope and trust that he will — there is no guarantee that he won't go right back into detention as a security risk."

<h3>Now, can someone who is familiar with these "bloggers", please explain their uniform reaction?</h3>

Quote:

http://michellemalkin.com/2007/11/19...-ap-complains/
...Faced with the prospect that the full breadth of Hussein’s suspicious activities might actually come to public light, the AP’s Tom Curley changes his tune:......

.....Bilal Hussein’s day in court should be illuminating, to say the least. No wonder the AP now objects.

...and:

Quote:

http://www.newsbusters.org/taxonomy/term/244
Associated Press
US Plans Case Against AP Photographer Bilal Hussein
By John Stephenson | November 19, 2007 - 20:22 ET

AP photographer Bilal Hussein made a reputation staging anti-war propaganda photos. In April of 2006 American forces detained him with a cache of weapons. The AP waged an all out campaign against our military’s actions. <h3>They demanded that we either charge or release this tool of theirs.</h3> Now the military has decided to charge him, and the AP are still whining.

...and:

Quote:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive.../11/019065.php
November 19, 2007
<h3>The AP Reports on Itself</h3>

We wrote here and elsewhere about Bilal Hussein, an Iraqi stringer who has taken many photographs for the Associated Press, some of which are in evident collaboration with Iraqi terrorists. Hussein has been held for 19 months in Iraq after being captured in the company of two terrorists. Now, the AP reports that new evidence has emerged against Hussein, on the basis of which a criminal case is likely to be pursued against him:

The U.S. military plans to seek a criminal case in an Iraqi court against an award-winning Associated Press photographer but is refusing to disclose what evidence or accusations would be presented. *** In Washington, Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell explained the decision to bring charges now by saying "new evidence has come to light" about Hussein, but said the information would remain in government hands until the formal complaint is filed with Iraqi authorities.

Morrell asserted the military has "convincing and irrefutable evidence that Bilal Hussein is a threat to stability and security in Iraq as a link to insurgent activity" and called Hussein "a terrorist operative who infiltrated the AP."

I'm not sure how much the AP minds being infiltrated by terrorists; after all, Bilal Hussein helped the agency win a Pulitzer Prize. Be that as it may, the remainder of the AP's account is devoted almost entirely to a spirited defense of Hussein.

But the AP's defense of Hussein is disingenuous, as it has been all along. Thus, this carefully worded paragraph:

The AP inquiry found no support for either of those claims. The bulk of the photographs Hussein provided the AP were not about insurgent activity; he detailed both the aftermath of attacks and the daily lives of Iraqis in the war zone. There was no evidence that any images were coordinated with the insurgents or showed the instant of an attack.

The fact (if it is a fact) that the "bulk" of Hussein's photos were "not about insurgent activity" is of course irrelevant. The question is, how did he get the ones that were, on their face, propaganda for the "insurgents." The AP's suggestion that there is "no evidence that any images were coordinated with the insurgents" is simply ludicrous, as we have noted before. This photo, to take just one example, was certainly "coordinated with the insurgents." Anyone who was not on friendly terms with the terrorists would have fled the scene, or, more to the point, would not have been invited to the scene by the terrorists:....

...and:

Quote:

http://hotair.com/archives/2007/11/1...ustice-system/
....Whether he’s guilty or not (and the evidence suggests that he’s as guilty as a Kennedy in a sorority house), his alleged crimes were against the Iraqi people and committed inside Iraq. But the Associated (with terrorists) Press isn’t happy....

....Isn’t announcing the means and venue of trial at least a step in the direction of vindication if you believe, as the AP does, that he’s innocent? Would they have him just tossed out without the chance to at least clear his name?

Evidently not. And because they’re a global press organization, they’ll get the chance to try Hussein on their own wires and they will have the power to demonize the US military, the Iraqi prosecutors and anyone else who disagrees with them. Out of maintaining the thinnest veneer of objectivity, the AP ought to recuse itself from reporting on the Hussein case at all.

But they didn’t earn the Associated (with terrorists) Press nickname for being shrinking violets, did they?

...and:

Quote:

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/190174.php
Bilal Hussein, a stringer for the Associated Press suspected of having ties to al Qaeda in Iraq, will be charged by the Iraqi government at the request of the U.S. military. Bilal Hussein was caught in an apartment with known members of al Qaeda-- with bomb making material.

Hussein, a native of once al Qaeda in Iraq "capital" Fallujah, alleged the U.S. committed war crimes when it retook the city. Absent from Hussein's reports were photos of al Qaeda torture and murder chambers as they killed any one in the city suspected of being 'too Western'.

True to form, the Associated Press is outraged.

This hot off the AP newswires:

The U.S. military plans to seek a criminal case in an Iraqi court against an award-winning Associated Press photographer but is refusing to disclose what evidence or accusations would be presented.

An AP attorney on Monday strongly protested the decision, calling the U.S. military plans a "sham of due process." The journalist, Bilal Hussein, has already been imprisoned without charges for more than 19 months.

A public affairs officer notified the AP on Sunday that the military intends to submit a written complaint against Hussein that would bring the case into the Iraqi justice system as early as Nov. 29. Under Iraqi codes, an investigative magistrate will decide whether there are grounds to try Hussein, 36, who was seized in the western Iraqi city of Ramadi on April 12, 2006.

What is the line between spreading enemy propaganda, having contacts with the enemy, and actually being one of the enemy? In war, no such line exists. This is why, as I have argued extensively in the past, Nazi propagandists such as Joseph Goebbels were as guilty of war crimes as any of the other leaders of the Third Reich.

So is Bilal Hussein.

Quote:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/webl...try=27981&only
AP Photographer to Be Charged in Iraq

Mon, Nov 19, 2007 at 2:58:37 pm PST

The military has announced plans to bring charges against Associated Press photographer Bilal Hussein (search): US plans case against AP photographer.

This AP release on the announcement doesn’t try to hide their outrage that anyone would suggest one of their photographers was in league with ... uh ... activists.

Quote:

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/u...g-collaborator
....The news from Iraq just keeps getting better and better.

We had occasion to mention the work of Mr. Hussein several times in the past.....

....Previously, the military has pointed to a range of suspicions that attempt to link him to insurgent activity

How could anyone think such a thing?

There was no evidence that any images were coordinated with the insurgents or showed the instant of an attack.

Of course not. What a preposterous charge.

Still, it is great to see that this miscreant’s deeds may not go unrewarded.

Quote:

http://patdollard.com/2007/11/19/us-...n-iraqi-court/
One of Bilal Hussein’s pictures. Yep, I’d say he was “in” with them guys. How else could he get such great shots?

...Again, how can you get so many great shots of these pukes and not be one of them? I ask you..

Quote:

http://stoptheaclu.com/archives/2007...bilal-hussein/

US Plans Case Against AP Photographer Bilal Hussein
by Jay @ 8:06 pm. Filed under 1st Amendment, War On Terror, News, Politics As Usual, Liberal Media/Bias

AP photographer Bilal Hussein made a reputation staging anti-war propaganda photos. In April of 2006 American forces detained him with a cache of weapons. The AP waged an all out campaign against our military’s actions. They demanded that we either charge or release this tool of theirs. Now the military has decided to charge him, and the AP are still whining.

Quote:

http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/11/...raq/index.html
Posted by Curt on November 19, 2007 at 4:45 PM

The AP just doesn't know when to quit. First they're upset that one of their Iraqi employees, Bilal Hussein, gets arrested with damning evidence showing that he collaborated with the enemy and they demand he be charged or released:

...Now that the military has decided to bring charges against the scumbag, giving him his day in court, they are still not happy:....

.......Hold on a minute. First the lawyer for the AP, Dave Tomlin, states that the military won't disclose the evidence against Bilal (which, seeing as how he is not charged yet, is not surprising) and whines that his defense is operating in the dark. Then in the next breath he states the military is building a case against Bilal with "stale" evidence and testimony.

Which is it? Either you know what the evidence is or you don't.....

Did I miss including anybody's favorite parrot?

<h3>Above is a sampling of the immediate, uniform reaction by the distinguished internet pundits who unwaveringly support bushwar. They twist what the AP has repeatedly reported...AP 2005 Pulitzer prize winning news photographer Bilal Hussein was taken into custody and held by US military in Iraq 19 months ago, and still has not been charged with any specific crimes or been afforded a hearing in front of an impartial, or any...magistrate, accompanied by competent legal counsel to hear and respond to a description (or any official disclosure of) specific evidence against him that would justify his continued detention or criminal charges that he can defend himself against.</h3>

So, what do you make of this reaction from the above assembly of bloggers? IMO, they have lost orientation of what the US military is attempting to "uphold", by it's own example, in Iraq, to Iraqis. Why is there no concern by these bloggers about what AP is so concerned about? 19 months of detention without charges, without official, specific presentation of evidence to justify detention or charges against Bilal Hussein.

Just a lockstep rubber stamping of bushwar and the disconnect of it's actions vs. it's stated goals of "spreading democracy". and the "rule of law". Doesn't AP make a valid point about now "stale evidence",if there is any, and the problem of the original investigating and arresting US military personnel, no longer even being in Iraq, and the problem of no disclosure of evidence to the accused (accused of what?) and his legal counsel?

The shrill noise seems strangely disconnected from the facts. Malkin, et al, certainly know less than AP, about any of this. I also wonder, since these "folks" have made it clear that they dismiss AP, and not just in this instance, where the fuck do they get their news reporting? Do they have a news feed, unknown to the rest of us, to compliment their odd, disturbing, lockstep pronouncements about the AP's Hussein? Is the POV of the white house, DOD, and DOJ as isolated as these bloggers have made themselves?

loquitur · 11-20-2007, 07:14 AM

What I want to know is why he was held for 19 months without charges - unless there was military necessity for it, meaning there was reasonable basis to think it would be dangerous to release him. I haven't seen any, and I don't like the idea of holding non-POWs without charges. But really, Host, you don't find it unremarkable that the people you quote -- who are deeply invested (emotionally, intellectually, etc) in the Iraq enterprise, and have been loudly screaming that the press is undermining it -- would have similar reactions?

I would suspect that if you went rounding up some left-side reactions after, say, the 2006 elections, they would read very similarly, too. Think of the numbers of people and outlets involved (on both sides) and you'll conclude that it's unavoidable.

This whole thing is much ado about nothing.

host · 11-20-2007, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

.....I would suspect that if you went rounding up some left-side reactions after, say, the 2006 elections, they would read very similarly, too. Think of the numbers of people and outlets involved (on both sides) and you'll conclude that it's unavoidable.

This whole thing is much ado about nothing.

You're dismissing three important points:

1.)Malkin and the others are representing themselves as journalists. They have positioned themselves, and not just in relation to this news story, it appears to be vs. much of reality based news reporting....on some "side" that is opposite "fact based" news.

Quote:

http://michellemalkin.com/2006/04/12...bilal-hussein/
WHERE IS BILAL HUSSEIN?
By Michelle Malkin • <h3>April 12, 2006 10:16 PM </h3>

Where is Bilal Hussein–and who is he working for?

.....<h3>This afternoon, in response to a tip from an anonymous military source in Iraq,</h3> I contacted both the AP reporter embedded with the Marines in Ramadi, Todd Pitman, as well as AP’s media relations office headquartered in New York concerning Hussein’s whereabouts. No word from Pitman. But at 6:20pm EDT, I received the following e-mail response from AP:....

2.)The government that the executive branch can "get at", appears to be doing the same thing....an example:

Quote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/12/wa...gewanted=print
April 12, 2007
In 5-Year Effort, Scant Evidence of Voter Fraud
By ERIC LIPTON and IAN URBINA

Correction Appended

WASHINGTON, April 11 — Five years after the Bush administration began a crackdown on voter fraud, the Justice Department has turned up virtually no evidence of any organized effort to skew federal elections, according to court records and interviews.

Although Republican activists have repeatedly said fraud is so widespread that it has corrupted the political process and, possibly, cost the party election victories, about 120 people have been charged and 86 convicted as of last year.

Most of those charged have been Democrats, voting records show. Many of those charged by the Justice Department appear to have mistakenly filled out registration forms or misunderstood eligibility rules, a review of court records and interviews with prosecutors and defense lawyers show.

In Miami, an assistant United States attorney said many cases there involved what were apparently mistakes by immigrants, not fraud.

In Wisconsin, where prosecutors have lost almost twice as many cases as they won, charges were brought against voters who filled out more than one registration form and felons seemingly unaware that they were barred from voting.

One ex-convict was so unfamiliar with the rules that he provided his prison-issued identification card, stamped “Offender,” when he registered just before voting.

A handful of convictions involved people who voted twice. More than 30 were linked to small vote-buying schemes in which candidates generally in sheriff’s or judge’s races paid voters for their support.

A federal panel, the Election Assistance Commission, reported last year that the pervasiveness of fraud was debatable. That conclusion played down findings of the consultants who said there was little evidence of it across the country, according to a review of the original report by The New York Times that was reported on Wednesday. .....

Quote:

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/17532.html
Was campaigning against voter fraud a Republican ploy?
By Greg Gordon | McClatchy Newspapers

* Posted on Sunday, July 1, 2007

....In a controversial move, the interim U.S. attorney in Kansas City announced indictments against four ACORN workers five days before the 2006 election, despite the fact that Justice Department policy discourages such action close to an election. Acorn officials had notified the federal officials when they noticed the doctored forms.

"Their job was to confuse the public about voter fraud and offer bogus solutions to the problem," said Michael Slater
, the deputy director of Project Vote, "And like the Tobacco Institute, they relied on deception and faulty research to advance the interests of their clients."

<h3>Mark "Thor" Hearne, a St. Louis lawyer and former national counsel for President Bush's 2004 reelection campaign, is widely considered the driving force behind the organizations.</h3> Vogel described him as "clearly the one in charge."

Hearne, who also was a vice president and director of election operations for the Republican Lawyers Association
, said he couldn't discuss the organizations because they're former clients.

But in an e-mail exchange, he defended the need for photo IDs. "Requiring a government-issued photo ID in order to vote as a safeguard against vote fraud and as a measure to increase public confidence in the fairness and honesty of our elections is not some Republican voter suppression effort," Hearne said.

Hearne called photo IDs "an important voice in election reform."

Hearne and Rogers appeared at separate hearings before the House Administration Committee last year in Ohio and New Mexico. They cited reports of thousands of dead people on voter registration rolls, fraudulent registrations and other election fraud schemes.

As proof, Hearne, offered a 28-page "investigative report" on Ohio events in the 2004 election, and then publicly sent a copy to the Justice Department, citing "substantial evidence to suggest potential criminal wrongdoing."

So far, no charges have been filed.

Earlier, in August 2005, the Legislative Fund issued a string of press releases naming five cities as the nation's top "hot spots" for voter fraud. Philadelphia was tagged as No. 1, followed by Milwaukee, Seattle, St. Louis and Cleveland.

With a push from the center's lobbyists, legislatures in Missouri and Pennsylvania passed photo ID laws last year. Missouri's law was thrown out by the state Supreme Court, and Democratic Gov. Edward Rendell vetoed the Pennsylvania bill.

In an interview with the federal Election Assistance Commission last year, two Pennsylvania officials said they knew of no instances of voter identity fraud or voter registration fraud in the state.

Amid the controversy, the American Center for Voting Rights shuttered its Internet site on St. Patrick's Day, and the two nonprofits appear to have vanished.

But their influence could linger.

<h3>One of the directors of the American Center,
Cameron Quinn,</h3> who lists her membership in the Republican National Lawyers Association on her resume
, was appointed last year as the voting counsel for the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division.

<h3>The division is charged with policing elections and guarding against discrimination against minorities.</h3>

Quote:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...d-report_x.htm
Report refutes fraud at poll sites
Updated 10/11/2006 12:32 PM ET
By Richard Wolf, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — At a time when many states are instituting new requirements for voter registration and identification, a preliminary report to the U.S. Election Assistance Commission has found little evidence of the type of polling-place fraud those measures seek to stop.

USA TODAY obtained the report from the commission four months after it was delivered by two consultants hired to write it. The commission has not distributed it publicly.

NEW LAWS: Thousands of voters shut out | Read the preliminary report

At least 11 states have approved new rules for independent voter-registration drives or requirements that voters produce specific forms of photo ID at polling places. Several of those laws have been blocked in court, most recently in Arizona last week. The House of Representatives last month approved a photo-ID law, now pending in the Senate.

The bipartisan report by two consultants to the election commission casts doubt on the problem those laws are intended to address. "There is widespread but not unanimous agreement that there is little polling-place fraud, or at least much less than is claimed, including voter impersonation, 'dead' voters, non-citizen voting and felon voters," the report says.

The report, prepared by Tova Wang, an elections expert at the Century Foundation think tank, and Job Serebrov, an Arkansas attorney, says most fraud occurs in the absentee ballot process, such as through coercion or forgery. Wang declined to comment on the report, and Serebrov could not be reached for comment.

Others who reviewed the report for the election commission differ on its findings. Jon Greenbaum of the liberal Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law says it was convincing. The committee wrote to the commission Friday seeking its release.

Conservatives dispute the research and conclusions. <h3>Thor Hearne, counsel to the American Center for Voting Rights,</h3> notes that the Justice Department has sued Missouri for having ineligible voters registered, while dead people have turned up on the registration rolls in Michigan. "It is just wrong to say that this isn't a problem," he says.

That's one reason the commission decided not to officially release the report. "There was a division of opinion here," Chairman Paul DeGregorio says. "We've seen places where fraud does occur."

The consultants found little evidence of that. Barry Weinberg, former deputy chief of the voting section in the Justice Department's civil rights division, reviewed their work. "Fraud at the polling place is generally difficult to pull off," he says. "It takes a lot of planning and a lot of coordination."

3.)It seems likely that Bilal Hussein was captured and detained for so long, in the manner that he was...with no charges and no evidence provided, <h3>BECAUSE of a campaign by these "bloggers". I am pointing out that they are serving a function of not only commenting on the actions of authority, but heavily influencing and sometimes directing the priorities and actions</h3> of authority:

Quote:

http://michellemalkin.com/2006/04/12...bilal-hussein/
WHERE IS BILAL HUSSEIN?
By Michelle Malkin • April 12, 2006 10:16 PM

Where is Bilal Hussein–and who is he working for?

A year ago, I blogged about a controversial, Pulitzer Prize-winning photo taken by an unidentified Associated Press stringer in Iraq. More background from the blogosphere here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. Do take the time to re-read them all. <h3>The context is important.</h3>

One member of the Pulitzer-winning AP team was AP stringer Bilal Hussein. Hussein’s photos have raised serious, persistent questions about his relationship with terrorists in Iraq and whether his photos were/are staged in collusion with the enemy. I’ve learned of an intriguing news development that strengthens those lingering suspicions.

This afternoon,<h3> in response to a tip from an anonymous military source in Iraq,</h3> I contacted both the AP reporter embedded with the Marines in Ramadi, Todd Pitman, as well as AP’s media relations office headquartered in New York concerning Hussein’s whereabouts. No word from Pitman. But at 6:20pm EDT, I received the following e-mail response from AP:....

[/quote]

Quote:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/index.html
Tuesday November 20, 2007 10:21 EST
Interviews with AP executives on the Bilal Hussein travesty

<h3>This morning I interviewed AP's Executive Editor, Kathleen Carroll, and AP's CEO Tom Curley</h3> regarding this case. Neither of them still have any idea what the charges are against Hussein, nor what the supposed new and "irrefutable" evidence is of his guilt. Worse, because 19 months have elapsed since he was detained, it is virtually impossible to conduct a meaningful investigation or to mount a defense. As Curley explained:

....<i>Second, <h3>nobody from the U.S. military interrogated him from May 2006 until a couple of weeks ago. So he went about 18 months without having any value to the U.S. military.</h3> Under no circumstances can we imagine that there are new charges that have been made against him. They have not worked on the case. The people who initially detained him, the people who have initially interrogated him, are long since gone. This makes no sense at all. This is truly an abuse of the justice system.</i>

It is so vital to realize the direct connection between Hussein's war journalism and the lawless detention of him by the U.S. military for almost two years

<h3>But Hussein's photographs directly contradicted the claims being made at the time by the U.S. military regarding Anbar. As Curley said:</h3>

<i>Bilal Hussein was operating in Anbar Province. Anbar was a black hole in the coverage of Iraq. For most of the war, there have been virtually no journalists there or very few journalists, so getting any information from Anbar was difficult.

These pictures came at a time when the U.S. was trying to say that things were OK, and we know now that they were deteriorating.</i>

<h3>The photographs taken by Hussein, and published by AP, demonstrated that things were anything but calm in Anbar.</h3>

One aspect that has always been so striking and disturbing about this case is that long before Hussein was detained by the U.S. military, he was the target of constant accusations from right-wing bloggers such as Michelle Malkin and Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs that he was in cahoots with the insurgents. To make these accusations, some would literally outright lie, such as by claiming that a photograph Hussein took of insurgents holding up a corpse of a dead hostage was, in fact, a photograph of the hostage right before he was killed (thus "proving" that Hussein was working with the insurgents).

To this day, completely reckless bloggers like Powerline's John Hinderaker insinuate that Hussein took photographs of the hostage immediately before his death, even though -- as Carroll said -- videotape proves that the photograph taken was of the corpse of the hostage after he was already dead. As was common for Iraq, Hussein and other journalists were forced by the insurgents at gunpoint to take the photograph of the corpse.

Indeed, of the more than 900 photographs Hussein took for AP, a grand total of 4 even include in-progress insurgent action. Although right-wing bloggers far from the war would have no idea about this, it was hardly uncommon in war-torn Anbar to see insurgents in action. Taking photographs of ongoing insurgent action in Iraq -- which is, in any event, newsworthy -- is hardly proof that someone is working in cahoots with them. ...
...Even worse, when Bilal Hussein was first detained, nobody had any idea what happened to him. As Michelle Malkin boasted yesterday, she was the one who "broke" the story of his detention, by which she means that someone in the U.S. military told her -- before anything was said to A.P. or anyone else -- the news that he had been detained. As AP's Curley said:

<i> Someone leaked information to her at about the time [Hussein's] brother arrived at our A.P. bureau and told us he was detained. So somebody did give her information, and it does further politicize anything that can be said against him.</i>

Carroll described the grave danger Iraqis such as Hussein face who work for news organizations in Iraq. Six separate Iraqi journalists working for AP have been murdered during the war, more than any other war in AP's 160 year history. It has been confirmed that at least 3 were murdered specifically because they worked with AP. Carroll expressed particular anger towards right-wing bloggers and others who have baselessly attacked the integrity of AP's Iraqi journalists while, as she put it, the accusing bloggers are "safely ensconced far away from the action."

<h3>But more important still is how threatening and chilling this behavior is.</h3> Carroll explained that ever since Hussein was detained, AP -- for obvious reasons -- has had great difficulty finding Iraqis in Anbar to work with them, due to fears that they will be arrested the way Hussein was. She indicated that other news organizations are having the same difficulty. When the U.S. military sufficiently intimidates journalists from reporting on wars, <h2>then one must increasingly rely for news upon the government and the military, or upon journalists who are reporting in a way that is pleasing to those authorities. </h2>

I know from experience loquitur, that you haven't seen anything, in a long series of the present regime's assaults on our rights, our laws, our treasury, and, our sensibilities, to take much exception to, especially from our exchanges during the Scooter Libby trial.

I don't like the POTUS, DOJ, and the military acting batshit crazy partisan, dismissing mainstream news sources, even as they manipulate information and events with the help of zealot bloggers posing as journalists. When did the executive branch transition itself from being the center of "the establishment", to some "fringe group" so closely aligned with an "alternative" press? Given that the white house and US military control the largerst nuclear arsenal in the world, it greatly concerns me that they identify, pre-occupy themselves with, and lash out at threats that either do not exist at all or are blown up, by the white house, DOJ, and DOD, along with their "bloggers", ridiculously out of proportion, even as they intimidate the press and defame it so that we will somehow take "our news" from the white house, DOJ, and DOD, and "their bloggers", as their "faithful",obviously are doing.

AP is a consortium of 5000 news gathering entities. There are intrepid unbiased reporters in "the mix", and there are agenda driven partisans. To dismiss AP, though, is a symptom of an insular, even a paranoid mentality, itf it wasn't so obvious that these miscreants in charge are attenpting to compete with AP, and with independent observatgion of event in the real world. The problem also, is, their track shows that they suck at it... NO WMD, NO WIDESPREAD VOTING FRAUD....no terrorist AP photographer....no formidible enemy in a GWOT to justify the hundreds of billions of dollars and the life and limb so far expended to combat it:

Quote:

http://salon.com/news/feature/2007/10/31/boylan/
The case of the angry colonel

The Iraq war's top spokesman loves to dash off fiery complaints to bloggers -- unless someone's impersonating him. Do Col. Steven Boylan's claims of identity theft hold water?

By Farhad Manjoo

Oct. 31, 2007 | <h3>Is the military's top spokesman in Iraq a loose cannon who routinely fires off angry, impetuous e-mails to bloggers who criticize the war and the spin surrounding it?</h3> Or is Col. Steven Boylan, instead, an innocent victim -- an online wallflower whose identity has been hijacked by a pro-war hacker who has managed to break into the most well-fortified space on the planet in order to taunt lefty critics? Neither scenario paints a comforting picture of the situation in Iraq -- and even though the e-mails in question are coming from military servers in Iraq, the military seems strangely uninterested in solving the mystery of who is writing them.....

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/ea..._id=1003664994
Gen. Petraeus' Spokesman Denies Sending Angry Email -- Plot Thickens
A critical email allegedly sent by a top U.S. military spokesman to a leading blogger this past weekend is starting to draw mainstream attention. But the colonel had sent an equally hot note to E&P in May defending the general -- without reading the report in question.

By Greg Mitchell

NEW YORK (October 29, 2007) -- A disturbing email allegedly sent by a top U.S. military spokesman to a leading blogger at Salon.com this past weekend is just starting to draw mainstream attention. Howard Kurtz at The Washington Post mentioned it today, for example. It requires a good deal of background information to fully appreciate it, so I will provide a link to Glenn Greenwald’s blog page at Salon where he offered extensive postings (and updates) Sunday and today about the email purportedly from Army Col. Steven Boylan.

But E&P has its own correspondence from Boylan, and I want to focus on that.

The long and short of the Greenwald postings: For months the popular blogger -- a former attorney and author of the recent bestseller "A Tragic Legacy" -- <h3>has criticized the growing “politicization” of the military attached to Iraq, starting earlier this year and peaking around the appearance of Gen. David Petraeus before Congress (and the media) in September.</h3> This was even before William Safire declared, this past weekend, that the general ought to be considered as a running mate for a Republican candidate for president next

year click to show

***

<h3>Knowing that I had a brief exchange of emails with Boylan last spring</h3>, I went back and found them -- with the Boylan in them sounding an awful lot like the Boylan in the disputed email to Greenwald.

<h3>I had drawn Boylan’s attention with a May 9, 2007, column</h3> that followed an appearance by Gen. Petraeus, via a video feed from Baghdad, at the Associated Press annual meeting in New York, which I attended. This is what I wrote then: “Reporters should also ask Gen. David Petraeus, who is directing the ‘surge’ effort in Iraq, why he lied in responding to a reporter's question this week concerning widespread abuse by U.S. troops.”

A reporter on stage at the gathering had asked about a U.S. Army Surgeon General study of over 1,300 troops in Iraq, released last week, which showed increasing mental stress -- and an alarming spillover into poor treatment of noncombatants. Petraeus, who said he had read the report (and was troubled by it), asserted that the survey showed that only a "small number" admitted they may have mistreated "detainees" -- a profoundly misleading statement.

Actually, the study found that at least 10% of U.S. forces reported that they had personally, and without cause, mistreated "noncombatants" (not detainees) through physical violence or damage to personal property.

The survey also noted that only 47% of the soldiers and 38% of marines agreed that noncombatants should be treated with dignity and respect. More than 40% said they backed torture in certain circumstances. Even worse, nearly one in five said that all noncombatants "should be treated as insurgents."

About 30% said their officers had not made it clear that they should not mistreat civilians.

Only 40% of American marines and 55% of soldiers in Iraq said they would report a fellow service member for killing or injuring an innocent Iraqi. “Of course, this only guarantees that it will happen again, and again,” I observed.

<h3>That sparked an email from Boylan in Baghdad the next day. “I found your latest column to be less than fair and as many editorials, lacking context,” he wrote.</h3> “I find it insulting that you would even consider saying that General Petraeus lied to the gathering during the AP hosted event Monday. Simply put, you are in error and as such you even pointed it out in your own column….

”Because you don't agree with his words, detainee vice [sic] civilians, you are saying that he has lied. I am not sure how you come to that conclusion that he has lied? Would you be willing to explain that? I assume you could disagree on what is a small number or it is that you don't like his choice of words by using detainee.

”I am pleased that you can offer such a misinformed opinion based on one-hour event.”

I wrote back to him: “Surely you understand the difference between a ‘detainee’ and a ’noncombatant.’ Presumably Petraeus does as well. He said he'd read the report, where it clearly stated that the actions carried out by the
10% were against civilians or their property and without cause.”

In other words, Petraeus was suggesting to the media – if not directly stating -- that it wasn’t so bad a problem because it was merely (presumably guilty enemy) prisoners who were mistreated, not run-of-the-mill civilians. I didn’t even raise the issue in my email to Boylan of whether 10% was an acceptable, or appalling, number of bad actors. Petraeus had called this a “small number.” I also did not refer to the poll's quite damning finding (for Petraeus and others) that their officers had not stressed the no-abuse policy strongly enough.

Anyway, Boylan wrote back right away: “Yes, I clearly know the difference between the two, however, it was clear that he was saying and thinking detainee when he made his statement. I have not read the report, but either way, to state that he lied is at a minimum disingenuous and at worst, flat wrong on your part without even asking the questions, but making unfounded assumptions. I
expect better professionalism from someone of your position based on your publication.”

So Boylan, who admitted he had “not read the report,” did not let that stop him from lecturing me and defending the misuse of its contents by Petraeus, who said he did read the report. Petraeus, at least, faced facts a short time later, writing a letter to his troops refreshing their memories about the requirement that they not abuse friendlys.

***

UPDATE: Greenwald has continued posting on this matter. On Wednesday, Salon.com on its main site published its own probe of the Boylan emails. It's at:

http://salon.com/news/feature/2007/10/31/boylan/

loquitur · 11-20-2007, 03:37 PM

Host, I'm with you on the issue of holding people without charges and absent a showing of military necessity, as I said. All I was saying was that it should not be surprising that opinion journalists, like Michelle Malkin to use your example, have a distinct point of view and follow it in their stories. Why is that surprising? Doesn't Frank Rich do the same thing? Keith Olbermann? It's not outrageous that they do this, it's to be expected. They disagree with you (and often with me) but why is this a cause celebre?

host · 11-20-2007, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

Host, I'm with you on the issue of holding people without charges and absent a showing of military necessity, as I said. All I was saying was that it should not be surprising that opinion journalists, like Michelle Malkin to use your example, have a distinct point of view and follow it in their stories. Why is that surprising? Doesn't Frank Rich do the same thing? Keith Olbermann? It's not outrageous that they do this, it's to be expected. They disagree with you (and often with me) but why is this a cause celebre?

The military PR dept. and conservative bloggers seem to be acting as one. The military is supposed to be outside of politics. Eisenhower and Powell had no discernible party affiliation until after their military careers...

Quote:

Originally Posted by from my last post

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/ea..._id=1003664994
Gen. Petraeus' Spokesman Denies Sending Angry Email -- Plot Thickens
A critical email allegedly sent by a top U.S. military spokesman to a leading blogger this past weekend is starting to draw mainstream attention. But the colonel had sent an equally hot note to E&P in May defending the general -- without reading the report in question.,,,,,

I don't think it's unreasonable to suspect that the AP photographer was detained because of an outcry from these bloggers, despite a lack of evidence of wrong doing.

I think it's unreasonable for the bloggers and the white house/DOD to be adversaries of AP, or to dismiss AP as a news source...it's fringe thinking to do that....

loquitur · 11-20-2007, 08:56 PM

A coincidence of views does not imply prior coordination. You need a lot more than that. Otherwise I'm a member of more conspiracies than I can count.

host · 11-21-2007, 12:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

A coincidence of views does not imply prior coordination. You need a lot more than that. Otherwise I'm a member of more conspiracies than I can count.

You're your predictably dismissive self. I posted that "I suspect", and that it is "reasonable", to do so.

There are waaaayyyyy too many "coincidences". Food for thought, condensed beyond my meager abilities to convey observations I think are becoming more valid, in the fullness of time:

Quote:

http://letters.salon.com/opinion/gre...9932ee76c.html
Almost, but not quite Glenn

<i>This is plainly part of the ever-increasing politicization of the U.S. military in Iraq and the attempt to control the flow of information from the war zone.</i>

It's part of the (excuse my lack of vocabulary to express this) warification of all aspects of life in an attempt to politically control the flow of information.

I have to run, I want to elaborate on this, but more and more and more of all things in life are being made to seem part of the whole war effort, indeed war is almost being proposed as a holism for everything in American life, as the only way to control all information. The very bedrock of all of this is the belief that things that should have happened in the past (winning the Vietnam war, for instance) did not because democracy didn't function properly because the information that flowed was not correct. So now everything, from the disks of photos from Abu Ghraib, to Bilal Hussein's pictures, to the coffins arriving, to how newscasters phrase their stories, to memos in the Justice department, to torture and rendition, to testimony in trials, even to whether or not there are trials or whether or not they can proceed, is judged by it's effects or purposes in an existential war, and all are part of the war effort. It isn't the military that invented this all encompassing view in which information is the basis and the purpose of all war, it was created in the halls of power, and the military is carrying it out. The new answer to politics stops at the water's edge is that in the information world, the water has no edge.

Badly expressed, but you've covered a lot of it before, Glenn, I just think its a very, very big assault, and uncharged prisoners are only one tip of an iceberg called controlling democracy by controlling the information that controls all minds.
-- ondelette

Aren't the following reactions to the US military's treatment of Pulitzer prize winning AP photographer and Fallujah, Iraq native, Bilal Hussein, "just about the size of it"?

Quote:

http://letters.salon.com/opinion/gre...d7fbca1b1.html
Incorrect Narrative

There are so many ironies, hypocrisies and contradictions at work in the Great Millennial War on A Tactic, but here is one that I have not seen much discussed:

The Neocons continually trip over each other in their mad rush to give up their (read our) freedoms <h3>in order to preserve order and protect us from random violence, yet insist it is all made worthwhile by our efforts to give the blessings of those same freedoms (at gunpoint, to be sure) to the Iraqis who arguably had just the sort of ordered, freedom-free society they covet -- before we took it away from them.</h3>

Bilal Hussein would never have been jailed in my America. If Iraq has "secured the blessings of liberty" he won't be convicted in Iraq. But in Saddam's Iraq, and George Bush's America, "Incorrect Narrative" is a capital offense.
-- Blue Meme

http://letters.salon.com/opinion/gre...9e15e4779.html
Outlaw State

The relentless wingnut blogger campaign against independent journalism in Iraq generally, and Mr Hussein in particular, is perfectly understandable in the context of our current domestic politics. <h3>Most of one major party's candidates for President are campaigning for more detentions without charges, more torture, more unprovoked attacks on other countries.</h3> From that distorted perspective, a kangaroo court conviction of Mr Hussein is to be applauded, the more arbitrary the better, "pour encourager les autres" and "validating" more unchecked assertions of American state power.

How little our hardy band of 24 percenters understand that their bloody-minded drive to make America a law unto itself has been systematically undermining American power and influence throughout the world. How much every despot the world over must be enjoying the spectacle of America trashing its own noble governing principles with both hands, secure in the knowledge that it will be years, or even decades, before America can painfully regain the moral high ground it has so contemptuously disdained these past 7 years. How pathetic as well, as new technologies make obsolete the techniques of press control through jailing accredited journalists. How grimly ironic, for all those people who lived under Communist dictatorships in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, <h3>to watch America, so often a beacon of hope, so eagerly adopt the failed methods of Party apparatchiks to force the people to ignore reality and accept the Party line as truth.</h3>
-- HenryFTP

loquitur, if you think that my posts are "over done" reactions to what top officials at AP say has happened to their accredited photo journalist reporting from war torn Iraq, and to what the US military itself has announced about his detention, it's duration, and the "pace" of it's "justice" in his "case", <h3>at what point would you be concerned enough to</h3> post about it, to attempt to discuss it, to protest against it, to post suspicion, in view of Malkin's statements/accusations of the last 2-1/2 years concerning Hussein's work, and her claim of an "anonymous tip" from the US military, immediately after his detention in April, 2006, that she was a catalyst, if not in his arrest, but in his long, so far unjustified, detention, <h3>if not at this point in time?</h3>

US citizen, Jose Padilla's similar detention without trial or a hearing of evidence, right here in the US, has obviously not fazed you, either. What would have to happen to raise your level of alarm? What display of callous disregard for justice and due process of an accused, by US authority would you have to observe, to raise your hackles?

I'm long past my limit, Padilla's "trial", three years late in coming, and without the criminal accusations that were described at the time of his arrest, by the US Atty. Gen. in a hastily convened "presser" from Moscow, as being so offensive to the sensibilities of "freedum lovin Muricans", that it was necessary to turn his sorry ass over to the military and to abridge all of his rights to "justice" in civilian criminal court, or to his "right to an attorney".

How do you do it? How do you exempt yourself from this "process"? When I see the treatment of Padilla, I wonder how I am any less exposed to what happened to him, at the hands of authority, than he was.

Then, when I observe the treatment of Bilal Hussein, a man with the AP, the largest news gathering and distribution organ in the entire world, squarely behind him as he is put through 19 months of injustice, and I see how little benefit his AP credentials and support, and exposure of his predicament have been for him, while in US military detention, I feel very vulnerable.

My vulnerable feeling is magnified by my suspicion that there may be "no bounds" to my embarkation of a campaign of intense, relentless, non-violent protest and civil disobedience of undetermined duration, because of what my government has already done to others, in an effort to communicate to authority that they've "crossed that line" and that I'm one who won't effing <h3>stand for it anymore</h3>.

Do you ever feel that way?

loquitur · 11-21-2007, 05:41 AM

Sorry, Host, I didn't mean to sound dismissive. I'm generally skeptical, but I don't mean to be dismissive. If I came across that way I'm sorry.

host · 11-21-2007, 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by loquitur

Sorry, Host, I didn't mean to sound dismissive. I'm generally skeptical, but I don't mean to be dismissive. If I came across that way I'm sorry.

Thank you, loquitur. I wish you and yours a safe and happy Thanksgiving holiday.

Why do you suppose we describe "stand for it", as sitting idly by while it happens, while our free press and our bill of rights protections against abuse by authority, are attacked by that same authority? Shouldn't it be described instead as "sit for it"?

loquitur · 11-21-2007, 01:27 PM

Actually, we gave up some of our rights a loooooooooong time ago, and received a mess of pretty thin pottage in return. But that's a story for another day.....

ganon · 11-21-2007, 06:13 PM

you know what's great about america? the electorate gets to be stupid if it wants to be. I get as informed as i can. i follow the wake left behind on both the liberal and the conservative talking points. we are all trying to win the big game here. having a playbook isn't a sin. this whole situation of course shows us the difference between statesmen and carpetbagging opportunists. the statesmen do what is best for the country, and the others do what is best for those who will either keep them in power or line their pockets. it would be foolish to think our entire gov't hasn't been bought. but it's our gov't. we have to get educated and fight for it. my education and beliefs are going to be different than most folks on this board, but i have that right. i don't get mad at libs anymore, because they have the right to be libs. if they can outsmart, outspend, or outvote me, it's my own damn fault. this is war, folks. we play to win.

sprocket · 11-21-2007, 07:54 PM

Get real... both sides get their talking points handed to them and go repeating them ad nauseam until they're blue in the face . I generally dont watch TV news that much, but I remember hearing the term "quagmire" so much... I dont think I've ever gotten so tired of hearing one word before. Not that I dont agree, but every network besides Fox was parroting the exact phrasing and words to describe the Iraq war. They all get their marching orders, and spread the propaganda.

Sure, the right media gets its talking points, and latches on, and repeats it over and over to give the points some illusion of credibility. If you cant recognize the left doing the same thing, I dont know what to tell you.

Ustwo · 11-21-2007, 09:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sprocket

Get real... both sides get their talking points handed to them and go repeating them ad nauseam until they're blue in the face . I generally dont watch TV news that much, but I remember hearing the term "quagmire" so much... I dont think I've ever gotten so tired of hearing one word before. Not that I dont agree, but every network besides Fox was parroting the exact phrasing and words to describe the Iraq war. They all get their marching orders, and spread the propaganda.

Sure, the right media gets its talking points, and latches on, and repeats it over and over to give the points some illusion of credibility. If you cant recognize the left doing the same thing, I dont know what to tell you.

I won't forget the "gravitas" left wing talking point for the 2000 election. Every left wing news person was asking if Bush has "gravitas" pretty much over night.

Rush Limbaugh made a cute song of it 'feliz gravitas' splicing in all news people/pundits using the term.

Charlatan · 11-21-2007, 09:29 PM

I would argue that while there are "talking points" on both sides, the dissemination of these points doesn't always point to a sinister agenda on the part of those repeating the message, rather it just points to journalistic laziness.

Many journalists get their "news" from press releases. There are services that disseminate these releases and many journalists simply parrot what is found in the release without calling to ask any follow up questions. Punditry, blogs, etc. are not all that difference.

It's like a series of "me too" posts in an online forum.

Ustwo · 11-21-2007, 10:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

I would argue that while there are "talking points" on both sides, the dissemination of these points doesn't always point to a sinister agenda on the part of those repeating the message, rather it just points to journalistic laziness.

Many journalists get their "news" from press releases. There are services that disseminate these releases and many journalists simply parrot what is found in the release without calling to ask any follow up questions. Punditry, blogs, etc. are not all that difference.

It's like a series of "me too" posts in an online forum.

True, in the 'gravitas' incident, and it was 7 years ago so its fuzzy, but I recall a handful of pundit types using it on the same day. That was the talking point. The rest, as you said were just plain lazy and latching on.

I heard recently the Clinton campaign got busted for planting a question in the audience at some debate. Thats really about the same level, its just a way to get a side of an issue 'out there'.

host · 11-22-2007, 03:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

I would argue that while there are "talking points" on both sides, the dissemination of these points doesn't always point to a sinister agenda on the part of those repeating the message, rather it just points to journalistic laziness.

Many journalists get their "news" from press releases. There are services that disseminate these releases and many journalists simply parrot what is found in the release without calling to ask any follow up questions. Punditry, blogs, etc. are not all that difference.

It's like a series of "me too" posts in an online forum.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

True, in the 'gravitas' incident, and it was 7 years ago so its fuzzy, but I recall a handful of pundit types using it on the same day. That was the talking point. The rest, as you said were just plain lazy and latching on.

I heard recently the Clinton campaign got busted for planting a question in the audience at some debate. Thats really about the same level, its just a way to get a side of an issue 'out there'.

Yup, in the views of folks who see everything from a "business as ususal", POV, all "talking points" are equally meritless, or the opposite, and "both sides do it", so there is nothing to see here....move along, host. Associated Press is "bad", sez "one side" of the aisle, snd the administration it blindly supports, says the same....so, where does that "side of the aisle" get "it's news"?

It should be an important question, as should the questionable detentions, without charges, of both Padilla and AP photographer Hussein...but curiously,
none of these assaults on our rights or intimidations of the press, or the partisanizing of the US military, as an official policy, are of much concern to Ustwo and Charlatan...so move along, host...you're too shrill, and your overreacting.

Charlatan · 11-22-2007, 03:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Yup, in the views of folks who see everything from a "business as ususal", POV, all "talking points" are equally meritless, or the opposite, and "both sides do it", so there is nothing to see here....move along, host. Associated Press is "bad", sez "one side" of the aisle, snd the administration it blindly supports, says the same....so, where does that "side of the aisle" get "it's news"?

It should be an important question, as should the questionable detentions, without charges, of both Padilla and AP photographer Hussein...but curiously,
none of these assaults on our rights or intimidations of the press, or the partisanizing of the US military, as an official policy, are of much concern to Ustwo and Charlatan...so move along, host...you're too shrill, and your overreacting.

I don't believe I once said, that we should not be concerned with "questionable detentions, without charges, of both Padilla and AP photographer Hussein". Please show me where I did.

I believe, if you read what I've written, I am simply addressing the issue of "talking points". As such I see "talking points" are about two different things.

1) Talking points that have been put forward by any given spin doctor.

2) How those talking points are used once they have been released.

I am suggesting that I find it unlikely that there is a grand conspiracy. Yes, players like Karl Rove are masters of spin and they work *very* hard to keep their people on message as well as providing a "message" for the media and the blogisphere to follow along (these are called leaks or press releases).

Spin Happens. It is utilized by anyone with any media savvy. Anyone.

The fact is the Republicans have been winning this media war.

All of the issues that are spun are still issues that need to be discussed. Perhaps more so as it becomes important to unspin the message.

loquitur · 11-22-2007, 05:43 AM

Quote:

Charlatan said:<br><br>I would argue that while there are "talking points" on both sides, the dissemination of these points doesn't always point to a sinister agenda on the part of those repeating the message, rather it just points to journalistic laziness.

Many journalists get their "news" from press releases. There are services that disseminate these releases and many journalists simply parrot what is found in the release without calling to ask any follow up questions. Punditry, blogs, etc. are not all that difference.

It's like a series of "me too" posts in an online forum.

Precisely. Many journalists are lazy and insular, just like most people. They do an awful lot of meme-chasing.

host · 11-23-2007, 01:30 PM

Let us see if today's "memo" gets any major traction.
It's based on some propaganda out of heritage.org , an entity founded by the same conservative christian fundamnetalist who founded the CNP:

Quote:

Paul M. Weyrich - SourceWatch
Treasurer, Council for National Policy, 1981 - 1992 (currently on the Executive Committee of ... Founding President, The Heritage Foundation, 1973 - 1974. ...
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...aul_M._Weyrich

The "goal" was described by Bozell in a 1992 speach to Heritage foundation gathering:

Quote:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Pol...ophy/HL380.cfm

January 21, 1992
Why Conservatives Should Be Optimistic About the Media
by L. Brent Bozell, III
Heritage Lecture #380

...Imagine, if you will, a future wherein the media willfully support the foreign policy objectives of the United States. A time when the left can no longer rely on the media to promote its socialist agenda to the public. A time when someone, somewhere in the media can be counted on to extol the virtues of morality without qualifications. When Betty Friedan no longer qualifies for "Person of the Week" honors. When Ronald Reagan is cited not as the "Man of the Year," but the "Man of the Century."....

<h3>Here's how it surfaces, Heritage feeds this absurd bullshit to Moon's "rag":</h3>

Quote:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/...111230087/1002
Article published Nov 23, 2007
Study: Democrats party of rich

November 23, 2007

By Donald Lambro - Democrats like to define themselves as the party of poor and middle-income Americans, but a new study says they now represent the majority of the nation's wealthiest congressional districts.

In a state-by-state, district-by-district comparison of wealth concentrations based on Internal Revenue Service income data, Michael Franc, vice president of government relations at the Heritage Foundation, found that the majority of the nation's wealthiest congressional jurisdictions were represented by Democrats.

He also found that more than half of the wealthiest households were concentrated in the 18 states where Democrats hold both Senate seats.

"If you take the wealthiest one-third of the 435 congressional districts, we found that the Democrats represent about 58 percent of those jurisdictions," Mr. Franc said.

A key measure of each district's wealth was the number of single-filer taxpayers earning more than $100,000 a year and married couples filing jointly who earn more than $200,000 annually, he said.

But in a broader measurement, the study also showed that of the 167 House districts where the median annual income was higher than the national median of $48,201, a slight majority, 84 districts, were represented by Democrats. Median means that half of all income earners make more than that level and half make less.

Mr. Franc's study also showed that contrary to the Democrats' tendency to define Republicans as the party of the rich, "the vast majority of unabashed conservative House members hail from profoundly middle-income districts."

"I just found the pattern across the board to be very interesting. That pattern shows the likelihood of electing a Democrat to the House is very closely correlated with how many wealthy households are in that district," Mr. Franc said in an interview with The Washington Times.

The shift in the number of wealthier Democratic districts got a significant bounce in the last election.

"A fair number of these districts are represented by freshmen, a lot of the guys who got elected in 2006," he said.

"The demographic reality is that the Democratic Party is the new 'party of the rich.' More and more Democrats represent areas with a high concentration of wealthy households," he wrote on Nov. 5 in the Financial Times of London, in a preview of his study.

In addition, the current Senate tax debate provides an example of how the Democrats' rich constituents are influencing their agenda and have divided House and Senate Democrats.

In the House, for example, Democrats have made elimination of the alternative minimum tax, known as the AMT, the centerpiece of a sweeping tax-revision plan crafted by Rep. Charles B. Rangel of New York, the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee. The AMT law was passed by the Democratic Congress in 1969 to make sure that wealthy taxpayers — some of whom were able to use tax breaks to avoid paying anything — paid at least some taxes.

Over the years, as many middle-class incomes rose, people were increasingly being pushed into higher tax brackets once reserved for only the richest Americans. The largest portion of these taxpayers live predominantly in Northeastern "blue" states dominated by Democrats, who, inundated by constituent complaints, soon began joining their Republican counterparts in pushing to eliminate the AMT.

But the strongest manifestation of the influence that the Democrats' wealthiest constituencies are wielding over party policy came earlier this month as Democratic leaders were considering a proposal to offset revenue losses from AMT repeal by raising taxes on hedge-fund managers, many of whom are major contributors to the Democratic Party.

A "stopgap" bill authored by Mr. Rangel to tax hedge-fund compensation at 35 percent as regular income rather than the current 15 percent capital-gains rate, which passed the House Nov. 9, appears to be going nowhere with Senate Democrats.

Sen. Charles E. Schumer of New York, the chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, which has raised tens of millions of dollars from Wall Street financiers and hedge-fund managers, opposes Mr. Rangel's plan. Earlier this month, Sen. Max Baucus of Montana, the chairman of the tax-writing Finance Committee, said the tax increase was a bad idea and could not pass the Senate.

Rep. Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, the House Democratic Caucus chairman, also has said he wants a stand-alone fix for the AMT without an offsetting tax increase, fearing that any vote to raise taxes now will hurt vulnerable Democrats in next year's elections. More moderate Blue Dog Democrats in the House have also been among the critics of the tax increase.

Some Democrats acknowledge that moneyed interests are exerting a strong influence on their party's agenda and legislation.

"The fact is that [the Democratic campaign committees] have had large contributions from these hedge-fund folks," said Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, a liberal think tank.

"As far as the hedge funds and tax breaks go, the Democrats are clearly getting a lot of money from people who are affected by that, and they're responding," Mr. Baker said.

Mr. Franc thinks this turnabout by Democrats, whose campaign mantra has long been to tax the rich more, is only the beginning.

"Increasingly, we will see Democrats responding to the economic demands of this particular upper-income constituency," he said.

"What the data suggests is that there will be a natural limit to how far and how much the Democrats can sock it to the rich, because in doing so, it means they will have to sock it to their own constituents," Mr. Franc said.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archive.../11/019088.php
November 23, 2007
Democrats, Party of the Prosperous

We've known for a long time that the Democrats are the party of the rich. What is troubling is that they are increasingly becoming the party of the prosperous. The Washington Times reports:

In a state-by-state, district-by-district comparison of wealth concentrations based on Internal Revenue Service income data, Michael Franc, vice president of government relations at the Heritage Foundation, found that the majority of the nation's wealthiest congressional jurisdictions were represented by Democrats.

But in a broader measurement, the study also showed that of the 167 House districts where the median annual income was higher than the national median of $48,201, a slight majority, 84 districts, were represented by Democrats.

Mr. Franc's study also showed that contrary to the Democrats' tendency to define Republicans as the party of the rich, "the vast majority of unabashed conservative House members hail from profoundly middle-income districts."

"I just found the pattern across the board to be very interesting. That pattern shows the likelihood of electing a Democrat to the House is very closely correlated with how many wealthy households are in that district," Mr. Franc said in an interview with The Washington Times.

Of course, these numbers are skewed somewhat by the fact that Democrats tend to represent urban districts where average incomes are higher. But there is no disputing the trend: prosperous Congressional districts are increasingly turning blue, across the country.

In the short term, at least, this is very bad news for Republicans. Republicans can expect serious deficits in campaign fundraising for the foreseeable future.

I don't think the explanation for the phenomenon is hard to find: since 1994, the Democrats have been unable to raise taxes. With confiscatory, economy-destroying tax increases off the table, many prosperous Americans have seen no compelling reason to vote Republican. The silver lining, I think, is that as soon as the Democrats amass enough power in Washington to resume their tax-raising ways, prosperous Americans (though not the tiny handful who are actually rich) will remember why they used to vote Republican.

http://blogsforvictory.com/2007/11/2...y-of-the-rich/
The Party of the Rich…
There’s actually a lot of interesting information in the study, so read the rest of the story. I’m sure some liberals here will dismiss the study and its results because of who conducted it, but it seems to me that their methods are pretty straightforward.

The story also notes how the Democrats’ agenda is clearly being influenced by their rich constituents, as Michael France explained in this Heritage press release.

Anyway, I hope everyone, even those rich, rich Democrats, are enjoying Black Friday today.

http://www.savethegop.com/2007/11/23...y-of-the-rich/
The Party of the Rich
Author: Sam

23 Nov

Here’s a hint: It’s not us, but I already knew that....

....There was a time where it was justified to say that Republicans represented big business and the wealthiest of Americans, but that is about 40 years outdated. All you need to do is look at the electoral map to see it. The northeast and west coast are the wealthiest regions in the country and they vote overwhelmingly Democrat, while the poorer regions, like down here in the south, vote heavily Republican. So will the Dems stop spreading a dishonest myth? I wouldn’t bet on it.

http://www.drudgereport.com/
STUDY: Democrats 'Party of the Rich'...
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/...111230087/1002

Now we'll see if the "real" press distributes this, and how many others of the conservative choir on the internet, push it.

03-22-2005, 10:43 AM	#41 (permalink)
KMA-628 ....is off his meds...you were warned. Location: The Wild Wild West	yep, you're right. I read past that part. __________________ Before you criticize someone, you need to walk a mile in their shoes. That way, if they get angry at you.......you're a mile away.......and they're barefoot.

03-22-2005, 12:12 PM	#42 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	kma--when that does happen, it is a tactical mistake. that said, it would be nice to see conservatives who are willing to place their premises on the line for discussion and not resort to simply rehashing talking points sent down to them from on high. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

03-22-2005, 12:18 PM	#43 (permalink)
stevo Rail Baron Location: Tallyfla	"as you can see from this thread alone" means nothing. Shall I point to a thread where conservatives did not use one-lines and libs did? and then use that as my evidence that libs rely on one-liners to get their message out, and conservatives use extended dialogue? One thread proves nothing. I can't wait untill I get tomorrows right-wing memo in the mail, then I'll show the lots of ya. __________________ "If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

03-22-2005, 01:21 PM	#46 (permalink)
nofnway Insane Location: under the freeway bridge	There have always been liberal foundations funding and developing the left leaning ideology.... Ford Rockefeller Pew and so on. Outspending their conservative counterparts 10 to 1 or more (Capital research center) The current development of a broad developing, tightly woven right leaning movement is not the creation of the current administration but more a reaction to the longstanding dominance of the liberal ideology. It seems when the right is willing to put their money where their mouth is, they are focusing on a set of core issues. Developing ideas and intellectual talent for the long haul. Creating a cohesive movement. I notice the efforts of the left leaning machine being fractured by so many competing interests, many of them less than societally universal. Attacking individual issues piecemeal, splintering support. It has taken more than thirty years of focused, concentrated effort to arrive at this point. I really think that the liberal establishment wrongly assumed things would always remain the same and they would hold their power without challenge....that said, once they finally overcome their denial of the situation they will finally get down to developing ideas to compete with the right wing machine. And so the pendulum swings. __________________ "Iron rusts with disuse, stagnant water loses its purity and in cold water freezes. Even so does inaction sap the vigor of the mind" Leonardo Da Vinci Last edited by nofnway; 03-22-2005 at 01:24 PM..

03-22-2005, 01:30 PM	#48 (permalink)
Manx Loser	nofnway - What you celebrate as a means to gaining power, I deride as a means of preventing meaningful discussion. Though you may be correct that the only way to combat intentional ignorance is with equal and opposite intentional ignorance, I certainly hope you're mistaken. steveo - You have never described how you can hold the "err on the side of life" while I too hold that opinion, while I also support Terri Schiavo's wishes. You haven't because all you feel the need to do is repeat the mantra. It is an empty statement. You've been given opportunity to fill it, but you haven't because you can't. So instead you decided to claim it is a generic liberals fault for not accepting your empty statement. Last edited by Manx; 03-22-2005 at 01:34 PM..

03-22-2005, 02:56 PM	#49 (permalink)
nofnway Insane Location: under the freeway bridge	Insisting there is some sort of imbalance in the exchange of ideas is a strong motivating impetus for a political movement...ideas lead to movements lead to political support lead to policies lead to debate lead to ideas. Most people I encounter on a day to day basis are operatiing on a sort of auto-pilot, asleep to any intellectual endeavor...the only way they seem to be reached is through the constant repetition of a single theme. Most topics (read almost all) are too complex to distill into 1 unifying expression so you use the tools you have. Grab the attention and attempt to convince or persuade. If the "mantra" is available and suits the moment it will surely be used. Intentional ignorance is for some intentional bliss. 1 in a dozen or so people I talked to can tell me they read a book in the last year. I can't remember when the last time a family member, neighbor, or acquaintance detailed to me the results of some intellectual pursuit.....These are college educated people....asleep. Pound Pound Pound just to get through.... __________________ "Iron rusts with disuse, stagnant water loses its purity and in cold water freezes. Even so does inaction sap the vigor of the mind" Leonardo Da Vinci

03-22-2005, 02:57 PM	#50 (permalink)
nofnway Insane Location: under the freeway bridge	We can have the meaningful discussion __________________ "Iron rusts with disuse, stagnant water loses its purity and in cold water freezes. Even so does inaction sap the vigor of the mind" Leonardo Da Vinci

03-22-2005, 10:43 PM	#51 (permalink)
analog Banned	I'm just waiting for someone on death row to pull this "err on the side of life" bullshit. By the way, this is not turning into a fourth (fifth? sixth?) Schiavo thread. So make sure to stick to... whatever the topic is actually trying to cause a discussion about.

03-29-2005, 10:09 PM	#54 (permalink)
KMA-628 ....is off his meds...you were warned. Location: The Wild Wild West	That is a direct quote from the article, I didn't write that, I merely copied it. The article clearly states that Dean was calling Republicans "brain-dead"--his words, not mine. If you have an issue with the person who wrote the article, speak with them. I quoted part of a sentence, that is all....the part of the sentence pertinent to my point. The little dots at the end are usually understood to mean there is more to the sentence. Sorry, no bullshit here. Especially when I use exact quotes from the article and then provide a link to the article. __________________ Before you criticize someone, you need to walk a mile in their shoes. That way, if they get angry at you.......you're a mile away.......and they're barefoot.

11-20-2007, 07:14 AM	#57 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	What I want to know is why he was held for 19 months without charges - unless there was military necessity for it, meaning there was reasonable basis to think it would be dangerous to release him. I haven't seen any, and I don't like the idea of holding non-POWs without charges. But really, Host, you don't find it *unremarkable* that the people you quote -- who are deeply invested (emotionally, intellectually, etc) in the Iraq enterprise, and have been loudly screaming that the press is undermining it -- would have similar reactions? I would suspect that if you went rounding up some left-side reactions after, say, the 2006 elections, they would read very similarly, too. Think of the numbers of people and outlets involved (on both sides) and you'll conclude that it's unavoidable. This whole thing is much ado about nothing.

11-20-2007, 03:37 PM	#59 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	Host, I'm with you on the issue of holding people without charges and absent a showing of military necessity, as I said. All I was saying was that it should not be surprising that opinion journalists, like Michelle Malkin to use your example, have a distinct point of view and follow it in their stories. Why is that surprising? Doesn't Frank Rich do the same thing? Keith Olbermann? It's not outrageous that they do this, it's to be expected. They disagree with you (and often with me) but why is this a cause celebre?

11-20-2007, 08:56 PM	#61 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	A coincidence of views does not imply prior coordination. You need a lot more than that. Otherwise I'm a member of more conspiracies than I can count.

11-21-2007, 05:41 AM	#63 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	Sorry, Host, I didn't mean to sound dismissive. I'm generally skeptical, but I don't mean to be dismissive. If I came across that way I'm sorry.

11-21-2007, 01:27 PM	#65 (permalink)
loquitur Junkie Location: NYC	Actually, we gave up some of our rights a loooooooooong time ago, and received a mess of pretty thin pottage in return. But that's a story for another day.....

11-21-2007, 06:13 PM	#66 (permalink)
ganon Insane Location: in my head	you know what's great about america? the electorate gets to be stupid if it wants to be. I get as informed as i can. i follow the wake left behind on both the liberal and the conservative talking points. we are all trying to win the big game here. having a playbook isn't a sin. this whole situation of course shows us the difference between statesmen and carpetbagging opportunists. the statesmen do what is best for the country, and the others do what is best for those who will either keep them in power or line their pockets. it would be foolish to think our entire gov't hasn't been bought. but it's our gov't. we have to get educated and fight for it. my education and beliefs are going to be different than most folks on this board, but i have that right. i don't get mad at libs anymore, because they have the right to be libs. if they can outsmart, outspend, or outvote me, it's my own damn fault. this is war, folks. we play to win. __________________ "My give up, my give up." - Jar Jar Binks

11-21-2007, 07:54 PM	#67 (permalink)
sprocket Psycho Location: In transit	Get real... both sides get their talking points handed to them and go repeating them ad nauseam until they're blue in the face . I generally dont watch TV news that much, but I remember hearing the term "quagmire" so much... I dont think I've ever gotten so tired of hearing one word before. Not that I dont agree, but every network besides Fox was parroting the exact phrasing and words to describe the Iraq war. They all get their marching orders, and spread the propaganda. Sure, the right media gets its talking points, and latches on, and repeats it over and over to give the points some illusion of credibility. If you cant recognize the left doing the same thing, I dont know what to tell you. __________________ Remember, wherever you go... there you are. Last edited by sprocket; 11-21-2007 at 07:57 PM..

11-21-2007, 09:29 PM	#69 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	I would argue that while there are "talking points" on both sides, the dissemination of these points doesn't always point to a sinister agenda on the part of those repeating the message, rather it just points to journalistic laziness. Many journalists get their "news" from press releases. There are services that disseminate these releases and many journalists simply parrot what is found in the release without calling to ask any follow up questions. Punditry, blogs, etc. are not all that difference. It's like a series of "me too" posts in an online forum. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke