roachboy

1. i have read through the arguments you posted earlier, rnager, and i have to say that i find them curious. the question of consensus prior to the war amongst members of the political class seems anachronistic, in that it bypasses the entire series of questions about how this consensus was produced. say, for example, that the politicians you cite in 2002 were largely based on the same doctored intel that the downing street memo and others describe as being in process at the time they were written: what you then have is a wholly circular argument, in which you have to erase a signifcant amount of information (and logic) to take them at face value, as you seem to want to do. i assume that the slinton quotes were meant to clinch the argument: i do not see anything of the sort in them--all i see is surface resemblance.

2. the series of articles that you link affirming teh administrations claims concering saddam hussein and "terror" have the same problem: working from administration sources, constructing the arguments the administration wanted, etc.: no way to get from them to the problems with sources.

but that seems to be the point. your support for the administration seems to reinforce an inclination on your part to not look too deeply into how the administration itself operates.

the arguments that you present, then, are not the counter of those advanced in this thread against bushwar: they operate at a different logical and data level. you seem an intelligent enough shap: i suspect you know this. just dont pretend otherwise.

3. the "bushbashing" trope that you seem to enjoy almost beyond all others is simply absurd. it is arbitrary as a characterization of myself or anyone else who opposes the administration--you do not know me, you know nothing whatsoever about the affective relation i might have to george w bush, frankly. the trope means nothing--all it does is to function as an excuse for you not to think too much or look too hard into the facts of the matter.

btw, it is wholly false to claim that there was anything like consensus about the bushclaims for war. there might have been amongst memebrs of the american political class, but that speaks more to their benighted characteristics than to the quality of information tthen available. you might tyr to think about why the americans ended up going ahead without unsc approval outside the fatuous richard perle frame of reference (you know, the blame france charade)....the fact is that the busharguments were not compelling from the start. they did not persuade a majority of the security council.

as for your characterization of the ny times, it still makes me laugh. sometimes i wonder if you or anyone else actually beleives it, but for the most part i like to think of it as yet another example of conservative surrealism, of the accidental type (the best kind).

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

smooth

I find it ironic that you knock people for logical errors in their premises, yet base your response on questionable premises yourself.

You continue to state that the NYTimes is left-biased and that your evidence is that they printed some stories critical of the administration. Yet, when they fail to report other items, you view this as an indication that there is no basis for the story.

Yet, in none of this do you explain why the following is not the case, other than your preconceived notions of the bias of the NYTimes:

When the prison scandals became national news, and even to an extent an international relations crisis, every news outlet in the United States was reporting on the events--including FOX news, which I'm hoping you are not going to claim is left-biased. After reviewing a number of those articles, I'm left wondering how you can even claim them as evidence of any political standpoint; they don't criticize the government or US actions, and the ones I looked at weren't even submitted by domestic journalists. Most were a paragraph or two long.

Nonetheless, the point is that they were reporting on an event the rest of the world was interested in. If anything, the paper has an interest in publishing items the world would most likely read. To the extent you believe Bush's administration to be the object of left-wing animosity both domestically and abroad, it seems likely a more pragmatic decision on the paper's part than a political statement to publish what those readers are most likely to read.

You then interpret the refusal of the NYT to print these series of events as a lack of evidence of the accusations. I fail to understand how you can argue both propositions simultaneously:
either the paper is so biased that it prints articles slandering the administration
OR
the paper only prints articles that have basis in fact

Which is it?

In order for your suggestion that their is no "meat" behind the accusations host is bringing to attention to work, and that this explains the lack of reporting on the issues by the NYT, would beg the question of whether there was :meat" behind all the articles you posted. If "meat" behind the stories is your criteria, that is...

The more likely, and less conspiracy based assessment in my view, is that the paper does not print highly political articles because it wants to maintain a semblence of non-biased reporting. It's precisely in response to its readership that it is in fact politically biased that the NYT muzzles its own reporting. In this regard, you do yourself a disservice as your unfounded accusations deter the major news outlets from investigative journalim when the results are likely to disrupt or problematize the status quo.

Coupled with the paper's pecuniary interest in reaffirming the status quo, from a corporate standpoint, the result is a lack of demand from both the system and the subjects within the system for critical journalism.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

chickentribs

I don't believe that Ranger is entirely without merit in establishing that bias exists in media and while I don't believe that many liberties are taken with the facts (losing credibility costs too much money) editorial control over a limited number of pages or limited minutes on a news cast can give these guys a lot of room to paint where they want to paint.

I am the first person to start complaining about the need for peer reviewed sources to maintain credibility in our discussions, but I also know that media groups consolidate and it's an Ol' Boys Network and they police each other. Hell, if Fox News really didn't want all the attention they get, the editor could cut out 20 minutes of Hannity and O'Reiley and they would be right back there with the rest of them.

At the end of the day they sell papers and airtime for profit. All of them swing based on public opinion. I was truly surprised in the difference of tone in the New Yorker article I posted from '03 to today. I had forgotten how media became anti-terrorism lap dogs for Washington for one reason only. It sold more papers. Today they will easily sell more papers because of the real or perceived scandal brewing in the air.

Regardless, they all tend to beat up on sitting presidents because the adversarial relationship is more entertaining. Clinton was skewered when he gave them a reason, and G.W. had a hell of ride with very few public appearances and many fewer real press conferences. He invested all that political currency in Terrorism and Iraq, and people are restless.

Instead of KRove talking smack circa 2002, they need to get a calendar in front of them and pick a date to end this - otherwise he has heavy weather coming...

__________________
Oft expectation fails...
and most oft there Where most it promises
- Shakespeare, W.

smooth

It would seem obvious to anyone bothering to read my signature that I wouldn't view our press as being an objective representation of news.

That our press is merely biased isn't what ranger is claiming, however.
The source of the bias is at issue: whether the major news sources are "leftist" or engage in "bushbashing" due to some sort of personal animosity.

In that regard, ranger is not only inaccurate in his assessment, he hasn't even presented any evidence to support his contention that the NYT is a liberal rag bent on maligning the character of the current republican president.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

Mantus

I thank you Ranger for giving us some insight into how you come to your conclusion.

Though I have to side with roachboy here and say that you are putting effect before the cause. Congress aproved military action against Iraq on October 11, 2002. The quotes you posted date from a time when most of the key players would have already been on board with milliatary action. Why did
they see Iraq as a threat? Because they were told so by the white house.

Now concerning Scott Ritter's coments, here is his own answer:

Conerning clinton's remarks here is the full quote

As you can see the quote you posted is out of context. Not only that but Clinton is blowing smoke. Scott Ritter resigned as head of the UN inspection team on April of the same year because the UN and US were not supporting the inspection program.