Discussion in 'Politics' started by sandy, May 3, 2007.
My point exactly , respectPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Nope again my dear, Europe didn't believe bush without evidence of mass destruction weapons. No proof - No support.
He is the son of his father. Need i say more?
Ritter's Democratic support could not have affected his judgement pertaining to his job because there was no unified Democratic position on the conflict with Iraq at that time. It's still possible to support an invasion of Iraq and be a Democrat.
I confess, I may have spoken to quickly. It is possible Ritter, being a partisan hack, may actually overlook his inner bias and express an unbiased opinion. It's also possible his biased opinion is the most accurate one.
However, he is still partisan, and as such, his arguments should be approached with skepticism. If one is trying to establish the "truth" one must always be aware of the sources they are engaging to establish it. That's called common sense, and that is precisely why the Media strives for objectivity and precisely why I ask people to cite unbiased news sources, not somebody's blog or a propaganda peice they were paid to produce by Anti-War or Democratic groups (as Ritter is).
Spider's been challenged, and as usual, his sources don't clear the bar. They are always rankly partisan (Media Matters and such). Could they be right? Sure, they could. Even broken watches can tell time occassionally, but that doesn't mean you rely on them.
In other words, if he wants to convince me, he needs to get beyond someone like Scott Ritter, who frankly, is about as reliable and unbiased as Michael Moore.
That's a nice jab, but I don't see what it has to do with this, other than you're attempt to link me to "righties," and in doing so, weaken my position?
Media Matters isn't partisan.
"The United States was not only aware of Iraqi oil sales which violated UN sanctions and provided the bulk of the illicit money Saddam Hussein obtained from circumventing UN sanctions," the report said. "On occasion, the United States actually facilitated the illicit oil sales.
Among the companies listed that received Iraqi oil were four American companies: Texaco and Chevron, now ChevronTexaco Corp.; Mobil, now Exxon Mobil Corp.; and a third company listed as Phoenix International.
ChevronTexaco and Exxon Mobil have been subpoenaed by the Manhattan U.S. Attorney's office for a grand jury investigation into the Oil-for-Food program.
Among the thousands of companies listed as exporting goods to Iraq were a handful of American ones. They included Baker Atlas, an oil service company owned by Baker Hughes Inc.; Cargill Inc.; and Continental Grain, now owned by Cargill.
If you recall, the argument Sandy made was that the Europeans didn't support Bush's war because they were recieving money from the oil-for-food program. My point was that US companies benefitted just as much. My link to the Fox News article about it should prove that such accusations are not empty partisan rhetoric.
Furthermore, recieving profits from the oil-for-food program doesn't explain why most Europeans were against the invasion of Iraq, not just their governments.
After reading this, I would refer you back to my Kool-Aid comments.
That makes no sense. Media Matters criticizes Democrats and Republicans, and the media in general It's not their fault if Republicans have the spotlight recently.
OK. You've forced me to exposure your ignorance/foolishness/lie...
the article you linked to is written by a guy who has a strong conseravtive bias
Except that he wrote it for the NY Times who, supposedly, have one of the strongest fact checking networks in the business-- so I find it hard to believe that a left leaning newspaper didn't check the fuck out of his story before allowing him to post the "$2 million dollars in donations" claim.
i would like to know how we got off off the reasons why bush is a horrid president and on to the supposed liberal bias in the media
When I was young I was told that anyone could be president. Now I'm beginning to believe it.
OK, I didn't know that. They still rock.
Do you have any proof of that? If not, I'll stand by String's remarks. It's in the NYT, one of the most respected news gathering sources in the world, and one that riles the Republicans to no end.
Spider, thanks for the concession. At least you're being big about it.
Because the issue of Bushs' horridness is already settled?
At the bottom of all this is your unsupported assertion that Ritter is a partisan hack.
From that unsupported assertion you make the leap that his partisanship and hackery would provide a motive for biasing his expert findings in Iraq.
And from that you deduce that his expert findings in Iraq are unreliable.
None of that bizarre chain of "logic" is supported by the smallest evidence or argument.
The fact remains that Ritter was correct, in his expert testimony and findings on Iraq. He has a track record of accuracy and reliability, on that issue. If you are allowing accuracy to pile up on one side, here, so that "partisan" on one side (psartisan what? Democrat? Left? Liberal?) comes to mean "accurate", is that something you want to do ?
And if Media Matters is accurate, at it most often is, if it has a track record of reliability and factual precision, as it does, what exactly are you saying when you call it "partisan" ?
search for articles written by the auther of the article.
No thanks. It's not my job to vet reporters at the NYT, that's the editors job there and they do a pretty good job. In fact, this entire debate is silly. Go to Media Matters web site, it says what they're all about. And I stand by the Times as a proffesional institution. They're not going to run tripe, and as String said, they actually fact check a lot of their stories (it's impossible to do them all).
This is from the Media Matters web site:
"Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.
Launched in May 2004, Media Matters for America put in place, for the first time, the means to systematically monitor a cross section of print, broadcast, cable, radio, and Internet media outlets for conservative misinformation — news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda — every day, in real time."
You have NO argument. Accept defeat and move on to something else...
Separate names with a comma.